Corbell's "U.S. Military Films Huge Disc Hiding In The Clouds" new video 06/17/25

[Sprite]

Article:

DATE / TIME - 23 November 2020 / 11:13 UTC

LOCATION - Reconnaissance footage indicates 35°02.91'N, 71°17.86'E [ 35.048500, 71.297667 ]

IMAGING TYPE - Thermographic / Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR)

EVENT DESCRIPTION - Filmed by a platform operating under the direction of the United States Air Force, the object was initially passively tracked and is described in official documentation as "navigating through the clouds." The UAP appears to demonstrate an abrupt directional change. Atmospheric disruption was noted in case documentation - as was the absence of traditional thermal propulsion signatures during performance. Its origin, intent, and capabilities remain unknown.

Source: https://www.weaponizedpodcast.com/news-1/large-disc-uap

Corbell shared some interesting videos for once, particularly #2. Would be curious to see if anyone can spot signs of CGI.

#1

Source: https://youtu.be/Zdl1nz3t3DE?si=SEHwzqjkAqkOiV6y&t=869

#2

Source: https://youtu.be/Zdl1nz3t3DE?si=NjotwXFaoMEwktaS&t=1019

#3

Source: https://youtu.be/Zdl1nz3t3DE?si=HfM2M4NUN8xckJob&t=1158

---

[Admin: info from thread]

Converting the mil coordinates 42S YD 0649 7739 to lat/lon, gives: 35.01809, 71.26316
(See: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/co...e-clouds-new-video-06-17-25.14289/post-347214)

 

[Giddierone]

Looks like a rain drop on the lens.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

Video scraped from the X post is attached here, which combines the 3 clips and edited versions of them. Corbell comments on the incredibly low quality of the video in the podcast episode, and they provide a version of "video 2" edited to boost contrast and sharpening, and a version of "video 3" edited to use AI upscaling. Youtube and X are likely applying additional compression and re-encoding which makes it worse. Corbell/Knapp should really be hosting the original files directly.

All 3 videos appear to be a camera recording of a computer display, as they all have this light artifact at the top of the frame which looks like ambient light reflecting off the display back at the camera.

 

[Harabeck]

Am I blind? Where is the object in the uncropped/unenhanced version?

 

[Calter]

In the third video, you can see a small disc descending from the top right to the middle, it then suddenly disappears and the big disc appears (plus the camera seems to be tracking the disc given how the whole HUD seems to blink into focus when that happens, unless they cropped a few frames of footage).

To me this could support the hypothesis that it's a water droplet, with the video showing a small droplet dripping and then merging with another drop into something big enough to alter the light reaching the lens.

With that said, I'm not sure how common that kind of thing is or if the camera movement makes sense for the behavior of the object.

 

[Giddierone]

Coincidentally, I just happened to watch this tornado video posted recently. It has lots of drops on the lens to compare with the above.
Source: https://x.com/aaronjayjack/status/1934979319350407351

 

[jarlrmai]

Decimal co-ords

35.04829888945025, 71.29928529873118

Somewhere over the Khyber Pass in Pakistan

 

[Sprite]

Looks like a rain drop on the lens.

Agreed. Video 3 in particular. It looks like the drop comes off the lens for a moment and hits it again.

 

[PublicStranger]

You literally see the other smaller droplets throughout the entire videos move across the lense in the same direction as the main droplet. You even see the main droplet change shape as if it were a droplet of rain moving through the lense.

The way he tries to reason in the full video about why the droplet makes a 'jump' and looks as if it disappears and reappears, he puts this down to a "glitch". Absolutely unreal...

 

[div]

I don't think camera is filming directly down, so if "ufo" is parallel to the ground it shouldn't even look like a circle. I bet it should look like an oval at this angle of filming. Another point for it being rain drop

 

[metac3]

Water droplet theory depends on video #3 being AI enhanced (as it seems to clearly show the object going behind the clouds at least twice and possibly three times [and that could then be explained as an AI artifact]). Maybe its possible that the water droplet perfectly matched the cloud temperature and seemed to have disappeared, but that seems unlikely to me.

Video #2 is too low quality to tell if it went underneath or not.

I believe video #3 is described as being the governments attempt to enhance the video, yet whats weird is it seems to have the same glare. Are we meant to believe that the government only has access to video #1 and enhanced a version of the video recorded using someones phone rather than the source footage captured? Obviously not. So the person who recorded these videos had access to the source videos and then re-recorded them on a phone.

I think the way that Corbell has been releasing these UFO videos (including jellyfish and the other one showing a tic-tac moving left and right) is a mitigation tactic against the disaster that happened around the nimitz footage (the one that moves off screen to the left). When AARO released their copy of that footage, they simply released the one the public already had available instead of a higher quality one they might've had laying around. Therefore Corbell never releases source videos anymore so that whenever AARO wants to release a copy of this video, they're forced to release the high quality version they have on their disks, rather than letting the low quality one become the "source" video.

 

[Calter]

as it seems to clearly show the object going behind the clouds at least twice and possibly three times

I don't think that's as clear as you say. I think the dark clouds are so dark that the UFO simply gets lost in the video compression. Can you elaborate with which frames you think are the UFO going behind the clouds?

I think the way that Corbell has been releasing these UFO videos (including jellyfish and the other one showing a tic-tac moving left and right) is a mitigation tactic against the disaster that happened around the nimitz footage (the one that moves off screen to the left). When AARO released their copy of that footage, they simply released the one the public already had available instead of a higher quality one they might've had laying around. Therefore Corbell never releases source videos anymore so that whenever AARO wants to release a copy of this video, they're forced to release the high quality version they have on their disks, rather than letting the low quality one become the "source" video.

I'm not sure I follow you, what exactly is Corbell mitigating here? Assuming AARO is acting maliciously, how are they forced into releasing high quality versions? Surely if a low-quality version exists then they can release that one, or even just intentionally downgrade the quality of the high-quality one. The only way Corbell could call AARO out is if he had access to the high-quality version himself, in which case he can always just release it.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

I'm not sure I follow you, what exactly is Corbell mitigating here? Assuming AARO is acting maliciously, how are they forced into releasing high quality versions? Surely if a low-quality version exists then they can release that one, or even just intentionally downgrade the quality of the high-quality one. The only way Corbell could call AARO out is if he had access to the high-quality version himself, in which case he can always just release it.

It's worth noting that Jeremy Corbell is currently withholding multiple videos that he has teased or has released trimmed, cropped, or otherwise edited/degraded quality versions of.

 

[metac3]

Can you elaborate with which frames you think are the UFO going behind the clouds?

Especially the first pause where the object is clearly under the white cloud, yet still pitch black in temperature.

The video also disproves the 'water recombining' theory someone mentioned earlier. It very much looks like a frame skip, and video #2 does seem to show continuous smooth motion.

According to Corbell, video #3:

So, it was sharpened, zoomed, motion tracked, contrast enhanced and slowed to 60 percent speed by the military... It had a glitch, but in the original footage it's smooth

But not AI enhanced which would mean the object being covered by the white cloud is not an AI confabulation. The next naturalistic explanation would be that the water droplet assumed two temperatures underneath it somehow, but as I said earlier, that really doesn't seem plausible to me given how sharp that white cloud is on top of the object.

 

[metac3]

Can anyone see the object in video #1. Maybe video #1 is the source video they used to add a UFO into.

If video #2 shows the same cloud movement (implying it's the same video sequence) and yet there is no object in video #1, but there is #2, wouldn't that imply CGI? (the cloud movement has to be matched though)!

 

[Fin]

We're not actually even analysing the video. We're essentially analysing a potato Jeremy "enhanced" a potato, which is adding compression, filters, ai, to a potato. Even if he had "enhanced" the raw video, he'd still be adding artifacts & confusion to that. But when we bear in mind that what he started with was a video of a video, playing on a screen which has a large reflection in the upper-middle, he's adding artifacts, compression, filters, not to useful pixels, but to a potato. That's then been compressed further when its uploaded to youtube, adding more artifacts. The clouds are a great example of just how much distortion is happening once we are looking at the "increased contrast & AI enhanced" versions. And notably, in video 1 which is the least processed video, I can't see a darn thing!!!

Rule 1 of analysing UFO videos: work with the raw original. When that's just not possible it should come as no surprise that we may end up analysing artifacts, thinking they're part of the original visuals (and faceplanting as a result), when in fact we're just analysing artifacts.

I'm not saying no good work can be done on this as is, but I do think this already has some of the vibes of the Kumburgaz "aliens peeking out the sunroof" images, which were pareidolia + wishful thinking + filters... on steroids.

 

[jackfrostvc]

Decimal co-ords

35.04829888945025, 71.29928529873118

Somewhere over the Khyber Pass in Pakistan

Does that correlate with what this guy says AI told him?
He also notes AI's interpretation of altitude etc.
Seems to think it lines up with it being a MQ-9 reaper that filmed it


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1ldwjxd/comment/mybziz9/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

 

[Mick West]

Can anyone see the object in video #1. Maybe video #1 is the source video they used to add a UFO into.

If video #2 shows the same cloud movement (implying it's the same video sequence) and yet there is no object in video #1, but there is #2, wouldn't that imply CGI? (the cloud movement has to be matched though)!

Here I've synced videos 1 and 2, and partially synced #3.

The object IS in video 1, but only visible for a few frames, and only hinted at in some others. You see it pass under the "IR" at 3 seconds, and then just before it hits the clouds at 11 seconds, indicated here:

It's a partial sync with #3 as it seems to be variable speed. You can't get it all to line up with a single speed.

 

[Mick West]

You literally see the other smaller droplets throughout the entire videos move across the lense in the same direction as the main droplet. You even see the main droplet change shape as if it were a droplet of rain moving through the lense.

I don't see this. You mean these dots?

They seem very diferent to the larger object. They seem most like pixel noise, or stuck pixels. They mostly don't move. The two that do move move with the background (like they are artifacts caught up in motion compression). The larget object does ot move with the background - although it's motion might be related to the background motion.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

AI enhancement is pretty much the definition of Computer Generated Imagery.

I'd like to propose CGI² (CGI squared) for CGI that doesn't even involve a human.

 

[PublicStranger]

I don't see this. You mean these dots?
View attachment 81591

They seem very diferent to the larger object. They seem most like pixel noise, or stuck pixels. They mostly don't move. The two that do move move with the background (like they are artifacts caught up in motion compression). The larget object does ot move with the background - although it's motion might be related to the background motion.

I see what you mean but occasionally you get a motion smear that closely resembles a water droplet running through the lense. It is very different to the larger object I agree.

The only caveat to this is if the smaller ones are indeed water droplets than the bigger object is unlikely to be a water droplet or vice versa. I just don't see how they can both be water droplets considering the size disparity. So you may be right.

 

[DopVamp]

Hello, first post here ! I'm a pro color grading guy in Europe.

I've been able to conform Video 1 and 2 together, it match and video 2 is able to see the object through the cloud that video 1 can't, see screenshot attached.

I've add some local color grading correction to lift the area in the path of the object on video 1 to synchronize it, it sync up perfectly without any modification of speed needed with video 2 : it revealed that the same data visible on video 2 is actually on video 1, but burried by compression and recording

To me, it means either that video 2 is an other sensor capturing the same event, with different settings, way more range and more efficent lens. It may be mounted on the same platform as video 1, as the movement of the clouds match too.

Or that video 2 is an upscale of the original footage being video 1, but what was recorded on monitor is a proxy, compressed to optimize storage and playback, which is credible because of the way military server seems to work ( i remember Knapp and Corbell mentioning in an interview video proxy done automatically for those heavy video data )

Also, when lifting the data on video 2, it seems the way the pixel reacts when the object enter a cloud is organic and what you would expect, but i would need more data to compare it with similar object on IR going through cloud. The way the object goes behind those layers of cloud at the end of video 2 is really detailled and feels on point.

I can provide stuff if needed, video export or stills, feels free to ask for specific

 

[Mick West]

This is the same sync as before, but with the zoomed-in video inset over the wide shot (lower Right)

 

[Mick West]

And here's just the two views overlaid (zoomed in starts about 4 seconds in)

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

Really looks like video 2 is just a cropped and higher pixel resolution version of video 1. From :28 to :44 in the combined video from X, which is the edited versions of video 2, Corbell added overlay text indicating that it is AI upscaled. But maybe the video 2 that doesn't have those "AI upscaled" text overlays is also upscaled? Or at least is a cropped version of video 1, cropped and zoomed on the computer it was camera recorded off of, which enabled it to show the zoomed region at a much higher resolution despite being the same original video source? George Knapp went on about how there's a file server in the DoD with all these files in it, which apparently lots of people have access to and can copy out of without detection. That's where many of the videos they have leaked have come from, plus a bunch of other ones. If this is true, then why are the original files not being leaked, but rather these versions that are camera-recording-of-display, and edited. Is the version of these 3 files that is in that file server also only these camera-recording-of-display versions? Where's the original video that the crops and edits were applied to to make these versions?

EDIT: also video 2 and video 3 are a completely different aspect ratio compared to video 1 (which is direct from the sensor system). The camera feed in video 1 is 4:3 while video 2 and 3 are 16:9.

 

[DopVamp]

To highlight better how video 2 and 1 could be the same source or from the same platform, i did a quick compositing without altering speed, only keyframing zoom and position relative to the cloud

I kept the area i lifted up through grade on video 1 and animated a grade on video 2 for the UAP to see better when it goes through the cloud.

When deactivating this comp, you can actually see pixel variation in video 1 that match the UAP in the clipped area where data is too much compressed

See video attached !

( For now, i would say trying to sync and work on video 3 is a waste of time because of ai and such )

Also, someone on reddit mentionned this video looking similar and that have been debunked, indentifying bugs :
Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1dmkgzv/saucer/


This uap does not look like that imo, the mouvment are not erratic and it seems the size of it is way bigger and important here, i think it could be calculated through the data we got from the reddit ai post but i am not a math guy

 

[sgreenstreet]

FWIW, my 30-second, kneejerk reaction to the video was a shadow on the clouds. Either from above or below.

 

[ThomasH]

You're looking almost directly towards the sun, it's a lens flare!

 

[Mick West]

You're looking almost directly towards the sun, it's a lens flare!

That glow is not the sun; it's a reflection on the screen.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

You're looking almost directly towards the sun, it's a lens flare!

The light glow at the top is a reflection off the display. But for the circle thing in the video being recorded via the display... using the coordinates and the time given as 2020-11-23 11:13UTC, the sun elevation angle was 8.7º and az was at 237º, and the on-screen LOS angle starts at 230º and rotates counterclockwise (left) to 218º, and is at a shallow downward angle. The dot moves to the right, which is the opposite direction the sun is moving relative to the field of view. So lens flare from the sun seems possible?

EDITed to fix date.

Also with these videos it really just looks like video 2+3 are cropped+zoomed clips from video 1. So really there's only 1 video? Whoever in the DoD was doing this analysis created video 2+3 as attempts to enhance the region of interest in video 1?

View attachment 81604

This is the same sync as before, but with the zoomed-in video inset over the wide shot (lower Right)

 

[Mick West]

Also with these videos it really just looks like video 2+3 are cropped+zoomed clips from video 1. So really there's only 1 video? Whoever in the DoD was doing this analysis created video 2+3 as attempts to enhance the region of interest in video 1?

Video 2 is missing the "IR". It kind of looks like it's zoomed in on the screen, maybe with the UI removed, and then vidoed again. It seems to have slightly different camera wobble.

But for the circle thing in the video being recorded via the display... using the coordinates and the time given as 2020-11-23 11:13UTC, the sun elevation angle was 8.7º and az was at 237º,

I should put this in Sitrec. The Az might be relative to the drone boresight.

 

[ThomasH]

That glow is not the sun; it's a reflection on the screen.

Yes but the sun is in the same direction somewhere over the frame (I can't find the angle up/down on the camera in the data)
Try inverting it, it looks like clouds with the right shadows regarding the sun position.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

Video 2 is missing the "IR". It kind of looks like it's zoomed in on the screen, maybe with the UI removed, and then vidoed again. It seems to have slightly different camera wobble.

Like the skywatcher videos I wonder if the on-screen text here is rendered in whatever computer software, not part of the raw video, and the video can be manipulated with zoom and pan independently of the text.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

Yes but the sun is in the same direction somewhere over the frame (I can't find the angle up/down on the camera in the data)
Try inverting it, it looks like clouds with the right shadows regarding the sun position.

It's infrared video though. I'm having a hard time coming up with a coherent idea of how the black-hot or white-hot would make sense.

The upper parts of the clouds are black while the parts of the clouds down in the valleys are white. If it's black-hot mode then maybe the top of the clouds are being warmed by (or are reflecting) the sun, and thus appear black. But why would the glare at the top from the sun appear white?

If it's white-hot mode, then maybe the top of the clouds appear colder because they are reflecting the black-cold of space? And this would make sense for the glare from the sun at the top to appear white. But then this would mean the moving circle thing in the video is not lens flare, because wouldn't that also appear white-hot?

Also this looks to me like the artifact at the top in the larger frame begins to taper off before the smaller frame again hits the max darkness. Even though they're in same spot in their frame.

 

[ThomasH]

It's infrared video though. I'm having a hard time coming up with a coherent idea of how the black-hot or white-hot would make sense.

The upper parts of the clouds are black while the parts of the clouds down in the valleys are white. If it's black-hot mode then maybe the top of the clouds are being warmed by (or are reflecting) the sun, and thus appear black. But why would the glare at the top from the sun appear white?

If it's white-hot mode, then maybe the top of the clouds appear colder because they are reflecting the black-cold of space? And this would make sense for the glare from the sun at the top to appear white. But then this would mean the moving circle thing in the video is not lens flare, because wouldn't that also appear white-hot?

Also this looks to me like the artifact at the top in the larger frame begins to taper off before the smaller frame again hits the max darkness. Even though they're in same spot in their frame.
View attachment 81622View attachment 81623

Maybe it's not IR, but just an effect they created by inverting the video ?
Anyway the dot moves with the camera, the opposite way in the last part, like a lens glare would do.

 

[jdog]

It's infrared video though. I'm having a hard time coming up with a coherent idea of how the black-hot or white-hot would make sense.

The upper parts of the clouds are black while the parts of the clouds down in the valleys are white. If it's black-hot mode then maybe the top of the clouds are being warmed by (or are reflecting) the sun, and thus appear black. But why would the glare at the top from the sun appear white?

If it's white-hot mode, then maybe the top of the clouds appear colder because they are reflecting the black-cold of space? And this would make sense for the glare from the sun at the top to appear white. But then this would mean the moving circle thing in the video is not lens flare, because wouldn't that also appear white-hot?

Also this looks to me like the artifact at the top in the larger frame begins to taper off before the smaller frame again hits the max darkness. Even though they're in same spot in their frame.
View attachment 81622View attachment 81623

That's an interesting point; clouds are generally opaque/reflective to IR, one reason it's warmer on a cloudy night than a clear one, as they reflect IR back to the ground. So if there was an object under the cloud surface, how far into the cloud would it be visible? How much would the temperature of the object have to vary from the clouds for it to be distinct?

Someone will point out that high-grade military and even civilian FLIR will render clouds relatively transparent to pilots and target systems; however, we're clearly seeing the clouds in this image, so they're not invisible and the sensor is not tuned to see "through" them.

Teledyne FLIR has this interesting page on "Can Thermal Imaging See Through Fog and Rain?"

The distance you can see with a thermal imaging camera, also called the range, is highly dependant on a number of camera variables:

• What lens are you using?
• Is the camera equipped with a cooled or uncooled detector?
• What is the sensitivity?
• What is the size of the object you want to detect?
• What is the temperature of the target and the background

...
Although thermal imaging cameras can see in total darkness, through light fog, light rain, and snow, the distance they can see is affected by these atmospheric conditions.

There's a lot of discussion of not just the absolute condition of the target, but the relative humidity and temperature of the environment (plus whether the sensor itself is cooled).

The conditions of the atmosphere alone aren't enough to predict how far you can see through fog or rain. The size of the target and the temperature difference with the background both need to be taken into account. Furthermore, the limited spatial resolution of the optics and the detector, and the noise of the detector and signal processing also reduce the contrast radiance of target to background.

And of course we don't know much about the military platform and sensor at use in this case, let alone the particular settings.

 

[Edward Current]

Someone will point out that high-grade military and even civilian FLIR will render clouds relatively transparent to pilots and target systems

They will? How does that work? Some clouds and parts of clouds will indeed appear transparent, but that's because the temperature matches that of the background.

 

[yoshy]

I don't think camera is filming directly down, so if "ufo" is parallel to the ground it shouldn't even look like a circle. I bet it should look like an oval at this angle of filming. Another point for it being rain drop

UFO folks already have a prepared response for that. Bob Lazar claims UFOs have multiple modes of flight, including one where the saucer flies in an orientation perpendicular to the ground rather than the expected parallel orientation.

 

[Mick West]

I extracted the Lat/Lon/Alt track, XLSX attached. The .CSV can be dragged into Sitrec to make a track

I attempted to use the Az/El on screen, but it's a bit of a mess, as I don't have a good platform orientation.

Converting the mil coordinates 42S YD 0649 7739 to lat/lon, gives: 35.01809, 71.26316
Setting that as the target and using the CSV track, gives a good match

Good how? Two numbers match, the range, and the LOS

That's at the start of the video. 3.6 -> 3.56 and 231 -> 203.8 is a good match.

The towards the end

It also shows at the start the camera is pointing in the direction of the sun, but looking down at a village.

https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=https://sitrec.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/1/Cloud Disk/20250618_215935.js

 

[Mick West]

The light glow at the top is a reflection off the display. But for the circle thing in the video being recorded via the display... using the coordinates and the time given as 2020-11-23 11:13UTC, the sun elevation angle was 8.7º and az was at 237º, and the on-screen LOS angle starts at 230º and rotates counterclockwise (left) to 218º, and is at a shallow downward angle. The dot moves to the right, which is the opposite direction the sun is moving relative to the field of view. So lens flare from the sun seems possible?

EDITed to fix date.

Just to verify, I get the exact same sun direction in Sitrec.

I'm leaning towards a sun reflection. The motion of the disc seems to be related to the motion of the camera