David Icke's Official Forums (https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php)
-   The Universe / UFOs / IFOs / Crop Circles (https://forum.davidicke.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19)
-   -   Jaw Dropping New UFO Sighting at Area 51 Caught on Camera (https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=323630)

size_of_light 12-01-2019 08:54 PM

Jaw Dropping New UFO Sighting at Area 51 Caught on Camera
 
I consider UFO videos pretty worthless nowadays due to CGI capabilities, so I don't even bother looking at them anymore.

But this one showed up in my youtube feed today, so I took a look...

It seems pretty impressive to me, given that the uploader has also released a second video of the raw footage from which the sighting was extracted.

Here is the clip of the UFO:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cE-Yrv1-chI" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And here is the raw footage (UFO flashes by at 02:34) to provide the context that is often lacking in youtube-era CGI fakes:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bVmGhxYrkug" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

andy1033 12-01-2019 10:02 PM

I would not personally watch any video, claiming to be ufos since the time, cgi, and photoshop came into being.

There are so many fraud type people, out there to con people.

Dishonest fraudsters have ruined ufology, or any credible nature to it, since the net came along.

size_of_light 12-01-2019 10:15 PM

Yeah, it's the double-edged sword of technology.

Now everyone has a camera on them to record genuine UFOs sightings, and at the same time, everyone has access to effects software to fake them too.

So we're back to square one. :thud:

There's already an overwhelming weight of evidence that intelligently-controlled, anomalous craft are operating in the skies, so wasting time 'proving' or debunking this or that seems to me to be a redundant exercise best left to the most clueless people in both camps.

Having said that, check out the clips in the OP. :p

They're pretty cool, and in the top few percent of recent vids that I find persuasive.

wingwang 12-01-2019 10:43 PM

3.5 miles per second

So that's like, gee whizz, 3.5 miles per second multiplied by 60 seconds...

210 miles per minute... WOW!!!!!

Lets go mph

210 miles per minute multiplied by 60 minutes, EQUALS...

Twelve fcking faasand six feckin hungdred miles per hour... WOOPDEEWOO...

And that can'ts got a camera that shoots 60 frames per second?

Good luck with that one!

size_of_light 12-01-2019 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wingwang (Post 1063055399)
3.5 miles per second

So that's like, gee whizz, 3.5 miles per second multiplied by 60 seconds...

210 miles per minute... WOW!!!!!

Lets go mph

210 miles per minute multiplied by 60 minutes, EQUALS...

Twelve fcking faasand six feckin hungdred miles per hour... WOOPDEEWOO...

And that can'ts got a camera that shoots 60 frames per second?

Good luck with that one!

I'm not following you.

Are you saying that a 60fps camera couldn't catch an object traveling at 12,600 mph?

wingwang 12-01-2019 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by size_of_light (Post 1063055400)
I'm not following you.

Are you saying that a 60fps camera couldn't catch an object traveling at 12,600 mph?

Indeed.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7y9apnbI6GA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

elshaper 12-01-2019 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wingwang (Post 1063055399)
3.5 miles per second

So that's like, gee whizz, 3.5 miles per second multiplied by 60 seconds...

210 miles per minute... WOW!!!!!

Lets go mph

210 miles per minute multiplied by 60 minutes, EQUALS...

Twelve fcking faasand six feckin hungdred miles per hour... WOOPDEEWOO...

And that can'ts got a camera that shoots 60 frames per second?

Good luck with that one!

You lost me. :lol:

EDIT: Oh, myth busted then.

Sorry, the end of the thread. :lol:

size_of_light 12-01-2019 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wingwang (Post 1063055401)
Indeed.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7y9apnbI6GA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

He's estimating 3.5 miles away based on a google maps check of the distance between the camera position and the mountain range in the background below where it first appears, but there's nothing to conclusively establish it is directly above that hill at the outset. It could be significantly closer and this is just a bad guesstimate.

Any idea what the maximum traveling speed of an object a 60fps camera could capture?

I couldn't find the answer after a quick look, but working backwards from there would be a good starting point to figure out the maximum speed and initial distance limit of the object, if real.

Debunking it based on a cursory approximation by the uploader doesn't work.

wingwang 12-01-2019 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by size_of_light (Post 1063055388)
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cE-Yrv1-chI" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Quote:

Originally Posted by elshaper (Post 1063055402)
You lost me. :lol:

EDIT: Oh, myth busted then.

Sorry, the end of the thread. :lol:

go onto the hard drive shows us the clip
01:22
and it's just like you know we're
01:24
shooting 60 frames a second tried to
01:26
slow it down as much as possible
01:28
literally like frame by frame by frame
01:30
yeah there was no way that he had like
01:32
messed around with okay I was gonna I
01:35
was gonna it was on the it was on the
01:38
rock clip and this was in 2016 so this
01:42
was a few years ago and like literally
01:46
we're standing in the field like four or
01:48
five hundred feet away from this drone
01:50
and don't be here and don't see anything
01:53
like something traveling that fast
01:54
would make a sonic when we first saw we
01:57
like broke every single second of that
01:59
clip down and you zoom in right at the
02:02
beginning of that clip you can see this
02:04
thing comes down over the map through
02:06
the valley and then in the valley and
02:09
then it turns and it turns and it comes
02:11
straight so something traveling that
02:13
fast yeah
02:15
it's just insane like we looked on
02:18
Google Maps and the mountain range where
02:21
it comes where it you first see it was
02:24
three and a half miles away from where
02:26
we were and the drone gets from the
02:30
mountain range and it passes through
02:32
screen in a second and so you do that
02:35
math it's traveling three and a half
02:37
miles in a second like nothing travels
02:39
that fast that we catch like you see the
02:43
all over like CNN about the fighter

wingwang 12-01-2019 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by size_of_light (Post 1063055404)
Any idea what the maximum traveling speed of an object a 60fps camera could capture?

I couldn't find the answer after a quick look.


You have to keep it in context with the 3.5 miles per second claim.

A 60 fps camera could capture all manner of speeds.

wingwang 12-01-2019 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by size_of_light (Post 1063055404)

Debunking it based on a cursory approximation by the uploader doesn't work.

We'll just fack it off then. Agreed?!

size_of_light 12-01-2019 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wingwang (Post 1063055406)
You have to keep it in context with the 3.5 miles per second claim.

A 60 fps camera could capture all manner of speeds.

Claim, guesstimate, there's nothing to say he's right, or even in the ballpark when it comes to its initial position.

size_of_light 12-01-2019 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wingwang (Post 1063055408)
We'll just fack it off then. Agreed?!

lol. I've got no problem with you doing that.

elshaper 12-01-2019 11:30 PM

So ordinary iphone can catch a UFO footage...only if from afar?
How do you define afar? i.e. distance
I take it UFO can fly very fast? What is their speed?
Is it all in the details and depending on the context?
Many many questions...:thud:

JumpRogue 13-01-2019 12:38 AM

2016 isn’t new

size_of_light 13-01-2019 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpRogue (Post 1063055415)
2016 isn’t new

Right.

But it is never before seen by the public and newly-released on Jan. 9, 2019.

size_of_light 13-01-2019 05:38 AM

Videographer interviewed by Clyde Lewis on his radio show, Ground Zero:


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GlIc-VjNwrE" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

truegroup 13-01-2019 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by size_of_light (Post 1063055404)
He's estimating 3.5 miles away based on a google maps check of the distance between the camera position and the mountain range in the background below where it first appears, but there's nothing to conclusively establish it is directly above that hill at the outset. It could be significantly closer and this is just a bad guesstimate.

Perspective in more ways than one. It looks like a drone for starters. They travel commercially at 150mph.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6sz8bquB50

Look at the size as it flies above and how quick it disappears.

Quote:

Any idea what the maximum traveling speed of an object a 60fps camera could capture?
Depends how big. From that footage, it crosses over some trees and is not very big.

Quote:

I couldn't find the answer after a quick look, but working backwards from there would be a good starting point to figure out the maximum speed and initial distance limit of the object, if real.

Debunking it based on a cursory approximation by the uploader doesn't work.
I think the capture speed is a red herring. You CAN capture something coming at you at astonishing speed, because they are in your view for maybe a second - that footage in such a case should have captured 60 frames - did it?? Going across your field of view at great height, the same, so long as the lens is wide enough angle.

What it looks like is a very small object travelling very fast, perspective makes it disappear after a short distance(see video example above). That isn't 3.5 miles away, just because it appears with the mountain behind it.

https://gizmodo.com/watch-this-insan...eds-1701006766

grimstock 13-01-2019 11:08 AM

"Disappears against the mountains"TG ?????

No- not at all.

It comes flying past the camera at rocket speed, from half mile away I would speculate.

size_of_light 13-01-2019 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truegroup (Post 1063055428)
It looks like a drone for starters. They travel commercially at 150mph.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6sz8bquB50

You might be right.

I didn't know little drones could be that zippy.

EDIT: One thing I'll add - if this object had been captured before the advent (or, at least, the public knowledge of) drones, I GUARANTEE everyone who didn't want to entertain the possibility that this was anything anomalous, would have solely adopted the 'it's CGI' defense.

Suddenly, half the skeptics have no problem accepting that it is a genuine physical object, because they have another 'out' to dismiss it.

Interesting psychology.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:45 PM.