Search results

Source: https://twitter.com/i/status/1530308598743584770

It looks like the objects have to be very close. To cross more than 90deg of the FOV in 15s. Very rough quick calculation: when over the mountains, the objects cross one field of view in about 4-5s. FOV seems to be 52deg (https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/arrowhead.html). If they...

With a slow turn rate starting after 4s, it looks like this : Source: https://youtu.be/9P3H3sZMsuE I don't know exactly what he calls a stop, it's pretty obvious the fleet could not turn while the object stopped 1-2 sec. I guess the stop is including the slowdown while the fleet is turning...

This holds with half the rate of turn (25). The turn can only start at 10sec in Sitrec so it has to be a sharp turn. But the turn could have started earlier than that. Evidentiary bar is also very high for bogus radar returns happening right when the pilots lock on a random plane in the...

I think the match is not bad. Much better than a distant plane with lines of sight following the trajectory of bogus radar returns. By the way, the "glance" was in fact 10-15min of debrief watching the tapes. A glance compare to hours-long debrief they can have sometimes. As he clarified in...

With distance between objects of 0.5Nm. Having a slightly positive heading for the 10Nm trajectory helps too (and it is in fact more consistent with the apparent change in size). No need for acceleration of the fleet. Source: https://youtu.be/mRW0CUe42h0 Zoomed on the SA : Source...

Two things that would make it look like more like what he describes : - have the objects closer to each other - have a turn that starts earlier. We don't know how long they tracked them, and it could be that the 34s of the FLIR video are only the end of it, when the fleet has already made the...

You realize that for the Navy pilots that filmed Gimbal, and their squadron, there is no way Gimbal was a plane, right? It's not that they consider 90% confidence is not high enough... Same with Nimitz 2004 that is still unexplained despite additional data we don't have (as mentioned in...

Can you explain how they would see this on the SA while locking on a random distant jet in the FLIR? How a bogus radar return could go from left to right, stop and reverse direction, following the exact the lines of sight of a distant jet locked by error? Only a very weird technical glitch can...

Just to clarify, I cited those because they are other names I received on Twitter. But we really don't care, back to topic.

Yes, I am an evangelist now. Liar, pseudo-scientist, creationist, evangelist, ... keep the names coming, it doesn't matter. Meanwhile we are making progress on reconciling the video with what Ryan Graves and the pilots report having seen. About your last point, the glare/distant plane theory...

What is a realistic altitude of flight for a plane (commercial, or F-18)? Because your FLIR1 sim can help refining potential distances for the object. It goes high very quickly with increasing distance, due to the 5deg elevation. At 30Nm, it's already around 43000 ft. Is the 45000ft max altitude...

I have mentioned it already, but I added it more explicitly at the beginning of my main post. The video I show is not using Mick's simulator, and I mention Sitrec for what it is, a publicly available tool to study Gimbal. I know it's under development, but it's been online for a month, and I...

I am the usual suspect, and I made a post about general conclusions from recent analyses of Gimbal (including mine). Because I think it's time to move the needle on this, in informing people how the data actually supports the official account from the Navy pilots. I'm using Mick's simulator to...

Of course. I'll only use this tool to check our hypothesis, not to say you support it.

The clouds in your simulation are impressively close from the real vid. This is an amazing tool. Is it ok to use it already? Or you are still going to make some changes? I have tried to recreate our scenario with the object starting at ~10Nm, and setting Vc so the object is going on a...

This is complete nonsense, and completely the opposite of what we have discussed just above. There are, by design, an infinity of solutions, especially if you consider the mathematical solutions, and not the plausible ones, whatever that means. Lying is a strong accusation. Marik says that the...

@Edward Current that's what I said, I never say there is a unique solution at 10Nm. I was talking about the example you provided as a Blender file. Mine is also an example of one trajectory out of infinity within 10Nm But generally, they need to make a U-turn, except if turning sharply along the...

The left plot is seen from an angle to be able to see the vertical U-turn. On the right plot, the same path is seen from above, you can see it does not turn one way or the other. But like I said, it could turn a bit to the left or to the right, it would still have to make the vertical U-turn to...

I don't understand this argument. You have the lines of sight, with all the potential trajectories that goes with it. You can plot any trajectory between these lines of sight, that will be more or less realistic. Yes it could start at 1Nm and ends 5 billions years away, but it's probably not the...