3 ms·

It's appropriate that the first video is called "gimbal", because that's exactly what it is. Watch the angle readout at the top of the video. The rotation of

It's appropriate that the first video is called "gimbal", because that's exactly what it is. Watch the angle readout at the top of the video. The rotation of the object happens exactly around the time that the angle passes 0°. Why is this? Have you ever watched a PTZ security camera rotate up and over the vertical axis and down the other side? It will tilt up until it nears the vertical axis, at which point it will rotate around that axis, and then tilt back down, now facing the other way. It does this to avoid gimbal lock [1], a state in which it would lose a degree of freedom of rotation. (In this case, it's not the vertical axis, but the forward axis.) Why doesn't the image rotate then? [shallow speculation] The video software keeps it oriented so that it matches the plane's orientation. (Note that the feed is square, making it easier to make full use of the sensor regardless of rotation.) Why does the object rotate? This should give you a clue where the object is. If the background is not rotating while the camera is rotating, but the object is, the object is on the camera. It will appear to rotate as the video software rotates the image to compensate for the camera rotation about the forward axis. So why is the object moving? Well, it's not moving, not if it's on the camera. But whenever the camera moves, it would look like it's moving relative to the background. So why is the camera moving? It's tracking the object. But the object isn't moving! Well, the camera doesn't track movement. It tracks position. The object is slightly offset from the center of the frame, so the tracking software slightly moves the camera to compensate. This of course does not change the situation, so the tracking software repeats its compensation. This constant camera movement in a single direction gives the appearance that the object is moving. Why does the object show up on an infrared camera in the first place? It must be warm. So… what is this warm object, which is stuck on the camera, slightly off-center, causing the tracking software to follow it, through and around the camera's axis, giving the appearance that the object is moving and then rotating? Well, it's the same thing as this article in the NY Times, which, in service of securing funding from the UFO & Hitler Channel (as @floatrock astutely noted), decided to lend its gravitas to an easily-explainable video glitch which has been paraded by conspiracy theorists as incontrovertible validation of their deepest-held beliefs that extraterrestrials, against all probability, regularly visit Earth. Bird shit. Why am I paying for a NY Times subscription again? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal_lock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal_lock

klingonopera 7y ago
I'd say a fly instead of avian excrement, but yeah, sounds conclusive.
wnkrshm 7y ago
That was the first thing I looked at, the angle vs. the movement. It doesn't necessarily have to be something on the camera, it could be internal interreflections. The entire optical system is shielded from the environment by a transparent cover, probably spherical for a large field of view. Optical systems usually have some degree of internal interreflection that you try to suppress with anti-reflection coatings on the internal lenses. Usually, these coatings are highly angle-dependent. Specifically for very shallow incidence, almost parallel to the optical surface, you can't do much, there will be reflection. Another source of interreflection is the housing of the optical system - you usually try and suppress that by making surfaces 'black' but a very broad spectrum, brilliant light source can still produce a significant amount of reflected radiance. The system was probably made with some requirements on these artifacts but it's always possible that for a certain off-axis angle, light gets coupled into the external, curved cover and then through the imaging system. Some of it makes it through at an angle that actually hits the sensor, in this case a virtual image or just some caustic from an object way off-axis. Maybe it's the reflection of the sun from the sea. It is pretty static in terms of global incoming angle and does turn just right in relation to a turning aircraft to still hit the sensor - especially if you turn to still track it and keep it in the optical system's field of view.
lisper 7y ago
The problem with that theory is that the object rotates but the clouds in the background don't.
- colanderman 7y ago
  I called out that fact as evidence for the theory, so I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify why this is contradictory?
  - lisper 7y ago

klingonopera 7y ago

I'd say a fly instead of avian excrement, but yeah, sounds conclusive.

wnkrshm 7y ago

That was the first thing I looked at, the angle vs. the movement. It doesn't necessarily have to be something on the camera, it could be internal interreflections. The entire optical system is shielded from the environment by a transparent cover, probably spherical for a large field of view. Optical systems usually have some degree of internal interreflection that you try to suppress with anti-reflection coatings on the internal lenses. Usually, these coatings are highly angle-dependent. Specifically for very shallow incidence, almost parallel to the optical surface, you can't do much, there will be reflection. Another source of interreflection is the housing of the optical system - you usually try and suppress that by making surfaces 'black' but a very broad spectrum, brilliant light source can still produce a significant amount of reflected radiance. The system was probably made with some requirements on these artifacts but it's always possible that for a certain off-axis angle, light gets coupled into the external, curved cover and then through the imaging system. Some of it makes it through at an angle that actually hits the sensor, in this case a virtual image or just some caustic from an object way off-axis. Maybe it's the reflection of the sun from the sea. It is pretty static in terms of global incoming angle and does turn just right in relation to a turning aircraft to still hit the sensor - especially if you turn to still track it and keep it in the optical system's field of view.

lisper 7y ago

The problem with that theory is that the object rotates but the clouds in the background don't.

colanderman 7y ago
I called out that fact as evidence for the theory, so I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify why this is contradictory?
- lisper 7y ago