(ME23) AARO release — Unresolved UAP Report: Middle East 2023

[Mendel]

Finally why does N drift in the vertical axis as well as in the horizontal?

IMO the N rotates around the center, like the point of a compass needle.

What would the display look like if the camera was looking due S? Maybe N would simply be off to the side?

The N would be below the center, similar to how the compass needle points towards you when you're walking south.

This metaphor makes sense if it is in fact a recon drone, with a camera that looks down most of the time. Analysts can then quickly align screenshots with maps.

 

[FatPhil]

I also don't follow why you seem to find it strange that the camera operator is able to keep an object on the screen that is not maneouvering wildly.

It's the wild seeming-maneuvers that approach but never cross the edge of the field if view, I guess. I'd expect a manual effort to keep the thing in sight to slip once in a while, given how close it comes sometimes.

It seems you find it strange that the camera operator is *not* able to keep an object on screen that is not manoeuvering wildly.

Because nobody's perfect, even if they're highly trained equipment operators - he's not wired into the control surfaces and engines, and he's not even wired into the operator of the control surfaces and engines, it's looks like a genuinely tricky task. (Which is why you get a computer that can perceive and react accurately, quicker than a human can even perceive, to do it where possible.)

 

[Mendel]

Here is a quick reconstruction done in blender :
Camera looking 1° down, 10° to the right relative to the movement direction, encountering an immobile sphere.
The sphere seems to be moving to the right and slightly down, like in the original video.

Follow the target with the camera, and past 90⁰ it'll start to move upward with respect to the background—just as it does in the later part of the video.

 

[Mendel]

It seems you find it strange that the camera operator is *not* able to keep an object on screen that is not manoeuvering wildly.

The camera operator does keep it on screen.

I think the operator is trying to match the "speed" of the camera to the object, but tries hard not to overshoot. But as the object nears the screen edge, they compensate too much, and thus the camera overtakes the object, and that necessitates compensation in the other direction, and so forth. This produces the oscillations (swings back and forth) that we see. The operator manages to get these in check (except for one time when there seemed to be a transmission problem) until it gets steady enough to achieve a lock. Then the drone can track the target via a local onboard feedback loop.

 

[Mendel]

If you speed up the initial part of the video (this is sped up 8x) then I think it becomes clear that the aircraft is not moving in the same direction the camera is pointing.

I can see the view rotating as the camera seems to be tracking a fixed location on the ground below the cloud layer.
I like your diagram.

 

[flarkey]

I've been speaking on X with someone who is investigating this case too. They've made a nice stabilised version of the video and have summarised their thoughts in an analysis video. I said I'd share their videos here, hopefully they can help our investigations too.


Source: https://youtu.be/FfIFbP94xho?si=gQp-lak4b228YsvE



Source: https://youtu.be/X-e1k1rnT9E?si=VKNVUIFC3ykyVd5y

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

IMO the N rotates around the center, like the point of a compass needle.
View attachment 80295

The N would be below the center, similar to how the compass needle points towards you when you're walking south.

This metaphor makes sense if it is in fact a recon drone, with a camera that looks down most of the time. Analysts can then quickly align screenshots with maps.

Got it! It's as if you put a label on the end of a compass needle and were looking straight down at the compass.

Not at all like the compass directions as displayed on the horizon in Stellarium. That clears up my confusion about the direction the camera was looking... and the direction of travel of the aircraft.

 

[Mendel]

They've made a nice stabilised version of the video and have summarised their thoughts in an analysis video.

The fact that the dot is moving horizontally when the background is moving horizontally aligns with the idea that the object is nearly stationary, and the apparent motion is almost entirely due to parallax.
Other than that, I agree with that analysis. It's good to have that stabilized video!

 

[Ravi]

@flarkey

Thanks for these videos, it was/is exactly what I was hoping for to see. It is to me quite clear it is all an illusion created by the motions.
Without these stabilised videos it is very hard to make this assessment.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The camera starts out pointing a bit south of West

Half way through... pointing North

Ends up pointing Northeast

Leaving out some adjustments the operator makes to center the object in the frame...

-The camera started out pointing to the right of the body of the aircraft and remains that way. It's panning to maintain that position relative to the body of the circling aircraft.
-Throughout the video, the aircraft was circling clockwise (if looking at it from above).
-The camera is rotating relative to the clouds below it because the aircraft is circling.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

The camera starts out pointing a bit south of West
View attachment 80299

Half way through... pointing North
View attachment 80300

Ends up pointing Northeast
View attachment 80301

The aircraft was circling clockwise when looking straight down at it.

The aircraft doesn't need to be changing direction. If it's a bottom mounted camera you could have the camera rotating to look west -> northeast -> east while the aircraft keep going in the same direction.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

I don't think that fits the scenario, though. The clouds are moving too fast through the frame. It's a slow moving drone. That fast relative motion comes from the camera rotating relative to the clouds below. Not from a linear motion.

A merry-go-round doesn't move all that fast, but the world rushes past nonetheless.



In this case the camera is facing outward. In our case the camera is facing inward, but...

 

[Mick West]

I've been speaking on X with someone who is investigating this case too. They've made a nice stabilised version of the video and have summarised their thoughts in an analysis video. I said I'd share their videos here, hopefully they can help our investigations too.

Very nice.

I also just did a stabilized and contrast enhanced version of the segment of the video with the most apparent motion. View full screen.

The illusion of motion comes from compression. This is a recording of a compressed transmitted stream, and not the original in-camera footage, so a lot of the pixels don't change from frame to frame. This give an illusion that there's a "ground" or "cloud" layer that the object is moving about relative to. But as "Rayford Jarvis" says, it's clear once stabilized that the object is moving with constant velocity.

Wind-speed would probably fit. Balloons still seems most likely.

 

[Mendel]

The camera started out pointing to the right of the body of the aircraft and remains that way. It's panning to maintain that position relative to the body of the circling aircraft.
Throughout the video, the aircraft was circling clockwise (if looking at it from above).

There is no evidence for this.
It's more likely that the drone is flying a fixed course, and that the camera is panning.

Consider the last seconds of the video, where the camera turns back to approximately the same heading. If the aircraft had circled, then the camera would now be looking to its left, and the clouds would be moving right-to-left.

 

[Mick West]

Seems like it should be geolocatable.

It's not super clear, but this looks to me like the white area is a wide river (running north-south), possibly with some agriculture around it, there's a bridge crossing it on the left. The inset segment (after a zoom) seems to show another river coming in from the top of the image (the west), and some fields.

 

[Mick West]

I don't think this is it, but it's an example of the rough layout. Bridge at 35.937631, 38.814993°

Of course, I could be totally imagining things. Is that a river? Is that a bridge?

 

[Mick West]

This heading angle could be extracted by motion tracking the N

The target appears then movement starts around frame 2100, before that there's a slight CCW rotation.

Tracking lock is acquired around 6750, which is about the middle of the slope.

If we were circling something then the rate of change of the angle would be constant.

Here, the rate of change of angle looks like what you'd expect flying in a straight line, past something that's nearly stationary. It's not perfect symmetrical, which suggests a small wind component.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Here's on over the Euphrates running north to south with an east west bridge and fields. Southern Syria. US survalance int he middle east in 2023 sound like Syria:

34.46487 40.93191

 

[Giddierone]

At 0:42 the scene is mirrored for a frame, and there's a streak of colour on the left hand side. Why is that?

 

[Mick West]

At 0:42 the scene is mirrored for a frame. Why is that?
View attachment 80313

It's just before the change in zoom. This probably involves a different physical optical pathway that has one more mirror, so the image is digitally flipped to correct it. The digital change just happens a frame before the physical change starts.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

View attachment 80310
The target appears then movement starts around frame 2100, before that there's a slight CCW rotation.

Tracking lock is acquired around 6750, which is about the middle of the slope.

If we were circling something then the rate of change of the angle would be constant.

Here, the rate of change of angle looks like what you'd expect flying in a straight line, past something that's nearly stationary. It's not perfect symmetrical, which suggests a small wind component.

What if the aircraft were circling but the object was not at the center of the circle?

 

[Mendel]

What if the aircraft were circling but the object was not at the center of the circle?

Please apply Occam's razor.
We see no evidence that the aircraft is circling.
The assumption adds nothing to our understanding of the video, either.

I can offer the compromise that a straight line is a circle with infinite radius. (And on the globe, any "straight" and level line turns into a great circle.)

Here's a diagram of what I'm envisioning:

If someone
1) geolocates the scenery, and then
2) tries to recreate the video in sitrec, and
3) can't fit a straight track,
then it makes sense to consider a curved flight path.

 

[flarkey]

I don't think this is it, but it's an example of the rough layout. Bridge at 35.937631, 38.814993°
View attachment 80308
Of course, I could be totally imagining things. Is that a river? Is that a bridge?

I've had a go at geolocating this - the Euphrates River is a strong candidate for the body of water and it has quite a few bridges although many have been destroyed. There are a lot of reservoirs with dams that could look like a bridge.

This is my best match so far - thoughts on this?

Bridge location - 36.634453340983, 38.208024601545304 - Google Maps link

 

[JMartJr]

It looks possible, especially if we consider that some low clouds/fog might create the dark feature to the right of the "highlight box" in the top image and obscure the tributary visible in the lower. I wonder if it might be a tighter shot, though, something like:

and maybe from a lower angle?

 

[Giddierone]

Is it a bridge or is it pareidolia?

Is it something on the lens, like the other smudges, or is it ghosting of a real object (a bridge)? At times it seems disconnected from the landscape. IDK.
Like these other marks on the lens/sensor.

 

[Ann K]

I've had a go at geolocating this - the Euphrates River is a strong candidate for the body of water and it has quite a few bridges although many have been destroyed. There are a lot of reservoirs with dams that could look like a bridge.

The Euphrates is also subject to flooding at times, so the exact size/shape of the river need not match the view in the video.

 

[flarkey]

The Euphrates is also subject to flooding at times, so the exact size/shape of the river need not match the view in the video.

the more I look at it the more I think I'm right, but obviously I'm biased towards my own hypotheses . However, I now think the light areas arent necessarily water - I think it is low lying mist, maybe suggesting that the video was recorded early morning.

this shows mist over the lake, and potentially in the valley above

something like this... ?

 

[Giddierone]

Ah, I think Flarkey does have the right location and looking roughly at the shadows around sunset (compare the red / yellow boxes) so are they chasing a lens flare?

 

[Mendel]

Ah, I think Flarkey does have the right location and looking roughly at the shadows around sunset (compare the red / yellow boxes) so are they chasing a lens flare?View attachment 80328

that would be the first lens flare on the optical axis—which is where the white dot is once it is locked. Note the camera keeps turning while the dot is locked, so it wouldn't be a lens flare from the sun, because the sun does not change direction that quickly.

 

[flarkey]

Ah, I think Flarkey does have the right location and looking roughly at the shadows around sunset (compare the red / yellow boxes) so are they chasing a lens flare?View attachment 80328

nice find. however the lighting is set for today's date. How does it look in September 2023 which is when the DoD claim the video was recorded?

 

[MonkeeSage]

This is my best match so far - thoughts on this?

Bridge location - 36.634453340983, 38.208024601545304 - Google Maps link

I found that location when I was looking last night but I wasn't convinced the hills to the East of the bridge (36.683675307693996, 38.32338754325031) matched the apparent hills with two peaks from the video:

The hills are about 600ft higher than the bridge but Google Earth doesn't really show them poking up much, but maybe that's just down to the pseudo-elevation mapping (or whatever it's called) not working that well for smaller land features or something.

 

[Giddierone]

Is this a recording from a screen? Is the circular shape the lens of the camera on the military platform (a bit like #257)
or of a camera recording this off a screen? Also, is the pink blurring because of the image compression?

 

[flarkey]

the circular shape is the outline of the lenses within the optical telescope. It's an example of the Narcissus effect.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

If we assume both the aircraft and the UAP are moving in straigth lines at constant speed, the theoretical heading of the camera tracking the UAP would be of the form :

\[ tan(\theta(t))=\frac{y_{UAP}(t)-y_{AIRCRAFT}(t)}{x_{UAP}(t)-x_{AIRCRAFT}(t)} \newline\newline\newline \theta(t)=atan(\frac{y_{0_{UAP}}-y_{0_{AIRCRAFT}}+(v_{y_{UAP}}-v_{y_{AIRCRAFT}})*t}{x_{0_{UAp}}-x_{0_{AIRCRAFT}}+(v_{x_{UAP}}-v_{x_{AIRCRAFT}})*t}) \newline\newline\newline \theta(t)=atan(\frac{A+B*t}{C+D*t}) \]

with A,B,C and D constants.


I used gradient descent to estimate A,B,C and D from Mick's measured headings (using data from frames between 2500 and 10000) :

A	19500
B	-2.91
C	4000
D	0.21

This values multiplied by the same non zero factor would also work.

With A,B,C and D you can simulate the heading over time :

There is a good match between the measured and simulated data, the constant speed hypothesis seems to be close to the reality.

A,B,C and D can be used to reconstruct the trajectory of the UAP in the aircraft frame of reference.

UAP trajectory angle = atan(b/d) = 5 degrees

I animated the scene in blender. The camera rotation is from Mick's heading data, the UAP position is calculated from A,B,C and D.
(animation sped up x100)
Left side : View from the camera
Right side : Top view, the black triangle is the camera, the sphere is the UAP

 

[Giddierone]

Some ground analysis which confirms @flarkey 's geolocation, which I think should allow us to calculate the speed of the aircraft for part of the video.

Comparing the video with satellite imagery from 19 Sept 2023.

As we fly along at 03:54 we see this distinctive curved road - distorted by the motion but still identifiable.

Then a second later at 03:55 we see this dark almost rectangular shape (red arrows) and a diagonal contrast change. It's the hill side - again distorted by the motion.

Then at 04:07 we see three roads converge and a part of the Euphrates (dark streak).

 

[Giddierone]

And a couple of photos taken from the bridge which show the sloping hill on one side and the town on the hill with square-ish looking buildings on the other.

 

[flarkey]

Some ground analysis which confirms @flarkey 's geolocation, which I think should allow us to calculate the speed of the aircraft for part of the video.

Comparing the video with satellite imagery from 19 Sept 2023.

As we fly along at 03:54 we see this distinctive curved road - distorted by the motion but still identifiable.
View attachment 80359
Then a second later at 03:55 we see this dark almost rectangular shape (red arrows) and a diagonal contrast change. It's the hill side - again distorted by the motion.View attachment 80360
Then at 04:07 we see three roads converge and a part of the Euphrates (dark streak). View attachment 80362

nice work. can you provide coordinates, or even better a kml, with those points in? That would perhaps allow us to start creating lines of sight from the camera through the object to the ground behind.

 

[Giddierone]

Processing...

 

[Mick West]

There is a good match between the measured and simulated data, the constant speed hypothesis seems to be close to the reality.

I'm getting similar matches in Sitrec. There are considerable unknown which make this a multi-variable problem. Speicfically:

• Camera Altitude
• Camera velocity (speed and heading)
• Camera turn rate (seems low, but might not be zero)
• Object velocity
• Camera and object wind speeds
• Elevation angle
• Object Altitude (linked to elevation angle)
• Field of view (for speed relative to background, and object size)

Dropping in the Az values (after adding code to allow dropping in Az values), and tweaking the above a bit, we get:

The white line is the camera track. The red lines are the lines of sight from the extracted AZ. Black is at the start and end when not tracking. Like in many cases we get a small "saddle" region, which suggests a near-stationary object.

If we change to a fixed target in the middle of that crossover, we get:

Fairly similar, which suggests the solution isn't too far away, in variable space.

I have to fix a few bugs in Sitrec before releasing this Az-capable version.

 

[Giddierone]

I see three markers when the ground detail (see above post #75) is in the centre of the frame.
A at 03;54;18 at 36°49'6.75"N, 38° 8'7.43"E
B at 03;55;18 at 36°50'40.81"N 38° 8'33.97"E
C at 04;07;20 at 36°55'2.21"N 38° 6'44.48"E

and to add one more point, I'm fairly sure this white blob is this hill centre frame of the video at 03;04;10

so, something like this...