Ann K
Senior Member.
Bears repeating! Thanks.
Jellyfish UFO from TMZ's 'UFO Revolution'
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
John J.
Senior Member.
The "colour" (greyscale, = temperature) change has been satisfactorily explained, I feel (at least, a highly plausible theory has been proposed); it's a function of the imaging system.
There's ongoing discussion whether the changes are automatic, operator-controlled or a combination, e.g. see here:
It isn't an innate feature of the jellyfish.
To put it mildly, it seems unlikely that the jellyfish could, in real time, proportionately raise and lower the IR emissions/ reflectivity of everything in the visible environment at the same time as altering its own (therefore remaining eminently visible in IR), which would be an extraordinarily energetic process. There are others here with a decent knowledge of physics, but off the top of my head I doubt this would be even theoretically possible from a small localised source (particularly when it comes to cooling large areas). Inverse square law and all that.
Edited to add: Written and posted before I read @Calter's post, which also addresses this point (plus others).
Please either add links to the quotes, or (preferably) quote by highlighting the text in the original post, and hitting the pop-up reply button. See:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/how-to-reply-with-and-without-quoting-other-posts.2561/
I agree that the ability to rapidly change temperatures is beyond what is currently possible with our technology (at least publicly). However we don't know if the object is changing temperature or using some sort of other EM means (jamming) to confuse the sensor. I am sure the DoD has been researching countermeasures for IR targeting though, as having a aircraft that is immune to things like stinger missiles would be a obvious line of research/development.
Maybe it is some sort of advanced drone given to Iran from Russia, and the technology is unacknowledged by both superpowers.
You are missing the point. Approach this case from the point of view of a intelligence officer not a debunker. You think a IC officer getting a report like this with accompanying video would ignore the witnesses because witness testimony is anecdotal?
No, they would assume the troops were telling the truth because lying like that would be grounds for court marshal. Maybe the witnesses were confused by what they saw and misinterpreted, but IMHO the likelihood that they just "made it up" to make the story more spooky is near zero.
No one said they were lying. They could be mistaken. And it's court-martial.
John J.
Senior Member.
If so it's singularly unsuccessful; the object remains visible throughout.
My old PC running pre-installed Microsoft Paint 3D can isolate the object from its background with a bit of direction, as shown in post #651. The MX-20 had no trouble following the object.
As pointed out (or implicitly acknowledged) several times, by several posters, when the object's shade of grey changes, so do the shades of grey elsewhere in the imagery.
What persuaded you, in the less than 24 hours between these posts, to change your opinion?
I haven't seen any new info or discussion that realistically makes a drone more likely.
John J.
Senior Member.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Where? By whom? Balloons seem to be the general consensus here, at this point. Are you referring to something that happened on another forum? If so, can you share it?
Can you explain the limits on possible shapes for balloons or balloon clusters and why that rules this object out?
If it's hostile, it wouldn't have passed by low over a random American base, that's just begging something to go wrong and suddenly your opponent has access to your "Infrared jamming drone" whatever that means. If it's friendly, you either wouldn't use it over your own base or you wouldn't use it on foreign soil.
This isn't an official government report. This is a nameless source telling a story to a reporter/UFO enthusiast, and then that reporter telling a story of that story to the public in the form of a segment on a show. If I were an IC officer and the report I got was anything like the TMZ video then I would tell the soldier to report back to the infirmary for the head injury they got.
If I were feeling generous, I would first ask them why they spent 17 minutes pointing the camera at a random spot on a lake miles away on the assumption that the object they think went underwater would eventually come back up. Then I would ask them what makes them think the object goes from hot to cold. Then I would ask them why the second video they presented has a different overlay. Then I would ask them why the second video that is meant to be on water is on land. Then I would ask them why the second video shows an object travelling parallel to the first, several miles south, when it was meant to be going straight. I would also ask them why they haven't provided the correct date, and why they are presenting me a recording of the recording, and why that recording of the recording doesn't display the camera completely to read the information on the display.
Granted, a real report would have included the supposedly full recording of the object, which would come up to around 34+ minutes of footage, at least 17 minutes from when they were looking at the object and 17-18 minutes from when the object went underwater and eventually back up. I would be more than willing to believe a soldier's claims if they presented those videos they claim exist.
But nobody here is an IC officer, and none of the claims were meant to be presented in an official manner to any intelligence agency. We are just a bunch of people that saw a video that came with a story of a story, and decided to analyze the video to see what was happening.
It is clearly not a typical drone like a quadcopter. But when I say "advanced drone" I just mean some sort of unmanned remote controlled aircraft. It is too small to be manned, so if it is some sort of exotic non-public technology from Russia it would still be a drone.
Mendel
Senior Member.
That technology is not new, it's called "incendiary bomb". Napalm will heat a large area right up. The constraint here is that heat is a form of energy, so you need a system capable of delivering that, and a bunch of floating balloons does not have the capacity to store and transport the energy that is meant to be converted to heat.
And the application of such a system tends to not escape the notice of nearby witnesses.
Yes, we know that, because we can see it's not doing that.
Obviously a fighter jet engine releases much more heat than a bunch of wind-driven balloons, and thus its IR signature stands out much more. Floating objects do not promise new insights into dissipating heat from aircraft propulsion systems.
If you have been following the Ukraine war, Iran is selling drones to Russia.
There is no evidence that Russia has this technology, and since they would no doubt deploy this technology in Ukraine, the absence of evidence is telling.
Your speculations are not based on any sort of evidence; they come across as rambles.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
"aircraft" implies lifting surfaces (wings etc.) of any kind — the things that jellyfish and balloons do not have.
Ann K
Senior Member.
And maybe it's those pesky leprechauns, if we are playing story-time again. How about a smidgen of evidence before going all sci-fi on us? We are trying to find the best fit with the evidence on hand.
It has repeatedly been explained that the object is NOT changing temperature. You post is inaccurate, speculative, and in violation of posting guidelines, and I'm suspending you from this thread.
deirdre
Senior Member.
your video the one you saw did you say it was 14 minutes or longer
24:00
right if I remember correctly I don't know if it I think it was either two or three videos um they're a little bit
24:08
shorter um but it total about 17 minutes of of video time across those
24:15
three at least the versions that I had I see so three different versions total
24:20
time of 17 minutes
quoththeraven
New Member
This is such a great version of the video. Not sure what other 'analysis' is needed to see relatively clearly (just look at 0:09) that these are balloons or something very similar of the sort.
Nicole Schnaß
New Member
It is obvious in this video when the flight object changes its color black that the entire area around it changes to black tones several times. This should actually recognize everyone here in that page, that the object has not changed its temperature itself.
Kyle Ferriter
Member
I think it is pretty clear to almost everyone that the object changes color in sync with the background, indicating it is just gain/exposure changes. One problem is there is a well known UFO community member who is frequently cited as a US military IR camera expert claiming the opposite, and has doubled down even when it's pointed out that he's wrong. And I'm certain that people who want to argue this case is anomalous on the basis of the color changes will cite that [wrong] opinion as proof.
pantoptican
New Member
Why can it not be a camouflaged drone? I've only got experience with a dji mini but it can fly 30mins and is small enough that the heat from it would be difficult to see in thermals.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Because nobody camouflages a soldier by tying an elephant to them.
So why would you "camouflage" it? at night? in a way that does not interfere with lift? or the field of view of the camera? and then why operate it such that you give up the advantage of speed and manoeuverability and imitate a wind-driven object at an altitude where your camera won't show you much?
There is no evidence that it's a drone. Occam's razor and Hitchens's razor apply.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Probably worth naming and quoting him, for the sake of completeness...
Last edited by a moderator:
DavidB66
Senior Member.
Well, it wasn't exactly an elephant, but I recall there was some similar trickery at Troy!
Todd Feinman
Active Member
Nice work debunking this balloon. I never looked twice at it; so much floating rubbish is really taken to be real evidence of an anomalous phenomenon, by those who want to believe.
John J.
Senior Member.
If you mean IR-camouflaged, it's been pointed out a couple of times that the MX-20 system had no trouble imaging it with an IR camera.
It's also been established, I think beyond reasonable doubt, that changes in the shades of grey that the object displays in the footage occur at precisely the same time, and in the same direction (lighter or darker) as the shades of grey of other objects / structures visible in the footage. So the imaged object's rapid change of shade (IR brightness) is not a property of the object itself, but a result of changes made by the MX-20 system and / or its operator(s).
The MX-20 was deployed on a tethered aerostat, so a clued-up opponent (i.e. one with access to developing technologies) would know the MX-20 or a broadly equivalent system was probably in use.
If the jellyfish were some sort of new surveillance asset, its developers would know that it would be visible to an MX-20.
Overall, the object's behaviour would seem to be consistent with a bunch of party balloons floating in the wind more than anything else.
Bruce M
Member
The AVT in this system went out of production in 2015. I dont know how much before that it was designed, but it was many years. And it was designed as a stand alone COTS item, and wasnt made with this particular camera in mind.
It doesnt lock onto 'threats'. It locks onto pixels that stand out from other pixels. If there is a consistent edge to the object, on a plain background, it tracks well. If the background is complicated, with lots of changing scene, and the desired target doesnt have a distinctive edge, then tracking is hard. There is no little man inside to read the operators mind to determine what it is that should be tracked.
Note that this tracker is also used on the colour daylight camera. So its not a heat detecting tracker, just a pixel detecting tracker.
Also note - at no time do they try to track the object in the video that is shown. Its not known if it would have worked or not(though I suspect not).
Bruce M
Member
For reference, here is the tracker working in an MX15 in Spain.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohX4AVG2DZc&t=20s
Last edited by a moderator:
I was thinking more in the sense that things you generally want to track (I called them threats but maybe it wasn't the correct word for it) will tend to emit heat (people, cars, etc.) while the environment will tend to not, so the pixels from objects that emit heat will stand out to the rest which sounds like something that would be considered when developing (or deciding to use) a tracking system.
That's interesting to know, thanks for the informative post.
Bruce M
Member
Really depends on the environment. I've seen attempts to track a humvee in Utah that just couldnt get a lock in IR. It was too close to the surrounding heat of the terrain.
The only thing that would track was to focus in on the wheel hubs, as they were little sparkles of heat in an otherwise uniformly dull scene.
Kyle Ferriter
Member
Dave Falch
Original video he posted. Gain mentioned at 7m53s.
Source: https://youtu.be/S9qbB23BuhI?t=473
And tweet thread accompanying it.
Source: https://twitter.com/DaveFalch/status/1751451013876199787
And a followup video he posted when people said it was probably camera gain:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlF8bMsU6-U
I think his intent with the second video is to prove that latex balloons cannot change displayed thermal signature due to camera gain adjustments. But at several points in the video he actually seems to demonstrate that they can, when he brings something significantly warmer like his hand or a flame into frame.
At 0:53 he is pointing at relatively cool objects, and then 1 second later his warm hand/wrist/lower arm enters the frame, the camera auto adjusts the gain, and everything else, including the balloons, gets lighter colored.
0:53
0:54
Cropped below
At 1:53, he is from pointing the camera at the balloons, fence, tree, sky. Then at 1:54 his warm hand and a blowtorch is in frame and the camera adjusts the gain and the balloons look lighter than they were just one second prior. These are each one continuous shot.
1:53
1:54
Cropped below.
In both cases, the latex and mylar balloons are represented by lighter pixel colors as a result of auto camera adjustments made when a warmer object is introduced into frame.
pantoptican
New Member
No sorry I meant camouflaged by the jellyfish netting. I'm saying the person who released the object wanted it to be seen by the camera to distract the camera operator.
But we don't see any evidence of maneuvering at all, so there is no particular reason to suspect a drone with propulsion.
John J.
Senior Member.
Ah, thank you for the clarification.
Surely a non-camouflaged drone would be enough to get the attention of the camera operator in the known context?
Adding some LEDs, or better still a small suspended flare (attention-grabbing in visible light and IR) might've been more useful if the jellyfish's purpose was to draw attention (though speculation on my part).
There doesn't appear to be a drone / RPV visible at the top or bottom of the jellyfish, so (as a camouflage theory implies) a drone would be "inside".
I don't have any practical knowledge of drones, but if the jellyfish is a relatively loose, lightweight assembly of drone + balloons, streamers etc. maybe there would be more change in shape / shift from its vertical axis while under powered flight,
which wouldn't apply to a collection of balloons drifting freely.
In a more rigid assembly, maybe using tape or netting to maintain the relatively stable shape and vertical orientation seen in the footage, the densely-packed balloons might compromise airflow for / from rotors.
Edited (31/01/24), formerly attached pictures lost in recent MB outage
... and I'd already deleted the originals. No great loss though.
Last edited:
JMartJr
Senior Member.
They'd also throw a lot of turbulent air down towards the static streamers/legs/things.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Source: https://twitter.com/DaveFalch/status/1751451013876199787?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1751451013876199787%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=
This is contrary to what is easily observable by any reasonable person. A black=white statement... literally.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Your picture edits are always appreciated!
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
I wonder if what plays into the thought process is that it's such a small field of view that there's not much to compare with changing colour. By the time the colours changed there's new things in the scene of new colour and all the old colours have left the view.
But there are a few instances where it's hard not to see a difference. Such as the concrete blocks...
You'd have to be pretty stubborn to say there's no change in these same bollards imo...
Similar threads
