# Mosul "Sphere"

Hmm, not entirely correct. There can never be a real image when "the observer is between the lens and the focal point". Hence, an image as observed through a lens is always inverted.
I take it you have never used a magnifying glass?
an old video I made to disprove a FE idea, but it shows the inversion (or not) depends on the distance

Source: https://youtu.be/hgBchCd0EOo

[/article]

I take it you have never used a magnifying glass?
an old video I made to disprove a FE idea, but it shows the inversion (or not) depends on the distance

Source: https://youtu.be/hgBchCd0EOo

[/article]

Thanks for the demo.
I fondly remember evenings when we lived in a house where there was a full-length window beside the floor, equipped with venetian blinds. The cord passed through the series of holes, forming a long column of pinhole cameras, and every evening we could look at the opposite wall and see a stack of multiple images of the sun setting behind the mountain, upside-down.

I take it you have never used a magnifying glass?

You're right that inversion or not in that context does depend on distance, [edit: so yes, your correction was correct], but that doesn't mean you're creating a real image with the lens. If you're looking at the image formed by the lens, and the image is on the same side of the lens as the object itself, then it's a virtual image. It's only when you're projecting the image onto a screen that you're getting a real image. It might be that the real/virtual distinction has non-cognate nomenclature in German, "real"'s a bit of an overloaded term.

You're right that inversion or not in that context does depend on distance, but that doesn't mean you're creating a real image with the lens. If you're looking at the image formed by the lens, and the image is on the same side of the lens as the object itself, then it's a virtual image. It's only when you're projecting the image onto a screen that you're getting a real image. It might be that the real/virtual distinction has non-cognate nomenclature in German, "real"'s a bit of an overloaded term.
yes, but we're not talking about projected images in that context. (The final projection is done by the eye or the camera lens, not the water drop.)

yes, but we're not talking about projected images in that context. (The final projection is done by the eye or the camera lens, not the water drop.)

If "we're not talking about projected images", then "There can never be a real image". I'm only focussing on the "real" bit here - that part of the prior statement was correct. Adding new lenses changes the system, so obviously changes what is possible.

If "we're not talking about projected images", then "There can never be a real image". I'm only focussing on the "real" bit here - that part of the prior statement was correct. Adding new lenses changes the system, so obviously changes what is possible.
Mendel is right. If you place another lens (your eye) in between the other lens and its focal point, you get a upright image. I guess i was ignoring that as the droplets have such a small focal length. So i removed/striped my former comment..

Mendel is right. If you place another lens (your eye) in between the other lens and its focal point, you get a upright image
You perceive it that way, yes, but it's not true from an optics standpoint. The real image projected onto your retina is always upside down, and once we've aged enough weeks we learn to perceive that as the right way up.

You perceive it that way, yes, but it's not true from an optics standpoint. The real image projected onto your retina is always upside down, and once we've aged enough weeks we learn to perceive that as the right way up.
Yep. And then you insert another lens (or a water drop) in the optical path, and it may become right-side-up (perceived as inverted).

Wait a minute... Why would this be a video at all? Wouldn't it be a mosaic of individual still images? Did someone take a video of a display?

Corbell says its part of a video. Which begs the question...howcome this legendary film maker can't just create a gif file of it. Why are we being given a single frame. Does the rest of the 'video' debunk his UFO claims.

So, it can't be a puddle with a reflection? As you noted it sure looks like there was water that ran across the sidewalk and then down the gutter:

And it seems like the sidewalk/gutter line runs through the edge of the blob:

I'm thinking it looks like the edge of the blob goes from dry light-colored asphalt, to darker at the edge where the road is still wet and then the darker part that is actual standing water:

Am I mistaken that the sun is coming from this direction looking at the shadows?

Could there be a low spot on in the street where just enough water collected to create a dark spot or blob and then reflect the sun? And the reflection would appear to move across the surface of the puddle as the plane flew by, assuming it moves in the video or there is an actual video.

Or would the sun angle make the reflection in a different direction and therefore not able to be seen even if it was a puddle?
That was my thinking as well. Shape and reflection is consistent with an evaporating puddle. Here's a rough diagram I quickly sketched for horizontal and vertical lines as well as where the shadows suggest the lighting is coming from.

#### Attachments

• light direction.jpg
336.5 KB · Views: 124
That was my thinking as well. Shape and reflection is consistent with an evaporating puddle. Here's a rough diagram I quickly sketched for horizontal and vertical lines as well as where the shadows suggest the lighting is coming from.
I don't agree with the light direction in your diagram/image.. I think it is much more horizontal.. Look at this shadow, impossible to create if the sun was on the top end of the frame. You can only get this specular sun glare (in your puddle) if the sun is almost vertical in frame, which I don't think it is.

Shape and reflection is consistent with an evaporating puddle.
A puddle is always going to be a plane surface. The highlight appears to be one you'd get on a spherical surface. You'd get a burn-out glare on a puddle only if it's a direct reflection of the sun itself, but the shadows clearly show the sun direction at an angle to make that impossible.

I don't know what's causing the artifact in this drone footage. I've just started to ananlyze under what conditions it appears and changes appearance.

Single frame from video.

Last edited:
I don't know what's causing the artifact in this drone footage. I've just started to ananlyze under what conditions it appears and changes appearance.
To me that looks like a reflection on the screen that is being recorded. The light source seems to be behind the person filming, perhaps a window that is at times obscured by someone else in the room. I don't think it is an artefact on the original video.

Last edited:
So you think this comes from a video camera pointed at a video screen? In this scenario the artifact is a reflection of a light source inside the room that is intermittently blocked by an object inside the room,

The light source may even be on the camera itself. So what's blocking it sometimes? Maybe a finger of the guy holding the camera?

So you think this comes from a video camera pointed at a video screen?
Yes.
In this scenario the artifact is a reflection of a light source inside the room that is intermittently blocked by an object inside the room
The light source may even be on the camera itself. So what's blocking it sometimes? Maybe a finger of the guy holding the camera?
Could be a finger over a light. But I still stand by my first suggestion that it is a window behind the camera which is being obscured by someone else walking around the room.

To me that looks like a reflection on the screen that is being recorded. The light source seems to be behind the person filming, perhaps a window that is at times obscured by someone else in the room. I don't think it is an artefact on the original video.
I guess the next question may be: can something similar have happened with the Mosul sphere?

I guess the next question may be: can something similar have happened with the Mosul sphere?
Its always a possibility. We only have a still of the 'orb', but apparently the 'orb' moves across the FoV in the original video which would suggest that it was a real object. Also, the still we have looks to me like a screen grab rather than a photo of an LCD screen.

I guess the next question may be: can something similar have happened with the Mosul sphere?
The difference is that the blob seen in the Mosul "sphere" still cannot be a ligt reflection as it is a dark gray blob.

Hello all. First post on here so please bear with me. My background is in architecture and design. I've been working with 3D computer modelling and renderings for gettng on for over 30 years and also work backwards analysing photography for surveys and using photomatching to recreate 3d objects and buildings.

I've read through the thread and used the info available to do a quick-and-dirty model of the location using SketchUp and then feed that back into PhotoShop.

1º FOV (approx)
Location 36.32755 43.18434
Earlier aerial photography from 2018 and current.
Drone position, altitude and distance from location
Time and date

Imported geolocation into Sketchup and set up time and date. The current imagery shows the extended building. Modelled a couple of buildings kerb lines and a light pole to sense check scale and sun position by shadows.

Set up a camera using a triangle drawn in 3D using the drone position with 1º FOV. Created a sphere approx 1m dia and placed it along the camera site line. Adjusted position until it looked about right. This was about 1.5km away and 1.5km altitude.

Sketchup doesn't support good metallic textures but the position of the highlight was a good match for the highlight in the image.

There's an issue with the 'object' looking non-spherical and my hypothesis is that the 'object' could be composed of a balloon at high level passing over irregular textures on the ground.

The building has been extended and redeveloped and it's possible that the marks in front of it are mud or debris that you would expect at a site entrance as vehicles go in and out.

I've used photoshop to remove the object and show what could be on the ground. In the untouched image the area to the top right of the object is very similar in texture and colour to the area at the 'site entrance'. Original image, 'Orb' removed and enhanced orb attached.

Without more information this is just a hypothesis. A frame either side would be useful.

I'm away for a week but will do higher res versions of this when I get back.

#### Attachments

• Untitled 2.png
493.2 KB · Views: 80
• Untitled 3.png
1,008.3 KB · Views: 82
• Untitled 4.png
229.9 KB · Views: 89
• Mosule Orb 1 Enhanced orb.png
2.7 MB · Views: 87
• Mosule Orb 1 no orb.png
2.7 MB · Views: 82
• Mosule Orb 1.png
2.7 MB · Views: 81
Last edited:
That was my thinking as well. Shape and reflection is consistent with an evaporating puddle. Here's a rough diagram I quickly sketched for horizontal and vertical lines as well as where the shadows suggest the lighting is coming from.
The highlight is consistent with a reflection on the surface of a convex or spherical object from a source high and to the right of the image. if it was a puddle, and therefore a flat reflective surface, the sun would have to be opposite the viewer/camera and the shadows would be coming towards the camera/viewpoint. Sketchup model attached based on Google geolocation imagery and shadows modelled using date and time.

As a general point, the Sun casts parallel shadows as it's effectively an infinitely distant light source.

#### Attachments

2.7 MB · Views: 85
121.5 KB · Views: 81
Last edited:
Welcome to Metabunk!
Sketchup model attached based on Google geolocation imagery and shadows modelled using date and time.
Very thorough, and very convincing.
If it's not too much trouble, could you please add the wall marked in red to your model?

Last edited:
I've used photoshop to remove the object and show what could be on the ground. In the untouched image the area to the top right of the object is very similar in texture and colour to the area at the 'site entrance'. Original image, 'Orb' removed and enhanced orb attached.
Comparison sliders of these images:

To insert an attached image into a post, click "Insert..." on the attachment and choose "Full image". To create a comparison slider, insert two attached images next to each other, then write `[compare]` before and `[/compare]` after the two inserted images.

Welcome to Metabunk!

Very thorough, and very convincing.
If it's not too much trouble, could you please add the wall marked in red to your model?
Thanks for the comments. I'm away for a few days but plan to model up the buildings more accurately when I get back.

Thanks for the comments. I'm away for a few days but plan to model up the buildings more accurately when I get back.
Nice!
I don't have any issue with the accuracy of your model as-is, I think "less is more" often applies, and it works well for the purpose.

I simply thought that wall was interesting because it shows a shadow slope directly. It's a more immediate way of showing you matched the sun position (which is obviously already pinned down by time/date and place).

Watching a BBC documentary about ancient Iraq, I noticed this chap selling a festive balloon in the (modern) streets. Notably, the balloon is large and almost completely spherical.

If this is a common type of balloon in that location, maybe the Mosul 'orbs' really are nothing more than local novelty balloons repurposed for military or distraction purposes.

How confident are folks that these are "metallic," and not, for example, dark but shiny so you get a highlight? Pic of polished black basalt sphere for illustrative purposes:

I am not suggesting basalt spheres are hovering in the air, or even that the objects are necessarily black -- I am questioning wheter "metallic" as a description is possibly an illusion caused by a smooth dark object.

Is "mylaric" a word?

Are there any examples of using balloons to distract anyone in ukraine? I feel like the idea that people just let loose balloons to distract people if it were a tactic in military we'd see all over a war where drone attacks are so common.

Would be a great way to hide/freak out the opponent if you filled the sky with balloons, but I've never seen that used as a tactic outside of pictures or suggestions ITT(and the other)

Are there any examples of using balloons to distract anyone in ukraine? I feel like the idea that people just let loose balloons to distract people if it were a tactic in military we'd see all over a war where drone attacks are so common.

Would be a great way to hide/freak out the opponent if you filled the sky with balloons, but I've never seen that used as a tactic outside of pictures or suggestions ITT(and the other)
If it were a wide-spread tactic, we would have more videos, and the drone operators would know it by now...

I feel like the idea that people just let loose balloons to distract people if it were a tactic in military we'd see all over

I don't think people here are saying it's a useful tactic.
But maybe some "activists" in the Mosul area think it is, or at least might be.

From the "Middle East 2022 MQ-9 Observed Apparent Spherical UAP (via AARO)" thread:
It wouldnt be a new tactic

Nov 2016

I don't think people here are saying it's a useful tactic.
But maybe some "activists" in the Mosul area think it is, or at least might be.
If you are desperate, you'll try whatever you can with whatever materials are at hand, I'd think.

Are there any examples of using balloons to distract anyone in ukraine? I feel like the idea that people just let loose balloons to distract people if it were a tactic in military we'd see all over a war where drone attacks are so common.

Would be a great way to hide/freak out the opponent if you filled the sky with balloons, but I've never seen that used as a tactic outside of pictures or suggestions ITT(and the other)

As per post #16 on this thread, it's a thing.

As per post #16 on this thread, it's a thing.

And yet even stranger things are true as regards ISIS.

Article:
The Kurdish Peshmerga forces battling against the ISIS in northern Iraq caught a rather unusual sight of a bunch of helium filled balloons featuring children's favourite animated character Dora the explorer.

After shooting a bunch of these balloons down, they discovered that the ISIS militants were using the balloons as a spying too
l

As per post #16 on this thread, it's a thing.

Why is it not a thing I see in practice? With the coverage in ukraine, I think we'd have multiple examples this. I find the concept that it's a thing that is actually used during wartime dubious.

Why is it not a thing I see in practice? With the coverage in ukraine, I think we'd have multiple examples this. I find the concept that it's a thing that is actually used during wartime dubious.

The picture wasn't from Ukraine.

Why is it not a thing I see in practice? With the coverage in ukraine, I think we'd have multiple examples this.
Because the Russians and Ukranians can afford to use (and have access to) drones.

Replies
47
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
45
Views
6K
Replies
48
Views
7K
Replies
26
Views
3K