DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This simply means it has not been tampered with or edited. The spend a lot of time verifying that it wasn't doctored. I am happy to grant its authenticity for th sake of discussion. That eliminates the first 8:30 minutes of this 9:40 video.The video is submitted for extensive forensic analysis by an expert and found to be authentic.
It isn't until one minute before the end of the video that they consider the content of the video itself.
How did they determine that? They would have to know how near the object is and/or how large it is.The uap is calculated to be going 2 miles in 2 seconds, which is 3600 mph!
And here's what they say: "based on where it's coming from, we can estimate its speed". And then they immediately launch into an analysis of the range to a valley two miles away.
This is a tried and true technique in these investigative docu-dramas to manipulate their audience. By keeping the narrative pace fast, the whole thing seems strung together logically, discouraging most undiscerning viewers from realizing there's a big hole in the logic.
But the experienced viewer will not be so easily manipulated. The experienced viewer says "Wait a minute. Slow down. How exactly did you determine where it's coming from? Are you sure? No alternate possibilities? Was it not worth analyzing? Not even a single word of discussion?"
Nope. The hole in the logic is deliberately left out, hoping that most of the naive viewers won't think of it.
So, sure if that object came from that valley two miles away, and passed the drone in a second or so, it would have to be going supersonic.
Unfortunately, as noted, there is zero discussion of why they assume that. A telling omission, because ...
... for all anyone knows, the object is first seen from only, say, 50 yards away. That would make it the size of ... a large bug, and doing about ... 40mph.
And the whole "compelling mystery" falls apart, as usual.
But hey, at least it's not a balloon bobbing along the beach...