Jellyfish UFO from TMZ's 'UFO Revolution'

2024-01-09_12-56-11.jpg

At a couple of points it flies in a way that would be in front of people if it were low. They don't react. Maybe it's dark, or maybe it's an indication it's high up

Looks like the slant range is 3.5KM. Slant angle seems, very roughly, about 30°, putting the aircraft at 1.75KM, or around 5-6000 feet.

So this could easily be some balloons 2,000 - 3,000 feet above the ground. With a strong parallax effect.
 
I think at around frame 1188 a (US?) Flag can been seen fluttering slightly for a few frames in the top right, perhaps some indication of wind direction?

1704834821156.png
 

Attachments

  • 1704834803146.png
    1704834803146.png
    74 KB · Views: 52
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.
If an object is not symmetric, a light gust of wind would tend to push it around to the point where it offers the least resistance to the wind. After that, if the wind is not turbulent, it would tend to stay in that least-resistance orientation and drift along without much turning.
 
If this is a smudge / chip / bird shit on the protective glass dome of the sensor wouldn't it be way out of focus?
As I've often said, I am no photographer: if I want to photograph something I just point, click, and hope for the best. Applying this sophisticated technique I held my finger about 2 inches away from the lens of my phone camera (Samsung Galaxy), while everything else in view was considerably further away. The result was that the background was in pretty good focus, while the finger was noticeably out of focus, but still easily recognisable as a finger. I can't really judge whether it was more or less out of focus than the object in the video, but I wouldn't call it 'way out of focus'.

In my case the camera lens was probably closer to my finger than the lens of the IR camera was to the 'protective dome' of the camera and any smudge on that dome. If so, the focus of the smudge would probably be better (or less bad) than the focus of my finger. Holding my finger about 8 inches from the lens, which seems consistent with the contraption shown at #47 above, the focus of the finger was about as good as I ever get of anything. Anyone can try the same experiment very quickly for themselves.

I tentatively conclude that the 'out of focus' argument is not conclusive against the 'smudge' theory. Other arguments may be more decisive. If the shape of the object does indeed change during the course of the video (see #38 above) that does seem decisive.
 
If an object is not symmetric, a light gust of wind would tend to push it around to the point where it offers the least resistance to the wind. After that, if the wind is not turbulent, it would tend to stay in that least-resistance orientation and drift along without much turning
If the object is drifting in a steady wind, all parts of it will move at the same speed as the wind, so the wind will exert no force against it or any part of it. Any changes in wind speed or direction would of course be likely to have some effect.
 
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
The closer I look at the object, the more convinced I am that this one is a best-fit cluster of balloons.
 
I tentatively conclude that the 'out of focus' argument is not conclusive against the 'smudge' theory. Other arguments may be more decisive. If the shape of the object does indeed change during the course of the video (see #38 above) that does seem decisive.
A change of form does not exclude a bug splatter or similar, too. The form can change because the smudge is partially liquid and flows due to gravity/aerodinamical forces (this is also consistent with the 'tentacles' being drops which flowed downwards).

It looks just some kind of dirt to me, I can see no 3D shape there, but the focus argument is rather compelling against this (is the focal length the '3000' displayed in yellow?)
 
Last edited:
As I've often said, I am no photographer: if I want to photograph something I just point, click, and hope for the best. Applying this sophisticated technique I held my finger about 2 inches away from the lens of my phone camera (Samsung Galaxy), while everything else in view was considerably further away. The result was that the background was in pretty good focus, while the finger was noticeably out of focus, but still easily recognisable as a finger. I can't really judge whether it was more or less out of focus than the object in the video, but I wouldn't call it 'way out of focus'.

In my case the camera lens was probably closer to my finger than the lens of the IR camera was to the 'protective dome' of the camera and any smudge on that dome. If so, the focus of the smudge would probably be better (or less bad) than the focus of my finger. Holding my finger about 8 inches from the lens, which seems consistent with the contraption shown at #47 above, the focus of the finger was about as good as I ever get of anything. Anyone can try the same experiment very quickly for themselves.

I tentatively conclude that the 'out of focus' argument is not conclusive against the 'smudge' theory. Other arguments may be more decisive. If the shape of the object does indeed change during the course of the video (see #38 above) that does seem decisive.
The issue here is that this video is highly zoomed. I.e. a long focal length. This makes it impossible (as far as I know) to have something a few inches away in focus.
 
I think everything here is hyperfocal for the camera, the object and the background are in focus. Anything close to the camera would be a blur
 
Maybe it's dark
Was the film taken at night? There's a reference somewhere in Corbell's spiel about troops failing to detect it with night vision equipment. Would they be wearing this (or having it close at hand) in the daytime?
The issue here is that this video is highly zoomed. I.e. a long focal length. This makes it impossible (as far as I know) to have something a few inches away in focus.
It's a fair cop, you've got me bang to rights.
 
Did Corbell mention if he has asked anybody why nobody seems to have tried to get closer or intercept (once again)?
 
Let's assume it's fabricated for the sake of argument, I'm learning that to deceive others effectively, we should conceal ourselves in ordinary objects, be it balloons or smudges. I'm not implying extraterrestrial involvement, but it does seem like a clever method to trick people, is it a balloon or a smudge/bug? Perhaps that's the underlying intention – not necessarily aliens, but if the goal were to deceive, I would employ a similar approach.
 
"subscribe to tubi to see the information we say should be free"

Nothing says bunk like that!

(this whole first episode is about the 2017 stuff)
 
Last edited:
It may be a humorous hoax by persons unknown, or it may be an accidental release of celebration balloons or novelty balloons, or it may be a deliberate attempt to distract the Reaper drone by an antagonist faction of some sort.

A fake object created by aliens to deceive is way down the list of probabilities.
 
The object turns at least 20 degrees on the footage, this excludes it being a 2d smudge on the camera.
I hate to be your primary school teacher here, but if you want marks for that, can you please show your working?
Debunking without logic is not debunking.
No disagreement there. That's why we try to avoid it.
 
Took a while for me to find it, but this reminded me of one of the videos released by United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) last fall. Here's the thread where it discussed.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cbp-uap-ufo-video-release-10.13179/post-302372

The movement is similar, but also noteworthy are the drooping appendages. On the CBP video, the appendages aren't as obvious, but can be seen in these closer up screen shots provided by @John J. in post #13 of the above cited thread.

1 mins 26 secs.JPG0 mins 27 secs.JPG
 
Last edited:
dangling paper streamers which would require much less air flow to move them.
Hence my calling attention to the limp advertising banners on the Cow Balloon -- that's not a semi-rigid inflated balloon bit, that's just a flap of fabric. Closest analog to streamers and such that I saw. Even there, you need air moving past them to get them moving -- and you can get that as balloons ascend or descend, or in turbulence, or when they are tethered, but may not get it when just drifting along WITH the breeze. Yeah, it takes a lot less air movement to affect a streamer than a semi-rigid inflated cow leg -- but it takes more than zero, and it is very possible to have zero or nearly zero airflow over a freely drifting balloon.

(Just noticed the little fringe of fabric triangles around the Cow Balloon hooves in Post #75, resolutely not fluttering, another good indication of little or no air movement around that balloon.)
 
Aliens are like vampires in mirrors. But instead they only travel in straight lines when you point a camera at them.
 
The video I posted in the OP is the 720p file from Tubi, edited to remove duplicate sections and stitching together contiguous parts. Here's a higher quality version (still 720p, but higher bitrate):
https://www.metabunk.org/f/Jellyfish 720p High.mov

The first 20 seconds are continuous, at the same 3000mm focal length.

The movement seems like it's in a straight line, which suggest mostly parallax. The "bird poop on windshield" impression is compelling, but does not make much sense. Some balloon-like entity seems more plausible.
It looks like a trash bag to me.
It is definitely cold throughout the video. The changes in color seem to be the ranging in the camera.
Not sure about parallax, as the camera appears to be a raycam, which are static cameras on top of a extending pole.
 

Source: https://tubitv.com/movies/200044921/s01-e01-the-breakthrough
Higher quality video: https://www.metabunk.org/f/Jellyfish 720p High.mov
Video viewer: https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?sitch=video&video=Jellyfish

[Updated with unredacted video]

2024-01-09_09-40-32.jpg


So, any hypotheses? I'd put balloon(s) at the top for now, as it seems to just be drifting in the wind. A list of possibilities:

  • Balloon
  • Kite
  • Drone
  • Something suspended from a drone
  • Bird poop
  • Solar balloon
  • Chinese Lantern
  • Secret human technology
  • Aliens
Any ideas?
It kinda looks like a human is piloting a jet pack hahah
I was looking at that at 0:09 to 0:10
But I cannot find a model that looks like this..

a couple o hypothesis:
autonomous jetpack with hellium and some byte manipulation to not be detected and it also kinda glitches thermal cameras?
a smudge
balloons

red flags: the piece of footage that says this shoots out at a 45º seems to be missing

weird stuff: why does it change color in the thermal camera?
So I found a mick west video on ballons and thermal cameras:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snwqUpQ6oSE

so after watching the video, this was during night time and perhaps as it goes by light sources it changes color in the video? is that a rap for this? dunno seems debunked @Mick West
1704848485409.png1704848230087.png1704848129222.png
 
Last edited:
not hard is it .. just need the right mind good on video analysis and pattern matching on it.. dont expect AI to do it
wedding balloons ... thermal is never going to be like optical quality and the shapes wont be super defined cos of it
 

Attachments

  • GDaZktsbkAA4o-i.png
    GDaZktsbkAA4o-i.png
    483.5 KB · Views: 36
With the number of hoaxers on earth, I would hate to imagine how many there are in the galaxy o_O
Something between the same number, if we have all of them, and some unimaginably huge number if the galaxy is full of intelligent life and the urge to hoax is common. I'd say we have insufficient data to narrow that down much.

But only the ones that get HERE are relevant. Which of course includes the ones that got here by being born here.:)
 
I'm confused. Jeremey posted on Youtube what he titles is the raw footage.
But the footage is shown at a large angle

This his YT "raw footage" post : www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bns_WhNAQM

He must have fixed the skew on the footage he originally released. For some reason the cameraman didn't square himself in front of the monitor before filming the greatest evidence in all history of a giant flying jellyfish incursion.
 
Size. Looks similar to the dog in terms of width
2024-01-05_12-37-19.jpg
So maybe 3 feet wide, and about 3x ah high (9') as a maximum size.

If, as is often the case, it's a parallax effect, it's probably more like half that, so 1.5 feet by 4.5 feet, a good size for a ballon-like structure.
A redditor posted a frame that convinced me the object is actually tiny, based on rough intuition

Edit: To clarify, though I don't know which segment this still was taken from, it appears that the order, from closest to furthest is: Jellyfish, Foliage, Post (?), Truck... and the inferred perspective makes me think the Jellyfish is very small, and very close to the camera.
 

Attachments

  • 55d.jpg
    55d.jpg
    184.2 KB · Views: 47
Last edited:
No one has figured it out... This is CGI insert.. The floating of the object is much smoother than the jiddery backdrop footage. It's noticeable , so this object is independent of the actual video coverage of IR camera... It's a hoax...or damage, splat on the ceramic lens
 
Last edited:
Replication of the jellyfish UFO as a splat:

Source: https://twitter.com/aryel_bcn/status/1744781286516871223


@Mick West 's comment:
A pretty good replication of the "Jellyfish" UFO. However, a long focal length lens would probably not have in focus - and I'm not sure the motion makes mechanical sense either.
Content from External Source
Source

Not sure I understand either point made here as I know nothing about cameras.

The original has the entire background in focus, and so does this recreation, so why is the lens an issue? If the recreation panned up a little to crop out the near objects, it would be a closer replication.

"I'm not sure the motion makes mechanical sense" - I don't understand this. The motion is what it is, so it makes sense.

Regarding the criticism from others on that tweet about the thing changing shape slightly so it must be 3D - if it's exterior to the glass housing, maybe it got further smudged? (Or, if an insect moult, it got knocked.)

I'm having a hard time with the balloon theory because it doesn't change shape for so much of the footage. That would have to mean the camera is exactly parallel for a long period of time - which just seems highly unlikely.
 
No one has figured it out... This is CGI insert.. The floating of the object is much smoother than the jiddery backdrop footage. It's noticeable , so this object is independent of the actual video coverage of IR camera... It's a hoax...
Wouldn't that also be the case if it was something small stuck to (or dangling in front of) the camera housing?
 
Hi everyone. I have 2 questions about this please.
1. If it is something on the camera lens why does the canera move to the left and object move to the right ? Wouldn't it always be in the same spot?
2. Let's remove the object, pretend its not there. What where they filming instead?
 
Wouldn't that also be the case if it was something small stuck to (or dangling in front of) the camera housing?
Most thermals don't have a cover but I don't know which system they have typically they have ceramic lens for LWIR.. I tried a few things on mine and don't think that's the case here.. Something is not right at all as it sure does look like splat in. A window scenario but that wouldn't work with Thermal...
 
The full video when it shows it further away just 2 dots, is that the same " Jellyfish" thermal coverage.. It seems completely different?
 
The full video when it shows it further away just 2 dots, is that the same " Jellyfish" thermal coverage.. It seems completely different?
Corbell is claiming it is the same thing, and that there is longer video of it going into the water for 17 minutes then shooting off at a 45-degree angle.
 
Hi everyone. I have 2 questions about this please.
1. If it is something on the camera lens why does the canera move to the left and object move to the right ? Wouldn't it always be in the same spot?
2. Let's remove the object, pretend its not there. What where they filming instead?

See the recreation on this tweet - parallax does weird things.

Mick West has also done parallax demonstrations that show the object going in the opposite direction to the camera pan - this, for example.
 
Corbell is claiming it is the same thing, and that there is longer video of it going into the water for 17 minutes then shooting off at a 45-degree angle.
Ok don't believe him... They look very different, the 2 for one shows some pendulum motion.. Could be anything
 
Last edited:
Back
Top