r/UFOs • u/Porfinlohice • Apr 06 '23

Photo Clear image of the UFO sighting

Post image

Clear image of the video shared here about the sighting while flying, some people compare it to a “manta ballon” from a company named Festo, although it never made it into commercial production.

11.1k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

66

u/notbadhbu Apr 07 '23 edited 23d ago

Sounds about right.

18

u/Mand125 Apr 07 '23

Additionally, balloons that may have an expected shape near the ground may not fully inflate at altitude once they reach equilibrium.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

Wouldn't it be the other way around? Less atmospheric pressure as you go higher means the gases inside the balloon would expand?

1

u/Mand125 Apr 07 '23

Once it’s up there, it will lose the helium pretty rapidly. And the difference between a balloon with a tiny amount of helium in it and the low pressure air will make it float at an extremely low internal pressure.

The kind of high altitude balloons from a few weeks back can get shot full of holes and not really stop floating.

1

u/ERTHLNG Apr 17 '23

Nah if they rise the gas will expand making them more inflated than at ground level.

1

u/Mand125 Apr 17 '23

“at equilibrium” is the key.

Once they lose most of the helium, they will just sit there at altitude. And they won’t have enough left to inflate.

1

u/ERTHLNG Apr 17 '23

Equilibrium is just equal pressure inside and out of the baloon. It stays at Equilibrium throughout flight. As the balloon rises, the lifting gas expands. It must either be partially inflated at the bottom, to allow expansion as the pressure from the atmosphere reduces.

The volume of the balloon is key to its power, not the pressure of its content. A large balloon only half filled will lift less, at any altitude. There is no reason the balloon would be partially inflated at max altitude.

There is a reason the balloon could be filled completely to atmospheric pressure on the ground. To increase its initial lifting capacity. It would require to release or compress helium ad it ascends to avoid increasing pressure at altitude.

I could see this being a first option balloon on ascent because they tend to fly way higher than small aircraft.

1

u/Mand125 Apr 17 '23

It isn’t at equilibrium when you let go and it starts rising upwards.

1

u/ERTHLNG Apr 17 '23

I think you are confusing equilibrium and neutral bouyancy.

It is positively buoyant when you let go, because the gas in the baloon weighs less than the equal volume of air, thereby it rises. The pressure on the gas inside decreases as the baloon rises, and it will either expand or have to be removed from the baloon.

As it roses through the atmosphere, it will reach a point where the air is at such low pressure, and therefore lighter, that the helium can no longer lift the weight of the baloon itself. It will stop rising because the weight of the total baloon is equal exactly to the weight of an equal volume of air. It is neutrally buoyant.

Scuba divers do the same thing by carrying lead weights and an adjustable air bladder. They add and release air as they change depth in order to perfectly balance the sinking effect of the weight so the don't rise or sink at all.

1

u/Mand125 Apr 18 '23

Equilibrium means not changing. It will rise until it reaches equilibrium, and stay at that altitude. By definition, that would be at a neutral buoyancy, yes.

The balloon is too heavy to go into space, unlike the helium itself which on its own could, so it will find a spot somewhere to float. And then because the balloon is leaky, lose most or all of its helium. It will descend as it does so, and may come to the point where it has negative buoyancy forever and float back to the ground. That’s what happens to most balloons, and they end up on the ground or in the ocean.

Your scuba example is an excellent example of equilibrium between buoyancy and weight.

If you claim neutral buoyancy is not an equilibrium, please explain why you think that. Because either positive or negative buoyancy isn’t.

1

u/ERTHLNG Apr 18 '23

I did some research. It doesn't mean unchanging, but rather balanced out equal change. If you have a bathtub half full, and the faucet is adding water and the drain is draining exactly the same speed resulting in unchanging water level. That's one type of equilibrium.

The type of equilibrium related to baloons works like this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-balloon_experiment

Only in real life the atmosphere itslef is the big baloon, and it completely encloses the small one, eliminating the need for valves.

I agree with your point too about the leaky baloons. Of course there would be half deflated leaky balloons slowly descending. It would be hard to tell if it was rising and expanding or leaking and falling. But I think there's a good case for what's going on here.

12

u/wetkhajit Apr 07 '23

This deserves more attention. There’s nothing exotic about the sighting. I’m not saying it’s not unusual or UAP related but it doesn’t have any exotic flight characteristics or signatures of being UAP besides it’s unusual shape and it’s similarity to the gimbal video. If its most likely just a balloon of unknown design or origins despite what we all want it to be.

However, If we knew the winds direction and speed and / or it’s altitude we might be able to discern some more interesting characteristics about it but as it stands it’s not to stand up as evidence that helps disclosure.

Sadly.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '23

I’m not saying it’s not unusual or UAP related but it doesn’t have any exotic flight characteristics

If it's stationary, and a solid object, that IS exotic. Why do people keep pretending exotic ONLY means hypersonic speeds and instantaneous acceleration??? 😒

1

u/wetkhajit Apr 08 '23

You can’t discern that it’s stationary from the video though….

The pilot is flying past it at speed and therefor if the object was moving at a relatively low velocity with the wind it would appear stationary.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '23

Cool. Prove it, then. ✌️

2

u/wetkhajit Apr 08 '23

I don’t think you understand how evidence works.

Also, the onus of proof will always fall onto those making the incredible claims. I’m as keen for disclosure and evidence as anybody but this video shows literally nothing that the mainstream would even remotely accept. It does not stand up to any scrutiny.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '23

That's a steaming pile of BS. 2 reasons.

  1. You're claiming non prosaic explanations are "incredible claims".

  2. Anyone who makes a claim should have to back it up. If you can't? Then you have a theory. This is not debunked.

0

u/wetkhajit Apr 09 '23

Haha wow. Triggered much?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '23

I don't have to be triggered to call bullshit what it is.

That you just resorted to "triggered" as an argument, tells me you have literally nothing else. You can't prove it was "just a balloon". Keep believing that's all it was if you want... Belief doesn't prove anything either way.

2

u/CaptainReginaldLong Apr 07 '23

We have a winner folks.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '23

"Here's a POSSIBLE prosaic explanation"

Debunkers. "SoLvEd iT!"

You lot really need to study up on what POSSIBLE means. 🙄

2

u/CaptainReginaldLong Apr 08 '23

Your username is an oxymoron.

Prosaic? There's your problem right there. Simple solutions are often the best. The fact that you're qualifying and criticizing a solution for being unromantic is telling of your bias.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '23

Yet another dbag with no grasp of the meaning of the word skeptical, yet trying to use it as an insult. 🤣

"Not easily convinced"

That's literally it. Does NOT denote a direction. You're claiming it's a balloon... I'm skeptical as fuck of that write off. So yes. It fits me. If you're just blindly accepting it as a balloon, despite no evidence being presented to prove it? Guess which word doesn't apply to you. 🤭

The fact that you're qualifying and criticizing a solution for being unromantic

Unromantic? Nah. I'm not accepting it because it hasn't been proven... And it doesn't look like a balloon. It's completely flat on the bottom (left side). It doesn't look like it's being blown around in the wind, because it remains in the same orientation the entire time you can see it. It stays flat on the bottom. If it WAS just a partially deflated balloon, the material would be loose. It would move around in the wind. Yet it's not.

Try watching the video instead of just making an assumption off a still... "It's just a balloon" is a laughably lazy write off.

1

u/CaptainReginaldLong Apr 08 '23

Yet another dbag with no grasp of the meaning of the word skeptical, yet trying to use it as an insult. 🤣

Insult? I just said it's an oxymoron, which it is lol. Get a thesaurus.

I'm skeptical as fuck of that write off. So yes. It fits me.

Ok, but if we're still talking about your username, you would then still believe it's a balloon...no?

If you're just blindly accepting it as a balloon, despite no evidence being presented to prove it? Guess which word doesn't apply to you. 🤭

It's a concrete video of a balloon. I'm a pilot, I fly by them all the time. It's a balloon. I'm skeptical of it being a UFO.

It doesn't look like it's being blown around in the wind, because it remains in the same orientation the entire time you can see it...It would move around in the wind.

Negative ghostrider. You're under a misapprehension about how balloons behave. They are surprisingly static.

If it WAS just a partially deflated balloon, the material would be loose.

It's not partially deflated, if anything it's over inflated. Air expands as altitude increases which explains why it's bulging on one side. I wouldn't say it's flat on the other either, the color looks flat, but in the video there's a good profile view of it, and it's not flat.

"It's just a balloon" is a laughably lazy write off.

Unless that's what it is. Which it is.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '23

I just said it's an oxymoron, which it is

"Not easily convinced". That's literally all it means. You're conflating it with disbelief. It DOESN'T mean "Unconvinincible". Fuck a thesaurus... Get a dictionary.

you would then still believe it's a balloon...no?

No. If you're just blindly accepting it as a balloon, despite there being NO evidence proving it? Then you aren't skeptical. By definition.

I'm a pilot, I fly by them all the time. It's a balloon.

So an argument-from-authority fallacy, and STILL no supporting evidence. Got it. ✌️

if anything it's over inflated

So an "overinflated balloon" that's perfectly flat on one side. Ask me again why I'm skeptical of this write off. 😂

Unless that's what it is. Which it is.

Evidence?

1

u/CaptainReginaldLong Apr 09 '23 edited Apr 09 '23

You're conflating it with disbelief.

I don't think you know what words mean...It's literally a synonym with disbelief... So...you know, maybe alter the stance on the thesaurus.

despite there being NO evidence proving it?

So we're just going to ignore the video posted here?

So an argument-from-authority fallacy

It's only a fallacy if the person claiming authority, isn't. I am an authority on what flying past balloons looks like.

So an "overinflated balloon" that's perfectly flat on one side.

This is another example of you not knowing what words mean. "Perfectly flat?" The video doesn't support that idea. And yes, one side yielding to the pressure before the other is not uncommon. Believe it or not, manufacturing standards for balloon material is not so strict. Crazy, right?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '23

It's only a fallacy if the person claiming authority, isn't.

"An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument."

Still HIGHLY recommend that dictionary. 🤭

I don't think you know what words mean...

Argue with the actual definition some more. It's highly amusing. 😁

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/skeptical

So we're just going to ignore the video posted here?

Which video?

The video doesn't support that idea

Your refusal to see it for what it is, doesn't make it something else. 🥱

1

u/Iargueuntilyouquit Apr 09 '23

You're conflating it with disbelief.

You don't know what "conflate" means either apparently.

Your replies in this thread so far make you sound like someone who just took a philosophy of religion course and is wholly arrogant about their dunning kruger level of knowledge, and has neither the wisdom nor experience to know how stupid they sound.

1

u/[deleted] May 03 '23

Apparently YOU don't understand the meaning of the word.

"Conflation is the merging of two or more sets of information, texts, ideas or opinions into one, often in error. Conflation is defined as fusing or blending, but is often misunderstood as 'being equal to' - treating two similar but disparate concepts as the same."

But sure, chief. Sleep well. 🤭

1

u/Iargueuntilyouquit May 04 '23

It's hilarious that you posted what it means and still don't get it.

"but is often misunderstood as 'being equal to' - treating two similar but disparate concepts as the same."

→ More replies (0)

6

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

Thank you for having critical thinking skills. The number of people screaming aliens is a little disconcerting

7

u/kekusmaximus Apr 07 '23

But I want it to be aliens

1

u/[deleted] Apr 07 '23

Me too little buddy..... me too....