Stunning video of really weird UAP

[Magical Realist]

Just keep slowly repeating to yourself "It's only a balloon..It's only a balloon...zzzzzzzzzzzz"

[Syne]

Again with the projection. We don't have to convince ourselves that it's something very familiar and ordinary. We see those things all the time, which is why we can easily make such comparisons. You're the one having to make up fantastical nonsense. Maybe it is ADHD, and you actually would fall asleep is you didn't constantly entertain such.

[Magical Realist]

We see those things all the time,

Ofcourse you do. Balloons balloons everywhere, speeding alongside jets at 30,000 feet at Mach 2. "God in his heaven, and everything in its place. Nothing to see here folks. Go about your business."

Meanwhile....based on actual eyewitness reports:

"There are five, consistent observations we continue to see that are uniquely associated with Unidentified Aerial Phenomena or UAPs. Understanding these characteristics and their application requires us to have a very good understanding of advanced physics at the quantum level.

The five observables can be categorized as follows:

1) Sudden and instantaneous acceleration: Objects moving in such a manner that they are capable of maneuvering suddenly, deliberately and sometimes in the opposite direction. In some cases, these maneuvers involve a change in direction and acceleration that is well beyond the healthy limitations of any biological system, that we are aware of, to withstand. The anticipated effects of these g-forces on material may even defy our current technological ability to manufacture.

2) Hypersonic velocities without signatures: Objects that are traveling well above supersonic speeds and yet leave no obvious signature behind. Specific signatures normally include acoustic, heat, and electromagnetic and are traditionally recognized as a sonic boom, vapor contrails, and atmospheric ionization. Currently, even the world’s most advanced military and reconnaissance aircraft have detectible signatures.

3) Low observability: Regardless if the object is being viewed electro-optically, electromagnetically, or through the naked eye, the inability to gain a clear target picture remains elusive. Descriptions by witnesses are often difficult to describe, while radar returns often come back nonsensical or even jammed. Objects generally appear opaque and semi-metallic in nature, both on camera and live. In many cases it is nearly impossible to actually see the object and instead reports often include what is seen “around” the object.

4) Trans-medium travel: Objects that have the ability to travel easily in various environments and conditions seemingly without any change in performance capabilities. Our current understanding of physics requires vehicles to be designed specifically according to their application. For this reason, there are stark differences between those vehicles that orbit in space, fly in the atmosphere, and travel in the sea. Objects that can travel in all three mediums using the same design and without compromising performance or degrading lift remains an enigma.

5) Positive lift: Objects that are apparently resisting the natural effects of Earth's gravity, yet without the normally associated aerodynamic means for lift and thrust. These objects have no obvious signs of propulsion (engines, propellers, exhaust plumes, etc.) or flight surfaces (wings, rudders, ailerons, fins, etc.), but yet they are able to move in a very precise manner in our atmosphere despite not having any of those characteristics.

When you see these five observables all together, then we are forced to scratch our head and come to the conclusion that maybe we don’t know what these things are. We need more data and comprehensive research to do our best to understand what we are seeing."

https://tothestars.media/blogs/press-and...ue-to-uaps

[Syne]

Again, you have to distract from your own OP, because it's not strong enough evidence to argue on its own.
You haven't even made any convincing argument that the balloon is "speeding alongside" the plane. You just keep asserting it as if that alone means anything.

[Magical Realist]

Again, you have to distract from your own OP, because it's not strong enough evidence to argue on its own.
You haven't even made any convincing argument that the balloon is "speeding alongside" the plane. You just keep asserting it as if that alone means anything.

Like I said, there's nothing else to argue. Either it looks like a mylar balloon and so is one, or it doesn't look like one at all and so isn't one. Clearly it doesn't. And all the extra information I have posted establishes uaps as a real and confirmed phenomenon haunting our skies. If you can't grasp the relevance of that to the op I don't care. I post for the infotainment of anyone who reads this thread, not just you.

[Syne]

You're blinded by your beliefs. Just like when you couldn't recognize a simple Chinese lantern.
Everything else is just arm waving. It doesn't establish anything because it's quite literally "unidentified."

You know what "apparently resisting the natural effects of Earth's gravity" with "no obvious signs of propulsion?" A helium filled balloon.
Now you're just playing the "infotainment" (i.e. "I'm not really being serious") card out of pure desperation.

[Magical Realist]

You know what "apparently resisting the natural effects of Earth's gravity" with "no obvious signs of propulsion?" A helium filled balloon.

"Objects that are traveling well above supersonic speeds and yet leave no obvious signature behind."

"These objects have no obvious signs of propulsion (engines, propellers, exhaust plumes, etc.) or flight surfaces (wings, rudders, ailerons, fins, etc.), but yet they are able to move in a very precise manner in our atmosphere despite not having any of those characteristics."

Yeah...those amazing balloons..lol!

[Syne]

You have yet to demonstrate ANY evidence that the OP object is moving at all.

[Magical Realist]

And you have yet to provide any evidence that it is a mylar balloon.

[Syne]

"Prove me wrong" is the eternal call of the wild crackpot. Where I've given plenty of arguments and pictures illustrating the likelihood of a balloon, you've only made bare assertions without any argument whatsoever...other than evading red herrings of other random and equally "unidentified" stuff.

You do know mylar balloons exist, right? You know that for a fact. Right? Or are you denying their existence?
Now what are claiming actually exists in the OP? Anything we can know for a fact? No?
Then on the compared evidence, you have nothing at all.

Care to start making arguments? Or are you just going to continue making unsupported assertions?