AARO Middle East 2022 MQ-9 Orb UAP: The Mysterious Silver Sphere Explained
Image Disclaimer
**AI-Generated Illustrations:**images used in our articles are AI-generated illustrations created for visual and educational purposes. They are intended to represent or recreate the people, locations, events, objects, or scenes discussed in the article and should not be considered authentic photographs, original evidence, or official documentation of the case. Where original photographs or copyrighted material exist, we may use AI-generated illustrations instead to avoid unauthorized use of copyrighted images. These illustrations are created based on publicly available descriptions, historical records, reports, and other information related to the case.
The Case at a Glance
One of the most interesting UAP videos released by the U.S. Department of Defense shows what appears to be a small, silver, spherical object moving across the view of a camera aboard an MQ-9 Reaper in the Middle East.
The video became publicly known during a Senate hearing on unidentified anomalous phenomena on April 19, 2023, when Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, then director of the Pentagon's All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office, or AARO, presented the footage.
The Department of Defense officially titled the clip "Middle East Object."
The official description says the video was recorded by an MQ-9 in the Middle East and that AARO assessed the object as not exhibiting anomalous behavior, while the object nevertheless remained unidentified. The case was retained in AARO's active archive because the available information was insufficient for a definitive identification.
The case became particularly interesting because the object appears to be a bright, metallic-looking sphere or orb moving across the landscape.
At first glance, it can look like the object is travelling extremely quickly.
However, independent analysis later suggested that much of the apparent movement could be explained by motion parallax caused by the movement of the MQ-9 itself.
That does not officially solve the case.
AARO still lists the object as unidentified.
When Did the Incident Happen?
The publicly available Department of Defense video page identifies the clip with the date July 12, 2022 and gives its duration as approximately 24 seconds.
Independent investigators at Bellingcat also treated July 12, 2022 as the date of the recording and conducted an open-source investigation into the footage.
The important distinction is that July 12, 2022 is associated with the video/observation in the public record, while the Pentagon's later public description simply identifies it as a 2022 MQ-9 case.
The footage itself became publicly discussed during the April 19, 2023 Senate hearing on AARO.
What Aircraft Recorded the Object?
The object was recorded by a U.S. MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle.
The MQ-9 Reaper is a remotely piloted military aircraft used for surveillance, reconnaissance and other military missions.
The significance of this case is therefore different from a typical civilian UFO sighting.
The object was not simply reported by someone looking through a window.
It was recorded by a military aircraft's sensor system.
However, the public has not been given the complete operational data surrounding the event.
This includes important information such as the complete aircraft telemetry, exact altitude, speed and other potentially useful sensor information.
The released video was also partially redacted.
Bellingcat noted that information about the MQ-9's altitude, speed and location had been obscured in the publicly released footage.
What Sensor Recorded It?
This is an important detail that is sometimes incorrectly reported.
The Middle East Orb video was not presented by Kirkpatrick as an infrared or thermal recording.
During the April 19, 2023 Senate hearing, Kirkpatrick specifically described the sensor as an electro-optical sensor and clarified that the imagery was not infrared.
Therefore, it is more accurate to describe the recording as electro-optical/EO imagery rather than thermal imagery.
This matters because the appearance of the orb should not be interpreted as a thermal signature.
What Does the Video Show?
The approximately 24-second clip shows an apparent spherical or orb-like object moving across the camera's field of view.
The object appears bright or silver against the darker background.
It has a relatively smooth, rounded appearance.
There are no obvious wings.
There is no clearly visible rotor system.
There is no obvious conventional aircraft fuselage.
There is no clearly visible exhaust plume.
The object appears to move from one side of the camera's view toward the other while the camera changes its orientation to follow it.
During the Senate hearing, Kirkpatrick explained that the camera would slew to follow the object as it moved through the field of view.
The object then disappears from the camera's view.
The footage is short and does not provide enough information to establish the object's complete three-dimensional trajectory.
The Department of Defense therefore classified it as a representative example of cases where AARO has limited data.
Was It Really a Metallic Orb?
Not necessarily.
The object looks metallic or silver in the video, which is why it is often called a "metallic orb."
However, there is no publicly available material analysis proving that the object was actually made of metal.
The safest description is:
An apparent silver or metallic-looking spherical object.
Even AARO's official material describes it as an apparent silver, orb-like object rather than confirming its physical composition. NASA used essentially the same wording in its independent UAP study report.
Therefore, "metallic orb" should be treated as a visual description rather than proof of its material.
What Did AARO Say About the Object?
AARO's official position is extremely important.
AARO does not say that the object demonstrated extraordinary propulsion.
It does not say that the object was extraterrestrial.
It does not say that the object was travelling at an impossible speed.
Instead, AARO states that the object was not exhibiting anomalous behavior.
At the same time, AARO has not identified what the object actually was.
This creates the unusual situation where the case is:
Unidentified, but not considered anomalous in its observed behavior.
AARO continues to list the case in its official UAP imagery collection as:
"Middle East Object."
The current AARO description states that the object remains unidentified even though AARO assesses that it is not exhibiting anomalous behavior.
What Did Sean Kirkpatrick Say?
During the April 19, 2023 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, AARO director Sean Kirkpatrick presented the footage and discussed what investigators knew about it.
He explained that an MQ-9 in the Middle East had captured an apparent spherical object using its electro-optical sensor.
He emphasized that the object was difficult to identify because the available information was extremely limited.
Kirkpatrick essentially explained that this video represented a case where investigators had very little supporting data beyond the video itself.
He also stated that it would be extremely difficult to fully identify the object using only that footage.
The Senate hearing therefore became one of the most important primary sources for understanding what the U.S. government actually knew about the incident.
How Long Is the Video?
The official Department of Defense video page lists the clip at approximately 24 seconds.
Some independent analyses refer to approximately 25 seconds because of frame counting and rounding.
The difference is insignificant for understanding the case.
What matters is that the publicly released footage is very short.
There is no publicly available long-duration recording showing the object before and after the event.
Does the Video Show the Entire Encounter?
No.
The public video represents only the available released portion of the observation.
We do not have a complete public recording showing everything the MQ-9 sensor observed before the object appeared or after it disappeared.
This is one of the reasons the case remains difficult to solve.
The lack of a complete sequence makes it much harder to establish:
- the object's starting position
- its final position
- its true distance
- its actual velocity
- its altitude
- its relationship to the MQ-9
- whether the object changed direction
- whether it was drifting with the wind
Where Did It Happen?
The U.S. government has publicly described the footage only as being recorded in the Middle East.
The exact official location has not been publicly released.
However, Bellingcat conducted an independent open-source geolocation investigation and concluded that the footage could be located in an area northeast of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria.
Bellingcat matched buildings and other geographical features visible in the video with satellite imagery.
The investigators estimated a starting location around:
35.369189° N, 40.332815° E
and an ending location around:
35.374540° N, 40.339181° E
These coordinates are Bellingcat's independent geolocation, not an official Pentagon confirmation of the location.
That distinction should always be made clear when publishing the case.
What Was Visible on the Ground?
Bellingcat's investigation was able to identify buildings and other geographical features visible in the footage.
The investigators compared the video with Google Earth imagery from the same general period.
They found matching structures and used those landmarks to estimate the location and geometry of the recording.
This was particularly important because the original Pentagon release had removed or obscured some of the information that could have made the location easier to establish.
The open-source geolocation therefore provided an independent way to study the video.
Again, this is an OSINT analysis, not an official U.S. government statement.
How Large Was the Object?
There is no official AARO measurement publicly establishing the object's physical size.
Bellingcat attempted to estimate the maximum possible size using buildings visible in the footage.
One wall visible in the scene was measured using satellite imagery at approximately 11 metres.
In the video, that wall covered approximately 337 pixels.
The apparent orb measured approximately 13 pixels across.
Using that simple scale comparison, Bellingcat calculated a maximum apparent diameter of roughly:
0.43 metres
or about:
43 centimetres
However, there is an extremely important qualification.
The 43-centimetre value is not the confirmed size of the object.
It represents an approximate maximum based on the assumption that the object is at the same depth as the reference structure.
Because the orb appears to be above the ground and may be closer to the camera than the building, its actual physical diameter could be smaller than 43 centimetres.
Bellingcat therefore treated approximately 0.43 metres as a maximum rather than a confirmed measurement.
How Fast Was the Orb?
This is where the case becomes especially interesting.
At first glance, the orb appears to move rapidly across the landscape.
However, there is no official AARO figure establishing the object's true speed.
The released video does not contain enough public information to calculate the object's three-dimensional velocity with confidence.
Bellingcat argued that much of the apparent movement could be explained through motion parallax.
This is an extremely important concept.
What Is Motion Parallax?
Motion parallax occurs when an observer moves relative to objects at different distances.
Imagine looking out of a moving car.
Nearby objects appear to move quickly across your field of view.
Distant mountains appear to move much more slowly.
The mountains are not actually racing in the opposite direction.
Their apparent movement is caused by the movement of the observer.
The same basic principle can occur with a moving aircraft and a distant object.
The MQ-9 was moving while its camera was observing the orb.
Therefore, some of the apparent movement seen in the video could have been created by the movement of the MQ-9 itself.
This is one of the most important conventional explanations for the case.
Bellingcat's Parallax Analysis
Bellingcat geolocated the scene and then reconstructed the geometry using satellite imagery.
They identified two ground reference points approximately 750 metres apart.
These points appeared in different portions of the video approximately 16 seconds apart.
At first glance, this might make it appear as though the orb itself travelled approximately 750 metres during those 16 seconds.
That would imply a very high speed.
But Bellingcat emphasized that this conclusion would be incorrect.
The 750-metre difference represents the movement of the observing perspective and scene, not necessarily the distance travelled by the orb.
The object's apparent movement could therefore be caused substantially by the MQ-9 moving relative to the object.
This is why the video should not be used to claim that the orb demonstrated extraordinary acceleration or speed.
Did AARO Say the Object Was Moving Unusually Fast?
No.
This is an important distinction.
AARO specifically assessed that the object was not exhibiting anomalous behavior.
The Pentagon's official description does not claim that the orb demonstrated impossible acceleration, extreme velocity or advanced propulsion.
The strange impression of speed comes largely from the visual geometry of the footage.
What About the Camera Movement?
The camera movement is one of the most interesting parts of the video.
Kirkpatrick explained during the Senate hearing that the camera slews to follow the object.
This means that the apparent movement in the video is a combination of:
- movement of the MQ-9
- movement of the sensor/camera
- changing viewing angle
- movement of the object, if any
- perspective effects
Without the complete telemetry, it is difficult to separate all of these factors.
This is another reason why the video alone cannot establish extraordinary performance.
Could the Object Have Been a Balloon?
Yes.
A balloon is one of the strongest conventional hypotheses discussed publicly.
Bellingcat found that a balloon could potentially fit several characteristics of the video.
A balloon can:
- appear spherical
- appear silver
- reflect sunlight
- drift through the atmosphere
- have no visible propulsion system
- remain relatively stable while the observing aircraft moves
The possibility becomes even more interesting when the date and location are considered.
Bellingcat noted that July 12, 2022 coincided with the final day of Eid al-Adha that year.
The investigators found evidence that balloons were present during Eid celebrations in the region.
They therefore considered a normal party balloon to be a plausible explanation.
However, this is an independent hypothesis, not an official AARO identification.
AARO has not publicly declared this specific object to be a balloon.
Why Would a Balloon Look Metallic?
A foil or Mylar balloon can reflect sunlight strongly.
From a distance, such a balloon can appear as a bright silver or metallic sphere.
Depending on lighting conditions, the object could appear extremely bright against a darker background.
This could explain why the object in the video appears unusual despite potentially being a simple physical object.
However, without recovering the object or obtaining additional sensor data, the balloon hypothesis cannot be proven from the video alone.
Could It Have Been a Drone?
Yes.
A small drone is another theoretical possibility.
The Middle East contains extensive military and civilian drone activity.
A small drone could potentially appear as a small object at a distance.
However, the available video does not clearly show wings, rotors or other obvious drone features.
That makes a specific drone identification difficult.
There is also no publicly released evidence identifying the object as a particular drone model.
Therefore, "drone" remains a possibility rather than a confirmed explanation.
Could It Have Been an Aircraft?
A distant aircraft is another possible conventional explanation.
However, the object appears relatively small and spherical in the footage.
There is no obvious aircraft shape.
A conventional aircraft therefore does not provide an obvious visual match.
Nevertheless, perspective can dramatically alter how a distant aircraft appears in low-resolution imagery.
Without additional sensor data or flight-tracking information, this possibility cannot be completely dismissed.
Could It Have Been a Sensor Artifact?
A pure sensor artifact is less straightforward than the balloon explanation because AARO's description treats the footage as depicting an actual object.
NASA's report also describes it as footage of an apparent silver orb-like object.
Therefore, the public evidence supports the presence of something physical in the scene more strongly than it supports the idea that the entire object was simply a digital artifact.
However, sensor characteristics can still affect:
- apparent size
- apparent brightness
- apparent position
- apparent movement
- image shape
- contrast
So sensor effects could potentially contribute to the unusual appearance even if the object itself was conventional.
Could It Have Been a Secret Military Aircraft?
This possibility is sometimes suggested.
The Middle East has been an environment of extensive military aviation and classified technology.
A classified aircraft or surveillance system could theoretically have been responsible.
However, there is currently no public evidence connecting the object to a classified U.S., Russian, Iranian, Syrian or other military system.
It is therefore a possibility without supporting evidence.
Could It Have Been Extraterrestrial Technology?
This is the most dramatic interpretation.
Some people have suggested that unexplained spherical objects could represent advanced extraterrestrial technology.
However, there is no evidence in this case establishing an extraterrestrial origin.
There is:
- no recovered material
- no confirmed communication
- no biological evidence
- no independently verified non-human technology
- no confirmed exotic propulsion
- no physical artifact linked to the event
The video alone cannot establish an extraterrestrial explanation.
AARO has also not identified it as extraterrestrial.
The official position remains that the object is unidentified but does not demonstrate anomalous behavior.
What Did NASA Say About the Case?
NASA included the Middle East object in its 2023 Independent Study Team report on UAP.
NASA described the footage as showing an apparent silver, orb-like object recorded by an MQ-9 in the Middle East.
NASA specifically stated that:
Due to limited data, the object remains unidentified.
NASA used the case as an example of why better UAP data collection is necessary.
The NASA report emphasized the potential usefulness of artificial intelligence and machine learning for analyzing large quantities of sensor data, while also stressing that the quality of the underlying data is critical.
NASA did not conclude that the object was extraterrestrial.
It did not conclude that it was a balloon either.
It simply recognized that the available evidence was insufficient for identification.
What Did the U.S. Senate Hearing Reveal?
The April 19, 2023 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing is one of the most important sources for the case.
The hearing was specifically held to receive testimony about the mission, activities, oversight and budget of AARO.
Sean Kirkpatrick testified as AARO's director.
The committee's official hearing page includes the Middle East UAP material and Kirkpatrick's testimony.
During the hearing, the video was presented as an example of a UAP case where AARO had insufficient information for a definitive identification.
The significance of the testimony is that it prevents exaggerated interpretations.
The government did not present the object as a confirmed alien craft.
Instead, it presented the case as an unresolved observation with limited data.
Why Was the Case Still Unresolved?
Because the available evidence was too limited.
Kirkpatrick explained that the video was essentially the main data available for the event.
Without additional information, investigators could not confidently determine what the object was.
Important missing information includes:
- complete aircraft telemetry
- exact MQ-9 altitude
- exact MQ-9 speed
- complete sensor metadata
- precise object range
- object altitude
- radar information
- additional camera footage
- independent sensor observations
- complete weather information
- flight records for nearby aircraft
- physical evidence
This is the central reason the case remains unresolved.
What Does AARO Mean by "Unidentified"?
This is often misunderstood.
An unidentified object is simply an object for which investigators do not have enough evidence to assign a reliable identification.
It does not automatically mean:
- alien
- extraterrestrial
- secret spacecraft
- impossible technology
In this case, AARO's position is particularly clear.
The object remains unidentified, but AARO assesses that it does not demonstrate anomalous behavior.
That is very different from saying:
"The U.S. government has confirmed an alien spacecraft."
It has not.
What Does "Not Anomalous" Mean?
It means that AARO did not find evidence in the available footage showing extraordinary physical behavior.
The object does not demonstrate confirmed:
- impossible acceleration
- extraordinary maneuvering
- exotic propulsion
- extreme speed
- transmedium travel
- technological capabilities beyond known systems
The object's identity remains unknown because there is not enough information to determine what it is.
Therefore:
Unidentified does not equal anomalous.
This is probably the single most important sentence to remember when discussing this case.
Why Did People Think It Was a UFO?
The footage is visually unusual.
A bright spherical object appears to move across a military sensor's view.
The video was released by the Department of Defense.
It was presented by the director of AARO before the U.S. Senate.
The object was not immediately identified.
These factors naturally generated interest among UFO/UAP researchers.
Some observers interpreted the footage as possible evidence of advanced technology.
Others focused on the possibility of a balloon or another ordinary object.
The disagreement largely comes down to how much significance should be placed on the object's appearance versus the limitations of the available data.
What Are the Main Theories?
The major theories can be divided into two categories.
The first group consists of conventional explanations:
Balloon
A reflective party or foil balloon drifting in the wind.
Small drone
A drone or other small airborne device seen from a distance.
Conventional aircraft
A distant aircraft whose shape is difficult to recognize in the footage.
Other airborne object
Another ordinary object that appears unusual because of perspective and limited resolution.
The second group contains more speculative explanations:
Classified military technology
An experimental or secret aircraft or surveillance system.
Foreign military technology
An unknown system operated by another country.
Extraterrestrial technology
A non-human technological object.
The available evidence does not conclusively establish any of these explanations.
The Balloon Theory in Detail
The balloon hypothesis became particularly interesting because of the combination of the object's appearance and the environmental circumstances.
A balloon can be:
- spherical
- reflective
- small
- difficult to identify from a distance
- apparently motionless relative to the air
- carried by the wind
Bellingcat also examined historical weather data and reported winds of approximately 20–25 km/h in the relevant altitude range.
The investigators found that the general wind direction was compatible with the object's apparent movement when viewed from the moving MQ-9.
This strengthened the possibility that the apparent motion was largely caused by a combination of wind and parallax.
However, it remains an independent analysis rather than an official resolution.
Why the Balloon Theory Is Not Officially Confirmed
AARO has not publicly announced:
"The Middle East Object was a balloon."
Instead, AARO continues to list the case as unidentified.
This is important because the Bellingcat analysis and AARO's official conclusion are not the same thing.
Bellingcat found the balloon hypothesis plausible.
AARO has not publicly accepted that identification.
Therefore, a responsible article should say:
"A balloon is a plausible explanation proposed by independent investigators."
It should not say:
"AARO proved that it was a balloon."
What About the Eid al-Adha Connection?
Bellingcat noted that July 12, 2022 was the final day of Eid al-Adha that year.
The investigators found photographs and videos showing balloons being used during Eid celebrations in the region.
This provided additional circumstantial support for the balloon hypothesis.
But it is not proof.
The existence of balloons during a holiday does not demonstrate that the particular object recorded by the MQ-9 was one of them.
It simply establishes that balloons were present in the relevant region and period.
Could the Orb Have Been a Party Balloon?
Possibly.
This is one of the most interesting conclusions from the open-source analysis.
A small reflective balloon could explain:
- the spherical shape
- the silver appearance
- the lack of visible propulsion
- the apparently slow or uncertain movement
- the apparent movement caused by parallax
- the absence of obvious anomalous maneuvers
However, because the object was not physically recovered, the theory remains unconfirmed.
What About the "Metallic Sphere" Description?
The phrase "metallic sphere" has become popular in UAP discussions.
But the evidence only demonstrates that the object looked silver or metallic.
It does not demonstrate that it was actually made of metal.
A reflective balloon can also appear metallic.
This is another reason to avoid writing:
"A metal sphere was confirmed."
A more accurate phrase is:
"An apparent silver or metallic-looking orb was recorded."
Is There Any Radar Evidence?
No publicly released radar data has been presented that conclusively identifies or tracks this particular object.
This is one of the biggest limitations of the case.
A radar track combined with the EO video could potentially provide:
- range
- altitude
- velocity
- trajectory
- acceleration
- direction
Without such corroborating information, much of the object's geometry remains uncertain.
Kirkpatrick's testimony emphasized the limited amount of information available for the case.
Was Another Sensor Tracking It?
No additional independent sensor track for this particular event has been publicly released that would conclusively establish the object's trajectory.
This is important.
A single-camera observation is much harder to analyze than a synchronized observation from:
- EO camera
- infrared sensor
- radar
- satellite
- another aircraft
- ground observer
Multiple independent sensors could have dramatically reduced the uncertainty.
Did the Object Threaten the MQ-9?
There is no indication in the public material that the object posed a direct threat to the MQ-9.
AARO's official description says the object was not exhibiting anomalous behavior.
The case was presented as an example of a limited-data UAP observation rather than as a dangerous encounter.
Was the Object Moving Toward the MQ-9?
The public footage does not provide enough information to confidently establish the object's three-dimensional movement relative to the drone.
The apparent movement across the screen should therefore not automatically be interpreted as the object approaching or attacking the MQ-9.
The parallax explanation demonstrates why screen movement and physical movement are not necessarily the same thing.
Did the Object Accelerate?
There is no publicly verified evidence demonstrating extraordinary acceleration.
Claims that the object accelerated at impossible speeds are not supported by the publicly available evidence.
AARO specifically assesses that the object did not demonstrate anomalous behavior.
Did It Perform Any Impossible Maneuvers?
No confirmed impossible maneuver has been established.
The video is too short and lacks enough supporting telemetry to demonstrate extraordinary flight characteristics.
The object appears to move through the camera's view, but that does not by itself demonstrate unusual propulsion.
Why Is the Case Still Listed by AARO?
Because unresolved cases can remain useful for future analysis.
AARO's official description says cases with limited data can remain in its active archive pending the discovery of additional information that could lead to a resolution.
If additional sensor data becomes available, the interpretation could change.
A case can therefore remain unidentified without being considered evidence of extraordinary technology.
The Importance of the Case for UAP Research
The Middle East Orb case illustrates a major problem in UAP investigation.
A short video can look extraordinary while still being scientifically difficult to interpret.
Investigators need more than an interesting image.
They need reliable measurements.
Ideally, a UAP investigation should include:
Multiple sensors
Different sensors can confirm whether the object is physically present.
Accurate telemetry
This establishes the observer's exact position and movement.
Environmental information
Wind, weather and atmospheric conditions can reveal whether a balloon or other object is plausible.
Radar data
Radar can provide independent measurements of range and velocity.
High-quality imagery
Higher resolution makes identification easier.
Complete metadata
Sensor settings and timestamps help reconstruct the event.
The Middle East Orb case lacked much of this information.
What NASA's Report Teaches Us
NASA's inclusion of the case demonstrates an important point.
UAP research should not rely only on visual impressions.
NASA recommended stronger scientific methods and highlighted the potential use of AI and machine learning to search large datasets for unusual observations.
But NASA also emphasized that these tools depend on the quality of the underlying data.
If the original data is incomplete, even sophisticated analysis may not produce a definitive answer.
What Is Actually Confirmed?
The following points are supported by official sources:
A U.S. MQ-9 recorded the object.
The recording was made in the Middle East.
The object appears spherical or orb-like.
It appears silver or metallic-looking.
The footage is approximately 24 seconds long.
The Department of Defense officially released the video as "Middle East Object."
AARO assesses that the object does not exhibit anomalous behavior.
AARO has not identified the object.
The case remains unresolved because the available information is limited.
NASA independently described the object as an apparent silver orb and said it remained unidentified because of limited data.
What Is Not Confirmed?
The following claims have not been established:
The object was extraterrestrial.
The object was made of metal.
The object travelled at an impossible speed.
The object demonstrated advanced propulsion.
The object performed impossible maneuvers.
The object was a classified spacecraft.
The object was Russian technology.
The object was Iranian technology.
The object was an alien probe.
The object was definitely a balloon.
The exact official location has been publicly confirmed.
These should all remain theories or possibilities rather than statements of fact.
The Most Reasonable Interpretation
Based on the publicly available evidence, the most cautious interpretation is that the MQ-9 recorded a real physical object whose identity remains uncertain.
The object's apparently unusual movement is significantly affected by the geometry of the moving MQ-9 and camera.
A conventional object such as a balloon is a plausible explanation.
Bellingcat's independent analysis provides a detailed case for this possibility.
However, because AARO has not officially resolved the case, the balloon explanation should not be presented as proven.
The most accurate statement remains:
The object is unidentified, but AARO has found no evidence in the available footage that it behaved anomalously.
Final Verdict
The 2022 Middle East MQ-9 Orb is one of the most visually striking UAP cases publicly presented by the U.S. government.
A U.S. MQ-9 Reaper recorded an apparent silver spherical object in the Middle East.
The footage was later presented publicly by AARO director Sean Kirkpatrick during a U.S. Senate hearing in April 2023.
AARO assessed that the object did not display anomalous behavior, but the agency could not determine exactly what it was because of the limited available data.
NASA later included the footage in its independent UAP study and likewise described the object as unidentified because of the limited information.
Independent investigators at Bellingcat went further, geolocating the footage to the area northeast of Deir ez-Zor in Syria and arguing that the object's apparent movement could largely be explained by motion parallax.
Their analysis also found that a reflective balloon was a plausible explanation.
But that remains an independent hypothesis.
The U.S. government has not officially identified the object as a balloon.
It has also not identified it as extraterrestrial technology.
The strongest evidence-based conclusion is therefore:
The 2022 Middle East MQ-9 video shows an apparent silver, spherical object recorded by a U.S. military drone. AARO has determined that the object does not demonstrate anomalous behavior, but the available data is insufficient to identify it conclusively. A balloon or another conventional object is a plausible explanation, while extraordinary explanations remain unsupported by physical evidence.
The mystery therefore remains not because the video proves something extraordinary, but because there simply isn't enough information to establish exactly what the object was.
Real and Safe Sources for This Case
U.S. Department of Defense — Original Video
This is the most important source for the actual footage.
The official Department of Defense page identifies the video as "Middle East Object", lists it as approximately 24 seconds long, and states that it was captured by an MQ-9 in the Middle East.
U.S. Department of Defense — Middle East Object Official Video
AARO — Official UAP Imagery
This is the official AARO page where the Middle East Object appears in the U.S. government's UAP imagery collection.
AARO's description states that the object was recorded by an MQ-9 in the Middle East, does not exhibit anomalous behavior according to AARO, and remains unidentified.
U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee — April 19, 2023 Hearing
This is the official Senate hearing page for Sean Kirkpatrick's testimony as AARO director.
The page includes the Middle East UAP material and related files.
U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee — AARO Hearing
U.S. Department of Defense — AARO Briefing
The Department of Defense's official article about the April 19, 2023 hearing includes the Middle East Object video and explains that AARO considered it a limited-data case that remained in its active archive.
U.S. Department of Defense — AARO UAP Briefing
NASA — UAP Independent Study Report
NASA's official report contains an image and description of the Middle East Object.
NASA describes it as footage from an MQ-9 showing an apparent silver, orb-like object and states that the object remained unidentified because of limited data.
NASA — UAP Independent Study Report
Bellingcat — Detailed Independent Investigation
Bellingcat published one of the most detailed open-source analyses of this case.
Its investigation includes geolocation, satellite-image comparisons, object-size analysis, weather information and the motion-parallax explanation.
It is an independent investigation rather than an official government source, so it should be presented as analysis rather than an official resolution.
Bellingcat — Isn't That a Balloon? Deflating a DoD UFO Video