Jellyfish UFO from TMZ's 'UFO Revolution'

[Scaramanga]

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?

But the way UFOlogy works is that debunks are never considered embarrassing failures as there's always ' but what about case XYZ ?' to divert off onto. Never mind that this case was a ' but what about case XYZ ?' example after the debunk of the 29 Palms incident.

And, of course, Corbell always manages to do a ' here's an amazing new UFO case' before any incident is investigated, followed by a ' ah...but the truth is what we were here for all along ' after any debunk.

 

[ideamug]

Hello MetaBunkers

This is an interesting case. This is my first time posting, and I wanted to get some summary points from the group.

Balloons are the best explanation only because they are a feasible explanation for such a strange-looking object that we assume to be real.

And it’s an extra appealing explanation when others make exotic claims, like it’s actually extraterrestrial.

But, outside of that context, what’s the likelihood of a cluster of balloons with this appearance floating across this setting (time and place)?

Very low.

Have you ever seen balloons that have this appearance? Is there a video of balloons that have this appearance?

Aliens are a hard sell because we’ve never encountered them. Similarly, balloons should be a hard sell because they simply don’t look like this object.

With that, here are some questions and reflections that are meant to get closer to either A) what kind of balloons we are looking at or B) if there is perhaps a better explanation than the one that’s near at hand for the debunker.

1. Do we know what the ballpark size of this object is? Can we put a definitive range to it?
2. Why does the object appear translucent? In the GIF here, it looks like the object is either porous or translucent (specifically when it moves in front of the black square) - the spikes at the top darken. If this is porosity, what kind of material/balloon explains this level of porosity? Further, why does most of the object appear to be porous in this way?
3. Do we know if we can rule out certain types of material, like mylar balloons?

To me, this is most likely a traditional drone with some kind of camouflage or a balloon-like surveillance drone that was set adrift. Saying this is a cluster of regular balloons is a pretty hard sell. It’s only an easy sell when you NEED an explanation. I agree that there's insufficient information to come to a concrete conclusion.

 

[Calter]

what’s the likelihood of a cluster of balloons with this appearance floating across this setting (time and place)?

Very low.

Is it low? The base in question is at about 70-80km from Baghdad, a city with 7.6 million people, in a direction where the wind might be blowing from. That's a reasonable distance for balloons to fly. Maybe it's low if we think THAT particular shape, but the shape itself is not really relevant since it doesn't resemble anything in particular (as opposed to, for example, there being more footage of an identical looking object, in which case you wouldn't expect a random chaotic cluster of balloons to repeat itself twice and would therefore look for standard clusters of balloons if you think both cases are balloons).

Have you ever seen balloons that have this appearance? Is there a video of balloons that have this appearance?

We don't know how far away the object is, nor do we know how much of the shape is actually the shape of the object and how much of it is actually the result of image sharpening (which as has been discussed in this thread, seems like something that is at play)

There is also the spatial filtering on (the SPA on the overlay). This will apply edge sharpening to everything

Image sharpening is useful at making identifiable objects more identifiable, but it's not magic and the sharpening may just make an already hard to identify object be even more confusing. With that said, there's no point in discussing what balloon combination could fit the shape because you could make up any combination to fit (there's a few attempts of it in the first pages), there's not enough limiting factors in the shape or size to rule stuff out nor to pinpoint anything. People also don't generally film random clusters of balloons floating around, let alone post that footage online, so it's hard to have examples of random clusters of balloons.

Do we know what the ballpark size of this object is? Can we put a definitive range to it?

IIRC, the size would be limited to around 6 feet tall if it's near the ground, at least that's the upper limit on the Sitrec

Why does the object appear translucent? In the GIF here, it looks like the object is either porous or translucent (specifically when it moves in front of the black square) - the spikes at the top darken. If this is porosity, what kind of material/balloon explains this level of porosity? Further, why does most of the object appear to be porous in this way?

I'm not sure about this, it could be some sort of film/netting covering the object, it could be some funny business going on with how the image is rendered, could be something else or a combination of multiple things.

To me, this is most likely a traditional drone with some kind of camouflage or a balloon-like surveillance drone that was set adrift.

I personally do not see how a drone is more likely than a bunch of balloons, and if you want pictures of balloon clusters I would expect to receive images of drones that fit the bill (getting a picture of drones should be much easier to get since they don't change shape like balloon clusters). If we also don't ignore the non-extraordinary part of the story (which has partially been corroborated by Cincoski), a drone would have needed to fly in a straight line for 17 minutes to the middle of a lake.

I don't think a balloon cluster is an easy sell, but I think it's the easiest sell among any hypothesis out there.

 

[ideamug]

Is it low? The base in question is at about 70-80km from Baghdad, a city with 7.6 million people, in a direction where the wind might be blowing from. That's a reasonable distance for balloons to fly. Maybe it's low if we think THAT particular shape, but the shape itself is not really relevant since it doesn't resemble anything in particular (as opposed to, for example, there being more footage of an identical looking object, in which case you wouldn't expect a random chaotic cluster of balloons to repeat itself twice and would therefore look for standard clusters of balloons if you think both cases are balloons).


We don't know how far away the object is, nor do we know how much of the shape is actually the shape of the object and how much of it is actually the result of image sharpening (which as has been discussed in this thread, seems like something that is at play)

Image sharpening is useful at making identifiable objects more identifiable, but it's not magic and the sharpening may just make an already hard to identify object be even more confusing. With that said, there's no point in discussing what balloon combination could fit the shape because you could make up any combination to fit (there's a few attempts of it in the first pages), there's not enough limiting factors in the shape or size to rule stuff out nor to pinpoint anything. People also don't generally film random clusters of balloons floating around, let alone post that footage online, so it's hard to have examples of random clusters of balloons.


IIRC, the size would be limited to around 6 feet tall if it's near the ground, at least that's the upper limit on the Sitrec

I'm not sure about this, it could be some sort of film/netting covering the object, it could be some funny business going on with how the image is rendered, could be something else or a combination of multiple things.


I personally do not see how a drone is more likely than a bunch of balloons, and if you want pictures of balloon clusters I would expect to receive images of drones that fit the bill (getting a picture of drones should be much easier to get since they don't change shape like balloon clusters). If we also don't ignore the non-extraordinary part of the story (which has partially been corroborated by Cincoski), a drone would have needed to fly in a straight line for 17 minutes to the middle of a lake.

I don't think a balloon cluster is an easy sell, but I think it's the easiest sell among any hypothesis out there.

You raise great points.

After reading more of the thread, I see this as potentially a trash bag of party goods, some balloons in there.

 

[John J.]

Hello MetaBunkers

Hiya ideamug,
hope you find lots of things of interest here!
Some of the questions you raise have already been asked in the thread.
A few might have been answered, or at least plausible explanations given or interesting theories raised.

For instance, the possibility of some balloons being in that area (or other areas where there have been similar sightings):

We know that kits of balloons with streamers, including crescent-shaped balloons, are popular for religious holidays (and just general parties, weddings etc.) in that part of the world.
The shape might be due to a collection of balloons, with streamers, in a net or plastic bag that broke free from a seller.

We also know that combatants, including in the Middle East, sometimes release balloons for various reasons.

Have a look back through the thread- you might well be able to come up with better theories than we've got at the moment!

 

[Ann K]

Aliens are a hard sell because we’ve never encountered them. Similarly, balloons should be a hard sell because they simply don’t look like this object.

With that, here are some questions and reflections that are meant to get closer to either A) what kind of balloons we are looking at or B) if there is perhaps a better explanation than the one that’s near at hand for the debunker.

1. Do we know what the ballpark size of this object is? Can we put a definitive range to it?
2. Why does the object appear translucent? In the GIF here, it looks like the object is either porous or translucent (specifically when it moves in front of the black square) - the spikes at the top darken. If this is porosity, what kind of material/balloon explains this level of porosity? Further, why does most of the object appear to be porous in this way?

There is no substitute for reading the whole thread, and your questions have already been addressed. Yes, I know there are a daunting number of posts here, but I'll try to point you toward some answers.

As to (A), see post number 42, where @Eburacum shows balloons of a plausible shape that would fit the object in question. From posts 300+ there are a number of photos of the large part that balloons play in festivals in Baghdad, including ones with the popular crescent shape.

Question (1), size: that's addressed right at the start, post number 2 from @Mick West, with a comparison with the size of the dogs on the ground.

Question (2), discussed at length in the thread: it's a thermal camera. The temperature of the floating object is imaged in comparison to the background. It's cooler than some objects, warmer than others, and as the camera adjusts it gives the illusion of translucence.

As for the drone suggestion, people have pointed out that drones make noise, and both people and dogs paid no attention to the object, suggesting it's quiet.

 

[Mendel]

But, outside of that context, what’s the likelihood of a cluster of balloons with this appearance floating across this setting (time and place)?

Very low.

The number of "floating IR jellyfish" videos is also very low, so that tracks.

Including "this setting" is misleading, because the frequency of occurrence is low for any setting. It's kinda like "this volcano eruption must be a government lie to scare us all, because it occurred exactly on my uncle's 47th birthday, and what are the chances of that?" You are making it appear more improbable by introducing artificial constraints.

Similarly, balloons should be a hard sell because they simply don’t look like this object.

They generally do, though; consider that it's thought a bundle of balloons, with some (partially) deflated. Example photos are in this thread.

To me, this is most likely a traditional drone with some kind of camouflage or a balloon-like surveillance drone that was set adrift.

Could you show us pictures of these so we can compare? I don't think I've ever seen either.

 

[ideamug]

The number of "floating IR jellyfish" videos is also very low, so that tracks.

Including "this setting" is misleading, because the frequency of occurrence is low for any setting. It's kinda like "this volcano eruption must be a government lie to scare us all, because it occurred exactly on my uncle's 47th birthday, and what are the chances of that?" You are making it appear more improbable by introducing artificial constraints.


They generally do, though; consider that it's thought a bundle of balloons, with some (partially) deflated. Example photos are in this thread.



Could you show us pictures of these so we can compare? I don't think I've ever seen either.

Well, these claims were made while having a small amount of information. My assumption was that this was in a remote region, much farther from an urban area. So, it is not an artificial constraint; balloons are less likely in the middle of nowhere. But I see that this was near Baghdad, which changes things.

I don't think balloons generally look like this. What's new here is that we generally don't see a lot of balloons or floating trash filmed with this type of camera, and it's tough to parse out what is a physical characteristic of the object and what is an artifact of the camera.

Since the object doesn't demonstrate qualities that potentially rule out balloons (controlled flight, changes in speed, etc.), it seems acceptable to think that what we're seeing is the rare event of an oddly shaped cluster of balloons/trash showing up oddly on an IR camera.

These are challenging waters for UFO people and debunkers because rather than say, "Meh, it could be anything causing that unlikely appearance," it's tempting to jump to theories that directly handle the odd visual (drone, cloud, UFO).

It would be interesting to get better answers about the appearance. From the replies, some say the appearance could be due to netting, film, or a bag; others say that it's mostly an artifact of the camera. Knowing more may narrow down the type of material or ballons.

 

[Landru]

I don't think balloons generally look like this. What's new here is that we generally don't see a lot of balloons or floating trash filmed with this type of camera, and it's tough to parse out what is a physical characteristic of the object and what is an artifact of the camera.

Read post #42.

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