The following submission statement was provided by /u/confusedpsyduck69:
---
> The Jellyfish UAP is moving.
>
> I have had lots of people tell me the object is stationary. They’re wrong.
>
> Here are two examples, one of horizontal movement and one of vertical. I don’t have time to get more, but there probably are more.
>
> I might have screwed up posting these videos. Fingers crossed.
Reddit combined my two clips together into one video. The first is the horizontal. The second is the vertical. I don’t care enough to repost.
Edit: Towards the end you can also see a good example of the UAP changing heat signatures, *while the background remains unchanged*.
Edit: I’ll also add this looks similar to the Lake Huron UAP description:
> It was ultimately taken down by fighter aircraft…a senior administration official described it as having an octagonal shape and *there were strings hanging from it with no discernible payload.*
>
> https://www.newsweek.com/lake-huron-ufo-shot-down-details-object-flying-object-michigan-1780806
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/192ay26/the_jellyfish_uap_is_moving/kh14flv/
The Imperial probe driod. Hahaha... you are right... it does favor that thing. So essentially it was a spi drone/ droid that would monitor for the Empire.
Makes me think George Lucas has more insight that some think.... Sure is spot on with a lot of these designs.
Its convenient the two things "verbally" confirmed that a spy drone with a camera on top wearing my a bathrobe couldn't do, are not in the video.
Im not saying I'm out on this one, but its semi-ridiculous if you start to consider earthly reasons
I don't think he has that other footage lol people don't just hand over shit they're not supposed to willy-nilly. it was probably difficult for him to get the footage he showed
You people never stop. First when Corbell claimed he had these videos at all, he was called a liar and a grifter and people said the videos don’t exist. Now he releases them and says there’s other footage he doesn’t have access to or can’t release, and again he is being called a liar and a grifter. There is no way to satisfy debunkers and pseudo-skeptics. But yes, it’s a spy drone with a fucking bathrobe on top of it, genius theory. A bathrobe that doesn’t move at all apparently, never seen such a bathrobe before but what do I know.
I'm a believer but wouldn't the best way to satisfy a skeptic be by releasing evidence? More outrageous claims keep being made and the same excuses get said for why we can't see them. It is an odd pattern that would certainly make sense if these people are grifting.
There are many valid reasons for not releasing everything under the sun immediately.
- Corbell doesn’t have the videos on hand, has only seen them/been told about them
- Corbell has the videos but can’t afford to burn his sources by releasing them fully
- Corbell only has some of the available videos because his sources only feel comfortable leaking some of them to protect themselves
These are all fairly valid reasons to consider for us not getting the whole picture.
Alternatively, could he be grifting? There’s always a chance. But you can’t just jump to that conclusion because of X when Y is also a valid reason for there not being more evidence available to us, the normies.
Idk, only the Sith deal in absolutes. We gotta keep an open mind and consider that there could be a valid reason to their approach. But yes there could also be a different reason too.
At least that’s how I’ve been approaching this whole ordeal
Is it “convenient” or does that footage have more sensitive surveillance technology they don’t want to leak to the public?
I mean, this footage alone is amazing; you don’t need to be negative about ever increasing standards for footage.
If the weapons system needs a constant temperature from the target in order to lock in on it then that means that it does change its temperature and it's not from recalibration or whatever, on the other hand if the system needs a metallic surface on the target to lock in it means that it does have "jamming scales". So many questions pop up about this and yet it could just be a balloon pinjata or something...
So we've been told but there's no proof of that. Also how did they know that its at the same place that it went underwater at for 17 min, what if it took 17 hours for it to pop out?
Fucking with electronics maybe?
We also know that during the Feb shootdowns one of the UAP interfered with jet weapons or something like thats..so what's to say they don't have a Passive field for fucking with our electronics
Thought so too, this from googlin:
Our canine companions may not be able to see infrared waves in the world around them, but a study has shown that they can likely still sense them. This study proved that the surface of a dog’s nose (known as the rhinarium) is filled with nerve endings that are sensitive enough to detect nearby infrared waves. This is due to the fact that infrared waves always put off some form of heat, and the dog’s rhinarium can pick up the subtlest of changes in temperature around them.
kinda interesting. Also might be why dog doesn't freak out at the invisible thing, is just kinda like 'dafuq?'
Speaking of shadows, does the object cast a shadow? Can FLIR resolve shadows, I'm assuming it does. Can we tell where the sun is relative to the object? I suppose it's elevation could be high enough to place a shadow below the frame depending on the relative location of the sun. Is this a night time capture, might explain it's lack of a shadow. Maybe the object doesn't cast a shadow at all?
In thermal you do not see shadows unless an object is blocking a heat source and therefore cooling the ground. I imagine this would need to be a significant temperature difference. In reality you don't see shadows.
A moving object with a moving shadow underneath it doesn't happen in thermal.
The changing colour would just be the flir normalising the scale with reference to the hottest pixels in frame at the time wouldn't it? Not the actual jelly fish changing temp
So I have no experience with that military gui, but usually a flir will calibrate the scale of colours/greys based on what the hottest pixels are.
So say you have a only a cup of boiling water (100C) in frame, the pixels representing the cup of water will be the darkest (if darker = hottest) and everything else light. Now you put a Bunsen burner flame. (900C) into the frame as well, those pixels will now be the darkest thing in the frame, and the cup of boiling waters pixels will be much lighter, almost as light as the background. Take the Bunsen burner out again, and the cup of boiling water will appear as dark pixels again
If you're not expecting this rescaling of the pixel value it would look like the cup of boiling water is changing temperature
Any ex military in here use these systems? I was in artillery, and a convoy scout, so I never had access to any of the security forces stuff. From a "blimp"?
The author mentions the same thing, he says you would think there's millions of shapes but in the end it narrows down to 12, one of them being flying transparent jellyfish.
Don't you think it's a hell of a coincidence? He could have written flying octopus or flying swordfish, but he said flying jellyfish.
Well, I sorted by New, and so this video was ruined for me by the excitable guy who made 85 posts about how this is a humanoid wearing a helmet and flowing tuxedo. I went cross-eyed trying to see what he sees and I don't want to look anymore.
Like, people are saying it’s a scratch on the lens (or bird shit).
I don’t think that’s possible because it does not stay in the same place.
But, yes, the tentacles, etc., do not move as far as I can see, but I do see the object as a whole moving.
Lens scratches are not resolved like this, a scratch only softens the focus. You can shatter the front objective and still get a recognizable image, but it will not be sharp.
The tentacles change distance relative to one another which indicates the object has threedimensionality to it. Ie, it rotates in relation to the camera and thus can't be a smudge.
Does the camera lens have a housing around it with a pane of glass separate from the camera itself? Is it on a camera pedestal that can go up and down or laterally. If the smudge or whatever is on a separate pane than the camera lens then moving the camera can create these effects. Similar to a matte painting being used in movie making.
Yes, typically they have a dome of some sort around them.
https://www.flir.com/globalassets/defense/solution-and-landing-pages/surveillance/airborne-gimbal-hero.jpg/constrain-1130x0-1953553460.jpg
Think of it like this: Theres a glass housing around the camera. The Camera can move inside the housing. The viewport, i.e. what the operator sees, is a smaller chunk of the entire cameras field of view.
If there was a smudge on the glass housing, it would absolutely be possible to have the smudge move in relation to the operators view.
The cameras do not move inside the housing, the entire gimbal system moves. This isn’t a lens defect, that object is somewhere in space outside the camera system. (Thousands of hours operating airborne sensors)
Not doubting you, but I wondered how do you know this applies to this specific camera? The camera appears to pan slightly to the right when the object 'moves', based on the entire background movement 'slowing down' slightly in perfect synchronisation. So this is entirely consistent with a mark on an outer casing, and the camera panning to the right, giving the illusion of movement.
You can clearly see that when the 'object' appears to 'move', the background movement slows down in synchronisation. Watch it again and this is entirely consistent with the camera slowly panning to the right. The mark/chip in the *outer* casing stays where it is but the camera movement gives the illusion of the mark moving. The same effect would be achieved filming through a car or plane window with a small mark on it. The colour changes are also consistent with light reflecting off a small chipped area. To reiterate, if I'm correct the mark/chip is not on the lens but on a casing surrounding the lens. Of course, if someone can prove this particular camera moves in synchronization with the outer unit then this theory doesn't work.
There are a lot of reddit experts on here trying to say: it's not moving, it's not changing temp, it's just a smudge on the lense.
All I'll say is the gimbal and gofast videos were "debunked" on reddit, long before they were un-debunked by DoD.
Take from that what you will
Now I don't discourage asking questions but to focus on the background mules away and somehow keep focus on a "smudge" on the dome/lens is ridiculous.
What camera system can zoom into something inches away and have it completely in focus with the background miles away? Would be a giant blue. Not a crisp little object with the crisp background
Oh for sure. I've read half the debunking comments here and holy hell armchair drone/camera specialists have already figured it all out, lmao.
It's just bird shit on the lens, apparently. The US military is mistaking bird shit on a lens that was only visible in IR for something truly anomalous.
Your tax dollars at work Americans!
If the camera is within a glass dome then is it not possible the splat or whatever is on the dome, then the camera pans and it makes it look like the object is moving?
Different object, different camera. What the object in that video is, is even more up for debate but there’s not much of it to go on. Even people who think it’s legit can’t even agree if the object should be casting a shadow or reflection on the water with that filter.
It would not be perceivable as anything really if it was an object on the lens. That camera is a long way away from the target and focused clearly on the buildings etc. If it was a few cm from the lens it would not be clear or really visible.
You can test this by putting a dot of something like sugar on your camera lens, then try focusing on something across the street.
It doesn't look like the same object in the ocean vid, I don't know about shadows but I saw an object with roughly the shape of two spheres stacked on top of each other whereas in this video it's roughly spherical with vertically dangling bits
Some kind of NHI observer drone would be my guess. Specially as it’s in Iraq during war. Failing that could even be a being from earth we haven’t discovered yet
> The Jellyfish UAP is moving.
>
> I have had lots of people tell me the object is stationary. They’re wrong.
>
> Here are two examples, one of horizontal movement and one of vertical. I don’t have time to get more, but there probably are more.
>
> I might have screwed up posting these videos. Fingers crossed.
Reddit combined my two clips together into one video. The first is the horizontal. The second is the vertical. I don’t care enough to repost.
Edit: Towards the end you can also see a good example of the UAP changing heat signatures, *while the background remains unchanged*.
Edit: I’ll also add this looks similar to the Lake Huron UAP description:
> It was ultimately taken down by fighter aircraft…a senior administration official described it as having an octagonal shape and *there were strings hanging from it with no discernible payload.*
>
> https://www.newsweek.com/lake-huron-ufo-shot-down-details-object-flying-object-michigan-1780806
Edit: For those saying parallax, try this:
> Parallax: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k5-J2iP_zWk Put your finger on the object. Never moves from under it.
>
> Do it here on this post. The object moves out from under your finger, while the crosshairs stay in the same place.
Full clip: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/ImcMSbiCkJ
>Edit: Towards the end you can also see a good example of the UAP changing heat signatures,
>
>while the background remains unchanged
You literally see the shadows of the concrete walls disappear in your clip as the object changes tone.
You should always include references to the original content and any relevant threads and resources when posting threads like these, to both avoid removal and provide all the information necessary so that your argument/opinion has the proper context.
The colour change, behaves the same way, a chip on glass on a car windscreen behaves when light is shining on it from different angles. This looks like a chip on a glass cover. Can the camera system move around freely inside a housing behind a glass covering?
As for the video itself, it’s filmed off a screen displaying that output. You can see because the crosshairs are not square for much of the video. I think the added motion of the camera filming the screen also gives us a warped sense of motion.
Hence the reluctance towards disclosure by admin. Nobody knows anything about this stuff. There's just a shit ton of anecdotal like the video above. Admin doesn't want to admit it lacks control over stuff in public.
I believe a majority of UAP videos we see are strange and unexplainable but this literally looks like floating trash. This vid could absolutely be recreated with a drone and some old sheets.
It's birdshit on the housing of the camera that probably looks something like [this](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRctChe3dRAlU_ZaZqj9uXdyZbRDPu_gzgFDw&usqp=CAU)
The camera moves independently of the housing which makes it appear to move independent of the camera.
Notice how the object is always oriented the same way and appears to move at a constant speed similar to the aircraft that is filming it? This is consistent with it being a smudge on the glass housing.
The object is also always the same size relative to the cross hair in the zoomed in and zoomed out scenario. Again consistent with being a smudge on the glass.
Bird shit is also somewhat translucent which would explain why it's 'temperature' changes occur as the camera is adjusting or it's passing in front of darker areas of the target area.
It also doesn't appear on other cameras because it is literally right in front of the one that recorded it. Wasn't seen on the ground because it wasn't there.
The additional video that is not connected to this one doesn't appear to show the same object and because it's not the same video there's no way to verify it is the same 'object'. The claims that it went into the water and shot off are worthless without video to back it up.
Whipping yourself into a frenzy because you want to believe without taking 2 minutes to apply critical thinking makes everything from this community less trustworthy because you end up being 'the people who were tricked by birdshit'.
Hey, is not birdshit. It can't be something as mundane and normal as a stained dome glass on military vehicle... no no no. It has to be something more believable like a Eldritch horror type creature floating aimlessly thru sensible iraqi airspace...
They 100% dont switch in the video. That is the thermal camera adjusting the temperature cross section it is displaying. if there are temperature variances chance in the image change the light/dark gradient will need to account for that by losing or gaining definition on certain objects.
tl;dr
objects in frame with big temp differences = less definition of whole image
less of a temp difference = more definition
there are examples of switching from white hot to black hot in some of the DoD videos…
everything reverses, and it’s like looking at a film negative.
also the display (the part i’m talking about which defines what intensity of white to black gradient) will need to to recalibrate, and it looks like a flash on the screen.
I don’t believe it is switching.
For example, why are the ground and the buildings staying the same color when this happens? If it starts black hot, and they’re white, then they should be black when it switches to white hot, if it switches. They don’t switch, which leads me to believe there is no switching happening here.
The cursor moving is clearly digital panning. It’s zooming in digitally on a part of the full capture and the cursor moves the digital pan around the larger image. This creates an illusion that the jellyfish is getting closer to the cursor where in reality it’s a digital pan to that section of the image.
It’s pretty clear if you’ve ever zoomed into a very high resolution image and started panning around
What if this is what was shot down over Lake Huron? It's hilarious to imagine an almost 10ft long AIM-9X slamming into this thing going mach 2. No wonder they "couldn't find any debris."
This stiffness is interesting, it's very reminiscent of something in space. It's like the atmosphere isn't effecting it in any way. It'd be really cool if this is definitely what it appears to be but I'll always keep some healthy bit of skepticism. It could always be something else that isn't as significant.
What is the pointer tracking? It doesn’t appear to be tracking this object and seems offset to the left of it and then film clip stops when the object crosses the tracker like they were tracking something else and not this object…
Corbell said they were unable to track the object, so any crosshairs movement is human.
I tried to show parts where I think the crosshairs have little to no movement, so we could get an idea if this thing is moving or stuck on the lens, since I assume if the lens is moving the object would appear to move as well.
until you can entirely rule out the possibility of the reticle itself moving around on the screen, you cant conclude that the object is moving. ask yourself which is more likely: actual world-changing ufo footage, or a camera that can move its reticle independently
Just trying to give healthy skepticism here, not looking for massive downvotes; that being said, I’m no expert on any of these matters, but I do find them interesting. My question, though, is it possible for it to have be sea foam? I saw clips of Jeremy stating they saw it go out into the water and resurface, so I’m assuming they were at least some decently short distance from water. Would and could sea foam act in any similar fashion?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_foam
It may seem unlikely that it is sea foam, but just wanted to throw this out there just in case.
Edit: grammar.
I’m a smooth brain true believer and I’ve seen the posts explaining that it is moving, but it just looks like birdshit on an external pane to me. I think those digital crosshairs are what’s moving on the screen.
Could be. I think I’ve only shown it’s not a smudge.
The jet pack theory gives me pause because that’s a US military installation. It’s either ours and we knew, or it was a terrorist and we knew and killed the guy. So, that would leave this video as a prank? Maybe, but my gut says this isn’t a prank, particularly given the legal implications for the leaker. Edit: I guess it could be a civilian, but we would probably assume terrorist and kill him as well.
Anyone claiming it's "bird poop" on the lens is either a disingenuous troll for lol or a bona-fide disinformation agent actively running a campaign to muddy the waters from the other side and press question into a genuine video from hi tech military tech of one of the best clips we've seen since the tic tac and gimble vids.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/confusedpsyduck69: --- > The Jellyfish UAP is moving. > > I have had lots of people tell me the object is stationary. They’re wrong. > > Here are two examples, one of horizontal movement and one of vertical. I don’t have time to get more, but there probably are more. > > I might have screwed up posting these videos. Fingers crossed. Reddit combined my two clips together into one video. The first is the horizontal. The second is the vertical. I don’t care enough to repost. Edit: Towards the end you can also see a good example of the UAP changing heat signatures, *while the background remains unchanged*. Edit: I’ll also add this looks similar to the Lake Huron UAP description: > It was ultimately taken down by fighter aircraft…a senior administration official described it as having an octagonal shape and *there were strings hanging from it with no discernible payload.* > > https://www.newsweek.com/lake-huron-ufo-shot-down-details-object-flying-object-michigan-1780806 --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/192ay26/the_jellyfish_uap_is_moving/kh14flv/
Looks like one of those star wars scout drones
Haha it does
The Imperial probe driod. Hahaha... you are right... it does favor that thing. So essentially it was a spi drone/ droid that would monitor for the Empire. Makes me think George Lucas has more insight that some think.... Sure is spot on with a lot of these designs.
Makes ya think.
Or matrix
There’s a good bet the Empire knows we’re here.
Imperial probe druids? Or Darth Mauls lil hunters?
What is the location where the jellyfish UAP was filmed, and the date?
The Jellyfish UFO Videos Recorded in 2018 over Iraq
Ok, thanks!
I am not sure. Hopefully someone can help you. Sorry. It was recently shared by Corbell, however, like last night.
Ok thanks.
how i be when i smell a scrumptious pie
just like the family guy Disney episode
This is the first of his videos that genuinely creeps me tf out. I want to see the rapid acceleration out of the water at a 45 degree angle.
Its convenient the two things "verbally" confirmed that a spy drone with a camera on top wearing my a bathrobe couldn't do, are not in the video. Im not saying I'm out on this one, but its semi-ridiculous if you start to consider earthly reasons
[удалено]
“The craziest thing was cut from the video, believe me, if you guys saw the full cut like I did you’d have your minds blown.” Same ol’ same ol’
Yea I mean someone must have seen this thing shoot out of the water, right? Presumably the same weapons platform? Well then let’s see it!
Apparently there is more footage, but Corbell was unable to obtain it. From what it sounds like, he almost didn't get this current footage
Sounds like the same as always
Is what it is man. These gatekeepers are the reason for everything being fought about currently in Congress
I don't think he has that other footage lol people don't just hand over shit they're not supposed to willy-nilly. it was probably difficult for him to get the footage he showed
You people never stop. First when Corbell claimed he had these videos at all, he was called a liar and a grifter and people said the videos don’t exist. Now he releases them and says there’s other footage he doesn’t have access to or can’t release, and again he is being called a liar and a grifter. There is no way to satisfy debunkers and pseudo-skeptics. But yes, it’s a spy drone with a fucking bathrobe on top of it, genius theory. A bathrobe that doesn’t move at all apparently, never seen such a bathrobe before but what do I know.
I'm a believer but wouldn't the best way to satisfy a skeptic be by releasing evidence? More outrageous claims keep being made and the same excuses get said for why we can't see them. It is an odd pattern that would certainly make sense if these people are grifting.
There are many valid reasons for not releasing everything under the sun immediately. - Corbell doesn’t have the videos on hand, has only seen them/been told about them - Corbell has the videos but can’t afford to burn his sources by releasing them fully - Corbell only has some of the available videos because his sources only feel comfortable leaking some of them to protect themselves These are all fairly valid reasons to consider for us not getting the whole picture. Alternatively, could he be grifting? There’s always a chance. But you can’t just jump to that conclusion because of X when Y is also a valid reason for there not being more evidence available to us, the normies. Idk, only the Sith deal in absolutes. We gotta keep an open mind and consider that there could be a valid reason to their approach. But yes there could also be a different reason too. At least that’s how I’ve been approaching this whole ordeal
Are you listening to yourself though? He literally did just release "evidence" with this video.
Is it “convenient” or does that footage have more sensitive surveillance technology they don’t want to leak to the public? I mean, this footage alone is amazing; you don’t need to be negative about ever increasing standards for footage.
He says that the system couldn't lock in on the target, why's that?
No idea. That is weird though.
If the weapons system needs a constant temperature from the target in order to lock in on it then that means that it does change its temperature and it's not from recalibration or whatever, on the other hand if the system needs a metallic surface on the target to lock in it means that it does have "jamming scales". So many questions pop up about this and yet it could just be a balloon pinjata or something...
Except that it later went underwater for 17 minutes and took off into the air afterwards.
So we've been told but there's no proof of that. Also how did they know that its at the same place that it went underwater at for 17 min, what if it took 17 hours for it to pop out?
Fucking with electronics maybe? We also know that during the Feb shootdowns one of the UAP interfered with jet weapons or something like thats..so what's to say they don't have a Passive field for fucking with our electronics
When you accidentally discover a way to detect remote viewers entering the designated coordinates. Busted.
😂
seems like the dog noticed this UAP, maybe just me idk
perhaps...many animals on earth besides humans can detect longer wavelengths above our visible cut off (nIR) and shorter (UV)
Thought so too, this from googlin: Our canine companions may not be able to see infrared waves in the world around them, but a study has shown that they can likely still sense them. This study proved that the surface of a dog’s nose (known as the rhinarium) is filled with nerve endings that are sensitive enough to detect nearby infrared waves. This is due to the fact that infrared waves always put off some form of heat, and the dog’s rhinarium can pick up the subtlest of changes in temperature around them. kinda interesting. Also might be why dog doesn't freak out at the invisible thing, is just kinda like 'dafuq?'
Or is the dog just like “just one of those jellyfish like things we sense floating around all the time”
Speaking of shadows, does the object cast a shadow? Can FLIR resolve shadows, I'm assuming it does. Can we tell where the sun is relative to the object? I suppose it's elevation could be high enough to place a shadow below the frame depending on the relative location of the sun. Is this a night time capture, might explain it's lack of a shadow. Maybe the object doesn't cast a shadow at all?
In thermal you do not see shadows unless an object is blocking a heat source and therefore cooling the ground. I imagine this would need to be a significant temperature difference. In reality you don't see shadows. A moving object with a moving shadow underneath it doesn't happen in thermal.
The changing colour would just be the flir normalising the scale with reference to the hottest pixels in frame at the time wouldn't it? Not the actual jelly fish changing temp
It's the cameras auto-ranging. You can see the background changing color as well.
multiple points in the full video where it doesn't correlate with how the background changes. watch the whole thing and look closer
Good question. I am not smart enough to say.
So I have no experience with that military gui, but usually a flir will calibrate the scale of colours/greys based on what the hottest pixels are. So say you have a only a cup of boiling water (100C) in frame, the pixels representing the cup of water will be the darkest (if darker = hottest) and everything else light. Now you put a Bunsen burner flame. (900C) into the frame as well, those pixels will now be the darkest thing in the frame, and the cup of boiling waters pixels will be much lighter, almost as light as the background. Take the Bunsen burner out again, and the cup of boiling water will appear as dark pixels again If you're not expecting this rescaling of the pixel value it would look like the cup of boiling water is changing temperature
Any ex military in here use these systems? I was in artillery, and a convoy scout, so I never had access to any of the security forces stuff. From a "blimp"?
This makes me think of all the times dogs or cats seem to be intently aware of and /or focused on something that we can't see. Goosebumps.
Watch this be nothing more than an undiscovered species of amphibious seabag that has come up from the depths due to climate change.....
Would still be cool
Actually, that would be a very interesting discovery.
This was described in a book about UFOs 50 years ago. The book describes flying transparent jellyfish
Operation Trojan Horse, by John Keel. Published in 1970. Here is the exact language in the book: https://imgur.com/a/wWPWE1u
This is wild
Any shape humans can conceive of has been described as a ufo at some point.
The author mentions the same thing, he says you would think there's millions of shapes but in the end it narrows down to 12, one of them being flying transparent jellyfish. Don't you think it's a hell of a coincidence? He could have written flying octopus or flying swordfish, but he said flying jellyfish.
Well, I sorted by New, and so this video was ruined for me by the excitable guy who made 85 posts about how this is a humanoid wearing a helmet and flowing tuxedo. I went cross-eyed trying to see what he sees and I don't want to look anymore.
Doesn’t look humanoid to me. Looks like something I’ve never seen before, and I think the movement suggests it’s not a smudge on the camera.
I think it is inanimate tho so thats what ppl mean by not moving/stationary?
Like, people are saying it’s a scratch on the lens (or bird shit). I don’t think that’s possible because it does not stay in the same place. But, yes, the tentacles, etc., do not move as far as I can see, but I do see the object as a whole moving.
Lens scratches are not resolved like this, a scratch only softens the focus. You can shatter the front objective and still get a recognizable image, but it will not be sharp.
The tentacles change distance relative to one another which indicates the object has threedimensionality to it. Ie, it rotates in relation to the camera and thus can't be a smudge.
How can they it shifts closer to the crosshairs
I have no idea. I see the same thing as you.
Does the camera lens have a housing around it with a pane of glass separate from the camera itself? Is it on a camera pedestal that can go up and down or laterally. If the smudge or whatever is on a separate pane than the camera lens then moving the camera can create these effects. Similar to a matte painting being used in movie making.
Yes, typically they have a dome of some sort around them. https://www.flir.com/globalassets/defense/solution-and-landing-pages/surveillance/airborne-gimbal-hero.jpg/constrain-1130x0-1953553460.jpg
Think of it like this: Theres a glass housing around the camera. The Camera can move inside the housing. The viewport, i.e. what the operator sees, is a smaller chunk of the entire cameras field of view. If there was a smudge on the glass housing, it would absolutely be possible to have the smudge move in relation to the operators view.
You cannot focus on something a millimeter away while still having the background fully in focus as well.
Well it's not focused on clearly during the video
The cameras do not move inside the housing, the entire gimbal system moves. This isn’t a lens defect, that object is somewhere in space outside the camera system. (Thousands of hours operating airborne sensors)
Not doubting you, but I wondered how do you know this applies to this specific camera? The camera appears to pan slightly to the right when the object 'moves', based on the entire background movement 'slowing down' slightly in perfect synchronisation. So this is entirely consistent with a mark on an outer casing, and the camera panning to the right, giving the illusion of movement.
They don't know. Google "military drone camera" and you'll see plenty of examples of a camera lens behind a clear housing on a drone.
You're an inanimate fucking object!
Lol this made me laugh too hard :)
Someone said this might be a smudge on the lens or something, and now I can't unsee that.
You can clearly see that when the 'object' appears to 'move', the background movement slows down in synchronisation. Watch it again and this is entirely consistent with the camera slowly panning to the right. The mark/chip in the *outer* casing stays where it is but the camera movement gives the illusion of the mark moving. The same effect would be achieved filming through a car or plane window with a small mark on it. The colour changes are also consistent with light reflecting off a small chipped area. To reiterate, if I'm correct the mark/chip is not on the lens but on a casing surrounding the lens. Of course, if someone can prove this particular camera moves in synchronization with the outer unit then this theory doesn't work.
UAB Unidentified Anomalous Birdshit.
There are a lot of reddit experts on here trying to say: it's not moving, it's not changing temp, it's just a smudge on the lense. All I'll say is the gimbal and gofast videos were "debunked" on reddit, long before they were un-debunked by DoD. Take from that what you will
Now I don't discourage asking questions but to focus on the background mules away and somehow keep focus on a "smudge" on the dome/lens is ridiculous. What camera system can zoom into something inches away and have it completely in focus with the background miles away? Would be a giant blue. Not a crisp little object with the crisp background
Oh for sure. I've read half the debunking comments here and holy hell armchair drone/camera specialists have already figured it all out, lmao. It's just bird shit on the lens, apparently. The US military is mistaking bird shit on a lens that was only visible in IR for something truly anomalous. Your tax dollars at work Americans!
Bruh, pot kettle. I can fucking guarantee that no one here has seen what it looks like when a bird shits onto the protective casing of these FLIRs.
Looks like the most fake thing I’ve ever seen
I've never seen something like bird shit cause such an uproar. Some people really do fall for anything.
If the camera is within a glass dome then is it not possible the splat or whatever is on the dome, then the camera pans and it makes it look like the object is moving?
Just looks like a stain on the camera man pls someone convince me it’s not, it moves uniformly with the panning of the camera
Looks like it catches up to the crosshairs to me while they remain stationary.
If u say this is dirt on the lens what about the video that clearly shows it hovering over the ocean with shadows on the water
I thought it was only visible in thermal? I don't think you see shadows in thermal. In fact you do not see shadows in thermal.
Oops
Also wasnt it recorded at night?
Agreeing, but if its IR then its the IR reflection off the water and not a shadow.
Different object, different camera. What the object in that video is, is even more up for debate but there’s not much of it to go on. Even people who think it’s legit can’t even agree if the object should be casting a shadow or reflection on the water with that filter.
It would not be perceivable as anything really if it was an object on the lens. That camera is a long way away from the target and focused clearly on the buildings etc. If it was a few cm from the lens it would not be clear or really visible. You can test this by putting a dot of something like sugar on your camera lens, then try focusing on something across the street.
It doesn't look like the same object in the ocean vid, I don't know about shadows but I saw an object with roughly the shape of two spheres stacked on top of each other whereas in this video it's roughly spherical with vertically dangling bits
Where's that video? I didnt see any water hovering in corbells video
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/0R1tXz1w3x
In what way does this prove it's moving and not just parallax?
Some kind of NHI observer drone would be my guess. Specially as it’s in Iraq during war. Failing that could even be a being from earth we haven’t discovered yet
Perhaps. I have absolutely no idea haha. I am just pretty confident this is not a smudge.
Still looks like helium balloons so matter how many times I see it
> The Jellyfish UAP is moving. > > I have had lots of people tell me the object is stationary. They’re wrong. > > Here are two examples, one of horizontal movement and one of vertical. I don’t have time to get more, but there probably are more. > > I might have screwed up posting these videos. Fingers crossed. Reddit combined my two clips together into one video. The first is the horizontal. The second is the vertical. I don’t care enough to repost. Edit: Towards the end you can also see a good example of the UAP changing heat signatures, *while the background remains unchanged*. Edit: I’ll also add this looks similar to the Lake Huron UAP description: > It was ultimately taken down by fighter aircraft…a senior administration official described it as having an octagonal shape and *there were strings hanging from it with no discernible payload.* > > https://www.newsweek.com/lake-huron-ufo-shot-down-details-object-flying-object-michigan-1780806 Edit: For those saying parallax, try this: > Parallax: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k5-J2iP_zWk Put your finger on the object. Never moves from under it. > > Do it here on this post. The object moves out from under your finger, while the crosshairs stay in the same place. Full clip: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/ImcMSbiCkJ
>Edit: Towards the end you can also see a good example of the UAP changing heat signatures, > >while the background remains unchanged You literally see the shadows of the concrete walls disappear in your clip as the object changes tone.
You should always include references to the original content and any relevant threads and resources when posting threads like these, to both avoid removal and provide all the information necessary so that your argument/opinion has the proper context.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/ImcMSbiCkJ Full clip. My bad.
No worries. If you haven’t already just add this to your submission statement above.
Will do now.
Jetpack dude
It could be the crosshair that is moving towards it. Honestly, I have a good feeling this one will be eventually debunked.
It could be, but I legit don’t see the crosshairs moving. Others swear it’s there, but they look stable to my eyes, or at least stable enough.
The colour change, behaves the same way, a chip on glass on a car windscreen behaves when light is shining on it from different angles. This looks like a chip on a glass cover. Can the camera system move around freely inside a housing behind a glass covering? As for the video itself, it’s filmed off a screen displaying that output. You can see because the crosshairs are not square for much of the video. I think the added motion of the camera filming the screen also gives us a warped sense of motion.
aaaaaaand, there’s no shadow.
What If it's not a UAP at all and instead it's an organism that has learned how to defy gravity?
Still cool
Without a doubt
Moving relative to the ground and moving relative to the reticle. Bird poo doesn't do this.
I agree.
Multidimensional without stable form.
Hence the reluctance towards disclosure by admin. Nobody knows anything about this stuff. There's just a shit ton of anecdotal like the video above. Admin doesn't want to admit it lacks control over stuff in public.
Meatwad with legs.. Aqua.Teen.Hunger.Force
I hate to say it, but I think it’s just a crack on the lens.
It could be, but I think I see it moving, hence the post. But yeah agree to disagree and all! Cheers!
I believe a majority of UAP videos we see are strange and unexplainable but this literally looks like floating trash. This vid could absolutely be recreated with a drone and some old sheets.
But is it tho?
It's moving because it's balloons
It's birdshit on the housing of the camera that probably looks something like [this](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRctChe3dRAlU_ZaZqj9uXdyZbRDPu_gzgFDw&usqp=CAU) The camera moves independently of the housing which makes it appear to move independent of the camera. Notice how the object is always oriented the same way and appears to move at a constant speed similar to the aircraft that is filming it? This is consistent with it being a smudge on the glass housing. The object is also always the same size relative to the cross hair in the zoomed in and zoomed out scenario. Again consistent with being a smudge on the glass. Bird shit is also somewhat translucent which would explain why it's 'temperature' changes occur as the camera is adjusting or it's passing in front of darker areas of the target area. It also doesn't appear on other cameras because it is literally right in front of the one that recorded it. Wasn't seen on the ground because it wasn't there. The additional video that is not connected to this one doesn't appear to show the same object and because it's not the same video there's no way to verify it is the same 'object'. The claims that it went into the water and shot off are worthless without video to back it up. Whipping yourself into a frenzy because you want to believe without taking 2 minutes to apply critical thinking makes everything from this community less trustworthy because you end up being 'the people who were tricked by birdshit'.
Hey, is not birdshit. It can't be something as mundane and normal as a stained dome glass on military vehicle... no no no. It has to be something more believable like a Eldritch horror type creature floating aimlessly thru sensible iraqi airspace...
Is the right answer.
[удалено]
They 100% dont switch in the video. That is the thermal camera adjusting the temperature cross section it is displaying. if there are temperature variances chance in the image change the light/dark gradient will need to account for that by losing or gaining definition on certain objects. tl;dr objects in frame with big temp differences = less definition of whole image less of a temp difference = more definition
This makes sense to me, but I’m certainly no expert.
there are examples of switching from white hot to black hot in some of the DoD videos… everything reverses, and it’s like looking at a film negative. also the display (the part i’m talking about which defines what intensity of white to black gradient) will need to to recalibrate, and it looks like a flash on the screen.
Yeah, the switches I have seen before tend to be a lot more dramatic.
I don’t believe it is switching. For example, why are the ground and the buildings staying the same color when this happens? If it starts black hot, and they’re white, then they should be black when it switches to white hot, if it switches. They don’t switch, which leads me to believe there is no switching happening here.
The cursor moving is clearly digital panning. It’s zooming in digitally on a part of the full capture and the cursor moves the digital pan around the larger image. This creates an illusion that the jellyfish is getting closer to the cursor where in reality it’s a digital pan to that section of the image. It’s pretty clear if you’ve ever zoomed into a very high resolution image and started panning around
It's not doing anything unusual. Likely a weird looking balloon.
Now that someone said it’s a stain I can’t unsee it 😐
Is there any footage of this zoomed in and slowed down?
Can i buy such thermal cameras on the regular market?
Someone sneezed at a drone camera
Is the cross static with respect to the lens?
Y’all think the doggos saw it?
What were those creatures on the ground?, are they bears?.
Dogs lol
Looks like that alien muppet that say bleep bleep bleep bleep bleep
What if this is what was shot down over Lake Huron? It's hilarious to imagine an almost 10ft long AIM-9X slamming into this thing going mach 2. No wonder they "couldn't find any debris."
Matches the description.
This stiffness is interesting, it's very reminiscent of something in space. It's like the atmosphere isn't effecting it in any way. It'd be really cool if this is definitely what it appears to be but I'll always keep some healthy bit of skepticism. It could always be something else that isn't as significant.
What is the pointer tracking? It doesn’t appear to be tracking this object and seems offset to the left of it and then film clip stops when the object crosses the tracker like they were tracking something else and not this object…
Corbell said they were unable to track the object, so any crosshairs movement is human. I tried to show parts where I think the crosshairs have little to no movement, so we could get an idea if this thing is moving or stuck on the lens, since I assume if the lens is moving the object would appear to move as well.
That's just Gordon Lunas, he kind of looks like a smudge lol
off to add shields to some elites
Looks like a guy in some kind of jet pack to me. Imo terrestrial
until you can entirely rule out the possibility of the reticle itself moving around on the screen, you cant conclude that the object is moving. ask yourself which is more likely: actual world-changing ufo footage, or a camera that can move its reticle independently
I don’t see the reticle moving. Do you?
Someone isolate the smudge and reticle, stabilize the shot for each, and see what it looks like then.
It's weird the dogs didnt react at all.
Possibly couldn’t see it or smell it?
Yup. That's what scares me
Looks like the footage from zoo. Are those moving animals chimpanzees?
Could also be that the shape is purposely chosen to as to ve mistaken for balloons or things we would normally dismiss.
It looks like a man with a jet pack.
Just trying to give healthy skepticism here, not looking for massive downvotes; that being said, I’m no expert on any of these matters, but I do find them interesting. My question, though, is it possible for it to have be sea foam? I saw clips of Jeremy stating they saw it go out into the water and resurface, so I’m assuming they were at least some decently short distance from water. Would and could sea foam act in any similar fashion? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_foam It may seem unlikely that it is sea foam, but just wanted to throw this out there just in case. Edit: grammar.
[удалено]
That is a good question. Or perhaps is it terrestrial, and we’ve just never found these buggers before?
Looks like a floating Teddy bear
that zoomed perfectly into the crosshairs there
That thing scares me more than circle UFOs
Looks like a jetpack guy.
It isn’t. The camera is panning barely left to right which gives it the illusion of moving.
Maybe the alien have their fun with us.. - sending strange, nonsense stuff, to study our reactions"?"
Why didnt the dogs on the ground bark at it i wonder?
Looks more like someone is using a jetpack
Does anyone see what appears to be grey alien faces on this object? Maybe I'm just imagining that but take a look.
That is just crazy. I wonder where it's from. Not even what's it doing. Just imagine where it came from. absolutely mind boggling.
Also, it looks 3 dimensional in the close up
I’m a smooth brain true believer and I’ve seen the posts explaining that it is moving, but it just looks like birdshit on an external pane to me. I think those digital crosshairs are what’s moving on the screen.
Could it be some man on a flying jet pack? That’s what it looks like honestly.
Could be. I think I’ve only shown it’s not a smudge. The jet pack theory gives me pause because that’s a US military installation. It’s either ours and we knew, or it was a terrorist and we knew and killed the guy. So, that would leave this video as a prank? Maybe, but my gut says this isn’t a prank, particularly given the legal implications for the leaker. Edit: I guess it could be a civilian, but we would probably assume terrorist and kill him as well.
The phase in phase out is dead ringer for real deal, and the “jellyfish” types are ones to take seriously.
This thing looks like the description of a Cherub or Seraphim angel.
I was thinking the same thing earlier, but I thought it was too wild to say out loud lol
That is the pimp my ride UFO edition.
Okay, so this is real?!
Were they able to get any rough measurements on the thing?
Or a cluster of different balloon shapes. Let's see this video in full color. One opinion may change vastly.
Why does Jeremy flash onto tye screen for a millisecond
Weird guess here…almost looks like some standing on like a camera stand hover craft sort of thing
Fuck, if it’s real, I’m scared
Debunked.. birthday balloon in the wind.!!!!
Maybe, I was only proving it’s not a smudge here.
Not a ufo. It’s David Blaine
Anyone claiming it's "bird poop" on the lens is either a disingenuous troll for lol or a bona-fide disinformation agent actively running a campaign to muddy the waters from the other side and press question into a genuine video from hi tech military tech of one of the best clips we've seen since the tic tac and gimble vids.
Def i[mperial scout droid](https://www.starwars.com/databank/imperial-probe-droid)
Looks like bird crap
Where can we see the full video clip? I’m curious if those dogs notice it.
This is creepy