Jellyfish UFO's captured on military weapons camera

[Professor Emeritus]

What are my "views" Rhakim? Lol I already asked you to tell me what my views are in the above post, just because we see that you go into these threads with bad faith arguments with one singular postion every single time...doesn't automatically mean I have a viewpoint to "force".

Breh, no one buys those "I'm only asking questions" arguments anymore.

I pointed out exactly where you were lying about what I said. You address that. I have no need to address your obviously false suggestions of objectivity.

Point to a single bad faith argument I've made anywhere in here.

The military hasn't figured it out themselves.

Based on what? As I already pointed out to you, y'all said the EXACT SAME THING about the Navy videos, yet I was able to show clear sources showing the Pentagon didn't feel the videos showed anything unusual and had an exact explanation why.

The video is still passed around by them to this very day. In fact michael cincoski, a marine for that very base spoke on it.

You do realize that "the military" doesn't go in and inform random guys on base what their determinations are, right?

Cincoski said himself that he felt something attached to the housing/lens was most likely, and that the explanation was likely prosaic, not aliens (even though he believes in aliens). That kills the suggestion that anything I'm saying is impossible or that someone with knowledge of the situation would immediately discount it. But besides that, random guys talking about it on the base are no different than us talking about it here. They have no special inside information from the higher ups unless they're in the need-to-know category.

So why did you bring up one military person from the base, and not this one?

Because I don't see random people in the military as wise sages from which we can make Arguments from Authority. I just did that to point out that people were making false claims about what the "real video" showed, and to prove that people with knowledge of the exact systems involved didn't discount the housing arguments the way some of you were trying to.

Notice that by doing that, I bushed the false claims that the video was taken from a Predator, and cast some serious doubt on this unsubstantiated rumor which claims the object entered the water and then shot up out of it. Yet you never address those misstatements. Casts some doubts on your pretend objectivity.

Also, about the spider theory. Is this a spider casing hanging from a web on a housing that is outside? Wouldnt there be sway or moving from this spider dangling from a moving apparatus OUTDOORS and in the sky?

If the web strand is attached to the same housing as the camera, then it would only move exactly where the camera moved. And if the strand got caught on both ends (as strands of any length would tend to do) then it wouldn't have any reason to sway independently of the apparatus, it could be pretty firmly fixed. Or it could be swaying, but slowly enough that the camera operator is just adjusting to it as he attempts to "track" it.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

And @Rhakim. As a side note. I am genuinely curious about your thoughts on that video i posted, the mexican one. I have no idea and im more than open to it being fake or Cgi if that can objectively be proven.

If you have no real take on it, then you jave to admit that shyt is odd.

Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico

www.metabunk.org

I don't see any reason that it couldn't just be a partially deflated mylar balloon, dragging its string on the ground, slowly being pushed by the wind. Looks slightly funny only because it's poorly lit in the dark, and for all we know could be any random funny shape (they especially like funny-shaped balloons in latin america) rather than a typical circle.


I think it's telling that we've been told all these stories about UFOs moving with capacities beyond any human technology, but the actual videos we're discussing time and time again just look like something drifting in the wind in a perfectly straight line at normal speeds.

 

[Goombreh]

Here's some helpful additional information:





So:


1) The claims that it shot up out of the water appear to be false

2) The claims that it is changing temperature appear likely to be false

3) Nothing was visible with the naked eye, which supports the suggestion that it might have been something stuck to the camera housing



I like the theory that it's a spider's moulted skin. Dead skin, probably hanging from a web thread stuck to the top of the lens guard housing, as the operator moves the camera it gives the impression that it's moving across the background when in reality only the camera is moving. At some point it falls off and that's the end of the story.

 

[AngryBaby]

Breh, no one buys those "I'm only asking questions" arguments anymore.

I pointed out exactly where you were lying about what I said. You address that. I have no need to address your obviously false suggestions of objectivity.

Point to a single bad faith argument I've made anywhere in here.






Based on what? As I already pointed out to you, y'all said the EXACT SAME THING about the Navy videos, yet I was able to show clear sources showing the Pentagon didn't feel the videos showed anything unusual and had an exact explanation why.






You do realize that "the military" doesn't go in and inform random guys on base what their determinations are, right?

Cincoski said himself that he felt something attached to the housing/lens was most likely, and that the explanation was likely prosaic, not aliens (even though he believes in aliens). That kills the suggestion that anything I'm saying is impossible or that someone with knowledge of the situation would immediately discount it. But besides that, random guys talking about it on the base are no different than us talking about it here. They have no special inside information from the higher ups unless they're in the need-to-know category.






Because I don't see random people in the military as wise sages from which we can make Arguments from Authority. I just did that to point out that people were making false claims about what the "real video" showed, and to prove that people with knowledge of the exact systems involved didn't discount the housing arguments the way some of you were trying to.

Notice that by doing that, I bushed the false claims that the video was taken from a Predator, and cast some serious doubt on this unsubstantiated rumor which claims the object entered the water and then shot up out of it. Yet you never address those misstatements. Casts some doubts on your pretend objectivity.





If the web strand is attached to the same housing as the camera, then it would only move exactly where the camera moved. And if the strand got caught on both ends (as strands of any length would tend to do) then it wouldn't have any reason to sway independently of the apparatus, it could be pretty firmly fixed. Or it could be swaying, but slowly enough that the camera operator is just adjusting to it as he attempts to "track" it.

Well wait lol thats what I asked prior to my last post. Was it some random guy from the base that had nothing to do with the inspection or release of the video.

I was the one insinuating "what makes them any different from us talking about it". Because you positioned the military guy's take as an argument AGAINST the idea.

Acting as if you didnt now, is what I mean by bad faith lol

And the point of posting michaels video, is to indicate that no they havent figured it out. Im not sure why you keep saying that. Once again, positioning something as fact when it isnt.

Positioning the entire premise of your arguments on the idea that "corbell is an idiot, therefore there is no way he could have vetted this properly" is bad faith.

Breh, no one buys those "I'm only asking questions" arguments anymore.

Just Because the spider theory is goofy, and insults everyones intelligence. Doesnt mean I have view im forcing. I was barely in this thread and you threw that label on me.

When YOU are forcing a perspective. Consistently.

For example, the guy in this thread who said it was those obscure military drones. Notice I didnt refute that. Why? Because his position atleast ackowledges that something is physically there, and doesnt require undermining the intelligence or deductive reasoning skills of everyone involved.

 

[GreenGhxst]

This dude gives me heavy scammer/grifter vibes

 

[3rdWorld]

They never ever ever have clear footage. Never!

Not for space saucers, Loch Ness monster. Bigfoot and now this

 

[AngryBaby]

This is actually funny, because it reminds me that @Rhakim used this guy GUESSING that it may be a tethered object as a defacto argument against it.

However that post didnt position it as a guess, it acted as if he *knew*. Thats misleading.

But now he's saying these guys opinions dont really matter, after trying to post that as a "gotcha" moment.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Well wait lol thats what I asked prior to my last post. Was it some random guy from the base that had nothing to do with the inspection or release of the video.

I was the one insinuating "what makes them any different from us talking about it". Because you positioned the military guy's take as an argument AGAINST the idea.

Acting as if you didnt now, is what I mean by bad faith lol

The claim was that my theory was so ignorant, I couldn't possibly know anything about the situation. Yet guys who are right there on base were considering those same theories most likely, and NO ONE in this thread has called him ignorant, or would do so.

Again, it's bizarre that you're still going at me, and not the people who were telling full-on falsehoods about the situation in order to attack me. That's what makes your suggestions of objectivity look goofy.

And the point of posting michaels video, is to indicate that no they havent figured it out. Im not sure why you keep saying that. Once again, positioning something as fact when it isnt.

Why would some random person on base know whether or not the military people who actually look into this stuff have figured it out? Where is he in the command structure that he would have access to that information?

Positioning the entire premise of your arguments on the idea that "corbell is an idiot, therefore there is no way he could have vetted this properly" is bad faith.

That's not the argument I made, what I pointed out was that you can't ASSUME Corbell has vetted the video properly. Which is 100% valid if you know Corbell's history. Even the UFO brehs are sick of him hyping up bullshyt.

Just Because the spider theory is goofy, and insults everyones intelligence. Doesnt mean I have view im forcing. I was barely in this thread and you threw that label on me.

When YOU are forcing a perspective. Consistently.

I say it "could" be a spider, but I'm open to other theories.

You say it "can't" be a spider and ridicule the notion.

Then you accuse me of forcing one perspective as absolutely 100% certain.

Don't you see the hypocrisy there? You are doing the exact thing you falsely accused me of.

For example, the guy in this thread who said it was those obscure military drones. Notice I didnt refute that. Why? Because his position atleast ackowledges that something is physically there, and doesnt require undermining the intelligence or deductive reasoning skills of everyone involved.

Those aren't "obscure military drones", breh, they're a made-up conspiracy theory claiming the USA possesses alien technology.

Yeah, the fact that you're going this hard against "maybe it's something caught in the housing" but don't even bother to vet, "How about these made-up drones we got from the aliens", really makes me question your claims of objectivity here.

 

[5n0man]

A bug changing its body temperature in seconds?

It looks like it's reflecting light which causes it to lighten and darken.

 

[AngryBaby]

Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico

www.metabunk.org

I don't see any reason that it couldn't just be a partially deflated mylar balloon, dragging its string on the ground, slowly being pushed by the wind. Looks slightly funny only because it's poorly lit in the dark, and for all we know could be any random funny shape (they especially like funny-shaped balloons in latin america) rather than a typical circle.


I think it's telling that we've been told all these stories about UFOs moving with capacities beyond any human technology, but the actual videos we're discussing time and time again just look like something drifting in the wind in a perfectly straight line at normal speeds.

Thanks. I'll read it in a bit.

But i gotta laugh because i thought that other dude was joking about you being on that site.

 

[AngryBaby]

The claim was that my theory was so ignorant, I couldn't possibly know anything about the situation. Yet guys who are right there on base were considering those same theories most likely, and NO ONE in this thread has called him ignorant, or would do so.

Again, it's bizarre that you're still going at me, and not the people who were telling full-on falsehoods about the situation in order to attack me. That's what makes your suggestions of objectivity look goofy.

I never made a claim that you were so ignorant; However, I did make a claim that your position relies on the idea everyone else is.
and I didn't read much of any other posts, I saw some pics of spiders; read your stuff and didn't vibe with how you were going about it.

Why would some random person on base know whether or not the military people who actually look into this stuff have figured it out? Where is he in the command structure that he would have access to that information?

you said they "figured out" that the temperature changes were the camera adjusting. I said, no they clearly didn't. Not as a fact.

That's not the argument I made, what I pointed out was that you can't ASSUME Corbell has vetted the video properly. Which is 100% valid if you know Corbell's history. Even the UFO brehs are sick of him hyping up bullshyt.





I say it "could" be a spider, but I'm open to other theories.

You say it "can't" be a spider and ridicule the notion.

Then you accuse me of forcing one perspective as absolutely 100% certain.

Don't you see the hypocrisy there? You are doing the exact thing you falsely accused me of.

you were forcing the spider perspective. Conversely, you can't pin point a "perspective" that I'm "pushing" at all in this thread. nor a theory.

but i'm willing to accept the video is somewhat properly vetted; which then would have me say "idk wtf that is". which you clearly aren't willing to do.

Nice try though, you aren't a dummy...very sneaky with how you tried to flip that.

Those aren't "obscure military drones", breh, they're a made-up conspiracy theory claiming the USA possesses alien technology.

Yeah, the fact that you're going this hard against "maybe it's something caught in the housing" but don't even bother to vet, "How about these made-up drones we got from the aliens", really makes me question your claims of objectivity here.

I didn't know the idea of those drones were that they were made up of "alien tech", I was merely willing to accept that it could be military tech in general.

the core idea here is, that the dude acknowledged that an object is atleast present. Which at least doesn't assume everyone involved is incompetent.

so if you're trying to say that i'm not objective in the sense that I am "on the side" of aliens being present; I don't see how that can be true being that i'm willing to accept that it's military. I just think the spider or smudge concept is....intellectually insulting to everyone involved,

 

[Professor Emeritus]

you said they "figured out" that the temperature changes were the camera adjusting. I said, no they clearly didn't. Not as a fact.

This is the same base rate error the other guy made. If one answer is so fukking normal that it's a nonevent, and the other answer is completely inexplicable and unknown, then you default to the normal answer. No one gets through life without doing this for literally everything, you always assume the normal answer until you have reason to do otherwise.

Watch the video. You want to think it's a serious possibility that an object which otherwise is doing absolutely nothing at all is just randomly changing its entire temperature up and down across its entire structure, perfectly uniformly at all moments, only to return right back to where it started.

you were forcing the spider perspective. Conversely, you can't pin point a "perspective" that I'm "pushing" at all in this thread.

so if you're trying to say that i'm not objective in the sense that I am "on the side" of aliens being present; I don't see how that can be true being that i'm willing to accept that it's military. I just think the spider or smudge concept is....intellectually insulting to everyone involved,

I said from the very beginning that I think it's most likely to be something hanging on the housing, could be something stuck to the lens, and also might just be a bunch of balloons.

You keep saying that it CAN'T be any of those things, and are only willing to accept "aliens" or "top secret military drone that no one has ever heard of before", even though there is zero evidence supporting either of those theories. You're just absolutely refusing to believe it could be anything else.


You have been far more certain and limiting in your options than I have. And yet it's the exact thing you're complaining about me for. That's the hypocrisy I'm talking about.



Why not just actually debate the facts of what is happening, instead of wasting all this energy bytching about the way I'm debating the facts? At least I was trying to talk about the event. You're just in here being some sort of Karen, complaining about the way I argue my points rather than even discussing the points themselves, and can't see yourself doing the exact same thing.

 

[AngryBaby]

This is the same base rate error the other guy made. If one answer is so fukking normal that it's a nonevent, and the other answer is completely inexplicable and unknown, then you default to the normal answer. No one gets through life without doing this for literally everything, you always assume the normal answer until you have reason to do otherwise.

Watch the video. You want to think it's a serious possibility that an object which otherwise is doing absolutely nothing at all is just randomly changing its entire temperature up and down across its entire structure, perfectly uniformly at all moments, only to return right back to where it started.







I said from the very beginning that I think it's most likely to be something hanging on the housing, could be something stuck to the lens, and also might just be a bunch of balloons.

You keep saying that it CAN'T be any of those things, and are only willing to accept "aliens" or "top secret military drone that no one has ever heard of before", even though there is zero evidence supporting either of those theories. You're just absolutely refusing to believe it could be anything else.


You have been far more certain and limiting in your options than I have. And yet it's the exact thing you're complaining about me for. That's the hypocrisy I'm talking about.



Why not just actually debate the facts of what is happening, instead of wasting all this energy bytching about the way I'm debating the facts? At least I was trying to talk about the event. You're just in here being some sort of Karen, complaining about the way I argue my points rather than even discussing the points themselves, and can't see yourself doing the exact same thing.

Lol yet when I asked you what exactly am I certain about, and what exactly my position is that im so rigid upon and "forcing". You evaded it every fukking time. Because you know I havent been doing that. You did. I can however tell you exactly what theories you've been pushing the whole time.

Just admit you took me questioning you, as a declaration that I must believe its aliens. And you were presumptious and lumped me into a box of what you percieve most people in this thread to be. Thats what happened lol
Own up to it.

I only questioned you on assuming the vetting process done by the military and Corbell, Was so insufficient that they couldnt quickly assess if this were something connected to the housing.

I think its fair to question that its egotistical and less likely that you had come up with that question and they all just haven't.

I think anyone who spoke to you in this thread, (and based on past behavior and based upon your activity in metabunk), would definitely say you were the one forcing a perspective.

You have been far more certain and limiting in your options than I have. And yet it's the exact thing you're complaining about me for. That's the hypocrisy I'm talking about.

Wait what are the options that im giving? Lol see how you just projected that on to me? I have no "options". I dont know what it is. You are claiming to know what it is, and YOU gave options. Not me.

You do this in every single UAP thread. And you participate in a debunk forum by mick west. So you're the one only giving the limiting options of "benign" theories. You dont entertain anything else.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Lol yet when I asked you what exactly am I certain about, and what exactly my position is that im so rigid upon and "forcing". You evaded it every fukking time.

No I didn't. You keep lying.

You are CERTAIN that it can't be something stuck to the lens, hanging from the camera housing, or just a bunch of balloons or something else mundane floating across the base. You have been absolutely rigid about that certainty and forcing that even though you admit that you haven't even read most of the posts in the thread or investigated it closely.

I've pointed that out several times and you still don't get it.

I only questioned you on assuming the vetting process done by the military and Corbell, Was so insufficient that they couldnt quickly assess if this were something connected to the housing.

Corbell is a fukking idiot and a grifter and there is zero reason to take him seriously to vet anything. Even most full-on believers agree on that now.

You have no clue what "vetting process" the military did or what its conclusions are. They easily may have come to the same conclusion I did.

I think its fair to question that its egotistical and less likely that you had come up with that question and they all just haven't.

I have NEVER made such a claim, I've regularly pointed out to you that you have zero idea which possibilities the army may or may not have come up with.

I think anyone who spoke to you in this thread, (and based on past behavior and based upon your activity in metabunk), would definitely say you were the one forcing a perspective.

What the fukk does this mean, are you trying to falsely imply I've ever posted anything in Metabunk now?

 

[AngryBaby]

No I didn't. You keep lying.

You are CERTAIN that it can't be something stuck to the lens, hanging from the camera housing, or just a bunch of balloons or something else mundane floating across the base. You have been absolutely rigid about that certainty and forcing that even though you admit that you haven't even read most of the posts in the thread or investigated it closely.

I've pointed that out several times and you still don't get it.

1. Never commented on Balloons. Stop lying. though you are basing this off of visuals. Which is subjective, because visually to me...im not seeing balloons, nor balloon behavior. Doesnt mean im CERTAIN. just that...that's not what im seeing. At all.

2. You are CERTAIN that it isn't changing temperatures. You dismiss that you were told that thats what it was doing, which is fine I suppose, but that relies on the idea that "these are idiots and they didnt properly vett this to come to that conclusion; But I rhakim, am more diligent than they are. Therefore I will tell everyone what it probably is". The arrogance of you smh.

Corbell is a fukking idiot and a grifter and there is zero reason to take him seriously to vet anything. Even most full-on believers agree on that now.

I mean thats an opinion. And yeah your premises rely on this being a fact lol

You have no clue what "vetting process" the military did or what its conclusions are. They easily may have come to the same conclusion I did.

Neither do you; but they generally have SOME sort of process. You simply err on the side of them being less competent than yourself (ego,arrogance) whereas I don't.

I have NEVER made such a claim, I've regularly pointed out to you that you have zero idea which possibilities the army may or may not have come up with.

You literally said corbell is an idiot and that you wouldnt be suprised that he missed it. You're entire premise relies on incompetence.

What the fukk does this mean, are you trying to falsely imply I've ever posted anything in Metabunk now?

You linked me to it almost immediately as a source that represents your viewslol you certainly lurk it, or were very aware of it.

Bad faith yet again.