"Metapod" UFO. Top voted post of the month on r/UFOs, maybe top of all time

Max Phalange

Active Member
I took another swing at stabilising this during the zoom-out.

escorial-tracking.gif

To me this seems to be slam-dunk evidence that the metapod is CGI and has been composited into the scene. The object's position is absolutely static relative to the white cloud bottom-left, until the zoom out when its motion tracking goes all to hell. It then becomes stable again when the zoom ends.

I don't believe there's anything like enough error in my own stabilization track to cause the object's position to deviate like this.

I've attached the full-speed video used to generate the above gif, and I've also uploaded to streamable, where you can right-click and change the playback speed: Source: https://streamable.com/az65vk

Finally, here is a streamable of the same sequence of frames without stabilisation: Source: https://streamable.com/er4g69


Would be interested to hear other opinions on this.
 

Attachments

  • escorial-tracking.mp4
    195.5 KB
Last edited:

Max Phalange

Active Member
I like it @Max Phalange . I am not super familiar with motion tracking though. Can it 100% be certain it is not coming from your tracking?

I can't think of any way it could have caused it. Bear in mind that the whole sequence is stabilised, but the object's movement only occurs during the zoom out.

If you cover the object on the your screen (and maybe the logo too), and watch it loop a few times, you should be convinced that the scene remains almost completely static, the viewport just opens up to reveal more of it. If the object was physically present in the sky, there's no reason that it should move relative to that static scene only during a camera zoom.
 

Charlie Wiser

New Member
I can't think of any way it could have caused it. Bear in mind that the whole sequence is stabilised, but the object's movement only occurs during the zoom out.
If it's CGI, that's a really weird choice of UFO to put in the scene - specifically that it's unlike a "normal" alien craft, and that it's transparent and empty whereas you'd expect a hoax to at least imply there's an alien in there. (Of course, the creator may not have intended it to be a piloted alien craft.) Have you found any other instances of the tracking being off?
 

Max Phalange

Active Member
If it's CGI, that's a really weird choice of UFO to put in the scene - specifically that it's unlike a "normal" alien craft, and that it's transparent and empty whereas you'd expect a hoax to at least imply there's an alien in there. (Of course, the creator may not have intended it to be a piloted alien craft.)

This claim was part of the video creator's original email to the UFOVNI channel (translated):
My friend commented that he saw something move inside the UFO, something alive with limbs
(which seems unlikely considering the enormous camera zoom needed to make out any detail). And the video's title was "Amazing Ufo With Reptilian Inside". So perhaps they did model a pilot, but in ended up indistinct in the final video, at least the low quality version we have.

Have you found any other instances of the tracking being off?
Not definitively, but in the last final seconds of the video as the object picks up speed and drifts out of frame, the movement looks 'off' a few times when viewed frame by frame. It would be a lot harder to demonstrate using this stabilization technique, however, as clouds are much fuzzier.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
If the object was physically present in the sky, there's no reason that it should move relative to that static scene only during a camera zoom.
In principle this the same argument as the "camera bump when it rotates" observation on GIMBAL: if a presumed feature of the object correlates with camera operation, then it's really a feature of the observer.

If you stabilized on the position of the object and a single feature of the cloud, would the cloud then "jitter" during the zoom?
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
If it is then it's pretty well done CGI that also has some odd decisions

Not a cliché shape i.e. not a saucer or a triangle etc.
The glinting sunlight off the shiny part is pretty realistic, hard to do well and seems like something that you could avoid doing if you had a source background video not at sunset/sunrise.
Spins around like a balloon, seems odd you'd make it spin like this possibly the "narrative" for the hoax is different, maybe to purposely cover up the window part to avoid scrutiny.

That tracking error is certainly indicative of compositing though..
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Could we be seeing lens distortion change due to a telescopic optical zoom lens being used (i.e. not just a digital crop zoom like a phone) something like Nikon P900 etc. Or possibly even a optical to digital zoom change, some cameras do this they optically zoom so far then switch to digital zoom after they run out of lens.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Could we be seeing lens distortion change due to a telescopic optical zoom lens being used (i.e. not just a digital crop zoom like a phone) something like Nikon P900 etc. Or possibly even a optical to digital zoom change, some cameras do this they optically zoom so far then switch to digital zoom after they run out of lens.
In that case, the clouds ought to distort, but I don't think they do.
Source: https://streamable.com/az65vk
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
Could we be seeing lens distortion change due to a telescopic optical zoom lens being used (i.e. not just a digital crop zoom like a phone) something like Nikon P900 etc. Or possibly even a optical to digital zoom change, some cameras do this they optically zoom so far then switch to digital zoom after they run out of lens.
Distortion happens on the edges of the FOV, not in the middle. But I don't think we see this effect in this video.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
My contention is if you stabilise a video using an edge feature then the edge distortion when stabilised might affect the middle. Maybe incorrect.
 

Max Phalange

Active Member
My contention is if you stabilise a video using an edge feature then the edge distortion when stabilised might affect the middle. Maybe incorrect.
Another way to present this is to simply take two screengrabs during the zoom-out sequence, layer them in photoshop, and then scale one so the clouds line up identically. This way, no video manipulation/tracking/stabilisation is in play.

Source: https://streamable.com/rie95d
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Another way to present this is to simply take two screengrabs during the zoom-out sequence, layer them in photoshop, and then scale one so the clouds line up identically. This way, no video manipulation/tracking/stabilisation is in play.

Source: https://streamable.com/rie95d
I'm pretty convinced something odd is going on the stabilised footage does look suspect, the way the movement seems to be in one 45 degree line?

Can you swap between the 2 frames where it does the big diagonal slide?
 

Max Phalange

Active Member
I'm pretty convinced something odd is going on the stabilised footage does look suspect, the way the movement seems to be in one 45 degree line?

Can you swap between the 2 frames where it does the big diagonal slide?

This is probably the frame with the biggest discrepancy, frames 1995/1996 from the video.
9a6d29cc825a9dee33da8942bd4e938f.gif
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Just some FYI, this video is now popular enough to get on Third Phase of The Moon, the Cousins' brothers YouTube channel. Interestingly, they present a stabilized version they say is from Jaime Mauson and claiming to be over Denver in 2021. So hoaxers posting videos by a hoax promoter.

They do have some other versions of it, one they claim is the original from 2006 with a timestamp and some similar looking ones.

Not saying they're involved, they seem to post anything and everything. But it is interesting, that just like the video of the Roulettes form this thread (www.metabunk.org/threads/explained-ufos-over-melbourne-april-2022-roulettes-aerobatic-planes.12369 ) they end up with a modified version of the original with Spanish titles, purportedly via Jaime Mauson.

The video should start at the 11:46 mark.

Source: https://youtu.be/yRLEHF12bYA?t=706
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
How about this one from 2008. Ledrack is the YouTube channel for Josue Hernandez, a Mexico based CGI animator. In the above video from TPoM, he is the guy that made the obvious animation of the alien pod, presumably, for Jaime Mauson.

Source: https://youtu.be/9YzSBQZ3lH8

Here is a screen grab from later in the video:
1650481451310.png

It's the same animation that is in the TPOtM video, but it's not recent, it's from 2008.

What's the oldest known date for the Original video?

Edit: In the TPOtM video they claim a similar video is from 2006 and it is titled as being Monterrey, same as this animation.
 
Last edited:

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
actually one of the links above show this old case...i think its what gave them the idea
This is the Burja de Monterrey, or Witch of Monterey. It's claimed to be from 2006 and it's the video that appears in the TPOtM video with the time stamp. Here is the classic photo of it:
1650483821703.png

Here is a news report about it. This video was uploaded in 2015, but it seems the story is from 2006. It includes the actual video of the Bruja:

Source: https://youtu.be/eEHJI-ni0lI


So there is a video of a flying witch from Monterrey in 2006.

In 2008, Ledrack creates a CGI of an alien space pod shaped a lot like the witch that is flying around Monterrey.

In 2022 TPOtM posts a stabilized version of space pod video over Denver, supposedly, and then uses the Ledrack video from 2008 to show what the pod might look like, because a 14 year old animation just happens to look a lot like a current video.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
Most likely. In the video you're looking at there's a high-pitched "hey look at me I'm a spooky alien" noise that runs for 30 seconds from 00:11 to 0:41 and loops again for 30 seconds from 0:51 to 1:21. There's also a specific combination of wind noise and background chatter that repeats at 00:06, 00:24, and again at 1:03. Also, the traffic noise from 0:45 to 0:51 is repeated again from 1:25 to 1:31. I didn't check to see if the birds also repeated or looped, seemed like more work than it was worth tbh. In any case the audio track seems pretty heavily manipulated, maybe composed of at least three, possibly four separate tracks (birds, wind and background chatter, traffic noise, and a spooky alien track), each of which loops or repeats at some point, it seems to me anyways.

I took another swing at stabilising this during the zoom-out.

escorial-tracking.gif

To me this seems to be slam-dunk evidence that the metapod is CGI and has been composited into the scene. The object's position is absolutely static relative to the white cloud bottom-left, until the zoom out when its motion tracking goes all to hell. It then becomes stable again when the zoom ends.

I don't believe there's anything like enough error in my own stabilization track to cause the object's position to deviate like this.

I've attached the full-speed video used to generate the above gif, and I've also uploaded to streamable, where you can right-click and change the playback speed: Source: https://streamable.com/az65vk

Finally, here is a streamable of the same sequence of frames without stabilisation: Source: https://streamable.com/er4g69


Would be interested to hear other opinions on this.
Lots of things to sort out here. Changes in lens focal length as it zooms out, perspective distortion, parallax effects, camera movement and the actual movement of the object.

The lens is zooming out, the camera is moving, and the object is moving with the wind, and the object is moving erratically.

In a zoom out shot, objects "move" toward the center of the frame. Closer objects "move" at a different speed than more distant objects, due to perspective distortion.

The camera is also moving, which further complicates things.

Example:

The object (balloon) has been drifting on the wind previous to the zoom out. The zoom out suddenly shows the movement relative to the clouds as the clouds come into frame. Parallax effects due to the balloon being closer to the camera become more apparent.

Finally - and I think this is the most important factor - the balloon has been making erratic movements through the entire video. I think it simply made an erratic motion across our line of sight as the zoom out was happening. Not too big a coincidence.

We have to look at all evidence, not just isolate one bit of the video and call that decisive. Looking at the entire video, I just don't see this as amateur CGI in 2015.
 
Last edited:

Max Phalange

Active Member
In a zoom out shot, objects "move" toward the center of the frame. Closer objects "move" at a different speed than more distant objects, due to perspective distortion.

The camera is also moving, which further complicates things.

Example:
And yet applying the same technique to these clips does not result in any object in the scene erractically sliding around the frame coincident with the focal length change.

Source: https://streamable.com/zjy4mx
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Maybe someone with a p900 type camera @Mick West ;) can zoom in and out on a balloon then we can stabilise that and see what we see. Bonus points if there are some clouds..
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
I think Occam's razor says it's a balloon, just one nobody can find a picture of. But if Max Phalange is on to something, this is interesting if one wants to engage in a bit of conspiratorial thinking.

First, we have the Bruja de Monterrey video from supposedly 2006 with a similar shape.
1650553562143.png

Then professional CGI artiest Ledrack (Josue Hernandez) creates his animated version of the Bruja, but imagines it as an alien in a pod like spaceship. He posts this in 2008 as The Bruja de Monterrey. He seems to be into UFOlogy from looking at his YouTube channel and is in with Jaime Maousson

1650555653618.png

The original space pod video shows up in around 2015 from Madrid? When Jaime Maousson shows the space pod video in 2022, claiming it was in Denver 2022, he uses the 2008 Bruja video by Ledrack it illustrate what it might be, because the '08 video closely matches the space pod video.

1650553691895.png

Ledrack continues to work with this shape or versions of it up to the present. Here are some of his videos and postings from the last year:
Note he claims to get these from other people, but then does admit to enhancing them.

I think this is just the space pod video itself, or something real similar that he is analyzing.

1650555452950.png

A little different and more horizontal, but he's talking about the glints of sun, similar to the original space pod.

1650555514934.png

Again, he seems to be the only one I can find that uses this shape multiple times:

1650553486382.png

Another version of it:

1650551750322.png

And yet another similar shape, this time tipped horizontal:

1650552728783.png

Here's the videos and YouTube community page these came from:
www.youtube.com/c/ledrack/community
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjkkWhNpmmE
Source: https://youtu.be/FKZZumQtF-w
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
The hybrid solution 8s that somebody took some vid of a balloon reflecting the sunlight all sparkly, realized that the video showed too clearly that it was a balloon, then saw the witch vid and decided to throw a CGI pod on the balloon to make it more mysterious... possibly even laying the composite pos into a new skyscape, leading to anomalous movements during zoom.
Mind you, my money is still on "dangly thing on string," but it seems there are multiple mundane ways to wind up with this video...
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
I'm going with dangling thing on a string composite on another shot of the scenery. Or CGI

The rotation does not look like what a balloon would do (spinning one way, spin slowing, then spinning the other way. Nor does the way it moves look like a balloon. ie suddenly going straight down and at another time off to the right. The other thing is that the balloon would have to carry the shell structure around it. And that structure looks a little to much for a small party type balloon to carry, but then it could be a larger balloon

I'm 50/50 on dangling thing and CGI, though I'm starting to lean more a little to CGI
 
Last edited:

Max Phalange

Active Member
The rotation does not look like what a balloon would do (spinning one way, spin slowing, then spinning the other way.

This part here looks especially unlike a balloon or hanging object — the rotation is arrested very abruptly.



I'm not sure why Occam's razor doesn't just bring us to CGI by default anyway — we've seen just recently how extreme shaky-cam can be used to "sell" CGI elements composited into a scene. I think the unusual "bruja" shape and spinning behavior threw a lot of people off the scent initially. If the object been a shiny silver disc this thread probably would have wrapped up several pages ago.
 
Last edited:

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
I'm not sure why Occam's razor doesn't just bring us to CGI by default anyway
I think because so many similar looking ones have been balloons, it's the logical starting point. Balloons also follow Occam's "principal of parsimony", we know lots of balloons exist, that they get released and drift around and are frequently mistaking for UFO/UAPs. It's the simplest solution.

A CGI solution is certainly plausible, but not as simple.

Now in this case we do seem to have a CGI artist, Ledrack, that was playing around with a similar shape and concept as far back as 2008, so it's at least suspicious. But even his YouTube channel has several videos of what look like balloons being passed off as possible UFOs, interspersed with his full CGI UFO videos.

Ledrack reimagined the Bruja from the '06 video as an alien space pod. Did he, or someone else, then reimagine the alien space pod as a space pod balloon? And based its movements on some sort of object on the end of a string? So a CGI alien balloon. That's a long way from Occam.

On the one hand, Ledrack openly shares what he has made on his channel. On the other he does seems to be involved with Jaime Mausson, a big promoter of UFOs of all sorts, hoaxes included.

The "space pod" seems to me, and others, to move and spin in a strange way suggesting maybe it's not a balloon. But the spin also counts against it being a CGI alien "space pod". If it's an alien what's with all the spinning? Ledrack's '08 video shows it traveling around like one would expect a space pod to behave, not spinning like it's hanging from a string.

Like Ravi said in post #186, it be nice to have someone like Capitan Disillusion on the forum that can really break down a video for CGI, if that's possible.

I know I've at least enjoyed the inordinate amount of time I've wasted trying to find any kind of a clue for this one.
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
I keep getting this gut feeling any time I re-watch the original video. Mostly due to the unrealistic lighting and reflections.. Also: reflections of what? The sun is behind clouds, right? And what about the perfect focus right smack after the zoom?? Never seen than before, haha. Also I expect some less degree of perspective, on an object that far away and zoomed in.

I don't buy it one bit. And perhaps making it look a bit like a balloon was the whole intention of the maker, to put us off.
 

Ann K

Active Member
not really, and it rocks a little at "stop". looks pretty typical of something that lost it's spin momentum going one way.
A small object dangling on a cobweb (back to the "cocoon" hypothesis) will twiddle around back and forth in the slightest breeze.
 

Charlie Wiser

New Member
How easy/hard would it be to film a transparent balloon (on a string, or perhaps cut loose at some point), then add a CGI yellow cocoon afterwards (to make it look like the Bruga video)? So that the sun glints are real, and the CGI cocoon was imperfectly done and wrecked the tracking somehow at one point.
 

Shrinker

New Member
How easy/hard would it be to film a transparent balloon (on a string, or perhaps cut loose at some point), then add a CGI yellow cocoon afterwards (to make it look like the Bruga video)? So that the sun glints are real, and the CGI cocoon was imperfectly done and wrecked the tracking somehow at one point.
When I first watched the video I thought the tracking was so well done, there probably was a balloon or some other reference object in the sky to track the CGI onto. As posted above though, the tracking does have at least one fatal glitch, so I don't believe that theory anymore. The perp probably just used the clouds as tracking reference.

In terms of augmenting a real balloon, it wouldn't be worth the effort. It would be far easier to just paint out the real ballon, and replace it entirely with CG. Versus the intricate work of grafting CG onto real, the reflections you see in that video are not difficult to achieve. There are many stock products available for CG artists to match all kinds of lighting conditions. (Here's one site full of examples).

Finally, as Ravi points out, the reflections aren't correct anyway. Judging by the warm lighting which is hitting only the cloud tops, I think the sun has probably already set. Therefore any object below the clouds (and this object is seen to be below the clouds) couldn't be receiving any direct sunlight.

Here's an example of post-sunset clouds which I think is what the video resembles. Note how only the highest clouds are receiving any direct sunlight.



Here's a frame of the object apparently catching direct sunlight, despite being below clouds which are in the Earth's shadow

Screenshot 2022-04-23 at 18.08.18.png
 

Ann K

Active Member
Finally, as Ravi points out, the reflections aren't correct anyway. Judging by the warm lighting which is hitting only the cloud tops, I think the sun has probably already set. Therefore any object below the clouds (and this object is seen to be below the clouds) couldn't be receiving any direct sunlight.
Perhaps not sunlight at all, but artificial lighting from inside a room?
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
A mountain at sunset is dark at the base and sunlit at the peak. However clouds work a different way.

Late in the afternoon the top of thick clouds are bright and the bottom are dark because the light is being absorbed as it passes through more of the water vapor. The top of the clouds become red tinted and the bottom dark.

Later, near actual sunset, the bottom of the clouds are bright and the top of clouds become dark.

After sunset clouds near the western horizon remain bright on the bottom for some minutes, while clouds to the east are entirely dark.

This was an issue during the heyday of FE, btw. The issue was this: How could the Sun on a FE get below the altitude of clouds and light up the bottom part of the clouds?





Another factor: When looking in direction of the Sun, the light may be shining through the clouds horizontally. In that case: Thin edge of clouds bright, thick body of clouds dark.


Base of mountains are dark because they are in shadow; tops of clouds are dark because sunlight has passed through more water vapor. Another factor (assuming this is sunset, not sunrise): We seem to be looking south in this photo. The west side of the mountains and of the clouds are brighter. The east side of the clouds are darker.
Lenticular-Clouds.jpg


This is not a post sunset photo. This is late afternoon. Tops of clouds bright, bottoms dark.
Another factor: We seem to be looking generally north. Late afternoon Sun is somewhat south of west. Side of clouds facing toward the Sun are bright and side facing away are darker.
DSCN6752.jpg


This is also late afternoon, but it's earlier in the afternoon, and so more obviously before sunset. Top sunlit, bottom dark.
YGYuHGH442GU597qspz2YL-1024-80.jpg (1).png
All colors of visible light are absorbed by the water vapor. When the Sun is high, the bright part of clouds are white and the darker part are shades of grey. In late afternoon the bright part of clouds become tinted red because of Raleigh scattering in the atmosphere.


The clouds seen in the UFO photo are also late afternoon clouds. Side of clouds facing the Sun are bright; side facing away from Sun are dark.




About the object...

The flashes of light are specular reflections of the Sun on the clear section of the balloon. This is entirely consistent with a low Sun shining on a transparent but glossy surface - (similar to the surface of water or transparent glass).

Note that the specular reflections of the Sun are coming off both the inside surface of the far wall of the balloon and from the outside surface of the near wall of the balloon. A complex effect. This effect is not consistent with amateur CGI from 2015. We also see diffuse reflections and partial specular reflections on the matte surface of the balloon. Another complex effect.

Primer on specular and diffuse reflections: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/reflection-of-the-sunlight-on-water.8324/#post-198671

Additionally the image goes in and out of focus. Is that consistent with amateur CGI?

This is an out of focus frame with a specular reflection. A strange and complex choice. And... is this a heptagon-shaped bokeh effect caused by the blades of the lens diaphragm?
Bokeh.png


z.png

abstract-bright-colorful-glitter-geometry-octagon-bokeh-background_34985-247.jpg
 
Last edited:

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
If you want to get really complicated...

This is looking east after sunset. Both the mountain and the clouds are being lit from above by indirect sunlight reflected off of ice crystals and/or particulates in the atmosphere - Alpenglow.

alpenglowindirect-1024x732 (2).jpeg
 
Last edited:

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
This effect is not consistent with amateur CGI from 2015. We also see diffuse reflections and partial specular reflections on the matte surface of the balloon. Another complex effect.
I agree it's probably a balloon of some sort, though something still seems strange about it. IF it's something else and IF someone like Ledrack is involved with it, he's not exactly an amateur GCI artist. He's not a Hollywood studio working on the latest Marvel blockbuster, but by 2015, he had been posting his work for 10 years and seemed to be a smalltime professional CGI freelancer.

He had been doing a very similar "shaky zoom in and out with changing focus" against the clouds as far back as '08:

Source: https://youtu.be/jWE7ZMtIeSw?t=6


By 2015, he was involved with commercials for Dominos:

Source: https://youtu.be/D9RJs8H-jMk


However, I can't find anything to directly link him to the Madrid balloon '15, other than some of his stuff being compared to it by Jaime Maussan. And, so far, I haven't seen anything in his work that looks like the glints of sunlight.

It may just be a coincidence that Ledrack created an animation, based on a witch video, that looks a lot like the Madrid balloon 7 years before it appeared. Lots of "mysteries" are caused by coincidence, and if all these videos were versions of some sort of classic saucer or triangle it would be no big deal. But in this case the shape is much more unique and seems to repeat in an odd set of videos.

To that end, it's at least interesting to track down how this shape and these videos are inter-related, even it just turns out to be an odd balloon that got cross pollinated as usual in the paranormal/UFOlogy world.

I don't think it's going off topic, in that, it's Maussan that has linked the other older videos with the Madrid balloon video, even if he claims it's from Denver.

To summarize, on the April 18 edition of Maussan TV's show Tercer Milenio, Jaime Mausssan aired a segment about a UFO over Denver. This is only 7 days after JackFrostTV started this thread after seeing that the Madrid balloon video was really trending. This is the same segment that appeared on TPOtM in post #178. That segment is posted below. It consisted of 5 separate scenes.

First is the Madrid balloon video, followed by a stabilized version of it:
1650817058876.png

Then the '06 Bruja video:
1650817218416.png

Then the animated footage from '08:

1650828520282.png
And finaly some new footage of the UFO/entity flying over the Denver skyline:

1650828646889.png
Honestly, the Denver footage just looks like someone cropped the Bruja from some of the '06 video and composited it over skyline. Either the same Bruha from Monterrey showed up in Denver 16 years later, or it's just a shameless barrowing, if not an outright hoax.

Maussan was also involved in at least part of the original Bruja de Monterrey incident. He got with the police officer involved in the 2004 sighting and tried to relate the Bruja to the Flatwoods Monster, so at the time, going for a more paranormal rather than UFO angle.

The Flatwoods monster (also known as the Braxton County monster,[1] Braxie,[2] or the Phantom of Flatwoods),[3] in West Virginia folklore, is an entity reported to have been sighted in the town of Flatwoods in Braxton County, West Virginia, United States, on September 12, 1952, after a bright object crossed the night sky. Over 50 years later, investigators concluded that the light was a meteor and the creature was a barn owl perched in a tree, with shadows making it appear to be a large humanoid.[4]
Content from External Source
1650842974244.png
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatwoods_monster

The original Bruja story is usually two stories run together, with the 2004 police sightings and the 2006 video all presented as contemporary.

The alleged witch was warned on May 17, 2006 by members of the UFO group Club Nuevo León, a group founded and directed by researcher Diana Perla Chapa.2The group filmed the flight of a humanoid figure, dressed entirely in black and with a kind of hood that covered his head. The witnesses were at the top of Cerro de las Mitras, located in the Mexican town of Monterrey (State of Nuevo León).

Two years earlier, on January 16, 2004, a police officer from the municipality of Guadalupe, in the state of Nuevo León, Mexico, allegedly had contact with what he described as a witch.3This event was over-disseminated in the local and national media. Journalist and ufologist Jaime Maussan tried to link the event to the Flatwoods Monster case. According to this, Maussan showed images of the Flatwoods monster to the policeman, named Leonardo Samaniego, and stated that the figures were very similar or the same as what he had seen.
Content from External Source
Auto translated
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruja_de_Monterrey?msclkid=31905af4c27911ec8eb1861fc84801f7

The original Bruja video, or at least the main part of it was supposedly filmed by Jose Ramon Villarreal, a member of the Integrante OVNI Club Nuevo Leon, an amateur UFO club.

1650843151307.png

I found conflicting stories about how the filming happened, perhaps Jeronimo Flores in this video is explaining it, but my Spanish just isn't that good:
Source: https://youtu.be/sbxerxMm6qc?t=91


In 2008 Ledrack posts a video on his channel titled La Bruja De Monterrey (CG), where he imagines the witch as a space pod with an alien occupant. He seemed to repost it over the years.
1650843948357.png
Obviously with 6.5 million views, it's not exactly a secret.

Also obvious, is that this ~7 years before the Madrid Balloon video of a space pod with a possible alien occupant surfaced.

Ledrack's channel also contains several videos by or featuring Jaime Maussan as well as people like Steven Greer.

Are Maussan and Ledrack involved in the original Madrid balloon video of '15, or are they just using it for click-bait? If click-bait, why does Ledrack's space pod animation resemble the Madrid space pod, even though it pre-dates it?

Likely, it's just UFOlogists cross-pollinating with each other using whatever is popular at a giving time. In this case it's been mixed with some older stuff to give it a sense of history and then also brought into the modern day, as in just over a week ago. That would mean the resemblance of the '08 animation is just a coincidence.

But something does seem to smell about it all.



Source: https://youtu.be/87ElPkzvEZA?t=2011
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Questions if it's a balloon,

1) How does a balloon carry the weight of the outer shell that would be around the balloon. A party balloon filled with helium carries around 14grams as per a google search, please feel free to check this if it's wrong . Could also be a bigger balloon I suppose

2) How do you explain the odd movement, ie were it suddenly drops straight down, then at another time zips to the right

3) How do you explain the spin that slows , stops, then turns the other way

4) How do you exaplian the outershell appearance , well, not scientific I know, but it does look CGI or paper mashay at best
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
How does a balloon carry the weight of the outer shell that would be around the balloon?

There is no "outer shell." It's all one piece.

I think it's shaped very much like this foil balloon. If a part of the aluminum coating on this flaked off or were scraped off, that would produce a clear section, or "window."

61j3d4WjGpL._AC_SX679_.jpg

How do you exaplian the outershell appearance?
Your misperception of the actual shape.


How do you explain the odd movement, ie were it suddenly drops straight down, then at another time zips to the right

How do you explain the spin that slows , stops, then turns the other way.
First, why would an object on a string rotate?

This is the closest thing I can find to what you seem to be imagining.
It's spinning because of the wind. Then the potential energy in the twisted string is translated into torque and the the thing twists the other way.

A leaf (found by happenstance?) suspended by a spider thread.

It's spinning because of the wind. But why? How do you explain that?

Here's an article on the subject.
https://wis-wander.weizmann.ac.il/space-physics/physics-falling-leaves
he story began in 1995, when then master's student Hagai Eisenberg walked into the lab and dropped a sheet of paper. The page fluttered serenely to the floor. 'This is what I want to study,' he told Moses, and began research into how non-spherical objects behave as they fall in a liquid or gas. The problem had been a challenge in fluid mechanics for over 150 years - ever since 19th-century physicists James Maxwell and Lord Kelvin attempted in vain to offer equations that accurately predict the path of such falling objects. Eisenberg and Moses, along with visiting scientist Dr. Andrew Belmonte, now at Penn State University, built a thin glass tank - so thin that it could represent a two-dimensional system - and filled it with liquid. They then dropped a series of thin strips, metal or plastic, into the tank.

By making precise observations with the help of computer-enhanced imaging and flow-visualization techniques, the scientists developed a theoretical model that could accurately predict the course a strip would follow as it fell to the bottom of the tank. This two-dimensional model can be extended to the phenomenon of falling leaves or other objects in three-dimensional systems.

The scientists found two general types of motion: 'flutter,' in which the falling strips move back and forth from side to side, and 'tumble,' in which the strips rotate end over end. Their calculations also suggested an inherent logic. The type of motion, they discovered, is determined by a numerical constant known as the Froude number. Originally defined to describe the behavior of sailing vessels, this constant is also used to predict the maximum speed at which two- or four-legged animals can walk or trot before they must begin to run or gallop. In the case of falling strips or leaves, the Froude number defines the relationship between the size of an object and its weight: a long strip will flutter while a shorter strip tumbles.

Papers were published, Eisenberg moved on to Ph.D. work, and the new mathematical model found its way outside the lab. 'The behavior of falling objects is endlessly harder to predict in the real world's three dimensions,' says Moses, a lesson he learned in a Manhattan movie theater, trying to drop a quarter into a cup on the bottom of a fish tank to win free tickets. 'Even though I knew the algorithm, I probably lost four or five bucks before my wife dragged me away,' says Moses. 'But our model is pretty good - I was close every time.'

If a leaf spins in the wind on a thread, why not with the wind when it's not on a thread? Answer: They do.
Question: Leaves never start spinning the other way spontaneously due to the complexities of fluid dynamics?

So why wouldn't a balloon spin in the wind? They sometimes do. And they can't reverse the spin due to the complexities of fluid dynamics?

The other way an object on a string spins is when torque is applied to the string. Typically when you hold the string and twist it with your fingers. It twists, then the torque of the twisted string spins it the other way, (with or without your help). Hypnosis!

And why couldn't it be a balloon on a string?

This is another way suspended things act in the wind.
They flap and rock.

The wind spinner in the video above is carefully designed to spin about its major axis. The leaf on the spider thread is spinning in a very light breeze. How would it act in a gusty wind? I think it would get blown out horizontally and flap and rock.


These are movements made by metallised film (foil) balloons, drifting plastic bags and leaves in the real world. Fluid dynamics are complicated. They spin, make sudden climbs and dives and all manner of eccentric motions.





Turns one way then turns the other way. Besides... this is cute.

Suddenly descending. Why? I guess wind is complicated.

Plastic bag in car
https://youtube.com/shorts/ji5l87gvrIs?feature=share
 
Last edited:
Top