New AARO video "UAP Video - Middle East Red Balloon 2024"

[jarlrmai]

https://www.aaro.mil/UAP-Cases/Official-UAP-Imagery/

Very clearly most likely a balloon with parallax.

The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office received a report from a U.S. military Service consisting of one minute and thirty-six seconds of full-motion video footage captured by a camera aboard a U.S. military platform in the Middle East in 2024. According to the reporting Service, the recording likely depicts a slow-moving spheroidal object.

AARO assesses, with high confidence, that the object depicted in the video is almost certainly (≥95% likelihood) a consumer-grade reflective foil balloon. AARO bases its assessment on the object's strong morphological consistency with other resolved imagery depicting balloons and its behavioral correlation with recorded wind speed and direction during the event.

They fail to mention the parallax effect, which is the most probably cause of the apparent high speed.

Again all the HUD data which would likely demonstrate this, in a similar way to Go Fast, is redacted. At this point the AARO public releases are actively making things worse.

They say it's a balloon, they don't say how they figured it out, they don't show working, it's very easy to say "Look at how fast it is going and they are trying to make us think it's a balloon, jokers"

Reddit thread


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1l288kz/new_us_platform_films_a_ufo_in_the_middle_east/

 

[Bob Jase]

Only 98 more to go.

 

[jarlrmai]

A really good reference source for the apparent fast motion by parallax effect

https://public.earthscape.com/videos/16309

 

[JMartJr]

It is interesting that the comments are full of "It's exactly the same as the metapod UFO!!!" comments. And there s a section where it's somewhat similar:
.

(Reference Metapod UFO, for those not familiar with it. Thread about it here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/metapod-ufo-top-voted-post-of-the-month-on-r-ufos-maybe-top-of-all-time.12375)

In another bit it look pretty much like your standard round helium balloon, complete with potentially a string:

(It's near the right end of the upper edge there)


But in this shot, which MAY be the most revealing of what is actually there:

it shows some protrusions and bits that might make it possible to identify the balloon, if those are real and not artifacts of some kind.

(I keep seeing some sort of Pokemon there, but I think I'm just pareidolia-ing, perhaps set up by the mention of Metapod, who is also a Pokemon...)

Here are some pink Pokemon..none are a great match, but there are so many Pokemon now, it would take some time to rule it out. Anybody know a Pokemon-knowing kid?

Fascinating, though, how totally different it looks as the angle and presumably the focus quality changes. Almost suggestive of how AI often struggles to keep a shape consistent in video. I don't think that's what's happening, but I could be wrong...

 

[jarlrmai]

As we've discovered in a few prior cases, there are an almost infinite variety of balloons available.

 

[FatPhil]

AARO bases its assessment on the object's strong morphological consistency with other resolved imagery depicting balloons

Was "it looks like a balloon" too complex a phrase for them?

 

[jarlrmai]

Was "it looks like a balloon" too complex a phrase for them?

Military speak is only rarely known for its brevity.

 

[Mendel]

Was "it looks like a balloon" too complex a phrase for them?

dunno, i feel " is almost certainly (≥95% likelihood) a consumer-grade reflective foil balloon" is close enough

 

[Ann K]

But in this shot, which MAY be the most revealing of what is actually there:

Six "legs", so I think I can stop looking under "pink pig balloons" now!

 

[JMartJr]

Hmmm?

 

[Giddierone]

Looking forward to more retro AARO releases.

 

[Mick West]

And with @JMartJr's close match

 

[jarlrmai]

Yeah the landing gear seems to match

 

[Mick West]

There's very little information in the video. We see the N compass heading, which shows the drone is circling (but not consistently, they speed up more, possibly to try to stay closer)

We see crosshairs in the middle, and the zoom indicators (the four corners).

These show the region of the screen that will be visible the next time they zoom in, and this is an exact 2x digital zoom.

At this point, there are no more zoom indicators, which suggests it's at the maximum zoom level for the EO (visible light) camera.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

Yeah the landing gear seems to match

The tail doesn't match, it's missing the blue part at the top.

 

[Mick West]

The tail doesn't match, it's missing the blue part at the top.

You don't really need the exact match (although it would be nice). It's just showing that there are similar shapes in balloons. There are tens of thousands of different balloons.

 

[JMartJr]

The tail doesn't match, it's missing the blue part at the top.

It seems to show up better in some moments than others, and maybe not to be blue. But the balloon has a "bifurcated" back end, as can be seen in the UFO at some times. I'd not be shocked to learn that the colors have been changed over time or in different factories, and that there is a version with a pink tail. Haven't found an example, though.

 

[Mick West]

Red-tailed variant. Turkish airlines, found by searching for بالون الطائرة الأحمر

 

[JMartJr]

Found a picture that is more from the "front" of the plane-balloon.
(https://www.dhgate.com/product/32-q...plane/404241055.html?skuId=364871219543441408)
Or this blue one from WalMart:

I note that if I google "airplane balloon pink," this shape/style shows up more than any other. It does not seem to be a rare balloon...

 

[Sourcut]

Looks like a fish to me, maybe a dolphin.

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

A really good reference source for the apparent fast motion by parallax effect

https://public.earthscape.com/videos/16309

This is a good example. Bookmarking this. If it was a much farther away or the video was blurrier you could pretend the balloon was shapeshifting rather than tumbling in the wind.

I'm trying to learn how to do some basic video editing and here's my first attempt stabilizing a video. With the FOV changes and it going in and out of frame, and the black boxes getting in the way, the auto-track modes in Davinci Resolve didn't work very well so I tried to do it all manual. It's pretty time consuming even for a short video so I'll need to look into other methods. Both the original and this look like it's just going in a line and the camera is the thing moving around.

 

[jarlrmai]

Looks like a fish to me, maybe a dolphin.
View attachment 80948

Pedantic but dolphins are mammals

 

[tfelix]

View attachment 80942
Found a picture that is more from the "front" of the plane-balloon.
(https://www.dhgate.com/product/32-q...plane/404241055.html?skuId=364871219543441408)
Or this blue one from WalMart:

It looks heavly like this. Even its roation would match such an baloon in the air...

 

[Starflint]

Hmmm?

View attachment 80932

View attachment 80931

 

[Ann K]

@Starflint
Nice picture ...but the caption fails to note that it's neither a horse nor a dolphin.

 

[JMartJr]

It looks heavly like this. Even its roation would match such an baloon in the air...

Note also the dark "spot" where the dark engine inlet is printed on the balloon.

I admit to some bias as it would be fun to have found the answer -- but I really think this is the answer!

 

[fizzBuzz]

Hmmm?

View attachment 80932

View attachment 80931

Some of you should win actual awards for this stuff. Good job!

 

[fizzBuzz]

I found an Amazon listing that shows the size at 32in/82cm long, fwiw.
https://www.amazon.ae/TUEPULL-Airplane-Ballons-Birthday-Aircraft/dp/B07H2D7BM3

 

[yoshy]

Was "it looks like a balloon" too complex a phrase for them?

AARO: "ChatGPT, please rewrite the phrase 'it looks like a balloon' to make me sound smart."

(I actually tried this, and it actually included a reference to morphology lmao)

Me: please rewrite the phrase 'it looks like a balloon' to make me sound smart using sciencey or mathy terms

Sure! Here are several "sciencey" or "mathy" ways to say "it looks like a balloon" to make you sound more intellectual or technical:

1. "It approximates a spheroidal geometry, similar to that of an inflated membrane."
2. "The object exhibits a topology consistent with a pressurized elastic shell."
3. "Its morphology resembles that of a prolate spheroid, akin to a balloon."
4. "It assumes a volumetric form governed by isotropic internal pressure, typical of balloon-like structures."
5. "Its surface curvature and symmetry are characteristic of a thin-walled, gas-filled envelope."
6. "It resembles a structure resulting from uniform radial expansion under constrained tension."

Want it to sound more like a physicist, engineer, or biologist? I can adjust the style accordingly.

Me: Do one like a physicist and one like an engineer

Absolutely! Here's how you might say "it looks like a balloon" from the perspective of a physicist and an engineer:

"The object exhibits spherical symmetry consistent with isotropic expansion under uniform internal pressure, characteristic of an ideal gas-filled membrane."

"Its geometry resembles that of a thin-walled pressure vessel undergoing uniform inflation, similar to a latex membrane under low-stress conditions."

Let me know if you'd like versions from other fields too (e.g., mathematician, biologist, architect).

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

New AARO post saying this red balloon video is typical of many UAP reports they receive, and over half of those reports are balloons.

Over half of AARO's closed cases resolve to various types of balloons. This recording, which almost certainly depicts a balloon, is typical of many UAP reports to AARO:
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/964843/middle-east-red-balloon-2024

Though it does not show a true UAP, this now-declassified video was originally classified to protect U.S. capabilities.

See the latest trends in UAP reporting to AARO and case resolution outcomes here: https://www.aaro.mil/UAP-Cases/UAP-Reporting-Trends/

Source: https://x.com/DoD_AARO/status/1930986227404079146


I'm reading "true UAP" here to mean the opposite of "not true UAP", which is something that was filed and treated as a UAP, until it wasn't. Is there a third category of "maybe true UAP", or "uncategorized thing in the sky"? Or is anything that is unknown but may in the future be re-categorized as a "not true UAP", categorized in the present as a "true UAP"?

 

[JMartJr]

I'm reading "true UAP" here to mean the opposite of "not true UAP", which is something that was filed and treated as a UAP, until it wasn't. Is there a third category of "maybe true UAP", or "uncategorized thing in the sky"? Or is anything that is unknown but may in the future be re-categorized as a "not true UAP", categorized in the present as a "true UAP"?

It sure feels like, even at that level, the meaning of "UAP" is shifting from "unidentified (yet)" to. Which puts it back in the "UFO" box, which came to mean "alien or supernatural unless proven otherwise, and even then maybe alien."

Ideally, given the shift in nomenclature to "UAP," a "true UAP" would just be something that was not identified yet, and thus could be almost anything. There is no category of things that are uniquely "true UAPs" that has been shown to exist.

 

[jarlrmai]

It's cos they made the A mean anomalous

 

[JMartJr]

It's cos they made the A mean anomalous

I always wonder how you know it is anomalous if you don't know what it is... is a balloon anomalous just because your imagery is too poor to recognize it?

 

[Harabeck]

So much for the "5 observables" that would differentiate a true UAP?

 

[Mendel]

So much for the "5 observables" that would differentiate a true UAP?

Remember the observables are Elizondo's invention, they're not official, and they're trying to nail down "physically impossible" so that we debunkers don't spoil the fun with a sensible explanation.

Quoted after https://www.metabunk.org/threads/new-science-of-uap-paper.14041/ :

1. Positive Lift without Flight Surfaces

balloons, far away blobs of light

2. Sudden/Instantaneous Acceleration

camera movement

3. Hypersonic Velocity Without Signatures

combination of 1. and 2.

4. Trans-Medium Travel

it only looked like it went in the water, it really didn't

5. Low Observability or Cloaking.

LIZ, taking sensor malfunctions as real objects

In some close encounter scenarios, a sixth, albeit more disturbing, observable is sometimes noted: [27, 21]

6. Biological Effects on Humans and Animals

psychosomatic symptoms

you tell me how well they differentiate "true" UAP from irrigation circles or ceiling lamps.

 

[JMartJr]

Recalling our Mr. West's use of the word here in a discussion discussion of Gimbal and four observables (
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEjV8DdSbs
).

It amuses me that they seem to be making sure they have more "observables" than we have. Sure, as Mendel points out, their's don't mean much... but hey, they have more of them!

Remember the observables are Elizondo's invention, they're not official, and they're trying to nail down "physically impossible" so that we debunkers don't spoil the fun with a sensible explanation.

It looks to me like only 1 or possibly 2 of these can be observabled in this balloon -- lift without flight surfaces, being a balloon and all, and it's hard to see clearly, being far away.

(Just noticed that their Observable #5 is that the UFO has low observability. Something feels a bit off there... if I observe that I can't observe it well, that means it's aliens or something?)

 

[Mendel]

(Just noticed that their Observable #5 is that the UFO has low observability. Something feels a bit off there... if I observe that I can't observe it well, that means it's aliens or something?)

the buzzword is "signature management"
Star Trek fans know it as "cloaking"

 

[Ann K]

@Mendel

Under number two (sudden acceleration) I think reflections, especially in a curved surface, would behave that way.

 

[Mendel]

@Mendel

Under number two (sudden acceleration) I think reflections, especially in a curved surface, would behave that way.

yeah, I'm sure my list can be expanded, I just wanted to give some common examples

"insect close to the camera" is also a good way to make 1,2,3,5 happen—5 applies because it wasn't visible to the naked eye as a UFO.

 

[elvenwear]

Pedantic but dolphins are mammals

I'll just leave this here. Having read the entire quote for the first time, I'm disappointed to discover it is an example of quote mining. I'll blame and simultaneously forgive Steven Fry since it is such a pleasing mining of a quote.

With apologies to Mr. Walton and to so many coastal compatriots in New England, I regret to report that there is surely no such thing as a fish. About 20,000 species of vertebrate have scales and fins and live in water, but they do not form a coherent cladistic group. Some - the lungfishes and the coelacanth in particular - are genealogically close to the creatures that crawled out on land to become amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. In a cladistic ordering of a trout, a lungfish, and any bird or mammal, the lungfish must form a sister group with the sparrow or elephant, leaving the trout in his stream. The characters that form our vernacular concept of "fish" are all shared primitive and do not therefore specify cladistic groups.
At this point, many biologists rebel, and rightly I think. The cladogram of trout, lungfish and elephant is undoubtedly true as an expression of branching order in time. But must classifications be based only on cladistic information? A coelacanth looks like a fish, tastes like a fish, acts like a fish, and therefore - in some legitimate sense beyond hidebound tradition - is a fish.

Source: https://digitallibrary.amnh.org/ser.../499354f4-a680-40c6-b76f-d8f304a5685d/content (P682 of pdf)

Natural History, Vol. 90. No. 7, July 1981

What if anything, is a zebra?, Steven J Gould