Jellyfish UFO from TMZ's 'UFO Revolution'
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
RobertBillyBob
Member
Wouldn't the liquid also take longer to warm up?
Mendel
Senior Member.
Yes.
So it all depends on when this footage was taken: if during the day, the liquid would be colder than the empty tank, if during the night, it would be warmer. And since the report mentioned people with night vision equipment, I'm assuming it was dark.
The "shadows" we're seeing below the building etc. could just be areas that are slow to cool off as they're more protected from the breeze.
Hmm, yeah you're right. But if we are assuming the video is at night then there'd be practically zero solar radiation, so everything would be cooling. To be clear - my post was referring to the black hot / white hot question, not the time of day.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Wanted to call attention to that
(Airport shuttle arrived, had to cut short)
I suspect edge sharpening and/or similar is adding to why the object looks a bit uncanny,
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Some members were saying earlier in the thread that the "camera was adjusting contrast." I think we can all agree that the changes in the values we see during the course of this video are due to changes in brightness.
I'm just an old film guy, but I hope I can clarify.
The image we see on the screen is a translation or interpretation. The camera sees in infrared light. We can't see IR. The images on the screen are black & white images in visible light. Something we can see. The visible images could be presented in many different ways. In this B&W video, hotter objects are darker; colder objects are lighter.
What's value? This is a value scale.
There is no color in the the UAP video images, so we only have to talk about values in a B&W image.
http://beginningphoto.weebly.com/value-in-photography.html
Switching to psychology, this is how we humans see details in any kind of artificial image. The text above was talking about the anesthetic quality of images. What looks good to us.
A single B&W photo with bands of different brightness.
Which one looks good to you? For most of us it's the one with the most detail. So it's a matter of choosing the right brightness.
Because our UAP video is a surveillance video, the purpose of changing brightness is to give us humans the most detail. So we can see what the heck we're looking at. But the common factor is getting the most detail out of the image. That's why the surveillance system can adjust brightness in the image the operator can see.
Two things I don't know:
-Were these changes in brightness automatic, or was the this manual? Was the system doing it, or was the operator doing it at the time? I would think that automatic changes in brightness would be small, but the large changes in brightness were done by the operator, so that he could understand what it was he was seeing.
-Was the change in brightness done optically within the camera or was it purely electronic?
What I mean:
-Does the camera have a diaphragm that that opens or closes?
-Was it the display that was changing brightness, the way you'd change the brightness on your monitor?
I would think that the camera has a diaphragm. I would think that the sensor has dynamic range issues just as film does. In other words, the sensor itself "sees" best with a certain amount of light. Not too much or too little.
I'm just an old film guy, but I hope I can clarify.
The image we see on the screen is a translation or interpretation. The camera sees in infrared light. We can't see IR. The images on the screen are black & white images in visible light. Something we can see. The visible images could be presented in many different ways. In this B&W video, hotter objects are darker; colder objects are lighter.
What's value? This is a value scale.
There is no color in the the UAP video images, so we only have to talk about values in a B&W image.
http://beginningphoto.weebly.com/value-in-photography.html
Switching to psychology, this is how we humans see details in any kind of artificial image. The text above was talking about the anesthetic quality of images. What looks good to us.
A single B&W photo with bands of different brightness.
Which one looks good to you? For most of us it's the one with the most detail. So it's a matter of choosing the right brightness.
Because our UAP video is a surveillance video, the purpose of changing brightness is to give us humans the most detail. So we can see what the heck we're looking at. But the common factor is getting the most detail out of the image. That's why the surveillance system can adjust brightness in the image the operator can see.
Two things I don't know:
-Were these changes in brightness automatic, or was the this manual? Was the system doing it, or was the operator doing it at the time? I would think that automatic changes in brightness would be small, but the large changes in brightness were done by the operator, so that he could understand what it was he was seeing.
-Was the change in brightness done optically within the camera or was it purely electronic?
What I mean:
-Does the camera have a diaphragm that that opens or closes?
-Was it the display that was changing brightness, the way you'd change the brightness on your monitor?
I would think that the camera has a diaphragm. I would think that the sensor has dynamic range issues just as film does. In other words, the sensor itself "sees" best with a certain amount of light. Not too much or too little.
Last edited:
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Related issue. We have to keep in mind that this is a multi-generation video. One generation includes a different camera. The video we have was taken by a camera pointed at a video display. It's a bootleg. What was that bootleg camera doing while it was pointed at the video display?
And what about compression artifacts and all that introduced while being passed around?
So we can't take everything at face value without keeping all this in mind .
And what about compression artifacts and all that introduced while being passed around?
So we can't take everything at face value without keeping all this in mind .
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
My issue is, the footage we have does the opposite of what you describe.
If brightness is being adjusted then it's adjusted to see the least amount of detail in the object.
I doubt the system would do that. At least I wouldn't program it that way round.
An operator after some sensational footage might.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
I would think that the operator was twisting a dial experimentally. Just to see what looked better. Hunting around. If the image looked crappier instead of better, he'd go back.
That's what this looks like to me. Something a human would do.
Just an educated guess based on experience though.
That's what this looks like to me. Something a human would do.
Just an educated guess based on experience though.
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
But that's not what we see in the footage in the OP.
Almost the exact opposite. It goes from OK to awful, stays awful for a while, drifts a bit towards OK before reverting back to awful.
RobertBillyBob
Member
I think that for this kind surveillance footage the goal isn't optimizing details within an object, but discernability between objects. You don't want to identify what you are looking at, you want to be sure to detect if there is something that shouldn't be here. If there is something you send guards of whatever to intercept and identify.
The camera has no prior on what it is looking at, so it take the darkest and lightest part of the image and compute the required luminosity/contrast values to make them black/white. Doing so give someone looking at the footage the best chance of detecting something that is out of place.
That's a very standard thing to do in computer vision.
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
So why make it undiscernible?
DavidB66
Senior Member.
In isolation, that 'letter g' looks to me more like the number 9 (or 6). We do after all call them Arabic numerals! The number might be part of a birthday balloon assembly. Though I must say I don't see the symbol as clearly as Deirdre does.
DavidB66
Senior Member.
The people's heads, presumably uncovered, are also darker than the bodies.
RobertBillyBob
Member
It is discernible. On almost every frame you can see that there is something. It only become hard to discern when it is in front of something with a temperature that is "close" to its own, but you can't do much to help that.
deirdre
Senior Member.
my first thought was 19 (backward to our view) but later footage looks like something attached to what would be the 1 (almost an "h" type shape). and the tail of the "9" seems a bit too curved to me... although i dont really know where iraq balloon shops buy their wares. their numbers could be more curvey.
*or 91..if we assume some spin capabilities to the lower 'appendages'.
Ann K
Senior Member.
The figure on the right also appears to be warmer under the arms. Definitely black-hot!
Bruce M
Member
Also the level of oil in these tanks shows up as black hot, The liquid will retain the heat longer than the vessel containing it.
Yes, I retract my white hot. What I thought were shadows were probably just something at equal intervals on the ground next to a fence. When i looked for other shadows, I couldnt see any.
Whenever i have seen propane tanks, they are always colder where the liquid gas is. Looking at these tanks, I guess they are just liquid fuel, (petrol, diesel) that has absorbed the heat of the day.
For reference, here is a water tower on white hot.
Also the people, if this was daylight, would be 37 degrees on potentially 50 degree ground, so they would look cooler. So its not crazy that people are cooler than the ground. But, if this is October in Iraq, then temps would be less than 37, and especially at night. The date seems to go between 2017 and 2018, so who really knows when this was.
Assuming now its black hot, that means the building air is warmer than the outside, hence why it looks dark on the open doors. My bias again, I just assumed Iraq was always hot, and that was cold air conditioned air coming out.
Bruce M
Member
With regards to the brightness level adjustments.
The video never quite pans to the right enough to see what the IR settings are.
Here is a sample from the web:
The number of the focal length in mm (1000 and 3000 in the jelly video). DFLT refers to the scene setting. (Can be HIGH, when there is lots of temperature difference, or LOW when everything is mainly a uniform temperature). This is manually set by the operator.
The two AUTO are effectively brightness and contrast, though the background algorithm is more interrelated than that. We dont know what the settings on the jelly video are, but I am assuming AUTO for both, given the way its reacting.
I mentioned before the GATE and 'SPA'tial filters. We dont see what the gate is set to, but it looks to be less than full screen. This means the algorithm is trying to maintain a metric on only a portion of the screen. So all the changes in brightness are (likely) being automatically applied. If an operator was in manual mode, they could be adjusting this themselves to achieve the same effect. But, looks like they are spending their time manually tracking the object, which would make adjusting camera settings at the same time a complex task. Possible, but more than likely just being done automatically.
The spatial filtering is designed to make things stand out, not necessarily make thing look 'real'. Its also dumb - it does comparisons to the pixels just left and right of the one being analysed, and makes adjustments on that to make the image look sharper. It doesnt look at the whole image and make changes, its just localised.
The video never quite pans to the right enough to see what the IR settings are.
Here is a sample from the web:
The number of the focal length in mm (1000 and 3000 in the jelly video). DFLT refers to the scene setting. (Can be HIGH, when there is lots of temperature difference, or LOW when everything is mainly a uniform temperature). This is manually set by the operator.
The two AUTO are effectively brightness and contrast, though the background algorithm is more interrelated than that. We dont know what the settings on the jelly video are, but I am assuming AUTO for both, given the way its reacting.
I mentioned before the GATE and 'SPA'tial filters. We dont see what the gate is set to, but it looks to be less than full screen. This means the algorithm is trying to maintain a metric on only a portion of the screen. So all the changes in brightness are (likely) being automatically applied. If an operator was in manual mode, they could be adjusting this themselves to achieve the same effect. But, looks like they are spending their time manually tracking the object, which would make adjusting camera settings at the same time a complex task. Possible, but more than likely just being done automatically.
The spatial filtering is designed to make things stand out, not necessarily make thing look 'real'. Its also dumb - it does comparisons to the pixels just left and right of the one being analysed, and makes adjustments on that to make the image look sharper. It doesnt look at the whole image and make changes, its just localised.
Ann K
Senior Member.
Here are the average September highs and lows in Baghdad. (Sorry, it's in Fahrenheit.) About thirty degrees difference, and of course that is only the air temperature, not accounting for the difference in heat capacity for buildings, vehicles, oil tanks, etc.
https://weatherspark.com/m/103217/9/Average-Weather-in-September-in-Baghdad-Iraq
I just want to get this guys opinion as he is the first operator of the MX-20 I have been able to talk to.
I know you are mostly ignoring the context of what the witnesses told Corbell, but I am not. According to Corbell the witnesses said the MX-20 could not lock on to the object, and the object was not visible with NVG's. This suggests some type of camouflage technology, and the color shift we are observing could be technology intended to confuse IR targeting.
I have not seen anything like this color shift in my very limited experience, but maybe it is a common occurrence. That is what I want to know.
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
Just to be clear, I agree with everything you've said about this (up to this post).
But I fail to see how, in the footage in the op, the change from second 1 to second 3 is making it more discernible. To me it is less discernible.
It's almost like the edit we have is to give the impression that the object is cloaking itself from being seen (although I very much doubt this is the start of the footage).
Bruce M
Member
It does, but it isnt used in the video.
The missing text there is COR-M, which means the setting was 'Correlation manual'. Other options are Centroid, and scene.
Tracking this object using the AVT would be difficult. It doesnt really stand out well against the cluttered background. If they tried tracking it earlier they probably gave up before the released footage started.
If it was a car on a road, or a boat on the water, this system could track it optically.
If you are going to quote someone, don't paraphrase. Provide the quote and the link. This is required by the Posting Guidelines.
I want to point out that Corbell saying people on the ground couldn't see the object with NVG is not the same as the object was not visible with NVG's. There's a very real possibility that they just failed to spot it, be it because they were looking on the wrong place, or they were looking at the right place and missed it, or the object was indeed not visible with NVG (which could just mean it was somewhat transparent to the light frequency used, no need for camouflage).
Edit: Here's Corbell talking about the people with night vision failing to see it (1:23), and he also mentions the "optics platform was jammed" (0:44).
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1925u2v/the_jellyfish_ufo_clip/
Last edited:
Bruce M
Member
While this MX20 can use an AVT to lock onto objects, this target would be difficult. The very cluttered background, of varying temperatures, would make optical tracking difficult.
'Not visible to NVG' - Whose NVG? Where were they? From this video you cant actually tell where the object is. It might be 20m above the ground. It might be 499m above the ground. The IR focus means it cant be too far away from the ground, but the focal length is at the system maximum, so getting a sharp focus is hard anyway.
If the NVG operators came out after this video was taken, how would they find anything? Where would they look? It had blown off the base by then, and they wouldnt even know exactly where to look. Also, NVG is 1000nm wavelength, IR is 3000 to 5000nm. Not saying that makes it invisible to other wavelengths,but they are different technology.
I have said a few times that the gating and filters makes objects look weird in IR. As a likely translucent object near air temperature, this behaviour doesnt look unreasonable to me. Different, because most objects have a solid temperature, but not outside possibility.
I initially said that the MX-20 doesn't have an auto track system - the MX turrets I've used didn't - but there is an 'optional extra' that can be included in MX cameras called AVT , advanced video tracking, that does include a lock on tracking function.
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
What are the suggested balloons at whatever distance supposed to look like with nvgs? Maybe they are hard to spot. I dunno.
Question: In your experience as a MX-20 operator have you personally ever observed a object switch from white to black and back to white?
Regarding how hard it would be to spot a balloon at night with night vision goggles:
As been established earlier, the distance between the surveillance blimp and the buildings in the background is about 3.5Km (indicated on the camera footage's lower right).
That means that someone on the ground with NVG has to find an object in the dark somewhere along that 3.5Km line of sight.
Here is a video I saw on reddit showing a telescopic zoom from 2.5Km distance.
Watch this video and imagine adding an extra kilometer to the distance and make it nighttime. Then imagine talking to someone over the radio on the ground who is supposed to find a balloon, or whatever this was, somewhere along that distance.
Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/comments/19egimy/recording_a_video_from_25km_away_155_miles/
I think that would be quite difficult and time consuming to spot such an object. Not sure how the military value their time, but without a clearly perceived threat, if i was asked to go out of my barracks and don NVG I might only look for about a minute or so.
As been established earlier, the distance between the surveillance blimp and the buildings in the background is about 3.5Km (indicated on the camera footage's lower right).
That means that someone on the ground with NVG has to find an object in the dark somewhere along that 3.5Km line of sight.
Here is a video I saw on reddit showing a telescopic zoom from 2.5Km distance.
Watch this video and imagine adding an extra kilometer to the distance and make it nighttime. Then imagine talking to someone over the radio on the ground who is supposed to find a balloon, or whatever this was, somewhere along that distance.
Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/comments/19egimy/recording_a_video_from_25km_away_155_miles/
I think that would be quite difficult and time consuming to spot such an object. Not sure how the military value their time, but without a clearly perceived threat, if i was asked to go out of my barracks and don NVG I might only look for about a minute or so.
Last edited:
I mean, the object is not large (~2m maximum). If it's 500 feet up (and thus also smaller than 2m), it would be extremely hard to spot in broad daylight or any other condition you can imagine.
Ann K
Senior Member.
I may be incorrect, and can't find it as this thread is just getting longer and longer, but I understood the "witnesses" just to be "people who saw the video" as opposed to real-time witnesses. Is that right? If so, what they told Corbell isn't evidence of anything.
There's at least one witness that must have been actually there when it was recorded, since that's where the claim that the object went into the water and then shot off comes from (I assume at least, since nobody else has seen this longer version of the footage where this happens)
But who knows how much of what Corbell says comes directly from this witness and how much comes from other "witnesses" (for lack of a better word) that simply heard the "ghost story" and are telling Corbell what they heard/know.
Duke
Senior Member.
That's an interesting question. If the sensor operator for the aerostat saw the object real-time only via his IR camera feed (as opposed to with the Mark 1 eyeball), is that operator a witness? I watched the second a/c hit the WTC in real-time on live TV, does that make me a witness?
When it comes down to it, there's limited provenance for this video and its context, just Corbell and one or two veterans from the base who've said someone else recorded it and told them a story about what happened and then how they joked about it being a spaghetti monster based on this and apparently longer clips of the same indicent. Unlike, for example, the Pentagon-released FLIR video, which was attributed to Lieutenant Commander Chad Underwood.
Bruce M
Member
The sensor operator is making choices about zoom, focus and direction, has knowledge of surrounding areas and the ability to look at them if they want. Someone watching TV has no control, and no ability to know if what they are watching is live or pre-edited.
So they might not have directly witnessed it with their eyes, but with knowledge of their system doing the viewing, I'd call the live operator a witness.
Bruce M
Member
I've seen similar behaviour, but not exactly that, no.
Mendel
Senior Member.
As a proper witness, you could testify to provenance and provenience.
With a live TV feed, that may be possible; but you'd preferably get the camera operators to testify, as they know where they were and what they did.
Similar threads
