The flag flapping. In some shots the flags are not even moving. This means that contrary to your point (The wind is uniformly moving at the same speed and direction the entire video) there is variation happening.
Jellyfish UFO from TMZ's 'UFO Revolution'
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Mendel
Senior Member.
Ok, let me correct myself. There is no evidence of gusts of wind at the balloon's altitude.
I have previously stated that wind at ground level is generally turbulent because obstacles create turbulence. For example, you might feel very little wind if you were standing closely leeward of a house, wall, or hedge.
Mendel
Senior Member.
We showed above that flags will flap even in a steady wind.
Resistance to wind and resistance to acceleration are two different things. Both have about the same mass so both are about equally resistant to acceleration. Or require the same amount of force to get them to move. The inflated balloon just has more area for the wind to exert force.
My whole point is that there is no such thing as "steady wind". There is always going to be minor shifts in speed and trajectory. Sometimes those shifts are more noticeable then other times, but it is always there.
It's moving pretty much in a straight line.
With some rotation (here at 5x speed), similar to the Jellyfish.
tobigtofool
Active Member
It does not rotate at a consistent speed & direction, but its negligible enough to me that I could believe it could.
Last edited:
JAFO
Member
I recommend everyone go watch all the balloon videos on this YouTube account. It demonstrates how differently balloons can act based on the nature of wind. Some of the bundles are very erratic while others are more stable. Many many variables at play. This person loves recording balloons.
tobigtofool
Active Member
Yeah the majority show quite a bit of movement, this one was the best I could find. Which shows that it is rare enough to look uncanny when observed in the context of UAP.
These balloon like UAPs move so much like balloons but not like most, so it just comes off as uncanny and creepy a little bit. Being able to see that it can happen, and is just rare helps explain why it feels that way.
We're lucky this person loves recording balloons, Im surprised how uncommon that is on YouTube!
tobigtofool
Active Member
I have a question, can we determine maybe a possible same origin for the other sighting?
(I do not know if these lines are accurate just an example of what I am wondering can/have we determine(d) these paths?
(I do not know if these lines are accurate just an example of what I am wondering can/have we determine(d) these paths?
No, its not "stepped" at all. Here I've added motion streaks to the stabilized image, so you can see the trajectory relative to the background in screen space (not the same at the actual 3D trajectory)Though this is not enough for myself to say the behavior of these balloons in flight is similar enough that I can believe the UAP is balloons.
It is fair to say the bundle in the videos seems to be making a "stepped" and non linear decent.
If you notice in those 3 shots, the red balloon does not face the same exact forward facing direction either, so that bundle, is rotating a smidge in the air (but not enough that I can't say the UAP isnt also with the video distortion)
Last edited:
tobigtofool
Active Member
I edited the post after I saw you added the tracking. I wasn't sure if I should leave it or delete it. Looking at the trees, not the chimney you can see it in the non tracking video too with that awesome effect!
Last edited:
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
Why would the system only record the operator's feed? How do we even know we're watching the operator's feed? Would the operator only have access to one at a time?
It costs a lot of money and it's hard to believe it's more limited than something you could knock up with a few ip cameras and a cheap sbc.
All data of the event would have been recorded and viewable.
If it's an alien jellyfish then surely that data still exists. If not, probably not. Which itself plays into the hands (or tentacles) of the jellyfish.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Yes.
Force per area is pressure!
Area × pressure = force !
Force = mass × acceleration
acceleration = Force / mass
acceleration = pressure × area / mass
(this is all disregarding shape, btw)
so
if we have equal volume
and we have equal mass
and equal shape and pressure
then we have equal acceleration
and a neutrally buoyant balloon has the same volume/mass as the air it floats in
so it accelerates the same as the air it floats in
and if you don't believe that, go two pages back and look at the "helium balloon in the car" video clip and think about what happens on the density spectrum between the plumb-bob and the balloon
Last edited:
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
To me, having been in a hot air balloon and having that distinct memory of being amazed of how it was dead calm(ie I felt no wind at all because we were moving with the wind). I have no issues believing this was probably a bunch of balloons.
John J.
Senior Member.
Um, not really. Many particles have mass.
Neutron stars are pretty massive and they're mainly, well, neutrons.
Manganese has atomic number 25, i.e. 25 protons in its nucleus; iron has atomic number 26, 26 protons.
But a single atom of manganese 55 has greater mass than a single atom of iron 54,
25 protons + 30 neutrons v. 26 protons + 28 neutrons. (Neutrons are marginally more massive than protons.)
An iron atom has 1 more electron than a manganese atom, but electrons only have 1/1836 of a proton's rest mass.
tobigtofool
Active Member
Im not smart enough to figure out the direction for the southern UAP I still wonder if they cross paths over that town if I could.
(I also realize that it wont have necessarily traveled in that straight of a line but it would still be interesting to check a converging area (or that town for that matter anyway) for events (eid celebrations).
(I also realize that it wont have necessarily traveled in that straight of a line but it would still be interesting to check a converging area (or that town for that matter anyway) for events (eid celebrations).
FatPhil
Senior Member.
If placed on a scale and then blown across by a multi-hundred-knot air current.
You might have been given some leniency had you said something like "nett weight" as that would imply some kind of adjustment to the actual weight was being performed, but if you're trying to tell everyone else in the room that you're using the common meaning, and everyone else isn't, then you need to reevaluate your perspectives. I happily use "weight" to refer to 4 distinct concepts, and not one of those would involve aerodynamic lift.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
If the wind is *pushing* the object, then it is excerting an accelerative force on that object, so it will speed up. Eventually, the object will travel at a speed indistinguishable from the wind, and there will be no more pushing. We've always been assuming this equilibrium state, as that's what the evidence points to. You repeatedly fight this concept, please desist unless you can show why it's not in such a state.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
We would need a date a bit more specific than "fall" for that and if we had a date then we would be also looking at historical weather conditions.Im not smart enough to figure out the direction for the southern UAP I still wonder if they cross paths over that town if I could.
(I also realize that it wont have necessarily traveled in that straight of a line but it would still be interesting to check a converging area (or that town for that matter anyway) for events (eid celebrations).
Jeremey Corbell has since said it was fimed between 17 - 20 October 2017.
Source: https://twitter.com/MikeColangelo/status/1747296791706419409?t=lwi8bh5Q6HkMK6Wfj794LA&s=19
We don't even know if those two events are the same day, if they are both balloons then they could easily have come on different winds and/or from different towns.
Corbell says that the southern video is the same Jellyfish but this time flying over water later on the video, but that doesn't really make sense based on the analysis of the footage, so there's no reason to believe that it's on the same day, month or even year for that matter.
Corbell says that the southern video is the same Jellyfish but this time flying over water later on the video, but that doesn't really make sense based on the analysis of the footage, so there's no reason to believe that it's on the same day, month or even year for that matter.
Source: https://twitter.com/MikeColangelo/status/1747296791706419409?t=lwi8bh5Q6HkMK6Wfj794LA&s=19
Is it just me or does Corbell say nothing in this?
I have more opinions about the video but I feel they would be more off topic about how Corbell thinks rather than the contents of the video. I just wanted to point out that his explanation for why he wrote 2018 instead of 2017 is weird, to me at least.
"Why does it say 2018?" "Oh, I just got a bunch of different dates from different people having seen them at those dates so I just went with when I got the first one, but also I was sleep deprived without editors so I put an 8 instead of a 7". (I'm paraphrasing, let me know if you got a different meaning from what he actually said on the video)
Does this mean that he meant to put a 7 but made a mistake and put an 8, or that he wasn't 100% sure about his source of it being 2017 being correct so he put 2018? And doesn't this mean that most of his sources/witnesses have seen the "PG" version of the ghost story rather than the footage of when it actually does something interesting. They would be like Cincoski in the sense that they saw the video but nothing about it going into the lake or shooting off.
Is it just me or does Corbell say nothing in this?
I have more opinions about the video but I feel they would be more off topic about how Corbell thinks rather than the contents of the video. I just wanted to point out that his explanation for why he wrote 2018 instead of 2017 is weird, to me at least.
"Why does it say 2018?" "Oh, I just got a bunch of different dates from different people having seen them at those dates so I just went with when I got the first one, but also I was sleep deprived without editors so I put an 8 instead of a 7". (I'm paraphrasing, let me know if you got a different meaning from what he actually said on the video)
Does this mean that he meant to put a 7 but made a mistake and put an 8, or that he wasn't 100% sure about his source of it being 2017 being correct so he put 2018? And doesn't this mean that most of his sources/witnesses have seen the "PG" version of the ghost story rather than the footage of when it actually does something interesting. They would be like Cincoski in the sense that they saw the video but nothing about it going into the lake or shooting off.
Ann K
Senior Member.
The celebrations are general and huge. Here's an image I found with the search term "Eid celebrations", and as you can see, balloons are popular, both round and shaped. Photo from Al Jazeera.
tobigtofool
Active Member
If you read the post youll see I am specifically talking about a specific example where the person is not traveling at the speed of the wind.
I quite literally am explaining why some balloons can travel the speed of the wind without wobble, and the one in the specific example has a balloon that is wobbling and the person I was replying to was asking why.
You, and I, are saying the same thing.
Last edited:
FatPhil
Senior Member.
We are not. You are putting forward some assumptions and making what you consider to be a logical conclusion from them. They don't need an example video to be analysed for correctness. Your conclusion directly contradicts Newton's laws, as I explained above. You are literally saying "because of his mass, he cannot reach equilibrium with the medium". Where's the threshold for this mass-based impossibility to kick in, if you believe there's one? What law of physics changes as you go above that mass?
If you meant "hasn't yet reached" rather than "won't travel at", then just retract your claim and reword, and I'll drop the matter; heck, I'll give you an "agree" if I agree with its new wording, but at the moment you are pushing bunk.
tobigtofool
Active Member
Ok YOU explain why the blue balloon in this video on this timecode is moving the way it is without saying the wind is passing past the balloon that is not moving the same speed as it.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
I'm not the one making the claim about the video, you are.
One important thing to note is that for the majority of the video, the blue balloon is floating seemingly motionless on the wind like all of the other balloons - as one would expect for an entity that has reached equilibrium in a laminar flow.
We don't see immediately happens before that time stamp but the banner is waving around too, unlike before, so he's gone through some local eddy or even turbulance. That could be because the ultralight has just buzzed him (it looks like that's what's happening before the cut, but we have no idea how much was cut - propeller wakes can last a surprisingly long time). But there's no law that says winds have to be pure laminar flow all the time either. And you'd expect the small balloon to be affected *way* more than the large balloons simply because of the laws of physics. The large ones have more than 25 times the buoyancy as they're 3 times as wide. That buoyancy means they have a quicker-acting restorative force. They're also resting against each other, so contribute to each other's restorative force, increasing the apparent rigidity. The small single balloon has very little buoyancy, and absolutely no support, of course it behaves differently. To be honest, I don't even understand your question - what we see is exactly what we'd expect to see, there's nothing that needs explaining.
However, at no point does any of this imply that the pilot hasn't reached equilibrium with the bulk air flow, or that that is anything to do with mass. Which is the falsity you keep clinging to despite my repeated corrections. And evading when called out on.
2pint
Member
Personally feel this settles it. Corbells Jellyfish video balloon has been popped and I imagine this may leave him feeling deflated. Perhaps he'll release the third part of the video showing it entering the water but until then I think it's safe to say this is just more hot air and another attempt to string us along. And yes, I meant every single one
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
Dave Falch in Chris Sharp's article (Daily Mail UK):
Does the idea of balloons covered in a plastic bag change this analysis?
A second conjecture was that the 'jellyfish' is a cluster of balloons. An expert on infrared videos, Dave Falch, has seemingly burst that bubble for now.
Falch, known for his in-depth analysis of such footage, demonstrated through an experiment posted on his Twitter feed that latex balloons are not visible when viewed using infrared.
Another former infrared systems operator has claimed the 'jellyfish' might by mylar balloons, but Falch doubts this theory, too, as mylar would likely have a distinct infrared signature.
Ann K
Senior Member.
Covered previously. The visibility depends upon the relative temperatures of the balloon and the background.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/go-fast-balloon-theory.12781/post-284485
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
What I'm asking is: is a plastic bag invisible to IR?
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
A problem that's immediately obvious. In his "experiment" he placed his test balloons in a different environment, not a similar environment.
-The UAP balloon cluster is drifting across a distant background. The balloons in this video are hanging directly in front of trees.
-The UAP balloon background consists of simple shapes. The Falch video background consists of complex shapes. A cluttered background with many different edges that may make the edges of the balloons harder to pick out.
-The UAP background consists of many different objects with different IR signatures. The trees and the balloons in the Falch video seem to have a similar IR signature.
-The UAP is drifting in open air. The test balloons are near to the ground and near trees. Did the test balloons lose or take on heat because of their close proximity to other objects in the frame? The result may mean that the balloons and trees may have a very similar temperature. Wouldn't that decrease contrast between the balloons and the trees? The UAP balloon is ~1,000 feet above the ground. Maybe a different temperature than most things on the ground. Wouldn't that increase contrast?
Despite these issues... I see the test balloons pretty clearly.
Could there be other issues? Is this a similar IR camera? Is the processing similar or different? The UAP was observed with a surveillance system after all. Isn't that designed to see things that are hard to see?
Are the two sensors alike or different? Was the UPA balloon camera sensor detecting the same waveband as the sensor in Falch's camera?
Last edited:
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
The test balloons tend to be in a single layer. The UAP balloon is a cluster. We would be looking through many balloons rather than one or two. He didn't test balloons in a large cluster.
Did he try different exposure settings to see if the test balloons might become more visible? He doesn't show that he did.
Did he test a number of different kinds of latex balloons that may use different dyes?
Has he considered that there are balloons made from nylon or polyvinyl chloride that have not been aluminized? Does he share the common but bogus idea about "mylar balloons" being made of a kind of foil?
Did he try different exposure settings to see if the test balloons might become more visible? He doesn't show that he did.
Did he test a number of different kinds of latex balloons that may use different dyes?
Has he considered that there are balloons made from nylon or polyvinyl chloride that have not been aluminized? Does he share the common but bogus idea about "mylar balloons" being made of a kind of foil?
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
Is the plastic bag at a different temperature than the background, or, perhaps more importantly, is the plastic bag and the air it traps at a different temperature? Quite frankly, I don't know how much temperature differential there would need to be for visibility, but for the sort of constant buoyancy needed for the observed level flight path, I'd think it would have to be trapped air that is warmer than the ambient air ...and of course we don't know the temperature of the ground, rooftops, or vehicles.
UberUccidere7
New Member
I don't know if it has been mentioned before, made an account to post this, but laminar air flow is most likely found during "nighttime inversion" when air that rose during the day starts to slide back down, following downhill slopes (such as a slope towards a lake). The height where the laminar effect can be found is higher the drier it is, I'm assuming the effect increases in height with the greater disparity between day and night temperatures (such as in a desert).
So there may be no actual "wind" where local eddies and turbulence is found, it may just be a slump of warm air sinking as it cools, pushing a shelf of air downhill towards the lake.
And because of the shallow angle, it's not moving extremely fast.
This could also account for why it's floating at that height, the balloon could have been floating higher during the day, but the cooler nighttime air dropping down has increased air density, causing the balloon to drop to a lower height, and then follow the airflow direction towards the water.
Source: https://www.britannica.com/science/atmosphere/Troposphere#ref952864
So there may be no actual "wind" where local eddies and turbulence is found, it may just be a slump of warm air sinking as it cools, pushing a shelf of air downhill towards the lake.
And because of the shallow angle, it's not moving extremely fast.
This could also account for why it's floating at that height, the balloon could have been floating higher during the day, but the cooler nighttime air dropping down has increased air density, causing the balloon to drop to a lower height, and then follow the airflow direction towards the water.
Source: https://www.britannica.com/science/atmosphere/Troposphere#ref952864
This video was very good. I think this pretty much excludes the balloon theory.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
No. It decreases the likelyhood of it being non-metallised balloons, but you could contrive scenarios where a latex balloon were visible by dint of its contents being visible. Metallised mylar, and other thin film polymer, balloons are very visible in the kind of environment that's relevant for this UAP.
Regarding contrivances: Anyone have access to ammonia and a thermal camera? Everything we've filled balloons with so far has been non-polar, being diatomic and homonuclear. It's stored as a pressurised liquid, so should be vaguely manipulable for getting into a balloon. Just pay attention to the will-dissolve-your-face-and-kill-the-fish sign, m'kay. (If you have access to it, you should have the ability to handle it safely, I'd hope.)
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
Isn't it fair to say there are times in the video that the jellyfish is "invisible" to the IR like balloons can be?
It makes the very start of the video linked in the OP interesting where it changes from dark to "invisible".
I find it hard to believe the object is changing temps at that point. Presumably it's some capabilities of the camera system.
It makes the very start of the video linked in the OP interesting where it changes from dark to "invisible".
I find it hard to believe the object is changing temps at that point. Presumably it's some capabilities of the camera system.
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
A possibly better one...
I dare say someone not au fait with the footage would struggle to spot the jellyfish/balloons.
I dare say someone not au fait with the footage would struggle to spot the jellyfish/balloons.
Similar threads
