Gimbal Video & the Misinterpreted Fleet of UFOs

nivek

As Above So Below
Gimbal Video and the Misinterpreted 'Fleet' of UFOs

The Gimbal video, which was the first recording presented by To The Stars Academy (TTSA), contains a statement which continues to often be interpreted, likely incorrectly, as suggesting a "fleet" of unidentified aircraft was seen and/or detected by the flight crew. The statement is almost certainly being misunderstood. In all likelihood the individual who made the remark was referring to the common presence of drones, not a high number of UFOs in the vicinity yet not filmed in the video. Let's explore why.

The confusion initially arose due to a statement which can be heard shortly past the 1:10 mark in the video posted by TTSA. "There's a whole fleet of them," an apparent crew member stated in the clip below.



A closer review, however, reveals further context which likely clarifies the remark. As the lone craft in question is apparently discussed by the crew, the statement immediately preceding the more widely known fleet-remark was, "It's a [expletive] drone, bro."

Then the next statements declare, "There's a whole fleet of them. Look on the ASA."

The man was virtually certainly referencing the just mentioned drone. He was in all reasonable likelihood suggesting there are large numbers, or a fleet, of drones in the sky at any given time, not a fleet of UFOs in the vicinity and off camera. He seemed to be figuratively using the term "fleet" to suggest the general commonality of airborne drones.

To further clarify the point, an ASA is a flight log. If the TTSA transcription of the statements was correct, and he in fact suggested to look on the ASA, it is extremely unlikely the man would suggest to do that to find a fleet of UFOs in current view. That might particularly be considered unlikely as compared to consulting the ASA for evidence of flights of the immediately just mentioned drones.

Apparent AATIP director and TTSA man Luis Elizondo fielded a question Friday, as seen below, about the alleged "fleet" of unidentified aircraft. The issue obviously continues to arise.

Untitled3.png

Elizondo diplomatically declined comment on a "fleet" of UFOs. "There's a difference between putting out information right, and putting out information right now," he said.

There are many posts around the 'net about the Gimbal video and other TTSA material. Readers may find some of the analysis of interest. It is not my intention to attempt to definitively identify the craft in the video (I'm not necessarily suggesting it was a drone). Much more information would seem to be required. My aim in this blog post is to help clarify what many have already discussed, yet keeps seeming to get left out of the narrative, about a likely explanation for the often misinterpreted context of the "fleet" statement.

It is completely understandable that those intrigued by the UFO topic find the AATIP of deep interest. However, it is important that we weigh the value of information carefully. We should differentiate between authenticated project documents and those (at best) loosely related to the program, as well as apply healthy skepticism to claims lacking sources. Much caution should be taken when we are urged to hold trust in higher priority than a methodical, transparent, and systematic research process.

Form your beliefs wisely. The UFO genre has a documented history of careless and questionable individuals who try to form your beliefs for you. It is not unreasonable debunking to expect verification of claims and clarification of discrepancies. Such fact-checking should be considered essential to forming better understandings and developing adequately informed opinions, be it in the UFO community or anywhere else.


.
 
To further clarify the point, an ASA is a flight log.
No, Jack Brewer doesn't know what he's talking about. An "ASA" could refer to any one of dozens of different types of airborne technologies:

AN/ASA to AN/ASK - Equipment Listing

These include displays, like a radar display. Which is what the TTSA indicated on their Gimbal page:

“There is a whole fleet of them. Look on the ASA (radar display).”
GIMBAL VIDEO

The pilot clearly says "There's a whole fleet of them. Look on the ASA." Obviously he's talking about a display, not a frickin' log book. If he was talking about a log book, he would've said "look in the ASA" or "look at the ASA." But he said "look on the ASA," so he's talking about some kind of display, which showed the pilot "a whole fleet of them," which is why he says "Gosh!" And since when does the military fly an entire fleet of drones? If I understand correctly, drones are flown on solo missions, not in fleets.

Also, a pilot's log book, from what I can gather, is used by the pilot to document details about their own flights. It doesn't provide a list of other aircraft in the vicinity, as Mr. Brewer is wildly and evidently incorrectly guessing here.

I'm not an F-18A Superhornet fighter jock, so I don't know exactly what an ASA is. But clearly Jack Brewer is wrong: they're not talking about a log book, they're looking at some kind of display which visually showed them a fleet of objects in the sky.

Maybe the other pilot was right, and it was some kind of drone. Perhaps an alien drone, for example. In the Nimitz case, for example, the radar operators have testified that entire fleets of a dozen or more anomalous targets appeared on their radar all at the same time - and when approached, these devices would drop from 28,000ft to 50ft above the ocean in .78 second. But it sounds to me like the other pilot in this case was simply guessing out loud when he said "it's a drone, dude." We don't know what that object in the video is. So I agree with Jack Brewer on that point anyway: we need more information. Rather than bad guesses, like "ASA = flight log."
 
Last edited:

nivek

As Above So Below
For him to say things like "it's time the TTSA puts up or shuts up" is very ignorant and condescending in my opinion, and sounds like he wants this endeavour by the TTSA to fail and go away...I just don't understand that line if thinking, if any avenue of investigation is attempting to discover more information on these obvious visitations by alien craft, why beat on their backs with every step they make?...Why are some people involved in Ufology at all when they act like they do not want any progress in finding answers?...

...
 
For him to say things like "it's time the TTSA puts up or shuts up" is very ignorant and condescending in my opinion, and sounds like he wants this endeavour by the TTSA to fail and go away...I just don't understand that line if thinking, if any avenue of investigation is attempting to discover more information on these obvious visitations by alien craft, why beat on their backs with every step they make?...Why are some people involved in Ufology at all when they act like they do not want any progress in finding answers?...

...
The response from the ufological community has been surprisingly petulant and hostile, imo. It's like they see this subject as "their turf," and they seem to feel threatened by TTSA and the AATIP story.

Apparently the majority of the people in the field see themselves as the gatekeepers of the truth, and this new organization has pilfered their megaphones, because TTSA is getting us actual, legitimate new information of extremely significant value....something that the ufologists who have made a home in this field for the last several decades, haven't been able to provide.

So I'm delighted with these on-going developments. But the self-appointed "kings of ufology" seem to be peeved about being relegated to the sidelines, and apparently they've decided that the only way to stay relevant is by fanning the flames of suspicion regarding TTSA, and by dreaming up woefully mistaken interpretations of the fine details, like Jack did here by claiming that the ASA they were talking about in that clip, refers to a log book, instead of what it actually seems to mean - some kind of radar display in the cockpit.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
You're right about that, so many sources are giving nothing but negative talk or attitudes towards TTSA, of course there is much positive support too...

Jack follows our forum on Twitter and we follow him, the last few posts from Jack regarding TTSA/AATIP developments have been negative, which has been disappointing to see...

2018_08_04_18.59.41.png
 
You're right about that, so many sources are giving nothing but negative talk or attitudes towards TTSA, of course there is much positive support too...

Jack follows our forum on Twitter and we follow him, the last few posts from Jack regarding TTSA/AATIP developments have been negative, which has been disappointing to see...

View attachment 3351
Something tells me that this is going to be big:

ScreenHunter_746 Aug. 04 19.52.jpg
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
the "kings of ufology" are right, i have seen this show a thousand of times, remenber stephen greer or the roswell slides?
same thing here
 
the "kings of ufology" are right, i have seen this show a thousand of times, remenber stephen greer or the roswell slides?
same thing here
No, you're making a logical fallacy known as a false equivalence.

The actual real-world differences between a guy who cons people into fake "ufo summoning" rituals, and the frauds who perpetrated the bogus "Roswell slides" hoax...versus a respected career intelligence official who ran a $22M 10-year Pentagon program to study this phenomenon for the DoD, are enormous and obvious.

If the people who fail to exercise any level of scrutiny or analytical reasoning were right, then nothing new would ever happen. But new things do happen - once in a great while a government insider like Nick Pope or Lue Elizondo comes forward to tell the truth about this phenomenon.

And in this case we didn't only learn about the AATIP, we received confirmation from Sen. Harry Reid, and we've heard from the Commander of the Black Aces and his co-pilot, as well as two radar operators with the USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group, and we're seeing the academic papers and hearing interviews and talks with two of the scientists who worked with the program. And for the first time the DoD has released declassified clips of three different AAV encounters.

How anyone could equate all of that with Stephen Greer or the Roswell slides, boggles the mind. That's like saying that there's no difference between a mouse and an elephant because they're both mammals.

It shocks me just how bad some people are at thinking, "kings of ufology" (haha) or otherwise.
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
No, you're making a logical fallacy known as a false equivalence.

The actual real-world differences between a guy who cons people into fake "ufo summoning" rituals, and the frauds who perpetrated the bogus "Roswell slides" hoax...versus a respected career intelligence official who ran a $22M 10-year Pentagon program to study this phenomenon for the DoD, are enormous and obvious.

If the people who fail to exercise any level of scrutiny or analytical reasoning were right, then nothing new would ever happen. But new things do happen - once in a great while a government insider like Nick Pope or Lue Elizondo comes forward to tell the truth about this phenomenon.

And in this case we didn't only learn about the AATIP, we received confirmation from Sen. Harry Reid, and we've heard from the Commander of the Black Aces and his co-pilot, as well as two radar operators with the USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group, and we're seeing the academic papers and hearing interviews and talks with two of the scientists who worked with the program. And for the first time the DoD has released declassified clips of three different AAV encounters.

How anyone could equate all of that with Stephen Greer or the Roswell slides, boggles the mind. That's like saying that there's no difference between a mouse and an elephant because they're both mammals.

It shocks me just how bad some people are at thinking, "kings of ufology" (haha) or otherwise.
the red flags just keep coming,from the absurdly slow release of information, to errors when scrutinity is applied
 
Okay so today I learned that "ASA" is shorthand for the AN/APG-79 AESA Radar Active Electronically Scanned Array - the on-board radar system for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

So Jack Brewer was indeed wrong when he falsely claimed: "To further clarify the point, an ASA is a flight log." The pilots saw a fleet of unidentified craft on their on-board radar systems, not in a log book.

Active electronically scanned array radar systems are incredibly sophisticated: they can send out essentially randomly chosen frequencies of radar signal at irregular intervals, which makes them hard to locate and difficult to jam. But somehow the Tic-Tac ufo that Cmdr. Fravor encountered, managed to elude a target lock nevertheless.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
Mick West attempts to debunk the Gimbal footage...:Whistle:

 

CasualBystander

Celestial
Mick West attempts to debunk the Gimbal footage...:Whistle:



The gunsight video does look like the FLIR video. Kind of. The plane looks much more blobby in the FLIR video where the gunsight video seems to show edges. And the UFO looks blobby in TV mode. TV mode presumably should have looked like a aircraft if it was an aircraft.

AN/ASQ-228 Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) is a pod carried on one of the hardpoints. That is what produced the video. It has a number of visual modes.

Phased array radar (the AN/APG-79 AESA Radar Active Electronically Scanned Array) is not infrared.

Listening to the audio there were apparently a number of these things out there.
 
The gunsight video does look like the FLIR video. Kind of. The plane looks much more blobby in the FLIR video where the gunsight video seems to show edges. And the UFO looks blobby in TV mode. TV mode presumably should have looked like a aircraft if it was an aircraft.

AN/ASQ-228 Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) is a pod carried on one of the hardpoints. That is what produced the video. It has a number of visual modes.

Phased array radar (the AN/APG-79 AESA Radar Active Electronically Scanned Array) is not infrared.

Listening to the audio there were apparently a number of these things out there.
The reason that the Gimbal footage looks interesting to me, is the way those rotations happen in a series of sudden lurches. I don't think the mirrors in the ATFLIR pod would lurch in a series of short bursts like that, under those steady observational conditions.

But I'm no expert on the optics of the $3M Raytheon ATFLIR gun camera pods, and neither is Mick West. It truly baffles me that not one expert on that system has come forward to discuss this. I'm still waiting to hear from a specialist who knows what he's looking at and how those camera pods perform.

It is interesting though that Navy pilots who are well-trained with that system think that the footage is anomalous - with hundreds or thousands of flight hours using those systems, they should know what to expect.
 

CasualBystander

Celestial
The reason that the Gimbal footage looks interesting to me, is the way those rotations happen in a series of sudden lurches. I don't think the mirrors in the ATFLIR pod would lurch in a series of short bursts like that, under those steady observational conditions.

But I'm no expert on the optics of the $3M Raytheon ATFLIR gun camera pods, and neither is Mick West. It truly baffles me that not one expert on that system has come forward to discuss this. I'm still waiting to hear from a specialist who knows what he's looking at and how those camera pods perform.

It is interesting though that Navy pilots who are well-trained with that system think that the footage is anomalous - with hundreds or thousands of flight hours using those systems, they should know what to expect.

To someone who isn't an expert, the flight characteristics of the device don't seem to change as it rotates. Which argues against a conventional aircraft.

And it seems to rotate against the background - which argues against a camera anomaly.

It would be nice to get input from an expert. But they probably have signed some fairly extensive NDAs.
 

ChrisIB

Honorable
On another forum there was a post about possible issues with radar detections:
I have a friend who is an engineer for some UAV contractors for the military. His job was to do electronic testing of systems in a lab setting. He told me that it was possible to spoof all radar sources into giving false positives and multiple false positives for anything that they wanted the radar to see, as he was doing testing on one of these systems. It works as following. The system receives radar signals, and transmits signals using a steered antenna back to the source of the radar transmitter. It could in this system send a "reflection" through this antenna of what ever shape or aircraft or even groups of aircraft in different locations through transmissions from it's antenna.
 
Top