Jellyfish UFO's captured on military weapons camera

[Professor Emeritus]

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

You claimed that I rely on the incompetence of EVERYONE, when literally the only person who I said was an idiot was Corbell. Can you not parse that difference?

And I didn't say that I was smarter than any of them. I didn't even say I came up with any of these theories. All I've done is find the people making the most sense and reposting them. This is yet another example of you not wanting to argue the facts, so you keep making it personal instead with this process bullshyt.

You linked me to it almost immediately as a factual source lol you certainly lurk it, or were very aware of it.

You claimed I had displayed a certain kind of behavior on Metabunk. Now you're claiming I "certainly" lurk it (which I don't). But even if I lurked it, how would that support your claim that I had demonstrated poor behavior on it?

I've been aware of Metabunk for maybe 2-3 years (I actually knew who Mick West was before I even knew he had a site called Metabunk, which shows you how casually I pay attention to him). I've never logged in and I don't lurk, it's just an occasional reference source. When a UFO question comes up, I'll check it. For me that only happens a few times a year. And they invariably have the most informed, well-researched responses. What's wrong with noticing that and learning from it?

 

[AngryBaby]

You claimed that I rely on the incompetence of EVERYONE, when literally the only person who I said was an idiot was Corbell. Can you not parse that difference?

And I didn't say that I was smarter than any of them. I didn't even say I came up with any of these theories. All I've done is find the people making the most sense and reposting them. This is yet another example of you not wanting to argue the facts, so you keep making it personal instead with this process bullshyt.

There arent many facts to argue reagrding this lol none of us on a factual basis know what it is, or what it isn't.

You however are having a hard time with that. And came in telling everyone what it probably is.

You claimed I had displayed a certain kind of behavior on Metabunk.

When did I say you did a certain behavior on the site? Are you confusing me with someone else?

I've been aware of Metabunk for maybe 2-3 years

Lol Precisely. Like I said.

I've never logged in and I don't lurk, it's just an occasional reference source. When a UFO question comes up, I'll check it. For me that only happens a few times a year. And they invariably have the most informed, well-researched responses. What's wrong with noticing that and learning from it?

So... you lurk it lol like I said.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

When did I say you did a certain behavior on the site? Are you confusing me with someone else?

Right here:

(and based on past behavior and based upon your activity in metabunk), would definitely say you were the one forcing a perspective.

You're clearly suggesting that I've behaved in a certain way on that site.

And you participate in a debunk forum by mick west

No I don't, liar.

So... you lurk it lol like I said.

So everyone who has ever clicked on a site is "lurking" it.

Before this thread, I can guarantee that I hadn't even glanced at that site once in three months or more. But the fact that I'm even aware of its existance means that you can discount my opinion and claim I'm forcing a perspective. Right.

Do you seriously believe that everyone on Metabunk is forcing a perspective? Have you even thread the threads there, or do you just like using it as a boogeyman?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

@AngryBaby, here are a couple incidents I'd like you to engage with directly, and tell me what influence they have on the entire line of argument you've been pushing here. Let's stop talking about me, and try actually talking about UFOs instead.


On January 5th, 2017, UFO expert Leslie Kean (the same journalist who broke the AATIP story and the Grusch story) published claims from the Chilean government that they had an inexplicable video of a UFO in action.

Groundbreaking UFO Video Just Released By Chilean Navy

Groundbreaking UFO Video Just Released By Chilean Navy

www.huffpost.com

Chile had been sitting on this video for over two years while their greatest experts poured over it in every way possible. The lengths they went to in their investigation was wild.

Since its release on The Huffington Post on January 5, a video taken from a Chilean Navy studied by Chilean authorities for the last two years, is now being released to the public. The CEFAA - the Chilean government agency which investigates UFOs, or UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena), has been in charge of the investigation. Located within the DGAC, the equivalent of our FAA but under the jurisdiction of the Chilean Air Force, CEFAA has committees of military experts, technicians and academics from many disciplines. None of them have been able to explain the strange flying object captured by two experienced Navy officers from a helicopter.

The Chilean government agency always makes its cases public when an investigation is complete, and acknowledges the existence of UAP when a case merits such a conclusion.

General Ricardo Bermúdez, Director of CEFAA during the investigation, told me that “We do not know what it was, but we do know what it was not.” And “what it is not” comprises a long list of conventional explanations. Here is what happened:

After a long explanation of the incident, with pictures and videos, they describe the investigation, which was directed by a special committee within the Air Force:

The Navy immediately turned over the footage to the CEFAA, and General Bermúdez, accompanied by nuclear chemist Mario Avila, a CEFAA scientific committee member, conducted interviews with the two officers at their Navy base. “I was very impressed by these witnesses,” Avila told me. “They were highly trained professionals with many years experience, and they were absolutely certain that they could not explain what they saw.” Both offiicers also provided written reports at the base, as is required, and for CEFAA.

During the following two years, at least eight somewhat contentious meetings were held with members of the baffled CEFAA scientific committee, some of which included the active Air Force General who directs the DGAC. According to CEFAA international affairs director Jose Lay, the general tone of the meetings was astonishment: “What the hell is that?” No agreement could be reached to explain the video - theories that were proposed were ruled out by the data.

Written reports or video analyses were provided by the well-known astrophysicist Luis Barrera; an image expert from the Air Force photogrammetric service; photo and video analyst Francois Louange and colleagues from France, arranged through the French agency GEIPAN; Luis Salazar, Chilean Air Force meteorologist; a DGAC aeronautic engineer; a digital images specialist from the National Museum of Aeronautics and Space in Santiago; and Mario Avila, a nuclear chemist. All radar, satellite weather data, and details of air traffic in that sector at that time were provided

“This has been one of the most important cases in my career as director of CEFAA because our Committee was at its best, “ General Bermúdez said in an email. “The CEFAA is well regarded partly because there is full participation from the scientists of the academic world, the armed forces through their representatives, and the aeronautic personnel from the DGAC, including its Director. I am extremely pleased as well with the conclusion reached which is logical and unpretentious.” The official conclusion was that “the great majority of committee members agreed to call the subject in question a UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon) due to the number of highly researched reasons that it was unanimously agreed could not explain it.”

This case represents one of the most puzzling and fascinating of all cases in the CEFAA files, according to Jose Lay. “It is our first video taken with a sophisticated camera in the infra red; the first time we have ever seen the ejection of a substance from a UAP; the first time we have a sighting lasting over nine minutes with two highly reliable witnesses,” he said when we spoke.

The Navy was stumped. The Air Force was stumped. The government was stumped. And you can't claim they didn't try.

That case has ALL the elements that you claim this case has, only in that case it was actually proven. The military really DID investigate the incident in excruciating detail. They really DID check out every theory they could think of and tested them against all the evidence available. They really DID talk to every witness and every expert they could find.

You don't even know whether anyone has actually done those things in this "jellyfish" case. But we KNOW they did them in that case, and we know they did them to an incredible degree of depth, and we know that in the end, the dozens of people involved in the investigation remained completely stumped.

So, by the same logic you're using in this thread, you would have to say that there can't be a simple, mundane explanation to that sighting, right?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Well, after the article came out, how long did it take the guys at Metabunk to explain the video and provide proof?


They solved the mystery in two fukking days.

Explained: Chilean Navy "UFO" video - Aerodynamic Contrails, Flight IB6830

If you are short on time, then I made a one minute video explaining this: Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bFfuIidCK0 Background: Infrared footage from the Chilean Navy appears to show some kind of flying object that briefly leaves a trail behind it...

www.metabunk.org

The article came out January 5th, Mick posted the thread on January 6th, and they had already identified the exact plane and flight path involved by January 7th. And people in that thread mocked them with the EXACT same language you are using to mock me.

I hate to burst your bubble sort of. 5 things. Your saying a experienced navy pilot doesn't know difference between planes he sees all the time and a UFO? YOU also say 2 years of research and in less then a few hours or a day you've figured it all out lmao. Also this "plane" or planes as you say is apparently moving much faster than the chopper yet takes 10 minutes and doesn't move in altitude. Also he tries COMMUNICATING on all channels with the aircraft and gets nothing he also asked not one but 2 radar stations if they saw it and they didn't. Radar saw chopper though so obviously worked. Also any pilot of civilian plane would respond to military chopper or could be shot down or escorted. You also say the French said it was a plane yet they later said it couldn't of been because it was not on the radar not 1 but 2 radar. Your reaching . Also the helicopter tried to lock on to the target thru radar on the chopper and COULDNT. you cannot and will not debunk this with a silly plane explanation in a few hours . They had 2 years with tons of resources and experts and some guys on planefinder think they debunked it in a few hours. You can't explain any of those things at all . Until you can explain radar from 3 different sources and radio communications you have nothing. Give it a break already.

And a different poster:

People on this site are making out the Chile Military and the very experienced pilots of the helicopter are complete imbeciles. These people have probably seen literally hundreds and thousands of planes landing, flying, whatever in all weather and most definitely can tell the difference between a plane and a UFO. They are by no means the only pilots or military that have seen UFOs!

However, the evidence they had uncovered could not be denied. This is their summary:

We have some very solid verifiable evidence in

1. The helicopter video with timestamps and GPS coordinates.
2. The IB6830 and LA330 ADS-B tracks with timestamps and GPS coordinates.

1 matches 2 in every way

• IB6830 is in the right place at the right place
• IB6830 is going in the right direction
• IB6830 banks when the "UFO" banks,
• IB6830 would create a visual thermal signature the same size as in the video.
• IB6830 engine configuration matches the flares seen in the banking
• The size of IB6830's thermal signature shrinks proportional to its distance, matching the video.
  
  
  This is not my theory. These are verifiable facts that I (and others) simply discovered. Unless there was a UFO flying between the plane and the helicopter, mimicking the motion, the banking, the size and and the thermal signature of the plane, then it's a plane.

In fact, just a couple weeks after Mick West and Metabunk published the explanation, the Chilean government took the sighting off of their "unexplained sightings" page.

The CEFAA does NOT list sightings they had explanations for, only those they haven't solved.

It is interesting to me that if you go to the CEFAA website now you will notice that , although this 2014 case was on their front page a week or 2 ago, it now no longer appears on their website at all.

This MIGHT mean they accept the explanation offered here and consider this case solved.

And just 12 days after her initial story, Leslie Kean published a follow-up where she refused to credit Metabunk (she has beef with them), and refused to link to any of their proofs they had already provided, but went to two independent experts with the theory and they confirmed the same thing to her. The data from the plane's flight path perfectly matches the "UFO" in the video and it looks exactly like a plane at that distance would look. It was a fukking plane.

The Chilean Navy UFO Video: Is It A Plane?

The Chilean Navy UFO Video: Is It A Plane?

www.huffpost.com

Since she's a UFOologist and didn't want to be embarassed, she tries to throw in a little doubt at the end, but everyone knew it was over. The Chilean government had released the story to huge fanfare just two weeks earlier, and now it was off their website, never to be brought up again.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Here's another one. This also came from the Chilean government and Leslie Kean. Inexplicable UFOs turned out to be....bugs.

Leslie Kean Update: the Fly is Still Flying High!

A skeptical blog about UFO claims, aliens, etc.

badufos.blogspot.com

Maybe only Chile's government can make mistakes like that? Okay, let's imagine that the US government announced an unauthorized missile launch:








Within a few days, people only began to demonstrate that it was just a regular jet contrail, but some "experts" were still holding out:

California 'mystery missile' ignites debate: Friend, foe, or faux?

News video showed a spectacular contrail Monday off California's coast, and debate over the 'mystery missile' blasted off. But even as government agencies said 'it wasn't us,' the US denied any threat.

www.csmonitor.com

Then the Pentagon came forward and said, "Y'all are right, our bad, it was just a plane."

Pentagon Says 'Mystery Missile' Was a Plane

The Pentagon says it has concluded that the "mystery missle" off the southern California coast was a plane, not a missile. While the military hasn't determine exactly what plane it was that made the contrail, it says it considers the case closed and has no intention of trying to identify the plane.

abcnews.go.com

"The Pentagon has concluded today that the "mystery missile" contrail that startled the country and baffled the Pentagon was caused by a plane and, as far as they're concerned the case is closed."



So as you can see, the fact that "military experts" haven't found a solution yet and "regular people" did, means nothing. shyt like that happens all the time. The fact that you THINK the military has ruled out mundane explanations (an assertion you have zero evidence for) has no bearing on the case.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

But @AngryBaby , I don't even think the military has ruled out mundane explanations like you claim. I'll bet anything the military already knows about those same mundane explanations for the "jellyfish" that we're talking about, and considers them the most likely answer. They just haven't told that to you. And they're under no obligation to do so.


Remember how those Navy videos were treated like the greatest UFO evidence ever released by the US government?





People said that Mick West couldn't possibly be right, because the military wouldn't be fooled so easily.


So they were pretty upset when they saw the Pentagon come to the exact same conclusions.

Many Military U.F.O. Reports Are Just Foreign Spying or Airborne Trash (Published 2022)

Forget space aliens or hypersonic technology; classified assessments show that many episodes have ordinary explanations.

www.nytimes.com

One of the videos, referred to as GoFast, appears to show an object moving at immense speed. But an analysis by the military says that is an illusion created by the angle of observation against water. According to Pentagon calculations, the object is moving only about 30 miles per hour.

Another video, known as Gimbal, shows an object that appears to be turning or spinning. Military officials now believe that is the optics of the classified image sensor, designed to help target weapons, make the object appear like it is moving in a strange way.



The military explanations are the EXACT same as what Metabunk already told the UFO community. But when those videos came out, the UFO community was saying that the military couldn't explain them and therefore they had to be something crazy, not something mundane.

This incident and the Chile one I linked destroy the way of thinking that you've relied on all thread. Just claiming, "It can't be something normal and regular because then the military would have debunked it already" is false. Sometimes the military misses something. Sometimes the military hasn't even bothered investigating. And sometimes they HAVE investigated, and came to the exact same conclusion, but just didn't tell you.

 

[AngryBaby]

Right here:



You're clearly suggesting that I've behaved in a certain way on that site

Lmao. I was speaking about your behavior on THIS site. Referencing that you come in with a fixed position every single time.

I was thinking to myself "how the hell would I know what behavior you had on a site I dont visit.," you just misinterpreted that.


As far as saying activity on mick west's site. Yes you reference the site, you are aware of it, you look to it for information. You reference it despite the fact they typically have one position and there is no push back from other perspectives that arent trying to debunk it. Thats bias btw.

Im reading the rest. Of this post...you went crazy last night damn

I can tell you typically just exhaust people with all of this and they eventually just stop arguing. Just an observation lol because you want me to now read about a separate situation that I didnt find interesting at all, with less compelling footage, as a way to discredit this one. Okay lol

 

[beenz]

People ask for better footage. They get it and still act dumb

it's 2024. show me something in actual 4K at this point. get this grainy black and white bullshyt up outta here

 

[FukyourFort]

it's 2024. show me something in actual 4K at this point. get this grainy black and white bullshyt up outta here

It's 2024 and you still don't know what IR footage looks like.

It's not cool to be dumb yall

 

[Professor Emeritus]

As far as saying activity on mick west's site. Yes you reference the site, you are aware of it, you look to it for information. You reference it despite the fact they typically have one position and there is no push back from other perspectives that arent trying to debunk it. Thats bias btw.

That's entirely false and suggests that you aren't actually familiar with the site. On any particular thread there are a bunch of perspectives with different positions, and people tend to change their own positions rapidly while new information emerges. In fact, in the few threads I've read there, posters appeared to be far more willing to change their positions as evidence emerged than I've seen on any message board I've been a part of.

 

[jaydawg08]

Greenstreets source has basically set the record straight on his own thoughts on the matter.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

No ships, no bodies, no physical evidence, just hearsay, blurry videos/pics, and Photoshop/AI.

​

 

[AngryBaby]

That's entirely false and suggests that you aren't actually familiar with the site. On any particular thread there are a bunch of perspectives with different positions, and people tend to change their own positions rapidly while new information emerges. In fact, in the few threads I've read there, posters appeared to be far more willing to change their positions as evidence emerged than I've seen on any other message board I've been a part of.

The site is called metabunk...every one of the posts in that thread you sent me started the conversation with degrees of attempted debunks lol you are being dishonest if you are going to act as if they dont come at this from a particular position off rip.



But wait so now you are even aware of the variance of postings on that site also. Enough to try and refute me on it lol yet...you dont lurk it? Someone is not being honest. Its you.

 

[TAYLONDO SAMSWORTHY]

I literally just said you dont know what it is. And neither do I. But I'm not out here angrily trying to dispel the idea it could be something weird. Could not.

However dude has alot of footage that has been certified as authentic. Especially when a sfx artist would easily be able to discredit him if that were CGI.

So I dont think thats whats happening here. But just because I said the vid is authentic you alreadt labeled me as some tin foil guy. Why? Comes off more like you dont want to be fooled or something

Yeah that nikka sounded terrified like he was typing that whilst having a premium anxiety attack, yikes