Fallrapport: «atmospheriska kölvatten» — sensorartefakter

Källtext (engelska)

Utdrag ur den maskinlästa löptexten (oftast engelska), oförändrat för jämförelse med sammanfattningen ovan.

UNCLASSIFIED 
1 
UNCLASSIFIED 
All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office 
U.S. Department of Defense 
(U)Case: “Atmospheric Wakes”
Case Resolution | 8 May 2023 
(U)Case Essentials
(U)These reports were submitted after
three different missions in the Middle 
East, and the Mediterranean Sea in 2022 
and 2023. The reports were filed due to 
the potential hazard posed to the 
mission and because the videos depict a 
potentially anomalous propulsion
signature 
(U)Location:Middle East and the
Mediterranean Sea
(U)Date:2022 and 2023
(U)Altitude: N/A
(U)Shape: N/A
(U)Reporter:Theater UAVoperators
(U)Sensor: Infrared (IR)
(U)Behavior:Exhibited potential
anomalous propulsion
(U)Case Status:Resolved; prosaic
aircraft; the “wake” is a sensor artifact in 
each case
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(U)Case Overview
(U)AARO assesses that the UAP reported in
these three cases almost certainly were not 
exhibiting anomalous propulsion or atmospheric 
wakes, rather the observed effect was the result 
of a sensor artifact in all cases, based on analyses 
by AARO’s Intelligence and Science and 
Technology (S&T) partners. 
(U) The object in Case One has not been
identified, but AARO is certain that it was not
exhibiting anomalous behaviors.
(U) In Case Two, one object was almost
certainly a known military aircraft. The second
object appears oblong due to camera
aberration and remains unidentified, but also
was probably a prosaic aircraft as well.
(U) In Case Three, the object was almost
certainly a known and identified commercial
aircraft, flying along a recognized travel
corridor.
(U)Intelligence Assessment
(U) AARO’s Intelligence partners assess with high
confidence that the “atmospheric wake” in each 
video is a sensor anomaly. AARO’s intelligence 
partners were not able to identify the object of Case One, but have high confidence that it is not 
displaying any anomalous characteristics and are almost certain it’s a prosaic object based on 
thorough review of the evidence. 

UNCLASSIFIED 
 
2 
UNCLASSIFIED 
(U) For the two UAP reported in Case Two, it is assessed that both objects are most likely 
aircraft, one military and the other a small but unidentified aircraft. Location data from aircraft in 
the vicinity were compared and it was determined that one of the UAP matched closely with a 
track of a military aircraft. 
 (U) Although a similar match of the second object was not possible, it was assessed with 
medium confidence that it was a small aircraft. This assessment was based on line of sight 
analysis and comparing it to other known objects. 
(U) AARO’s intelligence partners have high confidence that they identified the UAP in Case Three 
as a specific Airbus A380 commercial aircraft based on commercial flight data. 
 (U) Photogrammetry analysis of the object in Case Three was conducted, which resulted in a 
close size estimate to that of an Airbus A380. 
(U) Science & Technology Assessment 
(U) Two of AARO’s S&T Partners also assessed that the “wakes” observed in these three cases 
were sensor artifacts, but did not identify the objects captured on the sensors. 
 (U) S&T Partner One assessed the trails were camera artifacts resulting from the object rapidly 
traversing the camera’s field of view. It was noted that other objects in the videos also leave a 
similar trail. 
(U) S&T Partner Two conducted a detailed analysis of the full-motion video and the IR sensor, 
reaching the same high confidence conclusion that the wakes were sensor artifacts. 
(U) Fi