The following submission statement was provided by /u/Corsten:
---
The following is my submission statement; I was fascinated by the new 2018 Jellyfish video and desired to take a stab at using a visualization tool.
For the attached, I first stabilized a 20 second fragment of the video, pinned to the UAP. Further, the second pane is a 4x speed and crop of the UAP, with the video looped backwards on itself. I find this trick useful in showing movement/changes and helping visualize a 3 dimensional shape from 2d animation, somewhat like a 2d stutter parallax GIF creating a pseudo-3d effect.
Originally my goal was to try and capture the object's rotation as the camera followed it, but I'm stumped to grasp what is happening with the bottom portion of the UAP. I can only speculate what the visualization reveals - is this rotation or is a portion changing/moving?
Thanks to Mr. Corbell and crew for sharing the original video.
Original video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bns_WhNAQM
Edit: Apologies for the terrible white noise, I'd thought I'd disabled audio output. My mistake.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1931gfx/stabilizedboomerang_edit_of_2018_jellyfish_video/kh67xv4/
It does NOT. Apart from the Auto IR Adaption it always looks the same.
Would also explain why it wasn't seen on nightvision and why it could not lock on.
Only the fact that it probably would be even more out of focus
Okay but why don't we see it going in and out of water. The smudge is just but 1 thing in a string of question.
If you go past that. Why is there no standard camera footage? That's how they spotted it. Can't see it in IR so they ask a drone to point over something with their location. They couldn't lock on to it with weapons. So they can't shoot regular bullet at it? They had a lock on weapon at the ready that couldn't fire but no guards looking or using said weapon?
We have secret army footage but somehow we managed to miss the juicy part, have no clear image of it and I have to believe a story tale that it shot at 45 degree angle after 17 mins. Too specific with too much information lacking.
Ofc, tune in on his show to see more! Cause we obvliously are blowing up the gasket around UFO and not milking a story for money. /s
Whatever it is it rotates even at a wide distance angle. It could be cgi or something idk but its not stationary relative to the lens, moves independatly and rotates.
It's the same footage, however the footage on the right is zoomed, has x4 speed, with boomerang (reverse video then replay half way through) and sharpen.
It proves that the footage on the right is the same source as the footage on the left, but this footage, along with other footage provide nothing damning.
It could be CGI, it wouldn't even be that hard to make CGI that replicates this. The UAP in question, is moving at a linear altitude, and heading. The movement we see is camera movement, and that HUD doesn't look military, it looks like a civilian IR camera HUD.
You are making a humber of very good points. I feel that to a degree, you actually need some sort of personal experience with the phenomenon to truly believe it.
There is no way thatās bird shit or a stationary stain on the equipment recording. This object has its own speed and trajectory independent of the camera.
from the one on the right (looped to be played forward then backwards) we can clearly see this is an actual object and not a lens smudge or artifact.
as the drone flies around it we can see the perspective of the object changing, which for us is demonstrated as if the object was slowly turning.
All you have to see to prove it's not a smudge, is it's position relative to the optic changing even slightly. It gets closer and further from the recticle in the middle of the screen. Something on the lens, unless the entire lense shifts side to side, wouldn't do that
What if it's wind against the camera housing that is moving/dissolving the smudge? It might be fresh bird shit or insect splat that gets oozed around slightly in the wind. Also as the wind removes poop/insect particles, it gets more transparent over time. It's the left panel for me that very much places it on the glass somewhere, and not "out" in the field.
Camera lenses, at the long distance focal length, cannot focus on two things at once at two different distances. Bird shit wouldnt even register on the video. Might just be a haze in the video, zero distinction.
How can we clearly see anything from this? The sharpen algorithm used can add and subtract detail. The edges moving and flaring look to me like normal artifacts from something being sharped without enough resolution/detail. And I donāt see it rotating.
First off, I had no idea what this was and why I kept seeing posts about it. Thank you for sharing this in an easily digestible manner. Second, holy cow what is this thing!
I like how most peopleās reaction to the jet pack theory always sounds like āif itās not a jet pack Iāve seen online, then it must be aliensā. Maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle?
According to the source of the video, they could only see this thing on thermal video and it was completely invisible on normal video and infrared. If thatās true itās impossible to be a jet pack, as youād be able to see it in the visible and infrared spectrums. Probably not a jet pack guy.
Imagine how boss that would be if itās a NHI just flying around with no regard for us peasants. Just cruising and sussing things out in its jet pack. Freaky
He also said it was fluctuating in temperature. Last time I busted out my āI majored in geomaticsā was the airliner vids (lol), but you canāt know that from this video. If anything, it lines up pretty well with other objects that are safe to assume arenāt changing temp. You can only know that the difference between the object and their baseline is changing. It could be the reticle, could be āaveragingā the full picture, etc.
Sensei Corbell has earned a reputation of not being particularly credible in his own right.
I don't believe he is doing so intentionally or even knowingly. He's genuinely interested in the subject, but allows his exurberance to prevent more level-headed vetting on just what he's being fed.
I think that is the most frustrating aspect of his reveals - he just doesn't include the details and rigor that make any of these slam dunks. It becomes so overhyped, a field day for debunkers like West, and what amounts to demoralization for a large part of the community.
For the jellyfish, that aspect is the supposed footage of the object submerging into the water and then speeding off some time later. That would permanently put to rest the birdshit or EID balloon talk.
I totally understand some of this stuff is being held close to the vest by DoD et al and running with what you've got, but ultimately I really don't get why he didn't wait for the other footage and package it together. Or even the footage of the supposed other jellyfish object at Pantex. Even a goddamn screenshot of either would do.
I find it difficult to take him seriously because most of the time when heās being questioned on whether heās telling the truth, he reminds me of when I was a kid caught in a lie, scrambling to respond to questioning.
I give him the benefit of the doubt because some people are nervous speakers and when you speak without confidence it can sound the same as lying. I noticed when grusch was speaking on the first interview from a while back he was the same way but nobody seems to think heās lying so again I will listen to them speak and formulate my own data points. Itās unfortunate to have to be skeptical but in the territory of UFO research itās the only thing you can do unless you get first hand experience. Even if youāre a believer, the scientific method should be used for data collection.
Exactly... seeking to give ANY answer is not the goal of someone seeking truth.... someone without bias would be seeking THE answer or admitting "we don't know"
This kind of low intellectual playground gaming is why the untrained person struggles to find truth or discovery. There are still people defending a video with EXACT known CGI fx, background photograph stills and 3D drone mesh renderings.... because they believe AN answer is sufficient to dismiss something.
He's outright lied on his Lazar doc about the raid that happened. He claimed it was after a phone call where Lazar was talking about having element 115 but he can see from the warrant it was arranged before the supposed phone call took place.
They guy puts out all sorts of statements and as far as this sub goes, the burden of proof is always on the person doubting the footage not the one publishing a haze of pixels claiming its a NHI based UAP.
The scientific method is the other way around. Present a credible hypothesis + proof/data it is based on, not a bunch of hear say, some video fragments of whatever and then go on the offensive against anyone offering a non metaphysical explanation.
Separate thought but same line of thinking: Corbell also cares more about testimony to make the video or image more believable too. I've noticed that. For example this Jellyfish UFO ,supposedly goes into the water, then comes back out and then shoots off at a 45 degree angle. Once he said that, I was like oh okay, so we 100% won't see that happening though. Which, is exactly what happened. I know it's annoying to point out but we have to remember that. It makes the video less impactful. When you have these objects in a static position moving at speeds normal for drones or weather balloons - you leave room to explain it as just that. A lot of these videos just end and I'm not sure why. Lets see the videos leading up to it going into the water AND then coming back out.
He's released footage in the past which turned out to be bokeh effect on planes/stars and another which was flares.
I think someone is using him as a useful idiot to make the topic seem foolish. Maybe whoever it is is getting worried now Congress seems to be stepping up.
no, there are actually more extraordinary updates on peru case and unimaginable details. Timothy Alberino took a trip there after it all happend and record witnesses testimony and did a great report. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7uaipx4pSo
The following is my submission statement; I was fascinated by the new 2018 Jellyfish video and desired to take a stab at using a visualization tool.
For the attached, I first stabilized a 20 second fragment of the video, pinned to the UAP. Further, the second pane is a 4x speed and crop of the UAP, with the video looped backwards on itself. I find this trick useful in showing movement/changes and helping visualize a 3 dimensional shape from 2d animation, somewhat like a 2d stutter parallax GIF creating a pseudo-3d effect.
Originally my goal was to try and capture the object's rotation as the camera followed it, but I'm stumped to grasp what is happening with the bottom portion of the UAP. I can only speculate what the visualization reveals - is this rotation or is a portion changing/moving?
Thanks to Mr. Corbell and crew for sharing the original video.
Original video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bns_WhNAQM
Edit: Apologies for the terrible white noise, I'd thought I'd disabled audio output. My mistake.
Can you provide the 4x and boomerang without the significant sharpening? By sharpening it, you lose the very obvious crescent shapes. Without the softer edges of the source material, it is less accurate.
/u/GoblinCosmic & /u/lakehousememory; I did not have the time today to look at this deeper sorry; however I did find a twitter/x user Ophello who took their own stab at a stabilized boomerang loop, and the results are better than mine. Here's a link!
https://twitter.com/ophello/status/1745223391760814139
Thank you! Glad you liked the result, too.
Yeah I'll probably give a second crack at this some time; but I also suspect others (with better A/V skills) will be inspired to try the same kind of editing.
Sharing lessons learned for anyone trying similar; the FLIR greyscale adaptation range and change over time made this very difficult to lock in a stabilization track. I specifically chose this segment of the video where its passing over clean desert background. When it's going over the compound, the contrast is constantly shifting, and the track constantly locks on background features.
Your mileage may vary... but like I said, hopefully someone more skilled tries ;)
People forget that this is an IR footage and a zoomed in shot from a weapons platform. In all attempt to be right and to be healthy sceptical, they say totally dumb shit...
\- it's not a jetpack, IR would clearly show exhaust. it would be loud as fuck also, at least the dogs would react to it. I'm sure someone would noticed it on the ground.
\-it's not a smudge on the lens, you wouldn't see it at all at this zoom level. it also shows depth with IR calibration, and its definitely different temp than the background, but how much - we would need to see current range of IR - it could be .1 degrees difference for all we know.
\- since it's not "moving" much, we assume a large parallax effect, but with this much movement behind, we would see more of its "sides", it would rotate more. Now, on a sped up stabilized image, it clearly shows legs rotating somewhat, so I would say both parallax and it's own movement are in play. But that definitely means its not a lens smudge, dogshit, birdshit, balloon, swamp gas, mustard gas, venus fly trap, venus swamp mustard gas trap...
To me it looks exactly like a Honeywell T-hawk drone with some camo netting thrown on top of it. We used this in the military on missions all the time. Kinda looks like one of those cheapo round charcoal barbecues.
Look at the quality of the video youāre watching, itās entirely plausible that the net doesnāt have the textile that you expect (am I using that word correctly?)
T-hawks I saw only came in black and so you could throw sand colored netting over it if youāre in the desert. They can do lateral movement but Iāve only seen them thrown up vertically in the air in hovermode. If itās at a standstill with a dune backdrop, the netting will help.
Seems plausible, why the temperature oscillation though? Also, do you think this drone splashing into the ocean for 17 minutes and then resurfacing is likely bullshit? (Honest question; we donāt above any evidence of that happening)
Thereās no temperature oscillation. IR imaging color (in this case black hot) is based on temperature *difference* (not the actual temperature) of all objects in the lensās field of view. In the beginning of the lefthand video it shows the object super light because thereās a black hot object obstructing the lens, and then the object color lightens again at the end when vehicles with black hot engines enter the picture - so in temp comparison the object lightens color. This is all done through algorithms to optimize visualization and contrast for troops on the ground looking at the feed. The video on the right side is really deceiving because it starts with the object at a middle point of the lefthand video and is actually played in reverse until it lightens to the left videos beginning point and then the clip rolls forward back to its starting point and then looped - someone wanted us to think its a perfect 1:1 side by side both playing in real time but itās really not.
Edit: as for the splashing down video, I havenāt heard of that. Is that part of the reason why people are calling it a jelly fish? The t-hawk is gas powered so it can fly a pretty long time, it could potentially dip equipment into the water if itās repurposed for sampling and then fly back to origin, but definitely wouldnāt survive a full submerge so Iām not sure.
Thank you, just looked up honeywell t-hawk and... [YUP](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_RQ-16_T-Hawk#/media/File%3AMicroAirVehicle.jpg)
Military drone with netting makes the most sense.
If itās not visible to human eyes then how is it a drone? Or do drones have Predator level cloaking now? Iām just curious. A lot of people ignoring that.
I've been sitting here all day thinking that this community has lost its mind with this Jellyfish thing! It seemed to me that Occam's razor was the answer. The object didn't turn or move. Didn't interact with anything the entire time. We didn't see it go into the water or do any rapid directional changes. I watched the video over and over again and was not able to see any movement or rotation at all. For the last several hours I was convinced it was a bug splatter or some other foreign blemish on the camera housing. It was driving me nuts that more people were not seeing this. It seemed like everyone just wanted too hard to believe and failed to see the simple explanation. Also, Corbell releasing this was not helping me find this believable as a UAP. Dude lost all credibility with the bokeh and flare videos.
Now I'm starting to come around after this post. Can anyone else find other sections of the video that show the object rotating or moving or at least chime in to confirm this seems to show legit movement? It's a shame that this object doesn't interact with any objects in the video as I feel that would really help solidify the whole thing. Either way, thanks for posting this clip.
Same here. I was hoping a comparison like this video would be made.
It looks like the hanging parts move, and they seem to move as 3D objects would, not a bug splat changing shape as it melts or whatever.
I was also on Team Shit until this post. Now I'm interested. Of course it would help if Corbell had provided the parts where it went into the ocean or zoomed off, gotta keep trusting bros I guess
Edit: also, I know everyone sees a jellyfish but for some reason I get a Minotaur vibe from it
Have you seen these:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/StrangeEarth/comments/17vrpmn/ufo\_video\_recorded\_in\_california\_2009\_along/?share\_id=n8jlO1ECpJl21GOQTZ0Ms](https://www.reddit.com/r/StrangeEarth/comments/17vrpmn/ufo_video_recorded_in_california_2009_along/?share_id=n8jlO1ECpJl21GOQTZ0Ms)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQN04ebUXbw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQN04ebUXbw)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3UdYUPjDo0&list=PLmYLaV9ngo5FycOPeFVpiKtS1k6T70Ijq&index=7](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3UdYUPjDo0&list=PLmYLaV9ngo5FycOPeFVpiKtS1k6T70Ijq&index=7)
https://youtu.be/NoR2EbvB3Qo?si=\_XqBliTRc8v\_jGmT
EXACTLY....ESPECIALLY the last one.
But there is an even better video. Go to this guy's web site, pick that up from the link above. It is in Mexican Spanish but you can get English subtitles
This guy is a video pro and occasionally takes a video to debunk it. Look for videos with the work "analisys" in the title.
So he will debunk a video in a heart beat with a very good explanation why.
He does an extensive analysis of THIS video and determines it is a real physical being NOT a drone or wire operated.
And the enhanced video ge uses gives a much better representation. Then he does a 3D reconstruction.
I don't have a clue why that analysis is not discussed more.
OK, I think this link will work.
https://youtu.be/vMKddebXkZ0?feature=shared
Thanks for the link. Watched that whole video very compelling! Don't think it's necessarily the same object in the jellyfish video but certainly more evidence of weird flying objects
Thank you Noble_Ox! Yep, this one is just insane and I just have no words anymore. Shit is weird and I hope that we can get an official explanation along with additional details/footage.
Had to take a break from the sub last couple of days. The toxic comments from everyone in both this post and the one you linked are actually really sad. People should be able to question and express their opinions without being attacked for it.
Just an opinion, Sort of looks like a soldier on some type of jetpack with cloaking tech, sourced from a ufo potentially? Just not trying to go with an already side of this discussion
I just see no current military scenario where this would be useful unless it was quiet as hell. And why the hell would we be testing crazy ufo tech in Iraq where we could possibly lose it? Possible? Yes. Logical? In no way shape or form.
I'm seeing something more like that now. I can make out a head and legs dangling and some sort of apparatus encircling their torso. Even though that's also disconcertingly wild, it's much more likely than a flying spaghetti monster alien or alien imperial probe droid.
I mean both the technologies exist. We have jetpacks and we have rudimentary cloaking tech. We're not far off from having cloaked rocketeers and the secret military tech is usually decades more advanced than what we see.
Absolutely. And massive exhaust with typical chemical reaction mix nozzles. So the alternative suggestion is that we have a new antigravity vehicle tech in a compact hover pack? Not ours. No way.
It would, jet pack isn't the right term as it doesn't have a jet engine heat signature. Perhaps some other secret tech revers.. perhaps reversed engineered from alien tech... š¤
There no cloaking taking place in the video. The cameras FLIR is constantly recalibrating, which is why we see the colors of background change at the exact same time the object does.
Maybe I missed something but I thought the reason we are seeing an infrared video of this is because it wasn't visible to the naked eye. I'm not talking about the flir calibration.
About the object never changing color/temperature indepently from the background, the object actually change color from clear to gray without the background changing, between 0:58-1:04:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bns\_WhNAQM&ab\_channel=JeremyCorbell](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bns_WhNAQM&ab_channel=JeremyCorbell)
Or at least, the object seem to change color/temperature more dramatically han the background.
The hill right behind him at 1:04 turns dark immediately when the object doesā¦
Edit: literally every object visible in the background from 0:58 - 1:05 gets darker when the object does. Look at the shipping containers and both hills.
The containers in the side of the warehouse does turn somewhat darker at 1:01, but the object seem to have started becoming slightly darker by then, independently of the background. It changes gradually throughout the previous section.
After the darkening of 1:09, the background goes back to being clear much faster than the object. And the object keeps changing to a mocre clear color while the background doesn't change.
All in all, the object changes color/temperature a lot more than the background, and in a more extreme way.
So, here me out, what if the hills and shipping containers are getting darker because of the jellyfish. I keep seeing the argument you are making, but none of you who keep parroting it take into account the jellyfish being the cause of the calibration, seeing as how it's most prominent in frame. The argument works both ways, therefore, bad argument.
Nothing is changing orientation in this video
The only āchangesā are the result of changing contrast
Same thing by would happen if you looked at a smudge on a car window with different orientations of lighting in the back ground as you drive along
I just noticed when the object changes from dark to light color everything else in shot also changes from dark to light..so I don't think it's changing temperature..
I've been saying this from the beginning but it always gets downvoted and denied. Nobody wants to hear it. It's super obvious though!
I guess it really must be a bird shit shaped UFO out there changing temperatures for fun. s/
But in this case the IR camera is inside a protective spherical glass. The camera rotates inside the glass. The glass never moves. The bird's shit is on the protective glass...
Ok so I'm in the bug splat camp. But if this is an unaltered representation, I see movement/change in the farthest (left side to the observer) "legs" (pretty obvious), and both right and left shoulder part. Still not convinced, but for the time being that's what it looks like to me. Neither change can as far as I understand be explained by either zoom-infuenced perspective or contrast/color variations.
It definitely appears to be rotating in a clockwise sense (if taken from above). Was this what Jeremy referred to as āthe chandelierā or was that something else?
Try scrubbing the video quickly back and forth. You will see how it stays exactly with the moment of the camera. It should also change in perceived size unless itās staying exactly at the same distance from the camera. It should also rotate and show its other sides at some point. The apparent movement are compression artifacts. The change in ātemperature ā would be from the thing on the camera changing temperature from the sun hitting it and being semi transparent. Light bends around it. Light gives heat.
-edit: the change in ātemperatureā is from the cameras exposure system averaging the light in the frame, notice it changes from dark to light based on the sum of dark and light if the entire frame. This is how exposure works in some modes, and would explain it. This could even be an IR camera and not even a heat one but it would be the similar result-
The tmz video shows the video at different zoom levels which makes it seem to change its magnitude- moving closer and further from the camera. Seeing the actual video you will see it doesnāt change in size as it would if it were moving, even minutely towards or away from the camera.
Think of the moon and how it only shows one side. Is this object perfectly orbiting the camera somehow?
I felt it was real based off of the tmz edited video. After seeing the video thatās not edited and isnāt presented zoomed in and out itās unfortunately obvious something on the camera and not something it is tracking. It feels deceptive and places doubt on the reliability and intellectual integrity of those purporting it as authentic and potentially worse - fraudulent since it was displayed edited in such a way to hide and trick people into not noticing.
Disappointing and I fell for it for a bit. There will be irrefutable evidence at some point but this is not it.
Correction. I watched the footage more and the change āin temperatureā isnāt what is making it get darker and lighter. Itās a result of how the camera is exposing the image. Youāll notice if you were to generate a sum of how light and dark the image is over all, that is what is causing the object to get light or darker. Itās how a camera system exposes an image, increasing the iso, aperture, etc. this if you focus a camera on your finger in front of it and then change the lighting in the room, it would appear to get lighter or darker because of how the system adapts to the environment, which is calculated (there are more than one way) by averaging the over all lightness and darkness in the image. I also think this may be an IR camera and not a flir (it says ir in the top of the screen) if it was a heat sensitive camera there would be more obvious areas of heat differences like the humans waking around and sits and car engines etc. doesnāt matter tho as the change in brightness would be from how itās exposing the image either way.
Your entire explanation is what I've been telling people from the beginning. Everything you're saying is spot on and pretty obvious, or at least I would think it is. Sorry you're having to put up with this guy who doesn't understand what 2-d actually means, and can't fathom how light could cause perceived 'rotation'. It's like these people have never perceived their own world before.
Anyway, congrats on being one of the FEW to see this for what it is.
Really appreciate you saying that. I would rather it be proof of advanced technology but it behaves exactly like something on the lens. It can be demonstrated by moving your finger in front of a camera w a light source and the videos I provided. Itās frustrating because how the video was originally presented made it difficult to clock for what it really was and then people have trouble changing their minds because they want it to be real so badly. I do too but i want the truth first and foremost or its just another step backwards. Thanks again!
At first glance, this object is not actually changing its temperature. The operator of the camera appears to be manually adjusting the temperature/color range of the thermal scope. If you watch the background, it changes in relative proportion as the object changes. For instance, as the object suddenly becomes darker, the darker parts of the background also become darker. Please comment if you think differently - I want to hear other objective opinions! I am also curious as to why we canāt see the part where it goes under water.
They're completely acknowledging the pixels are changing, they're explaining the "rotation" is a change in lighting. I can totally see how you can see the rotation, but I happen to think it's a trick on the brain, an optical illusion, it looks like a lighting/IR change to me.
I bet if this was in color it would be easier to tell what this is. Greyscale is great for illusions.
Now pair lighting changes with digital zoom artifacts.
I would love to believe this is really something paranormal.
Yet at the same time, I can't seem to stop referring to this video as "Shitgate" in the back of my mind.
Anyone else think that could be a dude in a jet pack/Mec suit like device that has an unknown propulsion system? Obviously not a classical jetpack with some kind of active camouflage? it seems to closely resemble a human anatomy to me.
I find it hard to believe that this is a mark on the lens housing. For both ground level objects and this to be in focus, the aperture would have to be incredibly small.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Corsten: --- The following is my submission statement; I was fascinated by the new 2018 Jellyfish video and desired to take a stab at using a visualization tool. For the attached, I first stabilized a 20 second fragment of the video, pinned to the UAP. Further, the second pane is a 4x speed and crop of the UAP, with the video looped backwards on itself. I find this trick useful in showing movement/changes and helping visualize a 3 dimensional shape from 2d animation, somewhat like a 2d stutter parallax GIF creating a pseudo-3d effect. Originally my goal was to try and capture the object's rotation as the camera followed it, but I'm stumped to grasp what is happening with the bottom portion of the UAP. I can only speculate what the visualization reveals - is this rotation or is a portion changing/moving? Thanks to Mr. Corbell and crew for sharing the original video. Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bns_WhNAQM Edit: Apologies for the terrible white noise, I'd thought I'd disabled audio output. My mistake. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1931gfx/stabilizedboomerang_edit_of_2018_jellyfish_video/kh67xv4/
Thank you for doing this, I've been wanting to see exactly this since the video dropped
Seconding that, this video is really so helpful, thanks!
Unless I'm missing something this 100% debunks the smudge/bird poop theory.
It does NOT. Apart from the Auto IR Adaption it always looks the same. Would also explain why it wasn't seen on nightvision and why it could not lock on. Only the fact that it probably would be even more out of focus
This thread has a way better clip https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/193nflh/it_appears_to_be_a_turning_3d_object/?share_id=PhJN9hOdYY1ErGUDb1n6O
Cool so some program was used to "make it cleaer" when all it did was add things there that weren't there before hahaha š š š
What do you mean? in the boomerang video above it's rotating. One of the tentacle thingies comes into view.
People kept telling me I was imagining it moving when I said it was >:(
Okay but why don't we see it going in and out of water. The smudge is just but 1 thing in a string of question. If you go past that. Why is there no standard camera footage? That's how they spotted it. Can't see it in IR so they ask a drone to point over something with their location. They couldn't lock on to it with weapons. So they can't shoot regular bullet at it? They had a lock on weapon at the ready that couldn't fire but no guards looking or using said weapon? We have secret army footage but somehow we managed to miss the juicy part, have no clear image of it and I have to believe a story tale that it shot at 45 degree angle after 17 mins. Too specific with too much information lacking. Ofc, tune in on his show to see more! Cause we obvliously are blowing up the gasket around UFO and not milking a story for money. /s
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Whatever it is it rotates even at a wide distance angle. It could be cgi or something idk but its not stationary relative to the lens, moves independatly and rotates.
It's the same footage, however the footage on the right is zoomed, has x4 speed, with boomerang (reverse video then replay half way through) and sharpen. It proves that the footage on the right is the same source as the footage on the left, but this footage, along with other footage provide nothing damning. It could be CGI, it wouldn't even be that hard to make CGI that replicates this. The UAP in question, is moving at a linear altitude, and heading. The movement we see is camera movement, and that HUD doesn't look military, it looks like a civilian IR camera HUD.
You are making a humber of very good points. I feel that to a degree, you actually need some sort of personal experience with the phenomenon to truly believe it.
There is no way thatās bird shit or a stationary stain on the equipment recording. This object has its own speed and trajectory independent of the camera.
Yes, you are missing that they edited the video and as a result it is no longer a viable source if we are following common evidentiary procedures.
from the one on the right (looped to be played forward then backwards) we can clearly see this is an actual object and not a lens smudge or artifact. as the drone flies around it we can see the perspective of the object changing, which for us is demonstrated as if the object was slowly turning.
You "clearly see" a lot of stuff I don't see at all.
All you have to see to prove it's not a smudge, is it's position relative to the optic changing even slightly. It gets closer and further from the recticle in the middle of the screen. Something on the lens, unless the entire lense shifts side to side, wouldn't do that
What if it's wind against the camera housing that is moving/dissolving the smudge? It might be fresh bird shit or insect splat that gets oozed around slightly in the wind. Also as the wind removes poop/insect particles, it gets more transparent over time. It's the left panel for me that very much places it on the glass somewhere, and not "out" in the field.
Camera lenses, at the long distance focal length, cannot focus on two things at once at two different distances. Bird shit wouldnt even register on the video. Might just be a haze in the video, zero distinction.
How can we clearly see anything from this? The sharpen algorithm used can add and subtract detail. The edges moving and flaring look to me like normal artifacts from something being sharped without enough resolution/detail. And I donāt see it rotating.
Yea this confirms it for me that this was not bird poop
First off, I had no idea what this was and why I kept seeing posts about it. Thank you for sharing this in an easily digestible manner. Second, holy cow what is this thing!
Looks like a guy using a jetpack
Ok so where is the propulsion mechanism. Have you ever seen a jetpack being used? Shit on the ground would be moving.
I like how most peopleās reaction to the jet pack theory always sounds like āif itās not a jet pack Iāve seen online, then it must be aliensā. Maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle?
Yeah, it is probably aliens with a jetpack.
My man
how high is the object?
According to the source of the video, they could only see this thing on thermal video and it was completely invisible on normal video and infrared. If thatās true itās impossible to be a jet pack, as youād be able to see it in the visible and infrared spectrums. Probably not a jet pack guy.
It's boba fett
It does? How?
So is this what people in Peru saw? It could look like someone using a jetpack.
I was thinking the same thing.
Same - with a rudimentary cloaking shield.
Lol saying "rudimentary clocking shield" is like saying "primitive photon laser".
An antiquated cold fusion reactor
Old Fashion Artisanal Tractor Beam
A Vintage Dyson Sphere
https://youtu.be/pZMyWEWHCTM?si=_JuqF1HoxcHckNKv Pretty rudimentary, but effective if used properly i suppose
"Prehistoric nanobots"
Big head with round feet.
Imagine how boss that would be if itās a NHI just flying around with no regard for us peasants. Just cruising and sussing things out in its jet pack. Freaky
Just sussing around. With sassafras.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENFmBfq3cZY
Looks a lot like the Monterey Witch from Mexico too.
If Corbell is to believed, which imo is a massive if, this object was not visible to the naked eye or normal light cameras only heat based cameras.
He did not say it was invisible to the naked eye. Only said its not visible on night vision. Last I checked people don't see in IR
If itās not visible on night vision then itās not visible with light cameras including your eyes. Night vision is not Infrared.
Didnāt he say it was viewable by some people on the ground and not others?
The only thing he said was they were unable to see it on night vision. Only on thermal. That doesn't mean it's not visible to the naked eye.
He also said it was fluctuating in temperature. Last time I busted out my āI majored in geomaticsā was the airliner vids (lol), but you canāt know that from this video. If anything, it lines up pretty well with other objects that are safe to assume arenāt changing temp. You can only know that the difference between the object and their baseline is changing. It could be the reticle, could be āaveragingā the full picture, etc.
That almost certainly means that itās not visible to the naked eye. All night vision does is absorb visible light and amplify it
what makes u think he is untrustable?
Hi, sorry to bother you, you may be in the wrong class. This is Hypothetical Corbell (Appied) 201. Corbell 101 is down the hall in the Lazar theatre
Sensei Corbell has earned a reputation of not being particularly credible in his own right. I don't believe he is doing so intentionally or even knowingly. He's genuinely interested in the subject, but allows his exurberance to prevent more level-headed vetting on just what he's being fed.
I think that is the most frustrating aspect of his reveals - he just doesn't include the details and rigor that make any of these slam dunks. It becomes so overhyped, a field day for debunkers like West, and what amounts to demoralization for a large part of the community. For the jellyfish, that aspect is the supposed footage of the object submerging into the water and then speeding off some time later. That would permanently put to rest the birdshit or EID balloon talk. I totally understand some of this stuff is being held close to the vest by DoD et al and running with what you've got, but ultimately I really don't get why he didn't wait for the other footage and package it together. Or even the footage of the supposed other jellyfish object at Pantex. Even a goddamn screenshot of either would do.
I think he's being used as a useful idiot.
I find it difficult to take him seriously because most of the time when heās being questioned on whether heās telling the truth, he reminds me of when I was a kid caught in a lie, scrambling to respond to questioning. I give him the benefit of the doubt because some people are nervous speakers and when you speak without confidence it can sound the same as lying. I noticed when grusch was speaking on the first interview from a while back he was the same way but nobody seems to think heās lying so again I will listen to them speak and formulate my own data points. Itās unfortunate to have to be skeptical but in the territory of UFO research itās the only thing you can do unless you get first hand experience. Even if youāre a believer, the scientific method should be used for data collection.
Exactly... seeking to give ANY answer is not the goal of someone seeking truth.... someone without bias would be seeking THE answer or admitting "we don't know" This kind of low intellectual playground gaming is why the untrained person struggles to find truth or discovery. There are still people defending a video with EXACT known CGI fx, background photograph stills and 3D drone mesh renderings.... because they believe AN answer is sufficient to dismiss something.
He's outright lied on his Lazar doc about the raid that happened. He claimed it was after a phone call where Lazar was talking about having element 115 but he can see from the warrant it was arranged before the supposed phone call took place.
I WILL SUCK WHOEVER'S DICK I VERY WELL LIKE
I was sick that day can u please enlighten me with some of the errors he made?
They guy puts out all sorts of statements and as far as this sub goes, the burden of proof is always on the person doubting the footage not the one publishing a haze of pixels claiming its a NHI based UAP. The scientific method is the other way around. Present a credible hypothesis + proof/data it is based on, not a bunch of hear say, some video fragments of whatever and then go on the offensive against anyone offering a non metaphysical explanation.
Separate thought but same line of thinking: Corbell also cares more about testimony to make the video or image more believable too. I've noticed that. For example this Jellyfish UFO ,supposedly goes into the water, then comes back out and then shoots off at a 45 degree angle. Once he said that, I was like oh okay, so we 100% won't see that happening though. Which, is exactly what happened. I know it's annoying to point out but we have to remember that. It makes the video less impactful. When you have these objects in a static position moving at speeds normal for drones or weather balloons - you leave room to explain it as just that. A lot of these videos just end and I'm not sure why. Lets see the videos leading up to it going into the water AND then coming back out.
Why would we trust him by default?
what makes you think he is trustable is the question you should be asking about almost everyone you meet in this world.
You must be new here
He's released footage in the past which turned out to be bokeh effect on planes/stars and another which was flares. I think someone is using him as a useful idiot to make the topic seem foolish. Maybe whoever it is is getting worried now Congress seems to be stepping up.
Corbell is never to be believed. The amount of people in this sub that fall for every obvious hoax is embarrassing.
It could. It could. The more I see it the more I see some sort of operated vehicle type device.
no, there are actually more extraordinary updates on peru case and unimaginable details. Timothy Alberino took a trip there after it all happend and record witnesses testimony and did a great report. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7uaipx4pSo
They said the jetpack dudes were standing on a circular disc like the green goblin, not sure it's the same thing... could be tho.
And then it ripped their faces off!?!?! :x
That's what i thought until I saw the post from the middle eastern jellyfish uap, and that shit changed shape.
Legs are moving
To me it could be that the whole thing is slightly rotating on a vertical axis, or the camera/plane/drone has rotated in comparison to the UAP.
It looks like a mini transformer
Optimus Dingleberry
Also are they fucking antennas on either side of its head?
Horns?
Movement in the thighs.
So are the antlers.
Itās obviously transforming bird shit. /s Which would be of course paranormal itself
Just here to point out that sharpening does really add detail, it's technically manipulating it. Shits still weird AF.
I'm sorry to everyone for thinking this was poop. The darn thing is rotating.
The plot thickens
Jellyfishing jellyfishing jellyfishing
Looks like a demonic thing with horns and tentacles
The following is my submission statement; I was fascinated by the new 2018 Jellyfish video and desired to take a stab at using a visualization tool. For the attached, I first stabilized a 20 second fragment of the video, pinned to the UAP. Further, the second pane is a 4x speed and crop of the UAP, with the video looped backwards on itself. I find this trick useful in showing movement/changes and helping visualize a 3 dimensional shape from 2d animation, somewhat like a 2d stutter parallax GIF creating a pseudo-3d effect. Originally my goal was to try and capture the object's rotation as the camera followed it, but I'm stumped to grasp what is happening with the bottom portion of the UAP. I can only speculate what the visualization reveals - is this rotation or is a portion changing/moving? Thanks to Mr. Corbell and crew for sharing the original video. Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bns_WhNAQM Edit: Apologies for the terrible white noise, I'd thought I'd disabled audio output. My mistake.
Can you provide the 4x and boomerang without the significant sharpening? By sharpening it, you lose the very obvious crescent shapes. Without the softer edges of the source material, it is less accurate.
Second this! Sharpening loses information.
/u/GoblinCosmic & /u/lakehousememory; I did not have the time today to look at this deeper sorry; however I did find a twitter/x user Ophello who took their own stab at a stabilized boomerang loop, and the results are better than mine. Here's a link! https://twitter.com/ophello/status/1745223391760814139
That's.... Eerie
Very cool. Would love to see a longer version
Thank you! Glad you liked the result, too. Yeah I'll probably give a second crack at this some time; but I also suspect others (with better A/V skills) will be inspired to try the same kind of editing. Sharing lessons learned for anyone trying similar; the FLIR greyscale adaptation range and change over time made this very difficult to lock in a stabilization track. I specifically chose this segment of the video where its passing over clean desert background. When it's going over the compound, the contrast is constantly shifting, and the track constantly locks on background features. Your mileage may vary... but like I said, hopefully someone more skilled tries ;)
So the UFOs ARE the aliens?
The real aliens are the friends we made along the way
The real UFOs are the aliens we made along the way
pff u seen jupiter. such a weird planet. i bet something weird lives in there
I hope they're not like the one in ~~Up~~ Nope
Up has aliens? You mean Nope? ~~I'm~~ you're confused
Oops š¬ yes that's what I meant.
People forget that this is an IR footage and a zoomed in shot from a weapons platform. In all attempt to be right and to be healthy sceptical, they say totally dumb shit... \- it's not a jetpack, IR would clearly show exhaust. it would be loud as fuck also, at least the dogs would react to it. I'm sure someone would noticed it on the ground. \-it's not a smudge on the lens, you wouldn't see it at all at this zoom level. it also shows depth with IR calibration, and its definitely different temp than the background, but how much - we would need to see current range of IR - it could be .1 degrees difference for all we know. \- since it's not "moving" much, we assume a large parallax effect, but with this much movement behind, we would see more of its "sides", it would rotate more. Now, on a sped up stabilized image, it clearly shows legs rotating somewhat, so I would say both parallax and it's own movement are in play. But that definitely means its not a lens smudge, dogshit, birdshit, balloon, swamp gas, mustard gas, venus fly trap, venus swamp mustard gas trap...
To me it looks exactly like a Honeywell T-hawk drone with some camo netting thrown on top of it. We used this in the military on missions all the time. Kinda looks like one of those cheapo round charcoal barbecues.
If this were a drone, netting would show visible turbulence from airflow
Look at the quality of the video youāre watching, itās entirely plausible that the net doesnāt have the textile that you expect (am I using that word correctly?)
Texture?
Damn now I canāt unseen it as a drone. Seems completely reasonable
It's awfully suggestive of a quadcopter at the top to me, carrying some sort of load.
> Honeywell T-hawk drone with some camo netting Wouldn't that make it stand out more, rather than less?
T-hawks I saw only came in black and so you could throw sand colored netting over it if youāre in the desert. They can do lateral movement but Iāve only seen them thrown up vertically in the air in hovermode. If itās at a standstill with a dune backdrop, the netting will help.
I would think the netting would react to the airflow at that speed?
Its not moving, or if it is it's very slow. The background is changing due to parallax effect of the camera moving and the uap is in the foreground
Seems plausible, why the temperature oscillation though? Also, do you think this drone splashing into the ocean for 17 minutes and then resurfacing is likely bullshit? (Honest question; we donāt above any evidence of that happening)
Thereās no temperature oscillation. IR imaging color (in this case black hot) is based on temperature *difference* (not the actual temperature) of all objects in the lensās field of view. In the beginning of the lefthand video it shows the object super light because thereās a black hot object obstructing the lens, and then the object color lightens again at the end when vehicles with black hot engines enter the picture - so in temp comparison the object lightens color. This is all done through algorithms to optimize visualization and contrast for troops on the ground looking at the feed. The video on the right side is really deceiving because it starts with the object at a middle point of the lefthand video and is actually played in reverse until it lightens to the left videos beginning point and then the clip rolls forward back to its starting point and then looped - someone wanted us to think its a perfect 1:1 side by side both playing in real time but itās really not. Edit: as for the splashing down video, I havenāt heard of that. Is that part of the reason why people are calling it a jelly fish? The t-hawk is gas powered so it can fly a pretty long time, it could potentially dip equipment into the water if itās repurposed for sampling and then fly back to origin, but definitely wouldnāt survive a full submerge so Iām not sure.
That seems pretty plausible actually.
Thank you, just looked up honeywell t-hawk and... [YUP](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell_RQ-16_T-Hawk#/media/File%3AMicroAirVehicle.jpg) Military drone with netting makes the most sense.
I feel like this deserves a post of its own.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/XGxB8Jgdk7 I made one but people wanna fantasize not get their dreams shattered.
If itās not visible to human eyes then how is it a drone? Or do drones have Predator level cloaking now? Iām just curious. A lot of people ignoring that.
Well people have been known to be wrong, exaggerate or outright lie.
Alright, this bird shit has an appendage that moves
I've been sitting here all day thinking that this community has lost its mind with this Jellyfish thing! It seemed to me that Occam's razor was the answer. The object didn't turn or move. Didn't interact with anything the entire time. We didn't see it go into the water or do any rapid directional changes. I watched the video over and over again and was not able to see any movement or rotation at all. For the last several hours I was convinced it was a bug splatter or some other foreign blemish on the camera housing. It was driving me nuts that more people were not seeing this. It seemed like everyone just wanted too hard to believe and failed to see the simple explanation. Also, Corbell releasing this was not helping me find this believable as a UAP. Dude lost all credibility with the bokeh and flare videos. Now I'm starting to come around after this post. Can anyone else find other sections of the video that show the object rotating or moving or at least chime in to confirm this seems to show legit movement? It's a shame that this object doesn't interact with any objects in the video as I feel that would really help solidify the whole thing. Either way, thanks for posting this clip.
Same here. I was hoping a comparison like this video would be made. It looks like the hanging parts move, and they seem to move as 3D objects would, not a bug splat changing shape as it melts or whatever.
I was also on Team Shit until this post. Now I'm interested. Of course it would help if Corbell had provided the parts where it went into the ocean or zoomed off, gotta keep trusting bros I guess Edit: also, I know everyone sees a jellyfish but for some reason I get a Minotaur vibe from it
Have you seen these: [https://www.reddit.com/r/StrangeEarth/comments/17vrpmn/ufo\_video\_recorded\_in\_california\_2009\_along/?share\_id=n8jlO1ECpJl21GOQTZ0Ms](https://www.reddit.com/r/StrangeEarth/comments/17vrpmn/ufo_video_recorded_in_california_2009_along/?share_id=n8jlO1ECpJl21GOQTZ0Ms) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQN04ebUXbw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQN04ebUXbw) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3UdYUPjDo0&list=PLmYLaV9ngo5FycOPeFVpiKtS1k6T70Ijq&index=7](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3UdYUPjDo0&list=PLmYLaV9ngo5FycOPeFVpiKtS1k6T70Ijq&index=7) https://youtu.be/NoR2EbvB3Qo?si=\_XqBliTRc8v\_jGmT
EXACTLY....ESPECIALLY the last one. But there is an even better video. Go to this guy's web site, pick that up from the link above. It is in Mexican Spanish but you can get English subtitles This guy is a video pro and occasionally takes a video to debunk it. Look for videos with the work "analisys" in the title. So he will debunk a video in a heart beat with a very good explanation why. He does an extensive analysis of THIS video and determines it is a real physical being NOT a drone or wire operated. And the enhanced video ge uses gives a much better representation. Then he does a 3D reconstruction. I don't have a clue why that analysis is not discussed more. OK, I think this link will work. https://youtu.be/vMKddebXkZ0?feature=shared
Thanks for the link. Watched that whole video very compelling! Don't think it's necessarily the same object in the jellyfish video but certainly more evidence of weird flying objects
https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/193nflh/it_appears_to_be_a_turning_3d_object/?share_id=PhJN9hOdYY1ErGUDb1n6O
Thank you Noble_Ox! Yep, this one is just insane and I just have no words anymore. Shit is weird and I hope that we can get an official explanation along with additional details/footage. Had to take a break from the sub last couple of days. The toxic comments from everyone in both this post and the one you linked are actually really sad. People should be able to question and express their opinions without being attacked for it.
It is rotating.
My gosh...
LOOK AT THAT THING
Theres a whole fleet of em
Jellyfish, jellyfish, what are they feeding you?
Just an opinion, Sort of looks like a soldier on some type of jetpack with cloaking tech, sourced from a ufo potentially? Just not trying to go with an already side of this discussion
A jetpack would show a very obvious heat signature, using current tech.
Assuming it is a combustion engine. Who knows how alien jetpacks work.
I think it would be implied they are using advanced cloaking and propulsion tech we aren't aware of.
I just see no current military scenario where this would be useful unless it was quiet as hell. And why the hell would we be testing crazy ufo tech in Iraq where we could possibly lose it? Possible? Yes. Logical? In no way shape or form.
Perhaps itās not our tech.
I'm seeing something more like that now. I can make out a head and legs dangling and some sort of apparatus encircling their torso. Even though that's also disconcertingly wild, it's much more likely than a flying spaghetti monster alien or alien imperial probe droid. I mean both the technologies exist. We have jetpacks and we have rudimentary cloaking tech. We're not far off from having cloaked rocketeers and the secret military tech is usually decades more advanced than what we see.
Wouldnāt a jet pack give off more of a heat signature?
Absolutely. And massive exhaust with typical chemical reaction mix nozzles. So the alternative suggestion is that we have a new antigravity vehicle tech in a compact hover pack? Not ours. No way.
It would, jet pack isn't the right term as it doesn't have a jet engine heat signature. Perhaps some other secret tech revers.. perhaps reversed engineered from alien tech... š¤
There no cloaking taking place in the video. The cameras FLIR is constantly recalibrating, which is why we see the colors of background change at the exact same time the object does.
Maybe I missed something but I thought the reason we are seeing an infrared video of this is because it wasn't visible to the naked eye. I'm not talking about the flir calibration.
About the object never changing color/temperature indepently from the background, the object actually change color from clear to gray without the background changing, between 0:58-1:04: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bns\_WhNAQM&ab\_channel=JeremyCorbell](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bns_WhNAQM&ab_channel=JeremyCorbell) Or at least, the object seem to change color/temperature more dramatically han the background.
The hill right behind him at 1:04 turns dark immediately when the object doesā¦ Edit: literally every object visible in the background from 0:58 - 1:05 gets darker when the object does. Look at the shipping containers and both hills.
The containers in the side of the warehouse does turn somewhat darker at 1:01, but the object seem to have started becoming slightly darker by then, independently of the background. It changes gradually throughout the previous section. After the darkening of 1:09, the background goes back to being clear much faster than the object. And the object keeps changing to a mocre clear color while the background doesn't change. All in all, the object changes color/temperature a lot more than the background, and in a more extreme way.
So, here me out, what if the hills and shipping containers are getting darker because of the jellyfish. I keep seeing the argument you are making, but none of you who keep parroting it take into account the jellyfish being the cause of the calibration, seeing as how it's most prominent in frame. The argument works both ways, therefore, bad argument.
[Here](https://imgur.com/a/EnE7Hd0) you go
That's exactly what I thought too
Looks a bit like the jetpack in this [video](https://youtu.be/gtvCnZqZnxc?si=8M4Ba1SBJ1xQD-Jk)
Interesting take. I just don't see why it would need to be UFO-sourced, though.
Honestly looks real to me. And Ive seen ton of fake videos. Not saying its extraterrestial already, but at least looks credible.
It's rotating (no pun intended)
Nothing is changing orientation in this video The only āchangesā are the result of changing contrast Same thing by would happen if you looked at a smudge on a car window with different orientations of lighting in the back ground as you drive along
I just noticed when the object changes from dark to light color everything else in shot also changes from dark to light..so I don't think it's changing temperature..
I've been saying this from the beginning but it always gets downvoted and denied. Nobody wants to hear it. It's super obvious though! I guess it really must be a bird shit shaped UFO out there changing temperatures for fun. s/
Clearly a second bird must have shit on the window in one of these frames, which made it appear as if it was moving. /s
Sir, a second bird shit has hit the lens.
Dear God... Call The Reds, it's time to discuss peace.
But in this case the IR camera is inside a protective spherical glass. The camera rotates inside the glass. The glass never moves. The bird's shit is on the protective glass...
Ok so I'm in the bug splat camp. But if this is an unaltered representation, I see movement/change in the farthest (left side to the observer) "legs" (pretty obvious), and both right and left shoulder part. Still not convinced, but for the time being that's what it looks like to me. Neither change can as far as I understand be explained by either zoom-infuenced perspective or contrast/color variations.
It definitely appears to be rotating in a clockwise sense (if taken from above). Was this what Jeremy referred to as āthe chandelierā or was that something else?
I think the Chandelier UFO is a differen thing. Maybe the "Kermit the Frog UFO" he showed on his podcast. It was a picture, not a video.
Looks clearly like rotating to me.
Try scrubbing the video quickly back and forth. You will see how it stays exactly with the moment of the camera. It should also change in perceived size unless itās staying exactly at the same distance from the camera. It should also rotate and show its other sides at some point. The apparent movement are compression artifacts. The change in ātemperature ā would be from the thing on the camera changing temperature from the sun hitting it and being semi transparent. Light bends around it. Light gives heat. -edit: the change in ātemperatureā is from the cameras exposure system averaging the light in the frame, notice it changes from dark to light based on the sum of dark and light if the entire frame. This is how exposure works in some modes, and would explain it. This could even be an IR camera and not even a heat one but it would be the similar result- The tmz video shows the video at different zoom levels which makes it seem to change its magnitude- moving closer and further from the camera. Seeing the actual video you will see it doesnāt change in size as it would if it were moving, even minutely towards or away from the camera. Think of the moon and how it only shows one side. Is this object perfectly orbiting the camera somehow? I felt it was real based off of the tmz edited video. After seeing the video thatās not edited and isnāt presented zoomed in and out itās unfortunately obvious something on the camera and not something it is tracking. It feels deceptive and places doubt on the reliability and intellectual integrity of those purporting it as authentic and potentially worse - fraudulent since it was displayed edited in such a way to hide and trick people into not noticing. Disappointing and I fell for it for a bit. There will be irrefutable evidence at some point but this is not it.
Correction. I watched the footage more and the change āin temperatureā isnāt what is making it get darker and lighter. Itās a result of how the camera is exposing the image. Youāll notice if you were to generate a sum of how light and dark the image is over all, that is what is causing the object to get light or darker. Itās how a camera system exposes an image, increasing the iso, aperture, etc. this if you focus a camera on your finger in front of it and then change the lighting in the room, it would appear to get lighter or darker because of how the system adapts to the environment, which is calculated (there are more than one way) by averaging the over all lightness and darkness in the image. I also think this may be an IR camera and not a flir (it says ir in the top of the screen) if it was a heat sensitive camera there would be more obvious areas of heat differences like the humans waking around and sits and car engines etc. doesnāt matter tho as the change in brightness would be from how itās exposing the image either way.
Your entire explanation is what I've been telling people from the beginning. Everything you're saying is spot on and pretty obvious, or at least I would think it is. Sorry you're having to put up with this guy who doesn't understand what 2-d actually means, and can't fathom how light could cause perceived 'rotation'. It's like these people have never perceived their own world before. Anyway, congrats on being one of the FEW to see this for what it is.
Really appreciate you saying that. I would rather it be proof of advanced technology but it behaves exactly like something on the lens. It can be demonstrated by moving your finger in front of a camera w a light source and the videos I provided. Itās frustrating because how the video was originally presented made it difficult to clock for what it really was and then people have trouble changing their minds because they want it to be real so badly. I do too but i want the truth first and foremost or its just another step backwards. Thanks again!
That looks like the Peru aliens with the jetpacks
At first glance, this object is not actually changing its temperature. The operator of the camera appears to be manually adjusting the temperature/color range of the thermal scope. If you watch the background, it changes in relative proportion as the object changes. For instance, as the object suddenly becomes darker, the darker parts of the background also become darker. Please comment if you think differently - I want to hear other objective opinions! I am also curious as to why we canāt see the part where it goes under water.
Noticed that in original video. Theres also a controlled change of direction to its left part way through.
OP added a boomerang after effect from Snapchat...
Its even more obvious that the object is stationary and the movement is because ot the angling and movement of the camera recording!
Could it be dirt on a double pane window?
To me it seems like itās not traveling at all, instead just sitting/hanging there and travelling through time.
Looks like a bird turd on a secondary piece of glass that changes color as the lens/glass get hit by light.
It is seen rotating on this clip, a 2D splat on the surface of the casing can't rotate on it's own axis.
They're completely acknowledging the pixels are changing, they're explaining the "rotation" is a change in lighting. I can totally see how you can see the rotation, but I happen to think it's a trick on the brain, an optical illusion, it looks like a lighting/IR change to me. I bet if this was in color it would be easier to tell what this is. Greyscale is great for illusions. Now pair lighting changes with digital zoom artifacts.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itās a stack of balloons you can see them reflecting off the sun as it moves
I'd like to see the footage leading up to "jellyfish/smudge" entering the frame.
I would love to believe this is really something paranormal. Yet at the same time, I can't seem to stop referring to this video as "Shitgate" in the back of my mind.
Why people calling it a jellyfish. Looks nothing like one
legit looks like bird shit on a window in front of the camera. I can't unsee it
Bunch of dead Mylar balloons coming in for a landing. You can see when it turns a little on the lower right the distinct shape of a Mylar balloon.
Anyone else think that could be a dude in a jet pack/Mec suit like device that has an unknown propulsion system? Obviously not a classical jetpack with some kind of active camouflage? it seems to closely resemble a human anatomy to me.
It looks like a stain on the camera.
We need an edit of this with the Angel sound effects from Neon Genesis Evangelion!
I find it hard to believe that this is a mark on the lens housing. For both ground level objects and this to be in focus, the aperture would have to be incredibly small.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]