Jellyfish UFO from TMZ's 'UFO Revolution'

[CaseyCase]

This video shows what balloons look like with a guy attached. I’m not saying it is a guy attached in the jellyfish video! I thought though it was useful to see what a sizeable amount of balloons would look like and how they look when filmed from a distance:
Source: https://youtu.be/yhYuUPQOF-Q?si=2rUH7E3mndXP9iv4

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

With the focal length of the camera anything close to the camera would be so out of focus as to not be visible.

Agree. It's a long focal length lens. Anything very close to the lens would not be visible at all.

It would degrade the brightness and contrast. But that's a technicality.

 

[Der Ungrund]

Someone on reddit found this video of debris/rain on a Wescam MX (it's edited, but the relevant footage starts at 00:13. Also, it doesn't embed as it's military.com):

https://www.military.com/video/oper...-force-hellfire-strikes-kill-11/4892597729001

They are saying it disproves the smudge theory, but personally, I think it does more to support the idea, mainly because the camera seems to be in zoom mode, but the debris remains visible on the lens/housing:

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

This video shows what balloons look like with a guy attached. I’m not saying it is a guy attached in the jellyfish video! I thought though it was useful to see what a sizeable amount of balloons would look like and how they look when filmed from a distance:
Source: https://youtu.be/yhYuUPQOF-Q?si=2rUH7E3mndXP9iv4

Also notice how "static" the balloons are. Even the banner is not rustling. The banner only shows some movement while the whole rig is ascending or descending and thus moving through the wind.

You don't feel any wind because the balloon will always go the same speed as the wind it's in.

Source: https://youtu.be/upVY1DP6IR0?si=q2ugcUMvVxqp-489&t=22



Round the world hot air balloon. Everything is calm, although the ground speed is significant.

Source: https://youtu.be/kSmrHsG2v8I?si=ZoTpksatSDQUGCZH&t=1226






Source: https://twitter.com/MiddleOfMayhem/status/1745138264254918982?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1745138264254918982%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

He [Michael Cincoski] does concede that there are details in the video that don't fully support his "artifact" theory and thinks a potential cluster of balloons "is an interesting theory" but adds, "It was too static to be balloons."

Too static as in not changing shape or rustling. I think people are picturing what a bunch of balloons would look like when they are being towed. A frequent life experience.

An example of system 1 thinking.

System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, subconscious.

System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious.

When you slow down and think about it you should be able to understand that a bunch of balloons traveling with the wind will not "rustle."

See: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/re...mous-idea-christine-garwood.7950/#post-205390

 

[Jedlik]

Someone on reddit found this video of debris/rain on a Wescam MX (it's edited, but the relevant footage starts at 00:13. Also, it doesn't embed as it's military.com):

https://www.military.com/video/oper...-force-hellfire-strikes-kill-11/4892597729001

They are saying it disproves the smudge theory, but personally, I think it does more to support the idea, mainly because the camera seems to be in zoom mode, but the debris remains visible on the lens/housing:

I think people claim it disproves the smudge theory because you can clearly see the smudges stay at the same place, yet the jellyfish moves from the right of the crosshair to the left of it. Also, as you can see tiny dust ends up as a huge blob, so it begs the question how could the jellyfish be so in focus if it was a smudge inches from the aperture. I think we can safely assume this is no smudge since nothing really indicates that. Quite the contrary.

 

[Rick Robson]

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.

Given the history of Corbell's "leaked" videos, not surprising to me at all if it's yet another water-muddling case. Just one more of his videos which lack enough data and/or information for a complete analysis.

 

[Eburacum]

I'm reasonably sure that this phenomenon is similar to the Mosul Sphere in some ways; a surveillance system that has extremely good tracking abilities starts seeing objects over a conflict zone that resemble balloons in shape and behaviour, although the details are different.

This suggests to me that balloons are released regularly over these particular zones, and the surveillance systems can pick them up. Is this just a coincidence, or are the people on the ground releasing them deliberately to cause diversion or confusion? Perhaps an innocent explanation is the most parsimonious one.

Remember that a significant number of innocent toy balloons have been detected by US Navy pilots off the east coast of the USA. The famous Batman Balloon is one example; Scott Kelly of NASA recounted another encounter, this time with a Bart Simpson balloon. In these cases it seems to be the fact that the detection systems have progressed so far in recent years that they can now see observe entirely trivial, random and meaningless events (such as escaped balloons) that were totally undetectable a few decades ago. The reason they are seeing these things is partly because the systems are too good at their job to be useful.

 

[JMartJr]

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.

Perhaps another way of saying the same thing is that you don't have to pan to keep a smudge on the camera in-frame...

 

[JMartJr]

yep still fits my wedding balloons with long weighted tails eh..

They don't even need to be weighted, as long as they are not buoyant. Of course rigidly inflated projections would also stay poinnting where they are designed to point.

but this will dive into the fantasy prone folks its a critter with legs still sadly

Could be a bit of both.


View attachment 65141

Bring your Toy Story party to life with this 62" large unique shape Buzz Lightyear Airwalker foil mylar balloon!

Content from External Source

https://www.momoparty.com/products/toy-story-4-buzz-lightyear-airwalker-foil-balloon

Other characters exist, and for some of them, some of the sections are separate balloons, so one deflating does not deflate the whole thing. Of course partial deflation of the whole thing can cause parts to take on new shapes.

(Found confirmation that for at least some of them the weights have to be attached, and you can have a free-flying balloon if you don't do that...
Source: https://youtu.be/2fYhM63g-y8?t=241
)

I'm seeing more a bunch of balloons than a single character, but don't see anything to strongly rule out either possibility...

Edited to replace WEBP image with a JPG that will display in the post better.

 

[flarkey]

I'm reasonably sure that this phenomenon is similar to the Mosul Sphere in some ways; a surveillance system that has extremely good tracking abilities starts seeing objects over a conflict zone that resemble balloons in shape and behaviour, although the details are different.

This suggests to me that balloons are released regularly over these particular zones, and the surveillance systems can pick them up. Is this just a coincidence, or are the people on the ground releasing them deliberately to cause diversion or confusion? Perhaps an innocent explanation is the most parsimonious one.

Remember that a significant number of innocent toy balloons have been detected by US Navy pilots off the east coast of the USA. The famous Batman Balloon is one example; Scott Kelly of NASA recounted another encounter, this time with a Bart Simpson balloon. In these cases it seems to be the fact that the detection systems have progressed so far in recent years that they can now see observe entirely trivial, random and meaningless events (such as escaped balloons) that were totally undetectable a few decades ago. The reason they are seeing these things is partly because the systems are too good at their job to be useful.

Whether used to carry explosives, or as decoys, party balloons have been used in warzones recently. The problem that defending military have when they see a balloon drifting across their camp is trying to determine if it is a threat.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/syrian-rebels-use-childrens-party-9199612


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64661145

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-spy-balloons-ukraine-shot-down-b2283637.html



And of course there's this article from a few years back....

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...are-encountering-be-airborne-radar-reflectors

 

[Jim A]

I'm reasonably sure that this phenomenon is similar to the Mosul Sphere in some ways; a surveillance system that has extremely good tracking abilities starts seeing objects over a conflict zone that resemble balloons in shape and behaviour, although the details are different.

This suggests to me that balloons are released regularly over these particular zones, and the surveillance systems can pick them up. Is this just a coincidence, or are the people on the ground releasing them deliberately to cause diversion or confusion? Perhaps an innocent explanation is the most parsimonious one.

Remember that a significant number of innocent toy balloons have been detected by US Navy pilots off the east coast of the USA. The famous Batman Balloon is one example; Scott Kelly of NASA recounted another encounter, this time with a Bart Simpson balloon. In these cases it seems to be the fact that the detection systems have progressed so far in recent years that they can now see observe entirely trivial, random and meaningless events (such as escaped balloons) that were totally undetectable a few decades ago. The reason they are seeing these things is partly because the systems are too good at their job to be useful.

This seems plausible to me - especially given that there's a company not too far away from this base that are putting together elaborate balloon arrangements on a regular basis. What I found particularly interesting was the creativity and diversity of their decorations and balloon arrangements. There was some speculation earlier in the thread that perhaps a collection of tangled Eid balloons could form this shape, or that it's a mylar balloon shaped like a particular character. And while that's certainly plausible, I don't think it's even necessary for it to be a misidentification of an off-the-shelf product. This company is regularly putting in a lot of work to create bespoke, themed creations (not always, but usually involving a lot of balloons) tailored to their customer's tastes and interests. While it's a bit of an extreme hypothetical, I could imagine that they could get a request for birthday party decorations for a child who's really into jellyfish, and then create an elaborate giant jellyfish sculpture out of balloons and other decorative elements. They're certainly putting these things together on a regular enough basis that I'd expect a decent number of them end up lost to the wind rather than deflated and disposed of.

Although, in fairness, their balloon sculptures don't seem to use helium balloons very often, as they're usually anchored around a display they've set up. I'm not sure if a collection of regular air-filled balloons would be expected to float in the same sort of way as in this video.

(For context, link to my earlier post with details and photos of the event decor / balloon company below)

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.

 

[Mick West]

Someone on reddit found this video of debris/rain on a Wescam MX (it's edited, but the relevant footage starts at 00:13. Also, it doesn't embed as it's military.com):

https://www.military.com/video/oper...-force-hellfire-strikes-kill-11/4892597729001

They are saying it disproves the smudge theory, but personally, I think it does more to support the idea, mainly because the camera seems to be in zoom mode, but the debris remains visible on the lens/housing:

That's not debris on the camera. The camera is over a mile away. Those are temporarily stuck pixels.
Also, it's not the same camera.

 

[Giddierone]

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/

Team Gundam.

 

[Zaro]

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/

I don't know if it add to the discussion, but in this part of the video, we only see two 'legs' but we are seeing three 'legs' most of the time in the rest of the video.

 

[SomeDudeMcDudeBro]

Guys, what's the main argument here for why this can't be a wide angle lens that's been digitally zoomed? That would make it possible for a smudge on the housing still mostly in focus... It feels like this has been overlooked, I have faith you'll come around though.

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?

It's not about needing to focus, it's about having a wide angle, no?

Where is 500mm coming from?

 

[jdog]

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

One note -- this still isn't a pure optics/sensor chip exercise.

• The image is being modified by the software before it's displayed to the operator and the operator can make additional adjustments. (Like you see a processed jpg on your DSLR's screen while it's recording a RAW file.)
• The system's manual says it combines images from multiple inputs, so the outputs can be a blend of visual and IR information. (Seems unlikely in this case if it's night.)
• We the light levels are being automatically changed as the overall exposure changes; you can see the values change on the buildings and dogs as the overall image pans to include warmer/cooler objects.
• If the object is a batch of mylar balloons (possibly with illustrations on them), the mylar is going to be reflecting environmental heat from some directions (Mick did a video on that). The balloon doesn't have to change temperature if the environment it's reflecting does. This would create a scintillating effect as the reflected levels match and change from the balloon's background.
• And wasn't at least one version of the source video shot from a monitor by another camera? That would add another level of abstraction from the source.

 

[Mick West]

Guys, what's the main argument here for why this can't be a wide angle lens that's been digitally zoomed? That would make it possible for a smudge on the housing still mostly in focus... It feels like this has been overlooked, I have faith you'll come around though.

Because then it would just be a few pixels.

Where is 500mm coming from?

Just a common size telephoto lens for DSLR. Try it with 300 or 600.

The video is shot with 1000mm, the 3000mm segments are probably is digital zoom.

 

[flarkey]

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/

and...

• If the object is a batch of mylar balloons (possibly with illustrations on them), the mylar is going to be reflecting environmental heat from some directions (Mick did a video on that). The balloon doesn't have to change temperature if the environment it's reflecting does. This would create a scintillating effect as the reflected levels match and change from the balloon's background.

The timelapse looks like it has something wrapped around the lower right appendage (?). Could it be tinsel? I found this photo whilst searching Google for "Iraq Balloons New Year".



Also, balloons seem to be a really big thing in Iraq when celebrating anything

https://www.gettyimages.ae/photos/b...ase=balloons iraq eid&sort=best&license=rf,rm

 

[sigmops]

At 30s in Corbell's upload the zoom changes and the text at the top switches from 3000 to 1000.
Was wondering if analyzing the frames before and after the switch might reveal a slight change in the objects apparent size relative to the background structures. And that difference might provide a way to measure its distance from the camera

The video is shot with 1000mm, the 3000mm segments are probably is digital zoom.

So you are thinking the "3000" portion is a 3000mm equivalent achieved with digital zoom applied onto of the 1000mm actual, without any physical change in the optics?

...and therefore there should be no relative change in the objects size that would be worth investigating?


Source: https://youtu.be/7bns_WhNAQM?t=30s

 

[flarkey]

the 3000 - 1000 change is the change in focal length in mm.

 

[Eburacum]

The problem that defending military have when they see a balloon drifting across their camp is trying to determine if it is a threat.

Well, exactly. It is much easier to cause disruption with a balloon, or a bunch of balloons, than to build and deploy a weaponised drone.

You could use balloons to test the defence systems as well. An outside observer might notice the flurry of activity associated with a detection of a threat by the Persistent Threat Detection System (or the lack of such activity), and use this as a way of gauging its sensitivity.

 

[sigmops]

the 3000 - 1000 change is the change in focal length in mm.

So just trying to clarify, the zoom we see at 30s is from an actual change in lens optics? Or this surveillance system simulates the 3000mm from a digital zoom applied to the 1000mm? (If I understood correctly, Mick mentioned 3000mm was likely digital in an earlier comment)

Because I am also trying to decide if its worth spending time fiddling with the frames before and after that zoom change to see hints at its distance from the lens. Maybe you already know if that is erroneous thinking on my part / dead-end not worth pursuing?

 

[Jedlik]

Also, balloons seem to be a really big thing in Iraq when celebrating anything

It is actually a whole-Earth thing. Balloons are pretty much universal.

 

[flarkey]

So just trying to clarify, the zoom we see at 30s is from an actual change in lens optics? Or this surveillance system simulates the 3000mm from a digital zoom applied to the 1000mm?

Because I am also trying to decide if its worth spending time fiddling with the frames before and after that zoom change to see hints at its distance from the lens. Maybe you already know if that is erroneous thinking on my part?

yeah (from memory) the IR camera has a telescopic and continuous zoom, which would mean it's an optomechanical change. I think the last step is a digital 2x zoom. I can't remember the full range of focal lengths.

 

[Mick West]

So you are thinking the "3000" portion is a 3000mm equivalent achieved with digital zoom applied onto of the 1000mm actual, without any physical change in the optics?

...and therefore there should be no relative change in the objects size that would be worth investigating?

Changing focal length does not change the relative size of object. Only changing the camera position does that. The examples you see online change the camera position. Digital zoom or physical zoom makes no real distance to the geometry (other than lense distortion, but that's not really a factor for long lenses)

I suspect this is physical 1000mm. The 3000 mm might be optical, but the change in quality mademe suspect not. But that could be low light. I'm unsure. Here's the 3000mm scaled to 1/3, inset over 1000mm,

It does seem a lot more detailed, which suggests optical 3000mm. I suppose that's not that unlikey, as my Nikon P900 does 2000mm equivalent. But also the. extra detail could just be because it's using more sensor pixels.

And as someone mentioned, the blanking between the shots suggests an optical change, not digital.

We'd need the exact model, and spec sheet

 

[SomeDudeMcDudeBro]

Because then it would just be a few pixels.

Just a common size telephoto lens for DSLR. Try it with 300 or 600.

The video is shot with 1000mm, the 3000mm segments are probably is digital zoom.

100% I understand that, even my 200mm would make something quite blurry up close.

So is it confirmed that the number up there is the focal length in mm? Without digital zoom? But when it's at 3000 you think it is digitally zoomed? Is any of this 100% confirmed yet? Sorry, admittedly I'm only scan-reading this stuff between work tasks.

edit:
oh jeez i just read your last line in your last post, gotcha

 

[sigmops]

Changing focal length does not change the relative size of object. Only changing the camera position does that.

I guess with the change in focal length I was hoping that we could measure a much smaller version of what is happening with this man's hand relative to his face in the following picture:

https://www.shutterbug.com/images/17/1lp121817.png


But I suppose the distances involved are too great and the video quality too poor to effectively measure any difference.

 

[Myth]

and...



The timelapse looks like it has something wrapped around the lower right appendage (?). Could it be tinsel? I found this photo whilst searching Google for "Iraq Balloons New Year".



Also, balloons seem to be a really big thing in Iraq when celebrating anything

https://www.gettyimages.ae/photos/balloons-iraq-eid?assettype=image&phrase=balloons iraq eid&sort=best&license=rf,rm

Lol if you search "Eid Mubarak Balloons" you'll basically get crescent moon cluster of balloons mixed with regular balloons. Which seems to be what's sticking out at the top of the object.

Problem with balloons is that they can literally be assembled differently and they can also shift around and rearrange during that initial release. So unless it is a solid body balloon, it would be very difficult to prove that it was this specific set of balloons or that one or that one. Unless of course you had clear footage to fully identify lol.

If the claim is that these are clearly a cluster of balloons, the people that believe this is extraterrestrial will come back and say "prove it" and laugh at the claim.

To be 100% honest, I personally don't see anything fantastical happening here that's even worth investigating. The only thing worth investigating would be the additional "trust me bro" claims made by Jeremy, to which of course there's nothing on.

I do understand however that since this was released/leaked by the military and possibly labeled as "UAP" or "UFO" that it will cause a lot of attention. So I feel that the only reason this footage is even relevant is only because it was labeled as such. We don't have anything else to go off of. And again labeling this footage as "UFO" would be pretty accurate considering they didn't know what it was specifically.

 

[Jedlik]

I follow the thread and only one of the flags were mentioned AFAIK.

There is an obvious flag at the start, around 0:03. Everyone noticed it, but it hardly moves so we could make no conclusions. What I did not see mentioned is the flag around 1:13. People did not notice because after 2 seconds the flag is out of the frame. It is barely visible to begin with.





Obviosly this was done in paint. No red line on the picture is based on serious data. I will try to fix the video to the flag to try to understand it's position but as far as the naked eye can see I think there is at least a 20 degree difference between the UAP trajectory and the direction the flag is facing.

This might be the make-or-break detail when it comes to the balloon explanation.

 

[Mick West]

I guess with the change in focal length I was hoping that we could measure a much smaller version of what is happening with this man's hand relative to his face in the following picture:

https://www.shutterbug.com/images/17/1lp121817.png


But I suppose the distances involved are too great and the video quality too poor to effectively measure any difference.

Again, that only happen when the camera moves. Focal length has no effect on relative size. It's a common misconception brought on by misleading comparisons like this

 

[jarlrmai]

Translating focal length to FOV only makes sense when you know the sensor size, pretty much all approximations you'll find on the internet are based on 35mm film/full frame digital sensor size.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

If I've got a multispectral imaging system and I'm trying to work out what something is I'd probably look in more than one spectrum.

Were the HD cameras bust? I fail to believe it didn't look at it with them. I reckon it'd be pretty obvious what it is through them too.

 

[Mick West]

Obviosly this was done in paint. No red line on the picture is based on serious data. I will try to fix the video to the flag to try to understand it's position but as far as the naked eye can see I think there is at least a 20 degree difference between the UAP trajectory and the direction the flag is facing.

This might be the make-or-break detail when it comes to the balloon explanation.

Good find, but I'm not sure you can accurately determine the wind speed from a few frames of a flag. It's not a weather vane. It's also not rigid. The top edge of a flag points down.

 

[Jedlik]

Wow thank you, that was fast. I wish I was as good at this as you. It would take me hours.

You are right, the only thing we can conclude is a general wind direction. And even if we have a general idea about wind direction, it will certainly not be blowing the opposite way the UAP is heading. There is like 15-30 degrees difference, so this will not be the holy grail of evidence. The fact that the pole is not upright makes it almost impossible, I agree.

 

[teloiv]

Wow thank you, that was fast. I wish I was as good at this as you. It would take me hours.

You are right, the only thing we can conclude is a general wind direction. And even if we have a general idea about wind direction, it will certainly not be blowing the opposite way the UAP is heading. There is like 15-30 degrees difference, so this will not be the holy grail of evidence. The fact that the pole is not upright makes it almost impossible, I agree.

The flag comes back into frame about 1:18 hanging limply and it looks like it begins billowing again as it exits the frame for the last time if that helps.

 

[itsthematrix]

I spent 20 minutes again, analyzing it, back and forth, I must reiterate that it appears a lot like those cheap plastic bags that you would fill up with grocery at ralphs, with certain sections appearing deflated towards the end. However, there is a degree of straightness evident in the lower part of the object and what looks like a hole/cut out at the top of it.

This is what stuck out the most for me. Perhaps the slight movements it makes are not captured well due to the video quality, leading to an unusual perception. I can now see how balloons can exhibit motion without noticeable movement, but the entire scenario remains strange. Having lived in LA my entire life for over 40 years and then moved to Maryland, I have never seen trash bags or plastic bags act that way or balloons for that matter, maybe I've forgotten.

Think the most I can remember is balloons being deflated and moving gently across but I don't think I ever remember remnants such as that hanging off at the bottom. Don't know what to think, id have to put it at balloons, although still very strange. Like I said, there seems to be some symmetry there at the top and the mid section, but can't really tell for sure. It looks like a collection of bags/trash, weird.

 

[JMartJr]

I will try to fix the video to the flag to try to understand it's position but as far as the naked eye can see I think there is at least a 20 degree difference between the UAP trajectory and the direction the flag is facing.

Good find, but I'm not sure you can accurately determine the wind speed from a few frames of a flag.

You also cannot tell much about wind at even a slight altitude by looking at wind in the ground clutter. It would not be odd for the flag to be impacted by effects of the ground/buildings/trees, even if it was a bit taller than the obstructions:

http://www.powerkiteforum.com/viewthread.php?tid=22677, not sure where poster got the image, can't make out the "source bug" to lower right.
Turbulence can make the flag point in an odd direction for a few seconds, blow a bit harder or softer, reverse direction -- or flow between obstructions can divert ground wind from the "clean wind" direction. A bit higher, and the wind can be constant again. About the most I think you can tell about the breeze from these flags is that there is a little, it is not howling but it is not dead calm. The balloon(s), if that is what they are, do not move as if they are in the ground clutter. As noted:

The flag comes back into frame about 1:18 hanging limply and it looks like it begins billowing again as it exits the frame for the last time if that helps.

Yeah, that hints strongly that the flags are in the ground clutter, wind wise.

 

[Mick West]

The flag comes back into frame about 1:18 hanging limply and it looks like it begins billowing again as it exits the frame for the last time if that helps.

So it does!



I think this conclusivly demonstrate the wind is coming roughly from the East - one issue with the balloon theory is that the prevaiign winds are generally from the West. In fact, this might narrow down the list of possible days.

 

[Mick West]

About the most I think you can tell about the breeze from these flags is that there is a little, it is not howling but it is not dead calm.

Very consistent with the balloon hypothesis - which calls for winds of 10-15 mph at 1000-ish feet

 

[Ravi]

Changing focal length does not change the relative size of object. Only changing the camera position does that. The examples you see online change the camera position. Digital zoom or physical zoom makes no real distance to the geometry (other than lense distortion, but that's not really a factor for long lenses)

I suspect this is physical 1000mm. The 3000 mm might be optical, but the change in quality mademe suspect not. But that could be low light. I'm unsure. Here's the 3000mm scaled to 1/3, inset over 1000mm,

It does seem a lot more detailed, which suggests optical 3000mm. I suppose that's not that unlikey, as my Nikon P900 does 2000mm equivalent. But also the. extra detail could just be because it's using more sensor pixels.

And as someone mentioned, the blanking between the shots suggests an optical change, not digital.

We'd need the exact model, and spec sheet

Optical 3000mm lens, that is pretty long for a camera lens.. Never seen it. I have seen large focal lengths, but these were telescopes. It would be strange if they used that in this situation.