3.5 miles per second would be around 18,500 fps or around Mach 18 or so. The only things that go that fast that close to the ground are hypersonic weapons like boost glide systems. These are pushed to near orbital velocities by rockets and then reenter the earth's atmosphere and glide towards their target at velocities that start around Mach 22-25 and decelerate to about Mach 8-10 before terminal maneuvers to avoid threats. Impact velocities can be as high a Mach 4, making for good penetration and a lot of energy. Google DARPA HTV-2 to see a similar test program that unfortunately failed.
I looked at the raw video footage at 108op and my first reaction was "flying insect". Neither dramatic, nor awe inspiring. But most likely what it was.
Insects fly like helicopters. This object banked like a plane for the starboard turn. Looked like a ninety degree bank. But, you would think it would cast a shadow, and cause some movement of the trees when it flew by.
I fly RC helicopters, they easily make banked turns. So can a real one. Beetles and flies make banked turns. Beetles have been fitted with tiny inertial measurement units. Their turns are preceded by a roll. They fly banked turns. I would say the odds this thing was a super-fast machine vs a bug are far greater than a million to one.
It looks CGI to me. The "object" looks too in focus for basically its entire path from the background to the foreground. An amateur camera is not able to have that depth of field clarity on something moving that distance in such a short period of time and no way is the aperture small based on the rest of the landscape (looks wide open). Even a professional box lens camera like you see at sporting events that have the ability to refocus while zooming wouldn't get image quality on something that small and fast. Assuming it's not CG, it's a small insect in the foreground. An actual object you can see from 3.5 miles away like they claim would be enormous up close in the foreground. Hopefully someone was smart enough to discover or invent a room temperature superconductor as that is the only thing I'm aware of that would be able to travel around above the earth's surface at high speed and not require lift by engine or wing (flux pinning/quantum locking). It's already been done on a smaller scale with YBCO that requires a form of cooling to work. A room temperature version won't be discovered in my lifetime...
No it doesn't. It says the odds are far greater than a million to one (which means there is far less than one chance in a million) that it is a machine. The thing in the video is a UFO, but it is not a machine. The UFO is some natural phenomena...like a bug. And like BMW.SauberF1Team noted, If you could see it 3.5 miles away in the vid, it would look like a 747 when it passed close by!
I think the 3.5 mile estimate is probably way off. You can see with a conventional jet which is close to the ground, the time from when it's first visible to when it passes by is about the same. Could be CGI, or could be some experimental aircraft, being so close to Area 51. Fastwalker ?
It’s the logic form that confused me and why I asked. You constructed a word sentence stating Machine:Bug; Million:One.
To make such a turn, at this altitude and at the speeds being considered, would result in g-levels too high for a vehicle relying only on aerodynamic lift. So no hypersonic glide vehicles (and not suggesting that you were making such a suggestion Terry). This would also rule out thrust vectoring (using existing 2-D type nozzles out the ass) as this would still require aerodynamic lift, leaving directed thrust of which there is no evidence in the video.
Very poor analysis on the part of the drone operators. I see no reason to think it became visible 3.5 miles out. Could have just as easily been 350 yards out. Anything moving multi mach speeds through the air makes a lot of noise even if there is no propulsion. They are seeing what they want to see and ignoring what logic dictates. Common with UFO sightings. Not saying they are all fake, just the vast majority of them.
The video shows the object/ufo moving towards them. By definition, anything moving fastener than the speed of sound will reach you before the sound does.
Couple of interesting new videos. I can't seem to replicate the double images, but his point on motion blur is well taken. Very detailed analysis on why it's not a bug.
