cyberdad wrote:
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?
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.