Startling Footage of a Triangle Craft over the Netherlands

[deuem]

ArMaP wrote: "It depends on how that quick response was obtained, a quick response based on many years of training is not the same as a quick response based on nothing."


What years of traing? And trained by who?

And yea, a responce in text with nothing to back it up is still nothing. My kid could have writen that and it would have meant the same thing to a reader

If you say it is out of perspecive, please prove it for us silly Deuems.

To me the perspective is alright.  You say it is moving away I say it is falling and he is zooming in and out.

I will wait for your trained proof if you don't mind.

The words "I say" are just text, as thy say, "Show me the money"

Deuem

[ArMaP]

What years of traing? And trained by who?

"Training" was not the right word, I should have said experience.

And yea, a responce in text with nothing to back it up is still nothing.

I think they call these things "opinions". 

If you say it is out of perspecive, please prove it for us silly Deuems.

To me the perspective is alright.  You say it is moving away I say it is falling and he is zooming in and out.

I think the object is (apparently) moving away because of the way the clouds change, to me they look more like the same type of clouds, only farther away.

For a falling object I would expect the clouds would change faster, as a difference in altitude would result in a bigger difference in the clouds, the angle between the direction the camera points to and the ground would change faster than if the object is moving away.
Without any references besides the moving clouds is hard to distinguish between one possibility and the other.

There's no zooming during the first 1:33.5, when he zooms out.

The words "I say" are just text, as thy say, "Show me the money"

Those are also just words. 

[deuem]

I say it is falling. Do a work up on the sky and see which way the camera really moved. Measure the size of the craft for that first section up to the large zoom.

I say sorry because on this one opinions should be held back until proof is shown.

It is not like it is the Goodyear blimp up there and any easy 1 - 2 - 3 strikes their out deal.

This video may just be the real deal of a craft that was caught in trouble, losing its hover abilities and then warped out so not to hit the ground a minute later. The object looks to me that it CW cork screwed in at a slow rate. Not a 100% failure but enough to make them panic a bit.

I am not posting anything because I am following you and I want to see where you are going to bring us on this vid. Did you even look at that section I wrote about.  I see no notes..

UFO research needs a lot more than opinions. Did you run your PMV of at least 1 frame?  If so why not. It will show you something. Now go do several frames where it powers up. What do you get?

Did you do any Math on the size over frames.

Any Math on the fall rate?

Any photo stiching or PMV work or do you just like to toss the baby out with the water.

Did you try to duplicate it with CGI?

There are many things to do if you really want to be a researcher. Do nothing and your a cheerleader. On the side lines out of the game, just making noise.  What do you really want to be?

I can only lead you to the water...................

Waiting,
Deuem

[ArMaP]

I say it is falling.

It's possible.

Do a work up on the sky and see which way the camera really moved.

With only the moving clouds we do not have real reference points, and an object higher than the camera, moving away horizontally would result in a video similar to one of the same object higher than the moving vertically down, the only difference would be the rate at which the size and perspective change.

Measure the size of the craft for that first section up to the large zoom.

I already did and posted the result.

This video may just be the real deal of a craft that was caught in trouble, losing its hover abilities and then warped out so not to hit the ground a minute later. The object looks to me that it CW cork screwed in at a slow rate. Not a 100% failure but enough to make them panic a bit.

I suppose that's also an opinion, but one that does not need any proof. 

Did you even look at that section I wrote about.  I see no notes..

What section, the "1.14 to 1.23"?

UFO research needs a lot more than opinions.

I agree.

Did you run your PMV of at least 1 frame?  If so why not. It will show you something. Now go do several frames where it powers up. What do you get?

I did not run my PMV on any frame, and that's because the result of the PMV doesn't show any of the things I am interested in, it only enhances the differences in colours/brightness of the image.
And I forgot about it.

Did you do any Math on the size over frames.

No.

Any Math on the fall rate?

What fall rate? For that we would need fixed references.

Any photo stiching or PMV work or do you just like to toss the baby out with the water.

No, I just like to think about things before wasting my time with things that result in nothing.

Did you try to duplicate it with CGI?

No, I don't have any software for trying to duplicate it.

There are many things to do if you really want to be a researcher.

I agree.

Do nothing and your a cheerleader. On the side lines out of the game, just making noise.  What do you really want to be?

I want to be myself (and never pretended to want anything else), someone that is interested in this subject but not enough to use more of my time with it than I already do unless I see an opportunity of learning something new.

[deuem]

<blockquote>Deuem: Do a work up on the sky and see which way the camera really moved.</blockquote>   ArMaP:With only the moving clouds we do not have real reference points, and an object higher than the camera, moving away horizontally would result in a video similar to one of the same object higher than the moving vertically down, the only difference would be the rate at which the size and perspective change.

You wrote the answer but did not act on it.. The answer is the clouds.  I did it, now you try...
You can match the clouds in a program by laying them out like cards on a table. You just need a little kick to get started. Go try it and see what you get. Like a panarama. You need to think out of your box on this one...

So which way will the cards stack up, Right to left, left to right, up to down, down to up ?

After you figure it out, let us know. See if I do it, I think I will take some heat, If you do it, the heat will be your own and you will learn it can be done...Now go stich some clouds.  To Sarge, I did mine in CAD but any program will work in which you can place many photos.  Think playing cards....

[deuem]

AMP

What section, the "1.14 to 1.23"?

1.23 plus.....

Yes, again think out of you contained box. Like a magic show, look here while I do this there.
Forget the UFO and tell me what you can see. For those who have no computer magic, just cover the UFO with a slip of paper about that size and follow it by blocking it out of your vision. Hold the slip on the down side, the action is on the top. You may have to do this many times but it will hit you sooner than later.  The "whala" moment....

Now what did you see?   Forget the UFO.... Is this CGI ? I don't think so.....It is one of those things you have to see for youeself to understand. If I point it out, I am the nutter. Keep looking, got it yet?
Deuem

[ArMaP]

You can match the clouds in a program by laying them out like cards on a table. You just need a little kick to get started. Go try it and see what you get. Like a panarama. You need to think out of your box on this one...

So which way will the cards stack up, Right to left, left to right, up to down, down to up ?

Without doing it (I don't have the time right now, I'm on my lunch break) I think the "cards" will stack from up to down and from left to right.

After you figure it out, let us know. See if I do it, I think I will take some heat, If you do it, the heat will be your own and you will learn it can be done...

You wouldn't get any heat from me, just my opinion.

[ArMaP]

Forget the UFO and tell me what you can see.

Clouds.

No "voilá" moment for me.

Is this CGI ? I don't think so.....It is one of those things you have to see for youeself to understand.

I think the triangle is the only thing that may be CGI.

If I point it out, I am the nutter.

No, you are the one pointing something that may or may not be interpreted in the same way (opinions again) by other people.

[deuem]

<blockquote>Forget the UFO and tell me what you can see.</blockquote>   Clouds.

No "voilá" moment for me.

Do you need me to send you a box cutter to help you out your box. Armap, you have to think outside the UFO and really think about what you are seeing happen. Think actio/reaction clue 3 use the 1080 vid for this. It is cleaner. but you can see it on the 720. Thats where I saw it first. clue 4 swooosh

Deuem

[robomont]

I think its real.a hoaxer wouldnt put the glints from the sunlight in it.also it looks like the camera was pointed up high and slowly arched over to the east more.its invisibility isnt working either.i go along with the theory that the craft doesnt have its invisibility/hover engines just its rear thrusters.so to gain altitude he has to use its thrusters and the shape of the craft to gain altitude.that craft is in desparate need of maintenance.
Being white instead of black tells me this craft was designed to be parked in a snow region instead of for use in black ops.my guess is its russian.this would explain the poor performance.lol.imho.

[ArMaP]

Do you need me to send you a box cutter to help you out your box. Armap, you have to think outside the UFO and really think about what you are seeing happen.

I always do, and I hate that box reference, I always see it as a way of the person that uses to feel better than the other.

Think actio/reaction clue 3 use the 1080 vid for this. It is cleaner. but you can see it on the 720. Thats where I saw it first. clue 4 swooosh

I don't like riddles.

[deuem]

Ok no box huh, How about blinders, Take the blinders off. It is not about feeling better that the next person it is just a reference to think harder, Non contained. Ok your a programmer, think out of the program that somone else wrote. Don't use their rules//

Think action/reaction, clue 3 use the 1080 vid for this. It is cleaner. but you can see it on the 720. Thats where I saw it first. clue 4 swooosh

   I don't like riddles.

How do you see this as a riddle. It is more like bread crumbs. Dropping clues is a way to find things.
action reaction is an engineering term not a riddle. Swooosh is a basket ball term.  When Ever i use Deuem terms you don't understand me.  A riddle is more like "What's black and white and re[a]d all over?" I did not write a riddle. Just clues.

Maybe it is harder to see than I thought. I can pick it up across the desk....Those Deuem eyes might see things others can't.  Try again and look up. "Look up" is a dirrection not a riddle so I hope it passes. clue 5 The clouds, the clouds look at the clouds............

Deuem

[ArMaP]

Ok no box huh, How about blinders, Take the blinders off. It is not about feeling better that the next person it is just a reference to think harder, Non contained. Ok your a programmer, think out of the program that somone else wrote. Don't use their rules//

To me that sounds the same, like a thought that I (in this case) am limited in some way while you (in this case) are not. That's why I don't like any of those  comparisons, we can never be sure of what the other person is thinking, we may have the same idea but only different ways of talking about it.
 

How do you see this as a riddle.

I see it as a riddle because you know the answer and instead of being clear about it you just talk about it while trying to avoid saying it (whatever it may be).

It is more like bread crumbs. Dropping clues is a way to find things.

Yes, it's like bread crumbs, but why doing it? It's just a waste of time, if you know what you need to say, why don't you say it? That's why I see it more as a riddle.

action reaction is an engineering term not a riddle.

I'm not an engineer.

Swooosh is a basket ball term.

I don't like basketball.

When Ever i use Deuem terms you don't understand me.

Most of the times I understand what you mean, but I cannot be sure if I do, as those are words/expressions that I am not used to read/hear. And it doesn't happen just with you.

The clouds, the clouds look at the clouds............

I told you, if I ignore the triangle I see only the clouds. Is there anything there besides the clouds and the triangle?

[deuem]

I told you, if I ignore the triangle I see only the clouds. Is there anything there besides the clouds and the triangle?

NO ! and it's not the triangle....

To me that sounds the same, like a thought that I (in this case) am limited in some way while you (in this case) are not.

Yes !

You have never heard of the saying "For every action there is an equal and oppisite reaction" I find that hard to believe in this day and age. Maybe the word has not speread out to you area yet.

clue 6 Look for the re-action to the action.

See, if you can find it yourself you will respect your own judgement over mine for sure. This is not a Deuem thing, It is in the video, plain to see if you can pick it out. Think re-action  "clouds"

This also happens late in the video where it warps out but it could be CGI there and easy to do. If it is CGI at 1 23 then I would like to anyone duplicate it so I could learn how they did it.

Deuem

[ArMaP]

NO ! and it's not the triangle....

Well, I don't see anything else on the video, only clouds, the triangle and the sky.

You have never heard of the saying "For every action there is an equal and oppisite reaction"

I have, that's at least as old as Newton.

See, if you can find it yourself you will respect your own judgement over mine for sure.

No, a judgement is a judgement, I respect them all, regardless of who they come from, why would I respect one more than the other?