Ukrainian drone footage of 6 pointed star

[jarlrmai]

Yeah this is what I mentioned in #7 and #17

 

[Rick Robson]

You bet. Tomorrow is the anniversary of my 2010 experience. That search and the clips was the result. And ultimately me flying over to Metabunk. You can imagine my experience a bit better after reading those accounts, and perhaps even seeing some of the released footage. "Shocking" is the word used a lot, and it is a good one for what I've experienced too. I originally started posting articles at Historum when I first started looking for them. I sifted through and put the good ones into a final bunch at alienexpanse. This is just what I discovered on a personal search. There are many others that other people have found and compiled from various sources over time too. You probably know some.

.
Just posted my main experience there . What is your nickname there?

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

More comments on reddit, this time suggesting that the 'spikes' remain consistent with the image frame, and therefore have to be camera related. I tend to agree.




Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1tc1efk/explanation_for_why_the_points_remain_in_the_same/

It appears to look a bit "tilted to the side" (but not much) at the end of the video.
It could be because of a derotation system similar to other FLIR pods?
Unless of course it's fake, or CGI, but I have no way to tell.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

There is some change in perspective & outline of the 'thing' (?) as the camera moves around.

View attachment 90367

I'm referring to this in my previous post.
This really looks like a "physical" object at first glance, not implying at all it is.
But still, weird camera artifact, if so.

 

[Todd Feinman]

Just posted my main experience there . What is your nickname there?

Sorry, didn't see your post! I went by "Skepticide" (sorry, folks!), and later went with my name, but because of some political beliefs I moved on. Great folks there, though! And they keep the old articles.
I will try and keep a look for posts you might make there. If you have had other experiences, let me know or send me a link when you post them.
There's a couple of things that I posted there that I noticed in old photos, I think you would find very interesting.

 

[Andreas]

There's a second, smaller "dot" in the sky, and the camera pans between the "star" and the smaller dot before returning again. I have no experience with military-grade drones, but to me it looks like nothing more than two friendly drones, with the pilot trying to maintain formation. Or sure, it could be two balloons or aerostats, but I don't see anything anomalous. And obviously it could be a pure hoax too.

 

[Andreas]

And honestly, what does it really say on the screen? There's an indication saying "Low battery" and two symbols showing empty batteries. Someone doesn't seem very interested in getting his drone back home…

And at the end of the video, we get some weird screen that looks like something from a video game, summarizing the "mission."

 

[jarlrmai]

And honestly, what does it really say on the screen? There's an indication saying "Low battery" and two symbols showing empty batteries. Someone doesn't seem very interested in getting his drone back home…
View attachment 90441

And at the end of the video, we get some weird screen that looks like something from a video game, summarizing the "mission."
View attachment 90442

This is detailed in the Reddit post I linked above

 

[John J.]

Someone doesn't seem very interested in getting his drone back home…

Just musing, but there might be situations where maintaining "eyes on" is more important than a drone being able to return.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

I repost the two images of the artifact / object I was talking before, because it didn't show up.

 

[Andreas]

Just musing, but there might be situations where maintaining "eyes on" is more important than a drone being able to return.

Yeah, that's nothing unusual, especially not in war zones. But since he wasn't very interested in the "star" despite the batteries being about to run out, it's fair to assume the "star" wasn't very interesting.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Yeah, that's nothing unusual, especially not in war zones. But since he wasn't very interested in the "star" despite the batteries being about to run out, it's fair to assume the "star" wasn't very interesting.

I agree, but the camera artifact appears to have "shadows", unless it's an optical illusion of said artifact. Or fake altogether for what I know.

 

[Starflint]

I agree, but the camera artifact appears to have "shadows", unless it's an optical illusion of said artifact. Or fake altogether for what I know.

Is it possible that this thing is actually on the ground?

 

[Starflint]

Can anyone find the terrain shown at 1 minute and 11 seconds in the video?

 

[MapperGuy]

There's a second, smaller "dot" in the sky, and the camera pans between the "star" and the smaller dot before returning again. I have no experience with military-grade drones, but to me it looks like nothing more than two friendly drones, with the pilot trying to maintain formation. Or sure, it could be two balloons or aerostats, but I don't see anything anomalous. And obviously it could be a pure hoax too.

View attachment 90440

Can anyone tell, from the data presented in the video, how far the camera is rotating from beginning to the furthest right position?
The level of detail, the sharpness and level of contrast in the "object" does not match the rest of the video image.
Suggesting to me that it is much closer to the lens than anything else in the video.
If the camera is slewing 180 degrees, then that white dot at the furthest right end of the slew might be a reflection, in a camera dome, of the object at the beginning of the video.

Again, look at the level of detail in the six pointed stars prongs, and the sharpness of the central white donut, they are much different from all of the rest of the view. This is not the view of things that are all far away from the camera, that star might be inches away.

 

[Todd Feinman]

The level of detail, the sharpness and level of contrast in the "object" does not match the rest of the video image.

Does look close, if it's an object, like 10' away or something.

 

[Starflint]

This area looks very much like a main support structure standing on the ground, and the hexagram object is very close to the lens and quite low. Furthermore, is the camera height actually just at the level of someone holding it? Did the person filming eventually place the drone on the ground, causing the lens to look up at the hexagram, which is why it ultimately appears as if the hexagram is lifting its head? If this hypothesis holds true, then two points of the hexagram are placed level with the horizon; if the person filming stands on the ground holding the drone and moves horizontally, would the drone's horizon line briefly align with the hexagram's horizontal line as a result?

The above is merely speculation based on appearances; the possibility of CGI or AI still cannot be ruled out

As for the motive, it is highly likely that they are chasing clout by capitalizing on the hype surrounding the Department of War's declassification of UAP files. Some argue that an official releasing such a video wouldn't lie, but that isn't necessarily true. Furthermore, Sergey mentioned that someone else sent it to him, so who can guarantee that the original person who filmed it wasn't playing a prank?

 

[teloiv]

This might be the location, 48°17'40.0"N 37°23'03.0"E looking due south.

There's not a lot of pixels but to me the start and pan down sorta looks like the fields and town. The general water shape seems good. The darker lines leading off the body of water line up pretty good with the vegetation and roads.

This is also around the area of Ukraine's May 2025 offensive. Could be way off, turns out there are way way more decent sized bodies of water in Ukraine than I had ever imagined.

Though I'd assume vegetation would be warmer than surrounding ground yea, so it'd imply it's black hot. Bit weird if so

 

[flarkey]

This might be the location, 48°17'40.0"N 37°23'03.0"E looking due south.

Wow, great find. That is the exact spot. It shows that my suggestion in post #15 that we might be seeing the tail-booms of a drone is complete rubbish. The lines are just fields and hedges.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Is it possible that this thing is actually on the ground?

I thought about it, what could it be?
I was thinking of maybe a source heat (since the weird "steam" / "exhaust" effect behind the object.
So we got the artifact from heat (glare?) of something like a structure on the ground.
The second frame I posted before however shows a difference in perspective relative to the object, you can see it's more "round" in the first frame, but more "oval" in the second one.
That change seems to reflect some kind of depth or solidity.
What phenomenon would cause such illusion? If it were in fact glare.

 

[flarkey]

Just another observation with this, we can see that the size of the lake in the video gets bigger between the 0m11s and 1m20s time codes of the video, and therefore we can deduce that the drone is loosing altitude. However the position of the 'thing' is still in the same relative position in the camera FOV (close to the horizon) and is the same size throughout the video. This means that either the 'thing' was tracking and following the descent of the drone, or it is in some way attached to the drone. (Or I suppose it could be massive and far away.)

Size of the lake increases:

Thing stays consistently sized, although there is a change in orientaion.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Just another observation with this, we can see that the size of the lake in the video gets bigger between the 0m11s and 1m20s time codes of the video, and therefore we can deduce that the drone is loosing altitude. However the position of the 'thing' is still in the same relative position in the camera FOV (close to the horizon) and is the same size throughout the video. This means that either the 'thing' was tracking and following the descent of the drone, or it is in some way attached to the drone. (Or I suppose it could be massive and far away.)

Size of the lake increases:
View attachment 90455

Thing stays consistently sized, although there is a change in orientaion.
View attachment 90456

Yeah, the Change in orientation is weird if it's an artifact.
If it's attached to the drone, what could it be?

 

[Starflint]

If it's attached to the drone, what could it be?

The fact that the "UAP" axis coincides with the lens axis, as discussed previously, also seems to be a reason why the "UAP" appears to be attached to the lens. In that case, perhaps the actual size of this object is very small; a bullet hole or a crack is a possible explanation

 

[Starflint]

More comments on reddit, this time suggesting that the 'spikes' remain consistent with the image frame, and therefore have to be camera related. I tend to agree.



Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1tc1efk/explanation_for_why_the_points_remain_in_the_same/

Yeah, the Change in orientation is weird if it's an artifact.

The fact that the "UAP" axis coincides with the lens axis, as discussed previously, also seems to be a reason why the "UAP" appears to be attached to the lens. In that case, perhaps the actual size of this object is very small; a bullet hole or a crack is a possible explanation

 

[jarlrmai]

Perhaps the centre is the hole in some sort of filter and the spikes are diffraction spikes from the unfiltered light source...

 

[Starflint]

Though I'd assume vegetation would be warmer than surrounding ground yea, so it'd imply it's black hot. Bit weird if so

If it was preset for May, then it's possible; however, if the video was filmed at night, the water temperature is typically higher than the ambient temperature, so it could also have been captured in white-hot mode

 

[Andreas]

The fact that the "UAP" axis coincides with the lens axis, as discussed previously, also seems to be a reason why the "UAP" appears to be attached to the lens. In that case, perhaps the actual size of this object is very small; a bullet hole or a crack is a possible explanation

But again, this seems to be a relatively simple — and not least small — quadcopter. Most of those operated over Ukraine seem to be fitted with relatively simple cameras. A bullet would probably completely destroy the drone, or at least the camera. Sure, there could be some minor damage to the lens, but I don't really understand how that would work.

There are both highways and railroads in the area, though, and probably a lot of Russian troops as well — not to mention factories and power plants. Could it simply be some distant headlight or spotlight in the background?

 

[flarkey]

The fact that the "UAP" axis coincides with the lens axis, as discussed previously, also seems to be a reason why the "UAP" appears to be attached to the lens. In that case, perhaps the actual size of this object is very small; a bullet hole or a crack is a possible explanation

I've seen the bullet-hole and now cant unsee it however such a would require fixed perspex cover around a movable camera gimble, but we dont have any examples of the FPV type drones in Ukraine having this setup. Like @jarlrmai has suggested this is probably a fixed forward facing camera, which would suggest that the object is real and not attached to the drone.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

It doesn't really look like the examples posted before of bullet shots on glass, and it appears to have shadows in the second image, I don't know. The quality is so bad however, the "thing" looks to have sharper edges than the background.
Doesn't seem to be "far away".
But it never changes size.

 

[flarkey]

Now in Sitrec, it will need some tweaking with the FoV editor to get the views right.

https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=15857/Ukraine Drone Object/

 

[jarlrmai]

We are in the small or far away situation with the the FOV vs altitude right? We have to assume one value.

 

[flarkey]

We are in the small or far away situation with the the FOV vs altitude right? We have to assume one value.

The initial report says altitude of 800m = 2624 ft, Ive set this in sitrec, That gives an FoV of around 120 degrees.

https://ua.korrespondent.net/ukraine/4877809-u-zsu-ye-spetsialnyi-dokument-schodo-nlo-flesh

Sitrec seems to have a bunch of auto-video tracking tools, but I cant get them to work, anyone used them before?

 

[flarkey]

hmm, that FoV of 120 and 2624ft altitude results in a lot of optical distortion that doesnt match the video, so I'm not sure its right.

 

[jarlrmai]

120 degrees is wide but it seems a fairly common FPV drone camera angle

 

[jarlrmai]

Worth noting it's over a dam, so a strategic resource.

 

[Giddierone]

Looks like an agricultural hexacopter spraying something.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBwFRzIuU7k&pp=ygUQaGV4YSBkcm9uZSBzcHJheQ%3D%3D

Source: https://youtube.com/shorts/j_GwXi2cgxQ?si=Cd4OFgKqXpoRl5Aa

 

[jarlrmai]

The problem with a hexacopter is the orientation it seems fairly clear that the 6 sided pattern appears when the drone is looking level which means a hexacopter would need to be on its side directly

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

The spraying looks almost identical (but the "ufo" video is in IR), the shape not really.
I'm still on the CGI side of it to be honest.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

The "points of the star" also change orientation in the two frames, some point up and some down.
But they're almost perfectly straight when facing the camera more directly (in the previous frame).
They do follow (as the whole "star") the camera movement, a bit like in the Gimbal glare video, but the orientation change looks too "3d" to be just a glare.
Unless there's a similar artifact seen somewhere else.

 

[Harabeck]

Just another observation with this, we can see that the size of the lake in the video gets bigger between the 0m11s and 1m20s time codes of the video, and therefore we can deduce that the drone is loosing altitude.

This fits quite neatly with the idea that the drone is a quadcopter with a fixed camera. If the camera movements are the drone as a whole changing orientation, then we'd absolutely expect a lost of altitude, because the throttle (visible on the left) is not increased to compensate.