UAP Hearing New Video - Yemen Orb
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
JMartJr
Senior Member.
A cynical person might think that the "why nothing being done about it" bit might have $omething to do with appropriation$ for new $y$tems and upgrade$ and $uch $tuff...
Leaking LIZ stuff that does not reveal too much in terms of capabilities might help create congressional and public support for funding this and that, ostensibly in order to address this new potential threat/hazard.
My brain is still confused by the motion of the 'orbs'. After watching this video numerous times...
... I think it is a perspective illusion. The 'orbs' aren't separating from the main object and maintaining their distance - they are maintaining altitude as the main section falls after being damaged.
I'm still tending towards quadcopters on a balloon - but admittedly I have zero evidence for this.
Edit - light pieces of fabric debris caught in the Hellfire's wake seems more likely.
... I think it is a perspective illusion. The 'orbs' aren't separating from the main object and maintaining their distance - they are maintaining altitude as the main section falls after being damaged.
Edit - light pieces of fabric debris caught in the Hellfire's wake seems more likely.
Last edited:
Seems to me similar to the debris field of the Chinese spy balloon shoot down. Just hard to understand the perspective given lack of information on angles and parallax effect.
Source:
Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gqfU2iri8Yw&pp=ygURQmFsbG9vbiBzaG90IGRvd24%3D
Source:
Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gqfU2iri8Yw&pp=ygURQmFsbG9vbiBzaG90IGRvd24%3D
I wish it was as simple as the internet/social media! Unfortunately, my biggest frustration is that the government (elected officials and others) is feeding fuel to this ridiculousness. And in my mind a bigger conspiracy becomes why is this allowed to occur? There has to be someone who knows what this footage is of, yet the pentagon and others just let it exist as something anomalous by having the stance of "We have no comment".
Sorry for the rant. It's just so silly to me.
I lean toward JMartJr's sentiment:
Well, "supposedly" isn't really trustworthy in general when it comes to ufo stories.
It did bug me that so many mainstream outlets ran the story fairly uncritically...
Much to my surprise, NBC was a little more circumspect -- Gadi Schwartz usually embraces alternative explanations.
Mendel
Senior Member.
It's certainly the simplest explanation.
Now let's assume the balloon had a payload—why else would they shoot it?
Then assume that it's likely that the payload is attached to the biggest piece left after the breakup, because a) it's the biggest, so the chance is the biggest, b) the balloon was attacked from the top and the payload would be tethered to the bottom end.
Loose bits of balloon would keep floating on the wind, but after lift was lost, the payload would quickly accelerate towards the ground.
No need to add quadcopters to the explanation—keep it simple.
yes, I tend to agree with this now. The debris would essentially be pieces of fabric or latex floating in the wake of the Hellfire. They don't fall with the rest of the balloon because they are so light and in air (kinda like falling feathers) and the air resistance holds them aloft. That would account for the seemingly non-balliistic trajectory.
Kyle Ferriter
Senior Member.
Also, "quickly" is relative. The separation between the large object and the primary 3 smaller bits of debris in the 2D video projection does increase over the 5.2 seconds before the field of view switches. And after the initial violent movement from the impact, further separation is primarily vertical (in the 2D plane) separation, suggesting the larger object could be accelerating downwards faster than the smaller objects. Maybe not by a huge factor, but enough to be visually noticeable in the narrow FoV over the span of like 3-4 seconds. Another factor though is that the cameras line of sight angle below horizontal changes over the course of the video.
I have some 4ft diameter mylar+foil sphere balloons. I guess I could maybe cut one up into particularly sized pieces. Thinking of if there's a way I could rig a remote/time-delay release of them from my drone so I could watch them fall from high up. Maybe with a remote-controlled electromagnet.
EDIT: not seeing much in the way of remote-controlled battery options but there are time-delay switches.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
Is anything? Well, perhaps "I saw something I can't explain" is fairly trustworthy if you think the observer himself is trustworthy, but that information gets you no closer to a UFO identification.
Ann K
Senior Member.
I agree with previous posts that the smaller bits are artificially enhanced by their video software, but wouldn't "loose bits of balloon" behave (on a smaller scale) just like a large section? I'd expect them to show some visible fluttering or collapsing, especially after a violent hit on the main part.
I agree. I think it's parallax creating the illusion of something extraordinary, which in turn makes people feel the need to invoke drones or other remarkable explanations. But if you freeze the background, it doesn't look all that strange anymore. We're viewing the scene from above at a fairly steep angle, and the missile likely would have ripped the balloon apart even without exploding. Pieces of fabric drifting in the wake of the speeding missile seem like a perfectly reasonable explanation for what we see in the video.
I'm not so sure. We're looking at a heavily zoomed-in video of an object about 5,700 meters away. And the debris—or pieces of fabric—are drifting in the wake of a Hellfire missile swishing by at Mach 1.3. This just being some pieces ripped off the damaged ballon seems like a reasonable explanation.
I've started a new thread for 3D analysis of the video, and the data extracted from it.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/3d-analysis-of-the-yemen-orb.14446/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/3d-analysis-of-the-yemen-orb.14446/
It's quite interesting to read about all the tests and experiments recently being conducted with counter-UAS systems. It makes sense, since shooting down drones has become an essential military task. This article discusses Gray Eagle drones engaging small aerial targets with Longbow Hellfire missiles.
At first, it might seem unreasonable to think the 'object' in the video could be as small as 70 centimeters—but is that really so unthinkable? Since we have no proof of where, when, or under what circumstances the video was taken, it's entirely possible we're looking at a test where a Hellfire was used against a small balloon—a much cheaper test target than a drone.
Maury Markowitz
Active Member
Assuming that by "missile" you mean "the hellfire", then we assume it is steeply descending. According to the presentation, this was fired from a drone flying at around 24,000 ft at a target at around 12,000. So you are seeing it pretty much right on the back end, flying "into" the view. I think that explains your confusion with the speed - the only motion you're seeing is side-to-side while it tracks.
We know almost nothing for sure about this video. The source is unknown, and we have no idea why it was leaked in the first place. That's why it's crucial to focus on what can actually be observed in the footage itself.
The "official story" is that the video shows a drone filming a Hellfire missile fired from another drone. I understand why someone who hasn't analyzed the footage closely might assume that must be the case. At first glance, it's easy to misinterpret the scene as a Hellfire coming in level with the target and hitting it from the side. If that were the case, a second drone would indeed be required.
But what we're actually looking at is most likely a Hellfire coming from the same direction as the camera, descending steeply onto the target. I don't see why a second drone would be needed at all. The main hypothesis should possibly be that the same drone is both filming and firing.
We see LRD LASE DES appear on screen about 17 seconds before the missile hits. It's hard to pin down the exact flight time of a Hellfire, since it depends on the acceleration phase and especially the steep angle of descent. But around 15 seconds seems like a reasonable estimate. Nothing in the footage contradicts the idea that the filming drone is also the one firing.
Why does it matter? Maybe it doesn't. But if true, it would prove that the source who leaked the video—and those repeating the story—aren't entirely trustworthy.
Also, I really think we can see a "flash" about 15.6 seconds before the Hellfire hits the target. Could this be the moment the drone fired the missile? Perhaps I'm just seeing what I want to see, and it's nothing more than a reflection—but it does appear exactly where you'd expect if the filming drone was also the one firing. When the contrast is increased slightly, the "flash" becomes even more pronounced:
Maury Markowitz
Active Member
Right... what I said.
It's not. But they said it was, and I see no reason to think they are lying about it.
It's certainly not uncommon for one aircraft to fly with the targeting pod and designator and another to carry the weapon load. cf. Pave Penny.
Hank Green expresses his embarrassment that Congress and the national media took this seriously in "I Honestly Felt Bad Debunking This." Not a terribly thorough analysis (and wrong on a couple of details), but it comes down to "That is what a missile would look like if it went through a high altitude balloon. Maybe I'm wrong about this. Maybe the missile went through a drone."
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64zlyzojpPM
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64zlyzojpPM
But we also don't really have any reason to believe the anonymous source is necessarily right. From experience, it's usually wise to be cautious about taking claims from anonymous sources at face value. Sure, drones sometimes do work together, as the source suggested in this case—but the same source also claimed that we're seeing a Hellfire bouncing off a UAP, and that simply doesn't hold up.
I think everything about this video should be taken with a generous pinch of salt, including the alleged location and the claim about two separate drones. Personally, I haven't seen any evidence of a second drone, so for now I'd put that together with the long list of unsubstantiated claims surrounding this case.
Saying "I see no reason to think they're lying about it" might sound reasonable, but it can actually be a risky position to take. In the end, it's always up to the person making the claim to provide the proof—not the other way around.
John J.
Senior Member.
I'm not sure. Maybe the target is a balloon. But I wonder if we're seeing a missile clipping a UAV (perhaps more likely a "kamikaze drone" than a recce asset if the location is correct, which we don't know) and not detonating. Failures to detonate, even after hitting a hard target, do happen.
(Talking generally; no idea about Hellfire's relative reliability- probably high).
MonkeeSage
Senior Member.
I am having a hard time understanding the trajectory of the missile on the single drone hypothesis.
Consider that when we see it, it's flying mostly into the scene, not across it.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
My attempt to visualize that says it is like looking down the length of a pool cue, where any slight curve is very visible,as opposed to looking at it from off to the side where it looks more straight...
Surprisingly, I can't find a good picture illustrating this... I can take some of kite sticks when I get home, if that would be helpful...
From:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/so...ture-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.8939/
and even more illustrative:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/so...ctive-foreshortening-contrails-and-ufos.8898/
Constant speed (in 3D)
So what we are looking at is like the first one, with very slight curves.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Thanks @Mick West that makes the point visually, perfectly. Now I gotta go put all these lightly warped kite sticks back where I found 'em...
Maury Markowitz
Active Member
Ok, and how does that change the outcome? You raised this issue as a reply to my statement about the missile descending, if I'm reading it correctly. If this was fired from a single drone or different drones, would it look different? Perhaps I'm missing your point.
Well, it wouldn't really make a different per say. But it's a matter of we should trust the claims made by the "ufo community" or not.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Yes.
We don't know whether the "2 drones" claim was informed by knowledge, given that there's little other information that was given, or whether it's the result of someone seeing the video and assuming the missile came in from the side (instead of from above).
MonkeeSage
Senior Member.
I'm still not sure I'm understanding the path of the missile on the single drone hypothesis. We see the missile appear on the left side of the object and the drone seems to be on the right. Is the idea something like this?
I'd guess that field of view is much too wide. You have the camera and the targeting laser in the nose and the missile coming off one wing.
But it does make we wonder, if the Hellfire has a solid rocket motor that only burns briefly on its way to the target, what path would it follow? You would envision more of a straight line from the drone to the target, it might be cleaner from a second drone.
Mendel
Senior Member.
RobertBillyBob
Senior Member.
The missile is launched from the drone. The very start of its trajectory is parallel to the drone trajectory due to the way it is attached, then the missile turns to aim for the UAP.
The camera is looking down because the UAP is below the drone. Because of the start of it's trajectory, the missile is above the camera line of sight, the camera sees the missile coming from above.
The camera is moving from left to right while rotating to keep the UAP in the center of the frame. It has already moved a bit to the right between when the missile is launched and when the missile enter the camera field of view, so the camera sees the missile coming from the left.
The rotation of the camera distorts the appearance of the missile trajectory making look curved when it is traveling in a straight line.
Here's what I get when I reproduce this scenario in blender : (missile trajectory as seen from the camera)
Compare to the observed trajectory :
I can't get an exact match because blender is having floating point precision issue when using a too small field of view, but I think it is close enough to show that the observed trajectory can be explained with mostly straight lines in the single drone hypothesis.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Thank you!
I agree—the single-drone hypothesis is really tempting for many reasons. Your breakdown of the trajectory is very useful. What do you think about the path it takes after impact? (If we should even call it "impact," since a near miss could likely rip a balloon apart.) The missile appears to make an S-curve, which is why some people have interpreted it as being "bounced off" the object. But isn't it also possible that this apparent curvature in the trajectory after "impact" is simply caused by the rotation of the camera, and that the missile actually continues on a relatively straight path?
RobertBillyBob
Senior Member.
If you keeps the same straight line trajectories after the impact the apparent missile trajectory curves back up like an U, not like an S :
You do get an S-curve if the missile "bounces" on the UAP, i.e. it is reflected in a straight line toward the camera :
I'll try to set up a "missile still aiming for the laser pointer that is now pointing at the sea" scenario during the weekend.
boguesuser
Active Member
The missle's on screen size is slightly smaller just before it leaves the frame than it was the moment after impact so I believe the missle is moving away from the drone the entire time.
Similar threads
