5 ms·

>the now-discredited "Gimball Video" Source? I don't think there was ever a consensus that it was discredited. Googling "Gimbal Video discredited" doesn't give

>the now-discredited "Gimball Video" Source? I don't think there was ever a consensus that it was discredited. Googling "Gimbal Video discredited" doesn't give me anything definitive.

tptacek 3y ago
As I understand it, that video illustrates either a camera glare artifact, or alien technology very carefully tuned to replicate a camera glare artifact.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  Well somehow the glare showed up on the aircraft carrier's instrumentation the pilot launched from as well as the jet itself and the jets of other pilots who can be heard on the video confirming the sighting on their own IR and radar.
  - postmodest 3y ago
    There are other videos that reverse engineer from what we do know, the flight path of the "ufo" and that it matches the track of another plane 30mi away.
    - chrisco255 3y ago
      How does that explain the fact that an F-15 flying several times faster than any commercial or private jet was not able to catch up to it? Not to mention the rapid vertical ascent and mid air rotation. These are not idiots, folks. These pilots and carrier crew members know the difference between a 757 or private jet and something else.
- subsubzero 3y ago
  yeah the person(Mick West) who did the debunking is a retired gaming software engineer who is also somewhat of a known troll and has zero background in the field of avionic systems used by the fighter pilots. Some of his debunking statements are borderline absurd, you have a sighting that is seen on FLIR, radar and has an eyewitness testimony along with video and his statement is the pilot who has flown for 10 years did not know what he saw, and all the electronic systems malfunctioned and the object clearly seen on video is a artifact of sun glare. The Gimball video has not been debunked by professionals currently.
  - Aerbil313 3y ago
    Not to mention it's seen hundreds of times by hundreds of personnel and devices again and again over the years.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - heavyset_go 3y ago
    Here's my post in response to a comment in the "US urged to reveal UFO evidence after claim that it has intact alien vehicles" HN thread[1] from a few weeks ago that addresses this: > Watch the introduction to the 4 hour UAP panel that NASA hosted a few days ago[2], they address this. > According to NASA, even highly trained and experienced pilots can easily be fooled, and often reported UAPs are artifacts of the technology that detects them, or are indeed things like weather balloons. For example, NASA even used the example of Navy pilots being fooled by a procession of commercial airplanes queueing to land at an airport 40+ miles away from their base. > They also emphasize that radar, detection systems, etc are not scientific instruments that are suitable for the detection or analysis of this phenomenon. They emphasize that the technology that the Navy et al. use are strictly optimized for defensive/offensive interception of conventional weapons. That's to say that they're calibrated for war and not for accurate scientific observation. > Going back to the procession of airplanes waiting to land, according to the instruments available to pilots and their own observations, those airplanes were doing things that were impossible to do without bending the laws of physics. Yet all they were were just a bunch of airplanes doing what all airplanes do. > > Due to the supposed feeds and eye witness accounts, it seems infeasible there is a 'weather balloon' type explanation > Pilots and their systems are fallible, you'd have to assume some argument from authority to believe otherwise. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36216745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36216745 [2] Public Meeting on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (Official NASA Broadcast): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQo08JRY0iM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQo08JRY0iM
    - esbranson 3y ago
      Occam's razor tells us it's unlikely that all those unlikely failures happened at once. Videos, multiple eyewitnesses and AEGIS military radars. Lol.
- RetpolineDrama 3y ago
  You understand it wrong, this is a spurious and frankly absurd claim propagated by Mick West, which has been repeatedly debunked by _actual fighter pilots_. Ex: https://youtu.be/Tyw4JA00AMc https://youtu.be/Tyw4JA00AMc
  - mike_hearn 3y ago
    West replied to that video here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/f-16-pilot-chris-lehto-analyses-gimbal-footage.11795/ https://www.metabunk.org/threads/f-16-pilot-chris-lehto-anal... Lehto makes some incorrect statements about optics in his videos, so I wouldn't rely on his views too heavily.
- mysecretaccount 3y ago
  I think this is likely the correct theory too but to hand-wave it away as "discredited" and claim that it also downstream "discredits" anyone who refers to the video is rather mealy-mouthed. Which appears to be the same type of behavior you ascribe to Grusch & co.
Triesault 3y ago
tptacek could be referring to the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEjV8DdSbs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEjV8DdSbs This video does a good job at explaining how the "UFO" is probably an infrared glare, hiding the hot object behind it, and rotating only because the camera rotates when tracking the target from left to right.
RetpolineDrama 3y ago
No credible debunking of "Gimball" exists, despite Mick West proponents. Mick made himself look like a complete fool, and the response to his video by _actual_ fighter pilots is pretty embarrassing for him https://youtu.be/Tyw4JA00AMc https://youtu.be/Tyw4JA00AMc https://youtu.be/vNjB3LxBw_0 https://youtu.be/vNjB3LxBw_0

>the now-discredited "Gimball Video" Source? I don't think there was ever a consensus that it was discredited. Googling "Gimbal Video discredited" doesn't give me anything definitive.

tptacek 3y ago

As I understand it, that video illustrates either a camera glare artifact, or alien technology very carefully tuned to replicate a camera glare artifact.

chrisco255 3y ago
Well somehow the glare showed up on the aircraft carrier's instrumentation the pilot launched from as well as the jet itself and the jets of other pilots who can be heard on the video confirming the sighting on their own IR and radar.
- postmodest 3y ago
  There are other videos that reverse engineer from what we do know, the flight path of the "ufo" and that it matches the track of another plane 30mi away.
  - chrisco255 3y ago
    How does that explain the fact that an F-15 flying several times faster than any commercial or private jet was not able to catch up to it? Not to mention the rapid vertical ascent and mid air rotation. These are not idiots, folks. These pilots and carrier crew members know the difference between a 757 or private jet and something else.
subsubzero 3y ago
yeah the person(Mick West) who did the debunking is a retired gaming software engineer who is also somewhat of a known troll and has zero background in the field of avionic systems used by the fighter pilots. Some of his debunking statements are borderline absurd, you have a sighting that is seen on FLIR, radar and has an eyewitness testimony along with video and his statement is the pilot who has flown for 10 years did not know what he saw, and all the electronic systems malfunctioned and the object clearly seen on video is a artifact of sun glare. The Gimball video has not been debunked by professionals currently.
- Aerbil313 3y ago
  Not to mention it's seen hundreds of times by hundreds of personnel and devices again and again over the years.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  Here's my post in response to a comment in the "US urged to reveal UFO evidence after claim that it has intact alien vehicles" HN thread[1] from a few weeks ago that addresses this: > Watch the introduction to the 4 hour UAP panel that NASA hosted a few days ago[2], they address this. > According to NASA, even highly trained and experienced pilots can easily be fooled, and often reported UAPs are artifacts of the technology that detects them, or are indeed things like weather balloons. For example, NASA even used the example of Navy pilots being fooled by a procession of commercial airplanes queueing to land at an airport 40+ miles away from their base. > They also emphasize that radar, detection systems, etc are not scientific instruments that are suitable for the detection or analysis of this phenomenon. They emphasize that the technology that the Navy et al. use are strictly optimized for defensive/offensive interception of conventional weapons. That's to say that they're calibrated for war and not for accurate scientific observation. > Going back to the procession of airplanes waiting to land, according to the instruments available to pilots and their own observations, those airplanes were doing things that were impossible to do without bending the laws of physics. Yet all they were were just a bunch of airplanes doing what all airplanes do. > > Due to the supposed feeds and eye witness accounts, it seems infeasible there is a 'weather balloon' type explanation > Pilots and their systems are fallible, you'd have to assume some argument from authority to believe otherwise. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36216745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36216745 [2] Public Meeting on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (Official NASA Broadcast): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQo08JRY0iM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQo08JRY0iM
  - esbranson 3y ago
    Occam's razor tells us it's unlikely that all those unlikely failures happened at once. Videos, multiple eyewitnesses and AEGIS military radars. Lol.
RetpolineDrama 3y ago
You understand it wrong, this is a spurious and frankly absurd claim propagated by Mick West, which has been repeatedly debunked by _actual fighter pilots_. Ex: https://youtu.be/Tyw4JA00AMc https://youtu.be/Tyw4JA00AMc
- mike_hearn 3y ago
  West replied to that video here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/f-16-pilot-chris-lehto-analyses-gimbal-footage.11795/ https://www.metabunk.org/threads/f-16-pilot-chris-lehto-anal... Lehto makes some incorrect statements about optics in his videos, so I wouldn't rely on his views too heavily.
mysecretaccount 3y ago
I think this is likely the correct theory too but to hand-wave it away as "discredited" and claim that it also downstream "discredits" anyone who refers to the video is rather mealy-mouthed. Which appears to be the same type of behavior you ascribe to Grusch & co.

Triesault 3y ago

tptacek could be referring to the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEjV8DdSbs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEjV8DdSbs This video does a good job at explaining how the "UFO" is probably an infrared glare, hiding the hot object behind it, and rotating only because the camera rotates when tracking the target from left to right.

RetpolineDrama 3y ago

No credible debunking of "Gimball" exists, despite Mick West proponents. Mick made himself look like a complete fool, and the response to his video by _actual_ fighter pilots is pretty embarrassing for him https://youtu.be/Tyw4JA00AMc https://youtu.be/Tyw4JA00AMc https://youtu.be/vNjB3LxBw_0 https://youtu.be/vNjB3LxBw_0