Understood. I will conduct a technical comparison of the leading hypotheses explaining the Gimbal video, including:
- The distant jet plus glare and ATFLIR rotation hypothesis (as presented by Mick West).
- The closer saucer-shaped craft hypothesis possibly involving non-human technology (as discussed by figures like Peings and Rennenkampff).
- Any other plausible hypotheses found in credible sources, including potential sensor artifacts, balloons, or classified military technology. The analysis will include a point-by-point comparison based on flight dynamics, sensor characteristics, thermal behavior, and contextual evidence, drawing on all relevant published technical analyses and expert opinions.I’ll let you know when the ranked comparison is ready.
The Gimbal UFO Video: Evaluating Competing Explanations
Overview of the Gimbal Video and Claims
In 2015, U.S. Navy pilots recorded the now-famous “Gimbal” infrared video off the Florida coast. The footage, taken with an AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR targeting pod, shows a bright saucer-shaped IR object seeming to skim above cloud tops. Toward the end of the 34-second clip, the object appears to halt in mid-air and rotate on its axiswww.researchgate.net. According to naval aviators involved, the UAP (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon) was observed within ~10 nautical miles of the jet, abruptly stopping and reversing direction with no turn radius on radar, and was even accompanied by 4–6 other unknown objects in formationwww.researchgate.net. These firsthand claims, if accurate, suggest extraordinarily anomalous flight behavior beyond known aircraft capabilities. However, analysts have proposed competing hypotheses to explain the Gimbal video. The two leading explanations are: (1) a thermal glare of a distant aircraft with the apparent rotation caused by the camera system, versus (2) a nearer, physically small craft with advanced propulsion not understood by current science (possibly even non-human technology). Below, we examine each hypothesis in detail – incorporating technical analyses by skeptic Mick West and independent researchers Yannick Peings & Marik von Rennenkampff – and then rank their plausibility against the available evidence.
Hypothesis 1: Distant Aircraft Infrared Glare (Camera Artifact)
Description: The first explanation posits that the Gimbal video does not show an exotic craft at all, but rather the infrared glare from a conventional aircraft (or drone) several tens of miles away. In this scenario, the object’s “saucer” shape and dramatic rotation are illusions created by the imaging system. The bright IR hotspot from a jet’s engines can bloom into a disc-like glare in the FLIR display, obscuring the actual object behind itpetapixel.com. Crucially, the rotation seen would not be the object spinning, but the result of the ATFLIR pod’s gimbal mechanics as it tracks the target.Key Evidence and Analysis: Mick West – a prominent investigator and debunker – has performed a detailed technical analysis supporting the glare hypothesis. He notes that multiple cues in the footage point to a camera artifact rather than exotic aerodynamics. For example, as the jet banks and the targeting pod compensates, the IR glare only rotates when the FLIR camera itself rotates, and there are small “bumps” or hitches in the image right before the rotation startswww.independent.co.ukwww.independent.co.uk. These are tell-tale signs of the gimbal system’s rotation limits being reached, causing the sensor to roll over and the glare to rotate relative to the camera frame. West explains that the orientation of a glare is tied to the sensor, so the “craft” in Gimbal pivots exactly in sync with the ATFLIR’s own rotation – behavior one would expect from a glare, not a free-floating vehiclepetapixel.competapixel.com. In West’s words, “if this isn’t a glare, then we’ve got an object over 10 miles away… that somehow only rotates when the jet rotates… or, it’s a glare, rotating because of the gimbal system”petapixel.competapixel.com. In other words, it would be an implausible coincidence for a distant real object to happen to rotate in exactly the amount and timing that matches the camera’s motion; the far simpler explanation is that the image itself is rotating due to the camera.Importantly, the infrared signature in the Gimbal video is very intense, suggesting a heat source (like jet exhaust). Yet the FLIR display shows no distinct wings or fuselage – consistent with a bright glare saturating the sensorwww.researchgate.net. West and others argue the video “opens the door to mundane possibilities”, e.g. a distant small jet flying away from the F/A-18, whose hot exhaust plume creates a large IR glare in the sensorpetapixel.com. Under this hypothesis, the object’s actual motion would be ordinary: the plane could simply be flying on a straight or gently turning path about 25–30 nautical miles away, moving away from the observing jet. This would appear as a relatively slow-moving dot in the FLIR (consistent with the Gimbal footage before the rotation). The seemingly impossible behavior (sudden stop, rotation, no aerodynamic surfaces) would then be illusory: the “stop” could be explained by the tracking system’s angle change or slight target course change, and the “rotation” by the camera’s internal gimbal roll.West emphasizes that nothing in the Gimbal video definitively requires exotic physics once these factors are considered. The object does appear to be hot (it’s bright in IR) and is at a distance (zoomed in significantly), but it is not performing any obvious high-g maneuvers on screen aside from what the camera motion impliespetapixel.com. In fact, one of West’s analyses found the IR glare’s rotation exactly matched the amount of de-rotation the ATFLIR system applied while keeping the target in framewww.independent.co.uk. This strongly supports the idea that the rotation is an artifact of the stabilization mechanics rather than the object itself spinning. Based on the known data (the video and how the ATFLIR operates), West concludes the best-fit explanation is a “distant plane or drone, flying away and to the left” relative to the F/A-18www.leonarddavid.com. This prosaic hypothesis, he argues, demands far fewer assumptions: it invokes a known phenomenon (optical glare plus normal aircraft) and aligns with “common sense” over extraordinary claimswww.leonarddavid.com.Strengths: This hypothesis adheres to Occam’s razor by using known technology and optical effects. It directly addresses the peculiar rotation (arguably the most striking feature of the video) with a concrete technical cause: the ATFLIR’s gimbal reaching its azimuth limit and rolling overwww.leonarddavid.com. It also explains why the object’s shape looks diffuse and “saucer-like” – as a camera artifact of a bright exhaust overloading the sensor, rather than a solid structured craft. Additionally, it’s consistent with the lack of any visible flight surfaces or exhaust plume: if the true object is a distant jet pointing away, its hot exhaust would dominate the IR image and its wings/fuselage would be lost in the glare. This explanation is supported by independent experiments and simulations by skeptics that show IR glares can take on disc shapes and rotate when cameras rollpetapixel.com. From a physics standpoint, a jet at 30+ miles executing a standard turn could look nearly stationary from the fighter’s perspective (especially if flying away into headwind), which could account for the brief “stop” on the radar display without invoking inertia-defying acrobatics.Weaknesses or Counterpoints: The glare hypothesis must contend with the pilot and radar reports that paint a different picture. The aircrew believed the object was much closer (~5–10 nm) and maneuvering sharply (stopping and reversing course instantly)www.researchgate.net. If the Gimbal video were merely a distant plane, how to explain the radar reading of an object doing a “no-radius” turn, or the pilots’ impression of a “fleet” of multiple objects? Skeptics like West suggest the witness testimony may be flawed or misinterpreted – for instance, the radar blips could have been unrelated or artifacts, leading the crew to mistakenly correlate them with the FLIR targetwww.metabunk.orgwww.metabunk.org. It’s also possible the “4–6 other objects” were real aircraft flying in standard formation far away (e.g. multiple jets), whose combined infrared signatures might confuse the sensor. However, these explanations require assuming the Navy’s advanced radar was either erroneous or misused, and that experienced pilots were effectively fooled by distant planes or sensor glare. Proponents of the glare hypothesis acknowledge these are unresolved issues, but maintain that no hard data definitively ties the FLIR object to an extraordinary craft – thus the simplest interpretation is still a distant conventional sourcewww.leonarddavid.comwww.leonarddavid.com. (Notably, West points out that detailed range data has not been released; without it, the distance of the FLIR target is unknown, leaving room for a plane at 30 nm or morewww.metabunk.org.)
Hypothesis 2: Near-Range Anomalous Craft with Advanced Propulsion
Description: The competing explanation asserts that the Gimbal video does show a genuine craft exhibiting advanced capabilities – potentially far beyond known human technology. In this scenario, the object was much closer to the F/A-18 (on the order of 5–10 nm) and likely small (tens of feet in size), as indicated by the pilots. It executed a remarkable maneuver – essentially coming to a dead stop mid-flight and making a sharp vertical turn (climbing and reversing direction) – all while rotating in orientation. Crucially, it did this without any visible wings or exhaust plume, implying some form of propulsion or lift that does not rely on obvious aerodynamic surfaces or hot jet thrusterswww.metabunk.orgwww.metabunk.org. Advocates of this hypothesis argue that such performance suggests a highly advanced craft (for example, a secret prototype drone, or even a non-human spacecraft) using propulsion physics unknown to the public.Key Evidence and Analysis: Independent researchers Yannick Peings and Marik von Rennenkampff (2023) carried out a detailed geometric reconstruction of the event, taking the Navy witnesses’ claims at face value. They assumed the object was indeed within ~10 nm and used the ATFLIR video data (angles, aircraft motion, etc.) to infer the object’s trajectory. Their findings show that at close range, the object’s apparent motion can be consistent with a highly unusual flight path: the object decelerated from a few hundred knots to near-zero, then rapidly ascended and reversed course – essentially a “vertical U-turn” maneuverwww.metabunk.orgwww.metabunk.org. This kind of turn (rapid reversal with no horizontal turn radius) is virtually impossible for conventional aircraft – a fighter jet, for instance, would need a wide arc or thousands of feet of altitude change to accomplish a reversal, whereas the Gimbal object appears to have done it in only a few hundred feet of vertical climbwww.metabunk.org. The reconstructed path that Peings & Rennenkampff derived matches remarkably well with the pilots’ eyewitness accounts and the timing of the infrared rotation in the videowww.metabunk.orgwww.metabunk.org. In their simulation, the long, steady rotation seen on FLIR coincided with the object’s abrupt vertical loop, suggesting the craft might have been banking or changing attitude as it flipped directionwww.metabunk.org.At the assumed range (~8 nm), the analysts note the object’s infrared size corresponds to roughly 15–20 feet across, which is much smaller than any manned jet but plausible for a compact drone or exotic vehiclewww.metabunk.org. Yet, despite its small size, the object maintained altitude (reportedly ~25,000 feet like the fighter) and low speed without any large wings visible – defying conventional aerodynamics at that air densitywww.metabunk.org. It also did not show an exhaust trail or heat plume in the direction of travel that one would expect from a normal engine pushing it alongwww.metabunk.orgwww.metabunk.org. This absence of obvious propulsion, combined with the extreme maneuverability, is what leads researchers to dub the flight characteristics “anomalous”www.metabunk.org. In essence, if the Gimbal object was truly at close range and as described by the Navy crew, then it was flying in a manner that no known aircraft can – hinting at novel technology or physics.Peings & Rennenkampff contrast this scenario with the distant-plane hypothesis. They acknowledge the alternative idea (infrared glare of a jet ~30 nm away with the rotation as an ATFLIR artifact) but ultimately argue that such a prosaic explanation “does not fit the data,” given the totality of observationswww.metabunk.org. Specifically, if one insists the Gimbal UAP was merely a distant plane, one must then assume the Navy’s radar somehow gave a false range (or locked onto something else) and that multiple pilots were all mistaken about seeing a formation of objects and the UAP’s behaviorwww.metabunk.orgwww.metabunk.org. In their view, those are low-probability assumptions bordering on “sensor error or tampering,” whereas the close-range anomalous craft scenario simply takes the witness testimony and IR video at face valuewww.metabunk.orgwww.metabunk.org. Thus, they consider the “straightforward scenario” to be that “the object was within 10 Nm… and followed an anomalous flight path”, as this requires fewer unlikely coincidences than the distant-plane hypothesis (which needs multiple independent errors to align)www.metabunk.org. The researchers stop short of speculating on the object’s origin, but note that a high-performance drone is also hard to reconcile here – the range of speeds, lack of wings, remote offshore location, and odd thermal signature “raise doubts about the plausibility” of even a secret drone explanationwww.metabunk.org. In other words, if it wasn’t a glare, it likely wasn’t any ordinary human aircraft either.Strengths: This hypothesis directly incorporates the primary eyewitness and sensor accounts. It explains the full suite of reported phenomena in one coherent picture: the radar and visual/FLIR data all correspond to the same object executing a truly extraordinary maneuver. The close-distance model neatly accounts for the object’s rotation and sudden stop as part of an actual flight maneuver (the “vertical U-turn”), rather than dismissing those as illusionswww.metabunk.orgwww.metabunk.org. Unlike the glare theory, it doesn’t require assuming the highly trained aircrew were wrong about everything they saw on their displays. In fact, it validates the pilots’ descriptions: the object did essentially stop on a dime and reverse, which was seen on the Situational Awareness radar page as no-turn-radius reversalwww.metabunk.orgwww.researchgate.net. The long rotation in the FLIR is naturally explained as the craft rotating as it flipped around (perhaps adjusting orientation during the vertical climb)www.metabunk.org. Additionally, this hypothesis is in line with numerous other UAP encounters pilots have reported, where objects showed unusual agility, lack of wings, and no obvious propulsion exhaust. It opens the door to new physics concepts, for example propulsion via “force fields” or inertial mass reduction, which have been hypothesized in UAP studieswww.leonarddavid.com. If the Gimbal UAP was a genuine advanced craft, studying its behavior could indeed point to novel scientific knowledge or technology, as Peings & Rennenkampff emphasizewww.metabunk.org.Weaknesses: The extraordinary craft hypothesis hinges critically on the assumption that the reported range (~8–10 nm) is correct. All the anomalous performance calculations depend on that distance; if the object were actually much farther (as the alternative suggests), then the “vertical U-turn” interpretation collapses. Unfortunately, the exact range data from the encounter has not been publicly released, so this hypothesis relies on second-hand pilot statements (which came out years after the incident)www.metabunk.orgwww.metabunk.org. Skeptics caution that human recollections are fallible, and without the raw radar data, the close-range scenario is not conclusively proven. Another issue is that invoking new physics or non-human technology, while possible, is a drastic leap – it demands extremely high confidence in the data. Some would argue that it effectively uses an unknown (mystery tech) to explain an unknown, whereas the distant-plane theory uses known phenomena. In science, one typically only resort to revolutionary explanations when simpler ones are thoroughly ruled out. As Mick West and others point out, no clearly “impossible” motion is unambiguously visible in the Gimbal footage itself – unlike some sci-fi depictions, it doesn’t shoot off at Mach 20 or make a 90° turn on camera. The object’s incredible maneuver was inferred from radar; if that radar reading was mistaken, then the case for new physics evaporates. Furthermore, even if we accept an exotic craft, we have no direct evidence in the video of how it is propelled or how it avoids having wings. The hypothesis to some degree stacks multiple speculative assumptions: e.g. an unknown propulsion system that produces no heat or visible thrust, a craft small yet powerful enough to perform extreme moves, possibly operated by non-human intelligence or at least far ahead of known aeronautics. These are profound claims that, skeptics argue, require equally profound proof.
Other Plausible Explanations or Factors
Beyond the two main hypotheses above, a few other ideas have been floated – though each overlaps with or extends the primary explanations:
- Instrument or Perception Errors: It’s possible that the Gimbal incident was a compound misunderstanding. For instance, the FLIR “object” could have been a distant airplane’s glare (Hypothesis 1), and the pilots’ radar lock could have been on a different nearby UAP or even a spurious return. This might explain the reports of a “fleet” of objects – perhaps unrelated signals or ghost tracks on radar that were mistakenly associated with the FLIR target. Mick West suggests that if a distant plane’s IR glare was mistakenly believed to be at 8 nm, the crew’s interpretation of the radar could have been erroneous, leading them to describe the incredible maneuver they never actually saw the object performwww.metabunk.org. Such a scenario essentially combines Hypothesis 1 (for the FLIR imagery) with a radar glitch or user error. However, as Peings & Rennenkampff point out, assuming multiple independent errors (optical illusion and radar misidentification) stretches plausibility — it’s not impossible, but it’s asking for a lot of coincidenceswww.metabunk.orgwww.metabunk.org.
- Classified Human Technology: Some have speculated the Gimbal UAP might have been a black project drone or aircraft being tested. This would be a middle-ground explanation: it was an actual craft (not just glare), but of human origin. For example, a high-performance UAV with a novel propulsion could, in theory, perform better than known fighters. However, as the Peings/Rennenkampff analysis notes, even an “advanced drone” would face the same physics constraints (needing lift and energy for a vertical reversal) and should still produce some detectable signatureswww.metabunk.orgwww.metabunk.org. It’s also questionable why secret US tech would be tested in front of Navy training flights without coordination, risking exposure. Thus, while not impossible, a classified human craft would need to be extraordinarily advanced to mimic the observed behavior – effectively blurring into the “exotic propulsion” category anyway.
- Unknown Natural or Atmospheric Phenomenon: Given this is an infrared video, one might ask if some environmental phenomenon (like a rare plasma effect or meteorological event) could appear as a bright blob and fool the sensor. Thus far, no known natural phenomenon matches the combination of a flying, rotating “craft-like” image with apparent controlled movement. The structured rotation and directed motion make this explanation unlikely; no evidence suggests Gimbal was a mere fluke of nature. In summary, aside from the distant aircraft glare and the anomalous craft interpretations, other explanations tend to either reduce to one of those two (e.g. multiple planes or drones still fall under distant conventional objects), or require multiple errors to coincide. No simple alternative has gained much traction in the community of researchers.
Comparison of Explanations and Plausibility Ranking
Bringing together the analyses above, we can now rank the competing explanations in terms of plausibility, based on current evidence and expert assessments:
- Infrared Glare from a Distant Aircraft – Most Plausible: This mundane explanation is favored by many analysts (e.g. Mick West) because it relies on known mechanisms and requires the fewest leaps. The Gimbal video’s weird aspects (rotation, shape) are convincingly reproduced by the ATFLIR’s optical behaviorwww.independent.co.ukpetapixel.com. When scrutinizing the raw data, nothing definitively violates known physics – a distant jet’s heat bloom fits best with the recorded sensor readingswww.leonarddavid.com. While this hypothesis struggles to reconcile with pilot anecdotes of a close-range “fleet,” proponents argue those testimonies are secondary and potentially mistaken. In terms of Occam’s razor, treating Gimbal as an imaging artifact of a plane is the simpler path; as West says, “common sense would tell you to pick the ... distant plane” explanationwww.leonarddavid.com. Until more definitive data (like the actual range) is released, the glare/aircraft hypothesis remains the baseline to beat.
- Advanced Near-Range Craft (Exotic Propulsion) – Possible but Less Plausible: The hypothesis of a genuine anomalous craft is certainly supported by the Navy crew’s reports and the intriguing reconstruction by Peings & Rennenkampffwww.metabunk.orgwww.metabunk.org. If the pilots’ range estimate is correct, the case for an extraordinary vehicle is compelling – no ordinary plane could appear and move as this did at 8 nm. This explanation is bolstered by the remarkable consistency between the reconstructed “vertical U-turn” trajectory and what the aircrew claimed to see on radarwww.metabunk.orgwww.metabunk.org. However, this scenario inherently asks us to accept something unprecedented (technology beyond current human capabilities, potentially non-human in origin). That doesn’t make it false – but in science we usually require stronger proof for such extraordinary claims. Without the primary radar data or additional sensor evidence, skepticism is warranted. Peings & Rennenkampff themselves call for official disclosure of the object’s true range to resolve the ambiguitywww.metabunk.org. In the absence of that, the exotic craft interpretation remains possible – especially to those inclined to trust the pilots’ narrative – but it is ranked behind the prosaic explanation because it introduces far more complexity (new physics or secret tech) and hinges on witness-based assumptionswww.metabunk.orgwww.leonarddavid.com.
- Combined/Other Explanations – Least Plausible: Scenarios involving multiple errors or exotic coincidences (e.g. a distant plane and a radar glitch, or a one-in-a-million natural phenomenon) rank lowest. They tend to be ad hoc and lack positive evidence. For instance, positing that the radar showed a phantom “fleet” or that several jets coincidentally aligned in FLIR might explain bits and pieces, but each extra assumption lowers the overall probability. Unless new information surfaces (for example, a known instrument error mode that occurred, or a confession of a covert test), these mixed explanations are mostly speculative. It’s generally more likely that one of the two primary narratives is correct – either it was an innocuous aircraft misinterpreted, or it was truly something extraordinary. Scenarios outside those frameworks currently have little to support them and thus sit at the bottom of the plausibility scale.