UAP Hearing New Video - Yemen Orb

[Kyle Ferriter]

I think those are just image artifacts from low resolution, diffraction spikes, and sharpening.

I agree. They could be something like drone payloads mentioned above but it's really hard to say just from this quality of video. The video has been passed through at least 2 rounds, probably more, of lossy re-recording and recompression. In some frames like that one the edges of compression blocks are very apparent and are distorting the apparent shape. Causes some "square-ification" of features. The sharpening mask being applied in software also could be distorting the edges and may not be doing a very good job if the objects are very low resolution and contrast with the surroundings. It's just doing its best to try to draw edges around things it can detect, but it's not perfect and its ability to consistently draw edges varies throughout the video.

In other frames (e.g. 653) you can see the edge enhancement software loses one of the smaller objects and doesn't draw an edge, and the edges drawn around the other two small objects are more irregular and different than above.

I wouldn't assume this is the real shape:

 

[BoulderRiver]

I just increased the contrast of the video.

The "debris"/"orbs" appear to all have the very same distinct shape of a rectangle.
There are hotspots in every one of these angles.

I agree with AzaB2C's opinion expressed in https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uap-hearing-new-video-yemen-orb.14427/#post-351484

I would bet it's a Drone "mothership", perhaps the one suggested by NJ representative last year during the Drone flap:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1QF8q9WVzY

 

[flarkey]

I just increased the contrast of the video.

View attachment 83832

The "debris"/"orbs" appear to all have the very same distinct shape of a rectangle.
There are hotspots in every one of these angles.

I agree with AzaB2C's opinion expressed in https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uap-hearing-new-video-yemen-orb.14427/#post-351484

It's a Drone "mothership"

Hmm interesting theory. do you think the 'orbs'/'quadcopters' are operational after impact & separation - ie are their rotors turning and are they attempting stabilised flight? Because that might explain what I thought I was seeing in the video...

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/hellfire-uap-collision-stabilized-zoomed-mp4.83809/

 

[boguesuser]

I don't think it's moving fast at all. The debris trailing it indicates it's just drifting with the wind, and the apparent motion is from parallax.

I understand most of the motion is from parallax but if it's a drone traveling at 40 or 50 mph, I think the debris trail would look similar.

 

[Harabeck]

Is it debris? It looks like the three main parts have the same definite shape/size. (see #42)
Couldn't this be the test of an "aerostat mounted drone station" the likes of which are being tested/used in Ukraine to detect and launch counter drones at incoming drones.
Something like this: https://spectrum.ieee.org/airships-drones-ukraine
Other aerostats have drones mounted under them which can be launched.

Do we have any evidence that the houthis, or anyone else operating at this time and place, have such systems? While more likely than aliens, I'm not convinced that's what we're seeing.

 

[jdog]

There is an interesting comment buried in
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1ncyqou/rep_burlison_new_ufo_video_is_remarkable_i/
:

DanTMWTMP
•2h ago•Edited 33m ago


I can analyze this because I am familiar with these systems.

I saw this video months ago on the DoD's SIPRnet Intelink iVideo site. Only people with secret clearance can access this site, and only from specific workstations, and SCIFs.

There's only one debris that falls away with the momentum of the craft.

The rest are artifacts from IR multipath interference from a pitted lens housing and/or lens of the camera, where after a certain heat threshold and angle of the source to the sensor, the IR signal takes multiple paths to the sensor due to lens housing having defects on it. That makes it look like multiple pieces of debris "following" the drone.

That's what's happening here.

The official analysis is HTK (hit-to-kill) via Hellfire is sometimes not sufficient to bring down a Huthi drone. That's it.

Source: Military contractor, and I've been verified by the mods here
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/6eqfRluAWx

 

[Mick West]

There's only one debris that falls away with the momentum of the craft.

The rest are artifacts from IR multipath interference from a pitted lens housing and/or lens of the camera, where after a certain heat threshold and angle of the source to the sensor, the IR signal takes multiple paths to the sensor due to lens housing having defects on it. That makes it look like multiple pieces of debris "following" the drone.

I really don't see how that makes any sense from an optics point of view. Why would a pitted housing window make well-defined small images? The small blobs all follow very different paths. Why would they move like that?

 

[RAS]

I wonder how the writers know that the object as seen was unidentified?

They state that it is claimed to be unidentified:

The claimed unidentified object is seen in the middle in the crosshairs.

 

[JMartJr]

Not saying this is true in this particular case, but the reasons given are usually natsec related, e.g. hiding the max resolutions of sensors and whatnot.

That would explain why the military would not release them, but not so much why the Usual Gang over at Big UFO would not leak them.

I'm also not sure what sensitive information would be at risk releasing a video of a UFO that is more clear because it is close to the camera/aircraft, as opposed to because the camera was better and doing amazing things, which at one point they were claiming to have.

 

[JMartJr]

I really don't see how that makes any sense from an optics point of view. Why would a pitted housing window make well-defined small images? The small blobs all follow very different paths. Why would they move like that?

And why would they not be there BEFORE the missile strike? I understand how being hit by a missile might make debris fly off the target, I'm not sure I see how it would make the optical effects suddenly show up. Am I missing something?

 

[MapperGuy]

The framing and wiggling of text rendered in the video being displayed and then re-recorded from what appears to be a Windows 11 environment (the presentation computer in the room?) indicates there is cropping and stabilization applied to some original video, which resulted in the video which is being displayed to Congress. A question is who did that cropping and stabilization, and where is the original video? The clip is at 1:16:15 in the Reuters stream. Burlison said he was given the video. But not by who. Or any explanation of the provenance of this video or where the original is. Immediately after, George Knapp says he and Corbell already knew about this video, and that it comes from a server where there is a collection of similar such videos. We've heard reference to these server directories full of collected UFO videos before. If all these people know about these folders of videos and occasionally leak them out, it seems like it should be simple for someone to tell AARO or Congress where it is so they can go look at it and figure out where its coming from and what purpose it serves.

There are undoubtedly servers containing videos saved for one purpose or another.

Problem is in most of them it is obvious what is going on and what weapons are involved.

What these people are looking for is videos where it is NOT obvious. Then they can claim things in them to be aliens.

When you are cherry-picking videos out of a large collection like this there will always be some that are less-clear.

 

[Ann K]

I wonder how the writers know that the object as seen was unidentified?

I read them as "Well, I don't know what they are, so they're unidentified". "Unidentified" is itself an admission of ignorance.

 

[MapperGuy]

HAT is going to be Height Above Terrain.
A drone knows is its elevation, from GPS. It will also know the distance and bearing to the target it's laser range-finder is illuminating.
You could calculate from elevation, range and bearing your height above target, but why would you?
You might want to know the range to the target, so you can determine if a weapon you are carrying is within its effective range.
But your height above the target isn't really useful information.

 

[Ann K]

There is an interesting comment buried in

"This video is no longer available".

 

[Mick West]

A redditor asked them a similar question and the reply:

Great question. Because it only appears after a certain heat threshold on the sensor. That filter can be adjusted to filter out noise.

Filter out noise? You've got the hottest object in the middle, then some less hot images of that, and you've got everything else in the image of varying hotnesses. How exactly do you filter out these blobs of slightly-less-hot? It would A) leave holes, and B) filter out all kinds of other stuff.

This sounds implausible, verging on BS.

 

[JMartJr]

I read them as "Well, I don't know what they are, so they're unidentified". "Unidentified" is itself an admission of ignorance.

And their ignorance is not data.

 

[Giddierone]

are their rotors turning and are they attempting stabilised flight?

I thought so. They look like these drones in IR. [Edit in the left hand column]

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wh...foia-release-from-the-drive.12465/post-272290

 

[FatPhil]

[*]Method of targeting: The video includes the text "LRD LASE DES," indicating the use of "buddy lasing"—one platform designating the target with a laser and the other launching the laser-guided Hellfire.

Who knows - with a slightly shorter wavelength laser, perhaps they could have popped the balloon without the need for kinetic impact?

 

[Mick West]

I thought so. They look like these drones in IR. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wh...foia-release-from-the-drive.12465/post-272290

I really don't think the drone mothership hypothesis has any supporting evidence. The black pixels around the edges of the small blobs are sharpening artifacts. You see the exact same thing on the big blob.

The cross/pacman shape they end up with seems just to be the result of their size in pixels.

I wouldn't 100% rule it out, but I'm not seeing it.

 

[FatPhil]

Not saying this is true in this particular case, but the reasons given are usually natsec related, e.g. hiding the max resolutions of sensors and whatnot.

Theta = 1.22 lambda / D

You can't hide D, you're advertising that right at the front of the thing.

 

[FatPhil]

The "debris"/"orbs" appear to all have the very same distinct shape of a rectangle.
There are hotspots in every one of these angles.

There's does appear to be a rectangular nature to them, but they're not provably resolvable. At best, we are in

territory, but at worst, the PSF of the optics might simply have spikes with a 4-way symmetry - c.f. Hubble.
(img link: https://www.rocketmime.com/astronomy/ScopeDiagrams/AiryDisk_3.gif , via: https://www.rocketmime.com/astronomy/Telescope/ResolvingPower.html )

 

[FatPhil]

And why would they not be there BEFORE the missile strike? I understand how being hit by a missile might make debris fly off the target, I'm not sure I see how it would make the optical effects suddenly show up. Am I missing something?

I don't think so. I have seen a massively-but-very-briefly overloaded sensor retain an artefact on the sensor where the overloading occured, but that's not what's happening: the glaring is moving on the sensor, so is a glaring image of a still-moving thing.

If someone's got an old camera they don't mind potentially ruining (seriously, don't do this with any kit you care about), you might be able to reproduce that afterglare with a low power laser pointer.

 

[BoulderRiver]

Do you think the 'orbs'/'quadcopters' are operational after impact & separation - ie are their rotors turning and are they attempting stabilised flight?

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/hellfire-uap-collision-stabilized-zoomed-mp4.83809/

Yessir, that's what I believe we are seeing.
I think that the Hellfire hit the "Drone mothership's" balloon, and the quadcopters were knocked out of their respective docking station, which would be located BELOW the balloon. Such a docking and possibly recharging station wouldn't be visible from this upper perspective, so makes sense that it looks like the suspiciously "quadrangular orbs" appear to simply subtract themselves from the UAP.

There could/might be a solar panel at the canopy, which would enable long, sustained operations and communications with whoever is controlling these.

Bear in mind, this is an apparatus rumored to exist and is being used by the People's Liberation Army. I have not seen photographs or official reports on these, but they seem logical to exist.

 

[sigmops]

Yessir, that's what I believe we are seeing.
I think that the Hellfire hit the "Drone mothership's" balloon, and the quadcopters were knocked out of their respective docking station, which would be located BELOW the balloon. Such a docking and possibly recharging station wouldn't be visible from this upper perspective, so makes sense that it looks like the suspiciously "quadrangular orbs" appear to simply subtract themselves from the UAP.

There could/might be a solar panel at the canopy, which would enable long, sustained operations and communications with whoever is controlling these.

Bear in mind, this is an apparatus rumored to exist and is being used by the People's Liberation Army. I have not seen photographs or official reports on these, but they seem logical to exist.

If it is carrying drones with a short flight range, how can they expect a passively floating balloon to get close enough to a target?

Also once there, how would the quadcopters seek their targets? Pre-programmed GPS coordinates?

 

[Mick West]

Bear in mind, this is an apparatus rumored to exist and is being used by the People's Liberation Army. I have not seen photographs or official reports on these, but they seem logical to exist.

Please link to these rumors.


It does not seem logical to me. Warfare drones are generally either for surveillance or kamikaze attacks. A balloon is not stealth. Docking would not help surveillance as you'd still need to get the drone back, and you can't really steer balloons, and it's not needed for kamikaze.

 

[BoulderRiver]

Please link to these rumors.

It was a rumour initiated by New Jersey Representative Jeff Van Drew during yesteryear's "drone flap" over NJ.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1QF8q9WVzY


According to him, an Iranian "Drone Mothership" was detected somewhere in the latter half of 2024.
Considering the Yemen-Iranian long-lasting relationship, if Jeff Van Drew's intel is correct, the significant military and financial support provided by the Persians to the Houthi could suggest a hypothesis for this UAP event.

More info: https://www.fox29.com/news/drone-mothership-claim-new-info-about-irans-drone-activity

It does not seem logical to me. Warfare drones are generally either for surveillance or kamikaze attacks. A balloon is not stealth. Docking would not help surveillance as you'd still need to get the drone back, and you can't really steer balloons, and it's not needed for kamikaze.

AFAIK traditional balloon cannot be easily steered, yes - but it can use known jet streams to "roughly" achieve a certain interest point under acceptable levels of stealth for its overall price, just like the 2023's spy balloons? Perhaps not even a balloon, but more a mini-blimp? Small enough for most radars to disregard as a threat.

I would imagine these small drones to have a purpose in surveillance: light, fast, and without a payload. Rechargeable at the Main Station, which is in turn recharged through solar. Since the entire apparatus stays afloat for months, just surfing the winds like the 2023 spy balloon, recharging its battery for when it reaches the interest point.

If it is carrying drones with a short flight range, how can they expect a passively floating balloon to get close enough to a target?

Also once there, how would the quadcopters seek their targets? Pre-programmed GPS coordinates?

Maybe the very drones it harbors could aid its locomotion.

We have also seen some unexpected maneuverability from the Chinese spy balloon of 2023, according to
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chinese-spy-balloon-has-unexpected-maneuverability/
We know that the CCP has substantial ties with the Iranian Government, including the sale of military equipment.

Also once there, how would the quadcopters seek their targets? Pre-programmed GPS coordinates?

Pre-programmed is certainly a possibility - we can perceive how they quickly stabilize their flight in a very 'quadcopter'-like pattern after leaving the UAP. I understand very little of information technology to know if it is true, but this hypothetical mothership could maybe have enough signal reach to relay the control, as in HQ->MS->Drones. Of course, latency is a problem, but I doubt these missions would require extreme finesse.


Important reminder:
I am being creative/imaginative here; there is very little evidence to support what I am suggesting, but it does seem more likely than a flying saucer. My idea is wishful thinking based on loose information at best, conjuring what I think is plausible - but might not be, since I'm still learning a lot.

 

[FatPhil]

It does not seem logical to me. Warfare drones are generally either for surveillance or kamikaze attacks. A balloon is not stealth. Docking would not help surveillance as you'd still need to get the drone back, and you can't really steer balloons, and it's not needed for kamikaze.

At a stretch, could "innocent looking balloon" be simply nothing more than visual cover, even if it hinders the practicality of getting the drones to where you want them. Rather than evading detection, evade invoking a response. Since the weather balloon incidents, that's far more marginal, obviously. However, sometimes the preposterous is done because no-one expects the preposterous, and therefore it isn't so vigilantly defended against. I'm certainly not proposing this as likely, just brainstoming on the idea to prevent premature rejection of it.

 

[Giddierone]

The black pixels around the edges of the small blobs are sharpening artifacts. You see the exact same thing on the big blob.

But the white pixles seem the same also on the two object on the rhs here, and they go through the same kind of transformation. Compare frame 723 and 733 (contrast adjusted).

 

[Giddierone]

There's this balloon mothership company that disappeared in 2022 around the start of the Ukraine war (maybe they got bought up?) which made similar shaped steerable balloon things which appear to have drones docked beneath them. https://web.archive.org/web/20220630164841/http://www.mothership.aero/

 

[FatPhil]

But the white pixles seem the same also on the two object on the rhs here, and they go through the same kind of transformation. Compare frame 723 and 733 (contrast adjusted).
View attachment 83841View attachment 83842

If multiple objects undergo the same geometric transformation in their imaging simultaneously, despite there being no reason for their physical behaviour to be coordinated, then you're almost certainly seeing an effect the of optics rather than a property of the objects themselves.

 

[Giddierone]

@FatPhil "Party pooper".

 

[John J.]

I would bet it's a Drone "mothership", perhaps the one suggested by NJ representative last year during the Drone flap

When Rep. Jeff Van Drew suggested that the drones reportedly seen during the late 2024 New Jersey flap (see thread Drones over New Jersey?) came from an Iranian mothership, he meant, literally, a ship:

"We have information that a sea-based Iranian drone mothership is currently missing from port, and that its embarkation timeline would align with the appearance of the New Jersey Drones," he wrote the president in a letter obtained by Agudath Israel of America news.

"Mystery NJ drones are coming from Iranian mothership offshore, congressman suggests: 'Should be shot down'", New York Post,
Alex Oliveira, Craig McCarthy 11 Dec. 2024 (link here).

 

[Ann K]

When Rep. Jeff Van Drew suggested that the drones reportedly seen during the late 2024 New Jersey flap (see thread Drones over New Jersey?) came from an Iranian mothership, he meant, literally, a ship:

In the last few years, Van Drew has changed parties and has completely reversed policy positions that he held just a short few years ago (according to his Wikipedia entry), so it is impossible to say whether he really believes that "mothership" stuff or just finds it politically expedient to say so.

 

[JMartJr]

I would bet it's a Drone "mothership", perhaps the one suggested by NJ representative last year during the Drone flap:

I'd suggest that, given that no actual evidence of such drones ever turned up and in every case where you could see clearly what was being photographed it was consistent with a plane or helicopter (often very obviously a plane or helicopter), that therefore positing a drone mother ship as their source is multiplying entities without need!

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

I understand most of the motion is from parallax but if it's a drone traveling at 40 or 50 mph, I think the debris trail would look similar.

Unpowered debris detached from an aircraft applying a constant force laterally to maintain velocity, and upward force to counteract gravity, would rapidly separate from the powered aircraft along both those axis, due to air resistance and gravity. Or are you suggesting the drone ceased powering itself in any direction after it was impacted.

 

[boguesuser]

Re-watching the video, the "missle" looks pretty slow to be a hellfire.

This is the best video I could find in a short time of a hellfire.

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dbRxntrNZC4


If these are actually hellfire tests, those bois come in HOT.

 

[boguesuser]

Unpowered debris detached from an aircraft applying a constant force laterally to maintain velocity, and upward force to counteract gravity, would rapidly separate from the powered aircraft along both those axis, due to air resistance and gravity. Or are you suggesting the drone ceased powering itself in any direction after it was impacted.

I'm struggling to follow what you are asking.

 

[rmoore]

Re-watching the video, the "missle" looks pretty slow to be a hellfire.

A Hellfire traveling at near 450 m/s should have crossed that frame in around a tenth of a second. It would be useful to know the frame rate on the original video.

 

[Ravi]

A Hellfire traveling at near 450 m/s should have crossed that frame in around a tenth of a second. It would be useful to know the frame rate on the original video.

I wonder if hellfire missiles only operate at 450m/s, or that there is a range of speeds it can work with (likely).

 

[Ravi]

There is an interesting comment buried in [MEDIA. =reddit]. UFOs/comments/1ncyqou[/ MEDIA]

He seems to be "verified" by Reddit mods, so I guess I have to say "ok". I saw "verification" pictures of him on a military "room", so I guess as a navy guy you are allowed to post on reddit regularly during working hours. Sorry I am always very skeptical on these matters (reddit being reddit).

But his claim they are optical artefacts is something I cannot agree with at all. Just not. He might be experienced with the weapons, and with the videos it produces, but that does not mean you are automatically an optical engineer.
For instance, pits in the optical windows do not appear as spots on your sensor as it is not a conjugate image plane.