Jellyfish UFO from TMZ's 'UFO Revolution'

A random collection of Eid balloons might explain the strange shape.
This might just be a curious accident, a random escape of drifting balloons, or a deliberate hoax.
I'm not convinced by my own graphic here, but it doesn't seem entirely impossible.

eidballoons.png
 
Last edited:
I believe its lack of movement might be a hint, but upon reviewing another segment of the video, it appears to be heading to the right(maybe because camera is shooting from another perspective). I doubt it's a balloon, as one would expect more noticeable movement, especially if it's a more elaborate balloon. @Mick West would be interesting to see results for such experiment. Personally, the second half of the video intrigues me more.
 
Last edited:
its clearly a bunch of long tailed wedding balloons stuck together
like images samples.. they can have varied tails
and the crown could be a star balloon behind with a tail
this are common balloons in sky as weddings are common
and they release them sometimes.. some are for outside or bridal path and some for tables
 

Attachments

  • wedding1.jpg
    wedding1.jpg
    387.7 KB · Views: 16
  • wedding1.jpg
    wedding1.jpg
    89.4 KB · Views: 27
The 1st object, to me it looks just like some smear/mark on protective glass or otherwise just in front of the camera, there's seemingly no internal movement or perspective shape change of the structure it's just there it change apparent shade as the FLIR adjusts for the background.
Twitterers have pointed out that the object (or mark) moves around with respect to the reticle on the display screen. That seems to rule out a smear or mark on a protective cover unless the camera itself can move around behind the cover. I think that is the case with the famous ATFLIR system, but I don't know about the system used in this video.

(I'm assuming that the reticle itself has a fixed (central) position in relation to the display. In fact it appears to move around, and change its size, in the video, but this could be a result of editing, or simply Corbell filming what appears on a screen, as suggested by Mick earlier)
 
Twitterers have pointed out that the object (or mark) moves around with respect to the reticle on the display screen. That seems to rule out a smear or mark on a protective cover unless the camera itself can move around behind the cover. I think that is the case with the famous ATFLIR system, but I don't know about the system used in this video.

(I'm assuming that the reticle itself has a fixed (central) position in relation to the display. In fact it appears to move around, and change its size, in the video, but this could be a result of editing, or simply Corbell filming what appears on a screen, as suggested by Mick earlier)

The MX turrets have a number of cameras inside a rotating turret. The cameras are fixed in relation to the ball and the glass protecting them. Any smudge or mark on the glass would be 1) very out of focus and 2) only move during zooming in/out, during which the mark would increase in size. This is an MX-15, so called because it's ball-turret is 15 inches in diameter, I think that is what is being used here, probably on a MC-12 plane like the other recently released UAP videos.
1704816442628.png

The moving-around of the reticle is due to the movement of the hand-held camera recording a monitor screen. It is always central in the displayed and recorded video.
 
The location is just given as "Iraq" , but this image shows some fortified temporary blast walls, sometimes known as Hesco Bastion. So this suggests that it is over a coalition military base.
OT: I'm a fan of "Time Team", a British archaeology program, and note with amusement that they showed that exactly that sort of gabion (but using wicker baskets filled with earth) have been used to stop cannon fire for centuries.
 
I believe its lack of movement might be a hint, but upon reviewing another segment of the video, it appears to be heading to the right(maybe because camera is shooting from another perspective). I doubt it's a balloon, as one would expect more noticeable movement, especially if it's a more elaborate balloon. @Mick West would be interesting to see results for such experiment. Personally, the second half of the video intrigues me more.
A balloon (or cluster of them) will move smoothly if the wind is blowing gently. A turbulent breeze would probably make it easier to identify as a balloon if the object were buffeted around.
 
Does it appear to be partly translucent to IR heat to anyone else?


corbell_jellyfish_translucency.png



The following is a youtube video demonstrating that latex balloons can be translucent to IR, but it also shows, near its end, that mylar balloons are fairly reflective. If this were to be composed, at least in part, of mylar balloons, would there not be more contrast from its reflections of the cold of the sky, and the heat of the earth? So if this is not mylar, can we find latex balloons be made into shapes with sharp angles?


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvPIrouUCD4
 
Last edited:
Not sure why anyone would ever fill them with helium but I could see this object as a tangled string of inflatable packing pillows

inflatable-packaging-8-1024-1341596515.jpg
 

Source: https://youtu.be/H8zPNMqVi2E?si=QmzyZGdVJJ4sfKnA
about 30 seconds in you get some video examples. Is this still even used, or anything similar?

Edit: found this https://www.businessinsider.com/old...gainst-missiles-drones-in-ukraine-2022-11?amp

Difficult to find modern pictures though.


Is "flak" smoke even a thing in terms of 2018-era military operations in Iraq?

I'm just saying that trying to ascribe prosaic to things generations ago against modern evidence would likely be pushing "exhaust all options before unexplainable/NHI" as to the level of delusional (no offense). The suggestion has to fit time and place to be valid as an alternative.
 
I believe its lack of movement might be a hint, but upon reviewing another segment of the video, it appears to be heading to the right(maybe because camera is shooting from another perspective). I doubt it's a balloon, as one would expect more noticeable movement, especially if it's a more elaborate balloon. @Mick West would be interesting to see results for such experiment. Personally, the second half of the video intrigues me more.
Balloons that are not rising or falling (much) and that are at some reasonable altitude, tend not to show much movement.
 
If this is a smuge / chip / bird shit on the protective glass dome of the sensor wouldn't it be way out of focus? Also can anyone explain why it varies in distance and orientation to the reticule? I'm referring to the first clip, I don't trust anything Corbell says so the 2nd clip might be totally unrelated for all we know.
 
It is definitely in near-focus for part of the time, and looks a lot like a cluster of weird balloons.

There are two distinct segments to this clip. however; the second segment is much less clear, and seems to show that the 'object' has changed shape significantly. Perhaps the balloons have jostled apart somewhat?
balloons2.png
 
Unless you're primed to think it's something out of this world, I don't know how you look at that and don't think "balloons."
 
There are two distinct segments to this clip. however; the second segment is much less clear, and seems to show that the 'object' has changed shape significantly. Perhaps the balloons have jostled apart somewhat?
Or the second segment shows another object/phenomenon/thing entirely.
 
The object turns at least 20 degrees on the footage, this excludes it being a 2d smudge on the camera. 2d smudges cannot show a different shape if they turn, that is only true to 3d objects (or above) :)

The object does not resemble wind-related movement, the bottom part what seems like tentacles are fixed in position for the entire video.

If you claim this is a balloon you need to explain why this balloon is fixed as a solid object and does not behave like an inflated piece of elastic material. If you claim this is a balloon you need to provide a credible explanation to:

a) Why doesn't it behave as a balloon, why does it seem that every piece/limb/part is fixed to each other and cannot move separately.

b) Why did the military send up a reaper or predator class drone over a military establishment in a warzone to recon a... balloon.

c) In your opinion, when will the pentagon come out to claim this is fake? :)

Since Mick is trying to segway out with saying "balloons dont move much", the thing is: this balloon is supposedly pushed by winds. Yet it does not wobble or turn around it's axis. This means... The balloon is either completely simmetric from the central point, or the wind is blowing it where it is completely simmetrical. In every other case, if the balloon is not simmetric, the wind would make it spin around it's axis as it blows the balloon. So Mick? Does the balloon seem simmetric enough to not spin as the wind blows it? No it certainly isn't.

Debunking without logic is not debunking.
 
Last edited:
If this is a smuge / chip / bird shit on the protective glass dome of the sensor wouldn't it be way out of focus? Also can anyone explain why it varies in distance and orientation to the reticule? I'm referring to the first clip, I don't trust anything Corbell says so the 2nd clip might be totally unrelated for all we know.
Correct. Way to close, and it is not even possible because the camera's objective has a small F/number (sensor needs lots of photons).
 
If you claim this is a balloon you need to explain why this balloon is fixed as a solid object and does not behave like an inflated piece of elastic material.
My opinion is that this cluster of balloons is floating in relatively still air, with no movement at all; all of the apparent movement is caused by the movement of the drone filming the object/cluster of objects. One might expect a cluster of balloons in relatively still air would show little movement. There is probably no wind at all.
the thing is: this balloon is supposedly pushed by winds.
Not as far as I can see.
 
b) Why did the military send up a reaper or predator class drone over a military establishment in a warzone to recon a... balloon.
Where was it stated that the military sent up an aircraft specifically to surveil this?

c) In your opinion, when will the pentagon come out to claim this is fake?
What other footage have they issued statements on? Also if this is actual / real footage of balloons would they call that fake? It would still be real footage, is it not? Do they have a responsibility to dismiss every fantastical claim made about any of their leaked footage?
 
One of the Reddit posters said a military friend of his IDed it as bugsplatter on the dome over the camera. It being fresh bugsplatter would also explain the minor changes in the shape during the video. (And also why no one on the ground sees anything.)
 
One of the Reddit posters said a military friend of his IDed it as bugsplatter on the dome over the camera. It being fresh bugsplatter would also explain the minor changes in the shape during the video. (And also why no one on the ground sees anything.)
But the object changes position relative to the center of the view? As for no one on the ground seeing anything, it was night (so says Corbell, anyway) and they had to use night vision. If this object is small, I don't see how they could be expected to spot it even with a heads up from the drone pilot unless the object was emitting light.
 
When i compare an early frame to a late frame of the closeup section (and invert colour and adjust levels to make them easier to compare) it looks to me like the silhoute does change with a slight rotation.

It looks like Shax is correct, and the dangling appendages do move slightly. So maybe it is subject to a slight breeze.
 

It looks like Shax is correct, and the dangling appendages do move slightly. So maybe it is subject to a slight breeze.

Is there any definitive argument or available evidence then that this "Jelly Fish" entity is not, then, in fact physical, and not:

1. "Bird shit"
2. Lens smear of some sort
3. "Bug spatter"
4. Bokeh, parallax or other handy optical illusion jargon
 
I think we are seeing two factors at work. The object IS translucent AND the thermal camera is adjusting the range of displayed brightness based on the overall brightness of the scene.

A transparent object lets you see what is directly behind that object, a translucent object is showing you the brightness of a larger area behind the object. At one point where the object (as seen from the camera) is approaching a darker patch on the ground the brightness of the object starts to darken, as you would expect because the overall brightness of the region behind it is darkening. Even though the ground directly behind it is still brighter.

Several people seem to be demanding that if it is a balloon it should rotate rapidly, that is not necessarily so. Calm air and the weight of the ribbons below it could be acting as stabilizers.
 
Yeah I'm now convinced it's not a mark/smear, we saw the black drone balloon did not rotate when it was calm either.
 
My guess, a prank by the locals to annoy the Americans. A helium balloon with streamers, perhaps intended as a radar decoy? Get those Americans chasing ghosts...
 
a) Why doesn't it behave as a balloon, why does it seem that every piece/limb/part is fixed to each other and cannot move separately.
If it is not tethered, but is floating along freely in a non-turbulent breeze, there would be no force acting to move bits of it around in relation to one another. Bits would get moved around by wind blowing PAST a balloon with appendages, if it was tethered and could not go with the flow, or from the air stream as it rises initially into the sky, but that would not be happening if it is free-floating at a continuous altitude (barring turbulence).

I don't see any evidence that they CANNOT move separately, though during this video they don't move much.

Video illustrating free floating balloon with non-moving appendages:


Source: https://youtu.be/t_CizUhy7_A



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.)


Source: https://youtu.be/vwSOHbI0C9A

"Skywhale Papa" by Patricia Piccinini (As odd, but less adorned with nipples than the original Skywhale, so less likely to give offense. If you WANT to see a weird hot air balloon creature with lots of nipples, feel free to Google it yourself.)
 
Video illustrating free floating balloon with non-moving appendages:
In defense of those who dont think balloons are a possibility here, hot air balloons surely have more rigidity and structure while inflated and rising than other kinds of balloons such partly deflated party balloons, or balloons with dangling paper streamers which would require much less air flow to move them.
 
The other thing to consider is that, assuming Corbell's claims are correct to that extent, this video is shot in infrared by an unspecified camera with unspecified settings on an unspecified military platform. The visual input is presumably heavily chip-processed and post-processed to produce images of immediate military use, which apparently involves automatically changing the levels and sharpening outlines.

Not ruling anything out, but an algorithm for creating sharp outlines from fuzzy infrared input could do some interesting things if there's bugsplatter on the lens shield.
 
Is anyone able to image stabilize the video on the object?
That would take a while as you'd have to keyframe the entire thing manually. But here's on I stabilized on the yellow IR box.


 
Back
Top