DOW-UAP-PR030 "Shapeshifting" object that's really two small objects

[Mick West]

"Unresolved UAP Report, Middle East, 2023" — a video, submitted by US Central Command, DVIDS ID 1014102. The content: 10 seconds of infrared footage from a sensor aboard a US military platform.

The frame-by-frame description:

• 00:01–00:05 — "No content."
• 00:06–00:07 — "Two areas of contrast transit the sensor field-of-view. The first enters from the bottom right and exits from the top edge; the second, relatively smaller area of contrast enters from the top and exits the bottom."
• 00:08–00:10 — "No content."

I think the red here is showing the laser target designator. This means that the "large" object is also being hit by the laser, which I think means it's relatively close to the camera


When the "thin" object comes in, we see it's not the same as the visually large object,

Then, if we echo each frame, we see obvious motion blur, which means the "thin" object is actually just a black dot, and the visually larger object is possibly something like a bird.

We also see the red amount diminish, indicating it's moving out of the line of the laser. Possibly an indication of distance, if we knew the geometry.

 

[JMartJr]

Might the smaller "area of contrast" be a more distant (and possibly smaller) bird? (Or bug or something, but where one finds one bird, one often finds other birds.

 

[MapperGuy]

Was this platform being shot at when the video was collected?
23mm cannon shell going one way, man-pad missile going the other?

Lack of context information, such as location, what the collection platform was doing at the time and so forth make analysis far more of a guessing game than it needs to be.

Obviously whoever is preparing these releases is doing their best to NOT actually comply.

 

[Mick West]

23mm cannon shell going one way, man-pad missile going the other?

Way too slow for that.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Way too slow for that.

Bugs?

 

[Jack]

Obviously whoever is preparing these releases is doing their best to NOT actually comply.

Comply with what, exactly? As far as I know, there is no legal instrument that specifically defines responsive materials, nor any programmatic appropriation for disbursing resources to operationalize the President's so-called directive. To me, it seems more likely that, when faced with a poorly defined, unfunded mandate of such an expansive scope, the departments and agencies of the federal government are protecting their core statutory missions by providing the minimum viable response that meets the interpreted intent of the executive.

In my view, if the White House cared about this issue to an extent that went beyond soliciting attention on a topic of significant public curiosity, it would advocate for the establishment of a permanent program via the President's Budget Request. Oddly, such a request is absent from the most recent PBR, which, incidentally, clocks in at $1.5 trillion for the Department of War (inclusive of a supplemental request to offset costs associated with the conflict in Iran). What might we learn from that fact? This is a political exercise and public relations effort, not a substantive operational policy.