Jellyfish UFO from TMZ's 'UFO Revolution'

If this video wasnt formally declassified, should he be talking about this?

I'm not an expert but 100% almost certainly not, right?

This is why people with stated UAP/UFO related TS:SCI go full blown "can't discuss this".

So did this guy assume it was declassified because it was in the news?
 
"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.
Interesting idea. An aerostat balloon on a long tether could move about a bit in the wind, especially if the wind were veering or backing. Note that the flag shows minimal windspeed near the surface, so dramatic changes at higher levels seem to be unlikely, but cannot be ruled out.
 
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.)
Thanks for giving a more detailled info, of what you meant. Now I've seen the the stabilized version, it does not look stationary to me. I just wanted to give you a reason to think about it, maybe i missunderstood your intensions.
To add something to the content: Without further parts of the video or further videoclips, all we can do is speculate about the viewing angle, speed and size of the object. And that is probably what the "investigative journalists" wanted, because otherwise there would surely be evidence, named witnesses or recordings of the other claims. In short: it looks like clickbait.
 
Not sure if this actually works or if the margin of error is too high but I did my own analysis of the video and can lightly conclude the position of the camera that took the video, and it lines up with the PTDS aerostat position mentioned earlier.

I can upload the .kmz file if anyone else wants to take a look at it.
 

Attachments

  • Jellyfish finding location of camera.png
    Jellyfish finding location of camera.png
    2.6 MB · Views: 22
I'm looking forward to a Sitrec analysis of the potental path and altitude this thing would have taken if it were an object.
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?sitch=jellyfish

2024-01-10_14-41-53.jpg
It's a bit. messy right now, but the two parameters you can play with are "initial heading", "Tgt Start Dist (ft)" and "Target size ft"

2024-01-10_14-43-11.jpg

There's a range of solutions. For an object 2 feet wide and 5000 feet from the camera it's about 10mph.
 
With the focal length of the camera anything close to the camera would be so out of focus as to not be visible.
With IR isn't focus typically set to infinity and anything within the frame past the minimum focus distance would be in focus? The sensor is simply processing temperature differentials.
 
ShootTheSound downloaded the video did some adjustments to get this:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsSiVhmCGHs


Visually, it does resemble bug guts, but I still don't see why they would move around in the image.

They posted their own thoughts on reddit here:
Source: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/193k5oq/jellyfish_opinion_my_professional_photographer/


Hi all,

I'm a pro photographer and video editor and I'm now certain this video is a well aimed diversion, but I do not believe its intentional by the makers of the TMZ show, but simply misunderstanding.

I believe ETs are real and are the origin of many UAP, but this is not even a UAP I believe.

Let me give a couple of photography facts. Many security or surveillance cameras use a narrow aperture, (very small opening in the iris of the lens) in order to create a wide depth of field, so that things that are near or far are still in focus. This is also what makes security cameras more grainy, as the sensors use a high ISO (gain) to capture material at a bright enough exposure, creating the very grain we associate with them.

So with that in mind I downloaded the video.

Apart from zooming in I did one thing, I pulled back the highlights. The reason I did this was, in the brighter segments, the lightest bit of the shape almost disappear, making it look like the profile/shape is changing. Once you pull these back, then zoom in, you get this....

https://youtu.be/ZsSiVhmCGHs

To me it's clear it is on the glass housing that shields the lens, likely a fly that collided at high speed.

If you doubt my job in stills and video, check out more on the channel where I host the above. I just want this community to be able to focus on what is real and not distractions.

With good intentions,

Pete

EDIT: A quick Chatgpt shows the Wescam MX-20 is an optical thermal hybrid, meaning if for heat data it may not require use of the lens aperture, the optical components of the image certainly do!
 
With a long focal length then something one the glass would be invisible.

Look at these trees, maybe 40 feet from the camera, and very blurry.

2024-01-10_16-04-28.jpg


Or this power line (the white band going from top left to bottom right)2024-01-10_16-05-58.jpg

Again, anything closer would be invisible.
 
Last edited:
I was curious whether there might be any balloon shops near to the air base. I found a company called Paradise4Events located around 40 miles to the east in Baghdad.

Screenshot 2024-01-10 at 22.33.33.pngThey do very sophisticated decor for parties and other events, but what really stood out to me were all of their elaborate balloon arrangements. They're often posting multiple jobs a week on their Facebook page, most of which involve some sort of large scale balloon sculpture or arrangement, often with other decorations intertwined with the balloons.


347238289_243297178334504_606137625902581506_n.jpg330794678_940349203627942_3920015957099800653_n.jpg142603883_1391251391211110_5688026565077407349_n.jpg328794932_468978025283502_3997779077954934091_n.jpg121217246_1304190193250564_1832796735515850625_n.jpg74918026_1035735960095990_746211487772573696_n.jpg18839626_486099165059675_2250915672617104973_o.jpg19264723_497175147285410_6857346522789410655_o.jpg316319055_1874795312856713_7359366629063328672_n.jpg295990380_1783347725334806_297484682413698906_n.jpg312799617_1853678338301744_6278626386349297429_n.jpg316128973_1871800173156227_6570567932842514071_n.jpg395464592_18009670100070008_8937512334324739635_n.jpg
 
Redditor whoismilk163 posted a tracked timelapse of the object with the commentary "Definitely not a smudge or bird guano". It appears to show some 3D structure to the mystery object as it rotates over the course of part of the video, but it's not anything I immediately recognize.


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/193mzhh/3d_jellyfish_timelapse/

Even in this video, its backside (if you could call it that), still seems almost flat against a surface as it moves. Are we sure this camera lens isn't capable of rotating in this way relative to a bug on a glass enclosure? Do we even know 100% what camera it is?

Also, for what it's worth, ShootTheSound (who did the post arguing it's a smudge above) is arguing on reddit that both near and far objects are in focus because it's using multiple lenses and compositing the image:



I dunno. When you increase the highlights (as he did in the post above) it looks so much like a squashed bug it's now hard for my brain to see anything else.
 
Last edited:
It does look somewhat symmetrical but not by much. From one the videos posted above, it looks like a bunch of plastic bags bunched up together, but still looks rather bizarre.
 
Last edited:
Hi! I posted the reddit above, I'll add my reddit post here with my edits I've added since first posting.....
----------
Hi all,

I'm a pro photographer and video editor and I'm now certain this video is a well aimed diversion, but I do not believe its intentional by the makers of the TMZ show or corbell, but simply misunderstanding and/or possible mis-information provided to them.

I believe ETs are real and are the origin of many UAP, but this is not even a UAP I believe.

Let me give a couple of photography facts. Many security or surveillance cameras use a narrow aperture, (very small opening in the iris of the lens) in order to create a wide depth of field, so that things that are near or far are still in focus. This is also what makes security cameras more grainy, as the sensors use a high ISO (gain) to capture material at a bright enough exposure, creating the very grain we associate with them.

So with that in mind I downloaded the video.

Apart from zooming in I did one thing, I pulled back the highlights. The reason I did this was, in the brighter segments, the lightest bit of the shape almost disappear, making it look like the profile/shape is changing. Once you pull these back, then zoom in, you get this....

https://youtu.be/ZsSiVhmCGHs

To me it's clear it is on the glass housing that shields the lens, likely a fly that collided at high speed.

If you doubt my job in stills and video, check out more on the channel where I host the above. I just want this community to be able to focus on what is real and not distractions.

With good intentions,

Pete

EDIT: A quick Chatgpt shows the Wescam MX-20 is an optical thermal hybrid, meaning if for heat data it may not require use of the lens aperture, the optical components of the image certainly do!



Edit2: For those saying something on a lens (which I dont think it was , I think it was on housing), but something on a lens can be pretty sharp. See this usbc cable held againist my 24-70 touching the glass at f22. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4dyx...1864.jpg?rlkey=k05hguk5dhjin8nsbt797pjlb&dl=0



Edit 3: My last edit, but for all the people talking about the 3d sped up timelapse. IF this is dirt on an outershell glass housing that rotates on a gimbal independently, as that glass moves, the perspective to the lens of that dirt would change, due to the distance of the housing from the lens surface combined with movement of the glass. In other words, as the glass rotates we get to see some of the dirt from a different angle.

Edit 4 - the real last one...... I've now added edits to all the main questions people had of me, its just my opinion. I've had a lot of shit for critiquing this, and thats fine, I can take it. We all have freedom to say what we feel. But if we resort to some of the things i've been referred to as, or had dms over, or messages on other platforms that are pretty vile, well thats gonna get us nowhere good. I think as a sub we are sitting on something real overall about UAPs being an otherworldly phenomena, so the idea that this place becomes a hatefest for anyone who dares to offer an unpopular opinion about a particular incident is what will make people ignore us, not ally with us.

Edit 5: So there is an edit 5! I just want to add what I've mentioned in the comments several times, its a multi lens system capable of composite imagery from lenses of more than one focal length, further expanding its DOF capability.
 
I believe it is a spider. A PTDS aerostat has all sorts of wires to hold it anchored to the ground and scaffolding where a spider could reasonably make a web. This would also fit with the discrepancy between the motion of the camera and the motion of the object. The object is swaying separately because it's anchored to the frame of the balloon on a spiderweb, but it also "moves" in pace with the camera as the PTDS balloon is turning in the wind.

Also, I found a moment where the object twitches and you can see the individual legs on the bottom moving. You can see 3 distinct peaks on the top side that could be knees. It's got a round right side that could be an abdomen. I'm not sure where the last 2 legs are, it might be bracing itself on the web to keep from getting blown off.

Either that or a bunch of party balloons drifting in the wind that just hit that pole there.
Jellyfish spider boomerang slow.gif
 
Last edited:
Also, for what it's worth, ShootTheSound (who did the post arguing it's a smudge above) is arguing on reddit that both near and far objects are in focus because it's using multiple lenses and compositing the image:



I dunno. When you increase the highlights (as he did in the post above) it looks so much like a squashed bug it's now hard for my brain to see anything else.


If this concept of compositing from multiple lenses is plausible, along with the object being sharpened (distorting its appearance), perhaps the bug idea is still on the table - a bug or moult that's stuck to the glass, and loosens slightly casing it to rotate.

It does not look like a bunch of balloons to me (visually, as opposed to other evidence) - I'm not quite buying that nothing on the structure moves at all (relative to its own parts), it only rotates. And it looks fluffy or mushy. Again, this might be due to post-processing I suppose.
 


Looking at this video, I noticed that the object at least appears to be semi-transparent. This could be the result of compression, but it sure does look like a lot of visual data is present from behind the object.

Taking a shot in the dark and speculating... this really seems to resemble a bunch of clear ~50 gallon plastic bags all tied together, with the bottom hanging objects being popped or deflated bags. Thoughts?
 

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1931gfx/stabilizedboomerang_edit_of_2018_jellyfish_video/



Doesn't the apparent "rotation" of the object happen precisely when the camera's exposure adjusts? To my eyes, the same effect that people thought shows the object changing temperature, is also causing the object to appear like it is rotating. Does anyone else see this?

Depending on the clip I watch, if I tell my brain "its rotating" it appears to be rotating. If I tell my brain "more of the shape is being revealed by an adjustment in the image" it appears that way too. Cons of the low information zone I suppose
 
With a long focal length then something one the glass would be invisible.

Look at these trees, maybe 40 feet from the camera, and very blurry.

2024-01-10_16-04-28.jpg


Or this power line (the white band going from top left to bottom right)2024-01-10_16-05-58.jpg

Again, anything closer would be invisible.
It seems like you are dismissing the bug/poo/gunk theory despite no one seeming to know how this particular camera works. Kind of surprising.

In the sped up video that allegedly shows rotation, to my untrained eye it looks much more like the camera itself is moving.

If a bird poos on my windshield, that is a 3D "object". But if I am looking at it straight ahead, it may appear 2D. If I slowly move over to the passenger seat, my perspective changes and I may then clearly see the depth of the poo. Even if I don't, the poo will look slightly different just from the change in perspective.

I'm not an expert on these types of surveillance systems, but I would expect that both the housing and camera can move around on and x and/or y axis. Their entire mission is surveillance, so that flexibility would make sense.

You certainly know more than I do, but I think the right questions now are how do these cameras/zoom function and do the cameras and/or their housing have the ability to move independently of each other.

It looks exactly like bug splatter / goop. I suspect it probably is and people are going down a bit of a rabbit hole trying to prove it is balloons.

Last thing... this "object" was apparently not picked up by other similar camera systems on the blimp. If it was gunk, that makes sense. If it was balloons, it makes a lot less sense.
 
If this concept of compositing from multiple lenses is plausible, along with the object being sharpened (distorting its appearance), perhaps the bug idea is still on the table - a bug or moult that's stuck to the glass, and loosens slightly casing it to rotate.

It does not look like a bunch of balloons to me (visually, as opposed to other evidence) - I'm not quite buying that nothing on the structure moves at all (relative to its own parts), it only rotates. And it looks fluffy or mushy. Again, this might be due to post-processing I suppose.
The MX-20 camera has compositing of different sensors into one image. It's a selling point in the brochure. I think it's a valid question of if those sensors are operating at different focal lengths and compositing it into the same picture.

Here's 4 examples one of the brochures I found gives:MX-20 camera possibilities.png
 
For what it is worth, my hypothesis is that it is a mosquito that has partially exploded and is being held onto the cameras housing because of the wind keeping it stuck there.

Perhaps the mosquito eventually falls off if the blimp or camera housing changes direction (change in wind blows it off).

The base is near a lake and Iraq apparently has bad mosquito problems. The dangling limbs match up.

Any entomologists here?

Anyone want to catch a mosquito and see how it shows on a thermal camera?

Edit: Some pretty similar examples here if you assume the mosquito was at least partially smashed.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...quitoes-of-the-genera-Ae-Cx-An_fig5_365129966
 
Last edited:
Looking at this video, I noticed that the object at least appears to be semi-transparent. This could be the result of compression, but it sure does look like a lot of visual data is present from behind the object.

Taking a shot in the dark and speculating... this really seems to resemble a bunch of clear ~50 gallon plastic bags all tied together, with the bottom hanging objects being popped or deflated bags. Thoughts?
Plastic bags can be transparent to MWIR
 
Edit2: For those saying something on a lens (which I dont think it was , I think it was on housing), but something on a lens can be pretty sharp. See this usbc cable held againist my 24-70 touching the glass at f22. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4dyx...1864.jpg?rlkey=k05hguk5dhjin8nsbt797pjlb&dl=0
Now try it on your 500mm, focussed at infinity, touching the glass

I really don't think the smudge idea hold any water. It seems pretty clear that it's rotating, and the focus issue seem insurmountable.

Why would a camera at 750m AGL need to focus a few inches away?
 
I spoke with a military witness to the "jellyfish" video. He was stationed at the base as an ISR Tactical Controller. Says the video was shot in 2017. My write-up is pretty long, so I won't dump it here. Here it is:
Source: https://x.com/MiddleOfMayhem/status/1745138264254918982?s=20

Can you ask this guy what the mosquitos are like there?

Iraq has mosquito issues. The base is beside a lake. Lakes attract mosquitos. Sometimes those mosquitos crash into things and die. Sometimes they get stuck there. Mosquitos look a lot like jellyfish.

My hypothesis is that this is a mosquito that got stuck.on the glass housing the camera is mounted in. It's a blimp surfing in the wind. The dead mosquiton and its guys surf along. The blimp or camera housing changes direction and the mosquito and guys blow off.

Not as exciting as alien jellyfish, but far more likely.

Here are some thermals of various not-smushed mosquito species. Doesn't take a huge leap to get to alien jellyfish.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...quitoes-of-the-genera-Ae-Cx-An_fig5_365129966
 
A point I wanted to make against the "smudge" idea.

I cannot see this being a "smudge" on the lens or on the cover. The reason for this is because if the recording sensor is stationary this means that the camera is panning left the entire time, yet the object continues moving left, so much that at a few points it actually overtakes the crosshairs. I think this is enough evidence to go against the smudge theory.

If it was a "smudge" it would be pretty stationary and most likely always remain to the right of the crosshairs unless the camera pans to the right of course at which point the smudge would appear to move the the left.

The crosshairs however are always panning leftward and the smudge manages to overtake and move to the left of the crosshairs.
 
Last edited:
Redditor whoismilk163 posted a tracked timelapse of the object with the commentary "Definitely not a smudge or bird guano". It appears to show some 3D structure to the mystery object as it rotates over the course of part of the video, but it's not anything I immediately recognize.


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/193mzhh/3d_jellyfish_timelapse/

yep still fits my wedding balloons with long weighted tails eh.. and proves the wind is low speed some of LIZ we dont know still
but this will dive into the fantasy prone folks its a critter with legs still sadly.
 
Many are still convinced a smudge on the window in front of the camera can be in focus. This is just not possible with the type of IR camera's they utilize. I explained why before in this thread. Also, there is no way it can "rotate".
 
From Greenstreet's tweet:
Not deemed a threat, the "jellyfish" video was stored on the base's "secret systems" and soon became a folk tale. "We never saw it again and it was never explained", says Cincoski. "It became the base ghost story. We'd show the video to any new guys and tell the story."
I think this explains a lot how Corbell and Knapp are getting their videos. Much like the fast moving bugs we see a lot of from drone videos on YouTube, every now and then these military sensors will pick up something not easily identifiable, but nonetheless mundane, and just wait for someone like Corbell to come scrounging around. He's basically cornering the market for military misidentified videos.
 
There's a range of solutions. For an object 2 feet wide and 5000 feet from the camera it's about 10mph.
A bunch of balloons 2 feet wide would be a small bunch. So the object may be a bit further away and slightly larger; that makes the speed a bit higher.
 
Many are still convinced a smudge on the window in front of the camera can be in focus. This is just not possible with the type of IR camera's they utilize. I explained why before in this thread. Also, there is no way it can "rotate".
I guess I'll add a possible refute to my own post from earlier which was against the smudge theory from this post

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/jellyfish-ufo-from-tmzs-ufo-revolution.13304/post-308654

In the process I guess I'm also providing you a reply to see what you think.

Have you considered the surveillance balloon is rotating in place causing the "smudge" to appear as if it is moving leftward?

Like this
1000015164.gif
 
With IR isn't focus typically set to infinity and anything within the frame past the minimum focus distance would be in focus? The sensor is simply processing temperature differentials.
There's no reason why thermal cameras wouldn't have the same types of focussing mechanisms available to them that optical cameras have, apart from the fact that the IR band is so wide the infrared equivalent of chromatic aberation would smear object edges significantly. Does anyone know what actual band range(s) these things look at - I was unable to find any facts even on pages describing themselves as "Everything You Need To Know About Thermal Imaging Cameras". They all just have a "and the magic happens here" sentence where the stuff I actually want to know should be.
Here's the best: (it's complete BS, if you don't laugh immediately, do not reread, do not let this nonsense push something useful out of your brain)
the invention of the thermal camera is related to the history of thermography which began in 1960 by Sir William Herschel an astronaut who discovered infrared light.
https://www.omega.com/en-us/resources/thermal-imagers
Content from External Source
Content from External Source
 
Alas that doesn't specify the IR sensors' band pass filter(s) - where that "(s)" can be correctly interpreted as me not even knowing how many different frequency bands they isolate: why *wouldn't* you use multiple bands, the things you are looking at are not perfect black bodies. The Sensor 5/6/7 data does list frequencies for laser rangefinding and illumination - I'd expect "illumination" to be passed, but I wouldn't want the "rangefinding" frequency to pass, as a simple retroreflector could cause you to blind yourself, which would be a bit of an anti-feature in a surveillance device. However, if these things are "usual" devices, the "illumination" frequency (860nm) definitely wouldn't be passed:
Thermographic cameras usually detect radiation in the long-infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum (roughly 9,000–14,000 nanometers or 9–14 μm)
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography
 
is it possible to be a smoke cloud from an explosive?

i dont have footage at hand and maybe my mind is tricking me with false memories but im fairly certain that i have seen smoke clouds from fireworks that were able to remain pretty static in shape, even traveling a bit in the wind without dissolving

paired with parallax, could this be a possible scenario?
 
Alas that doesn't specify the IR sensors' band pass filter(s) - where that "(s)" can be correctly interpreted as me not even knowing how many different frequency bands they isolate: why *wouldn't* you use multiple bands, the things you are looking at are not perfect black bodies. The Sensor 5/6/7 data does list frequencies for laser rangefinding and illumination - I'd expect "illumination" to be passed, but I wouldn't want the "rangefinding" frequency to pass, as a simple retroreflector could cause you to blind yourself, which would be a bit of an anti-feature in a surveillance device. However, if these things are "usual" devices, the "illumination" frequency (860nm) definitely wouldn't be passed:
Thermographic cameras usually detect radiation in the long-infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum (roughly 9,000–14,000 nanometers or 9–14 μm)
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography
I have some data from the IR sensor in the MX15i which may be of interest. (See section 3.2 in attached PDF manual). Of course the the MX20 could be using a different sensor, but I would have thought the specs would be in the same ballpark for operations compatibility. No note of multiple bandpass filters.

Screenshot 2024-01-11 at 11.40.14.png
Interesting to note there is electronic (digital?) zoom applied for very narrow FOV which usually reduces spatial resolution. The FOV for other focal lengths might be of use in the video analysis, but again this is may not the same lens as the MX-20.
 

Attachments

  • mx15i.pdf
    3.4 MB · Views: 43
Back
Top