• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

U.S. Navy F-18 "Gimbal" video debunked


I don't think it could be because I believe the project was cancelled, but I just found this plane that I had never seen before that looks quite similar in silhouette to the UFO in the video:

X-44_MANTA.jpg


file.php


Lockheed Martin X-44 MANTA - Wikipedia
 
I think what we are seeing in the video is like what the narrator of the video I posted is saying.....it's just an artifact of the FLIR. The one example when they showed another video with just "balls of light" - but when they zoomed in you can see the detailed structure of the jets. I think the same thing is true for this "gimbal" video.
 
I think what we are seeing in the video is like what the narrator of the video I posted is saying.....it's just an artifact of the FLIR. The one example when they showed another video with just "balls of light" - but when they zoomed in you can see the detailed structure of the jets. I think the same thing is true for this "gimbal" video.
Honestly I think we need to hear from someone who's intimately familiar with analyzing this kind of ATFLIR footage, perhaps one of the engineers at Raytheon who designed this system, before we can say one way or another.

Because it's easy to see that the alleged "halo" is just an artifact produced by a high-temperature target. And you're right - without clear optical video to compare this with we can't be sure about the actual shape of the object.

But the apparent rotation could be either a real rotation or an optical illusion. It looks like a real rotation to me though. I took a closer look at the orientation of the camera angle (top center of the display) and the orientation of the aircraft as the two apparent rotations take place, and the jet doing the filming is in a pretty smooth turn before and after those rotations. The target he's filming only drifts about 8 degrees from left to right as it makes those sudden apparent rotations through at least 90 degrees of angle. So why would the camera rotate through that much angle to track such a modest change in orientation with respect to the plane? That doesn't make sense to me - you'd think that the amount of swiveling would smoothly match the orientation of the target. But maybe that's some kind of eccentricity of that camera system. The pilot seems to be quite surprised by it, and he has a lot more training and experience with this system than we do.

If anyone comes across an analysis of this footage by someone who has actual expertise with Raytheon's ATFLIR system and the analysis of this kind of footage, please post it here or start a new thread so we can discuss it. Because right now both sides of the debate are groping in the dark.
 
The flir or atflir, whatever its called is tracking the object, note the degrees L, at the top. That's telling the operator how far to the left or right(in this case left) the system is looking. It's tracking the object so it's constantly moving to keep it center.
 
Regardless, this video is routinely associated with the Nimitz case when it is not. Makes me wonder if that was purposeful to muddy the waters. "Let's include a video we can debunk, along with the unusual one, and hope the two get muddled together..." That is essentially what happened. When and if this video is conclusively debunked, half the people will think the Nimitz footage is also debunked.

That's why I always say that if I were in charge of any intelligence department that exchanged written communications, about sensitive things, that are top-secret, I would intentionally misspell names and throw some errors in the document. It would serve as a stop gap against leakage. "Oh, clearly this is a fake memo, they couldn't even spell the General's name correctly." I think the same thing could be going on here. "Give Luis the Nimitz footage, keep him busy on that, but give him the gimbal footage too, if he ever releases it, we can easily muddy the waters..."
 
I remember constantly being disappointed when reading documents marked SECRET. My reaction to 99% of them is like "Huh? Why is that SECRET? Who cares? Or what does that even mean." In my position I never saw anything that was like "Holy crap! I can't believe it! People would freak out if they knew this." Then again - that's no surprise based on the position I held.
 
Back
Top