Jellyfish UFO from TMZ's 'UFO Revolution'

[sigmops]

we actually had multiple recordings of the "Jellyfish UAP" with different durations.

I wish he had used more specific language. If "multiple" means two then it looks likely we already have two separate bits of footage of objects from this base.

I am talking about the below footage, included in the TMZ docu, that is being discussed here:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/308890/

In his initial youtube comments, he seems eager to provide specific details, with barely any prompting. Now it appears the discussion is that there is more information, but we can only talk of it, not what it is. Give us the details

 

[JMartJr]

The flag is probably the best reference we have.

Not to keep harping on it, but even accepting that the flag is the best reference we have, it's also an extremely limited one, for reasons discussed probably to long-windedly above. (eg -- HERE.)

The BEST reference we have would be the behavior of the drifting UAP balloon(s), if that is indeed what they are!

 

[SuppaCoup]

Aside from this thing looking kinda odd, which is probably mostly driven by how far away it is in the classic tradition of the LIZ, it shows absolutely no anomalous behavior and gives every indication of simply passively drifting with the wind.
It is 100% consistent with being an odd looking amalgam of plastic balloons and perhaps party decorations or deflated balloons that are dangling. It may have had a purpose in toting along a small camera above the base, or perhaps it was simply an errant decoration from a celebration.
Am I missing something? Is there a hole in these explanations? It seems like a textbook nothingburger, but it's got the UFO community in a frenzy.

 

[FatPhil]

Erm, I downloaded his vid, but didn't have time to respond to it (this was a couple of hours ago). The alleged "quote" from the vid was a complete miscategorisation of what was actually said. I would like to respond to that original post, but it appears to have disappeared. It was, obviously, ballshout. I even have timestamps which disprove the assertions that were apparently claimed as evidence. Admins, delete this post, there's nothing positive that can come of it.

 

[Dave51c]

or perhaps it was simply errant an errant decoration from a celebration.

I have this half-serious thought that the reason it was deemed a non-threat was that eventually base security got a call from a party on the base letting them know it was them that accidentally released the balloon(s).

 

[sigmops]

Erm, I downloaded his vid, but didn't have time to respond to it (this was a couple of hours ago). The alleged "quote" from the vid was a complete miscategorisation of what was actually said. I would like to respond to that original post, but it appears to have disappeared. It was, obviously, ballshout. I even have timestamps which disprove the assertions that were apparently claimed as evidence. Admins, delete this post, there's nothing positive that can come of it.

Not sure what vid you are referring to but there were some comments in this thread about Corbell that were derailing the conversation. They were moved to a new thread. If those were the ones that disappeared you might find them here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/journalistic-integrity-around-the-jellyfish-ufo.13310/

 

[Mick West]

I was just on a YouTube discussion with Michael Cincoski

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKkbw4rkOLo&t=35s


He seemed open to the idea that it was two different balloons (North and South).

 

[tobigtofool]

Aside from this thing looking kinda odd, which is probably mostly driven by how far away it is in the classic tradition of the LIZ, it shows absolutely no anomalous behavior and gives every indication of simply passively drifting with the wind.
It is 100% consistent with being an odd looking amalgam of plastic balloons and perhaps party decorations or deflated balloons that are dangling. It may have had a purpose in toting along a small camera above the base, or perhaps it was simply errant an errant decoration from a celebration.

Like though I want to see anomalous behavior, if I was recording data on another planet, why make a drone that behaves any differently from a balloon?

Just saying, though i agree if it walks like a duck its probably a duck, I don't think it discounts anything by simply behaving like a balloon. Validates yes, but discount idk about that.

Like Stephen Colbert says, "parabolic!"


Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Q-xcS5Bf92U?feature=share

 

[Cogg84]

Aside from this thing looking kinda odd, which is probably mostly driven by how far away it is in the classic tradition of the LIZ, it shows absolutely no anomalous behavior and gives every indication of simply passively drifting with the wind.
It is 100% consistent with being an odd looking amalgam of plastic balloons and perhaps party decorations or deflated balloons that are dangling. It may have had a purpose in toting along a small camera above the base, or perhaps it was simply errant an errant decoration from a celebration.
Am I missing something? Is there a hole in these explanations? It seems like a textbook nothingburger, but it's got the UFO community in a frenzy.

No you are correct. This appears to be a nothingburger. I believe Corbell mentioned in the interview, the people who recorded and had visuals on it said it went into a lake or pond, then it shot out of the lake or pond at high speeds at a 45 degree angle. Which is wildly convenient because that part of the video was released or recorded. All we get is a blob floating around presumably at the wind speed of that day, doing absolutely nothing spectacular.

 

[itsthematrix]

Mick, impressive speed! Thanks for the video. I would have liked more exploration of the specific material it could have been compared to other materials, but still gained valuable insights from it. Maybe I missed it, thanks anyways!

 

[sigmops]

Mick, impressive speed! Thanks for the video. I would have liked more exploration of the specific material it could have been compared to other materials, but still gained valuable insights from it. Maybe I missed it, thanks anyways!

Any details that stood out to you?

I wont have time to watch it soon

Did Cincoski mention why he changed his stance on the object? What new information was made available to him?

 

[itsthematrix]

Any details that stood out to you?

I wont have time to watch it soon

Did Cincoski mention why he changed his stance on the object? What new information was made available to him?

I remember Greenstreet asking this directly once he came on, he(Michael) seems to have an open mind with what it could be, mentioned some authors he reads on alien abductions, something along those lines. Not putting Michael under the bus since I read similar books, he's just someone who wants to believe which im exactly that. But in the end it seems like balloons, a very strange one nonetheless. We will never really know. All I know this is 2 likely different videos due to GUI color changes, and that according to Mick it could have been heightened senses after the spectacular one at the start of video. Basically everything after this event was probably recorded and maybe deemed the same thing.

 

[Mick West]

Did Cincoski mention why he changed his stance on the object? What new information was made available to him?

He said he just didn't want to rule anything out.

 

[mmtmn]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA_M9LG17KQ

came across this video on another debunking chat, the year matches, the shape some how matches and the video was released 3 years ago. But its in Mexico. Not sure if this video is noise or something to look into. I found it interesting and bizarre since they had thermal camera footage (for some reason) and a normal camera...

 

[Myth]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA_M9LG17KQ

came across this video on another debunking chat, the year matches, the shape some how matches and the video was released 3 years ago. But it in Mexico. Not sure if this video is noise or something to look into. I found it interesting and bizarre since they had thermal camera footage (for some reason) and a normal camera...

Balloons tied together with light reflecting off of them?

 

[JAFO]

I found it interesting and bizarre since they had thermal camera footage (for some reason) and a normal camera...

There is no thermal footage in this video. If you see the balloon casting a shadow it is not thermal imaging.

 

[JMartJr]

Balloons tied together with light reflecting off of them?

That's certainly what it looks like, or just one almost deflated (hence it coming down in the street!) and so not holding it's shape.

I remember this being "debunked" as a balloonish stuff, but can't now recall if it was here, where the standards are higher, or just the "debunked because that's what it looks like to me" position on a free-wheeling forum somewhere else.

 

[JMartJr]

If you see the balloon casting a shadow it is not thermal imaging.

Interesting -- I am guessing, then, that the "shadows" under the trucks and such here are actually just the ground that WAS shaded under the truck and that is therefore cooler? Which would not be the case with a transient object like a balloon drifting past?

 

[Mick West]

Interesting -- I am guessing, then, that the "shadows" under the trucks and such here are actually just the ground that WAS shaded under the truck and that is therefore cooler? Which would not be the case with a transient object like a balloon drifting past?

It's black hot, so warmer under the truck.

 

[mmtmn]

1. Does anyone have a video of night vision goggles and a cluster of balloons at night? I was looking for that but couldn't really find it..
2. Also, does anyone know if adjusting a thermal camera could cause the color changes we see in the video?
Edit: Solution to question 2 seems to be: "It’s not pulsing cold and hot the operator is changing the thermals from white to black hot to get different contrasting views, I used these systems on the LAV platform"

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF6X2ap_6Q8?t=378s


Found footage of night vision and balloons at 6:18.. seems to support the cluster of balloons hypothesis

more useful videos on night vision and thermal vision cameras:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC9M_E4N7l0


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-D0r7fCSiE?t=298s

4:58 you can see thermal camera and a trash bag, interesting behavior for plastic material and thermal vision


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

interesting conclusion on the last video:


"As you climb a mountain, you can expect the air temperature to decrease by 6.5° C for every 1000 meters you gain." - UCAR, Center For Science Education [https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/atmosphere/change-atmosphere-altitude]

 

[JMartJr]

It's black hot, so warmer under the truck.

Of course, not sure how I missed that. I suppose the truck, then, is acting as a "blanket" to prevent the ground under it from radiating heat, which the ground around it is free to do? Implying that the trucks were not there during at least some of the day so the ground could warm up?

 

[Mick West]

Of course, not sure how I missed that. I suppose the truck, then, is acting as a "blanket" to prevent the ground under it from radiating heat, which the ground around it is free to do? Implying that the trucks were not there during at least some of the day so the ground could warm up?

No, this happens when a vehicle has been there all day. More like a "warm cover" effect. I looked into it a little when demonstrating that moonlight was not "cold" See:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...water-not-in-moonlight-false.8161/post-197530

This car (mine) had been there over 24 hours. It was about 10°F warmer underneath.


This was taken early morning in 30°F temperatures, by the light of the Moon.


That might give a very rough indication of the time, as it would take a while for the surrounding ground to cool down.

 

[jarlrmai]

Is the car "shadows" being warmer evidence it was taken at night, with the cars keeping the ground under them warm?

 

[unclepaulie]

Source: https://tubitv.com/movies/200044921/s01-e01-the-breakthrough
Higher quality video: https://www.metabunk.org/f/Jellyfish 720p High.mov
Video viewer: https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?sitch=video&video=Jellyfish

[Updated with unredacted video]




So, any hypotheses? I'd put balloon(s) at the top for now, as it seems to just be drifting in the wind. A list of possibilities:

• Balloon
• Kite
• Drone
• Something suspended from a drone
• Bird poop
• Solar balloon
• Chinese Lantern
• Secret human technology
• Aliens

Any ideas?

If I had a dollar for every false UFO I built as a kid I'd be wealthier than Musk.
We had a habit of metal / acid reactions, big Hydrogen balloons.
Phil Klass had quite a chuckle when I described our efforts.
What's really sad is that people follow this rot and believe it.
I've sent hate mail to the (lack of real) History channel for its "alien" content.

 

[Cognition]

Mmmm. It kinda looks like this.

 

[Robert Kellogg]

Here is my very crude analysis of where I think the "objects" true location and flight path is.

I used this video for the markers in Google Earth.. The building I have marked as "C shaped building" was my reference building.

Obviously, some structures in the video if really taken in 2018 are going to be different in Google Earth..

Here is the video I made. It is about 21 mins long, I did not feel like video editing, but it shows my thought process.

Source: https://youtu.be/G3pZEgXdJFA


Here is the YouTube video I used to capture the marked times for timing.

Source: https://youtu.be/7bns_WhNAQM?si=iFcy4dtPkVXXxZie

 

[Robert Kellogg]

Basic speed of object

In the 2:00 of flight it covers about 3100 ft (if my above analysis is correct).. Roughly 26 feet a sec or ~17.7mph..

Not sure if the entire video is available but I think I saw one news nation say at 17 mins it was over the lake.. that would be about 26,000 ft if my estimated speed is correct and that is Contant velocity.

Puts it about here...


And from either this thread about Jellyfish or it was another one on Meta (not going to go hunt for it) I think someone had the air ballon around here..



What story does it tell not sure... But since there is a ton of objects to reference in the background. I am hoping this FLIR information along with real location information, Gimbal can be put to rest. I do not care if it is a real UAP or not, I care about how big, and the distance of that object is and if the rotation is really mechanical artifact.

 

[CrunchBunk]

I do not care if it is a real UAP or not, I care about how big, and the distance of that object is and if the rotation is really mechanical artifact.

Mick West put together a "situation recreation" that you might be interested in. I think there is difficulty in determining the size of the object because there are many possible solutions that match the footage depending on how far the object is away from the camera. Plus the camera itself could be moving and introduce a parallax effect.

https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?sitch=jellyfish

As for footage over the lake, I think it's been pretty concretely determined that footage is actually over land. As far as I know no other footage has been released yet. It's talked about in the "South Facing Footage" thread here https://www.metabunk.org/threads/jellyfish-ufo-the-second-part-south-facing-footage.13308/

 

[Mick West]

Is the car "shadows" being warmer evidence it was taken at night, with the cars keeping the ground under them warm?

I think so, but I'd not put money on it. However we also have the witness accounts of it being at night, and the floodlights being on.

 

[tobigtofool]

Basic speed of object

In the 2:00 of flight it covers about 3100 ft (if my above analysis is correct).. Roughly 26 feet a sec or ~17.7mph..

Not sure if the entire video is available but I think I saw one news nation say at 17 mins it was over the lake.. that would be about 26,000 ft if my estimated speed is correct and that is Contant velocity.

What confidence do we have of these positions, can we use them to calculate speed, or is it too hard to tell if its close to the camera or far?

 

[captancourgette]

The thing is, drones are noisy as anything, everyone would have noticed it

I have my doubts, as yes sometimes you notice them cause of the noise, and you take note of their presense, but doubtless theres times you havent noticed that drone that was hovering in your neighbourhood cause you haven't heard them. i.e. one recalls only the times one notices them and ignores the times they are there but they don't know. I'm not sure what this bias is called? Observer Bias, perhaps?

I've seen plenty of videos over the last couple of years where a drone is hovering over a soldier in the field ~meters high and they have zero idea they are there (until they drop a grenade) and they must be reasonably sized to carry that payload
I did check on youtube

though he only tested at 25ft,50ft,100ft thus maximum 30 meters, which is still bloody close, but even at that close distance the smaller drone was near silent, at the distance of the 'Jellyfish' video it would of been totally silent to the observer, the larger drone, No idea

It would not fly with a bag closed at the top or bottom no matter how light. Open it into a cylinder and you might stand a chance depending on a number of factors. Lightweight material hanging beneath would likely show disruption from the drone's propulsion.

Thanks

 

[Eburacum]

Mick West put together a "situation recreation" that you might be interested in. I think there is difficulty in determining the size of the object because there are many possible solutions that match the footage depending on how far the object is away from the camera.

That's right. The distance between the object/bunch of balloons is not accurately known, and cannot be known accurately given the data we have; and the speed is entirely dependent on that distance. If the object is half-way between the camera and the reference objects in the background, then we need to halve the speed of the object. Note as well, this would mean the object/bunch of balloons would be half as large.

Plus the camera itself could be moving and introduce a parallax effect.

If the wind is steady and consistent from one direction, the aerostat balloon will probably remain roughly in the same location. Have you ever watched a tethered advertising balloon floating above a car dealership? It moves a bit, but not much, unless the wind switches direction completely.

 

[CrunchBunk]

If the wind is steady and consistent from one direction, the aerostat balloon will probably remain roughly in the same location. Have you ever watched a tethered advertising balloon floating above a car dealership?

Yeah, the balloon could theoretically maintain a steady position in still winds or if at the limit of the anchor cable. However I haven't seen any evidence that negates the possibility of the balloon and camera moving eastward while the footage was recorded. The aerostat can operate at many thousands of feet in altitude, enough to catch a wind current moving in a different direction than the jellyfish object.

That eastward movement could introduce meaningful parallax effect to the video.

Conspicuously, the data that would show movement, the bottom left of the video showing GPS position and aircraft heading. That data is cropped out from the video. The original source might be cropped, or someone else cropped it later on. I don't know, but I think it's noteworthy.

 

[JMartJr]

If the object is half-way between the camera and the reference objects in the background, then we need to halve the speed of the object. Note as well, this would mean the object/bunch of balloons would be half as large.

And the closer it is to the tethered camera balloon, the further it is from being over the buildings and vehicles. Which may explain why it was reportedly not seen by ground observers with night vision gear?

 

[Robert Kellogg]

What confidence do we have of these positions, can we use them to calculate speed, or is it too hard to tell if its close to the camera or far?

Could the object be closer to the surveillance blimp, absolutely and probably is and I'm sure relatively higher in altitude.

I did this exercise just to prove there was enough information in the video to find that location.

Then I came in a did a rough check of time and distance traveled to see in relationship where it would put the object in relationship to the lake.

When I first started this I was actually on another Jellyfish thread on the forum, In that thread I did not see anyone had made an attempt at finding the real world location. I should have known there would be more than one thread and that is my bad for not spending hour ready by every post..

After I posted this I sifted through this thread and found that it appears others have found the same location.

However using basic intuition, camera and optic knowledge, and physics a person can find an optimal sweet spot the object is in reference that makes sense to the all these elements.

But again like I said I'm not particularly interested in this video and proving anything outside of what I did regardless if it is a booger or a interdimensional Predator using its light bending camouflage, dawning Ghost Recon tact gear on its head and a jetpack..

I am more interested in the telemetry information this video can give to be used on more interesting videos out there and there's really only one interesting video in my opinion. And that's gimbal.

Thanks for the follow up cheers and good luck with this one.

 

[Mick West]

I am more interested in the telemetry information this video can give to be used on more interesting videos out there and there's really only one interesting video in my opinion. And that's gimbal.

I really don't think there's much to learn here about Gimbal. It's a different camera, not moving, and looking at something with a clear identifiable background

 

[Myth]

Is it just me or do you guys see what looks like straight up balloon shapes coming into focus at exactly 9s-10s frames from Mic's downloadable video?

Keep watching 9s through 10s. Rewind watch again in slow motion. Scroll the timeline between all the frames between 9s and 10s.

Also all the frames within second 15.

Can any of you grab a few frames here and try to clean it up a bit?

 

[flarkey]

yes I see the balloons. I also see something wrapped around one of the "tentacles' - I think it might be tinsel. This animation is a good way to perceive the 3d structure...


Source: https://x.com/Cortex_Zero/status/1745279856777076808?t=dYVrl80irvF27usvpVKAAg&s=09

 

[tobigtofool]

I find it dubious that the wind would push it in a line like that, but not cause flapping on anything similar to something that would be able to hang from a balloon, or physical wobbling or rotating of the overall floating thing.

 

[Myth]

I find it dubious that the wind would push it in a line like that, but not cause flapping on anything similar to something that would be able to hang from a balloon, or physical wobbling or rotating of the overall floating thing.

I mean I've seen balloons reach a hight level and a wind tunnel where they become completely static in movement as they drift. I find this pretty common. The more balloons tied tight together the more static they'll appear as they form a "solid body".

If these were decorative balloons, I'm assuming they've been arranged and tied to hold that arrangement, which would cause this effect once a particular height is reached and they've stabilized with that particular wind speed. It would take a conflicting gust of wind or a change of wind direction to cause disturbance in the cluster of balloons.