Gimbal UFO - A New Analysis
Why Hacker News recommends it
Pointed to as the clearest, evidence-based debunk of the Gimbal footage, and a model of how to analyze such claims.
What it is
Mick West analyzes the Navy's Gimbal UFO video and gives four checkable observations suggesting it is an infrared glare that appears to rotate because the camera rotates while tracking. He argues the object is likely a hot craft hidden behind the glare.
Recommended by 8 HN commenters across 5 different months, 2022 to 2025.
What Hacker News said
Strong rec mrandish · 2023-06 · on “US urged to reveal UFO evidence after claim that it has intact alien vehicles”
> So you're telling me, some random game developer was more competent than the US military guys who literally are hired for such analysis? In the case of the most-cited "Gimbal" video, all the military has officially said is they can't determine for sure what the object the glare shown in the video is from. But everyone already agrees on that point. No one can tell from the video whether the glare shown is caused by an airplane many miles distant or some other object. No one representing the U.S. government has ever said the video could NOT be a magnified thermal glare from a distant airplane. Remember, the pilot never saw the object with his own eyes, it was far too distant to see visually
Recommends SemanticStrengh · 2022-04 · on “Ask HN: Teach me something new”
I forgot the names, don't remember wether nimitz is gimbal but anyway that explanation is a great example of what kind of analysis we should do [this video]
Recommends agarren · 2023-01 · on “The Alien Grave of Aurora, Texas”
Mick West put together what I found to be a pretty enlightening and convincing analysis: [this video] Ultimately, it remains an unidentified flying object, but between West’s conclusion and a physics defying anomaly, I’d lean squarely towards the former.
Recommends shrimpx · 2023-06 · on “US urged to reveal UFO evidence after claim that it has intact alien vehicles”
After taking the pilots' accounts on face value, this analysis gave me new insight: [this video] The pilots claim they saw a flying saucer that was rotating in weird ways, and provide a grainy video that's kind of convincing. The analysis proves it was lens flare. There are additional debunked UAP videos released by the military, including one that is lens bokeh around starlight, which is debunked by showing the configuration of the "triangle UAPs" matches the positions of stars at that time, including additional evidence that the camera used on those ships has triangle aperture. This tells me there's a chance of a disappointing but realistic option 4: military incompetence. They take these video
Recommends bragr · 2023-06 · on “US urged to reveal UFO evidence after claim that it has intact alien vehicles”
Tangential, but there's some great analysis and debunks of the video the headline photo is taken from: [this video] Simulation: [LINK]
Recommends Triesault · 2023-06 · on “US Congress doubles down on explosive claims of illegal UFO retrieval programs”
tptacek could be referring to the following video: [this video] 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.
Recommends thamer · 2023-09 · on “U.S. Department of Defense Launches All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office Website”
How is the GIMBAL video still listed as "unresolved"? Mick West's analysis seems to explain it pretty thoroughly: [this video] At the very least I would have hoped that there would be more than just a link to the video, and a section saying that some convincing explanations have been proposed. Right now it looks like on the first day it was released, as if this case was still just as mysterious.
Recommends trenchpilgrim · 2025-09 · on “Radar footage shows Hellfire missile fired by US Military bounce off UFO”
an interesting youtube comment: "2:42 Check out the readout on the bottom right . One of the numbers is the target height above terrain - and after it's hit that goes down from 86 to 59 over about 6 seconds before the video cuts off. So after being hit the object isn't continuing on course, it's falling at an increasingly fast rate. The video was sent to Rep. Eric Burlison with no chain of custody and no context, and it's a video taken of a screen which crops out 80% of the analytical data along the edges of the screen, but that's the MOST IMPORTANT PART which would tell us the distance, speed, size, range, angle and other critical information for interpreting the video. This could be drone