PR100: Drone? Flying Car?

[Hwy666]

So I looked at this clip and I've always been wary of heat imaging because the visual doesn't usually match the physical shape of the object.

If you fly a quadcopter at full throttle, it'll assume an upright, almost 90 degree position. The motors will get warm and may generate enough heat to travel along the arms of the quadcopter. In this clip the heat signature, especially when it zooms in around the middle of the video, seems to be uniform across the entire object.

But it's real life context that hurts this explanation. If the quadcopter is electric battery powered, it wouldn't be able to maintain that high speed stance for 4 minutes. To cover that much distance it would be much more efficient(and logical) to use a fixed-wing aircraft flying in a horizontal stance.

I wondered if it might some type of antenna array attached to a craft that isn't putting off heat or has some kind of stealth tech to hide the thermal signature of it's propulsion system. But if the VTX is that hot, it kind of defeats the purpose.

1:06 in the video: Looks like it might be some kind of oblong balloon but I'm having trouble understanding how the heat signature correlates to a balloon. I've taken thermal imaging of a hot air balloon and the heat image exactly matched the balloon's shape.

Heat signature of a hot air balloon(white hot):

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfeA2SrMujc

 

[RobertBillyBob]

That's PR100, could you edit thread title so people can find it when searching for this video?

As for the shape it could be a bunch of balloons tied together or balloons with an exotic 3D shape. See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/balloon-shapes.12857/ for examples of balloon shapes. To me it looks like a teddy bear with spread arms and legs but that's probably pareidolia.

 

[John J.]

As @RobertBillyBob said,
"DOW-UAP-PR100, Unresolved UAP Report, Yellow Sea, 2023", https://www.war.gov/UFO/release/04/...P-PR100-Unresolved-UAP-Report-Yellow-Sea-2023

The thread Naming convention for PR videos: PR000 might understandably not have been seen by @Hwy666 (and others);
maybe make it a sticky for "UFO Reports from the US Military and Government" @Mick West?

If the quadcopter is electric battery powered, it wouldn't be able to maintain that high speed stance for 4 minutes. To cover that much distance it would be much more efficient(and logical) to use a fixed-wing aircraft flying in a horizontal stance.

So it might be a fixed-wing aircraft.
I don't know what is shown in the video, but if it were a drone, there are fixed-wing drones with significantly greater speed, endurance and ranges than hobby quadcopters in widespread use, particularly by various militaries but also by civil operators.

There are quite a few twin-engined fixed-wing drones of 'conventional' aeroplane shape, e.g. the Koncern Granit Os-25-R
("Russia introduces new twin-engine tactical drone", Defence Blog website https://defence-blog.com/russia-introduces-new-twin-engine-tactical-drone/ 11 October 2025); also search "twin engine drone" for others;

There's also a number of twin-boom, twin engine designs, e.g. China's Sichuan Tengden TB-001 (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tengden_TB-001);

-also the Ukrainian "twin-fuselage" Blitz-2, Militanyi website https://militarnyi.com/en/news/ukraine-develops-blitz-2-twin-fuselage-drone/

There are fixed-wing hybrid drones that combine hydrocarbon propellor engines with rotors on booms/ outriggers,
e.g. the Chengfee CF-20, "UAV Drone Shop" website https://www.oemuavdrone.com/product...-drone-survey-terrain-fixed-wing-uav-unmanned,

I'm not suggesting PR-100 is any of these, or even like any of these, but fixed-wing drones that outperform small quadcopters (and which might have multiple "hot points") are not massively rare. There are probably some types (and possibly architectures) we're not aware of, particularly in Chinese use.

As @RobertBillyBob pointed out, we might not be able to rule out balloons, which at a glance might seem far-fetched but they're pretty ubiquitous (thread Balloons, how many are there?).
Parallax effects have previously made what was probably a balloon filmed in IR from a US platform seem to move at great speed
("Pentagon UFO video" GOFAST, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_UFO_videos- couldn't find a dedicated Metabunk thread but it is discussed). The strange-shaped subject of thread Jellyfish UFO from TMZ's 'UFO Revolution' might be a cluster of party balloons.
We don't know what temperature the brightest areas visible in PR-100 correspond to, they might be cooler than the heat from electric motors or combustion engines.

 

[Mick West]

The thread Naming convention for PR videos: PR000 might understandably not have been seen by @Hwy666 (and others);
maybe make it a sticky for "UFO Reports from the US Military and Government" @Mick West?

Stickied.

 

[Ann K]

That's PR100, could you edit thread title so people can find it when searching for this video?

As for the shape it could be a bunch of balloons tied together or balloons with an exotic 3D shape. See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/balloon-shapes.12857/ for examples of balloon shapes. To me it looks like a teddy bear with spread arms and legs but that's probably pareidolia.

That was my thought, balloons in company with our old friend, parallax. There is also one black spot on the object as well (maybe strings of the balloons, tied together), and some smaller dark bits that are sometimes seen. It would appear that the light is coming from the left and slightly behind the thing, so that balloons might look "white-hot" on the sunlit portion with cooler portions in the shadow.

That can be more easily seen toward the end of the video (from about the three minute mark) where the thing is seen more closely.

 

[JMartJr]

It sure looks like a JAB (Just Anther Balloon) right on the edge of LIZ. In any case, since it does not do anything but drift along, I am unable to see how it is anomalous. It has an odd shape, as balloons often do. It floats along and doesn't do anything, as balloons do. On what grounds would anybody think "Wow, this is an unidentifiable anomalous phenomenon right here!"

Maybe it is something else. Maybe it can fly at hypersonic speeds and utilizes technology that would seem to defy physics. Maybe it's just bad luck that we only got a bit of video when it isn't doing any of that cool stuff. But there is no reason to think so.

Or maybe its a balloon...

 

[Hwy666]

It sure looks like a JAB (Just Anther Balloon) right on the edge of LIZ. In any case, since it does not do anything but drift along, I am unable to see how it is anomalous. It has an odd shape, as balloons often do. It floats along and doesn't do anything, as balloons do. On what grounds would anybody think "Wow, this is an unidentifiable anomalous phenomenon right here!"

Maybe it is something else. Maybe it can fly at hypersonic speeds and utilizes technology that would seem to defy physics. Maybe it's just bad luck that we only got a bit of video when it isn't doing any of that cool stuff. But there is no reason to think so.

Or maybe its a balloon...

Balloons are very attainable for a pretty low price. Even with helium in them.

Bearing that in mind, I can't seem to find any thermal imaging of a balloon that looks remotely similar to the object in the video.

If there is I'd love to see it.

 

[Hwy666]

As @RobertBillyBob said,
"DOW-UAP-PR100, Unresolved UAP Report, Yellow Sea, 2023", https://www.war.gov/UFO/release/04/...P-PR100-Unresolved-UAP-Report-Yellow-Sea-2023

The thread Naming convention for PR videos: PR000 might understandably not have been seen by @Hwy666 (and others);
maybe make it a sticky for "UFO Reports from the US Military and Government" @Mick West?



So it might be a fixed-wing aircraft.
I don't know what is shown in the video, but if it were a drone, there are fixed-wing drones with significantly greater speed, endurance and ranges than hobby quadcopters in widespread use, particularly by various militaries but also by civil operators.

There are quite a few twin-engined fixed-wing drones of 'conventional' aeroplane shape, e.g. the Koncern Granit Os-25-R

Yeah you can have a pre-built long range hybrid drone delivered to you door or you could build one yourself.

I just don't see that angle of attack being of any use. It doesn't make any sense aerodynamically and if it's ISR you wouldn't want to increase the aircraft's radar signature with that upright stance.

Pivotal's flying car adopts a similar stance at times but I haven't seen any thermal imaging to compare it with the PR100 object. It may look totally different.

Another problem is I don't see any bloom effect associated with thermal imaging of powered aircraft. The amount of thrust needed to maintain that stance...again it's problematic. Unless its recreational RC or a civilian aircraft, rearing up like that would go against the stealth goal of an ISR aircraft.

 

[John J.]

I just don't see that angle of attack being of any use.

We don't know the feature's angle of attack because we don't know its actual shape, or even if it is an aircraft that could be said to have an AOA.
As you said in the opening post, IR imagery doesn't always tally with visual appearance.

...if it's ISR you wouldn't want to increase the aircraft's radar signature...

Sort of agree, but we don't know if its an ISR (intel, surveillance, recce) asset, and again if it is a powered aircraft I feel AOA isn't clear.
Many drones (and the majority of crewed intelligence-gathering platforms) do not have inherently stealthy designs.
Commercially available drones might be used by a military operator (just as, for instance, many maritime patrol and ELINT aircraft are based on civil passenger aircraft).
And if it is a drone, it might belong to a civilian authority or private operator; an agency checking for oil spills or monitoring fishing boats might not be too worried about low observables. We have very little context for the footage; we don't know proximity to land (and which land that might be), ships/ boats or off-shore infrastructure in the area, or what the viewing platform was doing there.

Another problem is I don't see any bloom effect associated with thermal imaging of powered aircraft.

Bright IR sources can cause glare, diffraction spikes etc. and hot exhaust might be visible, but this isn't always the case.

@TheCholla posted this video from YouTube channel Outbound Course, uploaded 2021; I've timestamped it to start with (what I think is) IR footage of a Predator UAV, briefly from approx. 12 mins 52 secs IR there's footage of another UAV. Some manned aircraft follow, even when viewing the tailpipes end-on there isn't massive glare. Admittedly this vid isn't a great source, but search "IR footage of aircraft" and there are examples with lots of glare, others with very little.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyefSnLxjXk&t=766s

I don't know (or have a favorite theory) about what PR100 shows, but I'm not sure we can exclude a drone or balloons.
I suspect that if we could see the object clearly in the visible spectrum, it might appear very different to the impression given by the tiny image in the IR footage, but that's just a hunch.

 

[JMartJr]

Bearing that in mind, I can't seem to find any thermal imaging of a balloon that looks remotely similar to the object in the video.

If there is I'd love to see it.

There are a huge number of balloon shapes, and an almost infinite number of shapes that could arise from a bunch of two, three, four or more balloons. Sometimes we've been able to find the specific balloon design, when there is enough detail. I am not sure there is sufficient detail in this video.

Edit for accidental premature posting before typing the following.

However, there is some resemblance to things like:

 

[Hwy666]

There are a huge number of balloon shapes, and an almost infinite number of shapes that could arise from a bunch of two, three, four or more balloons. Sometimes we've been able to find the specific balloon design, when there is enough detail. I am not sure there is sufficient detail in this video.

Edit for accidental premature posting before typing the following.

However, there is some resemblance to things like:


View attachment 93984View attachment 93985View attachment 93986

Like I said, balloons aren't that hard to get ahold of.

Thermal footage of a balloon that looks anything remotely similar to the PR100 object seems to be impossible to find. I checked.

Thermal footage of ANYTHING resembling the PR100 object is impossible to find. I checked.

Balloons are one of the oddest explanations out there. I'm only 52 but I can't even remember the last time I saw a free floating balloon. And I drive for a living.

I'm starting to think I'll see an actual spaceship before I ever see a low altitude balloon.

 

[Hwy666]

We don't know the feature's angle of attack because we don't know its actual shape, or even if it is an aircraft that could be said to have an AOA.
As you said in the opening post, IR imagery doesn't always tally with visual appearance.

OK this is good. I snipped a shot from the video you linked:

So it's a typical jetfighter airframe and propulsion configuration. A Russian SU-27 I'm guessing. Some heat generated by air friction over the entire airframe because it's moving fast and bright white heat coming from the twin jet nozzles in back. It makes sense. It follows common design logic and it's almost immediately identifiable even though its a thermal image.

The floating ribcage/scorpion thing from PR100 does not conform to anything out there.

Maybe there's an outer shell physically covering the heat signature that's not showing up because the object is moving so slowly. I'm actually fine with that.

But what kind of propulsion device is shaped like that?? Even a high-powered antenna array wouldn't be as hot as whatever propulsion device was pushing that thing through the air.

 

[Ann K]

Like I said, balloons aren't that hard to get ahold of.

Thermal footage of a balloon that looks anything remotely similar to the PR100 object seems to be impossible to find. I checked.

Thermal footage of ANYTHING resembling the PR100 object is impossible to find. I checked.

Balloons are one of the oddest explanations out there. I'm only 52 but I can't even remember the last time I saw a free floating balloon. And I drive for a living.

I'm starting to think I'll see an actual spaceship before I ever see a low altitude balloon.

As I understand it from previous discussions, the shade of the object being tracked is a measure of its contrast with the background, thus an object over a cold ocean will not look the same as the same object at the same temperature floating over a sun-warmed field. Am I getting that all wrong?

 

[JMartJr]

Thermal footage of a balloon that looks anything remotely similar to the PR100 object seems to be impossible to find. I checked.

Do you mean Looks like" in terms of shape, or general "brightness" -- shoot, it is too late at night and I can think of the word I want... Hopefully you can track what I am asking! ^_^

Edit to add:

To me, other than shape, this one looks pretty close in terms of "general shininess" -- other than shape it looks similar.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pr...g-apparent-direction.14873/page-5#post-369571

The string hanging under this one (red arrows) is, to me, fairly compelling evidence that that one is a ballon...

 

[jarlrmai]

Balloons are one of the oddest explanations out there. I'm only 52 but I can't even remember the last time I saw a free floating balloon. And I drive for a living.

Well I would hope your eyes are on the road

I probably see 1 / 2 a month when I am out photographing birds.

 

[John J.]

But what kind of propulsion device is shaped like that??

The apparent on-screen shape might not conform to the object's actual shape, though it will reflect the distribution of IR-emitting or reflecting areas on the object as seen from the viewing platform.

...I've always been wary of heat imaging because the visual doesn't usually match the physical shape of the object.

Even a high-powered antenna array wouldn't be as hot as whatever propulsion device was pushing that thing through the air.

We don't know that the object had a propulsion device. I don't think the video shows clear signs of manoeuvring. If we knew the object's speed we might be able to conclude if it was powered, but we don't know its size or distance, or the extent that parallax effects were involved, so estimating speed will be difficult.

We don't know the object's temperature, or the temperature of apparent "hot spots" on it, just that it's warmer than the sea (assuming bright = hot, which seems likely, "hot" being a relative term here).
IR footage shows relative differences in temperature in that footage, but if the viewed brightness of a feature in one video is the same as the viewed brightness of a feature in another video, that doesn't mean those features were the same temperature.

At face value the video might be interpreted as showing a powered flying object of unusual shape with areas of high temperature, but that interpretation is dependent on a number of assumptions that we don't have good evidence for and which might be incorrect.

 

[Hwy666]

Do you mean Looks like" in terms of shape, or general "brightness" -- shoot, it is too late at night and I can think of the word I want... Hopefully you can track what I am asking! ^_^

Edit to add:

To me, other than shape, this one looks pretty close in terms of "general shininess" -- other than shape it looks similar.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pr...g-apparent-direction.14873/page-5#post-369571

The string hanging under this one (red arrows) is, to me, fairly compelling evidence that that one is a ballon...

I said shape.

This is a wider problem I see in debunking when people say "close enough".

Something as common and cheap as a ballon should be very easy to duplicate. The late Joe Nickell understood the value in physically duplicating balloon clusters to debunk "flying man" footage.

By actually going outside and doing something instead of sitting in front of a PC analyzing footage, he proved that a tightly cinched balloon cluster would very closely fit the bill while balloon clusters that used longer strings utterly failed to match up.

His work is referenced at 2:38 in this video:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjCgdH7OrSQ&t=160s

 

[NoParty]

...This is a wider problem I see in debunking when people say "close enough".

Something as common and cheap as a ballon should be very easy to duplicate. The late Joe Nickell understood the value in physically duplicating balloon clusters to debunk "flying man" footage.

By actually going outside and doing something instead of sitting in front of a PC analyzing footage, he proved that a tightly cinched balloon cluster would very closely fit the bill while balloon clusters that used longer strings utterly failed to match up...

Hmmm...there definitely are folks on this site "actually going outside and doing something" sometimes.
Somewhat more often, if I'm honest, than I might think that the issue at hand deserves.
A lot of times people bring up things that --to my thinking--are too obviously prosaic, mundane objects
or things very, very similar to things seen many times before. In those cases, "...sitting in front of a PC analyzing footage"
for long might even be more of a commitment than I'm up for. If someone else wants to take it on, good on 'em.

I just don't think that every claim is necessarily compelling, or interesting.
Mick just did a really cool Sitrec 3D recreation on the "Spook Light" phenomenon, an hour ago. It's awesome that he gives us his time on these.
For me, though, once it was obvious that people were just seeing car headlights, I wasn't going to spend any more time on it.
We all come at this from our own angle. I might be part of your "wider problem."

 

[Hwy666]

As I understand it from previous discussions, the shade of the object being tracked is a measure of its contrast with the background, thus an object over a cold ocean will not look the same as the same object at the same temperature floating over a sun-warmed field. Am I getting that all wrong?

From using a thermal camera I can only say that it's more effective in colder temperatures. On a hot day the contrast isn't as strong.

Let's walk this out step by step.

This is a still from thermal footage I took last year. Guess what type of machine it is and post a picture of it in your reply.

 

[JMartJr]

Something as common and cheap as a ballon should be very easy to duplicate.

I disagree. There are huge numbers of designs for balloons, new designs come and old designs go. They look different from different angles or when partially deflated. Some of them are made by taping different parts together and the tape can fail and some parts become detached, changing the shape. And there are a functionally infinite number of possible combinations of balloons in a bunch. That seems to be the opposite of being easy to duplicate!

However, the point is not to PROVE it was a balloon, down to finding which balloon(s) it was -- that is fun when it can be done but it cannot always be done with such poor footage.

The point is that there is NOTHING about it that says it is not a balloon. (Or a drone, for that matter, the footage is too poor to be sure even of that distinction.) A balloon would explain everything we see in this video. We know balloons exist. It COULD be a balloon (or a drone, though to my eye it looks more like a balloon, but "to my eye" is not evidence of anything. So maybe it is a drone instead and my sense of what it was is wrong.)

As it COULD be a balloon, it is not good evidence for a previously unknown physics defying "Real UAPs" flying around. And since we know balloons exist, balloons are way more likely as an explanation for this video than things that are not known to exist. Maybe it is a military or civilian drone, those exist as well.

Maybe it's an inter-dimensional critter, or physics defying alien spaceship, or stray demon floating around or something else unprecedented and unknown. If so, it is up to the believers to prove those things exist and this is one. Given how poor this video is, and how nothing about it is anomalous (the shape is strange, but strange shaped balloons floating around are not anomalous) proving that is not going to be easy.

 

[JMartJr]

From using a thermal camera I can only say that it's more effective in colder temperatures.

WOuld you consider a friendly amendment here? A thermal camera does not register a difference in temperature which is not present, and registers a big difference more readily than a small one. On cold days, hot things will stand out more, but of course cold things will stand out less. Since we are often looking for heat sources in military and many civilian applications, they will pop more against a cold background than a hot.

With that in mind, I'd amend what you said to "From using a thermal camera I can only say that it's more effective registering large differences in temperature than smaller ones.".

 

[Hwy666]

I disagree. There are huge numbers of designs for balloons, new designs come and old designs go. They look different from different angles or when partially deflated. Some of them are made by taping different parts together and the tape can fail and some parts become detached, changing the shape. And there are a functionally infinite number of possible combinations of balloons in a bunch. That seems to be the opposite of being easy to duplicate!

However, the point is not to PROVE it was a balloon, down to finding which balloon(s) it was -- that is fun when it can be done but it cannot always be done with such poor footage.

The point is that there is NOTHING about it that says it is not a balloon. (Or a drone, for that matter, the footage is too poor to be sure even of that distinction.) A balloon would explain everything we see in this video. We know balloons exist. It COULD be a balloon (or a drone, though to my eye it looks more like a balloon, but "to my eye" is not evidence of anything. So maybe it is a drone instead and my sense of what it was is wrong.)

As it COULD be a balloon, it is not good evidence for a previously unknown physics defying "Real UAPs" flying around. And since we know balloons exist, balloons are way more likely as an explanation for this video than things that are not known to exist. Maybe it is a military or civilian drone, those exist as well.

Maybe it's an inter-dimensional critter, or physics defying alien spaceship, or stray demon floating around or something else unprecedented and unknown. If so, it is up to the believers to prove those things exist and this is one. Given how poor this video is, and how nothing about it is anomalous (the shape is strange, but strange shaped balloons floating around are not anomalous) proving that is not going to be easy.

This is like talking to a detective who only has one suspect in mind even though none of the mugshots match the suspect.

So instead of steering everything to one possible conclusion, I've tried to look for other suspects.

Helicopters are known to tow stuff from time to time. Over water sometimes it's sonar buoys.

Maybe in this case it was a warm rectangular or oval object and the cargo netting/straps are partially obscuring the heat signature. It could also be a bright light source like a LED light bar since those pop on thermal too at night.

Maybe depending on the outside temperature and even the operator's camera settings, the helicopter's tow line isn't showing but the cargo is. As you said, it's a pretty low quality image that might be leaving out some details.

An example of a LED light bar:

 

[JMartJr]

This is like talking to a detective who only has one suspect in mind even though none of the mugshots match the suspect.

Then I have not explained myself well. Let me try again. It looks like a balloon and there is no reason to believe it cannot be one. It might well be one. It is therefore not evidence of something extraordinary... there is at least one mundane explanation that fits, an extraordinary explanation is not required.

There are, in fact, more than one.

Am I sure it was a balloon? Not at all. As I said a drone would also fit. I had not thought of something towed/lifted by a helicopter, that is an interesting thought and I see nothing to rule it out, so your thought there may be right. In which case, again no extraordinary hypothesis is needed.

Because the footage is so crummy, it may never be possible to be sure what it was. But we have multiple hypothesis that seem sufficient. Efforts to go beyond that are fine, it would be fun to find THE drone, or THE thing that helicopters tow... or even THE balloon, if that is what it is. We like that sort if puzzle here, it is fun to be the one to figure it out But even if that never happens, this video is not evidence of anything extraordinary.. THAT claim does not hold water.

My assertion, then, is not that it is a balloon. Only that it might be. There are other things it might be. Given that there is nothing anomalous about it, it could be any of several things. Therefore it is not useful evidence of some new phenomenon. Given how poor the video is, it is not useful image of much of anything.

Hope that is clearer.

 

[NoParty]

Detective Mart, for the tenth time, we know that Colonel Mustard was nowhere near the library at the time...

 

[John J.]

This is a still from thermal footage I took last year. Guess what type of machine it is and post a picture of it in your reply.

Maybe a front discharge cement mixer truck? Front wheels and cab out of shot to the left.
Took me a while, didn't know they were a thing and was trying to figure out stuff like why the 'cab' on the right didn't have windows...

Couldn't find an exact match from a quick search but I'd guess something like one of these.
Wheel spacing on the Terex trucks is closer to @Hwy666's photo. (Not sure if the Terex Advance 12x6 and FDB 6000 are different vehicles)

So instead of steering everything to one possible conclusion, I've tried to look for other suspects.
Helicopters are known to tow stuff from time to time. Over water sometimes it's sonar buoys.

While the MTS or whatever system was used might have a restricted field of view (I don't know), wouldn't the operator be likely to notice the (presumably much larger) helicopter? I guess that can't be ruled out, though.
(Being a bit pedantic, I think when a helicopter lowers a sonar device on a line it's a dipping (or dunking) sonar; sonobuoys are dropped from a helicopter and float freely, they aren't attached).

 

[Hwy666]

Maybe a front discharge cement mixer truck? Front wheels and cab out of shot to the left.
Took me a while, didn't know they were a thing and was trying to figure out stuff like why the 'cab' on the right didn't have windows...

Couldn't find an exact match from a quick search but I'd guess something like one of these.
Wheel spacing on the Terex trucks is closer to @Hwy666's photo. (Not sure if the Terex Advance 12x6 and FDB 6000 are different vehicles)

You got it. Good job. It's actually a Terex brand truck. The bright heat signature is the engine all the way in the back. It's a very unusual truck but they're out there.

The broader point is the analysts who get paid to look at this footage for the military/intelligence community can't afford to sit back and say "Close enough." There could be serious ramifications for mistaking a Russian SU-27 for a F-15EX.

I think if I were in their shoes I might have to visit a few different airfields to gather thermal imaging of a wide variety of aircraft as a process of elimination. I don't think I'd be visiting a florist to stock up on party balloons but everybody has a right to their own interpretations.

 

[jarlrmai]

So you seem to feel that, "it's probably a balloon no need to worry about what type" was good enough for the military analysts?

 

[RobertBillyBob]

While the MTS or whatever system was used might have a restricted field of view (I don't know), wouldn't the operator be likely to notice the (presumably much larger) helicopter? I guess that can't be ruled out, though.

Looking at the corners representing the next zoom level it looks like the first seconds are at medium-narrow (2.8 x 3.7) FOV before zooming to narrow (0.47 x 0.63) at 8s and then ultra-narrow (0.08 x 0.11) at 23s.

If it's something dangling from a line the line is at least 140x longer than object (700px vs 5px):

 

[JMartJr]

So you seem to feel that, "it's probably a balloon no need to worry about what type" was good enough for the military analysts?

Not sure if you were asking me, but a slight modification to "It is possibly (or probably) a balloon and the video is too poor to determine what exact type" would seem tome a reasonable reaction to the video as it has been presented.

At the time of filming, I would have expected an effort to be made to get closer and resolve what it is. Of course, such an effort mat have been made, and may have successfully resolved the object... but if so we do not have that video. It may be significant, how few of these videos show the complete incident, and specifically how it ended. One might winder if the part where they fly over and see the string under the balloon is pruned, in order to have a UAP video to send in ..