DOW-UAP-D109 & DOW-UAP-PR140/141: Apparent Sharp Turn.

[Nourali]

The DOW released two videos along with a mission report related to a UAP observation in the Middle East in 2022.

Mission report: DOW-UAP-D109
https://www.war.gov/UFO/release/06/#DOW-UAP-D109-Mission-Report-Middle-East-2022

Video 1: DOW-UAP-PR140
https://www.war.gov/UFO/release/06/#DOW-UAP-PR140-Unresolved-UAP-Report-Middle-East-2022

Video 2: DOW-UAP-PR141
https://www.war.gov/UFO/release/06/#DOW-UAP-PR141-Unresolved-UAP-Report-Middle-East-2022

There are several intriguing sequences in the footage, but I want to highlight one moment in particular that I think should not go unnoticed.

Two objects are visible at the same time. While one continues on a relatively steady trajectory, the other suddenly makes an extremely sharp turn, to not say a right-angle change of direction.

A prosaic explanation would be that these are drones. But considering all the information currently available, I don't see an easy drone explanation.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

What is the timing of your sequence in the original video? I'd like to watch it with a bit more context.

 

[JMartJr]

I am not saying that this is the solution, I have not seen the whole video yet and will probably not be able to do so until tonight (things are going on in Real Life that have priority.) But just looking at that video clip that you posted , I do not see anything in terms of maneuverability that would rule out a bird.

Again, not saying that these are birds -- but strictly looking at this maneuver what I am seeing, unless I am missing something in which case please do point it out, we're seeing a maneuver that is within the capability of a bird. Or a drone. I'd hesitate ruling out a balloon caught in some turbulent air. All of which would indicate that nothing we see here requires an extraordinary explanation. We have some LIZ dots that move about in the way prosaic thing can move about in a video.

 

[Nourali]

The title should be 140 / 141 instead of 14.

What is the timing of your sequence in the original video? I'd like to watch it with a bit more context.

2:06 - 2:16

 

[FatPhil]

Two objects are visible at the same time. While one continues on a relatively steady trajectory, the other suddenly makes an extremely sharp turn, to not say a right-angle change of direction.

My first thought was "these are pixels in the LIZ, there's nothing even worth investigating" and my second thought was "they could be birds as they're not doing anything a bird couldn't do", in particular I don't see any particularly sharp changes of direction.

 

[Nourali]

My first thought was "these are pixels in the LIZ, there's nothing even worth investigating" and my second thought was "they could be birds as they're not doing anything a bird couldn't do", in particular I don't see any particularly sharp changes of direction.

The report mentions objects measuring approximately 1 to 2 meters going to 80 and 180 mph.

We see many accelerations that, to me, doesn't make sense with birds. Here another sequence : The object makes a very sharp change in apparent direction, close to a right angle in the image plane, and then noticeably increases its apparent angular speed. The background remains essentially stable during the maneuver.

 

[Andreas]

We see many accelerations that, to me, doesn't make sense with birds. Here another sequence : The object makes a very sharp change in apparent direction, close to a right angle in the image plane, and then noticeably increases its apparent angular speed. The background remains essentially stable during the maneuver.

Where do you see the accelerations that don't make sense for a bird? To me, it looks very much like a bird flying at a relatively constant speed and changing direction. But I haven't had time to look closely at the whole video yet.

 

[Mendel]

Heck, even a house fly can do these kinds of maneuvers.

The report mentions objects measuring approximately 1 to 2 meters going to 80 and 180 mph

Based on what?

If they overestimate the size, they also overestimate the distance and speed.
Big, fast, and far looks the same as small, slow, and close.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

Heck, even a house fly can do these kinds of maneuvers.



Based on what?

If they overestimate the size, they also overestimate the distance and speed.
Big, fast, and far looks the same as small, slow, and close.

ACCORDING TO THE [REDACTED], THE UAPs WERE TRAVELLING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS BETWEEN 80-180 MPH. WE WERE UNABLE TO DETERMINE ALTITUDE. THE SIZE OF THE UAPs WERE APPROXIMATELY 1-2 METERS.

 

[JMartJr]

ACCORDING TO THE [REDACTED], THE UAPs WERE TRAVELLING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS BETWEEN 80-180 MPH. WE WERE UNABLE TO DETERMINE ALTITUDE. THE SIZE OF THE UAPs WERE APPROXIMATELY 1-2 METERS.

And if that can be established using evidence we can verify, and repeat the calculations ourselves, that would at least allow us to rule out flies and birds, smaller birds anyway. But that claim is not worth much without the evidence that supports it.

 

[Mick West]

A big issue with these videos is the sensor burn in noise creating an illusion of motion as it's highter contrast than the background.

Stabilizing on one of the objects helps see it's apparent motion across the ocean, consistent with mostly parallax, and some bird-like wandering.

The motion of the second object should only be judged relative to the first, and seems entirely consistent with a bird.

 

[MapperGuy]

The report mentions objects measuring approximately 1 to 2 meters going to 80 and 180 mph.

We see many accelerations that, to me, doesn't make sense with birds. Here another sequence : The object makes a very sharp change in apparent direction, close to a right angle in the image plane, and then noticeably increases its apparent angular speed. The background remains essentially stable during the maneuver.

View attachment 93197

I would love to know what they based the size and speed estimates on.
Off hand that looks to me like a large bird trying to make a meal out of a smaller more agile bird (not visible due to smaller size). Looks like ordinary bird looping flight. It's common enough when watching birds, trying to chase other birds away from their nests as well as hunting them.

 

[John J.]

At approx. 00:47 to 00:49, Video 2 DOW-UAP-PR141 https://www.war.gov/UFO/release/06/#DOW-UAP-PR141-Unresolved-UAP-Report-Middle-East-2022,
as the feature moves from right to left, the slight changes in shape and their rate make me think of the flapping wings of a bird.

The AARO Video Description for DOW-UAP-PR141 refers to and describes a single UAP, but there are other apparently similar features at various times in the video,

The accompanying report https://www.war.gov/medialink/ufo/s...-UAP-D109_Mission-Report-Middle-East-2022.pdf refers to UAPs, plural.
I think this is a bit odd; presumably whoever wrote the video description at AARO noticed the other features? If they were considered not to be anomalous, it would be interesting to know why- again, they appear to be similar to the one feature whose movement is described.

The report says,

...THE UAPs WERE TRAVELLING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS BETWEEN 80-180 MPH. WE WERE UNABLE TO DETERMINE ALTITUDE. THE SIZE OF THE UAPs WERE APPROXIMATELY 1-2 METERS.

But if with an estimated size, known orientation relative to the camera, landscape features initially in view (and known location, altitude of the camera platform) shouldn't a range of possible altitudes have been calculable?
It is not clear how the approximate size was calculated.
Without an approximate altitude (and presumably distance), and a size estimate of uncertain origin, it's hard to see how speed could be reliably estimated.

Unless further information (perhaps an explanation for the size and speed estimates, values for altitude/ distance) emerge, the segment of footage 00:47 to 00:49, Video 2 DOW-UAP-PR141 makes me think the features are birds.

 

[Mendel]

ACCORDING TO THE [REDACTED], THE UAPs WERE TRAVELLING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS BETWEEN 80-180 MPH. WE WERE UNABLE TO DETERMINE ALTITUDE. THE SIZE OF THE UAPs WERE APPROXIMATELY 1-2 METERS.

[REDACTED] could be a Doppler radar. It wouldn't be accurate for a bird flapping its wings.

A goose has a wing span of approximately 1-2 meters, by the way. So the size estimate would still include a fair number of bird species, if correct.

 

[Mick West]

ACCORDING TO THE [REDACTED], THE UAPs WERE TRAVELLING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS BETWEEN 80-180 MPH. WE WERE UNABLE TO DETERMINE ALTITUDE. THE SIZE OF THE UAPs WERE APPROXIMATELY 1-2 METERS.

Even if this is simply their best visual estimate in the moment, it's hardly reliable. As noted already, speed depends on distance, distance depends upon size, and size depends upon distance.

But it's worse than that. The exact same numbers and wording occur in two entirely different cases. There's this one D109

But also D106

"SPORATICALLY" and "80-180 MPH" occur nowhere else in the PERSUE releases

So it seems more like a boilerplate report rather than even superficial technical details. Possibly even generated from checking some boxes in a form.

 

[John J.]

So it seems more like a boilerplate report rather than even superficial technical details. Possibly even generated from checking some boxes in a form.

The same misspelling, "sporatically", might indicate the claimant copied details from another report, or one claimant uploaded similar reports for two different pieces of footage. Very curious.

 

[MapperGuy]

So it seems more like a boilerplate report rather than even superficial technical details. Possibly even generated from checking some boxes in a form.

People should remember that drones like this have been in the air daily for years now. In many cases nothing of interest happens in the locations being surveilled. But reports must always be made after every flight, if even just to say "nothing happening". Because nothing happening is a valid and useful observation and provides information about the locations.

So when something is noticed, like these objects, it becomes something to report when otherwise there would be nothing interesting to report. But then you have to describe what you observed. When you don't have the ability to provide highly accurate measurements you have to estimate, based on your many hours experience looking at video like this. "Small" would not be acceptable, too vague, so you say "1-2 meters" which is about the smallest size range the system you are using will collect. Then they are moving, not super fast and not drifting like a balloon, so again you estimate, probably based on your knowledge of how fast the camera platform is moving, 'about the same as', 'faster than', 'much faster than'. And again you need to provide numbers, not just relative speeds. So 80-180, probably in the ball-park anyway.

People should remember these are reports of "business as usual" for the people who wrote them, these are not breathless reports of a once-in-a-lifetime event. You report what you can, and move on to the next days monitoring of video.

The same misspelling, "sporatically", might indicate the claimant copied details from another report, or one claimant uploaded similar reports for two different pieces of footage. Very curious.

Don't know what system this information was typed up on, but it probably did not have spell-check turned on. Reports like this contain too many abbreviations, acronyms and foreign names. Spell checkers would go nuts. So this in probably just a mistype at some point in the process that was just left as is.

 

[John J.]

Reports like this contain too many abbreviations, acronyms and foreign names. Spell checkers would go nuts. So this in probably just a mistype at some point in the process that was just left as is.

I think that's a good point, but a template form might not have to include the foreign names or unit/ equipment names and acronyms of a completed report. Whoever designed the template wouldn't have to take them into account unless they were in a list of selectable options.
For the reasons you suggest it might make sense for someone using a such a form to not use spellcheck if those terms weren't selectable options.
.

 

[Mendel]

ACCORDING TO THE [REDACTED], THE UAPs WERE TRAVELLING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS BETWEEN 80-180 MPH. WE WERE UNABLE TO DETERMINE ALTITUDE. THE SIZE OF THE UAPs WERE APPROXIMATELY 1-2 METERS.

Even if this is simply their best visual estimate in the moment, it's hardly reliable. As noted already, speed depends on distance, distance depends upon size, and size depends upon distance.

But it's worse than that. The exact same numbers and wording occur in two entirely different cases. There's this one D109
View attachment 93204

But also D106

View attachment 93205
"SPORATICALLY" and "80-180 MPH" occur nowhere else in the PERSUE releases

So it seems more like a boilerplate report rather than even superficial technical details. Possibly even generated from checking some boxes in a form.

In D106, it says "according to the [-----] MTS" as source for the speed. What does that stand for?

 

[Mick West]

In D106, it says "according to the [-----] MTS" as source for the speed. What does that stand for?

Probably Raytheon's Multi-Spectral Targeting System.
https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/air/mts#gdpr:~:text=longer. Aim smarter.-,Raytheon's Multi-Spectral Targeting System,-(MTS) combines electro

The camera here:

Raytheon's Multi-Spectral Targeting System (MTS) combines electro-optical/ infrared (EO/IR), laser designation, and laser illumination capabilities in a single sensor package.

Combat proven, with nearly four million operational flight hours, the MTS product family of sensors, including MTS-A, MTS-B, MTS-C, MTS-D (AN/DAS-4) provide detailed intelligence data from the visual and infrared spectrum in support of U.S. military, civilian and allied missions around the world.

Using cutting-edge digital architecture, MTS brings long-range surveillance, target acquisition, tracking, range finding and laser designation for the Griffin®​ missile and Paveway®​ laser-guided bomb, as well as all tri-service and NATO laser-guided munitions. MTS sensors feature multiple fields of view, electronic zoom, multimode video tracking and are designed to incorporate future growth options and performance enhancements.

 

[Mendel]

Probably Raytheon's Multi-Spectral Targeting System.

Weird, the one thing optics can't do is speed.
I'd expect that if they have a range, they can get an altitude from that.
Range would allow to determine a closure rate, which translates to a speed estimate if the platform speed is known.
But I have no idea if that's what they did.

 

[FatPhil]

The report mentions objects measuring approximately 1 to 2 meters going to 80 and 180 mph.

We see many accelerations that, to me, doesn't make sense with birds. Here another sequence : The object makes a very sharp change in apparent direction, close to a right angle in the image plane, and then noticeably increases its apparent angular speed. The background remains essentially stable during the maneuver.

View attachment 93197

No. There are no sharp changes in direction in that clip. That is literally the most curvèd (yes, that is a grave accent on the e, if you don't pronounce that theatrically, you have misread) path I have ever seen. And the background was moving constantly, which tells me this is predominantly parallax, and, given the evidence in evidence, the object's velocity is essentially averaging around zero.

 

[FatPhil]

Heck, even a house fly can do these kinds of maneuvers..

That's not a "heck", or even an "even" - it's *way* easier for such small things to perform such turns.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

ACCORDING TO THE [REDACTED], THE UAPs WERE TRAVELLING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS BETWEEN 80-180 MPH. WE WERE UNABLE TO DETERMINE ALTITUDE. THE SIZE OF THE UAPs WERE APPROXIMATELY 1-2 METERS.

Even if this is simply their best visual estimate in the moment, it's hardly reliable. As noted already, speed depends on distance, distance depends upon size, and size depends upon distance.

But it's worse than that. The exact same numbers and wording occur in two entirely different cases. There's this one D109
View attachment 93204

But also D106

View attachment 93205
"SPORATICALLY" and "80-180 MPH" occur nowhere else in the PERSUE releases

So it seems more like a boilerplate report rather than even superficial technical details. Possibly even generated from checking some boxes in a form.

The D109 description on war.gov :

A U.S. military operator reported observing UAP, describing it as consisting of "six small spherical objects grouped together. They characterized the behavior of the UAP as "seem[ingle] agile," and "frequently changing direction." The reporter estimated the speed of the UAP to have been 480 miles per hour.

doesn't really match the gentext from D109 :

UAPS FLYING SPORATICALLY WITHIN THE TARGET AREA AND IN THE NE PORTION OF ACCORDING TO THE [REDACTED], THE UAPs WERE TRAVELLING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS BETWEEN 80-180 MPH

I guess 480 could be a typo for 180.