Sphere, Acorn, Metallic Blimp - Three iPhone Photos From an F-18 via Mystery Wire

FatPhil

Active Member
The "has to be" aspect for me is the specular highlight on the left hand side - that (and the absense of other such highlights) gives us a fairly good indication of the 3D shape of the object, not just its cookie-cutter outline, and with that it's a dead ringer for the batman balloon.
 

Domzh

Active Member
its everything in combination. the orange hinting pixels and the "print pattern" even confirm its not just the same 3d shape.
 

gtoffo

Active Member
@gtoffo

uhm.. well the FA18 has propulsion and is intelligently controlled, while the balloon lacks both.. so.. i would argue... wind doesnt effect both "airborne objects" the same lol, even more if the fa18 flies against the wind while the balloon gets pushed by it (so the fa18 could - depending on windspeed - essentially holding its position and wait for the balloon. airspeed =! groundspeed)
What the ground does is irrelevant. Wind affects both objects equally.

I don't think this an accurate method of measuring colour. You are letting photoshop's dehaze algorithm (what does it do exactly?) manipulate the pixels to increase contrast and colour. I would stick to the original raw image.

And distinguishing the original colour reliably would be pretty hard (maybe impossible?).
 

gtoffo

Active Member
i expect it to flatten / get fatter when the helium expands at altitude
I would expect the opposite.

The material is not very elastic. So it would inflate by "pushing" towards the seams and filling them out fully until it would burst (if that makes sense).

The result would be that the overall shape appears flatter.

For sure you wouldn't have a complete "aspect reversal" where something that looks "thin and tall" becomes "low and fat".
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What the ground does is irrelevant. Wind affects both objects equally.
Not strictly true as wind affects a balloon a lot more than a plane. What the wind provides is a fixed frame of reference. Airspeed is measured relative to the air moving, and if both objects are in the same general air mass then their movements relative to the air both have the same offset to their speed relative to the ground - which means that offset makes no difference, and we can ignore it (unless we really need their ground speeds)

A balloon has an airspeed of about zero. So the closing speed in a head-on encounter is going to be the airspeed of the plane.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
I see a lot of people in UFO circles say these cannot be balloons as they seem too high for party balloons to be at.

Any reply to that. I mean can we determine the range of altitudes the objects are at , and whether balloons can be at that altitude?
 

Ravi

Active Member
I see a lot of people in UFO circles say these cannot be balloons as they seem too high for party balloons to be at.

Any reply to that. I mean can we determine the range of altitudes the objects are at , and whether balloons can be at that altitude?
When I do a simple google "what is the highest altitude for a balloon", I get this:

53.0 km

Using the equipment and film, we have made and launched some balloons from 1000 m3 in volume. We gradually enlarged the balloon volume, and on May 23, 2002, we launched a 60,000 m3 balloon. The balloon reached the altitude of 53.0 km, which is the highest altitude ever reached by a balloon.
 

ParityCheck

New Member
Balloons do burst due to low pressure at high altitude, you can check youtube videos of weather balloons (with go pros) bursting.

And that's really high. an F/A-18 has a service ceiling of 15km.
 
Last edited:

jackfrostvc

Active Member
When I do a simple google "what is the highest altitude for a balloon", I get this:

Yeah, I think we need to limit it to party balloons though filled with helium.
Large weather balloons go much higher than a small party balloon
 

Related Articles

Top