Jellyfish UFO from TMZ's 'UFO Revolution'

[Z.W. Wolf]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Y-CORBELL-GEORGE-KNAPP-CHRISTOPHER-SHARP.html

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.

An assertion by Falch, but is it a reliable assertion? Consider track record.

People like Dave Falch have tried to show that it couldn't be a mylar balloon by showing these videos of a mylar balloon. And they show that it's seen as black and white and you can see everything clearly. And then they show it shows it up against the sky. ... This is in black hot mode so it appears as hot. And he's saying that you know this shows that it wouldn't appear on the video like that. But of course here he's looking up at the balloon so it's going to appear as hot. What he should have done is look down at the balloon. He should have got up on the roof of the building and filmed it looking down at it the same way that I did here.

So you've got to make sure you're doing the right type of experiment if you're trying to compare like with like. It's all very well just pointing a camera at a balloon but if you're pointing a camera at a balloon in a very different set of circumstances, it's not going to give you the same result.

At that time Falch either didn't understand that an aluminized balloon reflects the temperature of the sky when the camera looks down upon it, and what that would mean. Or he did understand and didn't include that in his analysis.

We should note that the UAP balloon appears as white in this black hot video. Could this mean that aluminized balloons are reflecting the IR light coming from the sky, and therefore showing up as colder than the background?

 

[FatPhil]

Isn't it fair to say there are times in the video that the jellyfish is "invisible" to the IR like balloons can be?

Hard to distinguish is different from invisible. Hard to distinguish is a property that is a relationship between object and background. Invisible is a property only of the object, independent of background.

I've hidden a baked bean in this picture - If you can see it, please circle it, and I'll tell you whether you're right:

 

[Dave Beaty]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Y-CORBELL-GEORGE-KNAPP-CHRISTOPHER-SHARP.html


An assertion by Falch, but is it a reliable assertion? Consider track record.

OMG I was just wondering about this based on Falch's Youtube video on Monday. He says mylar is ruled out because it would not be a solid uniform looking color.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Hard to distinguish is different from invisible.

My poor language skills turned "not visible" into invisible.

I appreciate there's a difference.

But anyway, I don't think it's fair to say that latex balloons aren't visible in IR (I would imagine they are pretty visible for a while if inflated from our lungs in a cold room). It's probably fairer to say that in certain circumstances latex balloons are hard to distinguish in IR. And it's also fair to say that in certain circumstances the jellyfish in the footage is hard to distinguish in IR.

I also think we lack the data to specifically say if alien jellyfish are visible to IR or not.

 

[Geovore]

The flapping flag does not indicate changing wind speed.

It's evident that you're not even bothering to read what I posted. Flags don't flap because of turbulence or wind gusts.

See: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/jellyfish-ufo-from-tmzs-ufo-revolution.13304/page-12#post-309483


Do you understand this?

Can you restate this in your own words?



Different but related article, as the quotation above is from an article behind a paywall: https://physicsworld.com/a/flying-the-flag-for-fluid-dynamics/

It may almost have some relationship to "vortex shedding", with the vortex creator not being fixed and so responding to the vortices it creates.

When I go up to my house roof, about 8 metres AGL I guess, the wind is often stronger and more uniform/consistent compared with that at ground level. I'm on a flat golf course with some trees and sparse housing. Airport and other meteo data states sensor altitude. There is presumably wind shear, vortex shedding and hence presumably more turbulence closer to the ground.

There are things called "sea breezes". Near the coast you get flows between ocean and land driven by differences in solar heating or cooling rates around dawn/dusk. Those could be (are here) much more uniform. I guess in principle they could occur wherever there is a difference in surface cover over a large enough area.

Not a wind guy, but I have monitored it properly for a year or two for another experiment.

 

[Geovore]

When 100 feet over there the wind is blowing 10mph (45 degree flag) and where we're standing there is no wind (no flapping on flag where we are standing), and 1000 feet above us is a 1-2 meter sack of extremely light foil EID balloons moving at 18mph then, it is being moved by changing windspeeds and we should see it moving in less rigid fashion as we do with other silmilar balloons: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/jellyfish-ufo-from-tmzs-ufo-revolution.13304/post-309615


Source: https://youtu.be/IfP9E35FZNQ

You might be inferring spatial variability at altitude from spatial variability at ground level. I'm not sure that's valid.

 

[Geovore]

This could be the result of the weight of the giant bundle the guy is riding and that blue balloon is attached to.

If I can try to explain my thought process clearly:

Because that balloon (structure, vehicle idk what to call it) has so much mass, he wont travel at the same speed as the wind, so the gusts of wind will pass him as it pushes the vehicle, and the dangly bits will flap in the wind as it does.

Whereas with the smaller bundle of party balloons, they are lighter, so can more easily travel at the same speed as the wind, with less dangly bits flapping as the wind passes it.

Due to no evidence otherwise and plenty indicating so, I assumed that an object so light it was traveling at the same speed as the wind would mean the object would wobble; but in the video I see that a light balloon can remain pretty steady as its pushed through the air.

What's

There is 2 separate flags one dangling with no wind the other over 50 degrees indicating wind.

This indicates evidence of gusts (meaning changing wind speeds) of wind to me.

_Different_ wind speeds at different locations, not necessarily changing over time. At close to ground level; at higher altitudes there might be more spatial and/or temporal homogenisation.

 

[Calter]

Source: https://youtu.be/S9qbB23BuhI?si=sQzupIG0l2t1d7zn&t=474


What does "besides the lack of movement in the "xyz axis" mean? Isn't that just saying that the object is not moving?

And the conclusion that the object is "adapting or sampling" because it changes color speaks volumes on how in depth this analysis is, considering the ground itself is also changing color in the same clip he provided. I assume the ground is also a secret project being tested for research and development.

 

[Geovore]

It's moving pretty much in a straight line.

With some rotation (here at 5x speed), similar to the Jellyfish.

Can anyone see a BF mountain in the background? Might that affect 3D wind flows? Presumably if there are horizontal flows, somewhere there must be flows with a vertical component (unless there is sufficiently strong density stratification, I suppose). It would be reasonable to expect that to occur over an area related in scale to the area occupied by the mountain.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

What does "besides the lack of movement in the "xyz axis" mean? Isn't that just saying that the object is not moving?

Axis would suggest referring to rotation to me.

 

[Arthur 33]

And the conclusion that the object is "adapting or sampling" because it changes color speaks volumes on how in depth this analysis is, considering the ground itself is also changing color in the same clip he provided. I assume the ground is also a secret project being tested for research and development.

I think the rapid color shift could potentially represent proof that this object is displaying some advanced technology. The current explanation that this is just some auto contrast function of the camera is just a guess. Nobody here really knows. But if we could ask the manufacture we could get a definitive answer. To me it still represents a mystery that needs to be solved.

 

[JMartJr]

Can anyone see a BF mountain in the background?

Yes. If there is one upwind it would be expected to create turbulence up to one and a half to two times the mountain height, for some distance downwind of the mountain, decreasing the further we get downwind from the mountain. You'll also get some turbulence to the side as some air goes around rather than over. There's a diagram I posted on that somewhere up thread, running towards an airport so can't go find it now -- if there is a need I can find it tomorrow when I get home.

If there is not a mountain upwind then of course that would not create turbulence.

The balloons in this video seem pretty self-evidently to not be experiencing turbulence.

 

[Ravi]

I think the rapid color shift could potentially represent proof that this object is displaying some advanced technology. The current explanation that this is just some auto contrast function of the camera is just a guess. Nobody here really knows. But if we could ask the manufacture we could get a definitive answer. To me it still represents a mystery that needs to be solved.

"could potentially represent proof that this object is displaying some advanced technology."
Hmm, you know that just means the same as fantasy, magic, right?

 

[Ann K]

I think the rapid color shift could potentially represent proof that this object is displaying some advanced technology. The current explanation that this is just some auto contrast function of the camera is just a guess. Nobody here really knows. But if we could ask the manufacture we could get a definitive answer. To me it still represents a mystery that needs to be solved.

You didn't read the post from Calter, did you? The one YOU replied to? Go back and read it again. The ground is also changing.

 

[Arthur 33]

The ground is also changing.

I am aware the ground is changing. But we don't really know what is going on here. It is just non experts guessing. It could be that the reason the background is getting darker is in response to the object. It is anomalous still IMHO, and it deserves further investigation.

The FLIR is supposed to indicate when something is displaying heat. If the object is being inaccurately displayed as black hot when it is not that would represent a error of the system.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

[

It could be that the reason the background is getting darker is in response to the object. It is anomalous still IMHO, and it deserves further investigation.

To investigate one is tricky after a point cos we could be the enemy and they'd rather not let us know their capabilities cos we could learn to counter it rather than talking balloon physics (which is fundamentally the issue behind the majority of this guff). I don't think it's a stretch to think their cameras have knobs that do things though.

To investigate the other is tricky until we catch an alien jellyfish.

You could be the enemy trying to get us to do the groundwork for you, even. Not a bad tactic now it comes to mind.

 

[jdog]

[
To investigate one is tricky after a point cos we could be the enemy and they'd rather not let us know their capabilities cos we could learn to counter it rather than talking balloon physics (which is fundamentally the issue behind the majority of this guff). I don't think it's a stretch to think their cameras have knobs that do things though.

To investigate the other is tricky until we catch an alien jellyfish.

You could be the enemy trying to get us to do the groundwork for you, even. Not a bad tactic now it comes to mind.

 

[Calter]

I am aware the ground is changing. But we don't really know what is going on here. It is just non experts guessing. It could be that the reason the background is getting darker is in response to the object. It is anomalous still IMHO, and it deserves further investigation.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/live/uKkbw4rkOLo?si=WvjYl2Wq2i2YnnXX&t=861


This is a bit of an appeal to authority, but you can see here Cincoski agreeing with the assessment that it's probably the camera adjusting contrast. Even if "maybe the object is changing temperature and this in turn causes the temperature of everything around it to also change" were a reasonable hypothesis that doesn't revolve around just making stuff up that is pretty much impossible to replicate or verify, Falch should 100% not have just glossed over the obvious possibility that it is the camera adjusting contrast.

He showed an example of a camera adjusting contrast, then showed an example of the Jellyfish changing color, ignored the fact that the background was also changing color, said something about the "lack of movement on the xyz axis" and concluded that this supports his guess that it is some sort of secret project being tested in likely the worst test in human history. "Hey, we have this new invention that defies a law of physics or two, let's test it out by letting it float around our own base in foreign territory, since if there's anything USA lacks is vast amounts of land to do controlled experiments on."

 

[Mendel]

I am aware the ground is changing. But we don't really know what is going on here. It is just non experts guessing. It could be that the reason the background is getting darker is in response to the object. It is anomalous still IMHO, and it deserves further investigation.

Just say it's extradimensional ground, and cite Grusch. Who needs evidence.

The FLIR is supposed to indicate when something is displaying heat. If the object is being inaccurately displayed as black hot when it is not that would represent a error of the system.

A regular camera is supposed to indicate when something is lit. If the object is being inaccurately displayed as bright when it is not that would represent a error of the system — or simply too long of an exposure and a shutter too open. (You can do that with any camera that is working correctly and lets you adjust parameters, it's not a system error.)

 

[Ann K]

It could be that the reason the background is getting darker is in response to the object.

And not even the dogs noticed the sudden heat? I think you're in the realms of fantasy here.

 

[2pint]

It could be that the reason the background is getting darker is in response to the object.

Sorry could elaborate on this please?

Are you trying to infer that the ground is getting hotter / colder because the balloons are actively changing the environments temperature? Or that the balloons are changing temperature and that’s then resulting in the background appearing to get hotter / colder with it?

 

[John J.]

We should note that the UAP balloon appears as white in this black hot video. Could this mean that aluminized balloons are reflecting the IR light coming from the sky, and therefore showing up as colder than the background?

Maybe, I guess foil blankets work by reflecting IR.

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

Yes, it's hard to see how cool air-filled balloons could remain in the air for long.
If balloons were filled with helium cooler than the ambient air temperature, they'd still be buoyant.
Perhaps this might account for the cool appearance of the object, even if it consisted of non-metalized latex balloons.
As discrete "pockets" of cooler gas, IR-transparent latex balloons would (I think) be visible to IR imagers due to the contrast with the warmer environment.

Hypothesizing; (1) the balloons might contain cool(-ish) helium if they had been recently filled from a pressurised cylinder kept in a cool area, or (2) if they had been floating free (and cooling) at a considerable height for some time and were now beginning their inevitable descent as helium is gradually lost- which might also tie in with UberUccidere7's suggestion:

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.

 

[FatPhil]

Sorry could elaborate on this please?

Are you trying to infer that the ground is getting hotter / colder because the balloons are actively changing the environments temperature? Or that the balloons are changing temperature and that’s then resulting in the background appearing to get hotter / colder with it?

That's how I read it. However, /simule hoc ergo propter hoc/ is even dodgier than /post hoc .../.

 

[Jim A]

Jeremey Corbell has since said it was fimed between 17 - 20 October 2017.

For reference, Paradise4Events (Baghdad) used helium balloons at two children's parties around this period.

The first was posted 11th October and featured several bunches of helium balloons, as well as a large balloon garland:



The second was posted 17th October and included at least one larger bunch of helium balloons.



Neither seems like a particularly obvious fit to me from the photos available, although from the amount of work they do with balloons, I could imagine they might regularly use the sorts of bags or netting depicted in previous posts, which could bring the appearance a little closer.

 

[Mick West]

Are you trying to infer that the ground is getting hotter / colder because the balloons are actively changing the environments temperature? Or that the balloons are changing temperature and that’s then resulting in the background appearing to get hotter / colder with it?

The former is obviously false.

The latter is backwards. If the object was getting hotter, then the ground would be relatively cooler. Instead they both change in the same direction - because the overall exposure/gain is changing.

 

[Mick West]

For reference, Paradise4Events (Baghdad) used helium balloons at two children's parties around this period.

There's 8 million people in Bagdad. About 1/3 of them are children. So on any given day there are over 7,000 children's birthdays in the city.

 

[Mick West]

I just took this FLIR video (black = hot). Demonstrating the change in auto-gain. It's two balloons, one only partially inflated (both with air)

 

[Jim A]

There's 8 million people in Bagdad. About 1/3 of them are children. So on any given day there are over 7,000 children's birthdays in the city.

Agreed - for clarity I wasn't trying to suggest that the lack of a close match here makes it any less likely to be balloons. I just thought this company might be a good source to investigate & cross reference, as they're one of the only companies I could find in the area who not only do a lot of work with balloons, but also have relatively thorough documentation of their work available online.

I also found it interesting that they do so many projects where they create elaborate sculptures / arrangements that combine bunches of different types of balloons with other decorations. While I couldn't find any of these balloon arrangements that closely match the object in this video, I had wondered how many other smaller events they've worked but not shared.

I'd imagine it's possible they could have photos of other balloon work around this period that they've never uploaded, or that they might even recognise the shape in this video if an Arabic speaker were to reach out and ask (though I've been hesitant to suggest this as I don't want to unleash a stream of confusing jellyfish questions on an innocent balloon artist).

 

[deirdre]

Agreed - for clarity I wasn't trying to suggest that the lack of a close match here makes it any less likely to be balloons. I just thought this company might be a good source to investigate & cross reference, as they're one of the only companies I could find in the area who not only do a lot of work with balloons, but also have relatively thorough documentation of their work available online.

I also found it interesting that they do so many projects where they create elaborate sculptures / arrangements that combine bunches of different types of balloons with other decorations. While I couldn't find any of these balloon arrangements that closely match the object in this video, I had wondered how many other smaller events they've worked but not shared.

I'd imagine it's possible they could have photos of other balloon work around this period that they've never uploaded, or that they might even recognise the shape in this video if an Arabic speaker were to reach out and ask (though I've been hesitant to suggest this as I don't want to unleash a stream of confusing jellyfish questions on an innocent balloon artist).

this video had an actual date verified?

 

[Ann K]

this video had an actual date verified?

The video had the days it was posted. But according to Mick's math, there are 7000 kids a day having birthdays, so does it really matter?

 

[deirdre]

The video had the days it was posted.

what video where?

i dont really care when it was posted. I care about when it was filmed.

Dont know why its thought to be birthday balloons. It matters because when i paused Mick's interview above, by a fluke i saw a clear g letter and do see that symbol on Ramadan balloons..so might help narrow down what it is.



for some reason the letters on these balloons look way different then when i google translate. weird.

 

[John J.]

there are 7000 kids a day having birthdays, so does it really matter?

Good point; if only 1% of the kids have party balloons for their birthdays (I hope that's a massive underestimate) then that's still 70 bunches of balloons every day, or approx. 2100 a month.
And that's without religious festivals (we've seen Eid- and Ramadan- specific balloons), wedding celebrations, etc. etc., plus good ol' fashioned balloon sellers wandering around with their wares, emotionally blackmailing parents of small children

...they might even recognise the shape in this video if an Arabic speaker were to reach out and ask

You deserve high marks for thinking about possible leads Jim A, but if I were an Iraqi balloon seller, and got an e-mail asking if I were responsible for the balloons featured in IR footage taken by an aerial surveillance platform near a foreign military base, I think I'd say "no".
And consider moving.

 

[JMartJr]

And that's without religious festivals (we've seen Eid- and Ramadan- specific balloons), wedding celebrations, etc. etc

Plus of course adults have birthday parties as well, not just kids.

 

[Mendel]

@jdog posted Corridor Crew's latest video, where they debunk several "UFO" and "alien" clips.

2:00 About the TMZ jellyfish:

2:45

They actually fade from the jellyfish to the balloons and back two times.

10:20



Source: https://youtu.be/hRFSXWDmBYM


The reason this post won't get deleted is that it has screenshots and time codes. (Time code and a bit of transcript would've worked as well.)

 

[deirdre]

10:20

that clip bit reminds me of the mexico ghost footage. which i think moves similarly to the jellyfish balloon bunch. not sure if its helpful to this thread, but since we are on page 19 figure it cant hurt. timestamp 13:00 embedded.


metabunk thread link video is from
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...al-being-caught-on-cctv-in-neza-mexico.11661/


Source: https://youtu.be/yA_M9LG17KQ?t=777

 

[Bruce M]

I am late to this party, though I can provide clarification to a few things.
I work with the PTDS system cameras.
This is an MX20 camera.
https://www.militarysystems-tech.co...supplier_docs//PDS-MX-20-20D-January-2017.pdf

The object is most definitely not a splotch on the lens or glass. It is a real, floating object.
The centre reticle (the cross) is always at the centre of the screen. You cant steer it around.
The IR camera has a FOV of 0.73 deg when the focal length is reading 1000, and 0.24 deg when it reads 3000. Note that in 3000, there is a 2X ezoom already applied in the background.
The IR is a thermal camera, 3-5um sensitivity. Unless you are used to looking at objects in thermal, some of the behaviour is not intuitive. It is not night vision, which is just amplified visible or near visible light.
The image in IR is constantly being adjusted automatically. There is overall image balancing, and a specific (invisible) 'gate' around the reticle where objects will set the overall gain level required. We dont see the gate adjusted so we dont know how big the gate is(in this case). There is also the spatial filtering on (the SPA on the overlay). This will apply edge sharpening to everything. The combination of the gate and spatial adjustments, as well as the operator moving the reticle around, mean that the brightness of the object is constantly being adjusted by the internal image algorithms.
It looks like it's set to white hot to me. The shadow from poles and things are black, and the ground around that is white. This is normal, the camera is sensitive enough to measure shade vs sunlight temps.
You cant really tell the size of the object. Its so far away that its in focus with the ground,so its probably not that far off it, but you cant really compare it to objects on the ground for a size comparison.

There were so many comments here, with some pretty wild speculation. I presume that's the fun of the investigation for some people. If there are some specific questions about the camera I can answer them.

 

[Arthur 33]

If there are some specific questions about the camera I can answer them.

why is the object changing from black to white? Have you observed this before?

 

[Mick West]

It looks like it's set to white hot to me. The shadow from poles and things are black, and the ground around that is white. This is normal, the camera is sensitive enough to measure shade vs sunlight temps.

It was reportedly at night, late in the year, and people, animals, and doorways show up as black. Which indicates black-hot.

 

[Mick West]

why is the object changing from black to white? Have you observed this before?

This has been explained many times.

The combination of the gate and spatial adjustments, as well as the operator moving the reticle around, mean that the brightness of the object is constantly being adjusted by the internal image algorithms.

Same reason these concrete barriers are changing from black to white

 

[FatPhil]

It was reportedly at night, late in the year, and people, animals, and doorways show up as black. Which indicates black-hot.

Yup, that sentence jumped out at me too, given we started with the description "There were also people with night vision who were out and they were tasked to go look for it, couldn't see it on the night vision." (Corbell, quoted in Charlie Wiser's post #30 on page 1 of this thread: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/jellyfish-ufo-from-tmzs-ufo-revolution.13304/post-308370 ).

If @Bruce M could post a screenshot of the most convincing shadow, that might help narrow down possibilities - your humans don't seem to be casting any, nor do the buildings, but I suspect shadows could be on the far side of objects, depending on the time of day, as I think we're looking vaguely northwards. Does SitRec identify which direction uprights would throw shadows presently, might that be a useful feature that could answer such questions quickly?

Edit: I just noticed, the legs are blacker than bodies, and limbs are usually cooler than core. However, flak vest insulation could make the core appear colder than the extremities.