Jellyfish UFO from TMZ's 'UFO Revolution'

[JMartJr]

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.

Watch the video below, paying special attention to the signs hanging on the side of the cow, and the fringe around his hooves. Note the relative motion of the other balloons, they are not becalmed. I think it's more what would be expected -- barring turbulence, for a balloon that is moving with the wind, the RELATIVE wind going PAST the balloon will be pretty much zero.

Source: https://youtu.be/JXzFKkH3_dE?t=57

(Note also the second appendagy balloon, and the advertising sign hanging down under the word "CREAMLAND" on either side.)

 

[astriumx]

I think what looks creepy about the splotch is that it doesn't change speed. It just runs from beginning to end at the same motion. I wonder if it's more of a heat signature rather than an object, which gives it a ghostly image. Aren't we getting an incomplete view of what it is since it's a thermal image?

 

[tobigtofool]

Thank you! Although I do see the behavior I would expect to see in the UAP video in this example though.

The vector of big cow balloon feels more balloon-ish in the example than the UAP too, casually rotating as it travels.

 

[Ann K]

and the fringe around his hooves

HER hooves...

 

[astriumx]

I like this problem, it's quite fun. But my knowlege of optics is limited, so I cannot really be descriptive enough in what I think. But my line of inquiry is that the heat signature is an artifact - if that's the right word - of the camera lens. So, I've been looking at the motion of the base in relation to the motion of the UAV flying along. Could be the wrong path, but I think the problem is less about the object, but how the camera is moving along with the UAV as well as panning around to keep up with the heat signature as is seemingly moves - at a perfectly constant speed - throughout the entire video clip. The object does seem to move within the field of view, which would indicate it's independent of the camera lense, but I wonder if that motion within the field of view is an illusion. I have no idea, because I don't know anything about the technology. Instead of trying to figure it out, just contact Wescam. Ha.

 

[Mick West]

I made a video briefly summarizing what we've discovered so far:

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

 

[JMartJr]

HER hooves...

I graciously accept my colleague's correction!

 

[tobigtofool]

I made a video briefly summarizing what we've discovered so far:

Great video! Except I don't think I agree there are no turbulent forces acting on the UAP. The flag in the UAP video is moving quite a bit (We can see this extremely clearly btw, is the video focused on the ground, not the UAP?).

In your real life example it it shows that the dangling banner of you balloons that imitates streamers is moving a lot.

If we take the banner out, and just look at the weighted object that is holding the balloons in place, it creates the classic V shape of something holding balloons in place. (A)

The UAP (B) has more of a rectangle shape... certainly a strange one.

(C) is what I thought it could be made up of, maybe it's some weird makeshift surveillance drone? And like, under the ballons are cameras on a short tether, creating a taught non moving shape?

That's my best guess at what it could be, if it were balloons I don't see how it would make that shape unless it had streamers, which I think we'd see changing shape in the video.

Maybe it's a cool balloon animal, or tightly tied together balloons to create an octopus tentacle shape?

But if it was then I think physics would pull the heavier part of the balloon down, which I imagine would be the body of the balloon not the tentacles.. or at least because it had no counter weights it'd twist and turn in the air or at least be in more of a horizontal position.

Because of that I still think the things below it are not smaller balloons, and must be creating counter weight.

I think we'd see some more visible distortion in the stabilized video if they were streamers or banners.

So I think that means it must have something pulling it down that doesn't create a V shape, so that's what makes me think it's something like C

 

[jriron]

Another great job! thx

 

[mr.chicken]

(C) is what I thought it could be made up of, maybe it's some weird makeshift surveillance drone? And like, under the ballons are cameras on a short tether, creating a taught non moving shape?

This has me thinking of Winnie-the-Pooh as the little black rain cloud trying to fool the bees. On the one hand, it's such a silly disguise for whomever to have used to spy on a military base. On the other, it may have worked as nobody tried to stop it.

 

[throwaway2341]

could it be an uprooted, dry plant? Desert plants often have very deep roots which could look like the tendrils






These are plants 5 miles east of the airport.

 

[jdog]

Great video! Except I don't think I agree there are no turbulent forces acting on the UAP. The flag in the UAP video is moving quite a bit (We can see this extremely clearly btw, is the video focused on the ground, not the UAP?).

In your real life example it it shows that the dangling banner of you balloons that imitates streamers is moving a lot.

If we take the banner out, and just look at the weighted object that is holding the balloons in place, it creates the classic V shape of something holding balloons in place. (A)

The UAP (B) has more of a rectangle shape... certainly a strange one.

(C) is what I thought it could be made up of, maybe it's some weird makeshift surveillance drone? And like, under the ballons are cameras on a short tether, creating a taught non moving shape?

That's my best guess at what it could be, if it were balloons I don't see how it would make that shape unless it had streamers, which I think we'd see changing shape in the video.

Maybe it's a cool balloon animal, or tightly tied together balloons to create an octopus tentacle shape?

But if it was then I think physics would pull the heavier part of the balloon down, which I imagine would be the body of the balloon not the tentacles.. or at least because it had no counter weights it'd twist and turn in the air or at least be in more of a horizontal position.

Because of that I still think the things below it are not smaller balloons, and must be creating counter weight.

I think we'd see some more visible distortion in the stabilized video if they were streamers or banners.

So I think that means it must have something pulling it down that doesn't create a V shape, so that's what makes me think it's something like C

Or something that started like this cluster of Eid balloons, some cluster that floated away and reached equilibrium at some height, with some popped or deflated balloons dangling below.

I think the jellyfish image could freak people out precisely because people don't usually see clusters of free-floating balloons passing horizontally. At ground level, balloons are tethered and will twist in the wind, which is what people expect to see. If they're loose, the cluster will either float until it reaches equilibrium and float at the speed of the wind or deflate and not float freely at all.

Ideally we'd need some aerial or drone footage of a loose balloon cluster for comparison.

 

[Ann K]

could it be an uprooted, dry plant? Desert plants often have very deep roots which could look like the tendrils

I don't think a plant would have the buoyancy necessary to float in that manner. True, strong winds could take them up, and I've seen tumbleweeds snagged in telephone wires, but the wind appears to be moderate in the video, and that smooth motion is unlikely.

 

[2pint]

I made a video briefly summarizing what we've discovered so far:

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

This is brilliant as per. Cheers for all the work you’ve put in.

 

[Rationalman]

It looks kind of like a flying Ghillie suit.

 

[yoshy]

It looks kind of like a flying Ghillie suit.

Agreed. It makes me think of a drone wrapped in a "space blanket" (thermal blankets). Insurgents have been observed to use space blankets to try to sneak up on Western forces with thermal scopes. It's discussed in this video, 10 minutes in:

 

[jdog]

Agreed. It makes me think of a drone wrapped in a "space blanket" (thermal blankets). Insurgents have been observed to use space blankets to try to sneak up on Western forces with thermal scopes. It's discussed in this video, 10 minutes in:

Fascinating. I also like the point of the new optics displaying a merger of visible and IR information, not raw IR.

 

[Rum]

Another thought about the flappiness, or lack thereof: aren't some of these decorative balloon arrangements constructed on wire frames? If something like 10 gauge (2.5mm dia) wire runs down through the "dangling" parts couldn't that provide enhanced structural stiffness while not adding so much weight that some level of buoyancy would be prevented?

 

[CrunchBunk]

Another thought about the flappiness, or lack thereof: aren't some of these decorative balloon arrangements constructed on wire frames? If something like 10 gauge (2.5mm dia) wire runs down through the "dangling" parts couldn't that provide enhanced structural stiffness while not adding so much weight that some level of buoyancy would be prevented?

If it's a decorative arrangement on a frame you would just fill the balloon with regular air. Helium would be a waste of money if the balloon is being held up by the structure anyways.

 

[Rum]

If it's a decorative arrangement on a frame you would just fill the balloon with regular air. Helium would be a waste of money if the balloon is being held up by the structure anyways.

I was thinking of an arrangement which floats on tethers, so even with the shape supported by a wireframe the helium would still be needed to hold it aloft.

 

[astriumx]

I would like to change my answer from camera artifact to flying suit. It has holes in it, my hypothesis, I mean, but hopefully it will fly as long as this one. It might even be transmedium! a*

 

[Joshua_88]

Was there a date shown? this being eid balloons makes the most sense and if the dates match up it would seal the deal.

 

[flarkey]

I would like to change my answer from camera artifact to flying suit. It has holes in it, my hypothesis, I mean, but hopefully it will fly as long as this one. It might even be transmedium! a*

If so, why don't we see hot gasses coming out of the jets in the infra red image?

 

[FatPhil]

If it's a decorative arrangement on a frame you would just fill the balloon with regular air. Helium would be a waste of money if the balloon is being held up by the structure anyways.

This of course suggests a cheap and simple solution the orientation problem. Fill the top half with helium, and the lower parts with normal air, and you've got something at least somewhat naturally self-righting without needing weights or needing as much helium. (I'm thinking of ones like the Buzz Lightyear one.)

Now I must solve the "helium leaks, so you lose buoyancy over time" problem. Slather the middle of the balloon with an oil which will slowly evaporate?

 

[superhashbros_podcast]

I've done a little experiment to try and recreate the 'effect' seen in the jellyfish footage.
I mean, a smudge is still unlikely, but I was surprised at how easily I could achieve a similar look.
With a little more effort, I think we could recreate this footage with just a camera and a sheet of glass.

 

[astriumx]

If so, why don't we see hot gasses coming out of the jets in the infra red image?

That's a good question. I don't know. But I think it's a better to place to start than helium balloons, spaghetti monsters or jellyfishes. You can kinda make out the outline of a man's body at the center with equipment around him. Whatever he's flying, it's a smooth ride. No one can see him because it's at night. Probably incognito, like a quiet ride too. This is also better than assuming it's an extradimensional alien too.

 

[flarkey]

That's a good question. I don't know. But I think it's a better to place to start than helium balloons, spaghetti monsters or jellyfishes. You can kinda make out the outline of a man's body at the center with equipment around him. Whatever he's flying, it's a smooth ride. No one can see him because it's at night. Probably incognito, like a quiet ride too. This is also better than assuming it's an extradimensional alien too.

Well I agree that a 'man on a jet pack' is a better place to start than a flying spaghetti monster - but here we have something that doesn't display the expected signature (heat) coming from the proposed jet pack engines. Instead of a something zipping around the sky at great speed and changing direction at will, we have an object moving in a straight line at low speed and constant altitude above the ground - kinda like a bunch of helium balloons would do.

 

[Mick West]

I've done a little experiment to try and recreate the 'effect' seen in the jellyfish footage.
I mean, a smudge is still unlikely, but I was surprised at how easily I could achieve a similar look.
With a little more effort, I think we could recreate this footage with just a camera and a sheet of glass.

The problem is it does not work with a long focal length, like the 3000mm used here.

 

[astriumx]

Well I agree that a 'man on a jet pack' is a better place to start than a flying spaghetti monster - but here we have something that doesn't display the expected signature (heat) coming from the proposed jet pack engines. Instead of a something zipping around the sky at great speed and changing direction at will, we have an object moving in a straight line at low speed and constant altitude above the ground - kinda like a bunch of helium balloons would do.

I can understand where you're coming from. The helium balloons is the best answer at the moment. However, I kept wondering about a paraglider, and thought, maybe I can play with the shape of a paraglider to fit the blob, especially since the ride here is so smooth. But, I think we all know what the new problem would be - the parachute thing on top should have some heat signature, especially in the long shot. It should also cover the building as it passes, and it doesn't. Ah well.

 

[FatPhil]

I've done a little experiment to try and recreate the 'effect' seen in the jellyfish footage.
I mean, a smudge is still unlikely, but I was surprised at how easily I could achieve a similar look.
With a little more effort, I think we could recreate this footage with just a camera and a sheet of glass.

Nice effect. Alas, the depth of field is what will bite you. The optics in these pods is very long focal length (if memory serves, either 1000mm or 1500mm), and they are focussing on fairly distant objects, which means that the depth of field will be very shallow (scales with 1/f^2) and far away.
e.g. with some fairly arbitrary sample numbers:

via: https://www.omnicalculator.com/other/depth-of-field
MF was the most charitable sensor, and I chose 4km to be nearly hyperfocal but not care about the whole way to infinity. That near limit of focus is 2km away, not on a near bit of glass.
Dropping 1000mm to 250mm for a common consumer zoom lens drops the near focus to 0.29km, which is still about a thousand times futher than how far your piece of glass would be.
However, those numbers are not all on the charitable side, the resolution of the IR sensor will mean that your CoC can be way higher, and thus the DoF deeper.

 

[astriumx]

Question: Is it possible for a parachute to made of material that isn't picked up by thermal imaging? Probably not. But I found this on Wikipedia.



- "Thermography" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography

 

[FatPhil]

Question: Is it possible for a parachute to made of material that isn't picked up by thermal imaging? Probably not. But I found this on Wikipedia.



- "Thermography" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography

There's nothing particularly special about the IR frequencies that thermal imagers use. If you can imagine there exists a substance that visible light can pass through, then you should be able to imagine there exists a substance that MIR can pass through. Sure enough - that wikipedia image shows such a substance. The heat above the arm is hot air that's trapped. Put enough holes in your parachute, and hot air won't get trapped. Why is being a (functioning) parachute important, I don't think anyone's suggested we're looking at a parachute?

 

[astriumx]

There's nothing particularly special about the IR frequencies that thermal imagers use. If you can imagine there exists a substance that visible light can pass through, then you should be able to imagine there exists a substance that MIR can pass through. Sure enough - that wikipedia image shows such a substance. The heat above the arm is hot air that's trapped. Put enough holes in your parachute, and hot air won't get trapped. Why is being a (functioning) parachute important, I don't think anyone's suggested we're looking at a parachute?

I did. I think a few posts ago. It's a fun thread to pull, anyway, thanks for helping.

 

[astriumx]

Probably my last post on this hypothesis, since I am not strong in this subject and I could be completely wrong about this, but I looked up materials that were transparent to long-wave infrared and here some commons ones: quartz, sapphire, silicon, germanium, and certain types of plastics and glasses. These materials have a low absorption coefficient for Long Wave IR radiation, allowing it to pass through with minimal attenuation. (Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-materials-if-any-are-transparent-to-long-wave-ir.876231/)

 

[JMartJr]

I don't think anyone's suggested we're looking at a parachute?

I did.

The issue with a parachute is that they tend to go downwards. This object seems to be just drifting along.

 

[Scaramanga]

I'm confused. Is this the same 'UFO' Corbell is referring to at 2:10 in this video where he says...

"the one that went into the water, for 17 minutes, and then came out again, was what we're calling the jellyfish UFO..."

So he's claiming the UFO referred to in this thread went into the water for 17 minutes ? He later says (2:26) it is 'the first video you are seeing'....which is the video this thread refers to.


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

 

[Duke]

If so, why don't we see hot gasses coming out of the jets in the infra red image?

And aren't those very loud?

 

[weapon2010]

just an outside the box thought , could it be some type of industrial waste that was inadvertently released?

 

[Calter]

I'm confused. Is this the same 'UFO' Corbell is referring to at 2:10 in this video where he says...

"the one that went into the water, for 17 minutes, and then came out again, was what we're calling the jellyfish UFO..."

So he's claiming the UFO referred to in this thread went into the water for 17 minutes ? He later says (2:26) it is 'the first video you are seeing'....which is the video this thread refers to.

Yes, he claimed the same thing when he presented it during the TMZ segment. It "descends stiff into the water" and then after 17 minutes it "shoots off at 45 degrees".


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1925u2v/the_jellyfish_ufo_clip/


There's no leaked footage of it, and nobody outside of Corbell's source has confirmed this event, but that's what he claims happened.

Personally, I don't know why they would keep track of a faraway spot in the lake hoping a weird object that dropped in came back out, but I'm also not sure how the military operates so maybe that's normal.

 

[Scaramanga]

There's no leaked footage of it, and nobody outside of Corbell's source has confirmed this event, but that's what he claims happened.

So there's no actual evidence that the mysterious 'third video', even if we get to see it someday and see some object dunking in the water, does actually contain the same object. I'd have thought that after 20 minutes the 'UAP' would be quite some distance away...several miles at least.