101–110 of 164 posts
I also see a bit of CGI in his legs when he is shown to be flapping in the air.
Very Skeptical.
Incredibly skeptical. Red flags: 1. He's received criticism about his videos before, but still insists on filming in random parks, only releasing to press after the event, and using blurry/shaky footage. 2. When he takes off, the camera shakes heavily. When he lands, someone steps in front to block the view. 3. At 0:35, his legs lift up so that his body is parallel to the ground (necessary for flight.) If he had been…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't you read his dev blog? http://www.humanbirdwings.net/project-timeline/ It would seem that arguments about the system instead of the filming might, you know, be more productive.
Went through a number of his videos. Fake. 100%. Once you know when the CGI switch happens, it's just painful to watch. In this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tKFOcHyrI#t=101s The switch happens in a moment of blur at 1:53. Here's some damning evidence: http://i.imgur.com/LODDp.jpg Top screenshots: Before CGI switch. Below images are after CGI switch. When seeing a video they point the camera down, so you "f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't you read his dev blog? http://www.humanbirdwings.net/project-timeline/ It would seem that arguments about the system instead of the filming might, you know, be more productive.
Went through a number of his videos. Fake. 100%. Once you know when the CGI switch happens, it's just painful to watch. In this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tKFOcHyrI#t=101s The switch happens in a moment of blur at 1:53. Here's some damning evidence: http://i.imgur.com/LODDp.jpg Top screenshots: Before CGI switch. Below images are after CGI switch. When seeing a video they point the camera down, so you "f…
The color saturation is a little different, but the camera is at a slightly different angle to the sun too.
The black square is a bit suspicious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't you read his dev blog? http://www.humanbirdwings.net/project-timeline/ It would seem that arguments about the system instead of the filming might, you know, be more productive.
Went through a number of his videos. Fake. 100%. Once you know when the CGI switch happens, it's just painful to watch. In this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tKFOcHyrI#t=101s The switch happens in a moment of blur at 1:53. Here's some damning evidence: http://i.imgur.com/LODDp.jpg Top screenshots: Before CGI switch. Below images are after CGI switch. When seeing a video they point the camera down, so you "f…
So, no, look at the equipment used, look at the mechanisms involved, and tell me that it is completely infeasible. Don't rely on analysis of some cheap Youtube video.
As for the black square, I'm willing to chalk that up to being under the fabric until its stretch taught.
EDIT: Black square is not under the wing--probably a patch if its real.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't you read his dev blog? http://www.humanbirdwings.net/project-timeline/ It would seem that arguments about the system instead of the filming might, you know, be more productive.
Went through a number of his videos. Fake. 100%. Once you know when the CGI switch happens, it's just painful to watch. In this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tKFOcHyrI#t=101s The switch happens in a moment of blur at 1:53. Here's some damning evidence: http://i.imgur.com/LODDp.jpg Top screenshots: Before CGI switch. Below images are after CGI switch. When seeing a video they point the camera down, so you "f…
I definitely noticed that they didn't show the landing clearly. I expected him to fall if he had any kind of velocity going but it wasn't clear, and that seemed fishy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't you read his dev blog? http://www.humanbirdwings.net/project-timeline/ It would seem that arguments about the system instead of the filming might, you know, be more productive.
Went through a number of his videos. Fake. 100%. Once you know when the CGI switch happens, it's just painful to watch. In this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tKFOcHyrI#t=101s The switch happens in a moment of blur at 1:53. Here's some damning evidence: http://i.imgur.com/LODDp.jpg Top screenshots: Before CGI switch. Below images are after CGI switch. When seeing a video they point the camera down, so you "f…
I am sure since we are only 10 days away from April 1st, that will be the reveal.
There is simply not enough surface area, not enough motor power and not enough battery power for it to be real.
All of which is a long way of saying that he runs very slowly, his wings are very small, and they flap very slowly. The first couple seconds of him after take off our patently absurd; you need to be applying - somehow - hundreds of pounds of force to the air to push you off the ground. Yes, fine, he has a wonderful wing design and some amazing motors and (apparently) zero weight batteries. Fantastic! But none of the components in that video are producing hundreds of pounds of force. (A commenter at Wired estimates that the servo motors are theoretically applying enough force to pick up a two ton load, in fraction of a second. If we had this tech, we could fly, although that wing design probably couldn't. We could also make Iron Man-style powered armour. Unfortunately, we don't have this tech.) The whole thing is multiple orders of magnitude off from the realm of "remotely possible".
There are just so many red flags. The bizarre edits, the poor filming, the ridiculous design of the wing, the secrecy, the way nobody in the video acts right, the way the wing magically changes designs in different shots, the fact that the wing is clearly not fully loaded, the weird clothing and gear choices, etc., etc., etc. Wired has been hoaxed hard.