Nemon
Active Member
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ro...-program-at-area-51.13109/page-10#post-301192
Quote:
Jake Barber tells Ross Coulthart about non-human technology - The "Egg"
- Thread starter Nemon
- Start date
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ro...-program-at-area-51.13109/page-10#post-301192
Quote:
Duke
Senior Member.
Not necessarily, particularly because we don't know who was supposedly involved in the "retrieval" we see in the video. Baker claims he recovered non-human technologies while flying as a contractor helo pilot, so on his claimed recoveries it's not likely he was flying a military a/c. There are commercial Chinooks, as well as surplus military heavy lift helos like the Skycrane, however.
If the video shows a recovery operation using US milair helos (and milair crews), then a US Army Chinook (or its USN Sea Knight cousin) is a likely choice, depending on the weight of what was being lifted. There are no USAF Chinooks. Of course we have no idea the weight of the egg-like unit seen in video, so it may not have required heavy lift capabilities.
Still don't know the date/location of the claimed retrieval video, do we?
Minus0
Senior Member
a few camera setups for winching.
Source: https://youtube.com/shorts/9vYb2d9mubo?si=42Pp7iM4NzKJidZ7
Source: https://youtu.be/z4Sdvo5XjaU
The second video just contains aftermarket cameras that are mounted for interesting video, rather than for pilots
Source: https://youtube.com/shorts/9vYb2d9mubo?si=42Pp7iM4NzKJidZ7
Source: https://youtu.be/z4Sdvo5XjaU
The second video just contains aftermarket cameras that are mounted for interesting video, rather than for pilots
Minus0
Senior Member
It's interesting refers to picking these things up on "the range". It really makes me wonder if this is territory for target practice and/or fighter jet dogfights. It seems plausible the US military might have developed aerostats technology for battlefield monitoring or as targets.
2006 for US Congress https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RS21886.pdf
2022 Indian Gov https://capsindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/ABS-Chaudhry-1.pdf
If these were being used for target practice or for holding radar equipment over a mock battlefield it would make sense for why they have to regularly be retrieved.
This publication contains a bunch of aerostats that were built and also ones that were still in development and conceptual. I'm sure the military has other ones we don't know about. A few of these look an awful lot like eggs which I suspect have very little radar signature. Also many are semi rigid structures which could explain the apparent lightness when it rolls as well as the shrinking profile shadow as it settles/flexes
https://lynceans.org/wp-content/upl...ro-text-and-tables_R5_8Mar2022-compressed.pdf
https://lynceans.org/wp-content/upl..._Part-2_main-body_R3-converted-compressed.pdf
2006 for US Congress https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RS21886.pdf
2022 Indian Gov https://capsindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/ABS-Chaudhry-1.pdf
If these were being used for target practice or for holding radar equipment over a mock battlefield it would make sense for why they have to regularly be retrieved.
This publication contains a bunch of aerostats that were built and also ones that were still in development and conceptual. I'm sure the military has other ones we don't know about. A few of these look an awful lot like eggs which I suspect have very little radar signature. Also many are semi rigid structures which could explain the apparent lightness when it rolls as well as the shrinking profile shadow as it settles/flexes
https://lynceans.org/wp-content/upl...ro-text-and-tables_R5_8Mar2022-compressed.pdf
https://lynceans.org/wp-content/upl..._Part-2_main-body_R3-converted-compressed.pdf
Duke
Senior Member.
I've seen tethered aerostats in Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico, but it was my understanding they were operated by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), not the DoD.
Ravi
Senior Member.
These tanks are actually spherical. Not egg-shaped.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Thanks Duke, that's what I was wondering. All this talk of what kind of FLIR system is on an Apache AH-60 gunship is irrelevant. Barber clearly states that he left the Air Force right around 9/11, so back in 2001
06:31External Quote:
So, unless contractors are allowed to fly government helicopters, he's likely flying private ones. So, civilian versions or surplus military units like Chinooks and Skycranes for big stuff, Hueys and Blackhawks for medium and any number of Bell, Hughs, Sikorsky or Airbus civilian units. None likely to be fitted out with military equipment, right?
I guess one could argue that IF he's flying for one of the big nefarious defense contractors usually associated with UFO retrievals, like Lockheed-Martin, then they could have procured whatever helicopter they deemed necessary and tricked it out with the latest and greatest. Though it seems a cargo net would have been a good addition.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
There's a few frames towards the end (7 seconds) where the whole thing goes oof/blurry and the diagonal pattern vanishes
The whole copy of the video I have has this layer of 5/6 much darker pixels at the bottom of the screen consistently throughout the video
During the blur phase these vanish
It's hard to know what to make of this but I think it suggests it was recorded from a screen, just very well done (ie a fixed camera looking at a fixed screen) apart from one moment where the recording camera lost focus.
This maybe lends credence that the scanline effects are maybe some sort of real moire effect, rather than an artificial effect added by a video editing app like After Effects etc.
But I am not a video editor so others may have a different interpretation
The whole copy of the video I have has this layer of 5/6 much darker pixels at the bottom of the screen consistently throughout the video
During the blur phase these vanish
It's hard to know what to make of this but I think it suggests it was recorded from a screen, just very well done (ie a fixed camera looking at a fixed screen) apart from one moment where the recording camera lost focus.
This maybe lends credence that the scanline effects are maybe some sort of real moire effect, rather than an artificial effect added by a video editing app like After Effects etc.
But I am not a video editor so others may have a different interpretation
We do know from this 2015 North American Aerospace Defense Command press release about a wayward aerostat that aerostats have at least been used recently in the United States: https://www.norad.mil/Newsroom/Pres...50/update-3-detached-military-aerostat-lands/
And the Army issued a new RFI for aerostat technology in May 2024: https://sam.gov/opp/56ebcb77ea8a4228a41da70b2d430e88/view
(We know from the "jellyfish" discussion a year ago that the military has long deployed aerostats overseas.)
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
I wrote to a bunch of aerostat websites asking if this could be an aerostat, and got two replies, one from the General Manager, the other from an aerospace engineer/Project Manager. (tl;dr it's not an aerostat):
A likely story (to me) is that someone heard about Coulthart's upcoming whistleblower interview and threw this together quickly to send him, perhaps claiming to be someone in Barber's line of work who risked life & limb to get this vital evidence to him. That Barber hasn't commented on how "accurate" it is compared to what he witnessed is really odd (unless I missed that).
External Quote:
I think it's an actual egg, given it's actual egg shape (slightly more pointed at one end) along with the other indications it's a small-scale model and hoax (short context-free footage, the ground appearance, the badly engineered sling that actually comes loose when the thing lands, and lack of other any other items in the scene).External Quote:
A likely story (to me) is that someone heard about Coulthart's upcoming whistleblower interview and threw this together quickly to send him, perhaps claiming to be someone in Barber's line of work who risked life & limb to get this vital evidence to him. That Barber hasn't commented on how "accurate" it is compared to what he witnessed is really odd (unless I missed that).
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
So it wouldn't break. But the argument, "Why would someone do that? Therefore they didn't do it" isn't convincing. Look at the physical evidence.
The reason I mentioned a silicone egg - tentatively - is that many people have independently said that the object is distorted where the lines meet its surface, and that it changes shape when it lands. So I was taking that into account.
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
After all that has been said, it's hard to determine if it's real footage of a 20 foot egg object being lowered on a 150 cable, or if it's small scale and an actual egg at the of a pole etc.
I can believe the perspective for a long cable and also the lack of rotor wash. I've seen enough video examples to leed me to believe it's possible that what we see is full scale.
So I'm split as to whether it is small scale hoax or a real scale thing.
One thing that needs more discussion is whether this is night vision , daytime or being lit by a flood light. If it's not night vision , why is it green. It opens a lot of questions for me if this is not night vision.
So I think if we can determine if this is or isn't night vision , it's a big step forward.
I can believe the perspective for a long cable and also the lack of rotor wash. I've seen enough video examples to leed me to believe it's possible that what we see is full scale.
So I'm split as to whether it is small scale hoax or a real scale thing.
One thing that needs more discussion is whether this is night vision , daytime or being lit by a flood light. If it's not night vision , why is it green. It opens a lot of questions for me if this is not night vision.
So I think if we can determine if this is or isn't night vision , it's a big step forward.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned...
Why would a cable of 150 feet be needed? Or desirable? Wouldn't that make things less stable?
I think this video is a flat our hoax rather than a repurposed video. It's a miniature model.
The purpose for telling us that it's a fantastically long cable: To explain why the angular size of the "spaceship" is so small in the video.
The purpose of that: An attempt to obscure the obviously unnatural appearance of a jerry built model.
Why would a cable of 150 feet be needed? Or desirable? Wouldn't that make things less stable?
I think this video is a flat our hoax rather than a repurposed video. It's a miniature model.
The purpose for telling us that it's a fantastically long cable: To explain why the angular size of the "spaceship" is so small in the video.
The purpose of that: An attempt to obscure the obviously unnatural appearance of a jerry built model.
Charlie Wiser
Senior Member.
Shelled and boiled egg...
Duke
Senior Member.
Sent out to CA? By who? Cover basis? Coming down the line next? Sounds cloak & daggerish, like he's implying he was a spook.
If we take Barber at his word, we know whatever he was flying when he claims to have seen the egg must have had NVG compatible flight instruments/lighting. Not a military exclusive capability as we know police and aeromedical helo pilots use NVGs, but not a capability I'd necessarily expect to be needed/used by a commercial helicopter company whose bread and butter is transporting underslung commercial loads. That sounds like a safer daytime gig to me.
rogerlinmore
New Member
there's a similar camera angle, with quite similar vignetting from a demonstration of a valor, #56, I unfortunately haven't been able to find a precursor system yet, since PDAS is a part of one of the more modern 360 awareness systems.
Nice video. Note 2 things:
1) Black and white video even though shot in daylight. Just what I'd expect. Contrast and resolution are far more important than color.
2) The camera location is far enough away from the load attachment point that it gives the pilot a good perspective of the line, load and ground, rather than having all 3 stacked over one another. I think this is a no brainer configuration for monitoring the load and pick-up/drop off point.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
These are factors which must be addressed:
-The unnatural look of the cable.
-The lighting. The cable in the foreground is illuminated by the same light source as is the object. If this is truly a 150 foot cable a single spotlight is not credible as a source. Only sunlight or moonlight is a credible light source. The contrasty shadow with the crisp edges says sunlight to me. Ordinarliy even the light of a full Moon wouldn't produce such a contrasty shadow. Sunlight is exponentially brighter than moonlight; direct sunlight overwhelms the diffuse sky radiation. At night the landscape is illuminated by starlight and airglow even in areas not significantly subject to light pollution. Moonlight isn't that much brighter. Therefore - ordinarily - you can't expect to see "deep" shadows with crisp edges. This is somewhat of a push as night vision systems might amplify existing ambient light, which can include artificial sources, starlight, or infrared illumination in such a way as to cause some ambiguity. My own intuition: It just doesn't look like moonlight. It looks like sunlight.
-Is this faux night vision? My intuition says yes. It looks like an ordinary daylight video that's been altered. Again somewhat of a push as I'm not familiar with every night vision system and there could be considerable variation.
-I can't convince myself that the "ground" is a natural surface. Not even a dry lake bed. My AI pal -GPT- isn't convinced either.
-The crisp edges of the shadow cast by the egg indicate a very flat surface.
-The scale problems with the "sling" and the "wires" that support the sling. The texture of the material of the sling looks out of scale. It looks like a small patch of some common material. If the sling were truly large enough to fit around a spaceship, the ridges would be huge. The "wires" supporting the sling are much too thin.
-The unnatural way the object moves when the main "cable" goes slack. It doesn't move like a large object. It moves like a small object. Mass and momentum. Materials and the square-cube law.
-I suspect that the video - even when played at "normal" speed has been slowed down; in an attempt to give the miniatures the ponderous look of large objects.
If you watch old movies, (pre1965 or so), maybe you're familiar with the unnatural look of the miniature models that were used.
-The object seems to be soft. It appears to change shape.
-The unnatural look of the cable.
-The lighting. The cable in the foreground is illuminated by the same light source as is the object. If this is truly a 150 foot cable a single spotlight is not credible as a source. Only sunlight or moonlight is a credible light source. The contrasty shadow with the crisp edges says sunlight to me. Ordinarliy even the light of a full Moon wouldn't produce such a contrasty shadow. Sunlight is exponentially brighter than moonlight; direct sunlight overwhelms the diffuse sky radiation. At night the landscape is illuminated by starlight and airglow even in areas not significantly subject to light pollution. Moonlight isn't that much brighter. Therefore - ordinarily - you can't expect to see "deep" shadows with crisp edges. This is somewhat of a push as night vision systems might amplify existing ambient light, which can include artificial sources, starlight, or infrared illumination in such a way as to cause some ambiguity. My own intuition: It just doesn't look like moonlight. It looks like sunlight.
-Is this faux night vision? My intuition says yes. It looks like an ordinary daylight video that's been altered. Again somewhat of a push as I'm not familiar with every night vision system and there could be considerable variation.
Prompt: Do you think this is really an image taken by a night vision device? Or is it a visible light camera image? Has it been altered by someone using software such as ACDSee to make it superficially look like a night vision image?
Answer:
Determining whether this image is truly taken by a night vision device or artificially edited is challenging without direct metadata or technical details from the image source. However, here are some key points to consider:
My note: I hadn't thought about clarity and resolution... but, yeah.
Answer:
Determining whether this image is truly taken by a night vision device or artificially edited is challenging without direct metadata or technical details from the image source. However, here are some key points to consider:
- Green Tint: Night vision images often have a green hue because traditional devices use a phosphor screen that displays amplified light in green. However, this green effect can be easily replicated using photo editing software like ACDSee or Photoshop.
- Lighting Conditions: Night vision devices amplify ambient light, such as starlight or moonlight. If the lighting in the image is very bright and shows sharp, crisp shadows, it might indicate a visible-light image altered to resemble night vision, as true night vision rarely produces such sharp contrast.
- Surface and Shadows:
- The crisp edges of the shadow suggest a strong, directional light source like sunlight or a powerful artificial spotlight. Night vision images, particularly in low-light conditions, usually show softer shadows unless paired with a strong IR illuminator.
- The overall texture and brightness consistency also seem more in line with visible-light photography than true night vision.
- Alterations: Software can easily apply filters, increase contrast, and add a green tint to mimic the appearance of night vision. If this was done, there would likely be no detectable grain, noise, or other artifacts common in night vision imagery.
Tentative Conclusion:
This image could have been altered to superficially resemble a night vision photograph. The lighting intensity, shadow quality, and overall clarity seem inconsistent with typical low-light night vision imaging. However, without additional context or metadata, this assessment remains speculative.My note: I hadn't thought about clarity and resolution... but, yeah.
-I can't convince myself that the "ground" is a natural surface. Not even a dry lake bed. My AI pal -GPT- isn't convinced either.
-The crisp edges of the shadow cast by the egg indicate a very flat surface.
-The scale problems with the "sling" and the "wires" that support the sling. The texture of the material of the sling looks out of scale. It looks like a small patch of some common material. If the sling were truly large enough to fit around a spaceship, the ridges would be huge. The "wires" supporting the sling are much too thin.
-The unnatural way the object moves when the main "cable" goes slack. It doesn't move like a large object. It moves like a small object. Mass and momentum. Materials and the square-cube law.
-I suspect that the video - even when played at "normal" speed has been slowed down; in an attempt to give the miniatures the ponderous look of large objects.
If you watch old movies, (pre1965 or so), maybe you're familiar with the unnatural look of the miniature models that were used.
-The object seems to be soft. It appears to change shape.
Last edited:
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
The unnatural look of the cable.
I'll address that here. The unnatural look is ascribed to the unfamiliar situation. Perspective may be playing tricks on the unwary. Well, maybe.
I don't think this is a commercially fishing rod and I no longer think the wires are reeling out. I think this is some kind of thing that's been made specifically for this hoax video.
Red Arrow - There's a sudden discontinuity on the cable, here.
A second cable attached to the main cable? Maybe. But how?
Note that the angular size of the cable doesn't decrease much until it reaches that discontinuity.
My interpretation: The cable nearest the camera is a small gage length of steel cable, a rope or most likely a rod of some kind. (The stripes are not real. They're an artifact.) Lower down, a tapered piece of latex or silicone, or the like, is fitted over the end of the cable or rod. It starts fat and tapers. It's a model made in an effort to give the illusion of the cable's angular size getting smaller with distance. But it's actually, physically, tapering.
When the object touches down (on the deck around a swimming pool?), and the "cables" supporting the sling go slack, the tapered bit goes *sproing- ing-ing ing*. It vibrates. Watch the video over and over.
Or could this be the far end of the cable swinging? Maybe.
Orange arrow - Cables are too thin. Out of scale. Due to the square-cube law, a large object would have to be supported by thicker cables, but a small object is just fine with fishing line. Also the attachment points look more like fishing line threaded through a hole in the fabric of the miniature slings.
Blue arrow - Out of scale material. Looks like it's cut from an Ace Bandage or any number of mundane things. But the ridges on the material would be huge if this is a large sling.
Are these ridges also an artifact? I don't think so. And the material seems to have a mesh pattern, rather than just parallel ridges.
Not marked, but look at where the four cables are attached to the single cable. There is no visible attachment. On a model, fishing line could just be tied on, or glued. But if this was a real cable... wouldn't there be a visible attachment point? At least a lump?
And again I ask: Why a 150 foot cable? I think it's an attempt to explain why the object looks so small in the video. Real reason: To reduce the resolution of the image to hide the fact that it's a primitive model.
I'll address that here. The unnatural look is ascribed to the unfamiliar situation. Perspective may be playing tricks on the unwary. Well, maybe.
I don't think this is a commercially fishing rod and I no longer think the wires are reeling out. I think this is some kind of thing that's been made specifically for this hoax video.
Red Arrow - There's a sudden discontinuity on the cable, here.
A second cable attached to the main cable? Maybe. But how?
Note that the angular size of the cable doesn't decrease much until it reaches that discontinuity.
My interpretation: The cable nearest the camera is a small gage length of steel cable, a rope or most likely a rod of some kind. (The stripes are not real. They're an artifact.) Lower down, a tapered piece of latex or silicone, or the like, is fitted over the end of the cable or rod. It starts fat and tapers. It's a model made in an effort to give the illusion of the cable's angular size getting smaller with distance. But it's actually, physically, tapering.
When the object touches down (on the deck around a swimming pool?), and the "cables" supporting the sling go slack, the tapered bit goes *sproing- ing-ing ing*. It vibrates. Watch the video over and over.
Or could this be the far end of the cable swinging? Maybe.
Orange arrow - Cables are too thin. Out of scale. Due to the square-cube law, a large object would have to be supported by thicker cables, but a small object is just fine with fishing line. Also the attachment points look more like fishing line threaded through a hole in the fabric of the miniature slings.
Blue arrow - Out of scale material. Looks like it's cut from an Ace Bandage or any number of mundane things. But the ridges on the material would be huge if this is a large sling.
Are these ridges also an artifact? I don't think so. And the material seems to have a mesh pattern, rather than just parallel ridges.
Not marked, but look at where the four cables are attached to the single cable. There is no visible attachment. On a model, fishing line could just be tied on, or glued. But if this was a real cable... wouldn't there be a visible attachment point? At least a lump?
And again I ask: Why a 150 foot cable? I think it's an attempt to explain why the object looks so small in the video. Real reason: To reduce the resolution of the image to hide the fact that it's a primitive model.
Last edited:
For what it's worth, and I don't claim this anything but anecdotal, I sent my uncle a link to the "egg" video. He is an ex-military heli pilot that flew big twin rotor helicopters with over 30 years experience starting from the Viet Nam era to sling loading gear to remote construction sites in Alaska and Canada, followed by a second career as an FAA investigator.
His first response was that it doesn't look real, but said that if it was it looked to him like a fuel blivet sling load.
I found a video:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4aw3194tKM
Again, his first impression was that it didn't look real. When I asked why he mentioned the lack of any rotor wash and that the load wasn't secured in a normal fashion.
His first response was that it doesn't look real, but said that if it was it looked to him like a fuel blivet sling load.
I found a video:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4aw3194tKM
Again, his first impression was that it didn't look real. When I asked why he mentioned the lack of any rotor wash and that the load wasn't secured in a normal fashion.
Minus0
Senior Member
Great credentials
Nice find
I'm curious about the rotor wash comment. As in the video you've linked or other ones here it seems military aircraft often fly with much shorter lines. But in private industry, it seems they often fly with much longer lines which produce a lot less rotor wash (or none visible given a few of the videos shared here). I would be most interested in his thoughts about the long line and sling lines at the bottom given a perspective of 150 feet above.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
He claims he did the retrieval of an egg at night, for whatever reason. But then there is this exchange about how the egg was "pure white" and "pearly white". Is that something that can be ascertained through NVG? Seems like whenever I see NVG footage, it's just a green cast B&W:
External Quote:
However, is this system exclusive to the Bell V-280 or other military aircraft? Barber claims to have left the Airforce and was flying as a contractor for a private company that may not have had access to V-280s, other military aircraft or the systems.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Everytime Iook at the video, I keep seeing a Berber carpet as the background. That may be am illusion enhanced by the diagonal linesthat seem to be a video artifact -- but I keep seeing it anyway. Curious, I did a fast and dirty attempt to get something similar using a picture of my living room carpet:
![20250120_204256[1].jpg](https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20250120_204256-1-jpg.76229/ "20250120_204256[1].jpg")
the match is obviously not exact, but then there about a gazillion "makes and models" of Berber carpet, with bigger or smaller texture, more or less speckling, more or less contrast between speckles and "ground" color, etc. Mine has too many darker spots to make an easy match, for example. Plus, I'm likely using a different camera. Plus I'm using as few steps in PhotoShop Elements as I can get away with to get something roughly similar using a still photo rather than a video. Etc.
Therefore, the match is by no means exact, but without a lot of effort I got into the ballpark, maybe?
So offered for what it is worth.
(Steps taken in PSD -- removed color, raised brightness and contrast both, posterized level 2, used a translucent brush to lay a more-or-less correct shade of green, adjust brightness back down a bit, reduce color saturation a bit.)
the match is obviously not exact, but then there about a gazillion "makes and models" of Berber carpet, with bigger or smaller texture, more or less speckling, more or less contrast between speckles and "ground" color, etc. Mine has too many darker spots to make an easy match, for example. Plus, I'm likely using a different camera. Plus I'm using as few steps in PhotoShop Elements as I can get away with to get something roughly similar using a still photo rather than a video. Etc.
Therefore, the match is by no means exact, but without a lot of effort I got into the ballpark, maybe?
So offered for what it is worth.
(Steps taken in PSD -- removed color, raised brightness and contrast both, posterized level 2, used a translucent brush to lay a more-or-less correct shade of green, adjust brightness back down a bit, reduce color saturation a bit.)
I don't know anything about the rotor wash myself. I'm not sure that my uncle was paying attention to length of the line so much as the rig itself, and it was one that he didn't recognize. He did remark that their load was rolling away and still attached, which wasn't good.
He has little to no interest in this kind of stuff, so he probably didn't put alot of time into looking at the video.
When the video ends, it does look to me like the load continues to be hooked to the heli with no control lines, whereas in the #263 video above, ground crew are seen getting the load under control asap. Also, it looks like a terrible way to secure an egg-shaped object-what's to keep it from popping right out of that strap of canvas or whatever it is?
I think that I'm with my uncle's first impression on this one-it just doesn't look real.
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
Do night vision goggles show shadows in any conditions. What has been said so far on that?
Jake Barber just tweeted that News Nation will release the full 2 1/2 hour interview that he did. And full interviews of Don Paul, Fred Baker, and Dr. Blitch
www.x.com/jakebarber2025/status/1881565066463731827
Jake Barber just tweeted that News Nation will release the full 2 1/2 hour interview that he did. And full interviews of Don Paul, Fred Baker, and Dr. Blitch
www.x.com/jakebarber2025/status/1881565066463731827
Last edited:
MonkeeSage
Senior Member.
I don't know much about NVG. I think there might be different kinds that use different technology(?) but I found videos showing a shadow.
In this one of medevac hoist training the person rappelling is casting a shadow on the ground.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCs8i2DWe0s&t=422s
In this one they a casting shadows on the wall behind them.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCIrWnkqEv4&t=293s
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
From what I can gather:
A helicopter long line is not just one cable direct to the payload
https://www.lift-it.com/helicopter-rigging
It's multi part rig
A thick cable that is the long line, available in multiple thicknesses and lengths
https://www.lift-it.com/1-12-helicopter-long-line-uhmpe
With optional covers
https://www.lift-it.com/primary-secondary-covers
And weights
https://www.lift-it.com/weighted-line-covers-heli-lifting
The payload is often attached on longer lighter sets of nylon ropes so that the long line need not touch down itself and the helicopter has room for manoeuvre without dragging the line or having the payload momentum affect the long line too much..
Watch the video from around 7 seconds and track this dark lump/spot, it moves with the rope and seems to provide some weight to drag down the rope.
Also look at the dark part In this part where the rope seems to change from dark to light
Last edited:
If everything is scaled equally, there will be no clues to scale (c.f. Galileo's apocryphal Leaning Tower experiment, the scale factors cancel out). Only things that depend on scaling ratios other than L^3, such as flexibility/strength would be noticed, but nothing that would demonstrate such properties is shown.
I was going to say "there are certainly no egg-shaped vessels in our brewpub, any cost-savings of minimising surface area, and thus material, per unit volume aren't worth the additional manufacturing expense, noone would be so spendthrifty", and then I realised that Californians exist...
img link: https://www.concretewinetanks.com/img/concrete_wine_tanks_superegg_03.webp
via: https://www.concretewinetanks.com/concrete-egg-tank-1000/
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Arguably the deformation of string/ropes/cables would show differences in flexibly despite accurate scaling as you say, and we see the shorter connectors deform when the egg lands on the ground.
To me it looks like they deform appropriately for large scale ropes, but of course the image quality is so low it's hard to tell.
Because you're drunk in the frat house, and "tomorrow by 1pm" just doesn't cut it when you've got a great prank idea?
Absolutely, yes, and as I mentioned before, the cables are the things that most give me pause. Alas, a sheathed chain, a spun rope, and a metal cable behave completely differently, so that's a very tough one to judge. I was tunnel visioned on the egg itself.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Above I'd posted:
I never circled back as the discussion seems to have moved on from the stiffness of the various ropes, but since it has come up again:
This is braided line made of "spectra" fiber, sometimes the specific brand name Dyneema is used generically. It's been under a lot of tension on a high-wind day, and you can see that rather than hanging down in loops as rope is supposed to do, it has"locked in" and become stiff, bending in kinks and angles. I've seen braided Kevlar line do this as well, but have never seen monofilament or twisted lines do this.
Kevlar and spectra are preferred* for large, had pulling kites because they have a great ratio of weight to tensile strength (the line above has a rated breaking strength of around 1200 pounds, which is overkill but since it degrades over time it is better to have plenty of margin of error!), as well as having a great strength to cross section ratio (thinner line has less wind resistance.)
It is my understanding that both sorts of material are used in other applications where you like a lot of tensile strength but to keep the weight/drag low. Somebody else would have to speak to whether lifting loads under a helicopter is one such application.
But in any case, it is worth noting that ropes that have been under tension may be stiffer than would otherwise be expected.
*Not relevant to this discussion, but Kevlar is frowned upon when flying with other kiters as it is abrasive and has a higher melting point than spectra -- if lines cross Kevlar will cut spectra pretty easily.
I did a little test with a fake egg in a sling made from an elastic bandage and some bookbinding thread, attached to some thin nylon cord.
Superficially somewhat similar, but I think it would be quite difficult to match what we see in the Coulthart video with a model like this.
Doing this experiment makes me lean toward it being a real (human-made) object moved by a helicopter.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Using a stiffer main cord, and less stiff secondary cords, I think you'd be pretty close, as the main difference I see is the flex or lack thereof in the two sorts of string.
Similar threads
- Locked
