UFOpedia

burlison-reaper-yemen-orb-2025-09-09

7 min read

Rep. Eric Burlison releases MQ-9 Reaper “Yemen orb” engagement video — September 9, 2025

Source: Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO), House Oversight Committee UAP Hearing Hearing date: September 9, 2025 Video first publicly released: at this hearing Burlison X post URL: https://x.com/RepEricBurlison/status/1965438792493355291 Joe Khalil (NewsNation) reporter framing: https://x.com/JoeKhalilTV/status/1965451514379673953 Reddit propagation: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1ncm8pc/ (score 14,533, “whistleblower-testimony” flair) Sourced: 2026-05-18

A new piece of military FLIR footage released during a Congressional hearing: an MQ-9 Reaper drone allegedly tracking an unidentified orb-shaped object off the coast of Yemen on October 30, 2024, with the Reaper given clearance to engage and a missile launched against the target proving ineffective. Released by Rep. Eric Burlison who has been one of the more active House UAP-disclosure voices.

This is one of the most substantive new artifacts of the post-2017 disclosure cycle: a presented-as-real military FLIR video of a kinetic-engagement attempt against a UAP. Provenance is whistleblower-sourced via Burlison; DoD has been asked for explanation and (per Burlison) has not provided one.

What Burlison said

From Burlison’s X post:

“Below is the video I revealed in our @GOPoversight UAP hearing today, made available to the public for the first time.

“October 30th, 2024: MQ-9 Reaper allegedly tracking orb off coast of Yemen.

“Greenlight given to engage, missile appears to be ineffective against the target.

“Footage presented as received from a whistleblower. Independent review is ongoing.”

The video content

Per the Reddit propagation and Joe Khalil’s reporting:

  • Date of footage: October 30, 2024
  • Platform: MQ-9 Reaper drone (US military)
  • Location: off the coast of Yemen (Gulf of Aden / Red Sea region — active US military operating area during the 2023-2025 Houthi maritime conflict)
  • Target: described as an “orb” — round, no apparent propulsion, no clear directional features
  • Tracking: Reaper’s targeting pod tracks the orb
  • Engagement: “Greenlight given to engage” — i.e., authorized to fire
  • Missile launched: appears in the footage
  • Outcome: “missile appears to be ineffective against the target” — the orb continues unaffected

Caveats per the official messaging

Joe Khalil (NewsNation reporter) explicitly flagged Burlison’s framing:

“To be clear — this is Burlison’s explanation for what we’re seeing in this video. It’s how the vid was presented to him.

“He acknowledges he’s not a forensic video expert. He says he’s asked for explanation from DOD and tells me thus far hasn’t gotten one.”

This is unusually careful messaging from a congressional figure presenting a whistleblower-sourced artifact in a hearing. Burlison explicitly:

  1. Names the whistleblower-source provenance — does not claim he personally verified the chain of custody
  2. Notes the lack of DoD explanation — DoD didn’t provide alternate framing prior to Burlison’s release
  3. Acknowledges he’s not a forensic expert — disclaims authority on what the footage actually shows
  4. Flags “independent review is ongoing” — leaves room for the video to turn out to be something other than presented

This framing is markedly more careful than Corbell-pattern releases (compare to Corbell’s January 2024 Jellyfish UFO release at jellyfish-uap-corbell-iraq-2018 which used dramatic-interpretation narrative without similar caveats).

Why this case is structurally important

The Burlison release sets a new tier within the post-2017 disclosure cycle for several reasons:

1. Sitting member of Congress presenting the footage. Previous mass-audience UAP video releases (FLIR/GIMBAL/GOFAST in 2017 via Mellon→NYT, USS Russell pyramids in 2021 via Corbell→Pentagon, Jellyfish via Corbell→TMZ, Mexican Air Force 2004 via Mexican Defense Ministry) came through journalist-mediated or military-public-affairs channels. This one comes through a sitting House Oversight member presenting at a congressional hearing.

2. The kinetic-engagement claim is novel. The footage allegedly shows a missile engagement against the target. If verified, this is a meaningfully different kind of evidence than the typical FLIR/radar UAP footage — it documents a US-military-active-engagement attempt and would force the DoD to either (a) confirm the engagement and the inability to defeat the target, (b) explain what conventional thing the orb actually was, or (c) decline to comment in a way that itself becomes politically costly.

3. The “no DoD explanation” framing is operationally significant. Burlison says he asked DoD for explanation and hasn’t received one. If true, this is the DoD declining to engage with a sitting Congressman holding original-source military footage. The disclosure-cycle theory of change (per Mellon, cbs-60-minutes-uap-2021-05-16) anticipates this kind of public-pressure → DoD-engagement loop. Burlison is operating within that framework.

4. The whistleblower-provenance pattern is the same as Grusch. A whistleblower brought Burlison the footage. This is the operational tactic the Schumer-Rounds UAP Disclosure Act tried to formalize via the whistleblower-protection provisions. Burlison’s release confirms the channel exists and is being used at the House Oversight Committee level.

What this case does not establish

  • It doesn’t establish the footage is authentic in the way Burlison presents it. Independent forensic review by AARO, DoD, or external experts (Mick West, AIAA peer-review-style analysis) has not happened publicly as of source date.
  • It doesn’t establish the engagement happened. Burlison is relaying what the whistleblower said the footage shows. The footage itself may be authentic Reaper FLIR; the contextual narrative (engagement order, missile launch, engagement outcome) is whistleblower-sourced.
  • It doesn’t establish non-human origin. An ineffective missile engagement against an orb is consistent with several explanations: anomalous craft technology, a small radar-cross-section target the proximity-fused missile didn’t lethally engage, weather-balloon-altitude target with the missile passing through, simulator footage misattributed, or other prosaic possibilities.

The post-release verification trajectory worth tracking

If the case is real:

  • DoD eventually provides explanation (prosaic or anomalous)
  • Independent forensic review confirms or disputes the engagement narrative
  • The Reaper-operations chain of command corroborates or contradicts Burlison’s framing
  • Other whistleblowers come forward with corroborating accounts

If the case is whistleblower-confabulated or genre-shaped:

  • Mick West and other technical analysts identify mundane content (e.g., balloon, drone, sensor artifact)
  • DoD explains the footage as a known prosaic event
  • Burlison walks back the framing as facts develop
  • The “missile engagement” narrative fails to materialize in any subsequent records

The 12-24 month falsification window is the standard credibility-framework test.

Connection to the broader cycle

  • The October 30, 2024 footage date is significant. This is approximately 2-3 weeks before the December 2024 East Coast drone flap began. Yemen-coast operations + East Coast drone flap + the broader 2024 increase in UAP-claim activity creates a temporally-dense period of UAP-adjacent events that the disclosure cycle is processing.
  • The September 9, 2025 hearing is part of the post-Grusch hearing trajectory — House Oversight has continued to hold UAP hearings since July 2023; this hearing is the most recent with new substantive content as of source date.
  • Burlison joins Burchett, Luna, Mace as named-House-Republican pro-disclosure voices. The intra-party split with Massie (massie-uap-distraction-2026-02-20) is real but Burlison-Burchett-Luna remain the dominant R-side disclosure voices.

Credibility-framework placement

In the credibility hierarchy:

  • High-credibility-tier: this is a congressionally-presented artifact with named-Congressman attribution and carefully-flagged provenance caveats. Higher tier than Corbell-released artifacts.
  • Pending tier: the substantive interpretation is unverified pending independent analysis and DoD response.
  • Falsifiable: the 12-24 month verification trajectory applies.

A reasonable working position: track Burlison-released footage as high-credibility for the artifact’s existence and chain-of-custody to Burlison, medium-credibility for the engagement-narrative as presented, and pending for what the footage actually shows. This is the calibration the credibility framework should adopt for any Congressionally-presented UAP footage going forward.

Cross-references

Graph View

Backlinks