Unemployed GM
All Star
fukk an alien. That’s a ballon my nikka.
Jellyfish UFO's captured on military weapons camera
- Thread starter jaydawg08
- Start date
fukk an alien. That’s a ballon my nikka.
Did you ignore everything I posted? Why couldn't it have been a shed spider skin stuck to a thread that got attached to the housing for a while and then fell off? Why would the cleaners be able to discount that possibilty?
These pictures look exactly like an out-of-focus spider shed subject to a sharpening algorithm....which is exactly what you would get if it was hanging on the housing.
I'm having a hard time believing this one too.. the predator drone isn't stationary, it's traveling at probably minimum 250ktsDid you ignore everything I posted? Why couldn't it have been a shed spider skin stuck to a thread that got attached to the housing for a while and then fell off? Why would the cleaners be able to discount that possibilty?
These pictures look exactly like an out-of-focus spider shed subject to a sharpening algorithm....which is exactly what you would get if it was hanging on the housing.
It's gonna fly off.
See, this is proof that you're not even paying attention. He said it wasn't filmed by a predator drone, it was filmed by a stationary, tethered surveillance balloon. The picture is right there in the tweet.
The camera housing hangs under the balloon, there's tons of ways for spiders to get all over that and tons of places for a shed skin to hang from.
Fair enough.. your theory is right alongside "aliens" to me.See, this is proof that you're not even paying attention. He said it wasn't filmed by a predator drone, it was filmed by a stationary, tethered surveillance balloon. The picture is right there in the tweet.
The camera housing hangs under the balloon, there's tons of ways for spiders to get all over that and tons of places for a shed skin to hang from.
Congrats brah!
I did a quick calculation and figured that about 2 billion spiders are shedding their skin each second. On the other hand, no one has offered meaningful proof of an alien on Earth in our entire lifetimes. So you want to put an event that happens 2,000,000,000 times a second on the same level of liklihood as an event that we have zero evidence has ever happened at all.
It's like having a dog run towards you in the dark, and deciding that it's just as likely to be a werewolf as to be a dog.
Last edited:
I know you think you're a quasi Mick West, but unfortunately you're not and just parrot things you read on MetaBunkThis is a fascinating example of the cognitive error that comes from ignoring the base rate. Read "Thinking, Fast and Slow", by Daniel Kahnemann to get a better picture of all the errors people make when they ignore base rate in their evaulations.
I did a quick calculation and figured that about 2 billion spiders are shedding their skin each second. On the other hand, no one has offered meaningful proof of an alien on Earth in our entire lifetimes. So you want to put an event that happens 2,000,000,000 times a second on the same level of liklihood as an event that we have zero evidence has ever happened at all.
It's like having a dog run towards you in the dark, and deciding that it's just as likely to be a werewolf as to be a dog.
I know because I read the thread and saw the spider skin stated pretty fast.
Again the housing unit theory, from Greenstreets own witness, stated it wasn't a good one based on people who operate the equipment.
How much experience do you have with the PTDS.. would love to hear about the equipment, and how that's possible?
Jeremy Corbell would’ve been shot, killed, and disappeared before he even though about uploading that footage
Diunx
Probably drunk
dude are you serious with this spider BS?Did you ignore everything I posted? Why couldn't it have been a shed spider skin stuck to a thread that got attached to the housing for a while and then fell off? Why would the cleaners be able to discount that possibilty?
These pictures look exactly like an out-of-focus spider shed subject to a sharpening algorithm....which is exactly what you would get if it was hanging on the housing.
What is this even supposed to mean?
Go back to the UFO thread and I've quickly addressed several sightings with my own original theories easily, shyt that was never even posted on metabunk. But with any large public event, of course I'm going to check out all the theories and see which one is most viable. That is what any reasonable person would do. Literally every scientist on Earth reaads everyone else's hypotheses and theories before forming his own.
Breh, you're not saying anything.
The cleaning people said the camera lens wasn't dirty. That has zero relevance to whether something could have gotten stuck to the housing and then blown off later. You know, like spider web strands do all the time.
Your theory was based on the spider skin blowing off cause it was a predator drone, when you didn't even know it was filmed from a ballloon despite me having posted that fact already mulitple times in the thread. But now you're arguing that I have to have personal experience with PTDS surveillance balloons in order to advance my theory.
Breh, I don't have to have used a PTDS surveillance balloon in order to know that it's possible for spiders to crawl onto them.
The guy said in the tweet that they're cleaned before each flight. If a person can clean the camera, then a spider clearly can crawl (or blow) onto the housing. Look right here - the spider could go up the tether rope, or crawl off one of the cleaners onto the housing, or crawl off the cleaning equipment onto the housing, or even just blow onto it with the wind like spiders do.
I'm pointing out to you how dumb that spider skin theory is that you basically regurgitated from metabunk.. That's fine if you believe this, but least source them if you're just gonna rip off what someone else and pretend it's your own theory.What is this even supposed to mean?
Go back to the UFO thread and I've quickly addressed several sightings with my own original theories easily, shyt that was never even posted on metabunk. But with any large public event, of course I'm going to check out all the theories and see which one is most viable. That is what any reasonable person would do. Literally every scientist on Earth reaads everyone else's hypotheses and theories before forming his own.
Breh, you're not saying anything.
The cleaning people said the camera lens wasn't dirty. That has zero relevance to whether something could have gotten stuck to the housing and then blown off later. You know, like spider web strands do all the time.
Your theory was based on the spider skin blowing off cause it was a predator drone, when you didn't even know it was filmed from a ballloon despite me having posted that fact already mulitple times in the thread. But now you're arguing that I have to have personal experience with PTDS surveillance balloons in order to advance my theory.
Breh, I don't have to have used a PTDS surveillance balloon in order to know that it's possible for spiders to crawl onto them.
The guy said in the tweet that they're cleaned before each flight. If a person can clean the camera, then a spider clearly can crawl (or blow) onto the housing. Look right here - the spider could go up the tether rope, or crawl off one of the cleaners onto the housing, or crawl off the cleaning equipment onto the housing, or even just blow onto it with the wind like spiders do.
Jellyfish UFO from TMZ's 'UFO Revolution'
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojotsKjshHc [The above is a summary video of points from this thread] Source: https://tubitv.com/movies/200044921/s01-e01-the-breakthrough Higher quality video: https://www.metabunk.org/f/Jellyfish 720p High.mov Video viewer...
www.metabunk.org
Again and again you kept saying "what about my theory on spider skin?!" when that site doesn't even take that theory seriously that you took it from lol. But then again, you think that a dead spider skin was on the housing unit WHEN THERE'S VIDEO OF THE OBJECT MOVING AWAY AND GETTING SMALLER over water. Which we know is a real video now that we have corroborating stories from Greenstreet from someone who was around the base after this happened
If something were over the housing unit, right over the camera I'd assume that it would be completely out of focus with something so close.
Your theory sucks brah. Go scour MetaBunk for a new one and regurgitate it here
Bullshyt, liar. I said from the beginning that it was a theory I liked and was "repeating", not one I made up:
I NEVER said that I invented the spider theory. If you have to jump from arguing the theory, to bytching about who came up with the theory first, it makes it look like you're not really serious about this discussion and just got in your feelings.
You haven't seen any such video, and if it does exist, how do you know that's not the moment the spider skin finally blows away?
It is out of focus, but the camera automatically puts everything through a sharpening algorithm that gives the false impression of definition. That's why the object looks amorphous and without clear definition of its parts, but still seems to have reasonably visible edges.
There's video of the object over water.....
Backed up by someone who had knowledge of the event, from the tweet you just posted....
Your theory sounds just as farcical as the "aliens" theory you like to shoot down. The spider skin just happens to blow away over the lake, this is the explanation I'm supposed to believe.... You gotta be trolling at this point. Fuk it this is a WORSE theory than the alien one. I take back what I said about it being on par with
It's more likely a smudge than a spider skin.. and even then that theory was discounted by the PTDS team, but it's better than the spider skin theory
Here's a screenshot I took to address the "focus" question.
Look at the fence in the picture, how you can clearly see the bars that make up its frame. Now look at the object itself. There's nothing "there", it's just blobby. And it stays amorphous and blobby in every shot. It doesn't look "blurry" like we're used to because the camera has aggressive sharpening algorithms to reduce blur. But there isn't a single meaningful detail on the object that demonstrates it is ever actually in focus.
Just like it never turns in any video we've seen, just like no parts of it ever move in any functional way, just like it never changes size except when the camera zooms in or out (it should get smaller as it moves away if it were a real object at a distance, right?).
All evidence we've seen points to it just being something caught on the housing and floating in front of the lens.
Look at the fence in the picture, how you can clearly see the bars that make up its frame. Now look at the object itself. There's nothing "there", it's just blobby. And it stays amorphous and blobby in every shot. It doesn't look "blurry" like we're used to because the camera has aggressive sharpening algorithms to reduce blur. But there isn't a single meaningful detail on the object that demonstrates it is ever actually in focus.
Just like it never turns in any video we've seen, just like no parts of it ever move in any functional way, just like it never changes size except when the camera zooms in or out (it should get smaller as it moves away if it were a real object at a distance, right?).
All evidence we've seen points to it just being something caught on the housing and floating in front of the lens.