
Man Supposedly Flies With Custom-Built Bird Wings - dym
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/human-bird-wings/
======
JoeCortopassi
Things that make this video implausible:

1) You have the engineering fortitude to come up with something that has never
been done before, and you choose to attach it to your body with a consumer
grade backback? And not even a full hiking one with multiple points of
attachment? No rock-climbing harness?

2) Fabric is waaay too loose on the wings to be effective in any kind of
aerodynamic sense. At best this is a kite

3) He would "only be able to come up with 5% of the power needed", so he used
a bunch of Turnigy motors and some magical super-compact power supply to
provide the necessary lift? Not to mention, motors aren't exactly built for
rapid oscillation back and forth, and I see no complex mechanisms to turn
rotations into a very strong/rapid oscillating force

4) There are ZERO control surfaces on those wings to be able to pull up for a
landing like he does. No, that pillow case between his legs doesn't count.

5) An Android operated system, that dynamically reads two separate wii
remotes, and converts that accelerometer input into wing movements would not
be that responsive.

6) No continuous shot from take-off to landing

7) No shot of the gear used to accomplish this, whether it be the
motors/batteries/wiring/pulleys

~~~
katovatzschyn
The disregard for the physics of the situation is actually quite insulting.
The "demonstration" is so far from realistic its not even worth a debunking.

Here is an example of what this man is claiming to have done, actually being
done, by a team of engineers working for years:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E77j1imdhQ>

~~~
JoeCortopassi
Great video. Notice the difference in the motion of the wings? So much more
fluid and natural than the flat and rigid motion of the video from the Wired
article.

~~~
angersock
It's an entirely different mechanism, hence the difference in movement. Note
also that the wings are powered by peddling, whereas the birdman has
accelerometer-controlled wings (individually controlled, rather).

------
Lazare
Watch a bird take off. Start with some pigeons, then some sea gulls. If you
can, watch an albatross - on YouTube if nothing else. As you get larger, you
get heavier; as you get heavier you need more lifting force (ie, bigger wings,
moving faster). Recall that weight is a function of volume and increases with
the cube of your dimensions, while lifting force is a function of surface area
and only increases with the square of your dimensions. Very _very_ roughly if
you're twice as big, you get four times the surface area but eight times the
weight, meaning that as you get larger flying goes from being "difficult" to
impossible. And a man is large, and the batteries and motors he was allegedly
using just add weight.

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_.

~~~
angersock
For the record, he's budgeting around 17 m^2 surface area for wing and 100 kg
for pilot (<http://www.humanbirdwings.net/about/working-on-the-wings/>).
That's about 5 kg/m^2 wing loading, well within range of something for a
microlight([http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1416&pagetype=90...](http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1416&pagetype=90&pageid=8379))
if a bit heavy for an unpowered glider.

EDIT: The wing surface (that kite he mentions sacrificing) is from one of
these ( <http://ride.slingshotsports.com/2012-Fuel#> ) which is intended for
exactly this sort of thing--supporting a human in flight.

Note that in the design blog the motors are being run through a 25:1 planetary
gear. The family of motors in question can put out in excess of 2kw (
[http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__17986__Turnigy_Ro...](http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__17986__Turnigy_RotoMax_1_60_Brushless_Outrunner_Motor.html)
or
[http://hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProdu...](http://hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=14427)
). So, no, the power plant is quite capable.

~~~
rloads
Finally someone pulled out meaningful fact about flying. How funny people keep
saying about video without taking into account any engineering or physical
requirements to make this real.

~~~
angersock
Annoying as hell, isn't it?

>:(

More usefully, I don't mind if this turns out to be a fake--but this off-the-
cuff "no it is not possible ever" is so narrowminded when not combined with
credible facts and analysis.

~~~
pitchups
I agree. It is good to be skeptical - as they say extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence. Experts are trained to be skeptical. I am not saying
that video may not be a fake but I am also equally skeptical about all the
expert opinion on the impossibility of it all. And that is because experts
have a long tradition of often being dead wrong about what is possible. Lord
Kelvin - who was England's top scientist and President of the Royal Society
flatly stated in 1895 that "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" -
just a decade before he was proven wrong. There are many more similar examples
in the history of progress. It is a good thing inventors also have a long
tradition - of ignoring experts and just trying to achieve what has been
claimed as impossible.

------
avree
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 placing his legs on some sort of device
for flight, why would the liftup be that smooth?

This would be awesome if it were real, but... just seems fishy.

~~~
seanalltogether
Also, birds don't generate lift from merely flapping their wings up and down,
they generate lift due to the angle of attack of the wing during the upstroke
and downstroke. The wings in this video don't address this issue.

~~~
starpilot
Depends on the bird and mode of flight. Large birds like condors basically
glide like fixed-wing aircraft, flapping every few _minutes_ ; hummingbirds
flap at 200 Hz and use various aerodynamic tricks to stay aloft. The flight in
the video looks similar to the that of those toy flapping birds powered by a
rubber band. It's possible to flap & fly without fully articulated twisting
wings, just not as efficient.

~~~
seanalltogether
True, however those toy birds generate forward thrust and rely on the tail to
move upwards or downwards since they're so simplistic. There is no tail on the
device in the video, so there's no mechanism driving it upward.

------
joeld42
I've worked in the visual effects industry and I don't think this is CGI, at
least not in the sense that most commenters mean, a digital rendering of the
dude and the wings. If it is, there's a lot of small details that they got
right. It could be, and the poor quality of the video makes it hard to tell
for sure, but I think that's misdirection.

My guess is that the wings are not mechanical at all beyond being flexible,
and he's just pulling on them to flap, and they pulled the guy from an ATV or
something. His motion looks like a kite, when he's flapping wildly the front
of his chest stays pretty stable and looks like it's anchored. The wings look
like they could be modified versions of those kite-surfing things people use.

It's a hell of a lot easier to paint out a wire and a vehicle than it is to
put in a synthetic flying dude. and that would get you the helmet-cam footage
without having to do extra work.

Also there's tire tracks on the ground from previous takes.

edit: for example:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvD_0qZzhdo>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKlaRtCwIqk>

It might not even be the wings providing the lift, he could have a whole chute
behind it like in these videos.

~~~
marshray
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH3fQbGlQlM#t=52s>

Look at the left tip on the mechanism as it moves slowly as the woman holds
it.

I know it's supposed to be light, but it appears to jitter as if it's
massless.

The lighting on the mecanism doesn't seem so right either. This looks a little
like the early Star Wars' to me.

------
khalidmbajwa
Interesting that Jamie Hyneman of the MythBusters fame Doesn't think it was
faked. According him to the science checks out !
[http://www.tested.com/articles/43440-thoughts-on-the-
mechani...](http://www.tested.com/articles/43440-thoughts-on-the-mechanics-of-
assisted-human-flight/)

~~~
ilaksh
OK but where are the batteries that Jamie mentions? I didn't see any in the
video or the videos that came before it in the series about how they made it.

~~~
marshray
In earlier videos a guy even walks in with a cardboard box full of batteries.
I think they're zip-tied low on the backboard.

------
6ren
Conceptually plausible: the cyclic motion of articulated wings (flapping)
seems understood in models e.g. <http://www.ornithopter.de/english/clips.htm>
Jarno's idea of a powered exoskeleton wing to provide x20 power is right in
principle, but needs light batteries: Prof Otten
[http://www.humanbirdwings.net/about/interview-with-bert-
otte...](http://www.humanbirdwings.net/about/interview-with-bert-otten/)

As comparison, a human-powered articulated wing:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E77j1imdhQ> A non-articulated wing
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1638710914506519616> (18km) And the
famous Gossamer Albatross flew from England to France
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossamer_Albatross> Also
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithopter#Manned_flight>

To the downvoters: haters gonna hate, hackers gonna hack

------
grannyg00se
There is simply not enough air being moved by those airfoils to lift a 150+ lb
object off the ground. He'd need much more speed than that. Or much more wing
area. Or much faster articulation. And in any of those cases, the pathetic
"wings" would deform horribly and ruin any aerodynamic properties they might
possibly possess.

*edit Now that I've actually watched the video, there's something I'd like to add to the list of red flags others have already pointed out: His landing trajectory. It's way too steep and forward. He'd have to enjoy a near 1:1 thrust ratio to land at that angle, and he'd have to have been pitched up and back to apply all of that thrust against gravity and his forward motion.

------
InclinedPlane
I made this for a nested comment, I'll bring it up a level. Think this looks
real? <http://i.imgur.com/YtPMI.png>

The grass in the second one (suspected CGI) isn't even the same color or
saturation level.

~~~
jQueryIsAwesome
My biggest issue is with a piece of the machine that suddenly appears 2
seconds latter: <http://i.imgur.com/xZCAu.jpg>

~~~
chubot
That doesn't look off to me. There is a dark spot in the first frame -- it's
just masked by the much larger shadow going across the whole wing.

It seems fake to me, but I have yet to be convinced there's CGI. If it were
CGI, within 2-3 hours someone will post a statistical analysis of the images.
That would be extremely obvious, whereas most people in this thread are
pointing out things that are ambiguous.

I mean they if they got the trees, the shadows, and the grass right, then I
have a hard time believing they forgot to remove a dot somewhere on the wing.
Those aren't the kinds of mistakes you would expect if someone was trying to
match CGI to real footage.

------
MartinodF
I believe this could be real, but the wings are powered by 4 electric motors.
He uses an HTC Android phone and a WiiMote to read the movements of his arms,
and that readings are used to control the wings.

There are many more details on his blog
<http://www.humanbirdwings.net/project-timeline/>

Edit: JoeCortopassi raised some good points in his comment. I'm not so sure
this is plausible, even with the 4 motors.

~~~
jsprinkles
If it's written on a blog, it's certainly true, then?

~~~
veemjeem
why are you posting so many skeptical comments?

~~~
jsprinkles
Because I am skeptical that the video is real.

~~~
veemjeem
yes, we get that, but there's no need to reply to every comment about your
skepticism.

~~~
jsprinkles
There's no need for you to position yourself as a gatekeeper for HN comments,
either, but you're doing it anyway. Who elected you to quota individual
comments? When you went after me, I had left three comments on this entry.
There were more than a dozen by the time you said something, and I had made my
point and was willing to back out.

If you've identified a noise problem in the signal -- the only possible reason
to go directly after another commenter and expect that you're improving HN at
all -- how does spamming yet more about the noise problem improve the
situation for anybody?

Thanks for reminding me why I don't contribute to HN, by the way. I'll show
myself back out.

------
tzm
Other confirmed man powered flight tests:

Snowbird ornithopter <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E77j1imdhQ>

MIT Daedalus <http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/Daedalus/HTML/>

------
iandanforth
Disclosure: I fell for this. That said here is another red flag:

The guys reaction at the end of the video is not one of triumph and
excitement. Here are some videos of what real reactions look like:

First time skydiving:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nSuGJB7ZykI#t=228s)

Breaking a world record:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vWde8sMxe1w#t=42s)

Winning:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOcf6oEiRT0&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOcf6oEiRT0&feature=player_detailpage#t=50s)

*Edit - Fixed last link

~~~
joshmlewis
I haven't done anything ^ extreme or cool on that level, but I'm pretty
introverted and don't necessarily get excited externally too much. It could be
plausible that he's introverted as well and doesn't go crazy like some people.
My parents often were upset with me because they didn't think I liked what
they got me for my birthday, christmas, etc. but on the inside I really was
happy/excited.

So all that to say, everyone handles events differently and it's hard to have
a set guideline for how people act.

------
binarysolo
Maybe the Internet has ruined me too, but this reminds me of that other viral
ad campaign of guys running on water.

[http://gawker.com/5539222/how-not-to-fall-for-a-viral-
market...](http://gawker.com/5539222/how-not-to-fall-for-a-viral-marketing-
scheme) (Yes it's Gawker but they did have one of the better write-ups :/ ).

A few minutes browsing the project homepage (<http://www.humanbirdwings.net>)
and WHOIS (<http://whois.net/whois/humanbirdwings.net>) makes it look more
legit though...

~~~
petroica
How does the WHOIS info make it look more legit?

~~~
binarysolo
I guess I rather meant that it's subscribed through a GoDaddy-ish service
instead of a marketing company that forgot to cover its tracks... :-/

------
Steko
I've thought about whether we'll start to see things like this soon with
composites and nanofibers. I'd love to see the math taken apart, I assume
we're still a ways away from it.

The first person to really fly like this may well be a double amputee or other
person generally thought of as "disabled". Someone like Bob Wieland would have
an enormous advantage on paper over someone like the guy in the video.

------
marshray
In the part 14 video, at 0:34 it cuts to another camera on the right much
closer to the point of liftoff. It's not a long range shot because the angle
seems to sweep up to 45 degrees quickly. A camera at this position should be
visible in the shot before, but there's not one.

Edit: OK at 0:23 you catch a glimpse of someone by the lake that might be in
position for that shot.

------
andrewfelix
This is the beginning of an ad campaign. My old agency used to do these things
all the time. Here's one we created to make Japan look more intimidating
leading up to an A-League match, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9G89gGJayA>

Hint: It's fake.

------
jcampbell1
Just to be clear, the power is coming from electric motors, and he is flapping
his arms just because that is how the control system was designed, right?

------
uptown
If this actually worked, wouldn't he have done it dozens of times, and have
videos of each flight?

------
KVFinn
They could verify this easily. Just get a couple of news crews down there to
film another trial.

The fact that they haven't makes me think it's fake.

I wish it were real though.

------
simeonf
I'm just a beginning hang glider pilot - but everybody at the largest national
hang gliding site (<http://hanggliding.org>) calls fake. The main clue from a
hang glider's perspective is that the wings absolutely don't look loaded.
Assuming power source, batteries, etc all were available there's no way those
flapping trailing edges are actually bearing weight by pushing against the
air.

Yes the dream of human flight is alive - but it looks like this -
<http://vimeo.com/20775072>

------
ad80
my bets...

1\. GoPro-camera viral ad... 20% 2\. funny joke... 10% 3\. this is real ...
70%

damn... the track record of incredible, but fake videos in the recent past
makes me feel skeptical, but I wish it was real

btw 0:57 the tracks on the grass.. look suspicious ;)

~~~
InclinedPlane
Ad: 90%, funny joke: 20%, real: 5%

Why does it add up to 115%? Because apparently basic physics is bullshit so
why not math?

------
ck2
This is obviously a spoof of art.

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.

------
ilaksh
I really wish this were real.

The only part that really ruins it for me is, where is the battery powering
the electric motors?

I mean, since I am ignorant about aerodynamics and a bunch of stuff, I can
suspend my disbelief about the wing actually providing enough lift, and
suppose that there exist incredibly powerful motors that could operate in that
way.

I would even like to believe that there is an ultrapowerful battery that would
be able to provide enough juice for these incredible motors. But where is it?

Man I hope Mythbusters does this one!

~~~
Too
He is just flying for 30 seconds, you don't need much battery for that.
500gram LiPo should have more than enough juice for that.

Look at your laptop battery, they are around 50Wh which should be able to
provide 2kW for almost 2 minutes, disregarding the maximum current it can pump
out.

This is what makes me doubt if it really is fake or not. "Why has nobody done
this before"? Because light weight power storage and motors has not been
available until now. But the videos smell CG so I'm still calling fake on this
one.

------
marshray
So I did a little poking around:

I can't find any reliable mention of Jarno Smeets on the web before May 2011.

His blog, his domain, his Twitter and YouTube accounts all seem to have
started about June of last year.

His Linkedin lists some plausible employment for a mechanical engineer, but
comparing his userid to mine, that account hasn't been around too long either.

The Biomechanics professor he interviews in the video seems legit:
<http://www.kalons.nl/otten/>
[http://www.rug.nl/corporate/nieuws/opinie/2011/opinie29_2011...](http://www.rug.nl/corporate/nieuws/opinie/2011/opinie29_2011?lang=en)
But the professor only speaks in general terms about the requirements for
flight and is never seen again in the building or the testing videos.

Perhaps someone could check his Facebook. Does FB say when he signed up for
that?

None of this is completely incriminating of course but sadly it does fit the
pattern of an ad agency project.

------
sj4nz
So, no one noticed the crushed grass in the shape of tire tracks along the
path of flight? Looks fake.

------
spoiledtechie
Skeptical. Camera angles coming from the helmet are different in two shots and
his head isn't moving at all. Stationary. You would think when flying, your
head would be moving slightly, but his is not.

I also see a bit of CGI in his legs when he is shown to be flapping in the
air.

Very Skeptical.

------
kenrikm
I call fake, if you watch his previous test video you can see it's
CG/Composited, they point the camera at the ground to swap clips with/without
the real man/wings.

This one seems to be much better however when he lifts his legs you can see
it's too smooth.

------
gregable
Agreed with others that it's probably fake, but there I disagree that it's
impossible. One of the slightly counter-intuitive things you learn when
becoming a pilot is that you take off into the wind rather than with a
tailwind. The wings don't care what your ground speed is when creating lift,
they care about your airspeed. Given a big enough "kite" and a nice headwind
and of course you can do this. Kitesurfers, kiteboarders, and hangliders do
this all the time. The flapping may or may not assist, but it's certainly not
doing the brunt of the work.

------
lemonman
I initially thought it was real but after all the negative posts I have looked
at the video closely. The GoPro camera take of the landing is what gives it
away. Note how low the camera goes next to the ground, while we see the pilot
always standing as he lands it. The flight was probably filmed with an RC and
that is why see the camera go so low as it lands. But whether this is fake or
not, it's irrelevant. This is a great idea and with the proper brains behind
it, one should be able to make it work.

------
obilgic
I am sorry if someone already pointed that out but i just realized how fake
this is. Watch that video. <http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tKFOcHyrI> while guy
is about to take off(1:49), everyone including cameraman runs for some reason
and we can not see the guy with the wings for a second. Then when we see the
guy again and there is a black squaure box next to big s logo this time. You
can see that video is edited at 1:52

------
angersock
Hey, for all you people that are pulling things out from their collective
asses, at least criticize from the damned website and press release:

<http://www.humanbirdwings.net/press/>

Closeup of backpack here:

[http://www.humanbirdwings.net/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/IMG...](http://www.humanbirdwings.net/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/IMG_3954.jpg)

~~~
ilaksh
So maybe the white blocks wrapped in blue are batteries?

But now I don't see any motors.

~~~
angersock
Just above the blue batteries you'll see two little walky-talkie looking
things. Those are motor controllers (note the thick wires coming off of them).
Those are mounted on a plate. The motors are farther up, under the plate.

~~~
ilaksh
OK.. great..

Now I have a new problem. Someone else mentioned this: watch how the leaves on
the ground change at 1:50 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tKFOcHyrI>

~~~
angersock
The thing you should also be complaining about is the sudden appearance of a
black square on the wing.

I think our friend may have damaged the wing, patched it, and the cut there is
them trying to edit out a fuckup launch attempt.

------
steve-howard
Hope he doesn't fly too high, lest they melt.

------
heeton
Well, no, it's quite obviously fake... Does no-one else see that?

(Not for any logical reasons, but the video just _looks_ fake!)

------
obilgic
What is that trace we see on the grass?(1:00) Looks like they us some type of
vehicle to pull the helmet-camera up

~~~
marshray
I noticed that track too but didn't put that together. So maybe that was a 2nd
take with the track left from the first take?

------
savrajsingh
Isn't it a little early for April fools?

------
andrewfelix
Here is a less polished version of the thing 'flying':
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tKFOcHyrI&feature=relmf...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tKFOcHyrI&feature=relmfu)
Skip to 1.45 and tell me that is not CGI.

------
damian2000
Has anyone pointed out that wind direction makes a hell of a lot of difference
to this - if he was running into a strong headwind I'd say this is almost
possible. Ever try holding onto a big kite like that in a strong wind?

------
damian2000
Its real guys: Jamie Hyneman (Mythbusters) says so ...
[http://www.tested.com/articles/43440-thoughts-on-the-
mechani...](http://www.tested.com/articles/43440-thoughts-on-the-mechanics-of-
assisted-human-flight/)

;-)

------
cmfoster
And when will this be on kickstarter so i can donate for a promised set in
return?

------
morrow
It's quite obviously fake -- given that we are 11 days from April Fools, it's
probably either an April Fools joke discovered prematurely, or set-up for a
bigger one. Maybe something similar to the tale of icarus.

------
chj
Incredible! They should try another flight to address people's doubts.

------
joss82
For me, the biggest red flag was "done in 8 months time". Nice CG though, and
additional points for flying a RC plane with a camera on it on the path of the
bird.

------
fjabre
If it's fake then you have to admit this guy can act. That was quite the
performance especially when he's describing how it felt to fly for the first
time.

------
mahmud
Earlier attempt with same tech (ca 800s AD)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbas_Ibn_Firnas>

------
bennyfreshness
This is absurd (and I can't believe its at the top of hacker news).

The article insinuates this is human powered flight.

Any realistic attempt at a solely human powered flying machine would utilize
leg power, not arms which pale in comparison in terms of power output.

Also seems a bit fishy a buzzing sound, much like that of an engine, starts
the same time as the wing flapping.

Interesting engineering feat but definitely not the holy grail of man powered
flight. This is Turnigy powered flight, big deal.

"The design is based on mechanics used in robotic prosthetics."

~~~
peeters
Where does it "insinuate this is human powered flight"? The article is quite
up-front about the fact that human power would fall 95% short and that in
reality the arms were only being used as controls, not for power.

------
lopatin
I would pay so much for one of these

------
XLcommerce
painfully fake. i'm surprised that there is even any discussion as the whether
it is fake. putting aside the breaking of the laws of physics the actual cgi
shots are c-grade at best. Look a the linked wired video between 0:35 - 0:40
the cgi is laughable.

------
joelackner
incredible. i never really thought how jarring and jerky flapping wings would
be...

~~~
mrhlee
i can't wait for the fine-tuning and improvements to the wing design and
mechanical assistance system to reach flying finesse. with all respect though,
he really looks like a giant bird taking off and then gliding. on another
note, it'd be so cool to watch human flying sports to spawn from this à la
track or polo.

------
karussell
Come on guys. Just believe it ;) it would be so superb ... I believe I can fly
...

------
robertwithtea
obviously faked ... but i hope i'm wrong!! at least thanks for the short
moment before i started doubting :-)!

------
pitchups
Since all the videos are numbered n of 14 - how did he know _in advance_ that
he would need exactly 14 videos for documenting his flight?

~~~
Jach
You can edit video titles...

~~~
baddox
... or wait and upload them all in a batch.

~~~
pitchups
They were not uploaded in a batch - the first of the 14 videos was uploaded on
Aug 5, 2011 [1]

So either a) he planned to make only 14 videos in advance - culminating in the
flight video OR b) he went back and edited all of the titles.

So I checked the cached version of the previous videos - and it does appear
that it is (b) - he edited all the titles adding the 14 after the fact.

[1]
[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cocLpRzZnvk&feature=chann...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cocLpRzZnvk&feature=channel)]

------
e03179
Where was the camera operator at 0:35?

~~~
IanDrake
Good thought, but there is actually someone standing in that vantage point.
You can see him off to the right in the footage leading up to that.

I'd be amazed if this is real, because it would be far easier to fake than to
really pull off.

------
poppin3k
this has got to be a thinkmodo campaign for the sail brand used for the wings
in the ad.

------
ookblah
a lot of people in the wired comments are posting about how it's fake... huh?

------
epaik
Wow.

This makes me wonder what Leonardo da Vinci could've accomplished given some
base robotics technology to work off of.

------
ericb
An April 1st reveal, anyone?

------
shaun_gulling
Hey did you guys see the video of the guy flying on YouTube?

------
saturn
This video is fake, that has been established beyond doubt. But CGI, even
"prosumer" CGI like this, is really getting better. Even at this level, people
are relying on "hints" that a CGI transition has taken place - camera looks
away, is obscured, or the picture is blurry.

Give it a couple of years and those distracting-from-transition tricks
probably won't be necessary any more. Then what?

~~~
moultano
"If the US could create Avatar, it could fake 9/11"
[http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/if-us-could-create-
avata...](http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/if-us-could-create-avatar-it-
could-fake-911-attacks-mahathir/354031)

Probably, we won't believe anything.

~~~
nsns
Could be great material for Mike Daisy's next show.

------
jsprinkles
I'm skeptical. Am I the only one that noticed what appeared to be the plethora
of CGI in the video?

~~~
papalalu
it's definitely fake - check the previous video
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tKFOcHyrI&t=1m30s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tKFOcHyrI&t=1m30s)

~~~
InclinedPlane
Sooooo fakity fakely fake!

It's oh so convenient that the cameraman "happens" to look down and the camera
happens to blur (what is it refocusing on?) between the time when the wings
are resting on the ground and when they are picked up and ready for the test
flight. Then the camera is conveniently moving and keeping things just a tad
blurry while the wings start up. If you compare the appearance of the wings
before and after the cut you'll notice some slight differences.

You tell me, does this look real or fake? <http://i.imgur.com/YtPMI.png>

~~~
twelvechairs
Definitely fake as there is a black square on the right wing in the later
(CGI, after the camera has looked up again) images that doesn't exist in the
earlier (real) footage. You can clearly see this in the video and your
screengrab.

From the video it is also obvious that there is no way someone could have
stuck that there in the time it took for the camera to turn away and back
again.

~~~
marshray
Not saying it isn't fake, but the black squares look like silhouettes of some
structure underneath. It could easily change as the fabric moves.

------
kromped
Believe it or not.

------
morton_hu
awesome！！

------
jeremyrwelch
to infinity and beyond

