So no one knows anyone who's actually seen it with their own eyes?
Drone Theories
- Thread starter Shadow Reaper
- Start date
Fascinating vid I put no stock in
www.facebook.com
2.948 Aufrufe · 2.029 Reaktionen | ORBS surrounding MH370?!?! Just a little suss 🤨 Follow for more | Mandate Truth | Freedom & Truth 👁
ORBS surrounding MH370?!?! Just a little suss 🤨 Follow for more.
www.facebook.com
I love how it says difficult to produce with visual effects... hahahahaFascinating vid I put no stock in
2.948 Aufrufe · 2.029 Reaktionen | ORBS surrounding MH370?!?! Just a little suss 🤨 Follow for more | Mandate Truth | Freedom & Truth 👁
ORBS surrounding MH370?!?! Just a little suss 🤨 Follow for more.
Yeah, making it such a bad fake is harder than doing it right that's for sure lol
A little tutorial, you might just learn something on how to look at sus videos in the future.:
Decide on what type of video you want to make, phone cam, security cam footage, military style cam... Gather reference, search up some non fake videos of what yours should look like.
Keeping with the current vid above:
Plane profile way off, when you do far-away things it should be more slender rather than fat, especially with curved objects like jetliners which are basically tubes. Also it "corners" so tight that an F22 would be jealous, don't make it so dynamic. Just fly straight with a very slight curvature, keep it simple, it's more believable.
Don't forget to change the size of the plane as it goes, account for distance to camera.
For BG, Grab a nice timelapse of clouds changing, the internet is full of em, using an interpolation effect available in basically any video software, slow it down so you get some nice slow change, preferably with some artifacting (errors) so it matches the bad quality footage later. Clouds are never ever at rest, there is no such thing as a "static" cloud. It will look soooo much more believable if you have the clouds changing in the bg, even if only slightly.
Match the framerate of all your objects in scene.
When doing the orbs, don't forget to match their depth of field to the plane. Same goes for the clouds. For a "visible light" type of vid, either add a colored filter to your objects to match the sky, or just lower their opacity so the bg slightly seeps through (this can be a problem if they go in front of dark/contrasting edges of the bg but it's fast and easy).
Pro Tips: account for things such as image grain/noise. Clean up all your objects, and add back a custom grain profile before you do the renders so everything looks like it came from the same camera. There is no such thing as noiseless capture in real life. It's reason you can tell that a video has stopped vs the video is going but it's just showing the same image. There's always that tiny little "movement" or change in the image your brain picks up on.
Also important to match the resolution of your sources. You can feel that the bg clouds are just a much lower res image compared to the orbs and plane. Try to match your res to the lowest one, and by that I mean hard match by rendering out every layer/object into a separate sequence. Then start comping them together, so you don't have to fight pixelated vs blurry edges and details.
Account for real world exposure differences. Look at some reference, what should be the brightest, what should be darker. Looking up at 30k feet from the ground during daytime, everything should be much closer in exposure value, you should not have clouds and especially not the plane burnt to crispy 255 white while having a dark sky... but that depends on time of day, weather, location and so on. Just get reference. In case of doing full color visible light vid, match the overall tone of your image to the time of day, otherwise use the appropriate filters (green/gray for night vision and whatnot).
Export at half resolution of final as a very compressed jpeg sequence, then convert that sequence to video.
Congrats, you just made your first "real leaked footage" ufo sighting video in like 2 hours, which some "experts" might even use in the news as "proof"!
Han Burgundy
Space Marshal
It's a bit grainy, but I found a video of USAF fighters getting buzzed by something that acted decidedly hostile
Allegedly the Navy holds patents for gravitational propulsion machines or whatnot, so it's just the usual testing of alien tech, nothing to see here, it's all good now lol
I get the feeling that this tech might be being held back from regular civilian knowledge for numerous reason, predominantly that once out, people will want to get their hands on it. There's a LOT of people that are horrible enough drivers on the ground, they'd be absolute nightmares in the skies.
The Navy patent is a nonsense patent. If the thing worked it would not show up in a patent search and NRL would not be feaverishly working their way through the list of propellantless propulsion proposals. If the USG has it, it’s at AFRL and Lockheed. All the most highly classified stuff is held by private companies because they are not subject to FOIA and Congressional oversight. When USAF finds something of huge interest, they give it to Northrop or Lockheed.
I agree. Though my long time theory is that it seems most of the time patents that are military or weapons based rarely show up until after being declassified, which usually doesn't happen until that tech is so common knowledge that it's pointless for others to learn about it because they've already developed something far better.
The issue with whatever might pass as anti-grav, etc. is that we have no agreed theory on how this might work. It could be Mach’s Principle physics. It could be metric engineering. It could be some vacuum physics. It could be some fifth dimensional stuff like the guys at Northrup cooked up twenty years ago. Just solving that mystery for others is a no-no.
Rather, USG intel runs scams to mislead those interested in the field. Hence Baker’s High Frequency Gravity Wave physics picked up by the Chinese. Baker was off by 42 orders magnitude in the effects he predicted, which is what happens when you have engineers pretending to be physicists.
The very last thing Intel wants is to give everyone a clue how to make stuff fly.
Rather, USG intel runs scams to mislead those interested in the field. Hence Baker’s High Frequency Gravity Wave physics picked up by the Chinese. Baker was off by 42 orders magnitude in the effects he predicted, which is what happens when you have engineers pretending to be physicists.
The very last thing Intel wants is to give everyone a clue how to make stuff fly.
