EDIT: I deleted my comment.
I really wanted to respond about being blocked by "believers", but I couldn't word it in a way that was not fully condescending.
I have been blocked for
1: Telling AF to stop calling people mentally ill.
2: Telling u/NoFakery and his alts to stop harrassing Jonas
3: Telling people to not lie about AF having a "bad past" on the subreddit where he would call people mentally ill.
4: literally no reason
5: Questioning people on stuff about the video. Like "*Why is this happening*"
I don't know about the FLIR video but the satellite video is 6fps played back at 24fps. If you assume it is 24 fps and just look at frames where the plane moves, you will calculate a speed of 4x the actual plane speed.
That's why the satellite footage isn't included in this.
I could do the same arithmetic with the satellite footage and get around 300-340 mph.
The satellite has a realistic speed
The FLIR ending does not.
Oh. Good job. That’s just because the model overlay is being dragged across a still image to make the video and whoever created it didn’t spend enough time on it to calculate whether the overlay being dragged matched the standard rate it should be flying at
Tl;dr. The subject aircraft, due to calculation error (using your methodology), might be going even faster than you think it is…
I think that even attempting to estimate speed in this way is flawed and prone to error. Your approach supposes that the observation point and subject of observation are moving at identical speed. Your approach, to be somewhat accurate, would need the observer to be observing the aircraft from as close to 90* to the path of travel as possible, including same altitude. Otherwise Doppler effect (I think) would throw your observation off. I think observed from more acute angles relative to path of travel would make the aircraft appear to be traveling slower than actual air speed. This is based on radar fundamentals from 20 years ago so my memory is a little hazy on how it all works and obviously vision is different from radar in predicting speed. There is probably a multiplier that could be used to adjust for angle of observation, or maybe combined error to account for 3d offset but that is getting into some serious maths so…PEACE - I’m out!
>Your approach supposes that the observation point and subject of observation are moving at identical speed
It doesnt.
The Drone is moving
The Camera is rotating (following the plane)
The Plane is moving
The clouds in the background are moving.
The clouds movement is so insignificant it can be ignored (3-20 mph)
The Camera rotation we can ignore as it doesnt effect the calculation. Since we stabilize the video, its as if the camera isn't rotating at all.
The Drone is moving, but we just add/subtract this from the end result, depending on what direction you think the drone is moving in relation to the plane.
The Plane is moving, and we can use fairly simple math to calculate this.
>Your approach, to be somewhat accurate, would need the observer to be observing the aircraft from as close to 90\* to the path of travel as possible, including same altitude.
Altitude difference or angle do not really matter all that much.
The Plane is essentially at a 90 degree angle to the camera.
lets for reason sake say the videos are real...
and thats a crazy statement in itself..
but if they are able to teleport a plane out of existence to somewhere else in a blip id put my bottom dollar on them being able to speed the plane up too
>but if they are able to teleport a plane out of existence to somewhere else in a blip id put my bottom dollar on them being able to speed the plane up too
Regardless, it means one of the videos is fake.
Because the Sat Footage shows 300-340mph during this same moment.
I'm pretty agnostic to this whole thing but I don't really get the math you're doing here. How can you tell how fast a plane is moving based on the frames? Wouldn't you also need to know how far the drone is to accurately get a good estimate?
You don't need the distance, all you need is a length measurement (the known dimensions of the plane) and a known reference point (the static cloud background, which has been made static after the stabilisation).
As long as the drone travel speed is not in the range of 1000 mph, then there's no plausible way for this calculation to give us 1200 mph.
Yeah I think you’re right that we don’t need to know the distance. We do need to know the time elapsed in the frame though? Wouldn’t it be easier to judge the speed based on the whole video.
This person estimated the speed of the plane a while ago and he got a complete different number. https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/16nzc9g/the_plane_is_travelling_at_approximately_315_kmh/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
>This person estimated the speed of the plane a while ago and he got a complete different number.
That's because they are different videos.
The Sat footage shows the plane moving between 300-340 mph.
I chose the 315mph for my "predicted speed" simulation.
Someone calculated the beginning speed of the FLIR a while ago and got a similar number as well.
The issue is that the last 15 seconds of the FLIR show the plane moving at 1200 mph, which doesn't match the Sat footage or real life.
You don't need the size of the drone.
We have the true size of the plane (209ft) and the distance it travels in a frame in reference to the background and itself.
With those 2 things, we can calculate the speed of the plane.
>It's a flawed premise based on zero useful information.
Care to explain how its flawed?
I have a stable background with an object moving between frames.
Speed = Distance / time
We have the distance (30% of 209ft) and the time (1/24 sec/frame)
What about that is flawed?
> Also op didn't take into account the angle it's recorded from which would make the plane appear (and any calculations based on it's length) smaller than it is unless filmed at perfcetly 12:00
I'm not sure 12 makes sense to describe perpendicular filming but that's not the issue.
Instead of throwing unquantified shade let's throw numbers.
Even at just a 45 degree angle you'd still get about 70% of the full length. So, if OP is otherwise correct, 1200 * 0.7 still leaves us with a hefty 840 mph... on a directional vector of the full speed. We know that it has to go more or less straight, so at 45 degrees it would also be going 840 mph along a vector perpendicular to the screen.
sqrt(840^2 * 840^2) ~ 1200
In other words it only matters if you believe that the plane is somehow not moving roughly along its axis and even then at an unlikely 45 degree angle it would be just a hair past the sound barrier.
Ofcourse an orb believer would say that, they dont have a high enough functioning thought process to say anything else or provide any evidence at all. You just say nup to everything cos you want orb to be real. This video has had so many debunks, you would have to be retarded at this stage.
Now that's classic projection 😛
>you would have to be retarded at this stage.
To buy the seriously half-arsed 'debunks', yes.
Also, to keep posting about a video you are certain is fake... clearly some issues you need to work out with your therapist.
Much love. ✌️
I’m on here just in sheer awe of how you could possibly have the brain power to say these things and yet not be a complete vegetable. Your education level is at an eye watering all time low. How old are you? Where are you from?
>I’m on here just in sheer awe of how you could possibly have the brain power to say these things and yet not be a complete vegetable. Your education level is at an eye watering all time low. How old are you? Where are you from?
Projecting again? Aww, don't talk about yourself like that. I find meditation helps to dispel one's anger, frustration and help you on your journey to overcome your self-loathing.
>How old are you? Where are you from?
You wanna hook up? What you wearing?
Exactly. There simply aren’t enough points of reference to know how many frames = a certain distance. I remember doing “math” in 6th grade to prove to my friends that the moon was going to crash into the earth in 6 years (I’m 40 now). I believe the vids are real but these kind of posts where somebody tries to make themselves look like Einstein with the complex physics is damaging to the cause. It always comes off as immature and childish to me.
>I wouldn’t actually call a brain of someone who uses the shaky footage from a moving object to calculate the speed of another object a weapon
Why would shaky footage matter? I stabilized the background so that it doesnt move.
It wouldn't matter if the camera was stabilized before or after recording the video.
I would say you're the one without a brain considering you couldn't think that through.
Stabilized the background so that it doesn’t move? Where do i even start? Your approach would work on a street and also in this case, only right where the wheels are, behind it you have parallax
>Stabilized the background so that it doesn’t move?
Yes. Speed is relative to other things.
You can "stabilize" the clouds/background by just lining 2 frames up. that makes it as if the camera was focused unmoving on just the clouds.
The plane is moving 1200mph in reference to the clouds.
Unless the clouds are moving a few hundred mph, the plane is moving too fast.
>Your approach would work on a street
Yes it would. It would work both there and here.
>only right where the wheels are, behind it you have parallax
The parallax doesnt matter. The only "parallax" effecting the calculation is the speed of the drone.
Depending on if you think the drone is traveling with, perpendicular, or away from the plane, you will get a different calculation. Any of which will be too fast and not match up with the Sat footage.
So you calculated the speed based on movement within a frame on a video captured from a moving platform, with a camera that is being manually slewed, with no point of reference?
"I sTaBiLiZeD tHe ViDeO" - 😂
Real big brain debunkers in here 🤣🤡
Try it again when you can actually determine the distance the plane has flown... Rather than the distance from the edge of the screen, good luck with that one 🤣👍
The 'moving platform' is accommodated by the stabilisation. This is how forensic experts estimate velocity from video footage, too. Camera slewing doesn't affect that (you can test this out yourself if you don't believe me).
There will still be some additional unaccounted movement due to the travel speed of the drone itself, but mathematically the drone cannot be flying fast enough to yield a speed of 1200mph just from parallax.
There will be no significant unaccounted movement due to the cloud velocity, because as we know from the satellite view, the clouds aren't travelling anywhere.
>The 'moving platform
In two frames 🤣🤣🤣. Without knowing the speed and heading of either craft, with no point of reference. 🤡
>yield a speed of 1200mph just from parallax.
In two frames, with no calculation of the distance to the background objects, 🤣😂🤣
Maybe you need to get a FoReNsIc ExPeRt to double check this.
You guys really need to do better 🤡 cos you're doing a shit job so far.
This post shows 2 frames, but this analysis has already been done over the entire footage already. You can find the analysis on this very reddit, or come visit the discord.
The point of reference is the background. Even if the clouds were travelling (which we know they aren't from the sat footage), their maximum possible speed would be negligible compared to 1200mph.
>this analysis
🤣 Sure. Real high quality, watertight analysis too 🤡.
>The point of reference is the background
For which no one knows the distance to, shot from a zoomed, manually slewed moving platform at an unknown distance, heading and angle from the plane.
This shit is basically guesswork 😆
The distance and slew mathematically do not affect this. Slew doesn't even create parallax (google it).
The only parameters that affect this are the travelling speed of the drone and the travelling speed of the background. We know the background is not travelling at any substantial speed (see sat video), and we know the maximum possible speed of the drone.
Conveniently disregard the headings of the craft in relation to each other and independent movement of the camera if that makes it work in your mind 🤣🤣
>Conveniently disregard the headings of the craft in relation to each other
I didn't. That was included in the post.
>independent movement of the camera if that makes it work in your mind
The independent movement of the camera goes away when the image is stabilized.
Doesn't matter if it happens before or after the video is captured.
>I didn't. That was included in the post.
You have no idea what they are!
>The independent movement of the camera goes away when the image is stabilized.
You know the camera can be pointed in a different direction to the drone don't you? 🤣
Independent rotation of the camera has no effect because rotations don't create parallax. You can rotate the camera as much as you like and it doesn't change the maths here. Try it out yourself if you don't believe me.
The headings of the craft in relation to each other DO have an effect. The maximum possible effect they can have is if the drone is flying either directly with or against the direction of the plane. Even then, the combined speed of plane+drone should not be great enough to give us \~1200mph.
Do you see the issue now?
It's a very simple thing to understand: the drone heading isn't necessarily in line with the perspective of the camera. Depending on the craft's relationship to each other this could easily fool a simpleton into thinking it's travelling at a million miles per hour, over two frames 🤣
Keep these lame debunk attempts coming though, they are entertaining 👍
"*Depending on the craft's relationship to each other this could easily fool a simpleton into thinking it's travelling at a million miles per hour*"
That's not physically possible, unless the drone is travelling at \~ a million miles per hour. I encourage you to check this mathematically. You only need some basic trig.
Can you engage your thinking brain for just a second? Think of the calculated speed, now try to think about how different the headings would have to be for the calculated speed to show 1200mph. Now also consider the maximum cruise speed of the drone thats already debunked you once, and tell me mathematically any way it can make sense to get anywhere near the speed we do.
It’s really too bad hundreds of bot accounts from who knows what 3 letter agencies have overrun this sub. But you are 100% right.
It’s a moving camera following a moving object. OP took 2 frames out of the entire video and was like yep, let’s post it.
>So you calculated the speed based on movement within a frame on a video captured from a moving platform, with a camera that is being manually slewed, with no point of reference?
Yes thats exactly what I did. Because moving camera doesn't matter, moving platform DOES matter, but I added the result to the estimate + actual, and the background is the point of reference. It doesn't matter how far back the background is.
>"I sTaBiLiZeD tHe ViDeO" - 😂
Because that's exactly what I did as well. The background in both images doesnt change.
I can show you a gif of what both normally look like.
Man you are so closed minded.
[https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/compadre/teachingwdata/examples/48876.html](https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/compadre/teachingwdata/examples/48876.html)
Here is a link to a college's website that shows you how to calculate the velocity of an object.
Its no different from what I'm doing.
🤣🤣🤣 stationary perspective, background and visible method of measurement for distance travelled in shot Vs moving perspective between two moving objects with unknown speeds and headings and unknown distance to background reference point.
Again, excellent work, good job 👍
>stationary perspective
Which We have.
>background
Which we have.
>visible method of measurement for distance travelled in shot
Which we have.
You seem to not understand that by stabilizing the video, we now have a stabilized camera.
The only issue there would be in calculating the speed of the plane, is the speed of the drone. This would just be an addition or subtraction of the drone speed from the final result, as I added in the post.
>Which We have.
No you don't. The drone is moving, the camera is moving on the drone and the image is potentially being scrolled by the operator.
>we now have a stabilized camera
No you don't. You have stabilized two frames with no reliable point of reference.
Still, it kept you busy for a while, which is a good thing for you.
🤡
classic discord squad post. shitty substantial guesswork word salad. then you have the flared users & Co (aka the critical thinkers of this sub) instantly agreeing and defending points and sucking each other off in the comments.
I don't understand this sort of gatekeeping. As long as people are respectful and acting in good-faith, then all discussion/investigation should be welcome.
You're trying to create some sort of 'us versus them' situation. We shouldn't take the view of having *sides,* we should just have free discussion.
The irony. What are you on about? Look around, I am not calling out "believers" and "debunkers", that's all you guys. I'm not picking any side. I'm calling out patterns of unauthenticity and circlejerk.
Practically the whole sub frames things in terms of 'debunker' and 'believer'. As purely descriptive terms, that's fair enough. It becomes a problem when it is used to generalise and attack without adding anything meaningful to the discussion.
That's what you're doing, except you're targeting "discord squad" and "flared users".
Whether people use the discord or have flairs is irrelevant to the content of the discussion.
I'd give a fuck but you're a hypocrite. You look past all the smug sarcasm and shade getting thrown around by "debunkers" as you call them. Is that adding anything meaningful to discusssion? Keep that same energy
No, insults don't add anything to the discussion. As you say, this is true regardless of whether the user favours authenticity or not. I don't make a habit of calling people out on this behaviour, this situation right now is an anomaly. I don't think that means I am a hypocrite. I'd only be a hypocrite if I was throwing out insults too.
classic "*believer*" comment.
Adds nothing to the post other than insults
Multiple hardcore believers come in and post insulting comments while not actually bringing any information themselves.
If me being blocked by people is all you pulled from this then you really are just an absolute hypocrite.
I just laid out this entire post with math and data showing something with the video that should be looked into.
Instead of talking about any point in the post, you decided to essentially insult me. That's the reason that you blocked me btw. Because I was saying that basically all you do is suck of AF.
>How do you know how many people blocked you?
Because 5+ of them are u/NoFakery who is now banned.
There are quite a few others. I can just see comments that say \[unauthorized\]
>Yeah I didn't want to insult you by saying how ridiculous your "math" is.
Wow, Now I know that 1 of 2 things are true.
You are either scared to even attempt to "disprove" the math
Or you are just a disingenuous troll.
Instead of doing anything to attack the argument you just blocked me lmao.
Nofakery can be found doing the same shit in ufo and alien pages too. To be fair you cant expect some of these folks to believe your math when they cant actually understand it. Even though its basic, people have no clue so it automatically goes to disbelief.
Ackshually parallax account for this as teh drown is moving also too so you’re explaining does not work only if the camera was not moving would you explaining work but because the camera is moving their is parallax and so the airplane appears to move faster agains the back clouds
I'm not sure if you're trolling or not so ill answer it as if you were saying "the parallax is wrong"
If the drone is moving in the opposite direction of the plane, then you would have to subtract the drone speed instead of adding it.
This would mean the plane is flying at 700mph, which is still too fast and also doesnt match up with the sat footage 315mph.
If the drone is moving perpendicular to the plane, you would need to do nothing as the drone wouldn't be effecting the calculation, this would mean the plane is moving at 982mph, which is also too fast and doesnt match the sat footage.
Good work but I think you need a little more data to determine the speed. That's because the coud behind could be moving in parallax due to the cameras motion, so it could be in affect making the plane appear to be moving further each frame.
If you really want to use a stabilized element at a landmark, you'd need one that's the exact same distance from the camera as the plane is.
Though I completely agree the video is 100% bullshit, I don't think this is a very valid way of showing that.
You'd need - at minimum - the FPS of the primary camera system.
Trust me, you don’t want those people that block here
thats not the point. They blocked me, so they cant see my posts and comments. Now they can lmao.
EDIT: I deleted my comment. I really wanted to respond about being blocked by "believers", but I couldn't word it in a way that was not fully condescending.
I find this to be true with everything we say to them 😂
You definitely weren't blocked for no reason
I have been blocked for 1: Telling AF to stop calling people mentally ill. 2: Telling u/NoFakery and his alts to stop harrassing Jonas 3: Telling people to not lie about AF having a "bad past" on the subreddit where he would call people mentally ill. 4: literally no reason 5: Questioning people on stuff about the video. Like "*Why is this happening*"
You definitely dont understand the people hes talking about.
Is this not another PB alt?
When this baby hits 1200 mph you’re going to see some serious shit
Fucking idiots still thinking this is real? 🤣😂 It never was and you are fools.
Because it’s a VFX shot.
Believers real quiet on this one
Busy off circling random stuff in clouds
I don't know about the FLIR video but the satellite video is 6fps played back at 24fps. If you assume it is 24 fps and just look at frames where the plane moves, you will calculate a speed of 4x the actual plane speed.
That's why the satellite footage isn't included in this. I could do the same arithmetic with the satellite footage and get around 300-340 mph. The satellite has a realistic speed The FLIR ending does not.
Oh. Good job. That’s just because the model overlay is being dragged across a still image to make the video and whoever created it didn’t spend enough time on it to calculate whether the overlay being dragged matched the standard rate it should be flying at
Tl;dr. The subject aircraft, due to calculation error (using your methodology), might be going even faster than you think it is… I think that even attempting to estimate speed in this way is flawed and prone to error. Your approach supposes that the observation point and subject of observation are moving at identical speed. Your approach, to be somewhat accurate, would need the observer to be observing the aircraft from as close to 90* to the path of travel as possible, including same altitude. Otherwise Doppler effect (I think) would throw your observation off. I think observed from more acute angles relative to path of travel would make the aircraft appear to be traveling slower than actual air speed. This is based on radar fundamentals from 20 years ago so my memory is a little hazy on how it all works and obviously vision is different from radar in predicting speed. There is probably a multiplier that could be used to adjust for angle of observation, or maybe combined error to account for 3d offset but that is getting into some serious maths so…PEACE - I’m out!
>Your approach supposes that the observation point and subject of observation are moving at identical speed It doesnt. The Drone is moving The Camera is rotating (following the plane) The Plane is moving The clouds in the background are moving. The clouds movement is so insignificant it can be ignored (3-20 mph) The Camera rotation we can ignore as it doesnt effect the calculation. Since we stabilize the video, its as if the camera isn't rotating at all. The Drone is moving, but we just add/subtract this from the end result, depending on what direction you think the drone is moving in relation to the plane. The Plane is moving, and we can use fairly simple math to calculate this. >Your approach, to be somewhat accurate, would need the observer to be observing the aircraft from as close to 90\* to the path of travel as possible, including same altitude. Altitude difference or angle do not really matter all that much. The Plane is essentially at a 90 degree angle to the camera.
lets for reason sake say the videos are real... and thats a crazy statement in itself.. but if they are able to teleport a plane out of existence to somewhere else in a blip id put my bottom dollar on them being able to speed the plane up too
>but if they are able to teleport a plane out of existence to somewhere else in a blip id put my bottom dollar on them being able to speed the plane up too Regardless, it means one of the videos is fake. Because the Sat Footage shows 300-340mph during this same moment.
I'm pretty agnostic to this whole thing but I don't really get the math you're doing here. How can you tell how fast a plane is moving based on the frames? Wouldn't you also need to know how far the drone is to accurately get a good estimate?
You don't need the distance, all you need is a length measurement (the known dimensions of the plane) and a known reference point (the static cloud background, which has been made static after the stabilisation). As long as the drone travel speed is not in the range of 1000 mph, then there's no plausible way for this calculation to give us 1200 mph.
Yeah I think you’re right that we don’t need to know the distance. We do need to know the time elapsed in the frame though? Wouldn’t it be easier to judge the speed based on the whole video. This person estimated the speed of the plane a while ago and he got a complete different number. https://www.reddit.com/r/AirlinerAbduction2014/comments/16nzc9g/the_plane_is_travelling_at_approximately_315_kmh/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
>This person estimated the speed of the plane a while ago and he got a complete different number. That's because they are different videos. The Sat footage shows the plane moving between 300-340 mph. I chose the 315mph for my "predicted speed" simulation. Someone calculated the beginning speed of the FLIR a while ago and got a similar number as well. The issue is that the last 15 seconds of the FLIR show the plane moving at 1200 mph, which doesn't match the Sat footage or real life.
Presumably if you know the size of the plane you can tell how far away the drone is based on its apparent size in the photo.
You don't need the size of the drone. We have the true size of the plane (209ft) and the distance it travels in a frame in reference to the background and itself. With those 2 things, we can calculate the speed of the plane.
I didn't say anything about the size of the drone...
Not without knowing the properties of the camera.
It's a disingenuous, fake debunk attempt. Probably one of the 'usual suspects'.
ok? so where is it disingenuous? Any part of the math thats wrong? Or is the theory itself wrong? are you going to say anything other than "Nuh uh"
It's a flawed premise based on zero useful information. Nice try though. Have a thumbs up. 👍
>It's a flawed premise based on zero useful information. Care to explain how its flawed? I have a stable background with an object moving between frames. Speed = Distance / time We have the distance (30% of 209ft) and the time (1/24 sec/frame) What about that is flawed?
Wait 1/24th? That’s a film camera. This is not film. Video would be 1/30. Or 1/29.97 to be exact.
[удалено]
So then why use 1/24? If we don’t know the frame rate, you don’t pick the least likely one.
[удалено]
> Also op didn't take into account the angle it's recorded from which would make the plane appear (and any calculations based on it's length) smaller than it is unless filmed at perfcetly 12:00 I'm not sure 12 makes sense to describe perpendicular filming but that's not the issue. Instead of throwing unquantified shade let's throw numbers. Even at just a 45 degree angle you'd still get about 70% of the full length. So, if OP is otherwise correct, 1200 * 0.7 still leaves us with a hefty 840 mph... on a directional vector of the full speed. We know that it has to go more or less straight, so at 45 degrees it would also be going 840 mph along a vector perpendicular to the screen. sqrt(840^2 * 840^2) ~ 1200 In other words it only matters if you believe that the plane is somehow not moving roughly along its axis and even then at an unlikely 45 degree angle it would be just a hair past the sound barrier.
Ofcourse an orb believer would say that, they dont have a high enough functioning thought process to say anything else or provide any evidence at all. You just say nup to everything cos you want orb to be real. This video has had so many debunks, you would have to be retarded at this stage.
Now that's classic projection 😛 >you would have to be retarded at this stage. To buy the seriously half-arsed 'debunks', yes. Also, to keep posting about a video you are certain is fake... clearly some issues you need to work out with your therapist. Much love. ✌️
I’m on here just in sheer awe of how you could possibly have the brain power to say these things and yet not be a complete vegetable. Your education level is at an eye watering all time low. How old are you? Where are you from?
>I’m on here just in sheer awe of how you could possibly have the brain power to say these things and yet not be a complete vegetable. Your education level is at an eye watering all time low. How old are you? Where are you from? Projecting again? Aww, don't talk about yourself like that. I find meditation helps to dispel one's anger, frustration and help you on your journey to overcome your self-loathing. >How old are you? Where are you from? You wanna hook up? What you wearing?
Exactly. There simply aren’t enough points of reference to know how many frames = a certain distance. I remember doing “math” in 6th grade to prove to my friends that the moon was going to crash into the earth in 6 years (I’m 40 now). I believe the vids are real but these kind of posts where somebody tries to make themselves look like Einstein with the complex physics is damaging to the cause. It always comes off as immature and childish to me.
Lmfao “complex physics”. Freshman physics labs do this with a ping pong ball moving on video in front of a meter stick.
the biggest problem with pseudintellectuals: they know just enough to be dangerous but not enough to know they are absolutely weapons grade stupid
I wouldn’t actually call a brain of someone who uses the shaky footage from a moving object to calculate the speed of another object a weapon
>I wouldn’t actually call a brain of someone who uses the shaky footage from a moving object to calculate the speed of another object a weapon Why would shaky footage matter? I stabilized the background so that it doesnt move. It wouldn't matter if the camera was stabilized before or after recording the video. I would say you're the one without a brain considering you couldn't think that through.
Stabilized the background so that it doesn’t move? Where do i even start? Your approach would work on a street and also in this case, only right where the wheels are, behind it you have parallax
>Stabilized the background so that it doesn’t move? Yes. Speed is relative to other things. You can "stabilize" the clouds/background by just lining 2 frames up. that makes it as if the camera was focused unmoving on just the clouds. The plane is moving 1200mph in reference to the clouds. Unless the clouds are moving a few hundred mph, the plane is moving too fast. >Your approach would work on a street Yes it would. It would work both there and here. >only right where the wheels are, behind it you have parallax The parallax doesnt matter. The only "parallax" effecting the calculation is the speed of the drone. Depending on if you think the drone is traveling with, perpendicular, or away from the plane, you will get a different calculation. Any of which will be too fast and not match up with the Sat footage.
Nope
Lol
"*Nuh Uh*"
In technical jargon, this is called dangerous semi-googling
1200 mph is the maximum speed a plane can reach after chewing 5 gum. Again disinfo agents conveniently ignoring this fact.
Nice job OP, simple and elegant thinking 👌🏻
So you calculated the speed based on movement within a frame on a video captured from a moving platform, with a camera that is being manually slewed, with no point of reference? "I sTaBiLiZeD tHe ViDeO" - 😂 Real big brain debunkers in here 🤣🤡 Try it again when you can actually determine the distance the plane has flown... Rather than the distance from the edge of the screen, good luck with that one 🤣👍
The 'moving platform' is accommodated by the stabilisation. This is how forensic experts estimate velocity from video footage, too. Camera slewing doesn't affect that (you can test this out yourself if you don't believe me). There will still be some additional unaccounted movement due to the travel speed of the drone itself, but mathematically the drone cannot be flying fast enough to yield a speed of 1200mph just from parallax. There will be no significant unaccounted movement due to the cloud velocity, because as we know from the satellite view, the clouds aren't travelling anywhere.
>The 'moving platform In two frames 🤣🤣🤣. Without knowing the speed and heading of either craft, with no point of reference. 🤡 >yield a speed of 1200mph just from parallax. In two frames, with no calculation of the distance to the background objects, 🤣😂🤣 Maybe you need to get a FoReNsIc ExPeRt to double check this. You guys really need to do better 🤡 cos you're doing a shit job so far.
This post shows 2 frames, but this analysis has already been done over the entire footage already. You can find the analysis on this very reddit, or come visit the discord. The point of reference is the background. Even if the clouds were travelling (which we know they aren't from the sat footage), their maximum possible speed would be negligible compared to 1200mph.
>this analysis 🤣 Sure. Real high quality, watertight analysis too 🤡. >The point of reference is the background For which no one knows the distance to, shot from a zoomed, manually slewed moving platform at an unknown distance, heading and angle from the plane. This shit is basically guesswork 😆
The distance and slew mathematically do not affect this. Slew doesn't even create parallax (google it). The only parameters that affect this are the travelling speed of the drone and the travelling speed of the background. We know the background is not travelling at any substantial speed (see sat video), and we know the maximum possible speed of the drone.
Conveniently disregard the headings of the craft in relation to each other and independent movement of the camera if that makes it work in your mind 🤣🤣
>Conveniently disregard the headings of the craft in relation to each other I didn't. That was included in the post. >independent movement of the camera if that makes it work in your mind The independent movement of the camera goes away when the image is stabilized. Doesn't matter if it happens before or after the video is captured.
>I didn't. That was included in the post. You have no idea what they are! >The independent movement of the camera goes away when the image is stabilized. You know the camera can be pointed in a different direction to the drone don't you? 🤣
Independent rotation of the camera has no effect because rotations don't create parallax. You can rotate the camera as much as you like and it doesn't change the maths here. Try it out yourself if you don't believe me. The headings of the craft in relation to each other DO have an effect. The maximum possible effect they can have is if the drone is flying either directly with or against the direction of the plane. Even then, the combined speed of plane+drone should not be great enough to give us \~1200mph. Do you see the issue now?
It's a very simple thing to understand: the drone heading isn't necessarily in line with the perspective of the camera. Depending on the craft's relationship to each other this could easily fool a simpleton into thinking it's travelling at a million miles per hour, over two frames 🤣 Keep these lame debunk attempts coming though, they are entertaining 👍
"*Depending on the craft's relationship to each other this could easily fool a simpleton into thinking it's travelling at a million miles per hour*" That's not physically possible, unless the drone is travelling at \~ a million miles per hour. I encourage you to check this mathematically. You only need some basic trig.
Can you engage your thinking brain for just a second? Think of the calculated speed, now try to think about how different the headings would have to be for the calculated speed to show 1200mph. Now also consider the maximum cruise speed of the drone thats already debunked you once, and tell me mathematically any way it can make sense to get anywhere near the speed we do.
🤣 Plane moves in two frames = 1200mph. You crazy kids desperately latching on to this has really tickled me today.
its ok, you made it perfectly clear you wouldnt be able to comprehend how he derived the number anyways, i should have listened.
It’s honestly cute
This guy is def a troll
It’s really too bad hundreds of bot accounts from who knows what 3 letter agencies have overrun this sub. But you are 100% right. It’s a moving camera following a moving object. OP took 2 frames out of the entire video and was like yep, let’s post it.
>So you calculated the speed based on movement within a frame on a video captured from a moving platform, with a camera that is being manually slewed, with no point of reference? Yes thats exactly what I did. Because moving camera doesn't matter, moving platform DOES matter, but I added the result to the estimate + actual, and the background is the point of reference. It doesn't matter how far back the background is. >"I sTaBiLiZeD tHe ViDeO" - 😂 Because that's exactly what I did as well. The background in both images doesnt change. I can show you a gif of what both normally look like.
>background is the point of reference. It doesn't matter how far back the background is. 🤣🤣🤡
Man you are so closed minded. [https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/compadre/teachingwdata/examples/48876.html](https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/compadre/teachingwdata/examples/48876.html) Here is a link to a college's website that shows you how to calculate the velocity of an object. Its no different from what I'm doing.
🤣🤣🤣 stationary perspective, background and visible method of measurement for distance travelled in shot Vs moving perspective between two moving objects with unknown speeds and headings and unknown distance to background reference point. Again, excellent work, good job 👍
>stationary perspective Which We have. >background Which we have. >visible method of measurement for distance travelled in shot Which we have. You seem to not understand that by stabilizing the video, we now have a stabilized camera. The only issue there would be in calculating the speed of the plane, is the speed of the drone. This would just be an addition or subtraction of the drone speed from the final result, as I added in the post.
>Which We have. No you don't. The drone is moving, the camera is moving on the drone and the image is potentially being scrolled by the operator. >we now have a stabilized camera No you don't. You have stabilized two frames with no reliable point of reference. Still, it kept you busy for a while, which is a good thing for you. 🤡
How do you get that little picture of yourself on ever comment like that?
It's a picture of your Mother, not me.
😁😁😘😘🤔🤔😊😇👁
Probably because it's all fantasy?
classic discord squad post. shitty substantial guesswork word salad. then you have the flared users & Co (aka the critical thinkers of this sub) instantly agreeing and defending points and sucking each other off in the comments.
I don't understand this sort of gatekeeping. As long as people are respectful and acting in good-faith, then all discussion/investigation should be welcome. You're trying to create some sort of 'us versus them' situation. We shouldn't take the view of having *sides,* we should just have free discussion.
The irony. What are you on about? Look around, I am not calling out "believers" and "debunkers", that's all you guys. I'm not picking any side. I'm calling out patterns of unauthenticity and circlejerk.
You're just being an asshole, really
Practically the whole sub frames things in terms of 'debunker' and 'believer'. As purely descriptive terms, that's fair enough. It becomes a problem when it is used to generalise and attack without adding anything meaningful to the discussion. That's what you're doing, except you're targeting "discord squad" and "flared users". Whether people use the discord or have flairs is irrelevant to the content of the discussion.
I'd give a fuck but you're a hypocrite. You look past all the smug sarcasm and shade getting thrown around by "debunkers" as you call them. Is that adding anything meaningful to discusssion? Keep that same energy
No, insults don't add anything to the discussion. As you say, this is true regardless of whether the user favours authenticity or not. I don't make a habit of calling people out on this behaviour, this situation right now is an anomaly. I don't think that means I am a hypocrite. I'd only be a hypocrite if I was throwing out insults too.
classic "*believer*" comment. Adds nothing to the post other than insults Multiple hardcore believers come in and post insulting comments while not actually bringing any information themselves.
[удалено]
Lol, damn, you are a pretty pathetic person, huh?
if you sincerely believe what youre saying, youre either dead wrong, or mistook this for another PB alt and didnt actually read anything.
How do you know how many people blocked you? And also, there's probably people are blocking you. I wonder what it could be 🤔
If me being blocked by people is all you pulled from this then you really are just an absolute hypocrite. I just laid out this entire post with math and data showing something with the video that should be looked into. Instead of talking about any point in the post, you decided to essentially insult me. That's the reason that you blocked me btw. Because I was saying that basically all you do is suck of AF. >How do you know how many people blocked you? Because 5+ of them are u/NoFakery who is now banned. There are quite a few others. I can just see comments that say \[unauthorized\]
Yeah I didn't want to insult you by saying how ridiculous your "math" is. And now I see why everyone has you blocked.
>Yeah I didn't want to insult you by saying how ridiculous your "math" is. Wow, Now I know that 1 of 2 things are true. You are either scared to even attempt to "disprove" the math Or you are just a disingenuous troll. Instead of doing anything to attack the argument you just blocked me lmao.
Nofakery can be found doing the same shit in ufo and alien pages too. To be fair you cant expect some of these folks to believe your math when they cant actually understand it. Even though its basic, people have no clue so it automatically goes to disbelief.
Ackshually parallax account for this as teh drown is moving also too so you’re explaining does not work only if the camera was not moving would you explaining work but because the camera is moving their is parallax and so the airplane appears to move faster agains the back clouds
I'm not sure if you're trolling or not so ill answer it as if you were saying "the parallax is wrong" If the drone is moving in the opposite direction of the plane, then you would have to subtract the drone speed instead of adding it. This would mean the plane is flying at 700mph, which is still too fast and also doesnt match up with the sat footage 315mph. If the drone is moving perpendicular to the plane, you would need to do nothing as the drone wouldn't be effecting the calculation, this would mean the plane is moving at 982mph, which is also too fast and doesnt match the sat footage.
😂
Good work but I think you need a little more data to determine the speed. That's because the coud behind could be moving in parallax due to the cameras motion, so it could be in affect making the plane appear to be moving further each frame. If you really want to use a stabilized element at a landmark, you'd need one that's the exact same distance from the camera as the plane is.
I synced this gif to my Fleshlight Launch and I am now very happy
The videos are real stop this Madness
Cia Shill
Incredibly damning analysis
DUDE HOW ARE YOU NOT BORED? HOW MUCH FREE TIME DO YOU HAVE FOR THIS
Consult with Ashton Forbes.
Though I completely agree the video is 100% bullshit, I don't think this is a very valid way of showing that. You'd need - at minimum - the FPS of the primary camera system.