AARO release — Unresolved UAP Report: Middle East 2023

Giddierone

Giddierone

Senior Member.
New.
External Quote:
Eight minutes and fifteen seconds of video footage was captured by an infrared sensor aboard a U.S. platform in the Middle East in 2023 and later reported to AARO as UAP. The report remains unresolved as the available data does not support a conclusive analytic evaluation.

Source: https://x.com/DoD_AARO/status/1920903164355637395
External Quote:

(UNDISCLOSED LOCATION)

05.09.2023

Courtesy Video

All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office

This video is provided for informational purposes only. Viewers should not interpret any part of the video description below as reflecting an analytic judgment, investigative conclusion, or factual determination regarding the described event's validity, nature, or significance. Viewers should not interpret the absence of a formal assessment as suggestive of anomalous characteristics.

The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office received a report from a U.S. military Service consisting of eight minutes and fifteen seconds of video footage from an infrared sensor aboard a U.S. military platform. The recording, captured in the Middle East in 2023, depicts an apparent thermal contrast within the sensor's field of view. The area of apparent contrast exhibited characteristics that may be consistent with the presence of a physical object. However, due to the absence of corroborating telemetry or multi-modal sensor data, AARO cannot determine whether the observed signature represents a sensor artifact or a thermal emission or reflection from a physical source. The available data does not support a conclusive analytic evaluation.
Video here:
https://www.dvidshub.net//video/961723/unresolved-uap-report-middle-east-2023

Not much context on the scene. Maybe distant hills?
Screenshot 2025-05-09 at 19.23.58.png

At 1:10 the object or light seems to make an abrupt change of direction, but it looks like it coincides with the camera moving.
 
Last edited:
without any context (even time of day) this is completely useless. That could easily be a mylar balloon floating by and reflecting the midday sun from above.

The apparent fast motion of the object is clearly parallax (just like in Aguadilla). At some parts of the video it appears to be leaving a smoke trail behind it but that could be compression artefacts and blooming.
 
Reddit's gonna have a field day with this one, enough apparent movement to make it look crazy, not enough background information or metadata to have any sense of scale or potential parallax.

If you squint, it even looks like Gimbal at one point
1746819274271.png
1746819316052.png
 
Last edited:
It does seem that the whacky movement ends as soon as there is a lock achieved. But, it is hard to see.. I guess someone here on this board more capable than I am, could create some sort of motion track, to remove the parallax/movement to create a "object to ground" relationship. If I put it correctly? Sitrec perhaps?
 
@Giddierone

The system seems to lock onto the target at around 3:45.
After this, the target does not seem to make these big shifts anymore.
 
Last edited:
The low resolution and compression artifacts are annoying...

My first impression:

At the beginning of the video: The steady view gives the impression that the camera is pointed straight ahead and the aircraft is flying straight and level. But I think the aircraft was already circling and the camera was panning, keeping the clouds on the horizon steady within the frame.

The object entered the frame from the left, but that was because the circling aircraft brought it into view. Passing it, so to speak. Which means the object is relatively small and relatively close. Yards not miles.

The camera then began to "follow" the object... and the rest is parallax illusion.

The bright dot is very bright. Therefore it seems to me to be a specular reflection of the Sun on part of the structure. We don't see the structure of the object itself.

To me this means it was probably early morning or late afternoon, with the Sun low to the horizon. Relatively low but not on the horizon.

The object is below the aircraft so we don't ever see the Sun itself as the camera is tilted somewhat downward. The "background" appears to be a broken overcast layer situated below the aircraft. Sometimes I swear I can see repeating patterns but I can't show any proof. The low resolution makes things too ambiguous.

I think a balloon with a semi-transparent envelope is a good candidate. The specular reflection of the Sun is visible from whatever angle the balloon is viewed from. Second choice would be a balloon with a translucent white envelope. The whole envelope would be luminous because of the way diffused light would bounce around between the surface layers - (both inner and outer surfaces) - of the envelope material.

In other words, the infamous weather balloon.

Heads down. Incoming dismissive sarcasm.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone claimed that the object clones itself? Or that the mother orb shoots out other baby orbs. Or any such thing?

It does seem to split up at times, but those sparkles are compression artifacts, of course. The image breaks up, not the object.
 
I have rather limited analysis capabilities at the moment
IMG_1091.jpeg

But looking at it again, I agree with @flarkey that there seems be nothing inconsistent with a Mylar balloon reflecting the sun.

There's an "N", which is likely showing north relative to the camera. So the camera heading goes from West to Northeast. Consistent with a sun reflection and the sun roughly behind the camera.

This heading angle could be extracted by motion tracking the N
 
There's an "N", which is likely showing north relative to the camera. So the camera heading goes from West to Northeast. Consistent with a sun reflection and the sun roughly behind the camera.
This heading angle could be extracted by motion tracking the N
Click to expand...

You're saying the letter N indicates the direction the camera is looking? Not the direction in which the aircraft is traveling?

In that case... let me think about which way the the aircraft would be circling. My immediate intuition is ... counterclockwise as seen from above. If the object is on the outside of the turn as I think likely. (The aircraft is not circling the object.) Wow... that's tough to visualize just sitting here with my eyes closed.
 
Last edited:
Z.W. Wolf said:
My immediate intuition is ... counterclockwise as seen from above. If the object is on the outside of the turn as I think likely. (The aircraft is not circling the object.)
Click to expand...
There is no evidence of this?

The background moves left throughout, and the N moves through ~120⁰, until at the end it moves quickly back to almost where it was at the start. This means the camera turns right continuously for most of the clip.

To me, this suggests a platform on a straight course, and the camera operator notices the dot ahead and to the right and follows it while the platform flies by. At the end, the camera operator then turns the camera back to the front, either for operational reasons, or because the camera can't swivel further back than ~120⁰ to that side.

Obviously we could also be looking at a stationary platform, and the object drifting by.

I do not think we see a lot of vertical movement?
 
N moves through ~120⁰
Click to expand...
It does? How do you figure that?


To be honest, I was assuming that "N" did not indicate compass direction and that the aircraft was orbiting the object; and made several orbits during the course of the video. The idea that N = North threw me, and I was trying to make sense of it.

If the N does mean North and the aircraft is flying straight and level we have to explain:

-Why the object moves into the frame from the left at considerable apparent speed.
-As it moves into frame, the clouds on the horizon remain steady within the frame, and the object moves across the distant clouds, until the camera pans

And throughout the rest of the video...
-Why the clouds beneath it seem to be moving so fast.
-Why the object and the clouds have different relative motions in the first place. Is that more consistent with perspective or parallax?

Assuming straight and level flight... If the object comes into frame at that apparent speed it must be pretty close to the camera. In that case it would be left behind pretty quickly.

This is what makes sense to me. The camera was already facing pretty much straight backward and the aircraft was heading pretty much south. The initial fast movement of the object against the distant clouds, then the slowly changing relative positions of the object and North, would be due to perspective. The object was "moving" toward the vanishing point. I follow that.


This assumes that the camera was zooming in on this small object, and/or the object was increasing in luminance. It gets brighter as time goes by. Not dimmer. If it were being left behind, and it is a small object, it would get dimmer pretty fast.


But then how do we explain the rushing broken overcast below the object, which gives the impression that the object is off to the side and pacing the aircraft? Is that consistent with straight and level flight and a relatively stationary balloon? If the balloon were being left behind, the camera wouldn't be panning much at all, as the motion of the aircraft would be mostly along the line of sight of the camera.

Why do the object and the clouds have consistently different relative motions? Is that more consistent with perspective or parallax?


Alternative. The initial view of the distant clouds is a side view and the balloon is much more distant. The aircraft is heading West. The camera pans to the right as the distant balloon slowly moves toward the vanishing point due to perspective.

How do we explain the high relative speed of the object against the distant clouds when it first enters the frame? That argues for a close object.

How do we explain the clouds rushing by, at a constant apparent speed? The speed would not be constant. If the relative motion to our right was due to the object moving toward the vanishing point, the speed of that relative motion would slow down as the object became more distant. The camera would pan slower.

Even with a very narrow field of view and a distant object, I just don't see this rushing effect being caused by a slow pan. The camera would have to be spinning to get this rushing effect.



The solution to that is that the camera is spinning - relative to the cloud layer - while the aircraft continues to orbit the small and close object during the course of the video.

If we assume that N does not equal North there's no dilemma.

If N does equal North, then I have to admit, I don't get it. The only thing I'm left with is that the "rushing cloud layer" is a video artifact due to the low resolution. The clouds are not rushing by in the frame. That seems pretty thin to me.
 
Last edited:
If you speed up the initial part of the video (this is sped up 8x) then I think it becomes clear that the aircraft is not moving in the same direction the camera is pointing. If you scrub the video back and forth I think it becomes even clearer. Imagine looking at the ground from a passenger jet window, for example! :)


Here's a diagram of what I'm envisioning:
planediagram.png
 
A rear view and perspective. The tree on the right comes into the frame from the right and "moves' to our left due to perspective. It's moving toward the vanishing point. The apparent motion to our left becomes slower as it becomes more distant. Its angular motion across the visual field diminishes with distance.



But near the end the plane starts turning. The tree moves to our left due to that motion. Parallax.



In our UFO video, I think the aircraft started a tight turn after the object came into the frame and started to orbit it. And the object was small and close.

Like this...




I don't know how to explain what the "N" means.

If it does mean North, then the object is moving under it's own power. Perhaps another (enemy) drone that has spotted our drone and is investigating our drone while our drone is investigating it? And a specular reflection of the Sun on its surface, of course.
 
Last edited:
Z.W. Wolf said:
If the N does mean North and the aircraft is flying straight and level we have to explain:

-Why the object moves into the frame from the left at considerable apparent speed.
Click to expand...
Here is a quick reconstruction done in blender :
Camera looking 1° down, 10° to the right relative to the movement direction, encountering an immobile sphere.
The sphere seems to be moving to the right and slightly down, like in the original video.

recon.gif
 
I am a little stuck with the erratic apparent motion seen in the first 3 or 4 minutes. And taking also in account the good points @Z.W. Wolf raised in entry #17.
 
Last edited:
RobertBillyBob said:
Here is a quick reconstruction done in blender :
Camera looking 1° down, 10° to the right relative to the movement direction, encountering an immobile sphere.
The sphere seems to be moving to the right and slightly down, like in the original video.

View attachment 80269
Click to expand...

Just so I understand. The object is not moving, like a floating balloon? The camera is on a moving aircraft looking slightly down, from the front in the direction of travel or from the rear, seeing what's behind? The appearant movement of the object is just due to the movement of the aircraft?
 
It's interesting that the apparent movement seems restricted to the image frame. Like the camera allows for loss of tracking up to the edge but no further.
 
I think what is needed here is a more quantitative measure of how the apparent object moves and how the background moves. I.e. a velocity track of the background and a screen position track of the object.

The background moves so fast that it's hard to see it that changes when the object moves.
 
Mick West said:
I think what is needed here is a more quantitative measure of how the apparent object moves and how the background moves. I.e. a velocity track of the background and a screen position track of the object.

The background moves so fast that it's hard to see it that changes when the object moves.
Click to expand...
I think there are also magnification/FOV changes.

And it would be good to track azimuth, assuming there's a compass centered on the reticule, with the N marking North.

Unfortunately, the HUD has been censored.
 
But if N is camera North then the slow, about 100°, turn and the rapid BG movement indicates a very long range capture of the object and even longer range background. Somewhat similar to Aguadilla.
Sitrec needed.
 
NorCal Dave said:
Just so I understand. The object is not moving, like a floating balloon? The camera is on a moving aircraft looking slightly down, from the front in the direction of travel or from the rear, seeing what's behind? The appearant movement of the object is just due to the movement of the aircraft?
Click to expand...
The object is not moving, a floating balloon is a valid comparison. The camera is moving and looking forward a bit down and to the right.
The motion of the object in the frame is completely due to the movement of the camera.
 
RobertBillyBob said:
The object is not moving, a floating balloon is a valid comparison. The camera is moving and looking forward a bit down and to the right.
The motion of the object in the frame is completely due to the movement of the camera.
Click to expand...
apparent motion.
You're bringing the camera closer to the object. Since it is below the camera to begin with, and the altitudes don't change, the laws of perspective demand that the object moves downward with respect to the horizon.
If the object started out higher, it'd appear to move upward as the camera got closer.
 
Ravi said:
I am a little stuck with the erratic apparent motion seen in the first 3 or 4 minutes. And taking also in account the good points @Z.W. Wolf raised in entry #17.
Click to expand...
There is no apparent motion at all in the first few seconds before the thing is seen. Is that just a still photo? It doesn't not even look like the slow drift one would expect to see from a moving plane.
 
Mick West said:
But if N is camera North
Click to expand...
Can somebody chime in with what the difference would be between N being "camera North" or any other sort of North. I'm lost there.

To me, the odd bit of this is how the dot moves about the screen seemingly semi-randomly early on, it darts across the field of view left, right, up and down with the only constraint seeming to be that it is not allowed to exit the screen. The seeming darting about does not seem to me to correlate with any changes in "speed" of the background as it flows past, as would be expected if the camera was moving about instead of panning smoothly or remaining fixed.

I think this allows for a couple of options:

A: The white dot is generated internal to the camera by a process that keeps it in frame, however

1: Objection: Later the system seems to get a"lock" on the dot -- is it possible to achieve lock on an internally
generated reflection or artifact?

B: It is something external to the camera and it is either

1: drifting along and being tracked by some process unable to keep it steady but is able to always keep it in frame
which creates the illusion of rapid maneuvers due to camera movements

2: actually maneuvering while being roughly tracked as the camera tries to follow the maneuvers

a: Objection -- the background does not seem to changing its apparent speed as would be expected

b: Objection -- It seems unlikely the object could "dart" so closely to the edge of the screen but never move
outside the fov.

2: it is indeed moving erratically, causing it to dart about the field of view, and knows where the camera frame is
and wants to prolong its time on camera. I don't buy that, however, because

a: That's silly
 
I'm pretty sure the N refers to North as seen in the visual scene - ie the video frame. Its not exact, but it will give the operator a sense of where things are in relation to each other and will help to avoid disorientation.
 
JMartJr said:
1: Objection: Later the system seems to get a"lock" on the dot -- is it possible to achieve lock on an internally
generated reflection or artifact?
Click to expand...
Yes, theoretically. If it's a passive lock it's just using contrast to track part of the video image.

Whether that would work depend on the type of artifact. A simple sensor reflection lens flare that appears opposite the light source would not work, as moving the camera towards it would mean moving away from the light source which would push the artifact away.
 
JMartJr said:
1: drifting along and being tracked by some process unable to keep it steady but is able to always keep it in frame
which creates the illusion of rapid maneuvers due to camera movements
Click to expand...
"some process" being a camera operator with a joystick, probably.
if it's a drone, a communications link delay may be involved.

JMartJr said:
To me, the odd bit of this is how the dot moves about the screen seemingly semi-randomly early on, it darts across the field of view left, right, up and down with the only constraint seeming to be that it is not allowed to exit the screen. The seeming darting about does not seem to me to correlate with any changes in "speed" of the background as it flows past, as would be expected if the camera was moving about instead of panning smoothly or remaining fixed.
Click to expand...
honestly the background is so blurry that I wouldn't be able to discern any "changes in speed"; before I'd make any claims here, I'd want some measurements to back them up.
If the background moves 20% faster or slower for half a second is not something I can see with the naked eye on that kind of low-quality video.

I also don't follow why you seem to find it strange that the camera operator is able to keep an object on the screen that is not maneouvering wildly.
 
Mendel said:
also don't follow why you seem to find it strange that the camera operator is able to keep an object on the screen that is not maneouvering wildly.
Click to expand...
It's the wild seeming-maneuvers that approach but never cross the edge of the field if view, I guess. I'd expect a manual effort to keep the thing in sight to slip once in a while, given how close it comes sometimes.
 
Does N = North?

Maybe I've been misunderstanding how it works. I've expected it to look something like the compass directions on the horizon in Stellarium. I expected that as the camera's line of sight shifted that E or W would appear... and eventually S.

Maybe small movements of N correlate to significantly more degrees than I was assuming?

What would the display look like if the camera was looking due S? Maybe N would simply be off to the side?

What would the display look like if the camera made a revolution of more than 360 degrees? Would N move over to one edge of the display, disappear, and re-appear on the other edge?

Finally why does N drift in the vertical axis as well as in the horizontal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Harabeck
AARO 2024 Annual Report on UAP
Replies
38
Views
5K
FastIndy
FastIndy
Mick West
AARO UAP Report 2023
Replies
12
Views
7K
Mendel
Mendel
Mick West
Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on AARO and UAP
Replies
17
Views
1K
Mick West
Mick West
MonkeeSage
AARO Releases Lab Report on Alleged Alien Metamaterial
Replies
27
Views
2K
jplaza
J
I
AARO: Mission, process, and data statistics/patterns
Replies
22
Views
4K
JMartJr
JMartJr

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top