Jellyfish UFO from TMZ's 'UFO Revolution'

John J. said:
You could fit 27 fully-inflated 12" dia. party balloons in a 1-metre cube (if they were spherical, I appreciate they're not).
Click to expand...
But the object isn't a cube — the 1m rough estimate is height (based on the door frame for reference), and is very roughly twice as tall as it is wide. The height includes the odd hanging bits on the bottom, which make up very roughly half the height.

So we're probably looking at something that is closer to half a meter around, with some stuff hanging off the bottom. The shape of the hangy parts is really tough to make sense of at that scale if you're thinking it's made of fully inflated, standard-shaped party balloons — I think it likely has to be some kind of netting or deflated/exploded balloons, or balloon "arms" of some kind of character.

I'm not sure exactly how many balloons we're talking here, but it's definitely far, far fewer than 27. We should be trying to mock up some plausible configurations using standard balloon sizes that fit the expected scale of the object.
 
Cosmic Osmo said:
We should be trying to mock up some plausible configurations using standard balloon sizes that fit the expected scale of the object
Click to expand...

tobigtofool said:
1 meter of 12" balloons cubed (27):

1705717574208.pngcloserddy1.gifssss.gif
Click to expand...

I think this is not a bad idea

1705718992031.pngssss.gif1705719280646.png

it really looks similar when its made to look white, but when its the most well lit I don't think they look very similar

It does look like there are 2 darker circles under some stuff, that resemble balloon shape?

tobigtofool said:
I did some mockups just to try to figure out what we're looking at

duckbo.gif

It looks like in the darker black and white sections there are some body shapes that look like htey could be balloons, let's say they are 2 balloons at 2 meters it'd be 2 3 foot balloons. Which would make the smaller balloon shapes about the size of regular balloons.

But I think I am being generous with the shapes, there are at least 60% of the overall body of the thing that I think are non-discernable.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Duke said:
You didn't use the reply button, but I assume this was in response to my post #466
Click to expand...
No, just an observation as the possibillity of Eid balloons is part of yhe thread. Not a reply to anybody in particular. My sense is we dont have a great sense if when the video was taken... if we ever see that nailed down firmly it might be wirth having both Eids in mind .
 
Does anyone who celebrates Eid happen to notice if helium is common practice for these balloons, I was just looking at youtube and like, every video is hand blown up balloons.

Source: https://youtu.be/Uu3Pif1-J3k

Im sure its not uncommon but I just happened to notice this looking through youtube.

The mylar shaped letters and stuff that would fit the 3 meter balloon look delicate and hard for me to believe would look like a starwars probe droid while being blown through the air but physics can do strange things so I wont say they wouldn't!
 
Last edited:
Two curious aspects of this sighting are suggestive;
1/ the bunch of balloons (or whatever) is almost perfectly neutrally buoyant. That suggests it has been deliberately weighted so that it will float. Whenever I've attempted to do this it has been a fairly difficult task, adding small weights and lengths of string to get a perfect balance. So it seems unlikely that this was an accidental chance escape. Maybe this is the exact number of small balloons required to carry a camera of some sort., probably constrained in a net.
2/ The object appears to be moving with the wind, so it probably isn't powered - you can see that the wind is blowing in the same direction from the various flags it passes. But the wind is from the east, whereas the prevailing wind direction in this location is from the west. So the balloon cluster+net+cam (if that is what it was) was released deliberately when the wind was blowing in the right direction to take it over the camp. Once again this does not seem to be accidental.
 
Eburacum said:
Two curious aspects of this sighting are suggestive;
1/ the bunch of balloons (or whatever) is almost perfectly neutrally buoyant. That suggests it has been deliberately weighted so that it will float. Whenever I've attempted to do this it has been a fairly difficult task, adding small weights and lengths of string to get a perfect balance. So it seems unlikely that this was an accidental chance escape.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps of all the multitude of bunches of balloons in that country, some escaped, some of which were neutrally buoyant, and some of which flew past military cameras, and all but ONE of which were instantly recognizable as balloons.

This is just the one that wasn't instantly recognizable, or not by Corbell anyway.
 
Eburacum said:
Two curious aspects of this sighting are suggestive;
1/ the bunch of balloons (or whatever) is almost perfectly neutrally buoyant. That suggests it has been deliberately weighted so that it will float.
Click to expand...
<snip>
Eburacum said:
So the balloon cluster+net+cam (if that is what it was) was released deliberately when the wind was blowing in the right direction to take it over the camp. Once again this does not seem to be accidental.
Click to expand...
I think your suggestion here - two things that could entirely have happened at random being selected as evidence that they were not random - is an argument from incredulity.

The idea that if a balloon rises and reaches its neutral buoyancy point is a sign that whoever inflated it (and perhaps weighted it) intended it to reach a few hundred feet so that it would be seen (at night!) by servicemen or cameras over the base, is stretching it a little. And did they only do this for one (maybe two) balloons? With such a cheap, unreliable and unguided system I would assume that they would launch multiple balloons to ensure maximum confusion.

Also the wind direction would require a known launch position to know where to release the balloons from to ensure they floated over the base. So either the 1) the launchers stayed in one place waiting for the wind to change or 2) there were mobile launch teams who would move and find the right location to launch their neutrally buoyant balloons from. And again I'd think they'd launch more than one balloon to account for changes in the wind. We currently only have evidence that the base detected 2 objects, which were probably unrelated and probably launched from different locations (assuming a steady wind).
 
Eburacum said:
1/ the bunch of balloons (or whatever) is almost perfectly neutrally buoyant. That suggests it has been deliberately weighted so that it will float.
Click to expand...
A balloon will either
a) sink — and not travel far, or
b) rise.
If it rises, it either
ba) bursts, or
bb) reaches an altitude where the air density is low enough to make it neutrally buoyant.
From condition bb), the balloon will slowly leak gas and slowly sink, while remaining neutrally buoyant.

It follows that a balloon, or cluster of balloons, being neutrally buoyant is a state that every balloon capable of traveling must eventually reach. There is no need for this state to have been deliberately designed.

Eburacum said:
So the balloon cluster+net+cam (if that is what it was) was released deliberately when the wind was blowing in the right direction to take it over the camp.
Click to expand...
Note also that if the wind had not carried the balloon over the base, it would've remained undetected (probably). What looks deliberate to you is perhaps simply selection bias.
 
John J. said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's not the point. The balloons you are sharing are rubber balloons sprayed with metallic paint. The spray paint may make them less transparent in IR possibly. But we know the thing in the video is somewhat transparent in IR.

The point is: it's hard to make shapes with rubber. Usually rubber balloons are just basic round balloons. Basic round rubber balloons are transparent in IR.

It's easy to make shaped balloons with mylar/foil. For example the EID balloons we keep sharing in this thread. However: foil/mylar balloons are NOT transparent in IR.

Conclusions:
- we can exclude shaped mylar/foil balloons as they would not be transparent (the EID balloons are out)
- if this is some form of a balloon it must probably be some combination of basic round rubber balloons (some exploded some intact?) or a mix of balloons and other IR transparent material (e.g. plastic bags).
 
Also the size issue is substantial. I don't see this realistically being a rubber ballon... this object is likely very small

Jellyfish.png
 
sigmops said:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvPIrouUCD4
Click to expand...

There is a liquid product called HiFloat that is used to coat the inside of a standard latex balloon before being inflated. It forms a barrier which increases the lifespan of the balloon, making it much slower to deflate. I've seen it keep a balloon floating for multiple weeks, though that was indoors and not exposed to the elements.

I wonder if this internal coating would meaningfully change the IR transparency of a latex balloon.
 
Arthur 33 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Please provide screenshots to support your claim of translucency. I'm not seeing a translucent object at all. Every single frame in the vid in the post slightly upthread (#520 https://www.metabunk.org/threads/jellyfish-ufo-from-tmzs-ufo-revolution.13304/post-309624 ) is screaming "not translucent" to me, for example.
 
In addition to those issues... has the temperature shift aspect being explored?

We see temperature differential usually with those cameras. And I assume we are in black hot mode given people and dogs look dark. Full back is the top temperature in the scene, white the minimum temperature in the scene.

Why then is there such a big shift between close frames?

Even considering the auto-adjustment of contrast to fit the variations in the scene, we can use the dogs in the scene as reference together with the ground below them.

Why does the object change so much? Can we exclude a change in its temperature?

Schermata 2024-01-20 alle 13.27.14.pngSchermata 2024-01-20 alle 13.25.56.png
 
FatPhil said:
Please provide screenshots to support your claim of translucency. I'm not seeing a translucent object at all. Every single frame in the vid in the post slightly upthread (#520 https://www.metabunk.org/threads/jellyfish-ufo-from-tmzs-ufo-revolution.13304/post-309624 ) is screaming "not translucent" to me, for example.
Click to expand...
You can use sitrec to go from frame to frame.

Frames 374 to 389 give you a nice little X-ray of the object. I'd say it's partially translucent. Definitely not 100% solid like a mylar/foil balloon.

36db63bca3fe1024e0dd17cd02599685.gif
 
Henkka said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's a banner under his seat. For most of the start of the flight, that banner is practically stationary. Funnily, the time stamp pointed to does show some of the only movement of that banner, but that's clearly [interpretable to me as] localised gusts.
 
gtoffo said:
You can use sitrec to go from frame to frame.

Frames 374 to 389 give you a nice little X-ray of the object. I'd say it's partially translucent. Definitely not 100% solid like a mylar/foil balloon.

36db63bca3fe1024e0dd17cd02599685.gif
Click to expand...
I see zero translucency there. Show me the translucency you're seeing.
 
What material are those balloons made of? they seem more "plasticky" than foil/maylar and a smaller size. Maybe those are transparent?

A couple of exploded/deflated ones would explain the "legs" of the jellyfish. (EDIT: size is still a problem unless it's just 1 balloon)

GEJzcH6bEAA9TWC.jpeg
 
Eburacum said:
the bunch of balloons (or whatever) is almost perfectly neutrally buoyant. That suggests it has been deliberately weighted so that it will float.
Click to expand...
I once had a helium balloon in the house that, to my amusement, was in a different location every morning. Eventually it died behind a chair so that I had to search for it, but for at least a couple of weeks it was neutrally buoyant. It's been suggested that this was a combination of helium-filled and air-filled balloons, so I don't think it would be difficult for it to float with a breeze, without a deliberate balancing act.
 
FatPhil said:
What times are these where "show me evidence" gets a down-mod?
Click to expand...
I gave you a clear gif with clear indications on the source. That is pretty exact evidence. You can clearly see the dark buildings move behind the object.

If you dispute it go ahead and make your case.

But don't act like I haven't given you any evidence. It gives the impression that you are wasting my time purposefully.
 
gtoffo said:
I gave you a clear gif with clear indications on the source. That is pretty exact evidence. You can clearly see the dark buildings move behind the object.
Click to expand...
yes, because the "object" has gaps.

There are either white sub-objects and gaps, or white sub-objects and transparent objects; but I can't spot anything that's e.g. semi-transparent just by looking at your clip.
 
People with ideas that this is an alien craft need to look at images of Eid balloons. Then they need to do a tricky thing, which is think about the physics.

Consider first a single helium balloon. Why would it float up to some level in the atmosphere and then stay at that level, rather than just keep rising? I think it's because atmospheric pressure/density declines with altitude, and because the latex of the balloon creates a compressive pressure on the helium inside. So the balloon will have less net lift the higher up it is, and at some altitude there will be an equilibrium, which is where the balloon will hover and just drift with the wind. Quite likely at atmospheric scientist will say it's a little more complex, that you need the right conditions, that temperature plays a part too, and that there may be distinct strata with transitions between them.

That was a single balloon, now think about a bunch of balloons tied together. There will be some variation in the amount of helium in the individual balloons, as well as in the parameters of each balloon. The bunch will rise until _as a bunch_ they are in equilibrium. At that point it is likely that some individual balloons will still be positively buoyant and others negatively buoyant. The former will be lifting the bunch, the latter will be dangling down.

Now think about what if there is some size variation in the individual ballons, say some large near-spherical balloons and some smaller, decorative ballons, perhaps stars and moons. Smaller balloons are generally less buoyant than larger balloons - that's because they have a larger ratio of surface area (negatively buoyant latex or mylar) to volume (positively buoyant helium). So the smaller balloons become negatively buoyant before the larger balloons do, and hang down below them, like the, er, tentacles of a jellyfish.

Now think about the following two propositions:

1. Earth is being visited by extraterrestrials. There have been many definite sightings. Although none of these sightings to date have involved jellyfish morphologies, and although it's not immediately apparent what advantages such morphologies would have, this is a sighting of an alien craft with a jellyfish morphology. You can't trust people. There is a massive conspiracy within the Pentagon to conceal alien visitations from the people.

2. The are Eid balloons obeying the laws of physics. You can't trust people. A relatively small number of people find it profitable to talk this and other sightings of ambiguous phenomena which are not readily identifiable by many people and where there is very limited information up into something which will catch the attention of and engage a relatively small proportion of the public who have cognitive distortions, including over-generalisation and black-and-white thinking, which make the stories about alien visitors and a mass conspiracies seem plausible to them.
 
FatPhil said:
What's your evidence that a bunch of balloons can't be 1m in size?
Click to expand...

I elaborated on my thinking in this post above: 1m is the height, but the object is roughly half as wide as it is high, and the bottom half is the made up of the thin dangly bits that clearly aren't composed standard, round party balloons. This rough estimate puts the bulk of the object at closer to half a meter in width — enough for a few standard-sized balloons, but not a large "bunch".

This post from gfotto does a much better job visually representing the issue, thanks to SitRec.

My main takeaway is that, assuming the smaller size estimate is correct, I don't think the odd shape of the object can be explained by a large cluster of balloons as has been suggested here. It's like a 3d model with too low of a polygon count; you can create a lot of complex shapes with a large number of simple shapes, but if we're talking 1-3 balloons their shapes should be obvious unless obscured.

I'm thoroughly convinced that whatever the object is, it's "balloon-like", i.e. floating unpowered and roughly neutrally buoyant. But it sure doesn't *look* like standard party balloons given the above analysis. This leaves me with a few possible scenarios:

1) The object is actually floating quite close to the ground and closer to 2m in height. But this makes it even more difficult to explain the apparent rigidity of the object, as wind near the ground is inherently turbulent and the object would need to be traveling in a fairly strong wind (~20mph by Mick's estimate).

2) The bulk of the object is a small number (1-3ish) of standard helium balloons, but their shape is obscured (draped in netting or plastic bag, mixed with deflated/exploded balloons, etc). Streamers or ribbons can explain the legs, but I think you need something actually obscuring the shape of the balloons to explain the lack of clearly defined balloon shapes in the upper mass.

3) The object is composed of non-standard balloons — one or several small "characters" with legs, or something along those lines.

The more I think on these options, especially option 2, the more I think we might just have to settle for not fully resolving this one. I think anyone with a functioning bayesian BS detector will be able to tell that even a very odd/unlikely conglomeration of balloons and other debris is infinitely more probable than a trans-dimensional alien jellyfish monster, but unless we can produce a close viable match I'm afraid this one will only grow in infamy among the true believers.
 
DavidB66 said:
You must have some exciting parties. Two meters would be a big bunch. Three or more would be huge, especially if all dimensions are in proportion.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree :D Looking at photos of big bunches of balloons my estimate was a bit high. Still this object is probably smaller than 1m tall and 30cm wide.
 
gtoffo said:
Even considering the auto-adjustment of contrast to fit the variations in the scene, we can use the dogs in the scene as reference together with the ground below them.
Click to expand...
Wow, good catch! I think this puts the color change back into the anomalous category IMHO. Has anybody tried contacting the manufacture of the MX-20 IR camera system and ask their opinion as to why the color change is happening? Is this normal or unusual to see?
 
gtoffo said:
I gave you a clear gif with clear indications on the source. That is pretty exact evidence. You can clearly see the dark buildings move behind the object.

If you dispute it go ahead and make your case.

But don't act like I haven't given you any evidence. It gives the impression that you are wasting my time purposefully.
Click to expand...
You have asserted, not shown evidence. In that GIF, this is what I see:

-No sign of translucency or transparency.
-Background objects showing through gaps.

Purposely not purposefully
 
gtoffo said:
Conclusions:
- we can exclude shaped mylar/foil balloons as they would not be transparent (the EID balloons are out)
Click to expand...

I agree. And now we have the upper limit of size of the object which excludes most of the balloon clusters people have been posting.

This case is getting interesting again.
 
Arthur 33 said:
I agree. And now we have the upper limit of size of the object which excludes most of the balloon clusters people have been posting.

This case is getting interesting again.
Click to expand...
If you believe that the recently posted uninformed opinions, arguments from incredulity, and intuitions are leading to facts, yes. But they're not. This thread is simply getting spammed with nonsense.
 
I see the translucency.

I understand it is 2 meters or less/

I don't see any balloon shapes.

If these are balloons we should be able to create/supply a similar visual reproduction.

After 14 pages, the balloon theory simply declares one must believe it's balloons because that would make the most sense on earth.

Yet we cant find any videos of balloons bahaving similar, excet for 2 second clips of over 100 foot high, hot air balloons that weigh approximately 800 pounds. Though we say they are small bunch of party balloons that weigh approximately 20 grams each according to google.

Source: https://www.quora.com/How-much-weight-will-a-normal-party-balloon-take-before-it-pops#:~:text=Now, each of those balloons,mass of about 2 grams.
 
Mendel said:
yes, because the "object" has gaps.

There are either white sub-objects and gaps, or white sub-objects and transparent objects; but I can't spot anything that's e.g. semi-transparent just by looking at your clip.
Click to expand...
2024-01-20_11-01-06.jpg
These are 8 frames apart. The overall exposure/gain seems unchanged. There's a distinct darkening of the object in some parts - especially near the top. It don't think it's all holes. It does look like it's somewhat transparent to IR in some parts.
 
gtoffo said:
Even considering the auto-adjustment of contrast to fit the variations in the scene, we can use the dogs in the scene as reference together with the ground below them.
Click to expand...

Arthur 33 said:
Wow, good catch! I think this puts the color change back into the anomalous category IMHO. Has anybody tried contacting the manufacture of the MX-20 IR camera system and ask their opinion as to why the color change is happening? Is this normal or unusual to see?
Click to expand...
-That is not "auto-adjustment"
-Exposure is changing not contrast.

The operator is making manual adjustments to exposure in infra-red.
 
Last edited:
Z.W. Wolf said:
If you believe that the recently posted uninformed opinions, arguments from incredulity, and intuitions are leading to facts, yes. But they're not. This thread is simply getting spammed with nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yeah nonsense about balloons reaching a critical state of flight where they become one with the atmosphere and no longer spin and move.

There is zero evidence to support that claim in this thread.

Show me a video of that happening that has at least the same duration and quality of the UFO footage we're looking at.

Mick West said:
It's moving like a balloon. The exact configuration does not seem like something that will ever be pinned down.
Click to expand...

Not like any balloon I have ever seen.

Would be great if we could show a source.

Balloons and cameras are everywhere on earth, if we cant find a video of a balloon, how can we demand clear videos of UAPs?

Unfortunately, the debunk on this one has to be "I don't believe my eyes, I never seen any footage a balloon behaving like this, but I have to just assume it's a balloon."

Im sorry that is not enough for me!
 
Last edited:
Mick West said:
2024-01-20_11-01-06.jpg
These are 8 frames apart. The overall exposure/gain seems unchanged. There's a distinct darkening of the object in some parts - especially near the top. It don't think it's all holes. It does look like it's somewhat transparent to IR in some parts.
Click to expand...
Thanks for showing evidence.

Maybe, but I'm not convinced. The background is changing in brightness (in IR). Slight differences may be due to the dynamic range limitations of the camera.

It's at best ambiguous.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MonkeeSage
Claim: UFO seen from observatory in Oman in 2017
Replies
23
Views
4K
Eburacum
Eburacum
Mick West
Emails From a Pilot Regarding Starlink and Other Objects
Replies
3
Views
1K
Leekster
Leekster
Mick West
UFOs Filmed from Moving Helicopters and Planes. Not So Fast!
Replies
8
Views
10K
Ravi
Ravi

Latest posts

Back
Top