PR043 Africa - Djibouti

[flarkey]

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/1006159/dow-uap-pr43-unresolved-uap-report-africa-2025

Video Description:00:00-00:02: A small, barely distinguishable area of contrast moves from the left side of the sensor field-of-view to the right side, exiting the scene from the bottom right quarter of the screen.

Djibouti....

11.388655° 43.139259°

 

[Mick West]

They should recognize that if there's an identifiable feature in the video, then it's the same as giving the location. While geolocating is fun, they should really just unredact the lat/lon.

 

[MapperGuy]

They should recognize that if there's an identifiable feature in the video, then it's the same as giving the location. While geolocating is fun, they should really just unredact the lat/lon.

This may become a test of how really interested Congress is these videos being released.
If I was in Congress I would demand that they repeat this exercise and NOT obscure the geographic coordinates.
Some things like airspeed and altitude might, in some cases, be classified but when analysis of the image can reveal the location you are just being obnoxious by blocking geographic coordinates.

 

[jplaza]

They should recognize that if there's an identifiable feature in the video, then it's the same as giving the location. While geolocating is fun, they should really just unredact the lat/lon.

In most of the Mission Reports and Range Foulers (some of them related to the videos), the MGRS coordinates are provided.

 

[jarlrmai]

It's the US Military If its the rules that's what they will do, if the book says obscure everything they obscure everything, even if the Eiffel Tower is present in the video.

 

[Mick West]

Article:

Together with my brilliant postdoc and council member, Dr. Devesh Nandal, we realized that unknown UAP parameters can be tightly constrained through a known background terrain, which can be used as a coordinate system to infer the motions of the target object as well as the camera, as functions of time.

To demonstrate the remarkable power of this method, we studied the declassified case DOW-UAP-PR043, involving an unresolved UAP report from Africa in 2025, released by the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) in the Pentagon here. Amazingly, we were able to do better than AARO and resolve this case as a likely fast missile. Our full analysis report is available here. Below are some details of the related scientific analysis.

Source: https://avi-loeb.medium.com/the-declassified-dow-uap-pr043-in-the-pursue-disclosure-is-likely-a-missile-4d4116776c85

This one looked exactly like your standard zip-by from parallax and motion blur, but they seem to lean heavily towards "missile"

Time for some Sitrec!

 

[JMartJr]

This one looked exactly like your standard zip-by from parallax and motion blur, but they seem to lean heavily towards "missile"

I always admire a good video that I can watch three times and not see the UAP. I admire, also, those of you who can pry these things apart and actually learn something about them!

QUESTION: Is it possible/probable that Dr. Loeb has access to information that we don't have that might inform him that there is a likelihood of a missile or two flying about there/then?

 

[John J.]

It looks to me that the small moving bright feature is first visible moving from approx. the area within the yellow ellipse,

This might be a silly question, but why doesn't the "Detected target path" shown in Nandal and Loeb's "Terrain-stabilized target track" picture start at roughly this location?

Accompanying text reads,

Terrain-stabilized target track. The red circles mark the 13 measured target centroids from frame 61 to frame 73, and the yellow line shows the fitted direction of motion. The target moves toward the lower right. The small frame-to-frame departures from the line are minor compared with the total track length and are consistent with centroid and image-processing uncertainty. (Image credit: Nandal & Loeb 2026

From "The Declassified DOW-UAP-PR043 in the PURSUE Disclosure is Likely a Missile", Avi Loeb, "Medium" website, 06 August 2026.
link as per Mick's post #6 (Apologies, I couldn't post the URL here without an annoying chunk of that webpage being visible in the post).

Is it because they couldn't establish a terrain-stabilized path before the f61 location, or some other reason?

 

[FatPhil]

It looks to me that the small moving bright feature is first visible moving from approx. the area within the yellow ellipse,

View attachment 92534

This might be a silly question, but why doesn't the "Detected target path" shown in Nandal and Loeb's "Terrain-stabilized target track" picture start at roughly this location?
...
Is it because they couldn't establish a terrain-stabilized path before the f61 location, or some other reason?

I suspect neither of them is a trained observer.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

We also built a conditional camera model. The internal best-fit horizontal field of view was 65.6◦,
with a 5% score band from 60.4◦ to 71.0◦.
Under this model, the sensor altitude was 2.26 km

That's interesting because the largest hfov for the mts-b is 45°.

 

[Mick West]

This might be a silly question, but why doesn't the "Detected target path" shown in Nandal and Loeb's "Terrain-stabilized target track" picture start at roughly this location?

Mine does.

https://local.metabunk.org/background/?custom=99999999/PR043 Video Match/20260807_223139.js

 

[John J.]

Is it possible/probable that Dr. Loeb has access to information that we don't have that might inform him that there is a likelihood of a missile or two flying about there/then?

I think the location in the video includes a small military outpost or base of some sort, approx. 1600 metres / 1 mile from where the moving feature is first seen.
It doesn't look like the moving object is aimed at the (possible) outpost.

The Djiboutian army has a few dozen Humvees, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Djiboutian_Army
More possible Humvee-type vehicles elsewhere in the compound.

In addition there's a US Navy base in Djibouti, Camp Lemonnier (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Lemonnier).
This is at 11°32′37″N 43°08′55″E, less than 20 km approx. north from the compound at 11°23'19.2"N 43°08'21.3"E.
No idea if there might be any connection between the two.

I'd guess the compound is a military outpost, and this might increase the chance that the moving object is a projectile of some sort.
Even in peacetime, many armed forces fire missiles/ rockets, sometimes to test systems but perhaps more often (particularly with smaller infantry weapons) to provide familiarization for those who might be required to use them.

 

[MapperGuy]

I'd guess the compound is a military outpost, and this might increase the chance that the moving object is a projectile of some sort.
Even in peacetime, many armed forces fire missiles/ rockets, sometimes to test systems but perhaps more often (particularly with smaller infantry weapons) to provide familiarization for those who might be required to use them.

The Compound nearby is or was a military outpost, controlled entry points with guard towers, painted rocks to keep soldiers from driving over the commanders cactus garden, that sort of thing, as of the 6/6/2023 Google Earth photo.

Some sort of missile fired in training? I would assume that nobody there would be shooting at US drones.

Do the analyses assume horizontal flight path for the object? Did any try to fit a ballistic trajectory to that short bit, or is it too brief? Thinking unguided artillery rocket.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

Mine does.
View attachment 92540


View attachment 92541

https://local.metabunk.org/background/?custom=99999999/PR043 Video Match/20260807_223139.js

Your fov (~30°) is closer to existing mts-b fovs than theirs (~65°). Could you try with the wide 34° vfov?

NB : Your sitrec link doesn't work, did you use your dev env? It looks like changing it to https://metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=99999999/PR043 Video Match/20260807_223139.js works.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

Do the analyses assume horizontal flight path for the object?

Yes. Height is considered as a constant parameter.

Did any try to fit a ballistic trajectory to that short bit, or is it too brief?

They try to fit the speed to a quadratic equation but have to dismiss it as inconclusive because the estimates vary widely. The trajectory bit is to short to distinguish clearly between propelled and ballistic trajectory.

The short track does not show statistically significant acceleration or deceleration, so it cannot distinguish a powered missile from a sufficiently high ballistic-coefficient object that is coasting.

 

[Mick West]

Your fov (~30°) is closer to existing mts-b fovs than theirs (~65°). Could you try with the wide 34° vfov?

NB : Your sitrec link doesn't work, did you use your dev env? It looks like changing it to https://metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=99999999/PR043 Video Match/20260807_223139.js works.

Yeah sorry, I had to add some new code, and I was in dev when I shared that.

The new code is a very accurate view-fitting algorithm that calculates the actual camera position and FOV.

VFOV is a hair under 33°, HFOV is 55°

Significantly, the camera altitude is 1578m MSL. They incorrectly have it at 2260m AGL, which is a bit unfortunate considering Avi's boast of "the remarkable power of this method"

This was pretty obvious just from looking at their 3D match, which does not match

That invalidates all the numbers that follow in their paper, rendering it GIGO.

 

[jarlrmai]

Yeah sorry, I had to add some new code, and I was in dev when I shared that.

The new code is a very accurate view-fitting algorithm that calculates the actual camera position and FOV.

View attachment 92550

VFOV is a hair under 33°, HFOV is 55°

Significantly, the camera altitude is 1578m MSL. They incorrectly have it at 2260m AGL, which is a bit unfortunate considering Avi's boast of "the remarkable power of this method"

This was pretty obvious just from looking at their 3D match, which does not match
View attachment 92551

That invalidates all the numbers that follow in their paper, rendering it GIGO.

Does this work with 3D buildings for ground based stuff?

 

[Mick West]

Does this work with 3D buildings for ground based stuff?

Point fitting discussion continued:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/sitrec-camera-determination-by-point-fitting.15047

 

[RobertBillyBob]

I'm still struggling with sitrec so can't show it properly but I think the lines of sight to the object would "almost cross", as in they would cross seen from the side but are not actually in the same plane. This would mean there is a "slow object solution" where the object speed is orthogonal to the drone speed. This does not appear at all in Loeb's paper, but we've seen similar situations multiple times. It would totally undermine the missile hypothesis and what's left of the paper after the incorrect camera matching.
I don't know if I'll have time to back this hunch with data in the next few days so I wanted the idea to be out in the open if case someone else wants to take a look.

 

[Mick West]

I'm still struggling with sitrec so can't show it properly but I think the lines of sight to the object would "almost cross", as in they would cross seen from the side but are not actually in the same plane. This would mean there is a "slow object solution" where the object speed is orthogonal to the drone speed. This does not appear at all in Loeb's paper, but we've seen similar situations multiple times. It would totally undermine the missile hypothesis and what's left of the paper after the incorrect camera matching.
I don't know if I'll have time to back this hunch with data in the next few days so I wanted the idea to be out in the open if case someone else wants to take a look.

It's a fiddly case, as the motion of the platform (aka the sensor, aka the drone) is hidden somewhat by vertical changes in the camera angle, possibly from the slight left/right banking. The motion is rather small and difficult to track. I think I'll try doing the point-tracking keyframes...

 

[John J.]

When we found the (probable) military compound at 11.388655° 43.139259° I thought it was likely part of the explanation and sort of lost a bit of interest.
Some troops from there had moved a short distance to the west and fired something approx. ENE. Where we can first see the object would have been very close to the point on the ground from where it had been launched/ fired.

But the object appears to cross (very, very roughly) approx. 2.5 km in the horizontal plane in something less than 2 seconds.
If it were something fired from the ground, the shortest path it could take would be a straight(ish) line essentially parallel to the ground, minimum speed would be in the region of 1250 m/s. That's 4500 kph, 2796 mph, Mach 3.673.
If there were a significant upward element to the flightpath, the distance covered would be greater and speed would have to be higher.

The Djibouti army probably doesn't have anything that could reach this speed (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Djiboutian_Army)
Contemporary tank cannon can have muzzle velocities in the 1600 - 1750 m/s range, but projectile velocity drops during flight* and Djibouti doesn't have tanks. Maybe the cannon of its (three) WMA301 vehicles are in the 1400-1500 m/s region but again velocity would drop in flight (and they might be lower-pressure, lower velocity variants of the gun they were derived from- if not, these might be the only halfway plausible Djiboutian candidates).

The Djibouti army's artillery have lower muzzle velocities; D-30 guns around 700 m/s, M109L SPGs maybe approx. 810 m/s (Rheinmetal, 155mm Modular Charge System, https://www.rheinmetall.com/Rheinmetall Group/brochure-download/Weapon-Ammmunition/B284e0920-155mm-artillery-modular-charge-system.pdf).

Some surface-to-air missiles can reach/ exceed the mystery object's speed; most US Patriot missiles 1190 m/s, a recent variant 1887 m's in a test; Soviet/ Russian SA-300 and successors 2000 m/s and higher. But these are large systems, and Djibouti doesn't possess anything like this.
Smaller man-portable SAMs are slower (FIM-92 Stinger approx. Mach 2.2; Shorts Starstreak might be the fastest, >Mach 3); not fast enough for our mystery object (and none known in Djiboutian service).

I now think the presence of the military compound is a coincidence (though maybe it had something to do with there being a US aircraft monitoring the area). Back to considering a small object much closer to the camera.


*I can't tell by eye whether the object's apparent speed changes or not, does anyone know?

 

[Mick West]

*I can't tell by eye whether the object's apparent speed changes or not, does anyone know?

Not that I can tell.

Since it's essentially linear motion for both the drone and the object, there's an infinite number of solutions. But if we restrict it to ones where the object maintains level altitude, then there's just a narrow range with it going around 21knots.

I got this from adding keyframes to the point fits, which won't ship for a while, as it's got at least an hour of tests to run, being a complex feature.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

I got this from adding keyframes to the point fits, which won't ship for a while, as it's got at least an hour of tests to run, being a complex feature.

I just saw your video about it on twitter. That's exactly what I had in mind, thank you for looking into it.

Source: https://x.com/MickWest/status/2086589734848168249


They dismissed parallax without showing any work (this is the only mention of parallax I the entire paper) but in the end it's exactly what was missing from their model.

We then tested differential parallax. A stationary object at low altitude produced only a small fraction of the observed motion. The parallax contribution increased rapidly only when the assumed target altitude approached the conditional sensor altitude.

 

[flarkey]

Back in May I geolocated this video to the following coordinates. This wasn't an attempt to be very accurate, just to get the general region of the river in Djibouti, and I picked a point at random near the military camp to give a clickable link in Google Maps. (see post #1 above)

Djibouti....

11.388655° 43.139259°

In their Medium article and paper Avi and his team document the method they used to geolocate the location and provide the coordinates they used to start the analysis:


Source: https://avi-loeb.medium.com/the-declassified-dow-uap-pr043-in-the-pursue-disclosure-is-likely-a-missile-4d4116776c85

Lets compare:

Quite a coincidence that they picked exactly the same coordinates. So how much of a coincidence -

Copilot AI Question and answer:

So of all the points near that military camp they picked the same 11cm square that I did.

Conclusions:

1) Avi's team read Metabunk
2) They don't give credit when referencing other people's work.

Speculation:
1) The methods they declared for Geolocation in their report are not accurate
2) The use of this data verges on plagiarism.

Copilot: is it plagiarism to use data collected by others without giving credit?

 

[Mick West]

So of all the points near that military camp they picked the same 11cm square that I did.

Conclusions:

1) Avi's team read Metabunk
2) They don't give credit when referencing other people's work.

Speculation:
1) The methods they declared for Geolocation in their report are not accurate
2) The use of this data verges on plagiarism.

I briefly wondered if they might have done this, but thought to myself "nah, they wouldn't", and never checked.

Not a good look for them!

 

[JMartJr]

Conclusions:

1) Avi's team read Metabunk
2) They don't give credit when referencing other people's work.

Feel free to raise bloody Hell in a forthright manner.

Note to any plagierists reading this thread... at least be smart enough to move your location point a couple of meters to the left or something.

 

[MapperGuy]

1) Avi's team read Metabunk
2) They don't give credit when referencing other people's work.

They did not do very much original work I suspect.

Source:
Source: https://avi-loeb.medium.com/the-declassified-dow-uap-pr043-in-the-pursue-disclosure-is-likely-a-missile-4d4116776c85

In this document they write, in reference to the drainage feature:
"It resembles a river in the infrared image, but is more likely a dry wadi".
If they had actually look at another image source, like Google Earth, they would have directly observed that it is in fact a dry wadi. There would be no "is more likely" phrase. Sounds like they did not ever bother to check, so where did that amazingly similar set of coordinates come from, if not from copying Metabunk?

 

[flarkey]

I've sent Professor Loeb and Dr Nandal a strongly worded email...

Dear Professor Loeb and Dr Nandal,

I recently read your Medium article regarding your analysis of the UAP video recorded over Djibouti. I noted that the article and associated paper stated that you had geolocated the landscape in the video to a latitude and longitude of 11.388655° 43.139259°, which, to six decimal places, represents a location accurate to approximately 11 cm.

I am a contributor to the Metabunk website (username: Flarkey), and on 13 May I independently geolocated the video to exactly the same latitude and longitude. Here is a link to my original post:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pr043-africa-djibouti.14885/

The probability of two independent analyses arriving at precisely the same six-decimal coordinates is, to put it mildly, astronomically small. The fact that the coordinates in your paper are identical to those I published on Metabunk raises a very serious concern about the provenance of your analysis and the source of the data.

I can see no acknowledgement or citation of my analysis, nor of the Metabunk post, in either your article or the associated paper. The paper presents the geolocation as an analysis undertaken by you.

I therefore have to ask directly: did you or anyone involved in the preparation of your paper obtain the coordinates, analysis or other data from my Metabunk post?

If so, I would expect this to be acknowledged and appropriately cited, and for the paper to be corrected so that it does not give the impression that the geolocation was independently determined by the authors.

If, on the other hand, you arrived at these coordinates independently, I would be very interested to understand the methodology you used and, in particular, how it resulted in exactly the same six-decimal coordinate that I had published several months earlier. Given the precision involved, and the public interest in the UAP topic, I believe this warrants an explanation.

I am raising this matter because the distinction between an independently derived result and one obtained from an existing analysis is important, particularly in a scientific publication. If material from another person's analysis has been used without attribution, that would raise a significant issue of academic integrity and attribution.

I would therefore appreciate a response explaining how the coordinates in your paper were obtained and whether my Metabunk analysis was consulted or used in any way during your research.

I have retained the original Metabunk post and its publication date, so the chronology of the analysis is readily verifiable.

In addition to this email I have also replied to Prof. Loeb on X but have not seen a reply yet.


Source: https://x.com/flarkey/status/2086718631941939307?s=20


I look forward to your response.

Kind regards,

XXXXXXXXXX (flarkey)

 

[GM4AJK]

I've sent Professor Loeb and Dr Nandal an email...

I believe this sidetrack deserves its own MB thread.

 

[flarkey]

And the reply....

On Mon, 10 Aug 2026, 21:46 Avi Loeb, <aloeb@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:
Dear (flarkey)

We were not aware of your analysis and never saw it. My postdoc, Dr. Devesh Nandal, derived them directly from the data on Google Earth and Google Maps. The fact that we got the same answer means that we must have relied on the same data. Your claim is similar to a mathematician claiming that whoever found that 2+2=4 must have copied the result from him because he derived the same result a while ago. You might be surprised to know that we never heard about you or your analysis, but that is the truth. Neither you nor Mick were on our radar until Mick started attacking Dr. Nandal and me on social media for no reason.

Dr. Nandal can give you the digital receipts to the way he derived the coordinates from Google Earth and Google Maps.

With kind regards,
Avi

Hmm.

 

[NoParty]

With kind regards,
Avi

Wow, those are sincerely the kindest of regards!

(and almost believable)

 

[GM4AJK]

Dr. Nandal can give you the digital receipts to the way he derived the coordinates from Google Earth and Google Maps.

This should be interesting, lol. Notice the 2+2=4 trivialisation of "the problem".

 

[flarkey]

This should be interesting, lol. Notice the 2+2=4 trivialisation of "the problem".

Now onto email ping-pong...

Professor Loeb,

Thankyou for the quick response. Yes it would be great to see Dr Nandal's working as to how he selected the same 11cm² square in Google Earth that I did 3 months ago.

I'm sure you can appreciate my concern with regards to this. It is not surprising that someone else could determine the rough location & general area. However, to identify the exact same six-decimal in both the dimensions of latitude and longitude coordinates is much more of a coincidence than copying a simple single figure addition.

it would be great if Dr Nandal could explain his methodology in selecting those specific coordinates between the buildings at the edge of the military camp, rather than the other points towards the centre of the camp.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/1...try=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDUxMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==

With warmest wishes

Flarkey

 

[FatPhil]

And the reply....

Your claim is similar to a mathematician claiming that whoever found that 2+2=4 must have copied the result from him because he derived the same result a while ago.

Hmm.

As one of the mathematicians in the room, as I'm sure there are several, no it isn't. There is no meaningful analogue in his analogy. Worse, the reason it isn't similar has already been explained to him by your good self. So he's being actively clue-resistent as well as disingenuous and evasive.

Yet, and forgive me here, I can't get that wound up by the evolution of the situation, as it's kinda what I expected.

 

[GM4AJK]

Yet, and forgive me here, I can't get that wound up by the evolution of the situation, as it's kinda what I expected.

Context: Jason Arday enters the chat

 

[flarkey]

A response from Dr Nandal:

On Mon, 10 Aug 2026 at 22:25, Nandal, Devesh <devesh.nandal@cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:

Dear Flarkey,

Thank you for writing to us. I would be happy to address your concerns.

I understand why the identical six-decimal coordinate raises the question. However, those six decimal places should not be interpreted as an 11 cm geolocation accuracy. They are simply the coordinate precision returned when a point is selected in Google Earth or Google Maps. Numerical precision is not the same as measurement accuracy. At this latitude, six decimal places correspond to roughly 11 cm in coordinate spacing in latitude, but that does not mean the site was localized to an 11 cm square.

Our geolocation was not obtained by solving for that single point. We first identified the site by matching the broader terrain morphology in the released video with Google Earth and Google Maps, including the compound, the ordered sequence of wadi bends, roads, tributaries and surrounding ridges. In addition, I spoke to military personnel who had close knowledge of a U.S. base very close to this exact site. The coordinates I obtained were cross checked with them, including signs of military vehicles stationed on this exact site. The quoted coordinate, 11.388655 N, 43.139259 E, is simply a convenient ground anchor within that matched scene. It is not the sensor position, it is not the target position, and it is not a claim of centimetre scale geolocation accuracy.

We subsequently learned that Metabunk had published essentially the same geolocation earlier. As Prof. Loeb mentioned, we are not aware of your analysis, nor the numbers. Our literature search followed the usual academic channels, including arXiv, NASA ADS and the relevant scientific journals (ApJ, A&A, MNRAS), and we did not encounter a formal paper or preprint reporting that result. Informal forum and blog posts are not normally captured by those searches, which is why we were unaware of it. Now that it has been brought to our attention, we are happy to acknowledge and cite the earlier Metabunk geolocation if this work proceeds to journal publication, as is standard practice when parallel work is identified.

In addition you will notice that this is not a scientific paper, and therefore it does not hold any citations, nor does it have a bibliography. More importantly, the scientific purpose of our study is not simply to report latitude and longitude. The substantive result is the quantitative velocity reconstruction. We independently selected the terrain control points, stabilized and tracked the target, measured its motion at about 801 px/s, constructed the ground-plane and camera-pose solutions, performed the Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis, and derived the altitude dependent physical velocity. That entire quantitative analysis is our work. The geolocation provides the spatial reference needed to perform it; it is not the velocity result itself.

We would welcome your analysis and it would serve as a useful comparison. And as I mentioned, if this exercise would become part of a scientific publication, we would compare our velocity estimates, and object size constraints with yours. Please share a link and we will use it in the future.

If you intend to share this response publicly, please ask or inform me, and use my entire response in any quotes, you do not have my permission to use partial quotes.

Kind regards,

Devesh Nandal

I still find it very strange that two people would select the same point on a military compound to use as a reference - the same point that one selected totally at random because there was no need or intent to select any specific point, and that another person months later would pick the exact same point again!?? Weird.

 

[FatPhil]

A response from Dr Nandal:
"They are simply the coordinate precision returned when a point is selected..."

*A* point. But which point? What are the chances of selecting *precisely the same point* as you did? (Yes, you've already asked this.)

If he's obsessing about the difference between precision and accuracy, and now claiming that his value has lower accuracy than the given precision ...

... then ...

... he should have accompanied his original coordinates with an indication of the accuracy, because otherwise the default assumption is that the accuracy is the same as the given precision. (Plus he shouldn't even have quoted that many digits in the first place, an 11cm square is way smaller than the thing he was attempting to locate.)

Sloppy pseud does sloppy CYA - I'm seeing a pattern here.

 

[jdog]

If only there were some scientific discipline one might apply to determine the likelihood of a second researcher choosing exactly the same coordinates in a manner not driven by any particular methodology other than convenience.

 

[GM4AJK]

When Loab said "digital receipts", I was expecting something repeatable that arrives at that point. What we got was some text that seemed to hand-wave it away. I'm not buying this. The odds of picking that exact spot in the compound are just not feasible, imho. Unless this is one of those amazing coincidences

 

[flarkey]

This is the original Google Earth pin that I dropped completely at random close to the compound.

I cant think why I specifically dropped it there, in the corner of the compound between two buildings...

I probably dropped it from this viewpoint because that matches the line of sight in the video. At that distance the pixel resolution is probably 1 pixel to 10m. I'm not sure if that makes a 'coincidence' based on random chance more or less likely!

Dr Nandal said in his email fully quoted above:

"The quoted coordinate, 11.388655 N, 43.139259 E, is simply a convenient ground anchor within that matched scene."

There is nothing convenient about that point. It is a random point between two buildings on the compound. If we had both found the coordinates on a radio mast or tree and later discovered a match I could accept 'random chance and coincidence', but forgive me if I am skeptical in this case.