PR055: Corbell's "U.S. Military Films Huge Disc Hiding In The Clouds" new video 06/17/25

[Ravi]

Maybe dumb question, but do things like flares, bokeh and the things we associate with regular light cameras occur in IR cameras? I know they may use lenses and sensors like regular cameras, but they're not recording light, right? They record heat and create a B&W image from the different levels of heat, right?

IR (heat) is a different part of the EM spectrum, and using the right optical materials (or mirror designs), it can be used to image and view. The IR of course differs from VIS or even UV, in that IR is radiated from objects as well as receiving radiation.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

Maybe dumb question, but do things like flares, bokeh and the things we associate with regular light cameras occur in IR cameras? I know they may use lenses and sensors like regular cameras, but they're not recording light, right? They record heat and create a B&W image from the different levels of heat, right?

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/1007716/dow-uap-pr091-21-aug-callsign-observes-uap-persian-gulf

Look at the top left diffraction pattern between 1m44 and 1m52. I think you can see a lens flare behind it (it's more convincing in motion):

 

[Mick West]

Look at the top left diffraction pattern between 1m44 and 1m52. I think you can see a lens flare behind it (it's more convincing in motion):

Definitely, you can see it move so it stays lined up with the heat source (probably a gas flaring burn), and the center of the screen.

 

[FatPhil]

Could the flare be caused by light from the sun if the sun is not in frame?

Most often, such flares occur when the sun (or saturating source) is out of frame. They are generally the undesired reflections from the internals of the optical system. When the sun's in frame, it bleaches everything nearby.

 

[Mick West]

Most often, such flares occur when the sun (or saturating source) is out of frame. They are generally the undesired reflections from the internals of the optical system. When the sun's in frame, it bleaches everything nearby.

Some thermal cameras (like mine) will shut down the instant the sun is in frame, dropping a shield in front of the sensor.

 

[Starflint]

Maybe dumb question, but do things like flares, bokeh and the things we associate with regular light cameras occur in IR cameras? I know they may use lenses and sensors like regular cameras, but they're not recording light, right? They record heat and create a B&W image from the different levels of heat, right?

Kyle Ferriter has already done a very good practical test
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pr38-the-chandelier-ufo.13307/post-368685

 

[Starflint]

Could the flare be caused by light from the sun if the sun is not in frame?

I think the factor of sunlight reflection from the aircraft fuselage needs to be taken into account

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

I think the factor of sunlight reflection from the aircraft fuselage needs to be taken into account

Honestly can't imagine how that would be possible, can you explain?

 

[Starflint]

Honestly can't imagine how that would be possible, can you explain?

Source: https://youtube.com/shorts/paJIrmk0ggE?si=eV3xSZ7zG74i3hrx

As shown in the video, please note that the possibility of sunlight reflecting off a certain part of the aircraft body and then reflecting again into the pod's lens is merely a speculation.

 

[UKI]

Is there a good explanation for this outside what's in this thread? I haven't read much that truly explains it.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Is there a good explanation for this outside what's in this thread? I haven't read much that truly explains it.

The current idea is some kind of camera artifact.
My initial guess was more a balloon of some kind.

 

[Nourali]

At another point, the UAP appears to pass beneath or behind a thin cloud veil. The partial fading does not look random or comparable to typical flare reproductions. It is gradual, localized, and follows the apparent trajectory of the UAP. Once again, it looks more like a coherent interaction of a real object with a cloud layer than an optical artifact changing shape.

~10 second of the DoW release (zoomed in)

 

[jdog]

At another point, the UAP appears to pass beneath or behind a thin cloud veil. The partial fading does not look random or comparable to typical flare reproductions. It is gradual, localized, and follows the apparent trajectory of the UAP. Once again, it looks more like a coherent interaction of a real object with a cloud layer than an optical artifact changing shape.

~10 second of the DoW release (zoomed in)

No offence, but what are you basing that judgment on?

I think the issue we're all having with this is a lack of priors .

 

[Nourali]

No offence, but what are you basing that judgment on?

I think the issue we're all having with this is a lack of priors .

No offence taken, but I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to base my judgment on besides the video and the explanations being proposed here.
We all lack strong priors here, unless someone is an MQ-9 sensor operator or has access to the full metadata. So I don't really see why my lack of priors is a problem.
And honestly, this feels a bit like an ad hominem move to me. This is Metabunk, not a closed panel of experts. If my specific argument is wrong, then explain why or just ignore it.

I can't make a proper cut of the video on my PC, so I only shared a screenshot. But if you go to the timestamp I mentioned, there clearly seems to be a thin cloud veil above the object. The object appears to pass under it.
Based on what has been shown so far, I don't see how the artefact/flare hypothesis explains that convincingly. It already barely explains the first disappearance/reappearance, and this second partial occlusion looks even less like a flare behavior.

Everything looks like there is a real object being intermittently obscured by clouds.

 

[Mick West]

And honestly, this feels a bit like an ad hominem move to me. This is Metabunk, not a closed panel of experts. If my specific argument is wrong, then explain why or just ignore it.

You made several rather specific claims in one post. It's quite reasonable to ask what you are basing those claims on. Are you comparing it to something? Is this entirely your personal opinion? Something in between?

For example:

this second partial occlusion looks even less like a flare behavior.

What flare behavior are you basing it on? If it looks "less like" something, then you need some kind of baseline. Or should you rephrase as "it looks less like what I imagine flare behavior would look like"?