See what I caught traveling at over 1300 MPH

With The Birds · Mar 24, 2019

MoralDK said:
You're absolutely right! I've simply presented what the video shows, right down to the high zoom and slow motion. I've made no claims as to what it is. Organic, inorganic, I don't know. I do know it reflects light and runs across 30 frames. I'm not a forensic video analyst, but I think someone with that pedigree could be helpful to determine the initial visible location of the objects. I'm all for critical analysis. I've spent a week tearing it apart, so I thought I'd post it up here. It's probably the most critical place to post a vid like this.

A good place to start might be to demonstrate to yourself that certain of your assumptions can’t be true.

If an object is 1000 feet from the phantom you can apply some simple maths to determine, having regard to the FOV of the camera and the maximum pixels available to record the image, how big the object must have needed to be to take up 100pixels across the frame.

sar104 · Mar 24, 2019

MoralDK said:
Actually, when they first emerge they take up about 100x100px. Similar bug videos show they appear from "out of the sky" in as little as 1/10th the pixel size or less. These appeared at 100x100 immediately after moving from behind the tree branch blocking the view.

That's incorrect on all counts. Firstly, when it is first fully visible it is 1 px wide, and maybe 2 or 3 px high - due to motion blur. Secondly, nothing is visible at 1/10 px. This is total fantasy.

MoralDK · Mar 25, 2019

that

sar104 said:
That's incorrect on all counts. Firstly, when it is first fully visible it is 1 px wide, and maybe 2 or 3 px high - due to motion blur. Secondly, nothing is visible at 1/10 px. This is total fantasy.

View attachment 109903

Correction: From the raw still the initial visible pixel space is approx. 10x10px. However, coloration of the pixels in and around the tree branch change during the time/frames objects are behind, prior to full emergence, indicating reflected light from objects through the branch/needles. Additionally pixels to the right of the branch show light reflection prior to full emergence on the left of branch, coinciding with rate of motion.

sar104 · Mar 25, 2019

MoralDK said:
that

1/10 the pixel size would be 10x10px. I took it from a raw still shot.

Oh - you meant 1/10 of 100. That was confusing. Either way, the other point stands - this was first visible at a size of the order of one pixel.

With The Birds · Mar 25, 2019

My guess is your on top of this now- the observation simply is that the first frame in which pixels that depict the existence of the object are visible doesn’t mean the object came out from behind the tree. It simply means it was the first frame in which the object could be resolved by the imaging system. It might be that it was only 50 or 100 feet in front of the lens. You have no way of knowing if the tree line is a valid point of reference with respect to the objects position. You might safely say it isn’t however having regard to the camera resolution and it’s apparent size when it passed the phantom (it didn’t first appear 1000 feet away).

Me_XMan · Mar 25, 2019

UFO !

PhantomWetSuits · Mar 25, 2019

MoralDK said:
A week ago I was piloting my Phantom 4 Adv with a camera set strictly for navigation yet still recording. During post flight video review, I caught what looked like a bug or bird coming at the camera very fast. Reviewing the vid closer and slower allowed me to locate their position and synch it to the flight log. It showed 2 objects traveling over 1,000' in 1/2 second. I just uploaded the Zapruder. It's 1080/60fps. Try to view it with the best resolution and biggest screen.

[/QUOTE]

ReubenMru · Mar 25, 2019

Interesting,

I am curious as to how you calculated the speed... how far was the drone from the tree?

DJF · Mar 25, 2019

UFO - Ufology - Flying Rods of Jose Escamilla

A review of the Flying Rods phanomena discovered by Jose Escamilla

www.tarrdaniel.com

They are called "rods" if that's what it is...

DJF · Mar 25, 2019

Psmith221 · Mar 25, 2019

I might as well join the foray. IMHO, your math is a bit wonky. At that speed and distance, at that resolution of 60FPS Your camera would never have picked up the motion blur at that frame rate traveling across that supposed distance.
To pick up that much motion blur in the recording, The object, would have had to have been much closer to the camera, and traveling much, much slower.

It looks kinda like a DJI Inspire, or aliens coming to **** probe us all!

Nice subject for an argument though. Just stirring the pot.

AdvantagePics · Mar 25, 2019

Dudes!!! I thought for sure this was just buck shot coming from a hunter in the trees but after watching that news clip on Skyfish - I’m a convinced believer now. This is too cool and thanks for the share and the good conversation!

sar104 · Mar 25, 2019

AdvantagePics said:
Dudes!!! I thought for sure this was just buck shot coming from a hunter in the trees but after watching that news clip on Skyfish - I’m a convinced believer now. This is too cool and thanks for the share and the good conversation!

I really don't understand how anyone is convinced by such unphysical nonsense. I guess the "I want to believe" motivation is just too strong in some people.

Videogirls · Mar 25, 2019

Very interesting!

MoralDK · Mar 25, 2019

ReubenMru said:
Interesting,

I am curious as to how you calculated the speed... how far was the drone from the tree?

I synched the video to the flight log. The flight log shows sec by sec flight travel over a GPS map.

MoralDK · Mar 25, 2019

Psmith221 said:
I might as well join the foray. IMHO, your math is a bit wonky. At that speed and distance, at that resolution of 60FPS Your camera would never have picked up the motion blur at that frame rate traveling across that supposed distance.
To pick up that much motion blur in the recording, The object, would have had to have been much closer to the camera, and traveling much, much slower.

It looks kinda like a DJI Inspire, or aliens coming to **** probe us all!

Nice subject for an argument though. Just stirring the pot.

Good critical thinking. However, to even consider this, we would need to assume the objects are traveling at a constant rate. Speed may vary.

Deleted member 62848 · Mar 25, 2019

Cool alright,,,,imagine if we could bottle this speed,,silent power !!
Be good drone battery lol

Malone · Mar 26, 2019

MoralDK said:
You're absolutely right! I've simply presented what the video shows, right down to the high zoom and slow motion. I've made no claims as to what it is. Organic, inorganic, I don't know. I do know it reflects light and runs across 30 frames. I'm not a forensic video analyst, but I think someone with that pedigree could be helpful to determine the initial visible location of the objects. I'm all for critical analysis. I've spent a week tearing it apart, so I thought I'd post it up here. It's probably the most critical place to post a vid like this.