UFOpedia

gimbal-video-analysis-transcript-2026

16 min read

Gimbal UAP Video Analysis Transcript

[00:00:00] The 34-second Gimbal UFO video was released in December 2017 by the New York Times and quickly became the most recognizable UFO footage in the public domain. Skeptics maintain that Gimbal actually shows a distant, misidentified jet and that the object itself is an optical artifact, sometimes called “glare.”

[00:00:26] In this video, we will conclusively demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that both claims are false. To summarize briefly, we will demonstrate that the camera pans downward as it tracks a nearby object and not a distant jet. We will also demonstrate that the camera tracks the object as it proceeds along the exact anomalous flight path described by air crews and which is found in sophisticated 3D recreations of the Gimbal incident.

[00:00:58] Establishing the close range to the object is the single most important element of this analysis because it proves beyond any doubt that this is a highly anomalous incident. After demonstrating the close range to the object and the perplexing nature of the footage, we will demonstrate that the Gimbal object is not an optical or camera artifact, but instead an actual object that rotates in mid-flight despite lacking wings or obvious means of propulsion, only deepening the mystery of the Gimbal video.

[00:01:28] The distance to the object is the single most important element of any analysis of the Gimbal footage, as it can prove or disprove the anomalous nature of the video. This is why skeptics, most notably Mick West, claim that the Gimbal object is, in fact, a distant misidentified jet some 30 miles away. This distant misidentified jet, West claims, flies along this oddly curved flight path.

[00:02:01] Now, any skeptic who claims that the Gimbal video shows nothing more than a distant misidentified jet must consciously ignore a significant amount of context. First, the Gimbal incident occurred amid daily observations by naval aviators of unknown objects off the US East Coast which demonstrated highly anomalous flight characteristics. Next, skeptics must ignore that the Gimbal video was recorded just minutes after the “Go Fast” incident, in which the same air crew that recorded the Gimbal video tracked one of four unknown objects flying in formation hundreds of miles off the coast of Florida in close proximity to a Navy aircraft carrier.

[00:02:47] Now, skeptics who claim that the Gimbal object is nothing more than a distant misidentified jet must also ignore that multiple radar sources tracked both the Gimbal object as well as a “fleet” of several other unknown objects flying in formation in close proximity to the Gimbal object. Not only that, they must ignore that naval aviators have “zero doubt” and “very high confidence” that the Gimbal object was close by, within 10 miles of the jet that recorded the video.

[00:03:21] Skeptics must also ignore the fact that following the incident, a group of naval aviators, intelligence officers, and even the senior officer aboard the aircraft carrier were so perplexed that the incident was reported to naval intelligence. And to this day, the object in the Gimbal video remains officially unidentified.

[00:03:41] Now, let’s demonstrate that the Gimbal object is at the close range described by aviators and not a distant misidentified jet. Imagine you’re driving down a highway. From your perspective, a distant object, such as this highway overpass, does not appear to move. However, as you get closer and closer, this overpass appears to move upwards and you must look continually upwards to observe it. The same thing is true in the air.

[00:04:13] If this is a faraway jet flying away from the camera, as skeptics claim the Gimbal object is, then the camera does not need to move to maintain track of it. However, if the object is nearby and the observer is closing in on it, the camera must pan down continuously to keep track of it, just as we see here.

[00:04:41] Intriguingly, when we stabilize the Gimbal footage to remove the effects of the recording plane’s movements and then stitch the frames together along the clouds, we get this, which very clearly shows that the camera pans downwards up until the very end of the video. This is proof that the camera was tracking a nearby object. If this had been a distant misidentified jet, these images would be stacked horizontally; it would not have this downward component.

[00:05:18] Now, to be clear, this downward pan of the camera is subtle, about 4/10 of a degree, but it is enormously significant. Importantly, this phenomenon is not in dispute. Skeptic Mick West, the lead proponent of the distant jet theory, has found this as well.

[00:05:37] Now, one of the more interesting elements of the stitched footage, which shows that the camera pans down as it tracks a nearby object, is at the very end where it appears that the camera pans slightly upwards. This apparent upward pan of the camera is even more apparent when we stitch together frames of the video and compare the position of the artificial horizon, which rises over the course of the video. This suggests that the object climbed at the very end of the Gimbal footage. Once again, this phenomenon can be observed in the panorama stitched by skeptic Mick West.

[00:06:16] We will mark here the position of the artificial horizon at this point in the video. Now, let’s watch as the artificial horizon rises and the camera pans upward towards the end of the video. This implies, again, that the Gimbal object climbs at the very end of the footage.

[00:06:35] Now, former naval aviator Ryan Graves, who was airborne during the large-scale training exercise during which Gimbal was filmed, also reviewed the tapes and the radar data following the incident. These images provided by Graves show the radar tracks of the Gimbal encounter from a top-down, God’s-eye view. At the beginning of the incident, the Gimbal object and a formation of other unknown objects are flying in the same direction.

[00:07:06] The “fleet” of unknown objects then commenced a roughly 180 degree turn to fly in the opposite direction. Meanwhile, the Gimbal object came to a brief apparent stop before reversing direction with no radius of turn, which is a highly anomalous flight path. Remarkably, the exact flight path naval aviators observed on radar can be found in sophisticated 3D recreations of the Gimbal incident at the range provided by aviators.

[00:07:41] Now, this is either an extraordinary coincidence or the object’s true flight path. Intriguingly, the reconstructed flight path shows that the object climbed at the end of the video, which is precisely what we observe in the stitched panorama footage. Anyone interested in learning more about these geometric reconstructions is encouraged to review our paper.

[00:08:05] Not only can the Gimbal object’s highly anomalous flight path be found in 3D reconstructions of the incident at the distance provided by naval aviators, the object also increases in size over the course of the video. Of course, an object increasing in size is inconsistent with a distant jet flying away from the plane that’s recording the video, but it is entirely consistent with the jet closing in on a nearby object.

[00:08:33] Now, let’s briefly recap. First, the camera pans downwards to track a nearby object. This is of critical importance because it falsifies the “distant jet” hypothesis for the Gimbal video. This alone makes the Gimbal video extremely perplexing, but it’s just the beginning.

[00:08:52] Sophisticated 3D reconstructions of the incident using data from the video find an exact match with the highly anomalous flight path naval aviators observed on radar. Not only can the Gimbal object’s highly anomalous flight path be found in sophisticated 3D reconstructions of the incident, those reconstructions find an altitude increase at the very end of the video. That climb, in turn, can be observed in the video footage.

[00:09:27] These extraordinary exact matches give us very high confidence that this close-by flight path, and not a distant misidentified jet flying away from the camera, was indeed the Gimbal object’s true flight path. At the same time, the increasing size of the Gimbal object over the course of the video is inconsistent with a distant jet flying away but entirely consistent with the jet recording the video closing in on a nearby object.

[00:09:58] So now, let’s put all of this together and examine why exactly the Gimbal video is so perplexing and why skeptics insist that the object is actually a distant, faraway misidentified jet. Given the camera’s zoom and field of view settings, a regular fighter jet would look something like this if it was at the same distance as the Gimbal object from the jet that recorded the video.

[00:10:23] You’ll notice that in stark contrast to the Gimbal object, wings, an exhaust plume, control surfaces, and the structure of an aircraft are plainly visible. Since we now know that this is the correct distance from the jet that recorded the video to the Gimbal object, this begs an obvious question: How did the Gimbal UAP proceed along that highly anomalous flight path despite lacking wings or obvious means of propulsion?

[00:10:54] The truly anomalous nature of this incident also explains why no naval aviators or experts seem to be able to make heads or tails of the footage and why there is zero empirical evidence from the camera system that recorded the video to support the distant jet hypothesis.

[00:11:15] Now, what about the object’s intriguing apparent rotation? Once again, we have a remarkable match with the object’s flight path. The Gimbal object rotates four times over the course of the video. The first two rotations are brief and rapid. However, the third rotation is long and continuous. It also just happens to match exactly with the reversal of direction in the flight path that aviators observed on radar and on the flight path that is retrieved in 3D reconstructions at the range provided by aviators.

[00:11:53] For their part, skeptics claim that the Gimbal object’s apparent rotation is nothing more than a function of an optical artifact sometimes referred to as “glare.” While the remarkable match between the rotation and the flight path seems to rule that out, there are other ways that we can demonstrably falsify the claim that the Gimbal object’s rotation is nothing more than a “rotating glare.”

[00:12:19] Skeptic Mick West is the leading proponent of the optical artifact theory for the Gimbal video. West claims that the Gimbal object is actually fixed to the camera frame and that if this was a real saucer-shaped craft, then it should also rotate with the horizon. Instead, it’s fixed for the first 20 seconds. Fortunately, West’s claim that the object is fixed to the camera frame is testable and falsifiable.

[00:12:53] Now, to put West’s theory that the Gimbal object is nothing more than an optical artifact fixed to the camera frame to the test, we stabilize the footage once again to remove the visual effects of the jet’s movement, its constant leftward banking but also its slight upward pitch. And when we play the video, we see that the camera frame rotates counterclockwise three times as the jet banks roughly 12 degrees to the left. However, as the camera frame rotates counterclockwise, the object (seen here on the left) does not rotate in tandem with the camera frame. This, for all intents and purposes, falsifies the claim that the Gimbal object is nothing more than an optical artifact fixed to the camera frame.

[00:13:45] But that’s not all. There is yet another way to demonstrate that the Gimbal object is not an optical artifact. This is the ATFLIR camera. This is the system that was used to record the Gimbal video. As the ATFLIR tracks a target, it rotates, and a piece of equipment in the camera called a “derotation mechanism” counter-rotates the image so that the image that the pilot sees is level.

[00:14:18] Now, as skeptic Mick West has correctly noted, the derotation mechanism derotates or counter-rotates the entire image. All elements of a scene are derotated in tandem together by the device. Importantly, this includes camera or optical artifacts. In other words, if the object and other elements in the image or the scene move independently of each other at this point in the video, when skeptics claim the camera is not rotating, then the object is not a camera or optical artifact.

[00:14:52] Now, let’s return to the stabilized video, which once again removes the visual effects of the jet’s movement, primarily its leftward banking and its slight upward pitch. As we play the video, you will notice that the angle at which the clouds pass through the camera frame changes gradually yet significantly over the course of the first 20 seconds of the Gimbal video.

[00:15:19] Now, skeptics claim that the gradual yet significant clockwise rotation of the clouds is due to the derotation mechanism slowly rotating the entire image. And yet, despite the significant clockwise rotation of the clouds, the object does not rotate. And since the derotation mechanism derotates or counter-rotates the entire image and all the elements within it, this decoupling of the clouds and the object indicates that the object is not a camera artifact, but in fact a real object.

[00:15:55] And this is all quite significant. If the Gimbal object is not in fact a camera or optical artifact, if, for example, it does not rotate in tandem with the edges of the camera frame as we’ve demonstrated, or if, as shown here, the object is decoupled from the rest of the scene at this point in the video when once again skeptics claim that the camera system is not rotating, then the object’s perplexing rotation is genuine. It is legitimate object rotation and not an artifact of the camera rotating.

[00:16:31] While the falsification of the camera or optical artifact theory for the Gimbal video as we’ve done here makes this largely unnecessary, we will briefly address the claim primarily promoted by skeptic Mick West that the four individual rotations in the Gimbal video are actually artifacts of the camera rotating as it maintains track of the Gimbal object.

[00:16:53] First and foremost, there is zero, no empirical evidence of any targeting pod, let alone the Raytheon ATFLIR which was used to record the Gimbal video, rotating in discrete, distinct steps as described by Mick West. Instead, all of the evidence shows, as we see here along the edges of these videos, that these pods rotate smoothly and continuously as they track a target. The complete and utter lack of any empirical evidence showing pods rotating in steps as they track a target should be a clue.

[00:17:37] Now, the core of skeptic Mick West’s theory for the Gimbal video rests on a somewhat complex and convoluted claim about the inner mechanics of the targeting pod. However, not only is there no empirical evidence to support this claim, it does not stand up to any scrutiny or logic. In short, West claims that when the pod is not rotating, very sensitive fine internal mirrors take over the track of the Gimbal object.

[00:18:03] In his words: “There’s the two big external gimbals, the pitch and roll, but there are also one or two additional internal gimbals that can steer the line of sight with mirrors. These can be used to steer the line of sight without using roll.” First and foremost, the ATFLIR patent explicitly refutes how West claims the camera would have tracked the Gimbal object. And in an email exchange, the ATFLIR patent holder told me that the system operates in the opposite manner as what West claims occurred in the Gimbal video.

[00:18:43] Not only does skeptic Mick West’s theory require the camera system to operate in a manner opposite of its design, it requires very fine, sensitive internal components to scan seven fields of view in 3/10th of a second with no disruption to the image, a proposition which borders on the farcical.

[00:19:10] And just for good measure, this demonstration illustrates the two competing theories for how the camera system rotated in the Gimbal incident. One of these is aligned with expert commentary, empirical evidence, mechanical documentation, and basic logic. The other is not.

[00:19:31] Ultimately, it should come as zero surprise that the world’s top academic and government experts on the infrared technology in question, indium antimonide, explicitly disagree with skeptic Mick West’s theory for the Gimbal video.

[00:19:47] Finally, to bring this all together: We began with aviators observing an unknown object accompanied by a “fleet” of other objects flying in formation within just a few miles of their jet along a highly anomalous flight path. Remarkably, the perplexing flight path naval aviators observed on radar can be found in sophisticated 3D recreations of the Gimbal incident at the range provided by naval aviators with extremely high confidence.

[00:20:22] Analysis of the Gimbal video confirms this perplexing flight path in three key ways. First and foremost, the camera pans down over the course of the video as the jet closes in on a nearby object. The downward pan of the camera falsifies the theory that the Gimbal object is nothing more than a distant misidentified jet. This alone makes the Gimbal video highly perplexing.

[00:20:51] Next, the stitched panorama of the stabilized video footage shows that the Gimbal object climbed at the very end of the video, aligning perfectly with the 3D reconstructed flight path at the distance given by naval aviators.

[00:21:11] Additionally, we find that the object’s long continuous third rotation is a remarkable match with the reversal of direction found in the 3D reconstructed flight path. This indicates that the object rotated as it climbed.

[00:21:32] Further analysis of the stabilized footage falsifies the optical or camera artifact theories for the Gimbal video. This is yet more evidence that the object, in fact, rotated along its flight path. Ultimately, the perplexing anomalous nature of the Gimbal video lies in the fact that the object was as close as it was.

[00:21:53] At that close distance, any conventional aircraft, given the camera settings, would be easily discernible as such. Wings, engines, an exhaust plume, and the basic shape of an aircraft would be apparent. And yet, the Gimbal object displays none of the characteristics that any and all conventional aircraft require to fly.

[00:22:15] Somehow, despite lacking wings, control surfaces, or obvious means of propulsion, the Gimbal UAP proceeded along a highly anomalous flight path while rotating mid-flight. These genuinely intriguing flight characteristics raise no shortage of questions about the nature and origin of the Gimbal UAP.

[00:22:37] A brief note of thanks to “Zay Michael 1” for more or less single-handedly making the analytic discoveries that made this video possible, as well as, as always, my scientific colleague “The Chala,” who provides invaluable guidance and feedback.

Graph View