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

[Mick West]

View attachment 81730

This has the cloud layer stabilized, so it's just rotation. I then added the Video2 layer back in (with a dot tracking the object).

Look at the red track in the lower right. That's the track of a cloud. It matched the motion of the object. I think this is a strong clue that what we are seeing is an artifact that depends on the position and orientation of the camera.

(Note the track isn't perfect, but it works during the "video2" portion.

Explaining this video a bit more.

This is Video1 with Video2 inset. Video 2 is contrast adjusted (not AI, just using curves), and has a pink dot added to the object so you can see the path it takes on screen (i.e., relative to the screen, not relative to the clouds). Here we see it when the object first appers in video2

Video2 slides down to the right because it is stabilized. I picked a relatived isolated cloud near the middled and locked it.

AFTER that was stabilized, the other clouds just rotate around that point, we can track their motion on screen, which will indicate the angular motion of the camera.

We see all the clouds move on way, then the other.

Notice that this motion tracks the disc's motion. The disc moves left, and then right.

Not only that, the motion is a smooth curve, like a parabola or a sine wave.

If we plot the motion of one of the clouds over the duration of video 2, we see a similar-looking track.

It's kind of parabola-shaped, but most importantly, the peaks of the parabolas match. Like they are in sync.

We can stretch and overlay the cloud curve with the motion of the disc:

All the cloud have different curves, but they all have the same peak.

I'd like to make a video explaining this, and hopefully just one. So let me know what seems wrong, missing, or confusing.

 

[ThomasH]

I'm using the target coordinates on screen, in military format.

Ah ok., didn't knew that, thanks.

 

[ThomasH]

Yes. What you see in Sitrec is based on the camera simply tracking the target point on the ground as the plane moves along the path. I'm not sure what's missing to make the clouds rotate like that.

However the background does rotate, and in a way that matches the motion of the object, which suggests the object is a camera artifact.

That rotation also also puzzled me.

 

[yoshy]

Explaining this video a bit more.

...

I'd like to make a video explaining this, and hopefully just one. So let me know what seems wrong, missing, or confusing.

So to super summarize this, when you say it's an artifact following the motion of the camera, what exactly do you mean by "artifact"? Lens flare? Scratch on the lens? A digital artifact of some sort?

 

[Mick West]

So to super summarize this, when you say it's an artifact following the motion of the camera, what exactly do you mean by "artifact"? Lens flare? Scratch on the lens? A digital artifact of some sort?

I think it's probably lens flare of some sort. An internal reflection of the sun.

 

[Edward Current]

This tweet by @AeroTech_Space, retweeted by Mick, is definitive IMO.

According to @ThomasH_Synth, the round "flying saucer" that Jeremy Corbell (@JeremyCorbell) claims is the object in the video looks to be identified as just a glare from the sun.

In the video below, you can see the object doing the same motion as the camera, but in reverse. This is typical behavior of what happens when a lens flare occurs.

Thomas inverses the footage, showing the clouds and the correct shadows, which exposes the glare. Did Corbell tamper with the video?

You have to wonder why Corbell admittedly adjusted setting in the video and even used an AI tool to enhance it. Is that because Corbell knew it was a glare and giving it an AI enhance would create sharper edges to make it appear to be something it's not?

Regardless, this is very hard to dispute and looks to be a proper debunk of a video that people like @MvonRen from @thehill called "undebunkable".
#ufoX #ufotwitter

Source: https://x.com/AeroTech_Space/status/1936399272951345361

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I think it's probably lens flare of some sort. An internal reflection of the sun.

Ghost images appear across the optical axis from the light source. As the camera pans, a ghost image moves in the frame in the same direction as the camera pan and in the opposite direction to real world objects. In a pan to the right, the ghost image moves to the right across the frame, while real world objects move to the left.

That's the simple model we're all used to. In this video the camera moves in both the vertical and horizontal, but the idea is the same.

Because ghost images are internal reflections, as the camera moves, real-world objects shift in the frame in one direction, while the reflections appear to move in the opposite direction. And that's due to parallax and their purely optical origin.

This object is moving relative to the clouds and moving within the frame. Which supports the ghost image idea.

It might be a good idea to go back to this post:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/fox5-new-york-zip-by-orb.13779/#post-328504

The speed of the ghost image is usually equal to the speed of the camera pan. In other words, the light source and the ghost image move at the same speed across the frame, but in opposite directions.

Is it possible for a ghost image to move faster or slower than the camera is panning? Yes, ghost images are reflections, and their movement can look somewhat erratic or nonlinear, depending on the optical design and internal reflections in the lens. But only within narrow parameters.

I want to avoid the term "lens flare" because several different things are all commonly called that.

What kind of ghost image would this be? My money is on "Internal ghost image due to reflection between the aperture and rear lens group." This is a description, not a name, because there's no standard name for this. But I want to be specific. This kind of ghost image doesn't have to have a recognizable shape. The shape of the aperture, in other words. It can be blobby and irregular.

And it can involve diffraction effects. Which aren't ghost images at all, but can be irregular in both shape and brightness. By irregular I mean in both appearance and over time. They can flare up and change shapes over time.


My second pick is reflection between sensor and rear lens element and back to sensor.

Third is not a ghost image at all, but purely a diffraction effect.

 

[NorCal Dave]

You have to wonder why Corbell admittedly adjusted setting in the video and even used an AI tool to enhance it. Is that because Corbell knew it was a glare and giving it an AI enhance would create sharper edges to make it appear to be something it's not?

Regardless, this is very hard to dispute and looks to be a proper debunk of a video that people like @MvonRen from @thehill called "undebunkable".

From @Edward Current post above.

 

[ThomasH]

This tweet by @AeroTech_Space, retweeted by Mick, is definitive IMO.

According to @ThomasH_Synth, the round "flying saucer" that Jeremy Corbell (@JeremyCorbell) claims is the object in the video looks to be identified as just a glare from the sun.

In the video below, you can see the object doing the same motion as the camera, but in reverse. This is typical behavior of what happens when a lens flare occurs.

Thomas inverses the footage, showing the clouds and the correct shadows, which exposes the glare. Did Corbell tamper with the video?

You have to wonder why Corbell admittedly adjusted setting in the video and even used an AI tool to enhance it. Is that because Corbell knew it was a glare and giving it an AI enhance would create sharper edges to make it appear to be something it's not?

Regardless, this is very hard to dispute and looks to be a proper debunk of a video that people like @MvonRen from @thehill called "undebunkable".
#ufoX #ufotwitter

Source: https://x.com/AeroTech_Space/status/1936399272951345361

Yes it got 48,000 views that way. When I posted it on X ..and here, no one saw it

 

[DopVamp]

If this is indeed a flare, why does it changes temperature according to IR when entering the cloud ?

Also, i'm not 100% convinced about the pink dot trajectory, as posted in my previous compositing it seems the object does not have a uniform speed or trajectory once inside the first pack of clouds

Moreover, can we have a sample of IR flare ?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

If this is indeed a flare, why does it changes temperature according to IR when entering the cloud ?

Two problems here.

1. This is not a thermal infrared (IR) image. This type of camera does not detect the heat emitted by objects. It captures infrared light reflected off surfaces, much like the way a garden variety visible-light camera works.

That's a very common misunderstanding and I've already seen it in this thread.

Spoiler: Two kinds of IR cameras - more info

Near-Infrared (NIR) or Reflected IR Cameras: Capture infrared light reflected off objects, primarily using wavelengths just beyond visible light (about 700–1100 nm).

Thermal Infrared Cameras: These detect emitted infrared radiation from objects based on their temperature, typically using wavelengths in the mid to far-infrared range (3–14 μm). They are used for thermal imaging, heat loss analysis, or detecting living beings in darkness.

2. The perceived change is likely due to contrast.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Also, i'm not 100% convinced about the pink dot trajectory, as posted in my previous compositing it seems the object does not have a uniform speed or trajectory once inside the first pack of clouds.

You haven't supported this perception. But if it is true...

See post 87: Is it possible for a ghost image to move faster or slower than the camera is panning? Yes, ghost images are reflections, and their movement can look somewhat erratic or nonlinear, depending on the optical design and internal reflections in the lens. But only within narrow parameters.

 

[DopVamp]

Thank's for the clarification !
I tend to believe flare is possible in this, ir being not thermal

However, i think the change may not be due to contrast : black and white levels do not change uniformly across pictues, syncing with the object, like in the Jellyfish footage

As you can see in this still, it does change when the object goes " in and out" of clouds
If this is an artefact bending light received by the sensor, i tend to think it shouldn't behave this way

 

[DopVamp]

You haven't supported this perception. But if it is true...

See post 87: Is it possible for a ghost image to move faster or slower than the camera is panning? Yes, ghost images are reflections, and their movement can look somewhat erratic or nonlinear, depending on the optical design and internal reflections in the lens. But only within narrow parameters.

Gotcha, this perception come from the synchronized compositing ( without stalbilization and with grade ) i did for this post :

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

It's not incoherent with the ghost image you're describing tho, i'm just skeptic about the sync and stabilization Mike did, the object path doesn't feel that smooth to me compared to the cloud, but i might be wrong

Also, i tend to think the flare would be much more visible on video 1 when lifted

 

[FatPhil]

1. This is not a thermal infrared (IR) image. This type of camera does not detect the heat emitted by objects. It captures infrared light reflected off surfaces, much like the way a garden variety visible-light camera works.

That explanation needs work. A garden variety visible-light camera does detect the light emitted by objects, thus there is no parallelism. Secondly, what property do photons that are reflected off surfaces have that photons that are emitted by objects because of their heat don't have, and how does the camera sensor discriminate for that property?

 

[Mick West]

1. This is not a thermal infrared (IR) image. This type of camera does not detect the heat emitted by objects. It captures infrared light reflected off surfaces, much like the way a garden variety visible-light camera works.

What are you basing that on?

This appears to be a Wescam MX-15 or similar in IR mode. It has various types of cameras and configurations, but the first ones listed are Thermal Imagers.

In Wescam's example videos, thermal imaging is designated "IR"

But the near visible IR (SWIR) is designated "SW" (Here with a DL for daylight)

The clouds also look like they are in thermal mode.

So it seems like it's thermal.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

You've convinced me.

 

[DopVamp]

Then my previous points about object's thermal, flares on IR and so on, stands

Also, those are pretty bad spec for the camera, there is no way video 2 is an upscale of video 01 with those

Getting info on codec and encoding would be usefull

 

[ThomasH]

I can't upload the video here, so this is a link to X:

Source: https://x.com/i/status/1937210042194812935

 

[Mick West]

Also, those are pretty bad spec for the camera, there is no way video 2 is an upscale of video 01 with those

Video 2 seems to be a video of the screen that shows the same video as video 1, but zoomed in on the displaying system. I don't see anything that prevents it from being the same underlying video.

 

[Eburacum]

It looks very much to me like the infra-red image shows reflected light as well as emitted light. Purely thermal images look very different.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

I can't upload the video here, so this is a link to X:

Source: https://x.com/i/status/1937210042194812935

We don't know how the optics are, so this is just a simple illustration of the sun angel. Maybe the angel is too steep to make a flare ?

I really think the particulars of the camera and any outer glass panes on the camera pod, e.g. if its a wescam mx-15, are relevant here. Panes of glass in front of the camera can easily increase the angle at which bright light rays from out of frame can be brought into frame, creating 'lens flare'.

Demos of in-frame flares from out-of-frame light sources:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/co...s-new-video-06-17-25.14289/page-2#post-347418

And


Source: https://x.com/MickWest/status/1936568142710607876

 

[Eburacum]

In the example 'thermal imaging mode'there seems to be a lot of reflected light as well.

In Wescam's example videos, thermal imaging is designated "IR"

Look at the specular reflection on the automobiles and fuel tanks. That isn't emitted heat, but reflected light.

 

[Eburacum]

Lens flare looks like a reasonable possibility; but it also suggests that we are looking at an inverted image. A negative image, in other words. Can this be confirmed?

 

[Mick West]

It looks very much to me like the infra-red image shows reflected light as well as emitted light. Purely thermal images look very different.

I don't think there's a "purely thermal" image. There are just different wavelengths of radiation.

The typical "thermal" radiation images (MWIR, and LWIR) do show both reflected and emitted radiation. But for any given surface, the emissivity and reflectivity are very different from visible light.

Here's a video I just took in LWIR.

It's a stainless steel pan lid on the back of my stove. You see my reflection on it, as it's reflecting LWIR.

I then turn on the gas burner

The huge plume (also visible in reflection, but invisible to the naked eye) and the warming parts of the burner are visible because they emit LWIR. You also see it reflecting off the cooking spray can, but it's not really illuminating other surfaces.

 

[Matt33]

It looks very much to me like the infra-red image shows reflected light as well as emitted light. Purely thermal images look very different.

Those colors are just one possible setting of the thermal camera.

 

[Ravi]

The MX 15 thermal imagers are based on InSb. These are (cry) cooled detectors and have a pretty big range, starting at around 900nm and upwards. This imo is why it looks often a little weird, because there is a slight amount of near-IR in there. It is a little confusing though.

 

[Eburacum]

Visible red is 700nm, so 900 nm is near-infrared. This will behave pretty much like normal light.
What I am driving at is, the clouds in this clip seem to be a negative image, assuming that the light behaves largely like visible light. This would explain why the round flare/internal reflection/UAP is black instead of white.

Can we confirm that this clip is black/hot?

 

[DopVamp]

Video 2 seems to be a video of the screen that shows the same video as video 1, but zoomed in on the displaying system. I don't see anything that prevents it from being the same underlying video.

As i tried to express in this first post :

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.
View attachment 81601
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

Video 2 as way more data then Video 1 : i tend to think the compression we see in video 1 is not coming from the device recording the screen, but the video itself

The pixel definition, dynamic range ( level of highlight and shadow ) make me believe that video 2 is not just an artifical zoom in but at least an upscale, leaving the two scenario in my first post credible

Also, it seems the IR range on video 2 is more sensible / fine tuned then video 1 as some cloud appears to be clipped on video 1 while actually " transparent " on video 2

For those reason i do not think video 2 is the same video as video 1, or at least not the exact same file

See how much data differences there is on the workaround compositing i made previously : https://www.metabunk.org/data/video/80/80922-dd5b2b215ca46c16739d3ea6cdd267f5.mp4

 

[jplaza]

The MX 15 thermal imagers are based on InSb. These are (cry) cooled detectors and have a pretty big range, starting at around 900nm and upwards. This imo is why it looks often a little weird, because there is a slight amount of near-IR in there. It is a little confusing though.

Not necessarily. Even if InSb starts being sensitive at 900 nm, it can be tailored to the desired range, there are a few ways.

First of all, the atmosphere itself filters out some radiation. There are 3 transmission windows:

• Around 1-2 um in wavelength (SWIR, or Near IR)
• about 3-5 um (MWIR)
• 8-12 um (LWIR)

So IR cameras for surveillance, or IR Search and Track better used if they are tailored to focus in one these windows. Cameras sensitive to more than one of these windows, are likely to use different sensors.

InSb can be combined with other materials either to shift the shortest wavelength, or narrow the band they are sensitive to. And you can also use filters to block radiation before it hits the sensor.

The principle behind thermal imaging is using the black body radiation that anything emits just by being a some temperature. The higher the temperature, the shorter the wavelength they emit, and the more energy they radiate.

Objects at room temperature (~300 K /~25ºC/don't ask me about ºF), usually have their peak emission in the 8-12 um range. These objects are better seen using LWIR cameras. Their emission may be seen by MWIR cameras, but it is more likely to see radiation reflected on them.

Hot objects (like the exhaust of a plane, or the plume) can easily have their peak in the 3-5 um range. And also, the emission and absorption window for CO2 is in that zone, so MWIR cameras are designed to search for this kind of objects and the military importance of this band and devices is quite clear, IMHO

In SWIR cameras (~1 um range) it is more likely to see the radiation [from the sun or any other extremely hot source] reflected on objects.

So the interpretation of an IR image is not always straightforward, i.e, objects with different gray tones corresponding to higher or lower temperatures is not necessarily true.

IR radiation, being an electromagnetic wave, suffers the same processes than visible light: transmission, absorption, reflection... they are wavelength-dependent and depending on the material (glass, water, sapphire, ...), but I don't see why IR should be free of glare.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

In the Weaponized video, the camera's line of sight intersection with the clouds is moving right + down (down in frame), while rotating slightly to the left both relative to a compass direction (and to the sun), as also demonstrated by @Mick West's Sitrec simulation. And a point detractors of the flare theory are bringing up now is this point that the camera LOS angle rotates counterclockwise but the object/flare moves rightward in frame. This is something that needs to be more conclusively addressed. Without knowing the precise orientation of whatever camera it was filmed with at various points in the video, and without having access to such a camera and drone to play around with, the best that can be done is CGI simulation or practical simulation.

-The UAP moves in the *opposite* direction from what would be expected from lens flare

Source: https://x.com/MvonRen/status/1936650606820962581


I do not know how to use Blender. If I did I'd try to simulate something like this, though simulating specific angles of flare artifacts from panes of glass might be complicated. But below are 3 videos to demonstrate 3 concepts that I think are combined in the Weaponized video.

(1) lens flare moving significantly rightward relative to the frame as camera pivots left.
(2) lens flare moving slightly to the left relative to the scene as the camera pivots left.
(3) parallax of the lens artifact relative to the scene adding significant rightward apparent motion of that artifact which completely overwhelms the magnitude of the leftward apparent motion in (2), leaving only rightward apparent motion.

The combination of these 3 factors makes the flare move right in frame, and right relative to the clouds.

This first one is a light flare from a camera that I am pivoting clockwise and counterclockwise. As you can see as the camera pivots counterclockwise, this flare artifact moves significantly to the right in the frame, and to a much lesser extent, to the left relative to the scene/floor.

Here is a video similarly of a light flare but here demonstrating both pivoting the camera counterclockwise, and I moving to the right. Here you can see as I move to the right and pivot the camera left, the lens flare moves to the right in the frame and relative to the scene.

To better demonstrate lens flare parallax against a scene using the actual sun, below is a video of a quadcopter drone flying directly to the right. The sun is up and to the right, out of frame. This video is cropped and stabilized on the two towers in the distance. As the drone flies there is a good parallax effect with the trees, and if you were to zoom in on the lens flare, it looks like it's flying through the trees, to the right. Of course any angle changes of the camera up/down, or motion of the aircraft up/down, would move the flare up/down relative to the clouds as well. I can demo this too but I think it is not necessary for now.

cropped further and grayscale:

In these drone videos, the lens flare also moves through the frame itself, from left to right, as the stabilization pans the cropped FOV to the right in order to keep the target (cell tower) in the same spot. This could be relevant if the camera pod the Weaponized video was filmed with has any internal fine stabilizer axes or software stabilization which introduces any panning relative to the outer window of the pod itself (assuming that this outer window is the one introducing this artifact) that is not represented in the camera LOS on the UI. If I'm able to get out sometime near sunset so the sun angle is lower and a flare can be created against something closer so the DJI object tracking feature can actually lock on to it (it couldn't lock onto the trees or towers in this case, they're too far away/similarly colored), I can try to pivot the drone left while flying to the right using the DJI tracking feature, rather than using software stabilization after the fact.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This first one is a light flare from a camera that I am pivoting clockwise and counterclockwise. As you can see as the camera pivots counterclockwise, this flare artifact moves significantly to the right in the frame, and to a much lesser extent, to the left relative to the scene/floor.

View attachment 81796

There's a lot going on here. I won't talk in absolutes but here are my best guesses. I welcome any corrections or additions.


This is a ghost image.

Two possibilities:

An internal lens reflection. Light has entered the objective - the front lens. It has reflected off the (rear) inner surface of the objective and then reflected off the (front) inner surface of the same lens. Or, off of inner or outer surfaces of internal lens elements.

It then is reflected to the sensor. It is a defocused image because it has a longer light path. It's an actual image of the scene. Theoretically you could see the entire landscape/whatever, but the light source dominates because it's so bright. It's an inverted image.



Or... the first reflection is off the sensor and then - as I understand it - off the (rear) outer (but uncoated) surface of the rear lens element. Or off the (front) inner surface of the same lens element (?).

Or off surfaces of other lens elements? Does that happen? Don't know. And from what I've been able to see, I don't think anyone knows for sure.


I don't know which is more likely. The classic internal lens reflection that involves lens elements only, or the sensor reflection.

Favoring the sensor reflection:
-This is a mirrorless camera; mirrorless cameras tend to have reflective sensors
-This is a very bright ghost image; which would go along with a reflective sensor



But there are two more artifacts, which are reflections of the original ghost image.

What do I mean? Watch the video again. There are two more ghost images. A bigger one and a third one that's even bigger. Reflections of the original ghost image. They get bigger each time because the light path is longer each time.

Would that make the sensor reflection or the classic internal lens reflection the better possibility? I don't know.

But the secondary reflections in a classic internal lens reflection should move in the opposite direction that the ghost image moves. Here, it doesn't. it moves in the same direction.



There are color fringes. That could be caused by...
-chromatic aberration
-diffraction effects on the edge of a lens element, or edge of the thing that supports the lens element.
-Lens Coating Reflection

But diffraction effects typically produce weird shapes that change dramatically as the camera pans, and lens coating reflections produce just a few colors, not a spectrum.

This is the cruncher... The reds dominate on the left edge and the blues on the right edge here...

... and the opposite over here

The difference between these two frames is that the light rays are hitting the lens at different (oblique) angles.


This color fringe is most likely due to chromatic aberration. It's called lateral chromatic aberration - as opposed to longitudinal (axial) chromatic aberration.

In a refractor telescope, you might see axial chromatic aberration around a star in the center of the field. But you might see lateral chromatic aberration around a star on the edge of the field.


This may have some importance as to why the OP artifact looks like this.... with a bright edge...

Could this also be due to chromatic aberration? Don't know. I'm interested to get some informed opinion.



The shape of the ghost is also distorted due to the changing angle of incidence of the light rays. Could that have some bearing on the appearance of the OP artifact?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Re: Objections that the object is not following camera movement exactly...


Something to keep in mind: The ghost image does not follow real-world geometry, because it's a reflection. Everyone gets that.

But for the same reason - it's a reflection - it doesn't have to move in a strictly predictable way. It's reflecting off of curved surfaces. And... I guess... the way lens elements are positioned relative to each other plays a role.

There may also be distortions of the image due to the fact that the light rays from the Sun (which is out of frame) are hitting the object lens at an extreme angle. And that angle changes over time. So the distortion could change over time.

The movement of the ghost image is predictable within certain parameters but the movement can vary within the parameters.

The ghost image will track the camera movement in a general way, but there may be some surprises.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Converted to B&W, converted to negative image, contrast and brightness adjusted, cropped.

It's now a dark spot with bright edges.

Similar? What do you think?

Yes, I'm aware of the issues with IR versus visible light photography. And all the other issues with comparing these images. But still...

Tell me what you think. Could the bright edges be caused by lateral chromatic aberration?


An important thing to consider is that this is a very bright and "opaque" ghost image.

The OP artifact would most likely be a very dim and "translucent" ghost image.

 

[Mick West]

Yes, I'm aware of the issues with IR versus visible light photography. And all the other issues with comparing these images. But still...

Tell me what you think. Could the bright edges be caused by lateral chromatic aberration?

I don't think so. Chromatic aberration isn't really a thing for thermal IR. It's mostly mirrors, rather than lenses [Edit: apparently the MX-15 uses lenses, unlike the ATFLIR]. It's a narrow set of wavelengths, and even if the lens was shifting things, it's not going to shift things from hot to cold. IR lenses also have fairly flat refractive index curves (i.e. similar for all wavelengths 3-5 µm)

You really have to be careful in comparing visual light artifacts to thermal IR artifacts, if it's something never before seen in thermal IR.

 

[Edward Current]

Can we confirm that this clip is black/hot?

While I believe that this video is unambiguously explained as a camera artifact due to its motion, the OP image appears to be shot in white/hot. If that is true, it is not a "hot" or "light" artifact like an ordinary visible-light lens flare, but rather a "cold" or "dark" one. Compare:

This raises the question of what kind of camera/lens artifact in an IR system would produce effectively a hole in the image.

It's possible that the video was tampered with to invert the shade of the anomaly and make it appear…more anomalous. That could possibly explain the light-shaded fringe.

 

[Mick West]

While I believe that this video is unambiguously explained as a camera artifact due to its motion, the OP image appears to be shot in white/hot. If that is true, it is not a "hot" or "light" artifact like an ordinary visible-light lens flare, but rather a "cold" or "dark" one. Compare:

Consider, though, that Gimbal (on the right) was shot at night at a very shallow angle (-2). Whereas the cloud disk is in the middle of the day, looking down at a steeper angle. So, direct comparisons might be misleading. As @ThomasH pointed out, inverting the image makes it look like the "sunlight" is coming from the right direction, which suggests black hot.

 

[Eburacum]

That is an important question to ask the people who have presented this clip as evidence. Surely someone must know.

 

[elvenwear]

Decimal co-ords

35.04829888945025, 71.29928529873118

Somewhere over the Khyber Pass in Pakistan

So above the waist then?

 

[DopVamp]

I'd like to add to the list some reason why i am not convinced about this object beeing an artifact :

- The lens usually have coat that protects from glare, using Thorium Fluoride or alternative : https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1920251/L3-Communications-Mx-15i.html?page=97#manual

- Those platfrom are tested in anechoic chamber to counter any artifact and ensuring MIL-STD 810/461/704 qualification
Source: https://fr.scribd.com/document/662357124/WESCAM-MX-15-0503AA-Spec


- The systems have a real time algorithm to track those objects, ELAP image processing : i think flare would be so common that it would be dismissed while operating

Taking a look at the in depth camera spec and into account the context of the footage, a flare artifact seems a conveniant explanation but not really realistic ( https://www.l3harris.com/all-capabilities/wescam-mx-15ms-maritime-surveillance-and-reconnaissance )