Claim: Photo Captures UFO Intercepted by UK’s Royal Air Force over Syria.

Ravi

Ravi

Senior Member.
This entry revolves around a photo (see below) that Corbell et al declared to be an UAP/UFO.
The article that goes over it's background is found here.
I am not going to link the video of Corbell and Knapp here, you can find it in the link.

The image, as found in the link (cannot be downloaded, so a screencap..)

Screenshot 2023-11-15 at 11.27.11.png


In 2021, the UK's Royal Air Force (RAF) intercepted an object initially flagged as a potential terrorist drone above Syria. However, a Five Eyes intelligence report generated months following the event classified the object as a UFO or 'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena' (UAP). In December 2021, the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MOD) classified the object, referred to by Corbell as a 'dome-shaped UAP' as a 'small hostile drone.'

Knapp commented that it didn’t look like any drone he had seen and almost resembled a “mushroom cloud”
Content from External Source
As expected, the image is downright *bleep*, again.
 
Last edited:
Ravi said:
As expected, the image is downright *bleep*, again.
Click to expand...

Of course. That does bring up an interesting thought: with how impressive recent editing software and AI can be for creating and manipulating images... would a good, clean picture even matter?
 
A good clean picture or pictures or video with metadata from a reliable source such as a government would a be a big deal yes. Providence and provenance matters,

This is a partial crop of a still from a highly compressed and likely recompressed video from a military FLIR system, characterised as a drone by the UK MOD and looks to fit the form factor of a coaxial drone.

This kind of thing:

https://twobirdsflyingpub.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/infotron-it180-vtol-uav/

1700046688904.png
 
Article:
The MOD’s stance on UAPs otherwise referred to as UFOs is as follows:

‘The MOD has no opinion on the existence of extra-terrestrial life and no longer investigates reports of sightings of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena or Unidentified Flying Objects. This is because, in over 50 years no such reporting to the Department indicated the existence of any military threat to the UK, and it was deemed more valuable to prioritise MOD staff resources towards other Defence-related activities.’
​
It is important to note the U.S. DoD refers to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena as objects that are not immediately identifiable - meaning many will inevitably most likely be attributable to objects such as drones or balloons.
Talking about the UK’s stance, Corbell told Liberation Times:

‘The MOD is a puzzling contradiction on this matter; not only does the department not investigate UAP cases, but it has also stated that no reports of UAP indicate the existence of any military threat to the UK. If the documents I have been exposed to are accurate, then the UK’s current position regarding UAP is no longer sustainable.’
​

This is a super nice Catch-22. This argument basically says, unless you waste money on UAP, you're not justified to stop wasting money on UAP. Ponder that for a moment.
 
Ravi said:
As expected, the image is downright *bleep*, again.
Click to expand...

It's worse than downright complete and utter *bleep*.
If I'm not mistaken, it's been bleepily JPEG (or other DCT-based transform - the original lower resolution stage may have been MPEG) compressed at least three bleeping times.
Additionally, it looks like there're printing/scanning steps in the path, as the current highest resolution version seems to have a (Gaussian (i.e. random)) noise layer that's clearly not just a simple quantisation artefact (such as ringing, and, pessimally, a chess-board).

Here are the three resolutions that I think the JPEG quantisation artefacts have appeared at:

That's a lossless (png) screenshot taken with the browser zoomed in 2x onto the image.

This tells me that the chain of custody of the image consisted of people who knew or cared (inclusive or, not exclusive or) nothing about the quality of the image they were passing around, even to the extent that they were prepared to mangle it horiffically. Repeatedly. This is layer upon layer of incompetence, and proves unsuitability to be participating in this field, even as middlemen (I'm reminded of the classic "I'm a people person" scene from /Office Space/ at this point). At each level, they didn't even notice the problems that had been introduced and go back to their source to ask for the original. Sheer incompetence.

[EDIT: I booboo'ed - the box was supposed to be around the 'R' not the '3', it displays the same ringing (light dots outside the dark ring outside the letter) as the 'B'.]
 
Last edited:
@FatPhil
Absolutely agree.. It is the worst JPEG quality I have seen in years. Even in the early days of JPEG compression, we did not see it that bad.
Incompetence, not so sure. I am convinced they are deliberately doing so.
 
Does anyone know what "ⓐ Jeremy Corbell" is intended to signify? Fancy "@"?

And why is Corbell editing evidence to watermark what is supposedly a public domain image?
 
Mendel said:
Does anyone know what "ⓐ Jeremy Corbell" is intended to signify? Fancy "@"?

And why is Corbell editing evidence to watermark what is supposedly a public domain image?
Click to expand...
It's the @ sign in some other font and its his X/Twitter/Insta/Facebook handle I imagine
 
It looks worse than the Cyber truck. On the plus side, Corbell seems to be getting s lot of pushback from it.
 
Mendel said:
Does anyone know what "ⓐ Jeremy Corbell" is intended to signify?
Click to expand...
Well... I'm not saying it's "ⓐlien," but...
artworks-000327238044-tm1p8r-t500x500.jpg

More seriously, I think jarlrmai has nailed it. The pic is to bleepy to ever say with certainty what it is or isn't, but the sort of drone posted here:
jarlrmai said:
a coaxial drone.
Click to expand...
seems to adequately explain what we are seeing, unless Corbell or anybody else comes up with some evidence that shows it is NOT such a drone.

About the only good thing here is that at least it is not the US Navy looking silly, for a change...
 
Ravi said:
The article that goes over it's background is found here.
I am not going to link the video of Corbell and Knapp here, you can find it in the link.
Click to expand...
you could supply some background

Article:
This is a military filmed UAP that was fired upon by a UK fighter jet with a missile. Despite initially being reported by mainstream media as a “hostile drone”, this vehicle of unknown origin has been officially designated by the United States, UK and allied intelligence agencies as a UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena). This designation is currently maintained.
DATE / TIME - 14 December 2021
LOCATION - This image was taken above Syria.
IMAGING TYPE - Thermographic / Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR).

EVENT DESCRIPTION
In a joint operation, a Royal Air Force Typhoon fighter jet engaged an unidentified aerial vehicle using an Advanced Short Range Air to Air Missile (ASRAAM). Initial media reports labeled the unidentified as a “hostile drone” - however - internal intelligence products officially classify the aerial vehicle of unknown origin as a UAP - and maintain this designation. The UAP was not recovered.

ADDITIONAL DETAILS
• For the past 15 years in CENTCOM has tracked Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP).
• No actors claimed ownership of these UAP.
• All jamming directed at UAP were assessed unsuccessful.
• Due to observation of other nations firing on the same or similar UAP, it is deduced that they are not the operators of these vehicles of unknown origin.
• Due to an abundance of sightings, some Base Defense Operations Centers (BDOCs) no longer report UAP, making the tracking or characterization of these events difficult.
• Primary qualifications for engaging an unidentified target are (a) proximity to ground troops (b) if the target appears to have - or is able to hold - a payload.

See a full breakdown of this UAP case with me and @GeorgeKnapp66 on WEAPONIZED.
WATCH :
Source: https://youtu.be/U6LyHl559qo

LISTEN : Link.chtbl.com/Weaponized
LEARN : WeaponizedPodcast.com
 
Seems again like a classification/confidence of identification debate, I don't think we know enough about how things are characterised/identified/assessed as drone etc or UAP.

The real question is what does it take for this classification to be be present or not.


• For the past 15 years in CENTCOM has tracked Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP).
Content from External Source
Cool!


• No actors claimed ownership of these UAP.
Content from External Source
Well if it were militants/terrorists they wouldn't right?


• All jamming directed at UAP were assessed unsuccessful.
Content from External Source
Okay


• Due to observation of other nations firing on the same or similar UAP, it is deduced that they are not the operators of these vehicles of unknown origin.
Content from External Source
"other nations" I assume means local state actors in play, UK/US/Russia/Syria, but possibly does not include non state operators (insurgents/terrorists/PMCs?) but no-one knows whose this was confusion of battle/multiple groups in play.


• Due to an abundance of sightings, some Base Defense Operations Centers (BDOCs) no longer report UAP, making the tracking or characterization of these events difficult.
Content from External Source
Lots of unknown things in the sky in a warzone.


• Primary qualifications for engaging an unidentified target are (a) proximity to ground troops (b) if the target appears to have - or is able to hold - a payload.
Content from External Source
We only shoot them with expensive AA missiles if they are big enough to carry a weapon and/or near our guys on the ground, seems like there's just a lot stuff in the sky and we only spend a AA missile on it if it's deemed an immediate threat.

It all reads to me like the issues of operating in a chaotic modern warzone with multiple actors and non-state groups using all sorts of drones off the shelf/captured/provided by proxy suppliers rather than alien spacecraft that happen to be in the same space.

We've all seen how drones are changing the face of war in Ukraine, no reason to think this didn't happen in Syria.
 
jarlrmai said:
The real question is
Click to expand...
the real question is what is a five eyes report...and where is it? I'd like to read it. Everything i see calls it a drone
Article:
Tuesday 14 December 2021
Hostile drone activity was detected around the At Tanf coalition base in Syria. A pair of Typhoon FGR4s from Royal Air Force Akrotiri were conducting one of their regular patrols over Syria and Iraq as part of the global coalition against Daesh, and were tasked to investigate. On arrival in the At Tanf area, the pilots were able to identify a small hostile drone, and despite the diminutive size of the target, succeeded in conducting an air to air engagement with an ASRAAM (Advanced Short Range Air to Air Missile) which eliminated the threat it posed to coalition forces.
 
deirdre said:
the real question is what is a five eyes report...and where is it? I'd like to read it. Everything i see calls it a drone
Article:
Tuesday 14 December 2021
Hostile drone activity was detected around the At Tanf coalition base in Syria. A pair of Typhoon FGR4s from Royal Air Force Akrotiri were conducting one of their regular patrols over Syria and Iraq as part of the global coalition against Daesh, and were tasked to investigate. On arrival in the At Tanf area, the pilots were able to identify a small hostile drone, and despite the diminutive size of the target, succeeded in conducting an air to air engagement with an ASRAAM (Advanced Short Range Air to Air Missile) which eliminated the threat it posed to coalition forces.
Click to expand...
Five Eyes / FVEY is an intelligence sharing agreement between US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. "Five Eye report/s" would reference reports made through a FVEY process and/or sent through FVEY processes to other participants.
 
@deirdre

You are right, sorry. I was being lazy.. I forgot to leave out the "Claim:" in the title, as that suggests I am putting forward a case.. But the intention was just to drop the pic here, for all to enjoy. :D
 
Tezcatlipoca said:
Five Eyes / FVEY is an intelligence sharing agreement between US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. "Five Eye report/s" would reference reports made through a FVEY process and/or sent through FVEY processes to other participants.
Click to expand...
Thanks but i meant where are any such reports? America calls it FIORC
Article:
FIVE EYES INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT AND REVIEW COUNCIL (FIORC)


ok basically its just a hearsay story again and the pic being from that incident is hearsay too. Would be nice if the OPs of these threads would provide the basic info instead of making us click a bunch of links and listen to (luckily in this case only 18 mins) of video
Article:
I don't want to get us in trouble we do not have something that we
18:10
can release we're just telling you that publicly they say this is a terrorist drone privately among Allied Nations
18:19
that have forces there they're saying something completely different


what a waste of my time. @Mick West
all these claims without evidence are getting annoying.

ironically corbell's twitter LIES:
1700063748178.png
 
Ravi said:
I forgot to leave out the "Claim:" in the title, as that suggests I am putting forward a case.. But the intention was just to drop the pic here, for all to enjoy. :D
Click to expand...

dont ever leave out hte "claim". that would make your title even worse. We have no idea what that photo is...unless one trusts corbell, which i don't.
 
RTM said:
to be calling the shape a jellyfish
Click to expand...

do we know if the picture is right side up from the few numbers we see?
i mean this little guy has "ears" (pic below) on top... but maybe the jets camera was sideways?

@Duke what would the uk military call
Article:
and despite the diminutive size of the target,
a jet cant hit somethign this small can it?

Screenshot 2023-11-15 130310.png
Article:
In this image released by the military on February 17, 2022, a drone belonging to Lebanon’s Hezbollah terror group is seen after being downed by troops on the border with Lebanon. (Israel Defense Forces)
 
Last edited:
deirdre said:
and despite the diminutive size of the target,
Click to expand...
The problem with the word diminutive is it's relative. Drones can and are much bigger than that commercial quadcopter. But still smaller than say another fighter jet for example.
deirdre said:
do we know if the picture is right side up from the few numbers we see?
Click to expand...
We know nothing about it other than what you;ve seen and read, but usually jet FLIR video is corrected to match what the pilot is seeing, but the jet could be banking or inverted etc.

But really we know nothing, this is going to be another video where we speculate a bit on the nature of such poor LIZ evidence which is magically given import because Corbell released it.
 
Another Shootdown of a unidentified object/drone where the government allegedly did not recover the debris or "lost" the debris.

‘The question we’re asking is why? Why are we not figuring out where these things are from? That is of course unless black secretive compartmentalized programs, as alleged by whistleblowers, are undertaking such operations unbeknownst to senior military officials in charge of those operational areas.’
Content from External Source
Source https://www.liberationtimes.com/hom...-of-unidentified-craft-across-the-middle-east

Sure reminds me a LOT of the February Shootdowns over Alaska, Yukon, and Lake Huron. Where they "lost" the debris.
 
Mendel said:
The answer is, because it's not worth it.
Click to expand...
Ya I am sure the USSR did not bother to recover the U2 debris after they shot it down. Can't be bothered to go out in the cold. Give me a break.

You want me to list all the historical examples of recovery and exploitation of shot down aircraft? It is standard operating procedure, and it is obvious why.

The truth in my opinion is they DID recover all this debris. But they feel justified in lying to the American people and congress because "national security" dog crap.

I think you know that deep down, but just agree it is for that "greater good". You probably drank the "national security" kool-aid. I got an antidote called transparency/truth and the US constitution.
 
Last edited:
Arthur 33 said:
Ya I am sure the USSR did not bother to recover the U2 debris after they shot it down. Can't be bothered to go out in the cold. Give me a break.
Click to expand...
see, the debris from the Chinese spy balloon was recovered

Arthur 33 said:
The truth in my openion is they DID recover all this debris. But they feel justified to lying to the American people and congress because "national security" dog crap.
Click to expand...
not in evidence
Arthur 33 said:
I think you know that deep down, but just agree it is for that "greater good".
Click to expand...
no
Arthur 33 said:
I got an antidote called transparency/truth and the US constitution.
Click to expand...
what you got is a dose of rabbit hole
 
Mendel said:
what you got is a dose of rabbit hole
Click to expand...
I wondered how long before the name calling started. Go ahead. I am a Q nut job, I am a UFO brain, I am a conspiracy theorist, I am anti-science.

Lets review the forum guidelines and not engage in personal attacks. Attack my ideas/arguments not me as a individual.

I know I am in the minority here being a "UFO believer", but that does not mean we can't engage in civil debate.

Thanks.
 
deirdre said:
a jet cant hit somethign this small can it?
Click to expand...
Duke might know, I don't- but the missile used (ASRAAM) has a laser proximity fuse, meaning it will detonate if it passes near a target. And it has 50g manoeuvrability
(according to Wikipedia anyway, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASRAAM).

Arthur 33 said:
You want me to list all the historical examples of recovery and exploitation of shot down aircraft? It standard operating procedure, and it is obvious why.
Click to expand...

Yes, useful intelligence can be gathered from retrieving downed enemy aircraft.
But a commander in the field- even if he or she has the resources immediately available (available troops, helos) which is extremely doubtful in Syria, 2021- has to consider how many lives might be put at risk to retrieve what is probably a few thousand dollar's worth of off-the-shelf drone.

Higher-level command would then have had to consider the possibility of confliction with Syrian government (or possibly Russian) forces. A Typhoon can bug out of an area pretty fast; troops in helicopters (or ground vehicles) not so.
 
deirdre said:
do we know if the picture is right side up from the few numbers we see?
i mean this little guy has "ears" (pic below) on top... but maybe the jets camera was sideways?

@Duke what would the uk military call
Article:
and despite the diminutive size of the target,
a jet cant hit somethign this small can it?
Click to expand...
As @jarlrmai said above, drone sizes are relative. The gov.uk site you referenced above gave these details about the RAF shoot down of the drone over Syria.

Hostile drone activity was detected around the At Tanf coalition base in Syria. A pair of Typhoon FGR4s from Royal Air Force Akrotiri were conducting one of their regular patrols over Syria and Iraq as part of the global coalition against Daesh, and were tasked to investigate. On arrival in the At Tanf area, the pilots were able to identify a small hostile drone, and despite the diminutive size of the target, succeeded in conducting an air to air engagement with an ASRAAM (Advanced Short Range Air to Air Missile) which eliminated the threat it posed to coalition forces.
Content from External Source
We don't get specifics of the drone, but we do know they used an ASRAAM. I'm not a missile guy, but did find this article on RAF exercise firings of ASRAAMs. This is the target drone, the Banshee, used in the exercise.

Meggitt_Banshees.jpg

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/british-fighter-jets-fire-dozens-of-asraam-missiles-that-india/?amp

How big is the Banshee?

Length: 2.84 m (9 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 2.49 m (8 ft 2 in)
Height: 0.86 m (2 ft 10 in)
Content from External Source
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meggitt_Banshee

Not exactly a tiny drone, but less than a quarter the size of the RAF Typhoons that were shooting them down.

Length: 15.96 m (52 ft 4 in)
Wingspan: 10.95 m (35 ft 11 in)
Height: 5.28 m (17 ft 4 in)
Content from External Source
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
 
Last edited:
Arthur 33 said:
I wondered how long before the name calling started
Click to expand...
Mick's book is called "Escaping the Rabbit Hole", he's not going to see that as an insult when you claim a conspiracy theory with no evidence.

But you saying that "I drank the cool-aid" is you starting the name-calling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Chennai Muttukadu DGP UFO
Replies
8
Views
497
john.phil
J
flarkey
Claim : The Baghdad Phantom UAP
2
Replies
73
Views
19K
David Esp
David Esp
Mick West
The "Chandelier" UFO
2
Replies
69
Views
12K
FatPhil
FatPhil
NorCal Dave
Claim: A UFO crashed in 1933 Italy and the US Recovered it
Replies
8
Views
3K
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
Mick West
Claim: Original Calvine UFO Photo
27 28 29
Replies
1K
Views
132K
Scaramanga
Scaramanga

Latest posts

Back
Top