A new and comprehensive debunk of the "Jellyfish" UAP [Wrong]

Jack Mallory

Senior Member.
If mods prefer to merge this with an existing thread, please do.

I won't pretend to understand all the technical ins-and-outs of this, but I suspect some of you here will. To me, it only confirms what I initially thought to be the case after viewing the original footage for about 20 seconds. Curious to get a more detailed analysis from the folks here. I've no idea who's behind this video but they've quite obviously done their homework (along with some significant legwork towards this incident in particular).


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHXKNwtNsfw
 
not sure why the guy expects Mick to look at his video when he doesn't bother to look at Mick's video
 
not sure why the guy expects Mick to look at his video when he doesn't bother to look at Mick's video
Does he expect Mick to look at it? I will confess I didn't make it to the end of his vid because in an audio-visual medium I would much rather the words be communicated audially (I don't even think there's such a word) rather than visually (but you get my parallelism) and be devoid of a pointless marginally-musical soundtrack. His claims seem to be more wishy-washily supported than other people's claims. "The optics are doing X, here's a grid overlay that proves it" but that grid, whilst it has been put on screen, doesn't seem to prove the claim of X.

He may have an argument that could have been convincing had it been articulated in a more convincing way. But it wasn't. So I'm left shrugging.
 
Does he expect Mick to look at it?
Screenshot of the xit in #3:
SmartSelect_20241215-084427_Samsung Internet.jpg

"asked him" and "maybe he will now" conveys an expectation to me
 
in an audio-visual medium I would much rather the words be communicated audially (I don't even think there's such a word) rather than visually (but you get my parallelism) and be devoid of a pointless marginally-musical soundtrack.
"aurally" ("orally" works, too) or "acoustically"
thanks for the heads-up, I could set the speed to x2 and not lose anything
written text is better than AI narration, and the soundtrack can be muted

that said,
• "fingerprints" on the lens would not be in focus
• observes that the object "morphs" but claims it isn't 3D (the changing shape is actually due to the bunch of balloons turning and being blown about in 3D)
• lots of tech details that don't actually explain anything
• partial transparency used to postulate "optical layer" when the balloons simply are partially transparent (see comparison pictures in the other thread)

if this was a camera artifact, it would not be temporary, which means the camera operators would have identified it as such.
 
The analysis is utterly and thoroughly wrong. The creator has found a manual online and it trying to weave it into his fantasies, but he obviously has zero understanding of how a gimbal stabilised system works.
 
I didn't buy it, but it was an interesting take. IF it were broadly correct, it would explain one thing that has puzzled me -- why there is no attempt to lock onto the target. On the other hand, it would fail to explain that at least once in the vid the object is clearly seen to rotate, as could a bunch of balloons, among other things.
it-appears-to-be-a-turning-3d-object-v0-9pzegv80cpbc1.gif


(And I now see this was a bit of a fossil thread -- I do not recall seeing it last year, and as it popped up in my list of New Attractions today I chimed in...)
 
I had posted here a bit before, but something brought me back here today, and I saw that 'analysis' in another thread. It annoyed me. I cant understand the motivations of people to spend hours creating content with no basis in fact or reality. (re)Tweets sure, but 20 minutes videos?

Anyway, see post #867 onwards if you want to know why it didnt 'lock on'.
#867
 
Back
Top