Search results

Same here : Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwdV7x_Rmqo My point is, these glares are a couple meters wide, Gimbal is 20m wide (for a 30 Nm distance, worse if further away).

@Mick West : I have a comment/question before this new work is unleashed to the public. If Gimbal is 30 Nm away, based on the FOV it's about 20m long. What is the size of a small plane engine? 1-2m diameter? Is it possible that an engine creates a glare an order of magnitude larger than its...

@Mick West I see on Twitter that you mention somebody named Paul Bradley, a mechanical engineer who made an analysis of Gimbal. Who is he and what was his analysis ? Could you please link to it here ?

And yes it's completely free and anybody can sign up, it's all online.

Mick is one of the contributor. There is a wide range of speakers, an astronomer, a UFO historian... I listened to half of it yesterday, it's cool, it gives an overview of UFO history and how it's part of the US culture. In one segment they focus on the UFO wave in Southern Michigan in 1966...

This theory implies that the pilots know it's something mundane and are simply lying (Ryan Graves gave a very precise description of the encounter). Is that plausible ? What would be your explanation for it?

Thanks a lot @deirdre So it comes from Dave Falch, If I remember right there was a dispute about it... Anyway, back to the topic, sorry for interfering.

@Mick West : sorry this is a bit off-topic but what is the source of this video ? It's a great example of an infrared glare from a jet engine, I'd like to know more about it. Is the instrument comparable to the ones they have on Navy fighters ?

If Gimbal is a glare from a jet exhaust, doesn't it have to be a big engine to completely mask the plane (a fighter, or a big commercial airliner) ? Is that consistent with the type of aircraft smugglers would use ?

Local weather data says the wind was ~12mph around 1pm. Laguna Niguel is right next to the ocean where there is always a little bit of wind during the day (it's not called Ocean Breeze park for nothing right). If it was a balloon it's surprisingly stationary indeed.

Thanks for the thorough reporting. How did it disappear ? We don't see it in your last video. You say it became smaller and smaller, as if it was rising in the sky ?

Ok that makes more sense! Looking forward to the rest of your reconstruction with the object.

@Edward Current , that's great you're attempting this. I'm surprised by your number, how can a plane looking down 2deg below the horizon can see 3000m (9000ft) clouds that are only 10Nm further? I was visualizing something like this, but maybe it's dead wrong? Do you know what explains the...

On this video we very clearly see the glare from the hot engine disappears when the jet is seen from the side. How is this consistent with a right-to-left trajectory proposed by @markus? And Gimbal being a distant plane ? The lines of sight tell us a plane would have to be seen from the side at...

@markus First, let me say I appreciate the detailed answers, thanks for that. Note that Ryan Graves mentions that the object stopped before proceeding in the opposite direction (20'30 mark of the video linked above). So again his testimony aligns with the reconstruction, because if Gimbal was...

If some of you have read "Witness to Roswell", by Casey and Schmitt, what do you think of the sheer amount of witnesses ? We have already discussed that quantity is not quality, but they have so many testimonies that align quite well, most often by USAF personal. How could a simple balloon cause...

I see two main problems with a trajectory like the one you point: 1) you use the first 20s, but the last 14s have closer line of sights. For the plane to maintain a steady trajectory (i.e. not strongly decelerate), it has to make a sharp turn. Because for a constant speed, the segments between...

Fine if you're happy with Gimbal being a plane, but I'd like those who are not convinced by it to be able to discuss the data further. For example, @Edward Current, who has made really solid analyses so far, wanted to revisit this by considering the clouds. If he has a chance to do it I'd be...

1) The movement of the clouds 2) The frame analysis by CassiO that allows us to refine the line of sights : I tried to explain it here : https://www.metabunk.org/threads/gimbal-distance-and-speed-range-estimates-using-lines-of-bearing-and-or-dcs.11836/post-261466 Again, a plane could fit this...

@markus you can choose to ignore the data when it doesn't align with what you want the object to be. But that's exactly what this forum is supposed to fight against isn't it? Simply show us a recreation of the event that doesn't distort the data too much and is consistent with a plane.