As I understand it, that video illustrates either a camera glare artifact, or alien technology very carefully tuned to replicate a camera glare artifact.
Well somehow the glare showed up on the aircraft carrier's instrumentation the pilot launched from as well as the jet itself and the jets of other pilots who can be heard on the video confirming the sighting on their own IR and radar.
There are other videos that reverse engineer from what we do know, the flight path of the "ufo" and that it matches the track of another plane 30mi away.
How does that explain the fact that an F-15 flying several times faster than any commercial or private jet was not able to catch up to it? Not to mention the rapid vertical ascent and mid air rotation. These are not idiots, folks. These pilots and carrier crew members know the difference between a 757 or private jet and something else.
yeah the person(Mick West) who did the debunking is a retired gaming software engineer who is also somewhat of a known troll and has zero background in the field of avionic systems used by the fighter pilots. Some of his debunking statements are borderline absurd, you have a sighting that is seen on FLIR, radar and has an eyewitness testimony along with video and his statement is the pilot who has flown for 10 years did not know what he saw, and all the electronic systems malfunctioned and the object clearly seen on video is a artifact of sun glare. The Gimball video has not been debunked by professionals currently.
Here's my post in response to a comment in the "US urged to reveal UFO evidence after claim that it has intact alien vehicles" HN thread[1] from a few weeks ago that addresses this:
> Watch the introduction to the 4 hour UAP panel that NASA hosted a few days ago[2], they address this.
> According to NASA, even highly trained and experienced pilots can easily be fooled, and often reported UAPs are artifacts of the technology that detects them, or are indeed things like weather balloons. For example, NASA even used the example of Navy pilots being fooled by a procession of commercial airplanes queueing to land at an airport 40+ miles away from their base.
> They also emphasize that radar, detection systems, etc are not scientific instruments that are suitable for the detection or analysis of this phenomenon. They emphasize that the technology that the Navy et al. use are strictly optimized for defensive/offensive interception of conventional weapons. That's to say that they're calibrated for war and not for accurate scientific observation.
> Going back to the procession of airplanes waiting to land, according to the instruments available to pilots and their own observations, those airplanes were doing things that were impossible to do without bending the laws of physics. Yet all they were were just a bunch of airplanes doing what all airplanes do.
> > Due to the supposed feeds and eye witness accounts, it seems infeasible there is a 'weather balloon' type explanation
> Pilots and their systems are fallible, you'd have to assume some argument from authority to believe otherwise.
Now apply Occam’s razor to the following two choices:
1. Aliens have visited Earth. They crashed their spaceships or we shot them down. The US Government (and possibly other governments) retrieved and studied their technology and managed to keep it a secret for decades
"Occam’s razor" is merely a heuristic, not some sort of law. Neither logical nor otherwise.
Here, you are even using it wrong.
You present a false dichotomy and rely on top of that on the faulty, but commonly held assumption, one choice was vastly less probable than the other.
If the US government has covered up the topic for the last 80 years, you must assume your priors to be faulty.
Ok, let’s add a third scenario: aliens have visited Earth undetected. Hell, you can add as many scenarios as you like, I’m still going to go with ‘Aliens have not visited earth’ unless presented with overwhelmingly concrete evidence.
Anecdotes and eyewitness accounts from falliable humans and weird sensor readings from non-scientific sensors that are designed for war are not the least bit convincing to me.
Being visited by alien beings would be the most consequential event in human history, I’m personally fine with having an extremely high bar for any evidence or proof before I even entertain the possibility.
I do believe it’s probable that intelligent life exists in the universe, for what it’s worth.
> You don't want evidence, you want someone important to say convincing evidence exists.
One is factual and scientific, the other is authoritarian.
There are decades of evidence of sightings and encounters, collected by government and military agencies in multiple countries.
No, I want concrete evidence, not eyewitness testimony from pilots, ‘whistleblowers’ who report secondhand accounts of witnesses, videos, and sensor data. None of those things are concrete evidence of alien spacecraft visiting earth. There certainly are a lot of aerial anomalies, which makes sense as many nation states are flying all kinds of things all over the world and our vision, cameras and sensors are all fallible.
> It's nonsense to claim no evidence of anomalies exists when that's just not factually correct.
I am saying I don’t believe any of the alleged sightings are real alien spacecraft, not that there aren’t reports of anomalous aircraft.
> Not from "I can't imagine this is happening and it makes me anxious, so I'll just pretend there's nothing real to worry about."
I’m not anxious about aliens existing, I think the discovery of alien life would be the most exciting thing that has happened in human history. I’d be glad to be alive for that, regardless of the outcome. I just don’t think it’s happened yet.
And somehow these alien crafts are capable to cross interstellar distances but then crash at a rate higher than our airplanes, unless of course there's a shitload of them flying around here.
People invoke Occam's razor too often that it has become pretty much a thought-terminating meme. Occam's razor only gets you the simple, convenient explanation, it says nothing about the truth. Epistemologists understand this very well. It's easy to find counter-examples where simple explanations reflects nothing of reality.
I implore you to watch the NASA UAP panel video, because not only do they explain that it's happened before, it's what they believe is the problem now.
I think this is likely the correct theory too but to hand-wave it away as "discredited" and claim that it also downstream "discredits" anyone who refers to the video is rather mealy-mouthed. Which appears to be the same type of behavior you ascribe to Grusch & co.
You understand it wrong, this is a spurious and frankly absurd claim propagated by Mick West, which has been repeatedly debunked by _actual fighter pilots_.
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.
No credible debunking of "Gimball" exists, despite Mick West proponents. Mick made himself look like a complete fool, and the response to his video by _actual_ fighter pilots is pretty embarrassing for him
Source? I don't think there was ever a consensus that it was discredited. Googling "Gimbal Video discredited" doesn't give me anything definitive.