The Cape Navigator

IRAQ – In a recent episode of the podcast Weaponized, hosts George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell delved into a detailed analysis of a UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon) known as the Jellyfish. Recorded by a FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared) Aerostat at a U.S. military base in Iraq, the video captured a peculiar object that ignited extensive debates and controversies.

Jellyfish UAP: Location, Timing, and Witnesses

The Jellyfish UAP recording occurred in Iraq at a U.S. military base, utilizing FLIR technology on an Aerostat. Michael Cincoski, a U.S. Marine Veteran, provided key insights into the incident. His observations centered on the Jellyfish UAP’s unexplained nature, emphasizing its unique characteristics that baffled witnesses at the military base.

Jeremy Corbell places the possible occurrence of the Jellyfish UAP between October 17th and 20th, 2017. Though the exact day remains unconfirmed, this timeframe adds a temporal dimension to the mysterious encounter.

Jeremy Corbell’s Controversial Confirmation: A 3D Object?

Corbell asserted the Jellyfish UAP’s three-dimensional nature, citing a GIF shared on Twitter as evidence. However, concerns arise regarding the reliability of this confirmation, as GIFs can introduce transformations through keyframes, potentially misleading viewers. Scientific scrutiny and a comprehensive understanding of photomanipulation methods are crucial when presenting such conclusions.

Video 1: Analysis Shows no Perspective Change

Another contributor to the investigation took the initiative to analyze the Jellyfish UAP’s first and last frames, comparing the two in a Twitter post. Notably, the object’s shape remained consistent, with a perfect match between the initial and final frames. This observation raises questions about the nature of a purported moving object with appendages that coincidentally maintains a precise match. The Twitter post sparked discussions on social media, further adding complexity to the ongoing debate about the Jellyfish UAP and emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of each piece of evidence.

Video 2: Object Vanishing Act, Static Interruptions, and Dropped Frames Under Scrutiny

In the second video featuring the Jellyfish UAP, several anomalies and peculiarities emerged. Notably, as the operator switched between zoom lenses, the object’s behavior raised eyebrows. When transitioning to the most zoomed-out setting, the object mysteriously disappeared from view. This sudden vanishing act prompts speculation about the small size or potential complications with the recording equipment. Moreover, instances of the sensor cutting out to static and a brief episode of a black screen further suggest that the FLIR unit might be compromised or possibly damaged. These unexpected interruptions add layers of complexity to the interpretation of the Jellyfish UAP videos, warranting a closer examination of the recording system’s functionality and condition.

Object so small it disappears from view after the operator changes zoom lens.

Leading Witness Concerns: A Questionable Approach

During the podcast, concerns emerged over Corbell’s potential leading of witness Michael Cincoski. Corbell persistently questioned Cincoski’s stance on the UAP’s temperature variations, even after Cincoski clarified his belief that the object did not change temperatures.

George Knapp’s Dismissal of Lens Artifact Possibility

George Knapp dismissed the possibility of the first video being a lens artifact, suggesting bird poop on the lens is not a valid explanation. This journalistic stance raises questions about thorough investigative practices, as alternative explanations should be considered before dismissing potential artifacts.

Comparative Analysis of Jellyfish UAP Videos

Detailed analysis of two Jellyfish UAP videos revealed distinctions. The second video depicted a smaller object, occasional signal disruptions, and moments when the object disappeared. These differences indicate the need for nuanced examination and an acknowledgment of potential system limitations, such as compromised equipment.

FLIR Specifications and Anomalies: Overlooking Afocal Nature

Corbell’s discussion lacked consideration for FLIR’s afocal nature, which means all objects in front of the lens remain in optical focus. Ignoring this aspect can lead to misinterpretations of anomalies. Understanding FLIR’s specifications is vital to discerning between genuine UAP encounters and potential artifacts introduced by the technology’s design.

Questioning the Reliability of FLIR Output

Concerns remain about the reliability of FLIR’s optical accuracy, emphasizing the impact of image processing on UAP recordings. Processing artifacts could contribute to misinterpretations, necessitating cautious evaluations of recorded data.

Engagement with Teledyne FLIR: Seeking Clarifications

To unravel the mysteries surrounding FLIR anomalies, The Cape Navigator has initiated discussions with Teledyne FLIR, the equipment’s manufacturer. While we wait for answers from the experts who designed and built the equipment the uncanny resemblances between the Chandelier UAP and Teledyne FLIR’s logo continue to underscore the importance of exploring terrestrial influences on recorded UAP events.

The Chandelier UAP on the right looks a lot like the Teledyne FLIR logo on the left.

In summary, the podcast’s exploration of the Jellyfish UAP underscores the complexities surrounding UAP recordings and the need for a meticulous approach in interpreting and presenting such phenomena. The engagement with Teledyne FLIR aims to shed light on potential earthly origins of observed anomalies, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of UAP encounters.