Middle East 2022 MQ-9 Observed Apparent Spherical UAP (via AARO)

Eburacum

Eburacum

Senior Member.
This clip seems to show a very similar phenomenon [to the Mosul Sphere], taken by 'a U.S. military drone in the Middle East'. From ABC News.


Source: https://youtu.be/4Bt6_Potk5Q


It looks like a real, solid object, somewhere between the drone camera and the ground. If it is a balloon of some kind, the apparent movement and changes of direction could all be the result of movements by the drone.

Since we now have two, very similar phenomena associated with US drone overflights, perhaps they are some kind of anti-drone countermeasure? A reflective balloon designed to spoof radar, perhaps.


Raw Video:



Video presented at the Hearing: https://www.metabunk.org/f/2023 UAP hearing - ORB.mp4

[ADMIN UPDATE] Bellingcat managed to geolocate it, and also concluded a balloon was most likely.
Article:
Bellingcat geolocated the video to an area northeast of the Syrian city of Deir ez-Zor. The 25-second video begins at 35.369189, 40.332815 and ends at 35.374540, 40.339181, showing a group of buildings around 800 metres to the northeast.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Eburacum said:
Since we now have two, very similar phenomena associated with US drone overflights, perhaps they are some kind of anti-drone countermeasure? A reflective balloon designed to spoof radar, perhaps.
Click to expand...
That's at the top of my list. It would seem though that if such things were common enough to have been captured on camera a few times, then there should be some people who live in, or have served in, Iraq, who are familiar with them.

It's possible that it's a classified subject, as they don't want them people using them to know how well they work (if at all)
 
Article:
While the image appears mystifying, the orb in question is not dissimilar to the Winch Aerostat Small Platform, a spherical surveillance balloon used by the US military — and possibly the Iraqi army — at the time.


That's an interesting possibility, a tethered balloon. It seems unlikely to be unidentified if it's a US balloon, though. Also the scale does not work.

2023-04-22_08-50-44.jpg
 
Eburacum said:
Since we now have two, very similar phenomena associated with US drone overflights, perhaps they are some kind of anti-drone countermeasure? A reflective balloon designed to spoof radar, perhaps.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but a simpler explanation might be that they have Mylar party balloons in the Middle East, too.
 
The motion of the orb in the new video looks exactly like the "go fast" balloon. Looks like there's no information on the speed or direction of the Reaper filming it in the video. Was any data released along with the video?
 
yoshy said:
Was any data released along with the video?
Click to expand...
This article gives a little more information.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9640141/pentagon-ufo-video-flying-orb/
The Pentagon has released rare declassified footage of an Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) spotted in the Middle East last year.
The footage, shown before a congressional committee Wednesday as part of a defence update on UFOs (or, as the Pentagon calls them, UAPs – Unexplained Anomalous Phenomena) shows a small, spherical object that appears to shimmer as it quickly zips above houses and empty fields.
"You'll see it come through the top of the screen, there it goes," Sean Kirkpatrick, director of the Pentagon's All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), told the Senate Committee on Armed Services.
"This is essentially all the data we have on this event," he added, saying that where it came from and what it was doing remains a mystery to his team.
The footage was shot on July 12, 2022 from an American MQ-9 Reaper drone.
The hi-tech camera picks up the movement, switching targets from people below to the strange orb.
Click to expand...
So it was a Reaper Drone. What is the range of speeds available for a Reaper operator?
 
Finally. Some useful video.

Whatever this is, its motion cannot be solely due to parallax effects. In the opening seconds, the U.S. reconnaissance UAV is clearly not orbiting, yet the UAP flies through the frame. After the UAP passes through the frame the U.S. UAV seems to be pacing it. There's an indicator marked N for north which does not change indicating that the course is a straight line. I'm still working out in my mind whether or not this could possibly be solely due to the camera panning. I don't think so. I think the U.S. UAV is truly pacing the UAP.

The U.S. UAV is probably being controlled by a remote human operator (and by definition a UAV, not a drone) who immediately started to track the UAP. This suggests an immediate decision that this UAP was important. And thus a known high priority object?

I suggest that we concentrate on sphere shaped UAVs or drones.

This is the first one I've found.


So why wouldn't we see the rotors or legs? Easy. Motion blur, poor resolution, poor contrast... and possibly poor focus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-137#/media/File:Kamov_Ka-137.jpg

The Kamov Ka-137, previously designated MBVK-137, is an unmanned multipurpose helicopter designed for many roles, including reconnaissance, patrol, police and ecology, emergency, and data transmitting. Three versions of the Ka-137 were made — one ship-based, one automobile-based, and another carried by the Ka-32 helicopter. The aircraft uses a piston engine, driving a coaxial-rotor system and features a tailless, sphere-shaped fuselage with four-leg leaf-spring landing gear. Sensors and other equipment are located in a special equipment compartment.

Specifications[edit]

General characteristics

  • Crew: 1 ground operator
  • Capacity: 80 kg (176 lb) internal cargo
  • Diameter: 1.30 m (4 ft 3 in)
  • Height: 2.30 m (7 ft 7 in)
  • Gross weight: 280 kg (620 lb)
  • Powerplant: 1 × Hirth 2706-R05 , 50 kW (65 hp)
  • Main rotor diameter: 5.30 m (17 ft 5 in)
  • Main rotor area: 8.3 m2 (90 sq ft)
Performance

  • Maximum speed: 175 km/h (110 mph, 96 kn)
  • Range: 530 km (330 mi, 290 nmi)
  • Endurance: 4 hours
  • Service ceiling: 5,000 m (16,400 ft)
Click to expand...



Kamov_Ka-137.jpg




pipelac.jpg




So far the only YT videos I've found are from games. E.g.

 
Last edited:
Z.W. Wolf said:
Whatever this is, it's motion is not due to parallax effects. In the opening seconds the U.S. reconnaissance UAV is clearly not orbiting,
Click to expand...
Since this was a Reaper drone, it must have been moving at some speed, presumably the minimum speed available for the conditions. The Reaper is described as having a cruising speed of 150kph, or 93mph; we have to adjust for windspeed, but it was almost certainly moving with respect to the sphere. In which case, we can't dismiss parallax effects.
 
Why do you think the U.S. vehicle is a Reaper?

BTW, the General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (sometimes called Predator B) is an unmanned aerial vehicle - UAV

https://www.missiongo.io/unmanned-aerial-vehicles-uav-unmanned-aerial-systems-uas-and-autonomous-drones-whats-the-difference/#:~:text=While using the words drone,intervention—while UAVs do not.
In the media, the term "drone" has become a catch-all word to encompass a whole host of new vehicles. While the word drone serves its purpose in casual conversation and pop culture, for more targeted conversations, it presents an issue: it is too broad.


UAV stands for any Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. UAVs are piloted remotely without requiring a human to be on board the aircraft to fly. Autonomous Drones, however, are a type of UAV, but are not piloted remotely by a human. Instead, Autonomous Drones are flown via an onboard autopilot, computer, and sensor suite.. Autonomous Drones essentially operate without human intervention—including takeoff, flight, and landing.

While using the words drone and UAV synonymously is common, there is a distinct difference: drones must have autonomous flight capabilities—meaning they can operate without any human intervention—while UAVs do not.


UAS


UAS stands for Unmanned Aircraft (or Aerial) System. The term UAS encompasses not only the UAV, but also the person or team on the ground controlling the flight, as well as the system that connects the two (GPS, ground control, transmissions systems, cameras, software, etc). Whereas an UAV represents the specific vehicle, an UAS encompasses everything necessary for the UAV to run smoothly. An UAS is complex and incorporates many moving parts that make the advancement and function of UAVs possible.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Interestingly, @26 seconds into the clip (from post #100) it seems the scene perspective looks almost stationary.

I doubt it now.
 
Last edited:
Z.W. Wolf said:
Whatever this is, its motion cannot be solely due to parallax effects. In the opening seconds, the U.S. reconnaissance UAV is clearly not orbiting, yet the UAP flies through the frame. After the UAP passes through the frame the U.S. UAV seems to be pacing it. There's an indicator marked N for north which does not change indicating that the course is a straight line. I'm still working out in my mind whether or not this could possibly be solely due to the camera panning. I don't think so. I think the U.S. UAV is truly pacing the UAP.
Click to expand...
That makes no sense. The camera is mounted on an MQ-9 Reaper, according to the Pentagon. It's probably going over 100mph. Most of the motion we see is likely from parallax (other than wind motion).

The motion of the sphere relative to the ground seems constant, because it's a reflection of the motion of the drone. The tracking confuses people because the camera is tracking the ground by rotating to counteract the motion of the drone. This gives the illusion that the camera is not moving when it's actually going 100+ MPH.

And it's not "pacing" the sphere when the camera follow it, the camera is just rotating to follow the sphere's apparent motion.
 
I do see what you're saying though.

In your scenario, the U.S. recon vehicle is flying a straight course at high altitude and distant from the scene on the ground. In the first few seconds of the video, the camera on the U.S. Vehicle is panning to keep the distant scene on the ground steadily in frame. The great distance hides the fact that the vehicle itself is moving relative to the scene on the ground.

In other words there are no noticeable parallax effects during the short scene. Eventfully there would have to be. No matter which way the camera was facing relative to the body of the vehicle; or whether the vehicle is orbiting or flying a straight course.

The UAP is at an altitude between the U.S. vehicle and the ground, so that the UAP moves into the frame due to the forward movement of the U.S. vehicle.

If the U.S. vehicle is fixed wing, my scenario couldn't work, but what if it were a multi-rotor UAV? Do we know?



What I was saying - though admittedly not clearly - is that I don't see any parallax effects in the opening scene.

For instance in this video, the fixed wing Reaper UAV is clearly orbiting. You can easily see parallax effects even in just a few seconds.


I'm still trying to work out in my mind whether panning the camera could cause the effect in this new UAP video or not; and which way the camera would be initially facing relative to the body of the vehicle, and which way it was panning.

If the camera were facing any way but straight ahead relative to the body of the vehicle, would we see parallax effects in the opening scene, even though the scene is brief?

Question: Does the red arrow and the N indicate the course of the vehicle or the direction the camera is looking?

It still remains that the UAS operator immediately started tracking the UAP, which means the human operator must have decided it was important.
 
Last edited:
The footage was shot on July 12, 2022 from an American MQ-9 Reaper drone; this information seems to have come straight from Sean Kirkpatrick.
 
That's the Mosul Sphere. This is not the Mosul Sphere video.

Edit: My mistake. You're right.
 
Last edited:
The hearing of the Senate subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities took place on April 19, 2023. In the video linked to below, two different findings were presented: one so far unexplained, the other they actually resolved and it was a regular plane. I thought this was worth posting because the unresolved object looks like the "Mosul sphere" and I believe is in the same general geographical region. In the Mosul sphere thread it was expressed that determining the object was more difficult because it was a still instead of a video so hopefully this will aid the investigation. I'm wondering if there is something on the lens of the camera itself but I don't know enough about the recording methodology (explained in the video) to know if this is plausible.

One difference I did notice between this video and the stills of the Mosul sphere are that in this reflection of the sun seems to be on the correct side of the object (judging from the shadows from the objects on the ground) where as it was on the opposite side on the Mosul sphere.

The entire video is here (to provide context, the object appears 26 seconds in). The first appearance of the object is here. The demonstration and explanation of the event they resolved starts around here and the video of the plane starts here.

And just to cause an image to appear here to see the object (sorry, new user, first post, apologies if there is a more appropriate way to do this):

Source: https://youtu.be/j6qTR_Lxe1Q
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay. That was just added to the OP...


So,

-what was the initial position of the camera relative to the body of the Reaper UAV?
-was the Reaper flying on a straight course or orbiting?
-which way was the camera panning?
-does the red arrow and the N indicate the course of the vehicle or the direction the camera was looking? (Or something entirely different?)
-does any scenario prove that the UAP was not self-powered?

So far,

-I don't see how this could be a side view
-I don't see how the UAV could be doing anything other than flying a straight course. There's no parallax effect that would indicate that the UAV was orbiting.
-it seems to me that the camera would have to be panning vertically.

What bothers me is:

-the first few seconds show no parallax effects, which implies that it's a distant scene. In other words, the ground speed of the UAV is not noticeable due to the distance of the scene and the resulting perspective distortion.
-but when the camera starts panning the ground seems to be moving very fast through the frame, which would seem to indicate that the ground scene is not so distant on the horizontal plane.
-this could make sense if the UAV were orbiting at high speed, but it's not orbiting.

I hope I'm expressing myself clearly here. It just doesn't look to me that the perceived ground speed of the UAP could be solely due to parallax effects in this case. It doesn't feel right.

To me it looks as if:
-the first ground scene of the people walking about is distant
-the UAV was flying straight and level at a high altitude
-the camera was looking straight ahead and tilted down somewhat vertically
-the camera started panning vertically to follow the UAP
-because the ground scene was initially distant, the camera would have to be panning quickly to cause the effect of the ground passing quickly through the frame.
-the camera would have to be panning quickly to change the angle of view of the the ground objects
-the UAP had a significant ground speed

But this is tricky stuff to visualize. I'm still working it out. Maybe the initial scene was not so distant. Is there any way to tell definitively? There's no instrument readings on the video? Is this a cropped frame?
 
Last edited:
Perhaps an idea to stabilize/centre the video on the object? I am not capable myself, but it is an suggestion...
 
Z.W. Wolf said:
-the first few seconds show no parallax effects, which implies that it's a distant scene.
Click to expand...
I thought that at first, but I think they are there, but just quite subtle. I'd guess that the Reaper is flying at a few thousand feet, and parallax effects would be quite difficult to see at that distance.

If the balloon is more than half as high as the drone, then the parallax-induced movement of the balloon would be quite significant. At a first guess, the drone is flying towards the top of the picture, and tracking the balloon as it passes underneath it (so that the camera has to look downwards at an increasingly steep angle). The ground is much further away than the balloon, so appears to be moving quite fast (but of course that is also motionless.
 
Eburacum said:
If the balloon is more than half as high as the drone, then the parallax-induced movement of the balloon would be quite significant. At a first guess, the drone is flying towards the top of the picture, and tracking the balloon as it passes underneath it (so that the camera has to look downwards at an increasingly steep angle). The ground is much further away than the balloon, so appears to be moving quite fast (but of course that is also motionless.
Click to expand...
Yes, I quite understand that. When I was young and naïve, I argued that point with Flat Earthers when they were talking about a close Sun. I can see how this would work if the UAP were very close to the camera. The UAV isn't flying that fast. Given that this is a powerful telescopic lens... what would that say about the size of the UAP?

I would like to see definitive info on altitude, distance, ground speed., flight path, camera angle. Why isn't that presented? Or was it? Is there more info available?
 
Last edited:
Ravi said:
Perhaps an idea to stabilize/centre the video on the object? I am not capable myself, but it is an suggestion...
Click to expand...



The object is off-screen (or behind redactions) for portions, so it's not entirely accurate. There does seem to be an apparent change in direction toward more vertical at 15 seconds in. It's quite abrupt, interesting.
 
The only other interesting data we have is that the Pentagon does not consider that this sphere exhibited any anomalous movements. That suggests that their analysis either shows that it is not moving in any significant way, or that it is moving in a way that is consistent with human technology.
 
Mick West said:
There does seem to be an apparent change in direction toward more vertical at 15 seconds in. It's quite abrupt, interesting.
Click to expand...
Upon actual analysis, the "abrupt" change in direction was illusory, the apparent motion changes constantly through the clip, here I sampled a few manually, from red to magenta
2023-04-22_14-37-13.jpg


That seems consistent with an MQ-9 reaper circling, hence change in parallax.

It changes about 36° over 18 seconds, which, simplistically, would correlate with a 180 seconds full circle, 3 minutes.
 
Mick West said:
It changes about 36° over 18 seconds, which, simplistically, would correlate with a 180 seconds full circle, 3 minutes.
Click to expand...
Asked GPT4 about this:
External Quote:

Would 3 minutes per turn be reasonable?

A 3-minute orbit (turn) for an MQ-9 Reaper during a surveillance mission seems reasonable, especially if it's flying at a lower airspeed and maintaining a tighter turn radius to keep a specific target or area in sight.
For example, if the MQ-9 Reaper is flying at a conservative speed of 150 mph (241 km/h) and maintains a circular orbit, it would cover a distance of about 7.5 miles (12.07 km) in 3 minutes. Using basic geometry, we can calculate the radius of the orbit:
Circumference = 2 * pi * radius 7.5 miles = 2 * pi * radius radius ≈ 1.19 miles (1.92 km)
This means the MQ-9 would be flying in a circular orbit with a radius of about 1.19 miles (1.92 km) to complete a full turn in 3 minutes. This is a reasonable orbit size for a surveillance mission, allowing the UAV to maintain constant visual or sensor contact with the area of interest.
 
Mick West said:
Upon actual analysis, the "abrupt" change in direction was illusory, the apparent motion changes constantly through the clip, here I sampled a few manually, from red to magenta
View attachment 58736

That seems consistent with an MQ-9 reaper circling, hence change in parallax.

It changes about 36° over 18 seconds, which, simplistically, would correlate with a 180 seconds full circle, 3 minutes.
Click to expand...
I'm lost.

Could you define what you're measuring here? Are you measuring the apparent direction of travel of the UAP across multiple frames?
 
Last edited:
New to this forum so please go easy! 1.19 mile radius seems extremely low for these drones, which I assume are supposed to be clandestine, I would assume they circle well beyond this. Also if it's circling, at a set distance, how would this affect any [parallax] effect? Wouldn't there be a greater effect horizontally, not the vertical motion seen unless it was approaching directly?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Z.W. Wolf said:
Could you define what you're measuring here? Are you measuring the apparent direction of travel of the UAP across multiple frames?
Click to expand...
each line is the direction of the motion of the background relative to the sphere at various points in the video. The red one is the earliest, when it seems more diagonal, and the magenta one is the last, where it seems more vertical.
 
Mick West said:
This means the MQ-9 would be flying in a circular orbit with a radius of about 1.19 miles (1.92 km) to complete a full turn in 3 minutes. This is a reasonable orbit size for a surveillance mission, allowing the UAV to maintain constant visual or sensor contact with the area of interest.
Click to expand...
deirdre said:
is this true?
Click to expand...
Well, the math is correct, I don't know what a drone would normally do.

Martinicus1 said:
1.19 mile radius seems extremely low for these drones, which I assume are supposed to be clandestine, I would assume they circle well beyond this.
Click to expand...
Radius is the horizontal distance from the center of the circle. It could be much higher in altitude, like 4+ miles up.

Martinicus1 said:
Also if it's circling, at a set distance, how would this affect any [parallax] effect? Wouldn't there be a greater effect horizontally, not the vertical motion seen unless it was approaching directly?
Click to expand...
The apparent direction of the object would rotate 360° over the time it takes the drone to make a full 360° turn (seemingly 3 minutes here)
 
Mick West said:
I don't know what a drone would normally do.
Click to expand...
but physically..that size plane is capable of that kind of turn radius? i spent like 15 minutes trying to look it up but didnt have any luck, figured you might already know. i saw there is a manual and that some remote pilots push the turn radius more than the manual recommends but i couldnt find the manual.
 
I'm not seeing anything in the video that would rule out it travelling in the opposite direction of what it appears. Am I wrong here?
 
deirdre said:
but physically..that size plane is capable of that kind of turn radius? i spent like 15 minutes trying to look it up but didnt have any luck, figured you might already know. i saw there is a manual and that some remote pilots push the turn radius more than the manual recommends but i couldnt find the manual.
Click to expand...
A standard rate turn is 3°/second, or 2 minutes per turn (i.e. 2 minutes to do 360°). A 3-minute turn is slower and has a bigger radius. It's a very leisurely turn.
 
Suzuka said:
I'm not seeing anything in the video that would rule out it travelling in the opposite direction of what it appears. Am I wrong here?
Click to expand...
If it's not traveling fast, then it could be traveling in any direction.

In theory you could determine its groundspeed (assuming it's in a constant direction) from the changes in the apparent ground speed at different angles. I doubly there's enough resolution for that.
 
This is great stuff. Now what I'm wondering is, given how fast you all were able to come up with a very likely explanation, why did the group investigating this not have an explanation? I mean, it could be that they got this far but wouldn't call it conclusive but I would find that pretty misleading to not mention what it almost certainly is. I also think they are resolving some things because if you look at the presentation video they did solve one that initially looked pretty confusion. Perhaps more so than this one.

Would it be worth forwarding this thread to Dr. Kirkpatrick? I believe this is probably his LinkedIn account.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

John J.
Could the Middle East Spheres be a form of spoofing?
Replies
8
Views
3K
Bernd Lauert
B
I
AARO: Mission, process, and data statistics/patterns
Replies
22
Views
4K
JMartJr
JMartJr
John J.
Is "Improved Instrumental Techniques...", Nolan, Vallee, Jiang, Lemke 2022 a useful paper?
2
Replies
45
Views
8K
Z.W. Wolf
Z.W. Wolf

Latest posts

Back
Top