Mt. Etna Object Case Resolution

5
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
These factors likely influenced the reporter’s perceptions of the event, leading to unreliable
initial conclusions about the object’s speed and performance characteristics. AARO cautions that
the SWIR sensor’s image data should not inform any conclusion of the object’s performance
characteristics because of the significant limitations imposed by atmospheric turbulence, post-
processing effects, and contrast stretching. These effects produce visual artifacts such as
flickering, pulsating, and luminosity differences, significantly reducing the reliability of
traditional FMV analysis and pixel analysis techniques.
Alternative Hypotheses
Anomalous Performance Characteristics: An AARO partner’s initial assessment suggested
the object may have moved up to 5,470 kph (3,400 mph) and that it transited the volcano’s ash
plume. AARO and its other partners do not concur with these findings. AARO’s pixel
examination analysis determined that the object was much nearer to the sensor than initial
estimates, exacerbating the effects of motion parallax and leading to an incorrect assessment of
the object’s speed.
An AARO partner compared the luminosity of the object’s pixels to those around it and assessed
that the object’s gradient luminosity remained constant before, during, and after it appeared to
transit the plume. This conclusion would place the object within the volcano’s ash plume. AARO
and its other partners do not concur with these findings because the UAS platform’s SWIR
sensor cannot provide accurate range-finding data given the atmospheric turbulence. AARO
produced a validated 3-D model demonstrating that the partner’s assessment depends on
unreliable and inaccurate input data.
Bird: Initial assessments from AARO’s partners found that the object appears to flicker in the
sensor display at a steady frequency, which is highly suggestive of a bird flapping its wings to
maintain steady flight. On further analysis, AARO’s partners found that thermal turbulence,
post-processing effects, and contrast stretching produced visual artifacts such as flickering,
pulsating, and luminosity differences in the video footage. Therefore, AARO and its partners
discarded this initial assessment, concurring that the object was unlikely to have been a bird and
was likely a balloon.
AARO is not a member of the intelligence community. This AARO information report should
not be considered finished intelligence. It may contain references to finished intelligence
reports and/or information provided by AARO’s coordinating interagency partners to provide
context, show relevance, or substantiate AARO analytic perspectives.