Posted on 03/19/2013 10:00:23 PM PDT by Nachum
A whistle Blower released this footage ... Mirror it , SAVE IT !! They WILL eventually remove this .... It shows the enemy Burried an IED , WHILE the drone fimed it .... NO ONE SAID A WORD TO THE US TROOPS IN THE TRUCK THAT GOT HIT !!
MAKE THIS INFO GO VIRAL ... IT SAVES LIFES !
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Drone Video: Shows IED being planted and then lets truck get blown up.
FYI
Vid at link
If that is in fact legit, I think it should be sent to “news” organizations.
Also I’d like to personally add that if that is in fact legit, then something has gone terribly wrong in this country.
Doubt this is that horrible. That looks like one of those IED resistant vehicles, can’t remember the name. They’ll take damage, but more than likely, contents OK.
I think this was released to try to discredit either the military and/or the President. Yeah, our President sucks, but this is force intercommunication issues, seriously doubt the President is pulled in on every single IED plant.
Notice: just to be clear, I am not a fan of BHO, but I don’t buy this as being a conspiracy. Heck, it’s plausible this was fed through some server, and it missed the IED plant sequence. Additionally, like many posters said, this was not a drone, unless this was one of the hovering helicopter types. Some folks on the youtube thread alluded to camera blimps? Much more likely.... the camera base was not moving, other than minor drift. An overflight would have had some issues keeping locked/zoomed/focused. This was way too solid for a forward flying aircraft, and the angle NEVER changed.
Commentator was also a moron.
It appears to be a mineroller truck sweeping for the IED. I believe that is SOP.
This mambling idiot has no credibility and neither does his video. Any “expert” would laugh this out of the room. It’ll never been seen on TV and no one will bother to take it down from Youtube cuz it’s just junk.
I have continued to review this... that is not a hmmv. It is definitely something beefier. For all we know this was a system test!
The soldiers or mujaheedan, looked like they were packing major kit. Could be US soldiers staging a test for all we know.
From what I see, it is not “drone footage” at all, but video from a fixed position by a spotter or an observer. The point of view never moves as it would if it’s from a mobile platform. That being said, the observer may have been under radio silence, unable to report his observation. This even occurred in a 24 hour period from November 03, 2010 to November 04, 2010. The observer may have not been able to have warn anyone of the placement of the explosive without compromising his mission.
The funny thing is... this is exactly something I could see the press actually feigning fake concern over and pushing it as some sort of Halliburton incident. The narrator is basically starting that line of thought.
I’m asking this because I don’t know. (This is not a rhetorical question.)
Can a drone (which I know very little about since they didn’t exist when I was in service) stay on station for over 24 hours?
The video supposedly picks up from the same POV the next day, which prompts my question. My initial inclination is to be highly skeptical.
Might be one of these. They are commonly used.
http://ravenaerostar.com/solutions/aerostats/tif-25k
A drone is essentially a remote piloted aircraft and it could be piloted to the same location however it DOES have to move to generate lift unless it is a rotating wing (helicopter) type drone, which this video shows no sign of doing. Nor is there any jitteriness one would expect from wind or gustiness or engine vibration. This appears to be a tripod or fixed, mounted video camera with an axis it is capable of being set on a specific target and record for a period. I suspect a camouflaged forward observation post. I think it may be part of a system capable of “lighting up” a target with a laser for a targeted homed strike, hence the arrows and occasional boxed reticle device.
Another possibility is a tethered, fixed observation balloon, but those have a tendency to get shot down.
I very much doubt that. The angle of the video Implies an observer on a hill, not one in a balloon at 10k feet. . . With a super long telephoto which would show a long depth of field.
This is a campaign designed to garner Americans support for drones.
They don’t go that high. They don’t have to. Maybe 1000 to 2000 feet is plenty. With gyro stabilized cameras, you can pull in views from a hundred miles plus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2YkRHpY0mI
They can be used as high as 10k feet. But at the height you suggest they are easy targets for deflation by rifle shots. . . And they are easily spotted. Do you really think an enemy would place an IED in plain sight of one of these? They also slue in the wind, constantly turning as the breeze moves them. This video shows no such motion. Yes, with gyro stabilized cameras, you can, but then you need altitude. . . And telephoto lenses that have a telltale depth of field that simply is not seen here. I'm willing to bet we could calculate the distance of the camera from the angles of motion as the camera changed views. . . If we knew the distance between the two target points of interest. Astronomers do it all the time.
You can see one wheel blown off the vehicle in the video.
It is a minesweeper, this video shows how it worked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.