NY Times' Gimbal UFO Debunked

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
User avatar
iGoddard
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:52 pm

NY Times' Gimbal UFO Debunked

Postby iGoddard » Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:31 pm

The New York Times recently published the "Gimbal video," which is infrared footage from a Navy F-18 fighter jet of a UFO that is allegedly evidence of extraterrestrial (ET) technology. Thereafter, major media promoted the footage heavily.

The Gimbal UFO is here shown to be a nearly perfect match to the rotating hot-engine exhaust of a jet recorded on the very same ATFLIR gimbal-camera system. Minor differences are shown to be attributable to circumstantial differences such as distance.

https://youtu.be/oO5dP3sF2sw

If the contents seen in grainy footage alleged to be ET technology are even fairly similar to human technology albeit not perfectly discernible, they are not evidence of ET technology. In other words, if we cannot rule out the ordinary we have no grounds to propose the extraordinary. The best explanation for a flying object that looks like a jet is that it's a jet. And the similarity to a jet in the Gimbal video exceeds a 'fairly similar' criterion. It's very similar to the hot exhaust of a jet. The Gimbal video therefore presents no evidence of ET technology, it's just ordinary evidence of an ordinary phenomenon, jets.

This "UFO" footage is being used to collect "investments" in ET anti-gravity technology by the To The Stars Academy. TTSA has collected $2.5 million to date... a sucker is born every minute... and with a little help from major media!

At best very little skepticism was expressed in the major media about the UFO footage promoted by the NY Times. Indeed, media anchors were tripping over themselves to pump up the hype and eschew any hint of an alternative explanation that might arise. But an exception was to be found in this opinion piece in the NY Mag, which does a good job of exposing the sensationalist tactics deployed in the NY Times piece, for example:

the piece started out in a sober and measured tone, describing the existence of a heretofore little-known Department of Defense program, but then after the jump to page 27 loosened up and gave free rein to claims that the program had found evidence of strange aircraft that flew in seemingly impossible ways. [...]

Making portentous assertions out of context is a powerful technique for creating a sense of mystery and drama. Leaving a question unanswered implies that it is unanswerable. Selectively omitting key details can make a mundane fact seem uncanny. These techniques are great for exciting an audience, but they’re better suited to Ancient Aliens than the pages of the New York Times because the net effect is to cloud rather than illuminate key issues. In this case: What exactly did Elizondo’s team uncover?


You can actually find more skepticism about the NY Times UFO article within the UFO community than within mainstream media.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28541
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: NY Times' Gimbal UFO Debunked

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:19 pm

iGoddard wrote:The New York Times ......
We are way ahead of you. The video was already debunked here.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=28890#p618812

We also discovered that one of the "To the Stars Academy" directors, Harold E. Puthoff was the person who tested Uri Gellar for remote viewing and already had run another UFO chasing money scam.
:D

User avatar
iGoddard
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:52 pm

Re: NY Times' Gimbal UFO Debunked

Postby iGoddard » Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:40 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
iGoddard wrote:The New York Times ......
We are way ahead of you. The video was already debunked here.
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic. ... 90#p618812

I never said I won a race. But then I don't see you guys articulating or even noticing a prior example of a hot-jet-engine-signal rotating. Imo, that's the nail in the coffin for the ET explanation. That makes it not a mere hypothesis that the ATFLIR would cause hot-jet-engine signals to rotate but a demonstrated fact. Mick West hypothesized that the rotation was an artifact of the gimbal-camera system on Dec 16. So if there's a race, I think he won it.

The purpose of the video is not to demonstrate who won a race, but simply to present a case for a terrestrial cause.
Last edited by iGoddard on Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
iGoddard
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:52 pm

Re: NY Times' Gimbal UFO Debunked

Postby iGoddard » Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:47 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:We also discovered that one of the "To the Stars Academy" directors, Harold E. Puthoff was the person who tested Uri Gellar for remote viewing and already had run another UFO chasing money scam. :D


To his credit, when asked a few days ago on Coast-to-Coast about the "aura" around the Gimbal "UFO," Puthoff said it's an artifact of thermal contrast. Wow! Yet the TTSA page hypes it as evidence of paranormal technology. Puthoff also refused to be drawn into any further analysis of the Gimbal video, despite several requests that he do so. That tells me he's having second thoughts about it too.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28541
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: NY Times' Gimbal UFO Debunked

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:56 pm

It was just a scam to raise money. EarthTech International was Puthoff's earlier scam "UFO chasing company". To the Star Academy is his current scam "UFO Chasing" company.

It's always the same players.
:lol:

User avatar
iGoddard
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:52 pm

Re: NY Times' Gimbal UFO Debunked

Postby iGoddard » Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:07 pm

Speaking of Hal Puthoff, yesterday a local CBS affiliate's "Investigative Team" published another infomercial for TTSA, citing Puthoff as one of the scientists on the verge of cracking the UFO technology. Here's a quote of the I Team narrator:

Scientists now think a single technology explains the amazing things these aircrafts can do. [...] One of the scientists who helped figure it out is a physicist named Dr. Hal Puthoff. He wrote the proposal that helped Bigelow land the contract to study UFOs.

@ http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/i-team- ... /959525544

Yes of course that's exactly what scientists now think, you can read it in about any science journal. The I Team piece craftily leads suckers to believe TTSA is on the cusp of cracking the secrets to extraterrestrial technology. Exactly what the prospective "investor" in TTSA needs to be led to believe. How convenient!

A few days prior the same CBS-affiliate "I Team" ran another fake-news infomercial for TTSA, wherein they admit that critics say the footage shows glare. But they only consult the TTSA salesman who, of course, laughs it off. Great investigative journalism, lol! And it proves they've informed themselves about what critics are saying and yet avoided giving them a split second of air time, deferring instead to the TTSA salesman from start to finish. Fake news at its finest!

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28541
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: NY Times' Gimbal UFO Debunked

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Feb 08, 2018 10:35 pm

iGoddard wrote:Yes of course that's exactly what scientists now think, you can read it in about any science journal. The I Team piece craftily leads suckers to believe TTSA is on the cusp of cracking the secrets to extraterrestrial technology. Exactly what the prospective "investor" in TTSA needs to be led to believe. How convenient!


Thank you for those links.

It is an interesting scam. I like reading about financial scams. On this forum we have run into a very long play, fund raising, scam concerning "about to break through technology". It was started in the 80s by Ruggero Maria Santilli, in Italy. Santilli set up various fake academic journals in various countries and then peppered these journals with articles on his invention "Magnacules". (Some sort of magic particle). He then creates start up companies, using the articles as evidence. He takes the investors money and then runs. He then sets up another start up company, in another country. His current USA company is Magnegas.


Ruggero Santilli
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruggero_Santilli

The Magnegas Thread (note the Santilli bots, posting and saying it is real early in the thread)
viewtopic.php?f=88&t=13129&hilit=magnegas#p198978

User avatar
iGoddard
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:52 pm

Re: NY Times' Gimbal UFO Debunked

Postby iGoddard » Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:49 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:It is an interesting scam. I like reading about financial scams. On this forum we have run into a very long play, fund raising, scam concerning "about to break through technology". It was started in the 80s by Ruggero Maria Santilli, in Italy. Santilli set up various fake academic journals in various countries and then peppered these journals with articles on his invention "Magnacules". (Some sort of magic particle). He then creates start up companies, using the articles as evidence. He takes the investors money and then runs. He then sets up another start up company, in another country. His current USA company is Magnegas.

Ruggero Santilli
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruggero_Santilli

The Magnegas Thread (note the Santilli bots, posting and saying it is real early in the thread)
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic. ... as#p198978


Probably a big difference here is that this scam is being delivered to the public courtesy of the mainstream media. It's also noteworthy that the Pentagon remains silent on the matter, allowing the scam to use its name as a reputable source with no complaints. This appears to be a rather top-down scam, not some nefarious individual(s) working out of the limelight.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28541
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: NY Times' Gimbal UFO Debunked

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:13 am

iGoddard wrote: It's also noteworthy that the Pentagon remains silent on the matter, allowing the scam to use its name as a reputable source with no complaints.


This is a tricky question. Let's pretend we were both in charge of the Pentagon's public relations unit.

Do we issue a press release saying "it isn't a video we gave to Luis Elizondo" and give the story more oxygen to continue, or do you say nothing and let the story die on its own as it is insignificant to the Pentagon? I don't have a clear answer. :D

However, I'm a commonwealth citizen and traditionally a "D-Notice" (Defence of the Realm notice) to a newspaper can only suggest that a story is dropped. A D-Notice can't tell the papers what to write. Therefore I take the traditional view that you let the story drop. Additionally, if you do issue a counter press release you open into a can of worms if the other party starts demanding more detail. Generally the other party can tell fibs, while the Pentagon cannot and has to retain a high standard.

My father had an axiom. "Never argue with an idiot as eventually people will not be able to tell which one is the idiot"
:D

User avatar
iGoddard
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:52 pm

Re: NY Times' Gimbal UFO Debunked

Postby iGoddard » Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:45 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:This is a tricky question. Let's pretend we were both in charge of the Pentagon's public relations unit.

Do we issue a press release saying "it isn't a video we gave to Luis Elizondo" and give the story more oxygen to continue, or do you say nothing and let the story die on its own as it is insignificant to the Pentagon? I don't have a clear answer. :D


Well, I think the videos were given to him by the Pentagon upon his request, as reported. I see no reason to doubt that. So the option would be for the Pentagon to deny that they concluded the footage was of any paranormal phenomena. That's the false story people take away from this, that Elizondo's views represent the Pentagon's view on the footage. And their silence is a necessary component of that story proliferating. One might also presume Elizondo was confident in their silence.

The new media stories I link to above say that a couple dozen more videos are going to be released to him in the near future.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28541
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: NY Times' Gimbal UFO Debunked

Postby Matthew Ellard » Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:57 am

iGoddard wrote:Well, I think the videos were given to him by the Pentagon upon his request, as reported. I see no reason to doubt that.
I'll have to dig something up, but I don't think he has the full original video at all. In fact I'm not sure the video he released is the original video at all.

A spokesman for the US Defense Intelligence Agency said: "There is some confusion about this program and claims about its purpose in press reporting... the Defense Intelligence Agency has not released any information, files or videos."

“According to The Washington Post, Luis Elizondo essentially got the videos under somewhat false pretences. He claimed he wanted to use the videos for training pilots. He didn’t say he wanted to use the videos to demonstrate that UFOs are real, which is what’s happening.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5192363/m ... -released/

User avatar
iGoddard
New Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 9:52 pm

Re: NY Times' Gimbal UFO Debunked

Postby iGoddard » Fri Feb 09, 2018 5:29 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:I'll have to dig something up, but I don't think he has the full original video at all. In fact I'm not sure the video he released is the original video at all.

A spokesman for the US Defense Intelligence Agency said: "There is some confusion about this program and claims about its purpose in press reporting... the Defense Intelligence Agency has not released any information, files or videos."

“According to The Washington Post, Luis Elizondo essentially got the videos under somewhat false pretences. He claimed he wanted to use the videos for training pilots. He didn’t say he wanted to use the videos to demonstrate that UFOs are real, which is what’s happening.


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5192363/m ... -released/


This is what the WaPo article they're citing says:

Just before leaving his Defense Department job two months ago, intelligence officer Luis Elizondo quietly arranged to secure the release of three of the most unusual videos in the Pentagon’s secret vaults: raw footage from encounters between fighter jets and “anomalous aerial vehicles” — military jargon for UFOs.” [...]

Elizondo, in an internal Pentagon memo requesting that the videos be cleared for public viewing, argued that the images could help educate pilots and improve aviation safety. But in interviews, he said his ultimate intention was to shed light on a little-known program Elizondo himself ran for seven years: a low-key Defense Department operation to collect and analyze reported UFO sightings.

Curiously it says three videos, whereas the TTSA site only shows two videos. And the tic-tac video was posted way back in 2007. And TTSA posted a damaged version of that closer-to-original file. But that would surely beat all if the Pentagon didn't even release any videos to him!


Return to “UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests