Jellyfish UFO from TMZ's 'UFO Revolution'

However if this was taken from a tethered aerostat, then the movement of the balloon cluster is real.

We can probably work out a speed range, which will depend on the distance from the aerostat to the object/balloon cluster, and from the object/balloon cluster to the background landscape. For instance if the object/balloon cluster is half-way between the aerostat and the background landscape, then the actual speed of the object/balloon cluster would be half the apparent speed of the landscape behind.

I'd estimate that the landscape behind seems to be moving at 10-20mph; that makes the speed of the object/balloon cluster to be around half that, with quite a large error bar.
Hardly the speed you'd expect an extraordinary craft to be traveling if this is the case. And consistent with balloons on a low wind day.
 
Not at all, drones and other aerial reconnaisance assets very often fly pre-planned trajectories looking around to see what they can find. They reach a target zone and orbit there cheking the situation. This is one example (a manned Boeing E7-A, in this case, orbiting over the Poland eastern border):
1704907565701.png
https://www.itamilradar.com/2024/01/02/new-raaf-surveillance-mission/

It's quite possible (I actually think 'probable') the drone (or what the platform was) was just there orbiting when it happened to spot the 'object', which was then tracked. Once it was decided the object did not present any danger (which is the case if it was a party balloon) it was left to go wherever it pleased. Why waste 3-400K$ to shoot an AIM-9X to a very difficult target (which surely the missile was not designed for, it may not even be able of a successful interception on such a target) plus risking injuries or damages on the ground? That would be, at best, a silly thing to do. There's nothing strange here, and surely no 'borderline trolling', as per your quote.
Also, if the platform is an aerostat, as seems likely from the above evidence, there was no scramble, just a siting.

Maybe, if Corbell is correct, they sent some guys out to look for it with night-vision googles and they didn't see anything, but they could easily have not been looking high enough or in the right place if the balloons were passing by at, for example, 50' up and 100' away instead of 15' up above a road.
 
Thanks to Flarkey's photo collage
EDIT: AND Dave51c's youtube comments for the 2017 date

iraq_jellyfish_base1.pngiraq_jellyfish_base2.pngiraq_jellyfish_base3.png
Great Work! Can you now do the same for the second portion of the video that Corbel claims is showing the object over water. Based on the info it is at 172 degrees and 6.7KM slant from the camera. This all assumes it is the same balloon doing the capture but my estimates match up with what I see in Google maps. You can make out roads.

Looking south from over base.
Screenshot 2024-01-10 at 10.31.30 AM.png

Tracking to that spot to show roads.
Screenshot 2024-01-10 at 10.40.22 AM.png

Portion of video with roads.
Screenshot 2024-01-10 at 10.41.58 AM.png

Video showing 6.7km slope and 172 degree angle.
Screenshot 2024-01-10 at 10.42.37 AM.png
 
GE Progress:

Angle matching the building from 00:59.18 from a camera over the tether
2024-01-10_09-39-42.jpg
gives us an approximate camera height of 750m (2460 feet) and a slant angle of 12.5°

The building is 3.47km ground distance.
Slant range = sqrt(3.47*3.47 + .750*.750) = 3.55km
or 3.47/cos(12.5 degrees) = 3.55km
(ground distance is just 0.98% of slant range at this angle)
2024-01-10_09-54-55.jpg
GROUND Distance covered = about 1000m in 2 minutes, or 30km/h,

But since it's likely much closer to the camera, it could be just 10-15km/h - wind speed
2024-01-10_09-53-36.jpg
Direction is just south of west



KMZ attached
 

Attachments

  • Jellyfish UAP.kmz
    6.1 KB · Views: 25
youtube.com/ watch?v=_zK0gINwSxU

Added a space so it does not get embedded. This was uploaded by Michael Cincoski who is the source of the above post.


Check the dates.

Dec 11, 2017

Might be my last video I upload for quite a while as i'll be pretty busy for the next coming weeks until I deploy.

This guy basically had no chance to know if the blimp was taken down for maintenance because he was not even deployed then. He was playing COD at the time.

Since he correctly identified the site he is actually in the know, but he could not be present when it happened.

Steven Greenstreet, since you claim you talked to him, didn't he mention at any point that he was not present, he arrived later and saw the video the same way we did, at a later date? Can we conclude that his opinion is hearsay, he only saw the same facts we did, the rest is not even as credible gossip as Corbell's claims?
 
Last edited:
i talked to Michael Cincoski the intelligence analysts for the United States Marines who posted it he answered a few more questions I asked and he is sure it was an artifact case closed.

this is my question and followed up by his reply


jack aviator : do you think it was artifact ? it was recorded by an aerostat ? when it went over the water what happened to it ? did people really look for it with night vision and could not find it ? what did the other sensors show ?

Micheal Cincoski : Yeah, our PTDS aerostat was the only way this thing could be perceived. Which makes me lean more towards an artifact that was independent of the camera itself. Maybe something on the PTDS? Hard to say. It seemingly got further away over the lake. Not sure if it kept going or fell into the water. It never ascended toward the sky and people were tasked to find it with night vision, but no one could find it.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I found an article with some technical informations on the Persistent Threat Detection System (the aerostat from which it has been suggested the object was filmed). It looks interesting and detailed, and it confirms @flarkey 's identification of the camera.


Wescam MX-20 payload​


PTDS carries MX-20 payload supplied by L-3 Wescam. The MX-20 is an ultra-long-range, multisensor, multispectral imaging and targeting system. It can carry up to seven sensors at a time, from which the operator can choose the best according to the conditions.


The sensors include Daylight Continuous Zoom TV-2 Megapixel Colour HD which provide HD video of 720p and 1080p, two IR imaging sensors of different resolutions, a daylight spotter TV-2MP HD sensor with different resolutions based on the Fields of view (FOV), a low light spotter sensor, a Laser Rangefinder with a range of 30km and a Laser illuminator using diode laser to illuminate targets.


All payloads are housed in five-axis gimbal for high stability.
Content from External Source
https://www.army-technology.com/projects/persistent-threat-detection-system-us/?cf-view&cf-closed
 
If this video wasnt formally declassified, should he be talking about this?
He can say whatever he wants because he was not present when it happened. I found his youtube channel. Michael Cincoski claims the video is from 2017.

Michael Cincoski uploaded a video to youtube at 2017 december 11 saying it will take weeks to get deployed. He was uploading game footage weekly before that.

After that, 2 years of radio silence on his youtube. So either the footage was made around new years eve, or they deliberately missed the detail that this source was not present when the incident happened.
 
He can say whatever he wants because he was not present when it happened. I found his youtube channel. Michael Cincoski claims the video is from 2017.

Michael Cincoski uploaded a video to youtube at 2017 december 11 saying it will take weeks to get deployed. He was uploading game footage weekly before that.

After that, 2 years of radio silence on his youtube. So either the footage was made around new years eve, or they deliberately missed the detail that this source was not present when the incident happened.
Maybe I'm missing something but Cincoski claims he saw the footage in January of 2018 and that he thought it was filmed in the fall of 2017? He never claimed to be there at the time of the event.
 
Which also means he has no way to know if the blimp was taken down for maintenance. This part is presented as fact, yet it is less than hearsay.

The notion was that this poster disproves Corbell. Yet inadvertently, the opposite happened. We got proof that the video is authentic.
 
Maybe I'm missing something but Cincoski claims he saw the footage in January of 2018 and that he thought it was filmed in the fall of 2017? He never claimed to be there at the time of the event.
he replaced the crew and he is a united states marine intelligence analyst at the time that replaced the team he heard of the story and asked the former team and was read in
 
Maybe I'm missing something but Cincoski claims he saw the footage in January of 2018 and that he thought it was filmed in the fall of 2017? He never claimed to be there at the time of the event.
Cincoski arrived at the base in January 2018. Was shown the video by the PTDS team, who said it was filmed "a few months prior" in the fall of 2017.
 
Which also means he has no way to know if the blimp was taken down for maintenance. This part is presented as fact, yet it is less than hearsay.

The notion was that this poster disproves Corbell. Yet inadvertently, the opposite happened. We got proof that the video is authentic.
Whether the aerostat was cleaned afterwards is only relevant if we're discussing the smudge-on-lense theory, and is presented as a counterpoint to it. I would think that Corbell or any UFO believer would be happy to hear that detail.

The part that contradicts Corbell is the claim that the full video does not show the object entering the lake and then shooting away. Knowing that only requires having seen the full video, not being present during the incident.

Could you clarify they point you're trying to make?
 
Cincoski arrived at the base in January 2018. Was shown the video by the PTDS team, who said it was filmed "a few months prior" in the fall of 2017.

I know, I just told you this.

Why did you call him a witness? He saw the same video at a later date, like you and me. Are we also witnesses?
 
Reference my last - a little bit more information from the YouTube poster who claims to have been on the base where this was captured;

Screenshot 2024-01-10 at 15.42.12.png

Edit: This is a PTDS (Persistent Threat Detection System)

Lockheed Martin PTDS
Thanks Dave! Great tip. So I can't see the HESCOs on the base as seen in the FLIR. Maybe use the history feature of Google Earth on Al Taqaddum Airbase? I had mentioned these recon blimps could be the platform before on X as they monitor the area 24/7 around the bases.
 
It's the knuckles that make me think spider (or insect) moult. I don't know what "filmed on a weapons platform" means in this context but a diagram of the camera set-up and environment would be helpful to see if it's possible something is dangling in front of or inside the camera. Could have blown there and stuck. That the footage has no "ending" where the thing flies off makes me think it was (eventually) identified and Jeremy Corbell is having his chain yanked.

Moulting spiders:
1704796849478.png1704796856307.png
1704796874513.png
Now that we know the camera platform was a static balloon where the camera is mostly below the balloon and other infrastructure can we revisit this hypothesis? The first portion of the video appears to be moving at approximately 1 degree every 8 seconds. This is in the "target" bearing and not the aircraft bearing. If it is the balloon itself that is rotating and adjustments to the camera are minimal it could account for what we would expect to see due to parallax. Would a spider or insect molt that is dangling from the structure somewhere account for what we are seeing? Without the other telemetry can we ever know for certain?
 
here is a follow up question


jack:quick follow up did any other ir or thermal sensors try to pick the object and failed to do so, also anyway original team can contact us

Michael Cincoski: They tried, but no other sensors were able to pick this up. To my knowledge, it was only the aerostat thermal sensor that could perceive it. Unfortunately, I don't have any of my contacts from the original team any more. I'm hoping they see the coverage and are able to expand on it more than I can
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is there any confirmation that the object was only visible on the thermal sensor and not on the night vision? Is there night vision footage of the object? If there is really no object visible in the night vision one could check if it’s possible that such a balloon is visible on the thermal sensor but not on Night Vision. At least one could rule out the balloon then and focus on the other explanations (dirty, camera glitch)
 
Now that we know the camera platform was a static balloon where the camera is mostly below the balloon and other infrastructure can we revisit this hypothesis? The first portion of the video appears to be moving at approximately 1 degree every 8 seconds. This is in the "target" bearing and not the aircraft bearing. If it is the balloon itself that is rotating and adjustments to the camera are minimal it could account for what we would expect to see due to parallax. Would a spider or insect molt that is dangling from the structure somewhere account for what we are seeing? Without the other telemetry can we ever know for certain?
With the focal length of the camera anything close to the camera would be so out of focus as to not be visible.
 
Is there any confirmation that the object was only visible on the thermal sensor and not on the night vision? Is there night vision footage of the object? If there is really no object visible in the night vision one could check if it’s possible that such a balloon is visible on the thermal sensor but not on Night Vision. At least one could rule out the balloon then and focus on the other explanations (dirty, camera glitch)
I don't see how you could be expected to spot a floating object with night vision unless it was emitting light. A dark object would not show up well against the stars, even with good night vision systems.

So even if we accept Corbell's claim that soldiers with night vision were dispatched and could not spot it, I don't see that as remarkable in any way.
 
The closest imagery on Google Earth is as shown before that dated 22/5/2017 the 'tent' configuration matches the video ie a line of 1 then 2 then 3 from left to right.

1704912834337.png

By 21/2/2018 the 'tent' configuration changes to just the set of 3 and seems to have stayed that way.

1704913565380.png


In the imagery before that (25/11/2016) the square structure on the left not complete and there are other structures there that are not in the video

1704913061700.png
 

Attachments

  • 1704912894705.png
    1704912894705.png
    895.4 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:

So this balloon-like object floated off towards the lake after 17-18 minutes. That really suggests that the object/balloon cluster was moving quite slowly. 10km/h seems reasonable, and is consistent with a breeze.

I note that this base had reportedly been under drone attack in the past. This balloon cluster may have been another attack of this sort, but one which only caused confusion.
 
It would be helpful if, in accordance with the "no click" policy here, you provided the information you want us to get from the link in your post, and we don't have to follow the link to see what you are talking about. This is handy as these threads stay here (so far!) forever, and what you are linking to may or may not, plus there may be a lot of stuff on the other end of a link that is NOT what you are trying to call our attention to.

It's an unusual feature of using this site, I have flubbed it a time or two, I imagine we all did at some point.
 
Just a couple of thoughts:

- if the viewing platform was a tethered balloon any wind at the relevant altitude would be blowing past it. This rather goes against the idea that it might be a light object like an insect carapace (etc) hanging from the platform, as this would likely be twisting and swinging in the wind.

- the camera was not hugely distant from the apparent position of the object: about 2 miles max. Does this affect the various comments made about the focus issue? Are we sure the video was taken with a strong optical zoom lens? Do the figures on screen prove this? I see there is a figure which changes from 3000 to 1000 when the camera appears to zoom out.

I'm not going to die in the last ditch to defend the 'bird poop' hypothesis, because I think balloons are now more plausible, but it shouldn't be 'prematurely excluded'.
 
The closest imagery on Google Earth is as shown before that dated 22/5/2017 the 'tent' configuration matches the video ie a line of 1 then 2 then 3 from left to right.

By 21/2/2018 the 'tent' configuration changes to just the set of 3 and seems to have stayed that way.

In the imagery before that (25/11/2016) the square structure on the left not complete and there are other structures there that are not in the video
Another good site for regular Satellite photos is the Sentinel Hub EO browser (https://apps.sentinel-hub.com/eo-browser/). The imagery is of lower resolution but is updated roughly every 4 weeks with an accurate date of the imagery.

This image from 12 Jan 2017 shows the line of tents. (link)
1704914316095.png

This is the last image showing the tents - 18 Dec 2017 (link)
1704914726049.png

This image a few weeks later in Jan 2018 shows them gone. (link)
1704914381158.png


(Edited)
 
Last edited:
I don't see how you could be expected to spot a floating object with night vision unless it was emitting light. A dark object would not show up well against the stars, even with good night vision systems.

So even if we accept Corbell's claim that soldiers with night vision were dispatched and could not spot it, I don't see that as remarkable in any way.
Thanks for clarification I was thinking more about the camera platform does it only have thermal sensors? No image intensifiers with IR lasers for illumination or some fused image of thermal and image intensifier.
 
If the "baloons" or "jellyfish" does not move, but the drone does, the angle of the "object" should change.
Nope. I've got at least 4 free parameters to play with in order to end up with a "no change in angle" result.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that having a "zero air speed" doesn't mean "stationary", which was literally the whole point of my prior post - I was letting you work out the details of the answer, so that you feel more satisfied that it's correct, rather than just spelling it out it explicitly, which some people find easier to just shrug off even if it's correct. (Wind speed and direction are of course two of my free parameters.)
 
Another good site for regular Satellite photos is the Sentinel Hub EO browser (https://apps.sentinel-hub.com/eo-browser/). The imagery is of lower resolution but is updated roughly every 4 weeks with an accurate date of the imagery.

This image from 12 Jan 2017 shows the line of tents. (link)
1704914316095.png

This is the last image showing the tents - 18 Dec 2017 (link)
1704914726049.png

This image a few weeks later in Jan 2018 shows them gone. (link)
1704914381158.png


(Edited)
Possibly too low res to work out when this reverse 'L' structure was around? I think that would give a closer date to the video date.
1704916736018.png
 
Also, if this is a tethered aerostat taking the video, the object moved and parallax explanations are out of the picture.
Nonsense. Tethered does not mean stationary. In particular as this seems to be a *single thether*, it can do very little to resist the prevailing wind direction, in particular at higher elevation.

Emphasis mine:
The Aerostat of PTDS is aerodynamically designed to fly with the wind without using any propulsion system. The Aerostat is always pointed into the wind to maintain stability.
Content from External Source
-- https://www.army-technology.com/projects/persistent-threat-detection-system-us/
 
Hmm. I think that may mean 'flying with the wind' in the same way a kite flies; that is to say, with only a relatively small amount of lateral movement.
 
Just a couple of thoughts:

- if the viewing platform was a tethered balloon any wind at the relevant altitude would be blowing past it. This rather goes against the idea that it might be a light object like an insect carapace (etc) hanging from the platform, as this would likely be twisting and swinging in the wind.

- the camera was not hugely distant from the apparent position of the object: about 2 miles max. Does this affect the various comments made about the focus issue? Are we sure the video was taken with a strong optical zoom lens? Do the figures on screen prove this? I see there is a figure which changes from 3000 to 1000 when the camera appears to zoom out.

I'm not going to die in the last ditch to defend the 'bird poop' hypothesis, because I think balloons are now more plausible, but it shouldn't be 'prematurely excluded'.

Bugsplat could explain a lot of the visuals:
  • You have a semi-transparent, semi-liquid material splattered on the dome in front of (one of) the cameras on the tethered balloon, creating an "object";
  • Splatter wouldn't move much (depending on the conditions) explaining why the object doesn't exhibit any significant changes in facing or structure;
  • The splatter may be out of focus being so close to a lens that's zoomed in kilometers away, but the software that's trying to make the IR data more legible could be resharpening the image on the fly -- this is a bit of a technical unknown;
  • Apparent shifts in the outline of the object could be caused by drifting goo, or by the IR system trying to adjust contrast sharpening along the boundaries of the affected area;
  • The crosshairs are apparently not locked to the middle of the screen, but are operator-controlled, so they don't have to be locked in position with a bugsplat;
  • Nothing on the ground or in the air for anyone on the ground to react to (or see with night-vision gear).
But but that doesn't explain any (at this point mostly Corbell-provided) narrative surrounding the sighting.

That is, if it were a bugsplat, the operators could presumably rewind the video to see when it appeared; and it would have persisted on the dome long after the clip we've seen and would show up in the video stream for minutes, on top of other topography. Which could mean this is a "weird shit to prank the new guy" clip, since a longer clip would spoil the fun. Corbell's story of men being sent out to look for the thing with night-vision goggles potentially suggests the incident lasted long enough -- and this thing was on screen long enough -- to try to send troops to its location.

I'm looking forward to a Sitrec analysis of the potental path and altitude this thing would have taken if it were an object.
 
Nonsense. Tethered does not mean stationary. In particular as this seems to be a *single thether*, it can do very little to resist the prevailing wind direction, in particular at higher elevation.

Emphasis mine:
The Aerostat of PTDS is aerodynamically designed to fly with the wind without using any propulsion system. The Aerostat is always pointed into the wind to maintain stability.
Content from External Source
-- https://www.army-technology.com/projects/persistent-threat-detection-system-us/

I think the emphasis is on stability. Like it "flies" in the wind to remain as stabile as possible. But sure, wind blows stuff in the air, and for a short duration that will get us a parralax effect. Since our video is a few minutes long and the object is going one way with a somewhat constant pace, we can exclude this possibility. I just don't see how the wind could move the blimp constantly for minutes in one direction if it is on a tether.

So I exclude this possibility for now but I am listening for a good argument.
 
But but that doesn't explain any (at this point mostly Corbell-provided) narrative surrounding the sighting.
I'm not sure how much credibility we shoud put in what Corbell is espousing as the narrative. He states this is from October of 2018 and we've seen a great deal of evidence from other testimony and actual imaging that the video could not have been from that time.
 
Hmm. I think that may mean 'flying with the wind' in the same way a kite flies; that is to say, with only a relatively small amount of lateral movement.
"Relatively small" is a relative thing. On a kilometer-long tether, "small" may be hundreds of metres. Just run the numbers yourself - think in radians and use sin(x)=x for "small" angles.
 
Back
Top