Actual clear photos of something quite strange.

This is interesting. Apparently the video has been making the rounds for a few years, but not the still photos from a camera on a tripod. This is the first I've seen of this sighting. Very credible witness, no drama, no marketing, just images of something very odd. Even if it's some sort of balloon, it's still odd.

 

It kinda looks like Sputnik. It could be an alien craft with micro-ET's inside.

 

It's hard to tell, but I would say this is a good one.

If this was a balloon, balloons are made from a very thin and soft material, no way that that soft material can hold any of these three antennae at any angle except vertical to the ground. Another thing is that it can be clearly seen in some shots that antennae were aiding orientation, which is unusual. Most likely they were just creating high voltage and producing mild ionic winds that would help craft orient itself, but not move very fast.

 

I watched the video a couple of times and couldn't quite convince myself that it wasn't a balloon... OK it may well seem to have been an intelligently controlled object , but in my view it was just a balloon ... with the caveat that it may just possibly be ' a remotely controlled balloon'! ... just my opinion, but i'm a little surprised that nobody seems to have mentioned the striking resemblance [well sort of] to the 1990 photo and description of the 'Alfena UFO' which was witnessed by as many as 25 people and photographed by Manuel Gomes.... 1990 - Alfena, Portugal UFO Mystery



Cheers.

 

This is a slightly enhanced photo of the thing. Just increased resolution and contrast.

There is a very simple reason why this is not a balloon.

According to the witness this object is about 3ft (1m) wide and the antennae are about 2ft (0.65m) long. It is clearly visible throughout the video that antennae are not just hanging down vertically, pulled by gravity, but at various angles off the vertical. Actually, in the photo above two top antennae are almost horizontal. A completely separate thing is that if one carefully watches the whole 12 minutes of the video he can see that "antennae" are articulated and that they move relative to the body in order to keep the sphere vertical (relative to the raw of ports in the middle).

Everyday experience teaches us that it is harder to hold your hand stretched out in a horizontal position because the stretched out hand would exert larger torque on the shoulder.

Now, if that was a balloon, we know that balloons are made of lightweight material, like Nylon or Mylar. That material only works in tension, but it has nearly zero ability to hold any torque. I challenge anybody who thinks that that is a balloon to take an ordinary 2ft long car antenna and attach it to a 3ft diameter balloon in a horizontal position. It would be impossible, the weight of the antenna would twist the skin of the balloon and the balloon would either burst or simply deflect so much as to not being able to support the weight of the "antenna" in the horizontal position.

 

What if someone put a drone inside, with the porthole allowing for enough air ventilation to function and steer? Or not possible

 

I would say it's unlikely. This is a prety high resolution shot with a lots of detail and object is very well lit. One can see that these are not "openings", but more like "covers". Opening would be cut outs, so on a sphere going around 360 degrees, we would be able to see one opening through another opening, at least on the very edges, where surface transits to a back of sphere.

Another thing, if you study UFOs for a long time, you weill come to learn that in 60-70% of cases they have some kind of pannels around the rim. Some people think they are windows, I personally think they serve to ionize air and create vacuum around the craft so it gets less friction with air.

 

Hi Dejan, hope you are well matey. ... Again, I have studied the video several times more and still cannot get past the fact that "this thing is a balloon" ... but then as is my bent, I am always willing to consider alternative explanations when the obvious identification is doubted by my fellow students. And so then the natural first call would probably be some kind of 'Drone', and as I am aware that the technical advance rate on such items as these is pretty near mind-blowing, I wouldn't be surprised if this thing turned out to be just that! ... for instance there is this spherical drone that was demonstrated about 10 years ago in Japan .. not an exact match I grant you, but then it wouldn't take very much imagination to make this look like 'tech from the 1950's sputnik era' ..
... I think it would be a easy endeavour for some mischievous technojoker to accomplish, ... but then , although this may well be a feasible candidate, imho it's a balloon.
I see that your arguments against this thing being a balloon are a mirror of what is said in the video by the 'pro-anomaly-very-much-interested-party' [ie. the people that have the sole goal of accumulating as many 'anomaly-viewers' as possible] ... and they emphasize the points of ...
A. Stop Start Movement.
B. Failure To Move With The Wind.
C. Metallic Appearance.
D. Independent Moving Antennae-Like Appendages.
... My response to this would be...
A. would be that a floating balloon has movement of stops and starts depending on wind.
B. How do we know how much wind there was at the time? .. and the object was at least oscillating all of the time.
C. Mylar comes in many colours.
D. We only have hearsay from the witness that the Antennae 'independently moved', as I said I have studied the video and still cannot verify this claim.
...also in the film, .. the only other witness was 'the guy in the next garden that said "he looked at it , didn't think it was noteworthy, and doesn't want to comment on it!"
... And lastly, if you look closely at the video, between about 9 mins and 20 seconds to 9.25 , there is a clear and definite 'jerk and wobble' that supports 'The Tethered Balloon Hypothesis' that until disproven, i've personally settled upon.
... ps. as to the phtographer's [witness] military-service credentials that the commentator was labouring ... he is in actual fact 'basically a base marriage guidance councillor!' ... hardly a skyborne anomaly expert.

Cheers Buddy.

 

This would still require the answer:

1) How do you attach 3 horizontal and articulated antennae to soft skin made of Nylon/Mylar without tearing up / twisting Nylon/Mylar? Anybody who tried that will find that Mylar/Nylon will either tear up or twist and it can't be done.

2) If it was a drone, how does it get the air into rotors, when it doesn't have any holes on the surface? If it had holes one would be able to see holes through other holes. The one that you had shown is exactly the opposite, it's all holes and all see-through.

I think intentions would be the same, regardless of the fact if this was the real UFO or balloon. The existence of UFOs doesn't contradict general relativity, so there is no reason for it not to be UFO.

 

I really have no opinion about what this thing is. I don't see any reason to think it's an alien space ship. Balloon? I dunno. I don't recall how long it stayed in that one spot. Drones are getting better than that, but if that's a drone, then what is its purpose? Why make it so weird looking? Of course the fundies will just say it's obviously a hoax. Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to on the off chance someone will see and photograph it and... do what exactly?

Size estimates are just guesses because there is insufficient data to make anything better. I thought it was interesting that someone who did happen to see it managed to get such clear photos. Not just another blurry blob, which is refreshing.

 

OK Dejan, i'll give it one more attempt to get my point over mate.

Firstly i'll address your second point [the drone question]..." how does it get the air into rotors, when it doesn't have any holes on the surface?" ... what are the black squares that circle the sphere if not air intake holes?
..and who's to say that what we are looking at isn't in fact an ultra thin and ultra light dressed-up skin around a drone not exactly unlike the one that I previously posted? ... well to be honest, I could go on all day about possible technical advances that have been made that the public aren't aware of yet on these things ... but i'm not going to because although I am willing to accept that it may be possible, but I really think that it is no more than a helium powered balloon. ... Which brings me back to your other point ... "How do you attach 3 horizontal and articulated antennae to soft skin made of Nylon/Mylar without tearing up / twisting Nylon/Mylar?"... [and this is probably going to bore you but convinces me even more as I write. lol] ... And I have to confess that 'I have sunken so low this afternoon' in a quest to glean additional supporting evidence for my balloon theory... and that is that I have trolled one of those despicable Debunker sites! .. namely Mick West's MetaBunk [which I have been a member of for years, but swear that I rarely post on. lol]
... And the fact is that the pontificating technosavvies on there have dug around and found the original specs of the camera used to take the pictures and from the data have come up with an almost certain size and distance of 94.4 meters away and 55cm for the object's size. That is 20 inches at 103 yards. ..And not the 4-6ft width that the witnessed thought.
And the three appendages [antennae] that you are so convinced would burst a balloon? well I simply do not agree that three silver straws [or similarly light effects] couldn't be simply just glued on to the surface without ruining the enterprise . ... Nor the roughly stenciled or hand painted on around the surface of the balloon.

... that is the two in-focus shots of the object side by side which makes me think that the nipple-type bump at the bottom of the object is in fact the 'tie-knot'.
... Here is a different perspective on the photo that by the clearer shape of the object, enforces my resolve that I am looking at a balloon along with the knot at the bottom tilted on an angle by being tethered to the ground by some fishing line in a slight breeze.


Well those are my thoughts matey, and you are more than welcome to disagree... but unless any solid facts that contradict my impression come to light, then that's me done with this one my friend.

ps... of course it's still a UFO, after all it hasn't been positively identified has it... but not the kind of UFO that i'm interested in, that's all.

Cheers Buddy.

 

Hi Nivek, of course you know that I generally believe that Anything is possible mate... but an advanced civilization's drone with the appearance of a 1950's well-worn sputnik hovering over a residential area for goodness knows how long ,for unknowable reasons? ... you never know, but I suspect not mate.
.... The possibility of an Alien drone has been in the back of my mind for decades though [even before drones were fact lol] ... but I always thought that they would most likely be a lot more sophisticated than that. ... btw, .. a major suspect for being a Alien surveillance Drone was the rather weird and crazy Area 51 bouncing Ufo thing from a few years back ... can you remember the one that I mean.? ...
That one never equalled my expectations of what an advanced Alien drone 'should' look like either, ... but by heck it's hard to fathom out just what we are looking at, specially when all of the debunkers don't know what to say and just keep away from it! lol.

Cheers Buddy

 

I'll write a longer one tomorrow. A bit tired right now.

But I think both ballon and drone are hard to uphold. Here is the engineering perspective and I insist that any mechanical engineer would agree:

1) If drone, why just one raw of holes? why not 10-20 raws of heles. Drones work better more air they push. That video that you had shown, with a drone in the cage, was practically all holes. Second, even worst problem is why use thin covers when they would only reduce the air-flow that drone needs so badly. So if it was a drone it would be a very impossible drone. So, it's 100% not a drone.

2) If a balloon, why holes Who in the wide and merry world would try to inflate a balloon full of holes? So, it's 100%, not a balloon.

3) Arms/antennae are articulated. Articulated and relatively heavy. So base must be made of metal, or have some internal structure. Every engineer would tell you that.

4) There is a statistical trend stretching over 50-70 years of "port-holes" one alien craft. If you have time, go to this site UFO cases list. It's a really easy and enjoyable read. There is at least 50 UFO cases there. If you go through all the cases you'll find out that at least 60-70% of cases describe UFOs with a single rows of lights around the widest circumference of the craft. Are all these witnesses, from the past and from all over the world, in a collision with each other? I don't think so. One can't study UFOs on one by one basis. They need to be studied statistically. When you see that in 20-30 cases on that page UFOs had a single row of ports you'll see the pattern and you'll understand why I am saying it's real alien craft. 20-30 independent witnesses on that list, over the period of 50 years all had seen variations on the same technology. I don't know why UFOs need these port-holes/covers, but I know that a large percentage of real alien craft has them. If this was not an alien craft, then this trend with "port-holes" wouldn't exist in over 50 years of witness testimonials.

And I can show more lists with cases, probably 200-300 cases in total. And it's always the same trend, 60-70% cases have port-holes. But usually, they are producing red, green, blue light. So they are likely not "windows". These red, green, blue lights are more visible during the night-time, than daytime. I can only guess what's their purpose.

If all these 200-300 cases were balloons and drones, then there would be no trend with port-holes. We all know that balloon shapes are quite random and colorful. Very different from metallic with port-holes beaming red, green, blue light.


Just a side-note:
If one zooms into that double image one can start to barely distinguish a patches of metal joined together in a hexagon shape like on the football.

 

Well? ... maybe less likely to be a drone, but definitely not 100% impossible. Have you considered that maybe the thin skin and single row of holes were necessary to create the illusion of what 'you' believe it to be.?

If a balloon, then the holes are obviously painted/stickered on as I proposed earlier. [no holes required for appearance]

In which sense do you apply the word 'articulated'? ... is it that you believe the witness when he alone says that they moved independently to the 'object'? .. if so, then the big news here is that people/witnesses sometimes get things wrong ... or lie! .. or do you just mean hinged? ... well so what? or do you mean joined/connected/interlocked? .. then again, so what? .. I already said that I suspect them to be three straws [or something similar] that have been stuck on to the balloon.

Well Dejan, that was a pretty interesting section of your post matey. ... But seriously do you not know that you are preaching to the converted my friend.? ... Do you truly imagine that I do not already know this? ... Do you imagine that after nye-on 50 years of delving, studying, searching and researching anything that I could get my hands on since childhood that I am a complete novice in the ETH-Proponency-Club and have to be directed to 'red book one'??
... Look my friend, if I sometimes come across as a dreaded-naysayer or even worse 'A Debunker' [spit to the left ] then that's just my way... because after all of these years in the field of armchair ufology I have learned to pick my battles and only advocate serious consideration to cases and events that my own personal discernment skills deem to be real possibilities. ... And to the rest, call a spade .. a spade! ... or as in this case, A Probable Balloon!

I actually looked this up on the web, because at your request, I could see what you were referring to when I looked at a blown-up image of the picture, .. it is fainter than the other scuffs on the surface, but is there never the less. ... And according to an expert paint site this can be either that there is no primer beneath the topcoat or that there simply isn't enough layers of paint applied. ... or in fact that the wrong type of paint might have been used ... Mylar is a trade name for a type of polyester film made by DuPont. It is used in a variety of craft projects due to the protective properties it can provide. Among these properties is a resistance to a variety of chemicals. Many types of paints and inks will not be able to dry properly onto Mylar and will run. Acrylic paints can be used on wet-media Mylar to allow the paint to stick properly.



Cheers Buddy.

 

it is impossible because it doesn't have a way for air to enter and exit. Laws of nature can't be tricked.

Please, forget about "articulated" I watched the video a second time. Rods/antennae stay stationary relative to the body. There is just a slight rotation of the whole body, that made me think that antennae are moving independently.

Hmmm ... "straws" ... that would almost work on a Nylon/Mylar balloon. This craft is constantly rotating a bit less than about 20º. But loosely attached, lightweight straws would flap around as this craft rotates. Contrary to a very good "straws" idea, these rods display rigidity that only can be achieved with solid metal rods/tubes that are fixed to the structure. One can't get that rigidity with flimsy plastic tubes.

The problem is why is that trend of similar alien craft designs. Only I am aware of that trend in witness observations. It's reasonable to assume that somebody in San Diego, CA is not making the whole hoax just to fool me. The similarity of trend comes from physics behind the operational principle of these crafts. Same as all airplanes must have wings because that's how the physics of flying in air works.