Gimbal UFO - A New Analysis

What people said

mrandish · 2023-06 · Strong recommendation

> 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: [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

Read the original HN comment ↗

trenchpilgrim · 2025-09 · Recommendation

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: [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.

Read the original HN comment ↗

thamer · 2023-09 · Recommendation

How is the GIMBAL video still listed as "unresolved"? Mick West's analysis seems to explain it pretty thoroughly: [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.

Read the original HN comment ↗