Gimbal UFO - A New Analysis

> So you're telling me, some random game developer was more competent than the US military guys who literally are hired for such analysis? In the case of the most-cited "Gimbal" video, all the military has officially said is they can't determine for sure what the object the glare shown in the video is from. But everyone already agrees on that point. No one can tell from the video whether the glare shown is caused by an airplane many miles distant or some other object. No one representing the U.S. government has ever said the video could NOT be a magnified thermal glare from a distant airplane. Remember, the pilot never saw the object with his own eyes, it was far too distant to see visually even as a spec on the horizon. All the pilot ever saw was the same auto-tracking thermal video we've all seen. > I suppose, having coded some "parallax effect" is sufficient in your book? I don't know what you're referring to but it doesn't sound like Mick West's analysis video: ▶ this video . Also, Mick only assembled the video. He acknowledges the evidence shown in the video is the work of many independent researchers working collaboratively over many months while iteratively sharing their data for peer review. There are links to all the source data shown as well as the entire open analysis discussion and review. The summary video is concise and only 20 minutes long. I challenge you to watch all of it and respond specifically. Which of the four points evidenced from the on-screen camera do yo

in “US urged to reveal UFO evidence after claim that it has intact alien vehicles” · View on HN

an interesting youtube comment: "2:42 Check out the readout on the bottom right . One of the numbers is the target height above terrain - and after it's hit that goes down from 86 to 59 over about 6 seconds before the video cuts off. So after being hit the object isn't continuing on course, it's falling at an increasingly fast rate. The video was sent to Rep. Eric Burlison with no chain of custody and no context, and it's a video taken of a screen which crops out 80% of the analytical data along the edges of the screen, but that's the MOST IMPORTANT PART which would tell us the distance, speed, size, range, angle and other critical information for interpreting the video. This could be drone to drone intercept footage from a training mission, we just don't know at this point." Also note that the article's title contains an error - this is not "radar footage, it's IR camera footage. Before assuming this is even an "orb" at all, check out this video on how these cameras work: ▶ this video I'm no expert but my most likely bet is someone cropped IR footage of a drone intercept and sent it without context or SME interpretation to a congressman.

in “Radar footage shows Hellfire missile fired by US Military bounce off UFO” · View on HN

How is the GIMBAL video still listed as "unresolved"? Mick West's analysis seems to explain it pretty thoroughly: ▶ this video At the very least I would have hoped that there would be more than just a link to the video, and a section saying that some convincing explanations have been proposed. Right now it looks like on the first day it was released, as if this case was still just as mysterious.

in “U.S. Department of Defense Launches All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office Website” · View on HN

After taking the pilots' accounts on face value, this analysis gave me new insight: ▶ this video The pilots claim they saw a flying saucer that was rotating in weird ways, and provide a grainy video that's kind of convincing. The analysis proves it was lens flare. There are additional debunked UAP videos released by the military, including one that is lens bokeh around starlight, which is debunked by showing the configuration of the "triangle UAPs" matches the positions of stars at that time, including additional evidence that the camera used on those ships has triangle aperture. This tells me there's a chance of a disappointing but realistic option 4: military incompetence. They take these videos, they don't know what they are, so they go into some data pipeline and categorized as UAP. Then people/congress become aware that there are "UAP videos", and we go through this declassification song and dance, only to get these bokeh and lens flare videos, that the military themselves do not know they are bokeh/lens flare, and they have to find out about it on YouTube. Giving the military more benefit of the doubt, the likely option is 3: psyop. They spread UAP rumors to confuse adversaries, knowing these UAP videos they have are BS. When they release these easily debunked videos, the adversaries could be further confused, still not knowing what they really have.

in “US urged to reveal UFO evidence after claim that it has intact alien vehicles” · View on HN

Tangential, but there's some great analysis and debunks of the video the headline photo is taken from: ▶ this video Simulation: [link]

in “US urged to reveal UFO evidence after claim that it has intact alien vehicles” · View on HN

tptacek could be referring to the following video: ▶ this video 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.

in “US Congress doubles down on explosive claims of illegal UFO retrieval programs” · View on HN