Could the Middle East Spheres be a form of spoofing?

John J.

Active Member
[Admin: thread split from: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mi...served-apparent-spherical-uap-via-aaro.12932/ ]

Just to "throw something out there" which might be worth considering (or not),
...and to get my apologies in in advance,

(1) I don't think the following suggestion is a likely explanation of the "sphere"
(2) The possibility of, e.g., a metallicized balloon seems a better, simpler explanation as far as I can tell
(3) I have no special knowledge of UAVs/ camera technology/ electronic or cyber warfare
(4)-Meaning that, I accept the following idea might be obviously implausible to you chaps and chapesses with knowledge of these things
(5) The following idea does involve the "multiplication of entities" and so falls foul of Occam's razor (unless it is the simplest explanation covering all the relevant facts, which is probably unlikely)

Is it possible that the "sphere" is not a physical object being viewed by the RPV, but the result of deliberate interference with the feed to the RPV operators?

Something like this:
Fig1 - Copy.jpg
We know that a US drone has been successfully "hacked" by the Iranian military
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident (Wikipedia article describing the in-flight capture of a US RQ-170 Sentinel drone by Iran, 05/12/2011).
The Iranian authorities later claimed to have decrypted the footage taken by that drone
(BBC news item, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21373353, "Iran shows 'hacked US spy drone' video footage",
07/02/13).

I would have thought that signals to and from the drone are encrypted, nevertheless Iranian personnel were able to overcome this. I doubt if Iran is a leading state in cryptoanalysis or EW.

We're used to hearing about encoding algorithms whose products would take vast lengths of time to decrypt, but nevertheless various actors seem to actively research additional encryption methods- implying that perhaps some interested parties don't think that existing encryption packages are quite as secure as they're said to be.
There are, I guess, ways of cutting down the "problem space" of decrypting a drone's transmissions. For example, knowledge of the resolution (as in "x" by "y" pixels) and frame rate of any video being transmitted might help.
And, of course, you might access the appropriate decryption technology via espionage.

There are obvious tactical advantages to being able to interfere with a drone's video signal.
Your assets "in the field" might be masked, or (virtually) added to.
Most people (in the west) are aware that photos, and increasingly video, can be doctored. Showing the original (authentic) image or video is often an effective rebuttal. However, this would be difficult if the video feed you receive from your drone shows (e.g.) a (CGI) school bus driving into an area just as your munitions detonate.

Hypothetically, why might a party testing an "imagery insertion" capability use a "UFO"?
Well, that party might not be in a position to see, with certainty, what the RPV operators actually receive.

(1) Faking a mundane item- say, a bicycle leaning against a lamppost- is unlikely to generate much interest. You won't know if the RPV operator has seen it or not.

(2) Imagery of obvious interest- maybe a pickup carrying man-portable AA missiles- might generate too much interest if you're testing a nascent capability which doesn't allow alteration of your feed in real time. E.g., the RPV operators might engage, and then be suspicious when the target is unaffected.

(3) A "UFO" might get the attention of the drone operator.
It is apparent, from material in the public realm, that US aircrew [in fairness, probably all aircrew worth their salt] pay attention to "UFOs", and that such sightings generate much chatter. The same might apply to RPV operators.
Footage of "UFOs" taken by US aircraft has tended to end up in the public realm in recent years.
An agency testing a (hypothetical) capability of this sort would get invaluable feedback- possibly including footage as received by the RPV operator.

Of course, this might all be ridiculous, I "don't know what I don't know" to paraphrase Mr Rumsfeld.

If you work in the Chinese embassy or intelligence service- clearly we don't really think you're anywhere near developing such a complex capability- if you know better, post your proof here, please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
No. The sphere is composited into the scene and moves perfectly with the camera motion. This is not really a plausible scenario.
 

Rationalman

New Member
[Admin: thread split from: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/mi...served-apparent-spherical-uap-via-aaro.12932/ ]

Just to "throw something out there" which might be worth considering (or not),
...and to get my apologies in in advance,

(1) I don't think the following suggestion is a likely explanation of the "sphere"
(2) The possibility of, e.g., a metallicized balloon seems a better, simpler explanation as far as I can tell
(3) I have no special knowledge of UAVs/ camera technology/ electronic or cyber warfare
(4)-Meaning that, I accept the following idea might be obviously implausible to you chaps and chapesses with knowledge of these things
(5) The following idea does involve the "multiplication of entities" and so falls foul of Occam's razor (unless it is the simplest explanation covering all the relevant facts, which is probably unlikely)

Is it possible that the "sphere" is not a physical object being viewed by the RPV, but the result of deliberate interference with the feed to the RPV operators?

Something like this:
Fig1 - Copy.jpg
We know that a US drone has been successfully "hacked" by the Iranian military
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–U.S._RQ-170_incident (Wikipedia article describing the in-flight capture of a US RQ-170 Sentinel drone by Iran, 05/12/2011).
The Iranian authorities later claimed to have decrypted the footage taken by that drone
(BBC news item, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21373353, "Iran shows 'hacked US spy drone' video footage",
07/02/13).

I would have thought that signals to and from the drone are encrypted, nevertheless Iranian personnel were able to overcome this. I doubt if Iran is a leading state in cryptoanalysis or EW.

We're used to hearing about encoding algorithms whose products would take vast lengths of time to decrypt, but nevertheless various actors seem to actively research additional encryption methods- implying that perhaps some interested parties don't think that existing encryption packages are quite as secure as they're said to be.
There are, I guess, ways of cutting down the "problem space" of decrypting a drone's transmissions. For example, knowledge of the resolution (as in "x" by "y" pixels) and frame rate of any video being transmitted might help.
And, of course, you might access the appropriate decryption technology via espionage.

There are obvious tactical advantages to being able to interfere with a drone's video signal.
Your assets "in the field" might be masked, or (virtually) added to.
Most people (in the west) are aware that photos, and increasingly video, can be doctored. Showing the original (authentic) image or video is often an effective rebuttal. However, this would be difficult if the video feed you receive from your drone shows (e.g.) a (CGI) school bus driving into an area just as your munitions detonate.

Hypothetically, why might a party testing an "imagery insertion" capability use a "UFO"?
Well, that party might not be in a position to see, with certainty, what the RPV operators actually receive.

(1) Faking a mundane item- say, a bicycle leaning against a lamppost- is unlikely to generate much interest. You won't know if the RPV operator has seen it or not.

(2) Imagery of obvious interest- maybe a pickup carrying man-portable AA missiles- might generate too much interest if you're testing a nascent capability which doesn't allow alteration of your feed in real time. E.g., the RPV operators might engage, and then be suspicious when the target is unaffected.

(3) A "UFO" might get the attention of the drone operator.
It is apparent, from material in the public realm, that US aircrew [in fairness, probably all aircrew worth their salt] pay attention to "UFOs", and that such sightings generate much chatter. The same might apply to RPV operators.
Footage of "UFOs" taken by US aircraft has tended to end up in the public realm in recent years.
An agency testing a (hypothetical) capability of this sort would get invaluable feedback- possibly including footage as received by the RPV operator.

Of course, this might all be ridiculous, I "don't know what I don't know" to paraphrase Mr Rumsfeld.

If you work in the Chinese embassy or intelligence service- clearly we don't really think you're anywhere near developing such a complex capability- if you know better, post your proof here, please.
This was an explanation of mine in reference to the tic tac UFO that was seen by Navy pilots. I was thinking it had more to do with a problem with instrumentation but not even considering if it was intentional or not. Different topic but similar.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
No. The sphere is composited into the scene and moves perfectly with the camera motion. This is not really a plausible scenario.
Can you clarify this? I am reading it as saying the sphere is added via some SFX compositing, but suspect that is not what you mean.
 

Martinicus1

New Member
The artificial horizon and aircraft orientation indicator suggest the drone in a gentle left turn. The heading indicator (yellow icon) also supports this as it moves from right to left during the video. The object shows an apparent change in trajectory from left to right which would correspond to the turning drone. This suggests it is and actual object in the video.
 

Eburacum

Member
I suspect that these spheres are a kind of reactively low-tech spoofing, using inert balloons to simply draw the drone pilot's attention. I don't know how quickly they could get them up there, though.
 

Duke

Senior Member
I suspect that these spheres are a kind of reactively low-tech spoofing, using inert balloons to simply draw the drone pilot's attention. I don't know how quickly they could get them up there, though.
By who and to spoof what?
 

Eburacum

Member
To a drone operator, a free-floating balloon looks something like an enemy drone, or an undifferentiated UAP. This could draw the attention away from any other activity on the ground. This does require that the locals have a supply of balloons ready to release when a drone appears, but this seems easier to achieve than some other anti-drone strategies.

As I've said before, this is just speculation on my part, prompted by two very similar events. Not much to go on, really.
 
Top