Jellyfish UFO from TMZ's 'UFO Revolution'

[Arthur 33]

Also there is a lot of talk that these could be Mylar balloons. But Mylar balloons are not translucent when viewed with IR. Only normal rubber balloons do that.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvPIrouUCD4&t=3s

 

[Scaramanga]

One thing that really, truly, annoys me with the Weaponized commentary on this and other UAPs is the increasing 'we're not saying it's aliens....but its aliens' narrative. Corbell and Knapp now like to have a sort of 'we are not the ones saying its a UAP....the Department Of Defence classed it as such' cop out...especially since their disaster with the 29 Palms case.

It all seems to be setting themselves up for a 'we never said it was aliens' face saving exercise.

 

[Landru]

There is only like 5 seconds of continuous video. This is not very strong evidence. Show me a balloon/cluster video not wobbling in the wind that is longer than 5 sec and I may be persuaded.

Source: https://youtu.be/neCEqjdo6f8?si=1y3-u2dddbYRffxU


Go to 2:44

 

[Arthur 33]

I would also like to take personal credit for Debunking the viral theory that this jellyfish case was "bird crap on the lens/housing". I am pretty sure I was the first person to do so.

 

[Arthur 33]

Go to 2:44

I did. There was clearly a balloon wobbling in the wind. Also this is only like 17 seconds continuous filming.

 

[Scaramanga]

I proved this case was covered up.

I saw all that...but my own ( and I suspect a lot of others ) dismissal of that case really has little to do with the light reflected off the second flares. I simply note that the 5 original lights do not in the first place move as if they are attached to or part of a solid 'triangular' object. It is clear to me that they are 5 independent light sources.

In the case of this particular UAP, Corbell makes big issue of the tracking device not being able to lock on to the 'object'. It all seems mysterious, until I start to ask....how does the tracker track objects ? Is it using some projected energy such as infra-red ?

The same applies to the people on the ground who did not see the object with 'night vision' apparatus. Was this active or passive night vision ? Active night vision projects infra red and only has a short range. Or was is light enhancement night vision. We are not told.

 

[Landru]

I did. There was clearly a balloon wobbling in the wind. Also this is only like 17 seconds continuous filming.

The ask was for greater than five seconds.

 

[Arthur 33]

The same applies to the people on the ground who did not see the object with 'night vision' apparatus. Was this active or passive night vision ?

I assume they used standard NVG goggles. They typically don't use active IR illumination in the military because it gives away position to hostiles.

 

[Duke]

I assume they used standard NVG goggles. They typically don't use active IR illumination in the military because it gives away position to hostiles.

Which generation NVGs are you considering "standard."

 

[Scaramanga]

OK.....here's the bit where Corbell gives away that the object was definitively a net with balloons in it. I don't think anyone else has noticed this but it all but gives the game away....

" What was described to me was that these things you see hanging down, that they were geometric...as if...it was specifically said to me...like an armor or like a fish scales....geometric pieces...."

Which is exactly what the net around balloons would look like !

see 21:28.....


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqsqcJ6DZsg

 

[tobigtofool]

Source: https://youtu.be/neCEqjdo6f8?si=1y3-u2dddbYRffxU


Go to 2:44

That balloon composition of balloons easily is 10 to 30 times larger than the one in question, so it's not comparable.

 

[gtoffo]

The largest an object in an image can be is the size of something it covers behind it. It cannot be larger than that. View attachment 65483

So here, compared to the pickup truck, it looks about 2 meters high, and under a meter wide. AT MOST. Likely it's half that size.

Agree. Definitely much closer and therefore smaller than that truck.

1m wide bunch of balloons? Seems a bit small to me... not a great match in size.

I would expect several meters for a bunch of ordinary party balloons at least.

 

[Scaramanga]

1m wide bunch of balloons? Seems a bit small to me... not a great match in size.

There are numerous instances in the video where it appears there is just one, possibly two, balloons in a net. I think that is precisely why it all looks so weird...there is way more net than balloon. And Corbell's description of 'scales' on the object ( see above ) perfectly matches the look of a net.

 

[flarkey]

I would also like to take personal credit for Debunking the viral theory that this jellyfish case was "bird crap on the lens/housing". I am pretty sure I was the first person to do so.

where and when did you post that?

 

[Mick West]

Couldn't it be a smaller object closer to the camera?

Of course, the point was putting an upper limit on the size (you'd suggested 8m, but the upper limit is more like 2m high)

 

[gtoffo]

Apart from the small size (around 1m ish) I also notice that:

- it definitely looks somewhat transparent in IR so this excludes mylar as a material (see frame around 380 or other moments in which it passes in from of dark spots). Mylar is not transparent in IR but reflective.
- the shape seems too sharp for rubber balloons (that material would be transparent in IR)

No idea...

 

[tobigtofool]

Of course, the point was putting an upper limit on the size (you'd suggested 8m, but the upper limit is more like 2m high)

cant it also be larger and farther away?

 

[gtoffo]

cant it be larger and farther away than u suspect?

How can you be further away than solid ground?

 

[gtoffo]

All I can think of to explain this is a small helium ballon with some sort of transparent cover over it or some damaged/exploded material covering it (maybe some light plastic like bags?)

 

[Ann K]

Im confident if the dangling bits were delicate little balloon things like that, we'd see them moving.

We've gone through this again and again, but you're not listening. Once more, it would take turbulence to move them around, but a steady breeze would not. Go look up the inflatable cow video earlier in this thread, and see how the pennants around her hooves do not flap.

 

[tobigtofool]

How can you be further away than solid ground?

How do we know that there is more distance between where we suspect it is, and that solid ground?

What metric do we have to measure that distance? I don't understand how the math works to determine these distances, so would be nice if someone could ELI5 .

 

[tobigtofool]

Go look up the inflatable cow video earlier in this thread, and see how the pennants around her hooves do not flap.

They do: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/jellyfish-ufo-from-tmzs-ufo-revolution.13304/post-309144

 

[Ann K]

I would also like to take personal credit for Debunking the viral theory that this jellyfish case was "bird crap on the lens/housing". I am pretty sure I was the first person to do so.

Good boy. Here's a cookie.

 

[Harabeck]

How do we know that there is more distance between where we suspect it is, and that solid ground?

What metric do we have to measure that distance? I don't understand how the math works to determine these distances, so would be nice if someone could ELI5 .

We know where the observation balloon is. For the short version, watch the video in the first post. For the long version, start reading here:

Thanks to Flarkey's photo collage
EDIT: AND Dave51c's youtube comments for the 2017 date

View attachment 65064View attachment 65065View attachment 65066

 

[Mick West]

How do we know that there is more distance between where we suspect it is, and that solid ground?

What metric do we have to measure that distance? I don't understand how the math works to determine these distances, so would be nice if someone could ELI5 .

It can't be further away than something that is behind it. That's what gives you the upper limit.

 

[tobigtofool]

Ok I follow how this works @Harabeck that we can tell how far the ground is from the camera.

But how can that inform where an object is between the camera and the ground or its size?

How can we be sure which one of these it would be? If all of these appeared to be the same size due to perspective?

 

[Cosmic Osmo]

Ok I follow how this works @Harabeck that we can tell how far the ground is from the camera.

But how can that inform where an object is between the camera and the ground or its size?

How can we be sure which one of these it would be? If all of these appeared to be the same size due to perspective?

View attachment 65496

No one is claiming to know how far the object is from the ground or its size. We're saying we can place an *upper limit* on its size if we *assume* it is traveling nearly at ground level (the furthest it could possibly be from the camera) and compare its apparent size to known objects also at ground level (doors, cars, etc).

That's where the "roughly 2m upper bound" comes from — the object appears roughly the same size as objects it is traveling in front of, with known sizes of roughly ~2m. That means it can be *smaller* than 2m (if the object is closer to the camera than the ground) but not *larger*, as nothing can be further from the camera than the ground.

 

[jackfrostvc]

Is this talking point of the object maintaining level flight true?


I ask because if it did end up in the lake, doesnt that suggest it was going down slowly?

Of course we would need evidence it did go into the lake

In any event, I'm not sure you can even tell via the video if the alt was or wasnt level .

 

[Calter]

I ask because if it did end up in the lake, doesnt that suggest it was going down slowly?

Of course we would need evidence it did go into the lake

In any event, I'm not sure you can even tell via the video if the alt was or wasnt level .

The only claim that it went underwater is that it "descends into the water, stiff", so it doesn't need to have been slowly going down for that to be the case.

 

[Landru]

That balloon composition of balloons easily is 10 to 30 times larger than the one in question, so it's not comparable.

View attachment 65490

What does that have to do with anything? Oh wait, you're moving goalposts.

 

[Henkka]

Source: https://youtu.be/neCEqjdo6f8?si=1y3-u2dddbYRffxU


Go to 2:44

Isn't this affected by the heavy weight (a person) sitting there? The strings on the balloons are all pulled tight, making them clump together like that. It's harder to imagine freely flying balloons exhibiting little to no wobbling like the jellyfish video.

 

[tobigtofool]

What does that have to do with anything? Oh wait, you're moving goalposts.

No I am not!

Physics, thing's that are large do not behave the same as things that are small.

Isn't this affected by the heavy weight (a person) sitting there? The strings on the balloons are all pulled tight, making them clump together like that. It's harder to imagine freely flying balloons exhibiting little to no wobbling like the jellyfish video.

 

[Harabeck]

Isn't this affected by the heavy weight (a person) sitting there? The strings on the balloons are all pulled tight, making them clump together like that. It's harder to imagine freely flying balloons exhibiting little to no wobbling like the jellyfish video.

Maybe they do have a weight. Maybe they're on a frame. There isn't much we can tell from the image. So even if we accept that balloons loosely tied together could never be that rigid in appearance, that doesn't actually change much.

 

[tobigtofool]

Its crazy how hard it is to find videos of balloons Im going to do my best to find more.


Source: https://youtu.be/hDg2SCC_mus


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfP9E35FZNQ


Source: https://youtu.be/CPdi2GaLz_o



Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1zhHfcopTk


Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qsyHkeJFqAY?feature=share


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5xZx42zrtM


Source: https://youtu.be/1ybhdLVXlpg?t=41

Not a balloon but its in air, Im just posting everything I find after pages of youtube searches.

If any video is of a balloon or bunch of balloons in sustained flight without wobble I'll highlight it.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMONS3qW9G4


Source: https://youtu.be/g9nEZDkBNlo?t=250

From the post below this one:

If that's the case, we're wasting our time searching for images of large bunches of balloons to analyze their flight characteristics.

Thank god I can stop because my eyes are bleeding.

 

[Cosmic Osmo]

I think the whole "bunch of balloons" thing is kind of a red herring at this point.

We've determined that the upper limit of the object's size is around two meters, and we have reason to assume it's actually a good bit smaller than that (object is likely floating at a decent height above the ground, apparent motion against the ground is amplified by parallax). I'd say given everything we know, our best guess puts the object's closer to 1m in size, which would be too small for a bunch of balloons.

If that's the case, we're wasting our time searching for images of large bunches of balloons to analyze their flight characteristics.

Instead we should be putting our efforts into fleshing out some of the more plausible theories posted here (one or two balloons contained in mesh netting, etc).

 

[Scaramanga]

Ok I follow how this works @Harabeck that we can tell how far the ground is from the camera.

But how can that inform where an object is between the camera and the ground or its size?

How can we be sure which one of these it would be? If all of these appeared to be the same size due to perspective?

Nobody's saying we know the exact size of the object. What is being said is that logically and geometrically an object cannot be larger than another object of the same angular size that is behind it....as that is physically impossible. Thus if the object passes in front of a 6 foot tall van and appears to have the same angular size as the van then we know the object has to be less than 6 feet in size.

 

[John J.]

Mylar is not transparent in IR but reflective.

Metallic party balloons don't need to be made of Mylar (BoPET).

If anything, use of Mylar per se for party balloons seems quite rare, which surprised me
I assumed all metallic balloons were some sort of BoPET material like Mylar.

Advert on Amazon retail website,
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Balloons-Balloon-Birthday-Wedding-Decorations/dp/B0C7KS9HZP?th=1



From section "Color Issues and Packaging" on the BalloonHQ website, part of Balloon Suite group, here
https://balloonhq.com/faq/making/:

Pearl Tones.
Pearl tone latex is created by adding crushed mica to the latex. This process can make the latex more brittle, and less
twistable. If you want to see proof of this, you have to look no further than at Tilly Pearl 130's.
Gold/Silver/Metallic 260's
Metallic latex is made in the same way as pearl latex.

That webpage also tells us,

How Foil Balloons Are Made
The concept and technology for the "metalization" of plastic sheeting that has given us foil balloons comes directly out of the NASA Space Mission. By the way, all of us should stop referring to foil balloons as Mylar (a trademarked name for a certain type of polyester film mad by DuPont) balloons. The balloon industry refers to them as "foil" balloons, because they are made of nylon sheet, coated on one side with polyethylene and metallized on the other. It's evidently so much harder to make balloons out of aluminized Mylar (and probably so much more expensive) that nobody does it.

(My emphasis, except the heading).
From the context and likely audience of the BalloonHQ website, I think "...nobody does it" might be better understood as "...very few suppliers of party balloons do it". Mylar balloons obviously exist.

The BalloonHQ webpage continues (citing The Incredible Balloon webpage),

In the late 1970's, silver metalized balloons were developed for the New York City Ballet. These balloons are commonly called Mylar, but they are actually made from a metalized nylon and are more expensive than latex balloons. Someone wrote me that it is 48 gauge (.48 mil) aluminized biaxial nylon w/ a special coating (capron emblem) for heat sealing.

So there are metallic-appearance latex party balloons and nylon/ polyethylene metallized party balloons.

I have absolutely no idea if their respective IR signatures / opacity/ reflectivity etc. differ significantly from "traditional" coloured latex or true BoPET products.

 

[tobigtofool]

Instead we should be putting our efforts into fleshing out some of the more plausible theories posted here (one or two balloons contained in mesh netting, etc).

I did find a movie where a guy tried to tie a go pro to party balloons to replace his drone, He tried 2 but had to go get more because it took at least 4 to make it float. FWIW the weight of a tiny gopro requires aprox 4 party balloons of helium to float get into the air. So whatever is ontop of one or 2 balloons must be fairly light.

I know 1 balloon wont keep a gi-joe skystriker in the air from childhood trauma.

 

[John J.]

our best guess puts the object's closer to 1m in size, which would be too small for a bunch of balloons.

You could fit 27 fully-inflated 12" dia. party balloons in a 1-metre cube (if they were spherical, I appreciate they're not).

 

[tobigtofool]

You could fit 27 fully-inflated 12" dia. party balloons in a 1-metre cube (if they were spherical, I appreciate they're not).

1 meter of 12" balloons cubed (27):