Man films UFO shooting down his drone

Post Reply New Topic

Oh ok

We have to respectfully disagree as to me it looks like a ellipsoid saucer (like two cereal bowls one on top of the other.)

What I would want is a photo expert who can examine the drone footage and authenticate the image. If the image is authentic then the obvious question is what is it?

One possible option is that its a drone but if you watch the 60 minutes interview, the government defence official stated the US government has nothing like this in their arsenal.

The video does not show any projectiles being launched, traveling toward the camera, or striking the drone.

Reminds me of the time the cops accused me of throwing stones at cars on the freeway only because (1) I was the first kid they spotted after the report, and (2) I was allegedly "acting weird".  The freeway was five miles away, and I was climbing a tree in my dad's front yard.

("Hmm ... a dark spot in a tree ... it looks suspicious ... must be our perp ... git 'im!")

Bad cop!  No donut!

Yes its true, people do misinterpret and sometimes project what they see from their peripheral vision.

However these UFOs (the technical term used by the US navy is now UAPs) are now being caught on camera so require more detailed analysis on a case by case basis.

Unfortunately I don't have any means of adding photos to this post but having enlarged the still frames posted earlier and played about with the contrast, one of the photos appears to show a very small object close to the drone rather than a large object further away, and the other photo just shows a messy pixelated dark blob.

The clearer photo shows something that looks like a conker or similar nut/seed (I've no idea what the vegetation is like in the area). I would suggest it is either some sort of nut/seed, perhaps fired from a catapult; or some aliens have in fact flown to earth in a conker, engaged in an aerial dogfight with a massive earth vessel, and then returned home satisfied that they were victorious in their epic encounter.

lol . ive seen real things . a little black glitch aint it . this guy is reaching for views . lol .

as stated above .. the drone most likely collided with a bird . maybe even a bird of prey had a go in attempt of a meal

I am not sure if we are all looking a the same object but its definitely not a pine cone
In the blown up image you will notice
1. It's black, I have never seen a black pine cone, it contasts quite distinctly from the green and brown of the conifer trees behind it (somebody else here thought it was a shadow because its black).
2. Its shiny with some type of matt finish that looks metallic
3. It's attenuated at the edges like a disc, the shape itself nullifies a natural origin

Its true, there's no evidence the object on the drone camera is responsible for the drone getting knocked out of the sky. But the object itself isn't a bird

Well, it obviously must have been a UFO: the devil is so 16th century...

Actually by curious coincidence in the 16th century the devil was thought to be responsible for crop circles in England



Even had a name...the "mowing devil" of Hartford Shire.

This actually illustrates the lack of research skills in those debunking another phenomenon my claiming a couple of drunk Englishmen with wooden planks moved around the country creating elaborate crop circles in pitch dark.

If you look closely, you can actually see not one, but several UFOs hovering in the area:

I can see you circled shadows created by trees. they are self-evidently shadows and bear no resemblance to solid object in the middle which is the subject of the thread.

I think we can both agree on that.

I've enlarged the relevant part of both still images considerably using Adobe Lightroom and then had a play around with the contrast to see if that makes things any clearer.

When enlarged, in the picture with the red line drawn on it (where the object looks a bit like the UFOs from the 1970s TV series of the same name if you don't look too closely), the object actually appears to be multiple objects which just happen to merge into a "UFO" shaped object. It's impossible to tell exactly what it is because it's just a mess of pixels and artefacts like so many "UFO" photos.

Enlarging the other picture produces something a bit clearer. Firstly it clearly looks as though it is very close to the camera compared to the trees in the background and is probably therefore very small. It is a slightly distorted spherical shape, chestnut coloured and very shiny. One side is reflecting the light. It also has a pale coloured non shiny area on one side. It looks exactly like a conker, the seed of the horse chestnut tree (Aesculus hippocastanum).

Horse chestnut trees are not a native Australian species but do grow well in many areas of the continent where they have been introduced. I'm not familiar with the native Australian flora so it is possible that the object could be some other sort of nut or seed (not a pine cone), but I think that is most likely what it is - a nut or seed, fired from a catapult.

The apparent object in the photograph with the red line is almost certainly something totally unrelated and is probably just an optical illusion created by multiple objects which just happen to line up whilst pixelation and artefacts help to merge them together.

Whilst it might be interesting to find evidence of aliens visiting earth, depending on the circumstances, this really isn't it. People who are seeing aliens here are doing so because that is what they want to see.

This is south-east Queensland which is sub-tropical so unlikely to be a chestnut,

I spent far too long to be healthy looking at this, admittedly from a cynical viewpoint.

He says: "Under the spot where this object was spotted is a perfectly round water hole with no algae, indicating that it gets disturbed by something."
But water holes are often round, especially those forming in sink holes so I think there's an unnecessary and misdirecting emphasis created by saying "perfectly round".
It's also not "perfectly round" - there is a smaller area of water showing around 10:00 o'clock in the image which in turn appears to merge into another smaller area, or stream.
Using the scale marker on the image the hole is about 40 metres (130 feet) at the widest point. That seems large enough to be called a large pond or a lake, but I'm no expert on water hole size.

Algae may not be growing there for at least two very simple reasons: it's seasonal, or the nutrients in the hole are insufficient to sustain an algal bloom. The image does look like it might be showing a growth of duckweed or some other marginal water plant, which grows from a pond's edges toward the centre. This is also seasonal and also depends on the nutrients in the water hole.
I wonder why the image is of such poor quality, and not what I'd expect from a Mavik Pro. Or, it's possibly just a lower resolution/zoomed image sourced from Google Earth.

That would also be a remarkably accurate location for a ground feature underneath tree cover, tied to an object "hovering above the trees" and apparently at some distance. I wonder if instead it's simply something later found out there which fits the general UFO narrative.

The implication inherent in the statement "it gets disturbed by something" is that there is some sort of downward thrust from the object and, if it was in fact responsible for the lack of algae, would mean a physical disturbance of the air underneath the object, as in a jet. I would have expected this to be visible, or at least audible. I am discounting some sort of extra-terrestrial anti-gravity device because if we allow that, we might as well allow anything fantastical.
In any case, allowing that something is preventing algal growth it would still need to exert a downward pressure/heat/radiation onto the water hole - and for this to be effective from an unidentified object around the stated flight height of 94 metres (about 300 feet), I'd almost expect a trail of destruction/disturbance to be visible on the tree canopy.

In the still image, allegedly showing the object close to the drone as it was falling - what's that in the upper left corner of the frame?
Yes, it's clearly a mount for one of the drone's motors - but what's all that feathery stuff? I'm not suggesting it is bird feathers (or leaves), but several of those feather-like structures are showing a central spine. If you want to go with the leaf idea then add that they are also a typical eucalyptus leaf shape.
Whatever it is, it's been removed from the indoor image of the damaged drone - why? And why doesn't he comment on the presence of those objects in his video, when they could be a clue as to something striking the drone?

And why is the video of the fall during which the two frames showing the object "leaving at a fast pace" not shown? That's shabby at best.
Actually, as I found later, the full video has been posted - as "Dji crash" without commentary and emotive music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkcE3m96U1g

Finally, on checking the comments for the video on YouTube, posted at the start of this thread, we find - Took_Err_Jerbs: "I have a mavic pro. If a car sized object hit that it would have fallen out of the sky with way more damage. Although the image is a bit grainy I think it’s a hawk-like bird." with the response from the video's originator George Csere: You right! Original story is different. Chinese whisper..

So why post it as a UFO story?
Answer - it's a poor-quality troll.

You may have spent way too much time looking at the article, but I spent only about 15 seconds reading the first paragraph or two of your reply.

Have a great day!