Man films UFO shooting down his drone

Post Reply New Topic

we sheeple.

I guess its human nature to be sheep

also human nature to have alphas/the 1% privy to all the secrets, the rest of us dumbed down.

That's rugged individualism to a tee. Aspire to be top dog by any means. Truth, Ethics and morality don't apply.

and satan smiles meanwhile.

Not at any point before the incident - although the original video starts after the drone is airborne it's clearly nowhere near the treetops. The many links I've provided show that the drone recording the video is a different model to the one the operator pictures - a DJI Mavic Pro. The still showing the underside of the motor mounting (top left) and a rotor guard (top right) has much more in common with a DJI Phantom 3 - easily determined through the searches I posted earlier. There are far too many ordinary, verifiable, explanations available which don't justify elevating a couple of single-frame visual anomalies/artefacts to anything of significance - and certainly not as the originator described: "Bigger than the [a?] car hovering above the tree". Or to justify his porkies about the model of drone used: that does a very tenuous story no good at all.

Do you think his initial reaction about the drone being shot down subsequently invalidates the two objects caught on film as not being natural? Is it possible in his enthusiasm to explain the "bang" he misattributed the images on the film as responsible for the drone crash?

I am not qualified to calculate the scale of the image in the trees caught on the drone camera or the blurred image as the drone was falling and perhaps he also exaggerated the scale. However the identity of the objects remain somewhat of a mystery hence it remains filed away in my x-files.

On the second, edited, "shot down" video the poster himself more or less disowns his own video in the YouTube comments below the post.
I don't believe there's enough evidence to claim they're even objects, when they can already be explained as shadow/variable density areas with image artefacts appearing to suggest attributes that aren't there.
When the originator also claims something the size of a car was involved I think his enthusiasm has already overcome mundane details like not allowing his imagination to run riot.

I don't think there's much training or scale required to see that the drone is always well above the trees, at least until it starts falling, and I see only shadows and compression/sharpening artefacts, not objects. Given that, it is impossible to derive any scale of size or distance beyond that which the imagination provides.
But those objects visible in the still frame are easily identifiable as parts of a (different) drone; the only remaining mystery is the clearly visible feather-like objects and for them, I'm content to view the whole incident as a bird strike and nothing more. Furthermore, it's telling that the operator blinds himself to their existence in favor of an image anomaly in the centre of the frame, reaching for ever more fanciful ideas.

Interesting thing is...the rotor shown on screen is white and faces downward

[/quote]

But here's the actual drone flown by the operator



The rotor faces the opposite direction and is black with what looks like a buckle?

The plot thickens

Again - it's the underside of the mount, not the rotor itself. The location of the rotor guard top right further illustrates that the camera is showing detail above it - because it's mounted underneath the body of the drone.
It feels like I've been banging on about the color being white and not the expected black/dark gray for the past 20 years, at least...

The operator claims that was the drone used; the video evidence indicates otherwise.
If you'd check the named parts in the Mavic Pro manual I linked earlier you'd see on page five, identifying parts of the craft, that there is "5. Landing Gear (with built in antennas)" underneath the rotor; even if the still frame did somehow show the top of the mount, at least some of the black/dark gray landing gear would be visible but with the camera mounted below the body - much more would be visible.

On page seven of the manual you'll see that what you refer to as a "buckle" is simply the rotor mounting mechanism; one rotor blade is still attached.

Oh well....somewhere a mischievous alien is laughing at the drone operator's lack of success in convincing the good public of the gold coast of his escapades with the car-sized coffee bean

A flying, car-sized "Drones-Be-Gone" coffee bean would certainly make a novel vehicle.

Yet another idea for a movie! Drone wars! you guys are very creative....