Spaceman spiff
Noble
Astronomer Phil Plait seems to be like Sean Carroll on any issue like this, hes been blocking some people on twitter that have simply offered counter arguments.
Last edited:
Dejan Corovic
As above, so bellow
In a second attempt, I looked in Mick's video, this time more carefully :-(.
It's really strange, one can find arguments for both solid object and glare. What Mick did, he took into account maybe 5 out of 15 parameters that are at play. Another thing is that there are many "unknown knowns" which have a huge bearing on the conclusion, like movements of aircraft and distance to the object.
But it is really strange that "UFO" turned 90º exactly when that top-middle parameter had reached 0º L. Mick says that was because of the gimbal lock. On one hand that's correct, but "UFO" continued moving relative to the clouds in the background. That could be both because plane's and object's own movement. If object was 40 miles away that relative movement would be negligible if the object was 2 miles away it would be huge.
But a big one is that when top-middle dial gets to "0º L" the object continues moving to the left relative to the background. If "0º L" means that the axis of the gimbal is aligned with the axis of the plane, then all relative lateral motion of the object should have stopped. it's the same as when you are driving on a straight motorway towards a distant bridge, clouds in the background behind that bridge should not be moving relative to the bridge. Because the "UFO" object is moving relative to the background it can only mean that object has it's own independent motion. And if the object has it's own independent motion at the exact moment when the nose of the plane is on it, then object is not a glare.
But it's not clear what "0º L" means and could gimbal go pass that point, so it's unknown known.
Spaceman spiff
Noble
Micks arguing with Chris Mellon now on twitter. He basically claims the experts that looked at this data all have a pro UFO confirmation bias and cant be trusted. That or are just mistaken probably.
Right and you ofc have no bias at all, Mick?
And i would think or at least hope that the people involved who looked at all the data they had did a pretty thorough triple check on it before they went to the public with claims like these. I would expect couple of mistakes here and there, but to claim everyone is continuously so mistaken and grossly incompetent, experts, veteran pilots, multiple state of the art radars, that they cant tell when they spot a 737 or a balloon, and even have classified congressional meeting on these.... quite a claim.
Are these another couple of Chilean navy cases stewing, ready to explode? Or is someone stretching badly?
Right and you ofc have no bias at all, Mick?
And i would think or at least hope that the people involved who looked at all the data they had did a pretty thorough triple check on it before they went to the public with claims like these. I would expect couple of mistakes here and there, but to claim everyone is continuously so mistaken and grossly incompetent, experts, veteran pilots, multiple state of the art radars, that they cant tell when they spot a 737 or a balloon, and even have classified congressional meeting on these.... quite a claim.
Are these another couple of Chilean navy cases stewing, ready to explode? Or is someone stretching badly?
Last edited:
nivek
As Above So Below
John Greenewald is going to be on Coast to Coast tonight with Jimmy discussing this topic...
Coast to Coast AM
...
Coast to Coast AM
...
This is exactly why I have zero respect for the cult of pseudoskeptics - I just had this debate about his gimbal lock hypothesis yesterday, and proved that it collapses on the basis of his own argument. And here he is today, blithely parroting the same argument as if it never happened. Here's how the debate went on facebook yesterday:
Mick West: Thomas Randolph Morrison Well, it would be great if Chad Underwood could clarify what he meant. In his interview, he seems to blur the line between what he saw, and what he's heard since them.
If someone could put me in contact with him, I'd love to delve into the details.
The sudden rotations in the GIMBAL video are gimbal lock (or gimbal "singularity") corrections. It's not smooth because there's a separate mechanism to do this that only comes into play around 3°. It's described in the patents, along with the derotation mechanism. See: Gimbal Lock and Derotation in FLIR/ATFLIR systems
Thomas Randolph Morrison: Mick West - You said: "Well, it would be great if Chad Underwood could clarify what he meant. In his interview, he seems to blur the line between what he saw, and what he's heard since them."
Yes it would be good to hear more specifics. But I think it's clear from his own words that it was the erratic "changes in altitude, air speed and aspect" that he said "caught my eye," indicating that he saw these maneuvers on his monitor:
“"The thing that stood out to me the most was how erratic it was behaving. And what I mean by “erratic” is that its changes in altitude, air speed, and aspect were just unlike things that I’ve ever encountered before flying against other air targets. It was just behaving in ways that aren’t physically normal. That’s what caught my eye.”
We don't know if he was aware of the object suddenly dropping down from 80K feet via the radar operator on the day of the intercept, or if he learned about it after his encounter. But that point doesn't call into question the salient details of his observations during the intercept that yielded the clip we've seen.
You said: "The sudden rotations in the GIMBAL video are gimbal lock (or gimbal "singularity") corrections. It's not smooth because there's a separate mechanism to do this that only comes into play around 3°. It's described in the patents, along with the derotation mechanism."
Stating a hypothesis as a fact doesn't help your case; it only indicates that you've convinced yourself (and your minions) that you're correct. If you were intellectually honest, you'd say "the sudden rotations could be gimbal lock corrections," not "are gimbal lock...corrections."
On the one hand, you may have a point, because the rotations do happen as the nose of the pilot's jet is more or less pointing toward the object.
But on the other hand, the nose of the jet smoothly swings past the object and yet the rotations happen in sudden and discrete bursts. I count five rotations, in fact, as the jet turns toward and then past the object:
14 deg L to 13 deg L - rotate and stop
7 deg L to 6 deg L - rotate and stop
3 deg L to 2 deg L - rotate and stop
2 deg L to 2 deg R - the field of view rotates
5 deg R to 6 deg right - final rotation and stop
Your hypothesis seems to explain the rotation of the horizon line quite nicely as the relative L-R angle to the target swings from 2 deg L to 2 deg R. But your hypothesis doesn't explain the three discrete rotate-and-stop motions that occur well beyond the 3-degree range that you cited from the patent - so by your own argument those rotations can't be explained via your hypothesis because they happen well beyond the 3-degree range that we see cited in the patent. And frankly the third rotation of the image from 3 deg L to 2 deg L also appears to be of the same nature as the other three rotations, rather than an imaging artifact like the rotation of the horizon line as the nose of the jet swings from 2 deg L to 2 deg R. In fact, as best as I can tell, the object doesn't appear to rotate at all as the horizon line is rotating. So your hypothesis seems to explain only the rotation of the field of view as the nose swings from 2 deg L to 2 deg R, and doesn't explain the apparent rotation of the object itself, which happens independently during the four discrete intervals of interest.
I tried to find Lacy G. Cook's email address (the inventor cited on that patent) online to ask him about this, but I had no luck. I wish that a Raytheon ATFLIR expert would come forward to talk about this footage.
But if these kinds of sudden and discrete rotations are indeed an artifact of the Raytheon ATFLIR targeting pod imaging systems, then you shouldn't have much trouble showing us another example of this. All of the IR glare rotations that I've seen in FLIR videos were smooth and continuous. So let's see it Mick.
Btw here's the full patent, which may or not be applicable to this case, and which may or may not help us understand the five discrete rotations that we see in the video:
US9121758B2 - Four-axis gimbaled airborne sensor having a second coelostat mirror to rotate about a third axis substantially perpendicular to both first and second axes - Google Patents
Mick West: The horizon rotating and the light pattern rotating are different things. The horizon rotating is not because of the gimbal correction, it's because the jet (the one taking the video) has changed its bank angle.
Thomas Randolph Morrison: I know that the rotation of the image and the rotation of the horizon are two different things, which is why I listed them separately. I just thought that your hypothesis was kinda nifty and I was hoping that it could explain *something* about that footage. Because 3 out of 4 of the noteworthy rotations happen well beyond the 3-degree range that you cited, so clearly your hypothesis doesn't explain the rotations of interest.
Therefore that footage remains unexplained and anomalous...an assessment that the DoD also shares. If somebody can find another example of those kinds of brief and discrete rotations of a target seen through that type of ATFLIR system, then I could be convinced that these kinds of rotations are an imaging system artifact and not a physical rotation of an unidentified object in the sky.
In the meantime I think you need to re-evaluate the likelihood of extraterrestrial civilizations sending probes and other craft to surveil the Earth. Because given what we now know about astrophysics and astrobiology and the prospects for gravitational field propulsion technology to enable hyperfast interstellar transit, the most likely scenario is that advanced technological life is common throughout the galaxies, and the distances between star systems only seem like an obstacle to human civilization because we're only a century or two into the advanced technology era. Most star systems similar to our own have a 2-3 billion-year head start on us, so trekking across a few light-years to have a closer look at a lush living world like our own is probably no more difficult for most civilizations than a trip to the grocery store is for us.
Prevalence of Sun-like stars (Yellow Dwarf Stars): 10%
Different Types of Stars in the Universe
Prevalence of rocky Earth-like exoplanets orbiting in the HZ of Sun-like stars: 22%
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.6806.pdf
The composition of other Earth-like worlds will closely match that our planet:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.08827.pdf
Atmospheric compositions of Earth-like worlds will be similar to our own planet:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.01103
A very conservative estimate for the prevalence of technological species arising in the universe: 10 billion
“A New Empirical Constraint on the Prevalence of Technological Species in the Universe,” A. Frank & W. T. Sullivan III, Astrobiology, 2016
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.08837.pdf
The latest analyses of the exoplanetary data indicate that at least 2-3 billion Earth-like worlds are orbiting in the HZs of Sun-like stars within our galaxy alone, and the age of these worlds is on average 2-3 billion years older than our planet. So if sentient life arises on only one in a million planets like our own, then there are at least 2-3000 advanced technological civilizations in our galaxy, which are on average billions of years ahead of us.
Given this data, we should be expecting fairly common airspace intrusions from civilizations far more advanced than our own. Therefore, the stance that "any explanation is more probable than the ETH" is predicated on false assumptions and an erroneous understanding of modern scientific knowledge.
As you can see, his gimbal lock hypothesis fails because 3 out of the 4 rotations of interest happen well beyond the 3-degree gimbal lock singularity. In fact the object itself doesn't seem to rotate at all as the target shifts from 2 degrees left to 2 degrees right, relative to the jet, as the plane banks to the left causing the horizon line to rotate. So his hypothesis explains *nothing* about that footage.
Here's the footage so you can see for yourself. The L-R orientation of the target relative to the jet is at the top center of the display underneath the "IR" indicator:
Dejan Corovic
As above, so bellow
That pretty much sums it up.
I just re-watched the video, "0º L" indication stays on for a very short time, but still, there is a small movement of background clouds. Even without knowing a distance to the object, it still means that the object had its own movement.
Another thing is the top-middle indicator goes from "6º L" to "0º L" and then to "0º R". My bad, I didn't notice "R" before. According to Mick's excellent demonstration, during the gimbal's pan close to"0º L" gimbal lock will occur and the object will inevitably rotate 90º if it is glare.
But now comes the elephant in the room, please correct me if I am wrong. After reaching "0º L" from the left aircraft's side, the indicator continues to"1º R", "2º R" and all the way to"6º R" on the right-hand side. So, the top-middle indicator 100% confirmed that the object crossed the nose of the aircraft and switched from being to the left, to now being to the right of the aircraft's axis. But left side to right side switch happened without of un-rotation of the object. If it was a glare caused by gimbal lock, then rotation that happened in the interval of the last 6º on the left, will now happen in reverse in the 6º interval on the right. This un-rotation should have caused the object to again become parallel to the horizon, if object was glare. But the object obviously ignored the gimbal lock flip. And that seriously brings Mick's explanation into jeopardy.
Let's do this together, so we check each other and nail it. Its all no more than plain old geometry. Please correct me if my thinking is wrong!
Dejan Corovic
As above, so bellow
Well there we are. We both published the same observation, withing few minutes from each other, that after crossing from left to the right "glare" didn't de-rotate itself. Now Mick really appears as somebody with a point to prove, not somebody who is after truth in the matter.
Spaceman spiff
Noble
You should post that on the comments of his videos, or on /UFO reddit, theres a thread now in there with Mellon vs Mick. Even if he doesnt want to take it on, at least other people can see the holes then.
Dejan Corovic
As above, so bellow
There's too much racuss going on on Reddit to have meaningful conversation. Mick has his own forum called metabunk and I'll post it there.
Last edited:
An inspired summary of recent UFO/AAV developments - Richard Dolan at his whimsically sardonic and consummately erudite best. Half the time I share his bemused disregard for the small but vocal cult of "die-hard deniers" who would stridently proclaim the improbability of alien technological visitation to our planet even if a UFO rammed them in the nethers. The other half of the time I feel the visceral outrage of UFO Jesus, as seen in his latest video blog offering "New Navy UFO Videos: Why Skeptics Are Failing," at their stubborn refusal to acknowledge the published reality that the United States military is finally admitting in no uncertain terms that advanced aerospace vehicles (AAVs) of unknown origin are intruding within military-controlled US airspace with impunity, and the presence of these "unidentified aerial phenomena" in military theaters of operation has been increasing in recent years.
It is bemusing to see the small cadre of ardent disbelievers struggling to find relevance and credence at a time when we've been getting official statements like this one from the highest ranks of our own military apparatus:
"There have been a number of reports of unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft entering various military-controlled ranges and designated airspace in recent years," said Joseph Gradisher, spokesperson for Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare in a statement from the Navy.
"For safety and security concerns, the Navy and the USAF take these reports very seriously and investigate each and every report."
Navy developing new UFO reporting guidelines amid rise of unauthorized aircraft sightings
And:
“The Navy designates the objects contained in these videos as unidentified aerial phenomena,” said Joseph Gradisher, official spokesperson for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare. When asked why the phrase “UAP” is now utilized by the U.S. Navy, and not “UFO,” Mr. Gradisher added, “The ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena’ terminology is used because it provides the basic descriptor for the sightings/observations of unauthorized/unidentified aircraft/objects that have been observed entering/operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges.”
U.S. Navy Confirms Videos Depict ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena’; Not Cleared For Public Release - The Black Vault
And then there's this telling excerpt from the latest DoD statement that accompanied the recent official release of the three video clips that we've all been debating for the last three years:
"DOD is releasing the videos in order to clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real, or whether or not there is more to the videos. The aerial phenomena observed in the videos remain characterized as 'unidentified'."
Statement by the Department of Defense on the Release of Historical Navy Videos > U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE > Release
So it's comical and infuriating, and tragically predictable, to find that the infinitely conceited Cult of Disbelievers would even now profess superior analytical capabilities to the entire DoD itself, in order to proclaim the insignificance of the three Navy videos that have been released which show unidentified aerial phenomena operating with impunity in US airspace.
These people are seriously asking us to believe that their analytical proficiency and expertise not only surpasses that of our highly trained Top Gun military fighter pilots who are entrusted to operate our nation's most advanced $70M supersonic aerial weapons platforms...but they're also proclaiming superior analytical capabilities to the entire military intelligence apparatus of the Department of Defense that found that these anomalous objects exhibiting previously unimagined performance capabilities could not be identified as prosaic objects like birds or drones, or be dismissed as mere technical aberrations.
In the end, I have to chuckle right along with Richard Dolan. Because after finding shelter to thrive like fungus beneath the dark cloak of official UFO secrecy imposed by the DoD and the US intelligence agencies for nearly 70 years, that cloak of secrecy has now finally fallen upon their heads, and they're now discovering what it feels like to be dismissed as outliers and fools by the full official weight of the US military-intelligence apparatus.
I'd call it "poetic justice," but in all honestly, it's simply justice.
Spaceman spiff
Noble
I wouldnt celebrate yet. I may be a bit cynical, but ive seen that alot of times when something seems too good in life or Ufology, it probably is. Usually something happens or comes along soon that just sets everything back or ruins the party. Like the damn virus.
Im hoping im wrong.
Im hoping im wrong.
Last edited:
Dejan Corovic
As above, so bellow
When UFOs, sorry UAPs, flew over Washington and somebody took the well known photo it was acknowledged that they were real, yet unknown, objects in the sky. It takes only a few people like Mick to stop most of the public from accepting it.
And to be honest, I prefer UFOs not being disclosed, because being contrarian and perpetually unraveling mystery is endless fun. Call it armchair Copernicus, if you want
. Just consider that none of the other 'mystery' subjects change the human perspective as much as UFOs.I understand your reticence, but they can never put this genie back into the bottle. The DoD has officially admitted that UAP are real, and routinely violating US airspace with impunity, and they take these intrusions very seriously.
No matter what they say next, these statements which carry the full weight of the DoD, can't be denied or redacted: they're now a matter of public record and we'll always be able to point to these statements as official confirmation of the reality of UAP.
Dejan Corovic
As above, so bellow
Yeah, but the important point here is that after Navy's admission everything else that UFO witnesses were saying for 70 years now becomes true. So the whole hullabaloo is back on board: abductions, radiation burns, cow mutilations, using our women as surrogate mothers for alien infants, UFO crashes, hunting down humans and skinning them alive, shooting down some of our aggressive fighter pilots, collecting plant samples in woods, telepathy, MIBs, tractor beams, levitating aliens etc.
Dejan Corovic
As above, so bellow
Yeah, Dr Greer is trying to run before he can walk.
The correct policy is to sell to the public the aliens first, then in the second step tell them the good news, that we have the tech. as well. One step at a time is always faster.
1963
Noble
Hi Thomas, I was just wondering if your grandfather might have been thinking the same thing 73 years ago?
ROSWELL DAILY RECORD: Tuesday, July 8, 1947
... just saying that 'the powers that be, don't go by the ordinary rules of logic' mate. And I just know that in the near future that these three little beauties are going to be 'debunked' as being "Top Secret Drones" . or something just as vacuous … and that you and me were just gullible fools that were taken in by the DOD'S clever 'black-ops obfuscation story'! lol.
Cheers Buddy.
Attachments
wwkirk
Divine
Greer is an "expert"! lol
1963
Noble
… All true about the hard-line debunker mentality largely consisting of a range of cliched traits such as Conformity Bias, Cognitive Bias, and of course The Dunning-Kruger Effect. And though I generally don't really have any special axe to grind with Mick, mainly because I am a non-posting member and occasional casual lurker on his site Metabunk , but yeah!.. Mick is no exception in that respect. … But having said that, I think that you've just got to admit that "he's got some chops" [as I believe is the 1930's American expression for courage] … inasmuch as at about 12minutes in to his debunk here, he actually suggests that the 'professionally-trained witnesses' and official-military-analysts for these films couldn't recognise either a balloon or … wait for it … a 'PELICAN'!
… I wonder if Jerry Clarke has seen this video. lol …Cheers.
Dejan Corovic
As above, so bellow
This being a thermal imaging camera, does anybody know how to read the temperature of that object on that HUD?