What's your evidence that a bunch of balloons can't be 1m in size?
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.