JMartJr
Senior Member.
...pretty much every time.Alas, the video ends too soon for some reason.
...pretty much every time.Alas, the video ends too soon for some reason.
Sure, but if a chunk of the heavier (or I guess "more dense") fuel block fell off, without the envelope of warm-but-cooling air your example had, it would fall fast. And be on fire, making for a falling light.
Not sure if you are replying to me, but there is no need to imagine there is the orange light there, the right color to be a Chinese fire balloon. They have solid blocks of fuel that can be knocked free, sometimes they even just fall off. Yeah, the drone is there, if it is a drone. So is the other object, the likely fire balloon. Something falls off of one of them, or the "drone" falls in totality. Looks more like the former to me, but I'd agree that it MIGHT be either (in an imagined theoretical way, maybe!)It seems more probable that the falling object is something that is already existing in the scene (the drone),
instead of something that must be imagined or theorized to be existing in the scene.
I don't think suspecting that a on-line video that is posted with a click-baity title claiming to be aliens, and which cuts before it might have been possible to see that it was not, in fact, aliens, has been edited that way on purpose. If for no other reason than a conspiracy generally involves more people...Do you think so? I try not to give in to conspiracy theories.
Tiktokification of society, shorter attention spans....pretty much every time.
A typical quadcopter's rotors don't cover as much area proportionally as a traditional helicopter's rotor. Also, without power, you have to fight the magnets of the brushless motors they use. It's not a huge force, but it's enough to keep them from turning freely without a lot of wind.I just saw a video of hundreds of drones falling during a drone show in China. I was surprised by how quickly they fall. I guess I thought there might be autorotation that would slow the fall, but they just kind of tumble down haphazardly.
you do not know the distance, so you should not claim it is "near"At 0:20 I see the other aircraft near it,
This is why I used the words I, and see. Because.. I do! Lol.you do not know the distance, so you should not claim it is "near"
This statement on the other hand is not subjective. You speak from a stance of knowing. Can you tell me what it is you know about the other aircraft?the aircraft has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the scene
Yet the moon is not near the cathedral in Ulm, right? You can just see them both.see it as near, because they share the same scene.
wrong thread?Yet the moon is not near the cathedral in Ulm, right? You can just see them both.View attachment 74863
No, just pointing out that "in the same scene" does not really imply "near each other." Or perhaps it is a language issue? Perhaps you are meaning "near the same line of sight" rather than "in close proximity?" But in that case, the plane has nothing to do with the drone and fire-balloon (assuming that's what they are) as it is not "near" them in terms of occupying the same general space and able to interact with them -- it is much further away, though by chance it is close to the same line of sight.wrong thread?
Or perhaps it is a language issue?
I think to say that this aircraft is unrelated to the scene requires some solid proof. And not the other way around.
I believe the burden of proof to be on the one who says the aircraft is unrelated.
This is pure speculation on my part, but regardless of the size of the aircraft, based on the speed we see the drone move we can estimate a distance and if a plane were at such distance, it would be way more visible. I don't think the plane is at all near the orb.I wonder what kind of aircraft we are dealing with here, and what its doing near the orb. I see two navigational lights on it. How could we possibly know its size? It could be small, it could also be very large no?
I think to say that this aircraft is unrelated to the scene requires some solid proof. And not the other way around.
I believe the burden of proof to be on the one who says the aircraft is unrelated.
Yea norcal I hear you, and I can agree with anyone who has the nuts to say "we dont know". Thats why Im privileged to boldy say the stupid things everyone else knows better than![]()
Now I am really confused -- it is not "just semantics," if you are claiming that two things in the same image are near each other, that is just wrong, as the cathedral picture shows. But THAT is so obvious, I wondered if it might have been a language issue, as I don't believe for a moment that you don't know that things can be in the same picture and not be anywhere near each other! But I extended you the courtesy of exploring the language option instead of wondering if you were just messing with us. So...No dude you whipped out a picture of the "cathedral in ulm" to pick apart semantics is all. lol.
If the propellers get stopped on a quadcopter that can easily down it. It can flip or hit an angle it can't recover from. I had this happen once when my drone went into an unexpected automated emergency landing too close to some tree branches. The battery was draining faster than anticipated due to the extreme cold temps and wind, and it decided it needed to land immediately, and that happened to be in a very bad spot. Hit a branch and fell like a rock to the ground.I think it's fair to say the falling object is far more similar to the 'attacker' than it is to the 'defender' and looks more like LED red than orange flame.
I did mention at the start of the thread that the plane seems completely unrelated, and with nobody pointing out that claim (outside of you), I assume others agree.Calter I just still wonder what the heck is going on in the video period. I dont mean to make this all about the (third) visibly airborn object in the scene. it just wasnt even being mentioned.
It shows what looks to be a drone (based on the maneuverability) approaching an "orange orb" (could be a sky lantern but it seems too static for me, could also be a bigger drone but orange is an odd color). There's also a plane (two white dots) in the video but it seems completely unrelated.
Neither have, though the drone does look remarkably like a drone and the orb looks like a sky lantern.Ive never seen something like this before..
People say a lot of things about orbs, I've never heard any story about taking them things down by headbutting them though.Tell me drones arent being slapped out of the sky by orbs..
They already say they disable nukes, i mean gee wizz! Lol.
the point is that the 2D "near" doesn't (by itself) support the notion that the entities are even aware of each other, as @JMartJr's "moon and cathedral" illustrates—the 2D nearness can result by chance from the position of the observer."Near" can mean that it is appears fairly close to another object in a 2D image that we are looking at.
"Near" can also mean that, in 3D, in real life, the two objects actually are close to each other.
the probable assumption is that the aircraft (which is not seen to maneuver) is flying from point A to point B, none of which are in the shot.I wonder what kind of aircraft we are dealing with here, and what its doing near the orb.
While that's true,"Near" can mean that it is appears fairly close to another object in a 2D image that we are looking at.
"Near" can also mean that, in 3D, in real life, the two objects actually are close to each other.
Let's remember to give each other the benefit of the doubt & interpret words generously. It's the MB way.![]()
this quote heavily implies that they think the aircraft is related somehow, so I don't think it's a big leap to say that they think the aircraft is near in real life.I think to say that this aircraft is unrelated to the scene requires some solid proof. And not the other way around.
I believe the burden of proof to be on the one who says the aircraft is unrelated.
Your choice is to comply with Metabunk policies. You can review them under the "Info" tab in the nav bar.Good morning!My detailed replies are being reported and removed. To everyone who is trying to have a conversation with me, looks like I will be.. unable to continue participation in this thread. I know it is rude of me to just leave but I haven't a choice.
If you are not willing to abide by our policies, I'd agree.I think you will be better off without me in this thread btw!
We are under no obligation to reach a consensus.A consensus can be reached much easier I believe.
I was trying to provide some context to your public complaint, since we've had a number of new members join us recently, who might be unaware of how Metabunk operates. (I post too much to be a useful moderator here.)@Mendel Well said, someone should make you a moderator. I think you would be great at it.
Feel free to DM me if you'd like my opinion on how to edit your posts to comply with policy.I had better not say anything else, I might be pushing my luck right now.
Feel free to DM me if you'd like my opinion on how to edit your posts
"Near" can mean that it is appears fairly close to another object in a 2D image that we are looking at.
"Near" can also mean that, in 3D, in real life, the two objects actually are close to each other.
Let's remember to give each other the benefit of the doubt & interpret words generously. It's the MB way.![]()
Which is why I wanted to clarify what was meant. I know I have posted things here that were ambiguous, I suspect we all have. It's no sin -- but it will often lead to attempts to clarify., since we want to understand each other as we try to understand what's going on in the case being discussed. I'd still like to understand. @substantials , this is not a slap at you, if it came across that way then I apologize that I didn't make MY intent and meaning more clear.the point is that the 2D "near" doesn't (by itself) support the notion that the entities are even aware of each other, as @JMartJr's "moon and cathedral" illustrates—the 2D nearness can result by chance from the position of the observer.
Doesn't look like so much of a dive bombing, more like trying to bump it. The dive was a result of losing propulsion, maybe a damaged propeller.I still am unsure why anyone would destroy their drone by dive bombing it into a lantern like that.
With many hobby drones under the control of immature thrill-seekers, it would not surprise me at all if aerial "drone wars" are a thing.Doesn't look like so much of a dive bombing, more like trying to bump it. The dive was a result of losing propulsion, maybe a damaged propeller.
You might want to work that idea up and sell it as a TV series, similar to the ones where people build and fight robots in an arena.With many hobby drones under the control of immature thrill-seekers, it would not surprise me at all if aerial "drone wars" are a thing.
Speaking of BattleBots, maybe the orb was equipped with some sort of garden rake or something.
Ah, that was one of ghost raptor's finer moments:You might want to work that idea up and sell it as a TV series, similar to the ones where people build and fight robots in an arena.
View attachment 74948