Jellyfish UFO's captured on military weapons camera

[Professor Emeritus]

Does infrared not look past bugs or dirt like they said?

No, that's not true in general, bugs show up on infrared all the time.

Here's a 12-second video which shows at least 3 different bugs showing up clearly on infrared, some very close to the camera and some further away:

Something glows with ir

Here’s the video the shot was from

forums.wyze.com

Here's another one:





Another spider:





Even a mere spider web can show up on infrared:





Spiders building web on infrared:







Spider fight in infrared:






Those spiders have a more solid IR signature than the object in the video, but that might merely be the difference between a live spider and a mostly empty spider skin. Or it might be the difference between a camera with short focal length trying to look at close objects, and a camera with longer focal length for which close-up objects can be partially (but not fully) transparent

So clearly bugs can show up on infrared. What that guy actually seemed to be saying was that the focal length on this particular infrared camera was such that something very very close to the lens would not show up. But that's a claim that isn't very meaningful without specifics. How far away does an object have to be before it will show up? One inch, or one foot, or ten feet? Perhaps a dead spider or spider skin stuck to the lens would not show up on that particular camera, but would a dead spider hanging 8" in front of the lens show up?

Without that sort of clear specificity, the mere statement by someone on social media isn't very helpful.

So its your word versus his? What are your credentials again?

Have you operated said equipment. Because if he has, and you havent. Then I have to lean towards credibility here

Well, when it comes to the study of optics I have quite strong credentials, but that's irrelevant because I haven't asked you to rely on "my word" for anything. Every assertion I've made, I've backed with explicit evidence.

 

[jaydawg08]

No, that's not true in general, bugs show up on infrared all the time.

Here's a 12-second video which shows at least 3 different bugs showing up clearly on infrared, some very close to the camera and some further away:

Something glows with ir

Here’s the video the shot was from

forums.wyze.com

Here's another one:





Another spider:





Even a mere spider web can show up on infrared:





Spiders building web on infrared:







Spider fight in infrared:






Those spiders have a more solid IR signature than the object in the video, but that might merely be the difference between a live spider and a mostly empty spider skin. Or it might be the difference between a camera with short focal length trying to look at close objects, and a camera with longer focal length for which close-up objects can be partially (but not fully) transparent

So clearly bugs can show up on infrared. What that guy actually seemed to be saying was that the focal length on this particular infrared camera was such that something very very close to the lens would not show up. But that's a claim that isn't very meaningful without specifics. How far away does an object have to be before it will show up? One inch, or one foot, or ten feet? Perhaps a dead spider or spider skin stuck to the lens would not show up on that particular camera, but would a dead spider hanging 8" in front of the lens show up?

Without that sort of clear specificity, the mere statement by someone on social media isn't very helpful.





Well, when it comes to the study of optics I have quite strong credentials, but that's irrelevant because I haven't asked you to rely on "my word" for anything. Every assertion I've made, I've backed with explicit evidence.

This dude is consistently trying to make the dead spider skin a thing. Please pivot and just make an argument for balloons, cause I think people would take that more seriously than this dumbass idea you continue to parrot.

 

[AngryBaby]

No, that's not true in general, bugs show up on infrared all the time.

Here's a 12-second video which shows at least 3 different bugs showing up clearly on infrared, some very close to the camera and some further away:

Something glows with ir

Here’s the video the shot was from

forums.wyze.com

Here's another one:





Another spider:





Even a mere spider web can show up on infrared:





Spiders building web on infrared:







Spider fight in infrared:






Those spiders have a more solid IR signature than the object in the video, but that might merely be the difference between a live spider and a mostly empty spider skin. Or it might be the difference between a camera with short focal length trying to look at close objects, and a camera with longer focal length for which close-up objects can be partially (but not fully) transparent

So clearly bugs can show up on infrared. What that guy actually seemed to be saying was that the focal length on this particular infrared camera was such that something very very close to the lens would not show up. But that's a claim that isn't very meaningful without specifics. How far away does an object have to be before it will show up? One inch, or one foot, or ten feet? Perhaps a dead spider or spider skin stuck to the lens would not show up on that particular camera, but would a dead spider hanging 8" in front of the lens show up?

Without that sort of clear specificity, the mere statement by someone on social media isn't very helpful.





Well, when it comes to the study of optics I have quite strong credentials, but that's irrelevant because I haven't asked you to rely on "my word" for anything. Every assertion I've made, I've backed with explicit evidence.

Lol is that military grade IR or a security camera?

Thats why I cant rely on your "evidence".

And once agaib...no one has credibility except for Rhakim. Lol

 

[Professor Emeritus]

This dude is consistently trying to make the dead spider skin a thing. Please pivot and just make an argument for balloons, cause I think people would take that more seriously than this dumbass idea you continue to parrot.

Breh, I'M not the one obsessed with the spider shyt, y'all are.

I argued from the very beginning that balloons and spiders (or something else hanging from the housing) were both valid possibilities, and y'all kept obsessing and responding to the spider shyt over and over while ignoring the balloon possibility. If you wanted me to drop it, then why won't you drop it? The moment I stopped replying to you, you would have claimed I "ghosted".

 

[AngryBaby]

Breh, I'M not the one obsessed with the spider shyt, y'all are.

I argued from the very beginning that balloons and spiders (or something else hanging from the housing) were both valid possibilities, and y'all kept obsessing and responding to the spider shyt over and over while ignoring the balloon possibility. If you wanted me to drop it, then why won't you drop it? The moment I stopped replying to you, you would have claimed I "ghosted".

You went pretty hard in the paint for the spider bit my guy. If someone doubts it, you responded, and thus they respond. Thats how forums work.

You are gaslighting when a back and forth exchange that you are equally apart of is being claimed to be "obsession" from the orher party.

Bad faith and gaslighting yet again.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Lol is that military grade IR or a security camera?

Thats why I cant rely on your "evidence".

What does "military grade infrared" mean to you? You think infrared operates at different frequencies if it's "military grade" or something?

Your exact question was:

Does infrared not look past bugs or dirt like they said?

I answered that question. Infrared is infrared, it does not "look past bugs".

However, I also added:

Those spiders have a more solid IR signature than the object in the video, but that might merely be the difference between a live spider and a mostly empty spider skin. Or it might be the difference between a camera with short focal length trying to look at close objects, and a camera with longer focal length for which close-up objects can be partially (but not fully) transparent

So clearly bugs can show up on infrared. What that guy actually seemed to be saying was that the focal length on this particular infrared camera was such that something very very close to the lens would not show up. But that's a claim that isn't very meaningful without specifics. How far away does an object have to be before it will show up? One inch, or one foot, or ten feet? Perhaps a dead spider or spider skin stuck to the lens would not show up on that particular camera, but would a dead spider hanging 8" in front of the lens show up?

Without that sort of clear specificity, the mere statement by someone on social media isn't very helpful.

You could have replied to that if you wanted a real informed discussion, but you don't seem interested in that.

 

[AngryBaby]

Your exact question was:


I answered that question. Infrared is infrared, it does not "look past bugs".

However, I also added:




You could have replied to that if you wanted a real informed discussion, but you don't seem interested in that.

And yet there is no movements from this spider hanging from a web on a outdoor rotating device?

Tell the audience again why that would occur? We'll all determine if uts a reach.

And the reason no one commented on balloons is because atleast it acknowledged its an object.

The spider/smudge idea...thats what we are debating.

 

[AngryBaby]

What does "military grade infrared" mean to you? You think infrared operates at different frequencies if it's "military grade" or something?

Your exact question was:



I answered that question. Infrared is infrared, it does not "look past bugs".

Just a question, theres likely a major difference between security cameras and a military grade one. Abd once again, it relies on the idea that the guy was lying.

 

[O.T.I.S.]

Not even an insult. An observation. I have a sibling on the spectrum, and your repetitive consistency within every "alien" thread, and when you posted 3 pages of arguments while everyone was sleeping was something that reminded me of his own tendencies lol I know spectrum when I see it.

So basically you chose delusion. Because with the "6 occurances" that have little to do with this jellyfish vid you posted, you think that makes the probability of corbell's team, and the military, as well as video experts that have already weighed in on it not being a smudge or something connected to the device...50/50 with you figuring out it's a spider on the housing?

The reticle moves independent of the object, when the object changes tenperature the objects in background do not *ruling out camera fiddling), the size of the object changes with distance etc. You can see all of that in the video. It makes no sense to conclude its a spider.

Also, looks like grusch was deemed credible. Didn't you also say awhile back that hes probably just crazy? Another argument that relied on incompetence?

Dud is legit retarded bruh. He will try to long-wind you to death with the most idiotic talking points just to think he’s “won” the argument

Thank God for the few smart people on this forum

Y’all doin the Lords work

hilarious that dudes talking about balloons, spiderskin, and rastafarians dapping this

 

[O.T.I.S.]

It's 2024 and we still have blurry, dark, indistinguishable and trash UFO photos.

These aren’t videos made in 2024

These are videos made in 2000’s-2010’s or longer and sat on

 

[AngryBaby]

Dud is legit retarded bruh. He will try to long-wind you to death with the most idiotic talking points just to think he’s “won” the argument

hilarious that dudes talking about balloons, spiderskin, and rastafarians dapping this

Yeah its a battle of attrition. I suspected dude was on the spectrum for awhile.

I know hes religious also, so...you know. They go hard in the paint to confirm their own emotional biases.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

And yet there is no movements from this spider hanging from a web on a outdoor rotating device?

Tell the audience again why that would occur? We'll all determine if uts a reach.

It appears possible that the object does move, someone did a time lapse (don't know if it is accurate) that appeared to show the object oscillating slightly around a central point. They were trying to prove that it had 3D substance and thus couldn't be something stuck to the lens. But such movement would also be perfectly consistent with something stuck to a spider line that's caught the housing on both ends and thus only has limited movement on that line.

Any movement of the camera would be perfectly matched by the object, with only minor oscillations.

Or, probably more likely to me at this point, it could just be balloons, floating by at the prevailing windspeed and generally staying in the same position either because they're tied together tightly or because they've already been pushed into the optimal aerodynamic position by the wind.

And the reason no one commented on balloons is because atleast it acknowledged its an object.

Spider skins are objects too.

The spider/smudge idea...thats what we are debating.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You are.. your comments about him seem to be uninformed on his activities and his job in finding SAPs involving UFOs. You've made comments in these threads and others insisting he was told by a buddy or couple people or even Corbell about these things.

This is what I mean about you lying on me. Post the actual statements that show I was unaware of Grusch's job or thought Grusch learned these things from "a buddy" or "Corbell". You can check my history and see that I'm plenty aware of who Grusch is and what his role was from the very beginning.

It's your own poor reading comprehension, not my "ignorance" that is at issue here. People who insult others because they misread something should apologize.

You're not coming across as intelligent on that subject, sorry guy

A number of people in this thread have already said the opposite.

Idk why you're so obsessed with trying to prove to me Corbell is a liar when I've never held him in any high regard. He posted a video dude. That's what's interesting to me, then Greenstreet got other confirmation that the video is legit from another source.

Probably because you're the one who posted the OP video of Corbell, then repeated several things he said as if they were true without acknowledging that the only evidence we have of them is Corbell's word. And then when people in the thread repeat verifiable lies from Corbell, you haven't had a word to say against them.

You keep calling me biased here, yet you're only arguing with people who criticize Corbell, and ignoring the false statements made by people in support of him.

 

[Orbital-Fetus]

Spider skins are objects too.

Spoiler

 

[jaydawg08]

This is what I mean about you lying on me. Post the actual statements that show I was unaware of Grusch's job or thought Grusch learned these things from "a buddy" or "Corbell". You can check my history and see that I'm plenty aware of who Grusch is and what his role was from the very beginning.

It's your own poor reading comprehension, not my "ignorance" that is at issue here. People who insult others because they misread something should apologize.





A number of people in this thread have already said the opposite.






Probably because you're the one who posted the OP video of Corbell, then repeated several things he said as if they were true without acknowledging that the only evidence we have of them is Corbell's word. And then when people in the thread repeat verifiable lies from Corbell, you haven't had a word to say against them.

You keep calling me biased here, yet you're only arguing with people who criticize Corbell, and ignoring the false statements made by people in support of him.

Now why would I post the video.... Is it because FROM THE TMZ SHOW IS WHERE THE VIDEO WAS RELEASED?

This is what I mean by you're not coming across as intelligent on this topic.

I highlight your comments because you're literally in everyone of these threads about UAPs. Every single one.