Claim : The Baghdad Phantom UAP

[flarkey]

Jeremy Corbell has released a new video recorded by a Reaper UAS over Central Iraq...


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhfXuSIUX-k

This is US military filmed UFO footage from an active conflict zone; imaged by the US Air Force using a Reaper drone. This UFO has been officially designated by the Air Force as a UAP (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena), but is NOT yet currently part of the active United States UAP investigations; seemingly due to obstacles of information-flow after collection. The Department of Defense's AARO (All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office) is NOW aware of this case.

THE BAGHDAD PHANTOM UAP

DATE / TIME - 14 May 2022

LOCATION - These 6 images (and footage) were taken north of the city of Baghdad, Iraq.

DURATION - The video is 7 seconds long. The "cylindrical" UAP labeled THE BAGHDAD PHANTOM UAP is seen in transit "under intelligent control - in controlled flight" moving in a stable lateral direction across the video (from left to right from the viewers perspective).

IMAGING TYPE - Thermographic / Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR)

RECONNAISSANCE CRAFT - US Air Force / Reaper Drone

ADDITIONAL DETAILS :

• The filming of THE BAGHDAD PHANTOM UAP was NOT an isolated UAP event in the area during this 24 hour period.

• UAP consisting of various shapes were filmed during this UAP event series.

• Corroborative data from multiple types of sensor data were used to document these UAP events - including THERMAL & RADAR.

Location is confirmed as MGRS 38S MC 53949 96862 = 34°18'43.1"N 44°29'58.3"E

https://www.google.com/maps/place/34°18'43.1"N+44°29'58.3"E/@34.4352877,44.2778959,400503m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d34.3119722!4d44.4995278

What could the object be?

 

[flarkey]

The trajectory is very roughly South to North:

 

[jarlrmai]

Is there an actual video? Seems to be frame by frame?

 

[flarkey]

No video released, just the 6 frames.

 

[FatPhil]

What could the object be?

From the minimal smearing fore and aft, something long and thin. From the visual disturbance behind, something that expels a hot burnt propellent at high speed.

So probably interdimensional aliens, as humans have never created anything like that, and certainly would never bring them into areas of conflict.

 

[jarlrmai]

The hidden? (not listened to the the full video) UFO believer assumption/implication with all these FLIR etc videos is that because they are from the US Military all those obvious answers have been eliminated by them.

Obviously this may not be the case and the default state of secrecy will mean we probably never know for sure if it was investigated and if so what the outcomes were.

"Yeah because the US military can't identify a missile" to paraphrase the UFO believers.

It also doesn't have to be a missile trail we've seen trail effects before due to image persistence and other artifacts. But it could be, it's just another LIZ video very hard to do any sort of analysis as it's not being tracked meaning no relevant HUD information like we have with the other Navy videos.

 

[JMartJr]

No video released, just the 6 frames.

Were I a suspicious so-and-so, I'd wonder what was in the vid that he does not want us to see or hear.

 

[jackfrostvc]

IMO, clearly a missile.

 

[flarkey]

This is an explanation of the data on the screenshots . I cant figure out what the last line is though...

 

[Scaramanga]

[...] Alas, when we were promised '7 new UAP photos' by Post Disclosure World, it was not made clear it was 7 photos of the same object, or that once again this is stills taken from video and we are not provided with the video.

My first thoughts are that the object is a cruise missile. It is exactly the right sort of dimensions. As for the lack of any hot exhaust, I do not know if the rocket motor cuts off at some point prior to hitting the target...maybe others can comment on that.

 

[deirdre]

Jeremy Corbell has released a new video recorded by a Reaper UAS over Central Iraq...

what is the time stamp for the 7 seconds of video?

 

[Scaramanga]

Can someone comment on the changed vector of the object during the course of its travel. It strikes me as rather odd that it is not pointing in the same direction at the end of the video that it is at the start. Is this merely an effect of a fish-eye type lens and curvature of the image itself ?

 

[Ann K]

Were I a suspicious so-and-so, I'd wonder whet was in the vid that he does not want us to see or hear.

And how he infers "intelligent control" from brief glimpses of something going in a straight line.

 

[flarkey]

what is the time stamp for the 7 seconds of video?

there is no time or date stamp, just the statement from Corbell that it was from 14 May 2022.

 

[deirdre]

Can someone comment on the changed vector of the object during the course of its travel. It strikes me as rather odd that it is not pointing in the same direction at the end of the video that it is at the start. Is this merely an effect of a fish-eye type lens and curvature of the image itself ?

it would be helpful if you added screenshots, so people dont have to keep giving corbell clicks just to see one small point.

 

[deirdre]

there is no time or date stamp, just the statement from Corbell that it was from 14 May 2022.

i mean where in that 8 minute video is the 7 seconds of uap.

 

[flarkey]

Calculating the aircraft altitude:

Edit - oops, made a math error.

 

[deirdre]

 

[flarkey]

i mean where in that 8 minute video is the 7 seconds of uap.

2m35s :
Source: https://youtu.be/GhfXuSIUX-k?t=155

 

[Scaramanga]

Why is the object pointing in a different direction at the start of the sequence to the direction at the end ? There is clearly a change of its vector over the course of a few images....these are frames 2 and 7...

 

[Mick West]

I've added the six frames to the OP. They seem to have been manually frame grabbed, and are not perfectly aligned, and (oddly) seem a little distorted. I re-aligned them as well as possible (within a pixel) and did a "minimum" blend (showing the darkest pixel from each frame)

(Still not perfect here, see the text on the left)

A curiously uneven spacing.

 

[Mick West]

Obviously, it looks like a missile, and equally obviously, the big question everyone will ask is "why is it cold?"

The camera is at 16,000 feet. The object could be anywhere, but if it's relatively high then it's flying through cold air (i.e. colder than the ground). Could it be after the engine switched off? Does that even happen? Wouldn't it still be hot?

 

[Duke]

Sounds similar to this sighting from a couple years ago over NM by an American Airlines flight crew.

"I hate to say this — looked like a long cylindrical object that almost looked like a cruise missile type of thing moving really fast. It went right over the top of us," the pilot said in the radio transmission.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...lot-reports-ufo-flight-to-phoenix/6805563002/

 

[FatPhil]

And how he infers "intelligent control" from brief glimpses of something going in a straight line.

That depends on what he means by "intelligent". A straight line is pretty tricky in powered flight, which means that something is stopping it from being just a dumb unguided rocket, but is a guidance system that keeps it in a straight line "intelligent control" or "just some fairly basic electronics from the 80s that was considered pretty neat at the time". Personally, I'd accept "intelligent control", but balk totally at "sentient control".

 

[NorCal Dave]

Are these "vapor trails" for lack of a better word? As it passes through clouds or exhaust? Or are they just video artifacts from the object?

 

[Easy Muffin]

I suppose we can't easily find out the absolute temperatures? From some of the onscreen data maybe? All I can glean from this is that the object appears to be saturated black, meaning its temperature is offscale low, but how low? Would it even be called low in absolute terms? There's also areas on the ground that appear solid white, so they'll be offscale hot? I guess the sensor is tuned to a rather narrow band then?

 

[Ann K]

A straight line is pretty tricky in powered flight

For a longer trajectory, perhaps, but I don't think it would be "tricky" to stay on course when all you can see are a few stills from a very short segment of flight.

 

[Mick West]

Are these "vapor trails" for lack of a better word? As it passes through clouds or exhaust? Or are they just video artifacts from the object?

John Greenwald makes a similar observation

Source: https://twitter.com/blackvaultcom/status/1633164385727438848

The "trail" looks a bit like a series of echos the same size as the cigar shape.

 

[Mick West]

Via Reddit user GortKlaatu_


Source: https://youtu.be/qg1Ojydzv8U?t=1449


Not the best footage, but the linked segment shows two jets that appear black in white-hot mode (WHOT). The exhaust is initially invisible, then nearly invisible.

 

[Mick West]

Since the "trail" is pretty clearly echos of the shape, the camera is registering images at a higher frame rate than is displayed.

That suggests the actual recorded video would be more like:

And the six frames were simply manual frame grabs at somewhat random intervals.

 

[ralph-mart]

Obviously, it looks like a missile, and equally obviously, the big question everyone will ask is "why is it cold?"

The camera is at 16,000 feet. The object could be anywhere, but if it's relatively high then it's flying through cold air (i.e. colder than the ground). Could it be after the engine switched off? Does that even happen? Wouldn't it still be hot?

Had to register, long-time lurker, but fascinated by this story.

Could it be some type of shoulder fired missile, like a stinger, that was targeted at the drone? If the drone is around 16K feet it would be out of range. The missile could be out of propellant and just falling. The object could much smaller than we think.

This video gives you an idea.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suKv8G3Gd88

 

[Mick West]

That suggests the actual recorded video would be more like:

If so, we are looking at something that moves about 1.2x its own length per frame, which is probably 1/30th of a second
So the speed of an object = Object length *1.2*30 feet per second

A Tomahawk cruise missile is about 21 feet long. so 21*1.2*30 = 756 f/s, or 515 mph.
Maximum speed of tomahawk: 550 mph.

Similar proportions, except for the fins.

 

[Gaspa]

Why is the object pointing in a different direction at the start of the sequence to the direction at the end ? There is clearly a change of its vector over the course of a few images....these are frames 2 and 7...

View attachment 58206View attachment 58207

My best guess is lens distortion. Second guess is simply parabolic trajectory.

The ghost "plume" left behind looks very much like some sort of residual noise from previous frames, which suggests that there are intermediary frames that have not been captured.

 

[sgreenstreet]

Josh Boswell just posted this image on his Twitter. It has maths! Lots of maths!

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

See this post: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/kr...-denials-of-responsibility.12376/#post-269068

The important info is about quasi-ballistic missiles.

There's a short boost phase, then the rocket motor shuts off. From there it's all momentum and gravitational potential energy. The missile is able to maneuver with no thrust and no lift in a quasi-ballistic trajectory.

The Tochka-U is one example of a quasi-ballistic missiles.

 

[Mick West]

Location is confirmed as MGRS 38S MC 53949 96862 = 34°18'43.1"N 44°29'58.3"E

https://www.google.com/maps/place/34°18'43.1"N+44°29'58.3"E/@34.4352877,44.2778959,400503m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d34.3119722!4d44.4995278

Doing all 6

38S MC 53955 96862 = 34.31198 44.49956
38S MC 53953 96862 = 34.31198 44.49954
38S MC 53949 96862 = 34.31198 44.49950
38S MC 53946 96861 = 34.31197 44.49946
38S MC 53945 96861 = 34.31197 44.49945
38S MC 53943 96861 = 34.31197 44.49943

Then after doing that, I thought to just paste the Military Grid Reference coordinates into Google Earth, to see if it works, and it does! You don't need the lat/lon

 

[JMartJr]

Would we not expect to see a fair amount of motion blur in something moving as fast as a missile? Not saying we should, but asking if we should!

IF so then the actual object will be shorter than it appears. If not, then it would not and never mind!

 

[MapperGuy]

View attachment 58228

Since the "trail" is pretty clearly echos of the shape, the camera is registering images at a higher frame rate than is displayed.

That suggests the actual recorded video would be more like:View attachment 58229

And the six frames were simply manual frame grabs at somewhat random intervals.

The oval "trails" behind the dark dashes are suspiciously distinct. If these were hard-copy photos I would say that someone used a straight-edge and drew a series of dashes across a photo with an ink marker, and then tried to erase some of them. The erasure not being completely successful, with the edges of the erased dashes remaining. The boundaries of the "trails" are too distinct. Compare their narrowness to the degree of "fuzziness" of the dark dashes and of features on the ground. The level of detail in the trails is simply uncharacteristic of the level of detail of the rest of the image. I would say this is a fake.

 

[FatPhil]

For a longer trajectory, perhaps, but I don't think it would be "tricky" to stay on course when all you can see are a few stills from a very short segment of flight.

When I say "straight line", I mean in 3 dimensions. You have to balance gravity and lift (or up-vectoring) in order to keep that third dimension constant. Aerodynamics tends to be notoriously unstable, once you start pointing in the wrong direction, you tend to make yourself point more in that wrong direction, positive feedback ensues; sometimes your arse overtakes your head (c.f. rocket launch failures), sometimes you stall (c.f. a home-made Barnaby glider - make one and give it too much lift), it depends on the exact situation.

 

[Easy Muffin]

Josh Boswell just posted this image on his Twitter. It has maths! Lots of maths!View attachment 58232

The maths check out but the results don't tell much if anything at all. For a start he arrives at a min speed of 2.64 m/s but that's based on the less precise unit of hundredths of nautical miles. 0.01 nm can be anything between about 9.5 and 27.5 m so if you divide that by 7 seconds you don't just get a discrete speed of 2.64 m/s but a speed range between 1.36 and 3.93 m/s or 2.64 and 7.64 kts. That's groundspeed, which in a standard atmosphere at 20,000 ft equates to 3.62 to 10.47 kts true airspeed. That's what the stall speed refers to but it still doesn't account for any winds aloft that might push the drone in any direction. It's quite possible that the drone was flying above stall speed but got pushed back by a ~50 kts or so wind component, resulting in a low speed over the ground.

This for example is the 450 mb (about 21000 ft) forecast for the area as it looks right now thanks to skyvector.com. Each short barb = 5 kts, each long barb = 10 kts, each pennant = 50 kts, i.e. winds from the southwest at 35-50 kts. So the wind's effect alone is large enough to make these calculations meaningless without more information.

Also it would seem like he derived the speed from the change in ground distant range but that's relative to the target reticle, which itself moves by 12 metres (or 1.7 m/s over 7 secs) if you measure the coordinates in Google Earth. That of course makes everything yet more fuzzy.