Jellyfish UFO from TMZ's 'UFO Revolution'
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
The funny thing is that if people really wanted to analyze the footage they wouldn't eyeball it, they'd pull it into an editing program and compare the values of the background objects from frame to frame. There's lots of technical analysis that could be done -- if the footage were actually that interesting in the first place.
The complication, of course, is that were looking at a version of the video that's apparently been recorded from a screen, been processed by a camera, and then probably compressed again for uploading to whatever platform the viewer is getting it from.
If you look at the dogs in this gif, for example, there is noise around some of the dogs (caused by their motion between compressed frames) that makes them look half-transparent in some frames, like bears in others, and people seeming to be cognitively concluding that they're dogs in the background and really don't notice those oddities, whereas the UAP in these shots doesn't fit any mental model for easy classification and dismissal.
Realistically, if it's a bunch of balloons floating by underneath us in a gentle breeze in the dark it looks weird because a) it's in infrared, b) it's shot from hundreds of meters away, and c) it's become pretty clear in this thread that no one has had the personal experience of looking down from a static position at a distant bunch of balloons passing by in a gentle breeze. (If you were in a hot air balloon looking down at this, you'd both be in the same wind. If you were in a building, the building would be creating turbulence.)
There have been recent posts in the UFO subreddit of sightings where the person had no experience of a) bats at night flying into and out of light, b) birds in a murmuration, or c) the Goodyear blimp. For some reason, they just could not process what they were seeing.
Is Reveille and Retreat still observed on bases in foreign/hostile areas? Retreat is performed at sunset each day and the flags/main flag gets lowered and removed. The video shows multiple flags, possibly one flag-less pole but the dominant flags are raised. Sunset in that area for October 2017 is between 5:11-5:46pm.
Maybe someone has more insight on Reveille and Retreat practices on overseas/hostile bases; I couldn't find anything concrete. Assuming the Retreat protocol is observed like normal, the flags we see in the video would put the time frame for the video at least prior to 5:11pm local time. Probably no way to fully confirm it either way though.
I also find it a bit odd that the wide shots aren't littered with more light source thermal signatures, especially if this is the dead of night. The people walking around don't seem to have flashlights and there's no obvious light source near them. But I don't know protocol for night time watch duty or really any protocol for that matter.
Not sure how this time frame would affect anything if it's even valid, maybe helps narrow down the object's temperature compared to the surroundings
Maybe someone has more insight on Reveille and Retreat practices on overseas/hostile bases; I couldn't find anything concrete. Assuming the Retreat protocol is observed like normal, the flags we see in the video would put the time frame for the video at least prior to 5:11pm local time. Probably no way to fully confirm it either way though.
I also find it a bit odd that the wide shots aren't littered with more light source thermal signatures, especially if this is the dead of night. The people walking around don't seem to have flashlights and there's no obvious light source near them. But I don't know protocol for night time watch duty or really any protocol for that matter.
Not sure how this time frame would affect anything if it's even valid, maybe helps narrow down the object's temperature compared to the surroundings
Ann K
Senior Member.
Good catch! If it's daylight hours, that puts all that talk of "night vision goggles" on the shelf.
Duke
Senior Member.
Wasn't the claim made the object was seen on more than one occasion? If so, the NVG claim could have come from a nighttime report.
Harabeck
Active Member
Was a time of day ever established for the second video of the object to the south?
I'm not aware of any claims of this object being seen more than once, and I'm pretty sure Corbell would have pointed it out very clearly if the weird jellyfish appeared twice over the same military base since that would be way harder for stuff like balloons to explain it.
Duke
Senior Member.
I thought one of the guys who claimed to have been based there said the thing had been see more than once. When I have time I'll see if I can find reference to this somewhere in this thread.
Duke
Senior Member.
Thanks Todd, that's what I remembered.
To quote from that article:
https://www.sciencetimes.com/articl...exposes-years-long-haunting-jellyfish-ufo.htmExternal Quote:
The "former USMC analyst" is Michael Cincoski, who's been
referenced/discussed in this thread previously.
Ann K
Senior Member.
The Science Times isn't noted for its veracity. According to Media Bias:
- Overall, we rate The Science Times Questionable due to the use of poor sources, a complete lack of transparency, and failed fact checks.
Yeah, I had a suspicion you were talking about that quote by Cincoski, what Cincoski meant is that there were multiple recordings of the same event.
The event was filmed and soldiers could access that feed through their work terminals, multiple individual recordings of varying lengths were made this way but they were all of the same video. Cincoski says the event lasted about 17 minutes as far as he knew but it was technically possible that a longer version could exist (if it does, he has neither seen it nor heard about it)
You can see him talking about it here
Source: https://www.youtube.com/live/uKkbw4rkOLo?si=mTbV8cfn4zbZ2Srg&t=342
Duke
Senior Member.
That's possible I suppose, but not how I read the previously cited article. Don't have time to watch an hour and a half video unfortunately, do you have a timestamp for where you think he specifies this was a one-time-good-deal event? Worth pointing out, I think, whether he says one or multiple sightings, it's still hearsay since he wasn't there when it/they occurred.
It should be timestamped, but just in case it's at 5:42 (it's less than a minute long, by 6:42 the subject changes). At no point does he claim that there was more than one event. He's only quoted as saying multiple recordings, which he clarifies are all of the same event which is the only event he claims have seen videos of.
Last edited:
Rationalman
Member
Well, that would kind of kill the party balloon theory then, unless it was a different set of balloons but then there's no evidence of the object being seen more than once so it goes without saying.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
https://www.sciencetimes.com/articl...exposes-years-long-haunting-jellyfish-ufo.htm
Headline
Photo Caption
The headline and the photo caption imply many different sightings of the same object over "years."
The main text mentions a single instrument sighting and the 17 minute video of the same. The text mentions no further sightings. So how are the headline and photo caption even remotely related to the text?
The sighting became a "ghost story" that was passed around the base for years. So the jellyfish story metaphorically haunted the base for years. Pretty thin. It was only metaphorically a ghost story in the first place. Not even a literal ghost story. So the "haunting" was two metaphorical steps away from the facts.
Not quite a lie, I guess. Maybe a half lie with a wooden leg. The intent was clearly to imply multiple sightings over the years. Click bait. Heigh-ho.
Headline
Photo Caption
The headline and the photo caption imply many different sightings of the same object over "years."
The main text mentions a single instrument sighting and the 17 minute video of the same. The text mentions no further sightings. So how are the headline and photo caption even remotely related to the text?
The sighting became a "ghost story" that was passed around the base for years. So the jellyfish story metaphorically haunted the base for years. Pretty thin. It was only metaphorically a ghost story in the first place. Not even a literal ghost story. So the "haunting" was two metaphorical steps away from the facts.
Not quite a lie, I guess. Maybe a half lie with a wooden leg. The intent was clearly to imply multiple sightings over the years. Click bait. Heigh-ho.
Last edited:
CrunchBunk
New Member
Has anyone with an IR camera had the opportunity to film a latex balloon that has been treated with Hi-Float / HiFloat? I mentioned it in this thread previously. It's a liquid gel product that coats the inside of a latex balloon to increase the longevity and improve how long a balloon retains helium and floats. There's a dramatic difference in the lifespan of an untreated vs treated helium latex balloon, improving from a single day to a week or more of floating.
I think this could have a dramatic effect on the visual behavior of a latex balloon in IR.
As far as I have seen this is still an unexplored aspect that can be relevant to the jellyfish object. Especially if it's believed to be an arrangement of balloons that got lost from a party and survived long enough to cross a landscape and float within range of a military base camera.
I think this could have a dramatic effect on the visual behavior of a latex balloon in IR.
As far as I have seen this is still an unexplored aspect that can be relevant to the jellyfish object. Especially if it's believed to be an arrangement of balloons that got lost from a party and survived long enough to cross a landscape and float within range of a military base camera.
I just upgraded my thermal camera from a 2016 model FLIR ONE, to a TOPDON TC004. It's quite an improvement. The weather here is poor right now (wind storm coming, and then mostly rain for the next week), but I anticipate several experiments in the future. Here's a black-hot video:
Ann K
Senior Member.
I'd be surprised if any coating on the inside would make a lot of difference.
Some years ago there was a habit of school kids releasing balloons to see how far they could travel. I found one in northern Ohio that had been released in southern Michigan, so less than a couple of hundred miles, fairly close. There was no balloon left to speak of, just a stiff crumbly neck of it, but the tag was legible so I responded. I asked them what was the farthest distance from which one had been returned to them, and they said one ended in Florida, so that indicates that an ordinary latex balloon can make it a considerable distance as that's close to 1200 miles. I don't see the distance from heavily-populated Baghdad to the base as being an insurmountable problem at all.
Last edited:
David Esp
New Member
Looks like eburacum may well have guessed right back on January 9th:
A Muslim Eid-season celebratory balloon-cluster (these can be quite elaborate)
As presented in this YT video, about 2 minutes in, by TheSneezingMonkey.
Has anyone (here or known to people here) come across such things out there?
A Muslim Eid-season celebratory balloon-cluster (these can be quite elaborate)
As presented in this YT video, about 2 minutes in, by TheSneezingMonkey.
Has anyone (here or known to people here) come across such things out there?
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Kind of embarrassing as he doesn't know where this image came from and thinks it real, therefore the Jellyfish balloon cluster has been identified. The image has been floating around the Internet and info has been garbled. Just as in his own "ghost story" explanation of how stories change in the telling.
He gets a lot of things wrong.
-Parallax caused by the lens...
-The cameras adjust the color...
He gets a lot of things wrong.
-Parallax caused by the lens...
-The cameras adjust the color...
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
Please review the Metabunk link policy, you can find it in the info section on the site nav bar at the top of every page. It explains that you should have posted a screenshot like this one:
TheSneezingMonkey credits Marc D'Antonio on the Dead Air podcast, who in turn credits the picture to "Tiago from Brazil".
Compare this January 9th post from page 2 of this very thread to see the original:
Last edited:
john.phil
Senior Member.
MUFON released their preliminary analysis of the Jellyfish footage. After reading it, regardless of usefulness, I'm hoping it's option (d):
https://mufon.com/2024/02/13/the-ir...ing-director-of-international-investigations/
https://mufon.com/2024/02/13/the-ir...ing-director-of-international-investigations/
External Quote:
deirdre
Senior Member.
i think Mufon was being funny. Like when the base soldiers allegedly called it a flying spaghetti monster.
John J.
Senior Member.
john.phil, quoting a MUFON report with possible explanations for the "jellyfish":
Considering the relative scarcity and expense of jetpacks, the noise they make and the vulnerability of the user in an environment where assault rifles etc. are reasonably common, I think (C) is unlikely.
Albeit more likely than an alien probe.
As for (D), why bother? It's in the sky, a ghillie suit makes it more visible, not less. And a pointless mass to cart about and be affected by the wind, reducing the drone's performance and steerability.
(Edited to add: With apologies to @deirdre, this post has the same text as the one I deleted. Just couldn't get the formatting right for some reason, decided to start afresh).
Considering the relative scarcity and expense of jetpacks, the noise they make and the vulnerability of the user in an environment where assault rifles etc. are reasonably common, I think (C) is unlikely.
Albeit more likely than an alien probe.
As for (D), why bother? It's in the sky, a ghillie suit makes it more visible, not less. And a pointless mass to cart about and be affected by the wind, reducing the drone's performance and steerability.
(Edited to add: With apologies to @deirdre, this post has the same text as the one I deleted. Just couldn't get the formatting right for some reason, decided to start afresh).
Last edited:
Bruce M
Member
Their analysis is less useful than if they just read this forum. They continue to explore dead ends for possibilities of what it is, and get factual things wrong.
A little nick picky (this isnt their biggest transgression) but this
This electronic information embedded in a video is called the EXIF Data and can give a specific date, time, and geographic latitude and longitude to within one foot of where the video was shot.
Maybe modern videos taken on smart devices do, but this is far, far from a modern device. The video will only embed data in it if the feature is enabled in the camera, and if the recorder has the capability of storing it. given the age of the system, that is far from certain.
Also, if you had the full video, you wouldnt need this - you could just look on the overlay to get all that information.
Could a tethered camera stay ahead of an object for 17 minutes? Unlikely.
Yes it could, it it was parked on one side of the base, and was always looking in the same direction at the base. The zoom on this camera allows for very long distance viewing.
Sigh. Could they just release the uncropped video? Its not like they are still in Iraq and have to worry about security in the same way any more.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
I'll happily out-nit-pick you - I wasted too much time working with TIFFs in the 90s, and EXIF is just a borrrowing from TIFF. Most of the data that is in EXIF tags is static data that only makes sense for single images (or multiple renderings of the same still image, say at different scales, or one losslessly compressed, another lossily compressed). Much of it won't make sense for movies, where exposure changes, focus changes, white balance changes, GPS position changes - heck even the time changes. So he doesn't mean "EXIF". If he means "metadata", then we've got a word for that - it's "metadata".
However, we're not dealing with a pedantically precise analysis here, we're dealing with almost a hit piece. Consider this early paragraph from that story:
Almost certainly a well-deserved trashing, but a sub-tabloid-level trashing nonetheless.External Quote:
Oh no! UFO grift associating itself with crypto grift - how sad! Nevermind...
John J.
Senior Member.
(MUFON report)External Quote:
Propellers do not work via levitation.
Their mode of operation is fairly well understood AFAIK.
Wikipedia article, "Levitation (physics)"External Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levitation_(physics)
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/levitationExternal Quote:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/levitateExternal Quote:
Daleks state "LEVITATE" before ascending, but that is alien tech, and English is their 2nd language (or maybe 324th).
Bruce M
Member
I scanned their webpage. Their fees to become an official UFO field investigator told me all I need to know about their organisation.
Bruce M
Member
John J.
Senior Member.
Should we be concerned that MUFON felt it necessary to specify a human soldier?
I mean, a human soldier as opposed to what, a Cylon Centurion?
It's not a strip of bread with egg on it, or an ant. Unlikely to be an Australian 1" crab.
If this Mufon report is typical of their work I am very unimpressed. As you say more information here. They don't even seem to be taking themselves seriously at this point.
MyMatesBrainwashed
Senior Member
Not suggesting a contest but the trigger for me is that 6 people with zero consensus would produce 6 most likely candidates, not 4.
Bruce M
Member
Even those more 'official', like the CEFAA in Chile reporting on their UFO, make statements that are debunked with days of it appearing on a forum like this. These groups should talk to actual experts.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ex...deo-aerodynamic-contrails-flight-ib6830.8306/
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
I'd imagine Jetpacks are very loud. So doubt that wouldn't have been noticed and reported
John J.
Senior Member.
(Bit of an off-topic personal indulgence by me),
Good vid by Calter and I get the humorous retort, but in case others didn't, I don't think I've described myself as an atheist!
Generally a fan of Richard Dawkins though.
