[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.

[angersock]

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.

[achille]

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 "forget" the exact details of the wing. But when you put them next to each other, it's a dead giveaway.

[marshray]

What are the damning parts specifically?

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.

[kwamenum86]

I was looking at that video too and thinking it doesn't look or feel natural. It's a good trick and actually a good demo. I think the physics are kind of off in the final video though.

[chubot]

What's off about your screenshots? It looks pretty consistent to me, e.g. the shadows and the marking of the wings.

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.

[aquarin]

1) Missing square element in real footage. 2) What bothers me more is that shadow properties are not consistent. In CGI it is more diffuse and changes properties like if the Sun is positioned 10m above.

[lwat]

Here's the 'missing' bit on the wing: http://imgur.com/PlEI7

[angersock]

It could be the camera being wonky, legitimate post-production work, auto gain adjustment, etc.

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.

[andrewfelix]

That project timeline raises even more red flags. Prelim sketches to build in little over a month?