Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Being brutally penetrated by a large-dicked man without a condom, while being roughly anally abused with a dildo.被大粗屌男人無套猛乾用假陽具虐肛 完整版👇🏻full movie (21:21min)

182,427 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

The female CEO has arrived. 😎👑 Should her butler walk away with the Doberman, or stay? (I simply upload a #seedance2 script, and let NemoVideo bring my story to life! ✨🎥) script below 🌹🏵️🪷 45秒垂直短劇,9:16,電影感,18世紀法國凡爾賽宮古風,電影級光影。 場景: 18世紀法國凡爾賽宮奢華公主寢宮,月光透過高大落地窗灑入,室內以金色與深紅色為主,華麗水晶燈、紅色天鵝絨沙發、精美壁畫,充滿貴氣與浪漫氛圍。 角色: 男管家 Image :35歲左右,高大寬肩,英俊穩重,穿黑色西裝外套、黑色內襯小背心、白襯衫、黑色領結、貼身黑西裝長褲、白手套,左手腕掛著白毛巾,右手拿銀色餐盤(盤上有水晶玻璃紅酒瓶與兩杯紅酒)。 法國公主 image2 :22歲,金色華麗長捲髮、湛藍眼眸、表情高傲美艷,穿金色華麗蕾絲花紋露肩禮服,手拿有金色垂墜與金色蕾絲裝飾的扇子。 風格: 電影級打光,淺景深,18世紀法國宮廷奢華質感,暖金與冷藍月光對比,極致細節,浪漫中帶張力。 第一段(0-15秒): 0-2s:凡爾賽宮公主寢宮,月光灑落,公主慵懶地靠在奢華紅色長型沙發上。 2-4s:男管家端著銀色餐盤走進寢宮。 4-6s:公主不耐煩地用扇子輕敲沙發扶手,用英文說:"Why are you so late with my wine?" 6-8s:男管家低頭恭敬,用古典法文回應:"Pardonnez-moi, Votre Altesse." 8-10s:公主用扇子輕抬男管家的下巴,兩人眼神開始曖昧。 10-12s:男管家將紅酒倒入杯中,遞給公主。 12-15s:公主接過酒杯,深情地看著他。 15-17s:公主喝了一口紅酒,用英文說:"You're always late... Enjoy teasing me?" 17-19s:男管家靠近公主,用古典法文低聲說:"Seulement pour vous voir rougir, ma Princesse." 19-21s:公主輕笑,伸手拉住男管家的領結將他拉近。 21-23s:男管家眼神轉為強勢,俯身貼近公主。 23-25s:公主呼吸漸亂,用英文輕聲說:"You're being too bold tonight..." 25-27s:男管家用古典法文低語:"Vous me rendez fou..." 27-30s:兩人臉靠極近,正要親吻,氣氛極致浪漫。 30-32s:男管家彎腰深吻公主。 32-34s:他突然以公主抱的方式將公主從沙發抱起,走到沙發後的大床上。 34-36s:男管家將公主輕輕壓在床上,正要繼續親吻。 36-38s:兇惡的深灰色比特犬突然從被窩中竄出,一口咬住男管家的西裝外套。 38-40s:被男管家雙手按壓在床上的公主大聲對著比特犬用英文喝斥:"You bad dog, STOP!" 40-42s:男管家看著這一幕,忍不住低聲笑了出來。 42-45s:公主也跟著輕笑,兩人眼神交纏,氣氛浪漫又帶點搞笑,畫面定格。 (slight edit / capcut ) #sd2 #seedance #AIAnime #AIDrama #AIMovie #AIFilm #AIVideo

The Anxious Mind

16,339 次观看 • 2 个月前

OMG, what a loyal boyfriend 😭 This is AI. Modern AI tools already make it possible to create almost any realistic video with almost any story — if you know how to work with them. Here’s how I made this video pretty quickly with Seedance 2.5: 1. I found a funny video with a similar idea, fed around 10 frames from it into ChatGPT, and explained what was happening so it could understand the story. 2. I added my own prompt techniques for making the footage look more realistic, then worked with ChatGPT to build a 30-second prompt — with ZERO references. I’ll drop the full prompt below. not even hiding it in the comments for extra reach lol 3. I got an acceptable result on the third attempt, but there were still a few problems, so I fixed them: a) I edited one moment with an AI video editor. I used Aleph from Runway, although I’ll probably switch to another service soon. In the original generation, the woman didn’t open the towel, so I fixed that part. b) The guy entered the room incorrectly, so I took screenshots of him and the girls, used them as references in Seedance, and generated a couple of simple 5-second clips showing him running into the room and reacting in surprise. 4. I manually stitched everything together in CapCut. I also added a couple of transitions to hide small imperfections and a few sound effects (although that part isn’t really necessary). Done! :) Main scene prompt: ⬇️ Create a 30-second, ultra-realistic fast-paced comedy skit that looks like a genuine viral home video casually filmed on a smartphone. The footage should feel spontaneous and imperfect rather than professionally staged: natural handheld shake, slightly crooked framing, quick reactive pans, occasional autofocus hunting, realistic motion blur, minor exposure changes, ordinary daylight inside a real home, realistic skin texture, natural hair movement, and believable room acoustics. CHARACTERS WOMAN 1 — THE TOWEL WOMAN: An exceptionally beautiful 24-year-old platinum-blonde woman with long hair, a striking feminine face, expressive eyes, full lips, a slim waist, a very curvy figure, large full bust and rounded hips. She begins wrapped securely in a large white bath towel. WOMAN 2 — HIS GIRLFRIEND: A clearly different-looking beautiful 23-year-old brunette woman with long dark-brown hair, a different face and hairstyle, fitted casual black top and olive shorts, slim waist and curvy figure. MAN: A handsome young man with short dark hair, fitted black T-shirt, gray pants and a simple chain necklace. Keep all three identities completely consistent. Woman 1 and Woman 2 must never look like the same person. LOCATION A bright modern suburban home during daytime: - open kitchen / living area - front door close to the kitchen - driveway immediately outside - parked car very close to the entrance ACTION / TIMING 00:00–00:04 — THE SURPRISE Start immediately inside the kitchen. Woman 1 stands wrapped in the white towel, holding it closed naturally against her chest. The front door opens and the man walks inside. She notices him, gives him a mischievous smile and a small friendly wave. He stops, surprised and immediately distracted by her. No shopping bag or unnecessary props. 00:04–00:07 — THE REVEAL Woman 1 gives him a playful look and briefly opens the FRONT of the towel toward HIM. IMPORTANT CAMERA RULE: During the entire towel-opening moment, the camera moves BEHIND Woman 1 and stays behind her. The viewer sees only: - her bare upper back - shoulders - long hair - the towel opening away from the camera The camera NEVER sees her breasts, nipples, genitals or frontal nudity. The MAN is visible beyond her, facing her. His eyes go wide in stunned disbelief. He suddenly turns and bolts out of the house. 00:07–00:12 — THE CAR Fast handheld cut to the driveway. The man runs directly to his parked car. He opens the car, leans across to the dashboard and opens the GLOVE COMPARTMENT. He searches quickly and finds ONE small unopened condom packet. Close-up: the packet is clearly visible in his hand. His expression changes to excited relief. He immediately runs back toward the house holding the same packet. 00:12–00:17 — TOO LATE Cut back inside the kitchen. While he was outside, HIS GIRLFRIEND has arrived. Woman 1 is now fully wrapped in the SAME white towel again. The girlfriend and Woman 1 are already standing together talking. The man rushes back through the front door holding the unopened condom packet. He sees his girlfriend standing beside Woman 1. He instantly freezes. The girlfriend turns toward him. 00:17–00:21 — HIDE THE EVIDENCE The man looks down and realizes the condom packet is still clearly visible in his hand. In immediate panic, he quickly stuffs the unopened packet completely into his mouth and visibly swallows it to make the evidence disappear. His eyes remain wide while he tries to act completely innocent. Woman 1 notices exactly what he did and suppresses an amused smile. The girlfriend does not notice the packet. 00:21–00:27 — THE MISUNDERSTANDING The girlfriend happily walks toward him and says: “She told me you turned her down. You’re such a good boyfriend!” Now the reason for her praise is completely clear: Woman 1 has already told the girlfriend that the man rejected her. The girlfriend enthusiastically jumps into his arms and wraps her arms and legs around him. He catches her and hugs her back awkwardly. She is genuinely proud and affectionate. He forces an innocent smile while still looking slightly devastated by the situation. 00:27–00:30 — FINAL PUNCHLINE While holding his happy girlfriend, the man slowly looks over her shoulder toward Woman 1. He gives Woman 1 a tiny regretful look. Woman 1 immediately understands. Still wrapped in her towel, she gives him a knowing smirk and a small playful goodbye wave. He watches her with disappointment while his girlfriend continues hugging him happily. End on his awkward expression. CAMERA / EDITING Fast viral-sketch pacing with frequent natural handheld cuts every 1–3 seconds: - medium kitchen shots - close facial reactions - over-the-shoulder towel reveal - quick running shot outside - glove-compartment close-up - doorway reaction - condom-packet close-up - girlfriend hug - final exchanged look The footage should feel like a casually edited real home video, not a movie. LIGHTING / REALISM Bright natural daytime household lighting. Window daylight mixed with ordinary indoor fixtures. Realistic skin pores, individual hairs, subtle facial redness, natural shadows, ordinary fabric textures and imperfect smartphone exposure. No glossy AI skin. No beauty-filter look. No dramatic glamour lighting. No cinematic color grading. AUDIO Natural synchronized English dialogue and household ambience. Only one important spoken line is required: Girlfriend: “She told me you turned her down. You’re such a good boyfriend!” Natural footsteps, front-door sounds, car-door sound, glove-compartment click, fabric movement and room ambience. No narration. No subtitles. No music. CONTINUITY / HARD RULES - Woman 1 begins in the white towel and is back in the SAME towel when the man returns. - The towel reveal is seen ONLY FROM BEHIND Woman 1. - No frontal nudity is visible. - The man runs specifically to the parked car. - He retrieves ONE unopened condom packet specifically from the GLOVE COMPARTMENT. - He returns holding that exact same packet. - His girlfriend is already inside talking to Woman 1 when he returns. - The girlfriend knows what happened because Woman 1 has already told her he rejected the offer. - The man panics and swallows the packet before his girlfriend notices it. - The girlfriend praises him because she genuinely believes he rejected Woman 1. - The girlfriend jumps into his arms and hugs him. - The final punchline is the regretful look between the man and Woman 1. - Woman 1 ends by giving him a small knowing goodbye wave. - No extra characters. - No duplicated women. - No random dialogue. - No disconnected actions. #AIVideo
0:29

Sensitive content

OMG, what a loyal boyfriend 😭 This is AI. Modern AI tools already make it possible to create almost any realistic video with almost any story — if you know how to work with them. Here’s how I made this video pretty quickly with Seedance 2.5: 1. I found a funny video with a similar idea, fed around 10 frames from it into ChatGPT, and explained what was happening so it could understand the story. 2. I added my own prompt techniques for making the footage look more realistic, then worked with ChatGPT to build a 30-second prompt — with ZERO references. I’ll drop the full prompt below. not even hiding it in the comments for extra reach lol 3. I got an acceptable result on the third attempt, but there were still a few problems, so I fixed them: a) I edited one moment with an AI video editor. I used Aleph from Runway, although I’ll probably switch to another service soon. In the original generation, the woman didn’t open the towel, so I fixed that part. b) The guy entered the room incorrectly, so I took screenshots of him and the girls, used them as references in Seedance, and generated a couple of simple 5-second clips showing him running into the room and reacting in surprise. 4. I manually stitched everything together in CapCut. I also added a couple of transitions to hide small imperfections and a few sound effects (although that part isn’t really necessary). Done! :) Main scene prompt: ⬇️ Create a 30-second, ultra-realistic fast-paced comedy skit that looks like a genuine viral home video casually filmed on a smartphone. The footage should feel spontaneous and imperfect rather than professionally staged: natural handheld shake, slightly crooked framing, quick reactive pans, occasional autofocus hunting, realistic motion blur, minor exposure changes, ordinary daylight inside a real home, realistic skin texture, natural hair movement, and believable room acoustics. CHARACTERS WOMAN 1 — THE TOWEL WOMAN: An exceptionally beautiful 24-year-old platinum-blonde woman with long hair, a striking feminine face, expressive eyes, full lips, a slim waist, a very curvy figure, large full bust and rounded hips. She begins wrapped securely in a large white bath towel. WOMAN 2 — HIS GIRLFRIEND: A clearly different-looking beautiful 23-year-old brunette woman with long dark-brown hair, a different face and hairstyle, fitted casual black top and olive shorts, slim waist and curvy figure. MAN: A handsome young man with short dark hair, fitted black T-shirt, gray pants and a simple chain necklace. Keep all three identities completely consistent. Woman 1 and Woman 2 must never look like the same person. LOCATION A bright modern suburban home during daytime: - open kitchen / living area - front door close to the kitchen - driveway immediately outside - parked car very close to the entrance ACTION / TIMING 00:00–00:04 — THE SURPRISE Start immediately inside the kitchen. Woman 1 stands wrapped in the white towel, holding it closed naturally against her chest. The front door opens and the man walks inside. She notices him, gives him a mischievous smile and a small friendly wave. He stops, surprised and immediately distracted by her. No shopping bag or unnecessary props. 00:04–00:07 — THE REVEAL Woman 1 gives him a playful look and briefly opens the FRONT of the towel toward HIM. IMPORTANT CAMERA RULE: During the entire towel-opening moment, the camera moves BEHIND Woman 1 and stays behind her. The viewer sees only: - her bare upper back - shoulders - long hair - the towel opening away from the camera The camera NEVER sees her breasts, nipples, genitals or frontal nudity. The MAN is visible beyond her, facing her. His eyes go wide in stunned disbelief. He suddenly turns and bolts out of the house. 00:07–00:12 — THE CAR Fast handheld cut to the driveway. The man runs directly to his parked car. He opens the car, leans across to the dashboard and opens the GLOVE COMPARTMENT. He searches quickly and finds ONE small unopened condom packet. Close-up: the packet is clearly visible in his hand. His expression changes to excited relief. He immediately runs back toward the house holding the same packet. 00:12–00:17 — TOO LATE Cut back inside the kitchen. While he was outside, HIS GIRLFRIEND has arrived. Woman 1 is now fully wrapped in the SAME white towel again. The girlfriend and Woman 1 are already standing together talking. The man rushes back through the front door holding the unopened condom packet. He sees his girlfriend standing beside Woman 1. He instantly freezes. The girlfriend turns toward him. 00:17–00:21 — HIDE THE EVIDENCE The man looks down and realizes the condom packet is still clearly visible in his hand. In immediate panic, he quickly stuffs the unopened packet completely into his mouth and visibly swallows it to make the evidence disappear. His eyes remain wide while he tries to act completely innocent. Woman 1 notices exactly what he did and suppresses an amused smile. The girlfriend does not notice the packet. 00:21–00:27 — THE MISUNDERSTANDING The girlfriend happily walks toward him and says: “She told me you turned her down. You’re such a good boyfriend!” Now the reason for her praise is completely clear: Woman 1 has already told the girlfriend that the man rejected her. The girlfriend enthusiastically jumps into his arms and wraps her arms and legs around him. He catches her and hugs her back awkwardly. She is genuinely proud and affectionate. He forces an innocent smile while still looking slightly devastated by the situation. 00:27–00:30 — FINAL PUNCHLINE While holding his happy girlfriend, the man slowly looks over her shoulder toward Woman 1. He gives Woman 1 a tiny regretful look. Woman 1 immediately understands. Still wrapped in her towel, she gives him a knowing smirk and a small playful goodbye wave. He watches her with disappointment while his girlfriend continues hugging him happily. End on his awkward expression. CAMERA / EDITING Fast viral-sketch pacing with frequent natural handheld cuts every 1–3 seconds: - medium kitchen shots - close facial reactions - over-the-shoulder towel reveal - quick running shot outside - glove-compartment close-up - doorway reaction - condom-packet close-up - girlfriend hug - final exchanged look The footage should feel like a casually edited real home video, not a movie. LIGHTING / REALISM Bright natural daytime household lighting. Window daylight mixed with ordinary indoor fixtures. Realistic skin pores, individual hairs, subtle facial redness, natural shadows, ordinary fabric textures and imperfect smartphone exposure. No glossy AI skin. No beauty-filter look. No dramatic glamour lighting. No cinematic color grading. AUDIO Natural synchronized English dialogue and household ambience. Only one important spoken line is required: Girlfriend: “She told me you turned her down. You’re such a good boyfriend!” Natural footsteps, front-door sounds, car-door sound, glove-compartment click, fabric movement and room ambience. No narration. No subtitles. No music. CONTINUITY / HARD RULES - Woman 1 begins in the white towel and is back in the SAME towel when the man returns. - The towel reveal is seen ONLY FROM BEHIND Woman 1. - No frontal nudity is visible. - The man runs specifically to the parked car. - He retrieves ONE unopened condom packet specifically from the GLOVE COMPARTMENT. - He returns holding that exact same packet. - His girlfriend is already inside talking to Woman 1 when he returns. - The girlfriend knows what happened because Woman 1 has already told her he rejected the offer. - The man panics and swallows the packet before his girlfriend notices it. - The girlfriend praises him because she genuinely believes he rejected Woman 1. - The girlfriend jumps into his arms and hugs him. - The final punchline is the regretful look between the man and Woman 1. - Woman 1 ends by giving him a small knowing goodbye wave. - No extra characters. - No duplicated women. - No random dialogue. - No disconnected actions. #AIVideo

Alpha Mom

599,196 次观看 • 19 天前

我在西班牙馬德里尋找流浪街頭的殘疾人 #凌華湛(Ling Huazhan) 5月18日至22日,我專程前往馬德里尋找一位名叫凌華湛的中國青年。他因擔心被遣返回中國而被壞人精神控制,後來流落街頭,身體殘疾(據聞截肢),目前在馬德里街頭乞討維生。 我一到 #馬德里 就直奔 #Usera 華人區(他最後網絡上出現的地方),之後又在 #SolPlaza(太陽廣場)附近騎單車、走遍地鐵站和街道,四處打聽。一位當地華人女士告訴我,她曾在Sol Plaza見過他。雖然這幾天我沒有找到他,但相信他還在馬德里某個角落。 凌華湛的故事令人心痛:他曾勇敢發聲,卻因此付出沉重代價。如果你在馬德里或西班牙,看到一位年輕的亞洲男子、行動不便、可能使用輪椅或拐杖,請聯繫我! 幫忙轉發、分享這個影片,讓更多人知道他的故事,一起幫助找到他。任何線索都可能改變一個人的生命! 電郵:[email protected] 手機:+31 684585093 Searching for Disabled Homeless Chinese Youth Ling Huazhan (凌華湛) in Madrid, Spain From May 18 to 22, I went specially to Madrid to look for a young Chinese man named Ling Huazhan. Due to his fear of being deported back to China, he was mentally controlled by bad people, which led him to end up homeless on the streets. He is now disabled (reportedly after amputation) and survives by begging in Madrid. As soon as I arrived in Madrid, I headed straight to the Chinese community in Usera (where he last appeared online). Afterwards, I rode a bike around Sol Plaza (Puerta del Sol), walked through metro stations and streets, and asked everywhere for information. A local Chinese lady told me she had seen him at Sol Plaza. Although I didn’t find him during these few days, I believe he is still somewhere in Madrid. Ling Huazhan’s story is heartbreaking: he once bravely spoke out, only to pay a heavy price for it. If you are in Madrid or anywhere in Spain and see a young Asian man with mobility difficulties, possibly using a wheelchair or crutches, please contact me! Please help forward and share this video so more people know his story and can join in the search to find him. Any clue could change a person’s life! Email:[email protected] Mobile number:+31 684585093 Spaans: Buscando a Ling Huazhan (凌華湛), joven chino discapacitado sin hogar en las calles de Madrid, España Del 18 al 22 de mayo, viajé especialmente a Madrid para buscar a un joven chino llamado Ling Huazhan. Debido a su miedo a ser deportado de vuelta a China, fue controlado mentalmente por personas malas, lo que lo llevó a quedar sin hogar en las calles. Ahora está discapacitado (según se dice, tras una amputación) y sobrevive mendigando en Madrid. Nada más llegar a Madrid, me dirigí directamente al barrio chino de Usera (donde apareció por última vez en internet). Después, recorrí en bicicleta los alrededores de la Plaza del Sol, caminé por estaciones de metro y calles, preguntando en todas partes. Una señora china local me dijo que lo había visto en Sol Plaza. Aunque no lo encontré estos días, creo que todavía está en algún rincón de Madrid. La historia de Ling Huazhan es desgarradora: una vez habló con valentía, pero pagó un precio muy alto por ello. Si estás en Madrid o en cualquier parte de España y ves a un joven asiático con dificultades para moverse, posiblemente en silla de ruedas o muletas, ¡por favor contáctame! Por favor, ayuda a reenviar y compartir este vídeo para que más gente conozca su historia y se una a la búsqueda. ¡Cualquier pista podría cambiar una vida! Email:[email protected] Mobile number:+31 684585093

林生亮5.0 James Lin尋找八九離散群體

10,894 次观看 • 4 个月前

这是冰川王子王湘军很正能量的男孩在旅游的时候拍到位于西藏和尼泊尔边境地区发现大量身份证还拍到直升飞机上吊着人,还拍到从西藏到尼泊尔的地道运送中国失踪青少年的,还拍到日满犹在搞冰川融化的热能棒,在冰川里还有融化的机器,它们要释放史前病毒让海平面上升,灭绝人类,最后王湘军被它们灭了放在展览馆,为大家认识到这群邪恶打响第一枪,现在国内都在普及,更多人转发,让这些人阴谋暴露给外国人看This is Wang Xiangjun, the “Glacier Prince,” a very positive and energetic young man. While traveling, he filmed what he discovered in the border area between Tibet and Nepal: large quantities of identity cards. He also filmed people hanging from helicopters, and he filmed underground tunnels being used to transport Chinese teenagers who had gone missing from Tibet to Nepal. He also filmed Riman You working on thermal-energy rods for melting glaciers. There were also machines in the glaciers that were melting them. They were supposedly going to release prehistoric viruses, causing sea levels to rise and wiping out humanity. In the end, Wang Xiangjun was killed by them and put on display in an exhibition hall, firing the first shot to help everyone recognize this evil group. Now this is being widely circulated in China, with more people reposting it so that these people’s conspiracy can be exposed to foreigners.

Limu

53,249 次观看 • 13 天前

🚨BREAKING🚨: There are reports of cell phone footage inside the US government of black triangle UFOs, filmed from under a hundred feet away. Footage clear enough to end the debate about evidence overnight. The whistleblower saying so stood beneath one himself, and his conclusion under oath is that the craft was not human made and not ours. Dylan Borland (Dylan Borland) was an Air Force geospatial intelligence analyst whose literal job was identifying aircraft from sensor data; one morning at Langley Air Force Base he watched a hundred-foot black triangle hover silently over him, its hull wrapped in a golden transparent plasma that moved like a lava lamp. The air filled with static and the smell of a lightning storm, his phone overheated in his pocket, and the craft shot from a hover to thirty thousand feet in roughly two seconds. The man trained to identify anything in the sky could not identify it. AARO, the Pentagon's own UFO office, gave the game away. It logged his sighting as unclassified while burying everything else he described inside a special access program, and that's the tell: a secret American aircraft would have made the sighting itself classified, and they didn't classify it. The craft was never ours. Borland says the same office then falsified his file, sending the intelligence community's top oversight body a report he never signed, the basis for a treason accusation that carries the death penalty. After Dylan's sightings, while working at BAE systems (often-mentioned as one of the inheritors of non-human technology in books like Imminent), Dylan came into contact with personnel cleared to a broader legacy UFO program. And from there, he went on an intensive search: combing through all material he could about UFOs, non-human intelligence and programs related to both. Then came the reprisals: his clearance was strangled through paperwork tricks; a VA program strapped him to a polygraph while air horns blasted every time he miscounted backward from a hundred. Borland says they have other ways of making you doubt your own mind, from government documents describing the ability to implant false memories without drugs to a VA doctor who quietly admitted to him she was CIA. At the center of it is Project Rubik's Cube, a program Borland is legally barred from even acknowledging. Involved in the program is an apparent "pyramid-shaped power source" of non-human origin, apparently more sensitive than the UFO craft itself. Langley's most secret airspace has been penetrated at will before Borland's sighting. For seventeen straight nights in late 2023, swarms of drones nobody could identify flew over the base while the Pentagon publicly admitted it had no idea what they were and no way to stop them. Borland, who was working counter-WMD intelligence at the time, says the swarms weren't wandering, they made straight for the two most sensitive targets on the base: the hangars holding the Air Force's stealth fighters, and the NASA facilities next door. The cover-up is still running. For years, employees at NASA's Langley facilities had tagged photos of labyrinths and hieroglyph-like markings on Google Maps, and one by one those images are being scrubbed off the internet. What Borland walked away believing is bigger than any single UFO sighting: that our own government no longer thinks humans are the ones in charge. Full conversation live now. Big thanks to the legends Jeremy Corbell (Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell) and George Knapp (George Knapp) for breaking this story.

Jesse Michels

408,213 次观看 • 1 个月前

NATO's defense planning is not keeping up with the Russian threat. The problem is that NATO is mainly building forces for a possible future war, while Russia is already waging one in the present. This is where the Alliance's weak points show up: slow decision-making, blurred authorities, an expensive interception model, lengthy procurement processes, and slow responses to the adversary's new tactics. Russian violations of NATO airspace have already become a regular tool of pressure and a way to test the Alliance's response system. On 10 September 2025, Poland recorded 19 entries by Russian drones into its airspace and invoked Article 4, after which NATO launched Eastern Sentry; on 19 September, three Russian MiG-31s remained in Estonian airspace for more than ten minutes. In 2026, incidents continued in Poland, Germany, Romania and the Baltics. NATO is still responding with one-off actions to a systemic and regular provocation. It needs to shift to a permanent regime: pre-agreed rules of engagement, a joint command chain, a common air picture, and the authority to rapidly destroy military unmanned aerial vehicles without a separate political decision. The system must also distinguish real threats from false signals much better and rely on cheap interception means - electronic warfare, guns, SHORAD and interceptor drones costing around $15,000, and in the longer term $2-5,000 - while reserving expensive Patriot, SAMP/T and fighter aircraft for more complex targets. Simply intercepting drones is not enough. Russia must be punished - every confirmed deliberate incident should automatically trigger a pre-agreed package of consequences: additional sanctions, new restrictions on the shadow fleet, reinforcement of air defenses on the eastern flank, a greater military presence, or extra assistance to Ukraine. If NATO remains only in interception mode, Russia will not stop. Russia deliberately operates precisely in this grey-zone interval. On 14 September 2026, a Russian frigate fired two flares in the direction of a Danish military helicopter in international waters. Denmark called the behavior dangerous and deliberate, but the incident did not create a political crisis of Article 5 level. For Moscow, such operations are cheap and useful: they reveal reaction times, rules of engagement, command behavior and the threshold beyond which allies are prepared to move from protest to a forceful response. Even a drone that destroyed nothing can successfully accomplish a military task. It can force the activation of a radar, the scrambling of fighters, the disclosure of an air-defense position, the closure of an airport, the testing of a command algorithm, or reveal exactly who has the authority to authorize engagement. In July 2026, the IISS assessed it as highly likely that Russia had conducted a coordinated campaign of 144 UAV incidents across roughly a dozen European countries between August 2024 and February 2026. NATO still does not dare to treat such actions as a single campaign and breaks them down into separate legal and administrative cases. Russia, by contrast, plans all of this centrally as one operation. NATO's legal framework is also being rebuilt only after the threat has become permanent. Romania only in 2025 adopted Law No. 73/2025, which explicitly allows the destruction of unmanned aerial vehicles that illegally use its airspace. In July 2026, Baltic Air Policing had to be converted into Baltic Air Defence, expanding the mission from identification and escort to threat neutralization. This is a reaction, not anticipatory planning. The economics of interception remains one of the weakest points of European defense. A cheap Russian Geran or Gerbera drone can force the scramble of a fighter or the use of a missile that costs many times more than the target itself. This can be accepted and tolerable with isolated incidents. With dozens and hundreds of targets, such a model exhausts stocks faster than the adversary expends its own resources. That is why allies have started purchasing systems such as Merops with interceptors at roughly $15,000 each. Ukrainian experience already shows that even this price can be too high for a mass war, so the market is moving towards interceptors at $2–5,000. European air defense is still insufficiently adapted to a mass cheap aerial threat. For real resilience, a dense lower tier of cheap sensors, passive detection, electronic warfare, guns, interceptor drones and SHORAD is needed. Expensive medium- and long-range systems must be preserved for more complex targets - cruise and ballistic missiles, aircraft and high-speed strike systems. The summit in Ankara in 2026 showed that NATO has finally recognized this problem. Allies announced more than $40 billion in investments in counter-UAS over five years and a plan to roughly quintuple the number of trained drone operators by the end of 2027. These are large figures, but they also illustrate the scale of the lag. Speed remains the most serious structural gap. The NATO Defense Planning Process operates on four-year cycles, and short-term planning formally covers a period of up to six years. After capability targets are set, states still have to insert the money into budgets, conduct procurements, conclude contracts and wait for production. Russian drones, like Russian tactics, change within a few weeks. Drones are constantly being improved. In 2026, Russia increased the use of jet-powered strike drones from roughly 450 in June to almost 2,850 in August. This is a tempo that the classic European procurement system cannot match. European states are still trying to procure some rapidly evolving technologies through procedures created for large long-term programs. For a tank, a frigate or a fighter, lengthy certification is inevitable. For an FPV, an electronic-warfare system, software, an AI module, a cheap sensor or an interceptor drone, a multi-year cycle means the army may receive a system that is already obsolete. Ukraine has had to grant hundreds of military units the right to procure drones, EW, counter-UAS and communications equipment directly, shortening some procedures to months and weeks. NATO and European states need to do something similar. Despite the fact that modern war is a drone war, tanks have not lost their significance, and Russian military policy confirms this. According to internal documents of Uralvagonzavod analyzed by ISW, the enterprise plans to increase T-90 production by approximately 80% by 2028 relative to 2024. Russia learns quickly and simultaneously strengthens the protection of armored vehicles against FPVs, develops electronic warfare, drones, artillery and long-range strikes. It adapts old systems, embedding them into a battlefield denser with sensors, drones and electronic warfare. That is why the number of tanks, aircraft or ships is no longer a good enough indicator of real combat capability. A tank without drone reconnaissance, electronic warfare, counter-UAS, engineering support, protected communications, artillery and a repair system quickly becomes an easy target. A Patriot without a cheap lower air-defense tier risks expending expensive missiles on secondary targets. Military capability increasingly depends on whether the entire system works, not on the quantity of individual platforms. At sea, the same deficit has already appeared around undersea infrastructure and the shadow fleet. In 2025, NATO Task Force X-Baltic tested more than 70 aerial, surface and underwater unmanned systems. In 2026, eight allies decided to accelerate their procurement. The reason is that there are not enough ships to continuously control thousands of kilometers of cables, pipelines, ports and sea routes. What is needed is constant cheap surveillance, automatic anomaly detection and rapid response. The shadow fleet creates an even more serious problem for NATO, because Russia uses civilian infrastructure for military purposes. The IISS considers it probable that some Russia-linked commercial vessels are used as platforms for launching, recovering or supporting drones. Such vessels often sail under foreign flags, have opaque ownership and formally do not belong to the Russian military. NATO's industrial problem is even more serious than the technological one. In a long war, what matters is not how many systems are in stock on day one, but how many can be produced, repaired and replaced every month. Russia is converting its economy to a model of sustained military production and is simultaneously creating mass production of cheap systems. The official Russian target envisages approximately 130,000 large UAVs per year by 2030. Europe remains significantly stronger economically, but this advantage guarantees nothing if it is not translated into serial production of weapons, ammunition, sensors, interceptors and spare parts. The next two to three years therefore remain a dangerous transitional period. The European roadmap envisages initial capability of the European Drone Defence Initiative and Eastern Flank Watch by the end of 2026, full capability of EDDI by the end of 2027, and full functionality of Eastern Flank Watch only by the end of 2028. Russia is already conducting drone operations, jamming navigation, intensifying its military presence at sea and using civilian and semi-civilian channels for pressure. Moscow has at least two years during which it can continue testing a system that is still being rebuilt. 📹: NATO Steadfast Deterrence-2026 military exercises

Anton Gerashchenko

75,284 次观看 • 14 天前

GitHub 上有个开源项目 OpenGame:一句话 prompt,直接生成“能玩”的完整网页游戏工程——不是零散代码片段,而是自带游戏引擎、实时循环、跨文件状态管理的一整套项目结构。 GitHub: 官网: 论文: 项目出自港中大 MMLab,核心是 GameCoder-27B 模型 + Game Skill 框架。Game Skill 主要两把“硬核工具”: - Template Skill:把过往成功经验沉淀成项目骨架库,开局就站在成熟工程上 - Debug Skill:基于已验证的修复协议系统排错,解决的是集成层面的真实问题,而不是随手打语法补丁 它能生成的游戏类型跨度很大,比如: - 漫威复仇者横版动作:钢铁侠/雷神/绿巨人可选,三关推进,最终 Boss 灭霸 - 哈利波特回合制卡牌:答对数学题才能施法,连对触发“魔力共振” - 鱿鱼游戏红绿灯:机器人转头必须静止,否则直接淘汰 - 星战《曼达洛人》双摇杆射击 RPG - 喵星人塔防:用猫猫炮塔守住金枪鱼罐头阵地 安装后一句命令就能开造: opengame -p "Build a Snake clone with WASD controls and a dark theme." --yolo 生成完成,打开 index.html 立刻开玩。支持 OpenAI 兼容 API:既可接 GPT-4o,也能对接本地部署的 GameCoder-27B。 另外还有配套评估体系 OpenGame-Bench:用无头浏览器自动跑起来,再用 VLM 判定结果,从构建健康度、视觉可用性、意图对齐三条线衡量生成质量——不仅“能生成”,更要“能上线、能玩、像你想要的”。

Joruno

57,187 次观看 • 5 个月前

🚨: Montgomery Toms & Will Coleshill ASSAULTED, ATTACKED, AND ARRESTED DURING A UNIVERSITY DEBATE Full Statement: Yesterday, Montgomery Toms (Founder of Freedom Watch GB) visited the London College of Communication to publicly debate mass deportations, a position that is openly discussed and increasingly accepted in mainstream political discourse. During what had been a calm and orderly debate, a student came up behind Montgomery Toms and violently flipped the table. Cameras were broken, Montgomery was assaulted, and additional equipment was damaged. Will Coleshill, cameraman, editor, and friend of Freedom Watch GB, immediately stepped in to defend Monty and restrained the individual under a citizen’s arrest. This was lawful and justified. The individual had already assaulted Monty, damaged property, and posed a clear risk of further harm or fleeing before police arrived. All legal criteria for a citizen’s arrest were met. University lecturers, LCC security, and students then intervened aggressively, placing William in a chokehold, grabbing and hitting him, while the man who assaulted Monty was also kicking and biting him. This disrupted the citizen’s arrest and allowed the individual who assaulted Monty and damaged our equipment to walk free. Drinks were thrown at William by other LCC students, and he was further assaulted and grabbed, forcing Monty to intervene and pull off those restraining and attacking William. Monty called the police immediately after the citizens arrest took place. When officers arrived, they initially appeared supportive. That changed the moment they saw our banner, which read: “Britain Needs Mass Deportations.” From that point on, the situation shifted dramatically. William Coleshill was accused of assaulting the individual who had attacked Monty, despite the fact that he was lawfully restraining him while waiting for police that he asked to be called. It is our sincere belief that this sudden change in attitude by the Metropolitan Police was politically motivated. The footage does not fully capture this shift, but it was clear and unmistakable in person. William was then arrested following an altercation in which an officer aggressively shoved him after he understandably asked whether the man who assaulted both Monty and himself was going to be arrested. This was just after the Police had read and understood our political stance. While being detained, William reports hearing the leading officer say, “You brought this upon yourself.” Monty was also told by the same officer that he should not be surprised by the reaction, namely the assault, that took place along with another officer that claimed it is illegal to be offensive. The largest polling political party in the country, Reform UK, openly supports mass deportations of hundreds of thousands of migrants. This is a well accepted debate and should not warrant or risk physical attacks. The police were called because Monty was assaulted. Yet the individual who carried out the attack was not arrested. Instead, the man who lawfully intervened to protect him was detained. This is a clear abuse of power and reflects a politically motivated, two-tier approach to policing. We want thank William Coleshill for his immediate and selfless act of stepping in without hesitation to defend Monty. We will not be silenced with fear, and Montgomery Toms will continue to fight for freedom. We will not stop engaging in calm, open, and respectful debate. However, Freedom Watch GB needs your support. We are just getting started, and after these events, we believe we must take the necessary steps to fund paid security to mitigate further attacks, but we can't do that without your help. Please donate via the GoFundMe link in the thread below 👇🏻🙏🏻

Freedom Watch

1,811,859 次观看 • 8 个月前

Broadcaster Sonia Sodha says it’s “really dangerous” for the public to comment on police footage because we might form our own “armchair narrative” without the full context. That’s a remarkable take on the Cody Harper case. In the early hours of 21 June on Broad Street in Birmingham, 20-year-old Cody Harper was attacked by two men. Footage clearly shows one of them pushing him to the ground while the other tries to punch him in the back of the head as he lies there. Seconds later a female police officer shoves Harper into shop shutters. Still reacting to the assault he has just suffered, he swings an arm and catches her. He is immediately arrested and charged with assaulting an emergency worker. The two men who attacked him walk away. They later receive out-of-court disposals. Harper, the actual victim of the street assault, faces the prospect of a criminal record that would follow him for life. The only reason this did not become another quiet injustice is that a bystander filmed it and the video went viral. Public scrutiny forced the issue into the open. The CPS reviewed the same footage that had been available all along, concluded there was insufficient evidence that Harper knowingly assaulted the officer, and dropped the charge the day before he was due in court. Sodha says she is “very very uncomfortable with people looking at short clips on social media and claiming to know what’s going on.” When the official account does not match what people can see with their own eyes, the answer is more scrutiny, not less. The public did not invent a narrative. They watched the clip, saw clear injustice, and forced the system to correct itself. Without that video being shared, commented on, and widely called out as a blatant example of two-tier policing, the case against a young man who had just been beaten would almost certainly have proceeded. Justice was done only because ordinary people refused to stay silent. Her discomfort is not caution. It is an argument for the public to stay quiet and accept the official version without question. When the official version of events does not match what people can see with their own eyes, the remedy is more transparency and more scrutiny, not less. The public did not invent a narrative here. They watched the video, recognised what was happening, and forced the system to correct itself.

Skint Eastwood

13,266 次观看 • 2 个月前

The deadline just compressed from 10 days to 48 hours. And Iran just told you it will not comply. On February 19, Trump said 10 to 15 days. Five days later, the administration gave Iran a 48-hour window for a new nuclear proposal. That is not negotiation. That is a countdown being accelerated by someone who has already made the math work and is compressing the timeline to match the logistics. Iran International confirmed Sunday that Tehran has ruled out an interim deal and is keeping its military on full alert during diplomacy. Foreign Minister Araghchi says he sees "encouraging signals" while simultaneously reaffirming Iran will never accept zero enrichment, the only condition Washington says it will accept. Those two positions do not overlap. There is no Venn diagram. There is an unbridgeable impasse, the exact words Israeli officials used when briefing the Times of Israel. Now hold four things that happened in the same 48-hour window and ask yourself if they are coincidence. First. KAN, Israel's public broadcaster, reports a US-Israeli understanding has been finalized: Washington leads the initial strikes. If Iran retaliates against Israel, Jerusalem has immediate authorization to respond without waiting for American approval. You do not pre-delegate strike authority between two sovereign militaries for a bluff. That is a command-and-control architecture for a multi-front war with pre-authorized escalation ladders. Second. Trump told reporters any action would be "easily won" and promised Iran a "very bad day for Iran and its people" if no deal is reached. He then denied his own team is opposing strikes. When a president publicly denies internal opposition, the opposition is real and he has overruled it. Graham already confirmed the advisers are pleading. Trump is telling you he has heard them and chosen differently. Third. Iran conducted naval drills closing sections of the Strait of Hormuz. Not a statement. Not a threat. Physical vessels conducting physical operations in the 21-mile corridor through which 20 percent of the world's seaborne crude transits daily. Iran is not threatening to close the strait. Iran is practicing closing the strait. Fourth. The US Embassy in Beirut began evacuating personnel. Beirut. Not Baghdad. Not Doha. Beirut. Where Hezbollah, Iran's most capable proxy, sits with an estimated 150,000 rockets pointed at Israel. You evacuate Beirut when you expect the retaliatory chain to activate Lebanon, which means you expect the initial action to be significant enough to trigger the full proxy architecture. Gold hit $5,000. Not because of inflation. Not because of Fed policy. Because the smart money that moves bullion is pricing something the equity market has not yet processed. Bloomberg has modeled $108 oil if the Strait is disrupted. The Atlantic Council just published ten predictions for US strikes, not ten predictions for talks. NBC reports a new attack risks "large-scale retaliation." CSIS is mapping oil disruption scenarios. The Crisis Group, one of the most dovish institutions in international relations, titled their latest analysis "The US and Iran Can Still Avoid a War." Still. That word is doing all the work. Even the doves are framing the baseline as war. The market priced Brent at $71.76 on Friday. That price contains roughly $10 of Iran premium. Ten dollars. For a scenario where the deadline expires before the talks resume, the target has publicly rejected the only acceptable terms, the shooter has pre-delegated retaliatory authority to a nuclear-armed ally, the target's most capable proxy is being evacuated against, and the chokepoint controlling a fifth of global crude supply is being rehearsed for closure. Everyone is watching Geneva on Wednesday. The deadline runs out Tuesday. Iran has already said no. The military architecture is complete. The proxy contingency is activated. The embassy is emptying. The gold is screaming. The stage is not being set. The stage is set. The lights are on. The actors are in position. And the curtain does not wait for the audience to find their seats.

Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡

1,357,051 次观看 • 7 个月前

🚨 ALERT - ISLAMIZATION OF RED STATE ARKANSAS Taxpayer-funded Muslim Brotherhood operation is building a massive 10-acre Sharia campus in Little Rock - deliberately creating a separate Islamic society. As I’ve documented across the country, this is the Muslim Brotherhood’s “civilization jihad” strategy in action: building parallel Sharia societies that reject assimilation and create self-contained enclaves from cradle to grave - all subsidized by American taxpayers. Little Rock is now a frontline example. While hard-working Arkansans help foot the bill, the Islamic Center of Little Rock (ICLR) and its Huda Academy - Arkansas’s only full-time Islamic school- are constructing a sprawling new 10-acre West Little Rock campus. It includes a much larger school (expanding to high school), a full mosque, a banquet hall, a gym, athletic fields, and more. Construction is already underway. They paid $1.3 million cash for the land and have millions banked, plus interest-free Sharia loans. This is not innocent growth. It is strategic institution-building so future generations can live, learn, and raise their children with zero need to assimilate into America. 🔺 Taxpayers are funding it: In 2024-25 alone, 39 students (16% of enrollment) received Arkansas LEARNS vouchers- routing roughly $267,000 in public money straight to this school. This will open the floodgates. Once fully operational, it will pull in large numbers of Muslim families from failing blue states and accelerate the Islamization of a red state. 🔺 Muslim Brotherhood ties: The Center transferred properties early on to the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), a named unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial. It maintains deep links to ISNA, another unindicted co-conspirator tied to the same U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network. 🔺 Leadership: The current religious leader, Sheikh Emad Fadel, is an Egyptian native who earned his Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Ph.D. from Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Al-Azhar is the Vatican of Sunni Islam - the oldest, most prestigious, and most authoritative center of Sunni doctrine in the world. It trains imams globally, issues fatwas that shape Islamic practice (SHARIA), and remains a powerful institution steeped in classical supremacist ideology and historically linked to extremism and jihadist thought. Fadel previously served in Egypt’s Ministry of Endowments. Is he still connected to the Egyptian government in any way!? 🔺Non-assimilation agenda: Huda Academy’s own strategic plans emphasize building a “strong Islamic identity,” enforcing a Sharia-compliant environment (strict hijab during Quran and prayer), and long-term investment so “there is no way we can see a future for Islam in our community in America” without this parallel infrastructure. They train staff through ISNA-linked programs and send youth to events tied to the same networks. 🔺 Political cover: Little Rock Mayor Frank Scott Jr. has publicly celebrated with them, attended mass Eid prayers at War Memorial Stadium, and supported the expansion. This began decades ago with families praying in living rooms and borrowed church space. Our naïve “interfaith” kindness is being weaponized. It has evolved into deliberate institution-building: property transfers to Brotherhood-linked entities, fundraising at their conferences, youth programs pushing separation, and now a taxpayer-subsidized mega-campus. They openly brag about outgrowing their current site and planning for generations of children “tied to the Quran” in a distinctly Islamic environment - while collecting Arkansas education dollars. This is strategic civilizational expansion, not organic growth. Arkansas families deserve better than subsidizing parallel societies and ideological infrastructure tied to groups flagged in federal terrorism cases. READ FULL REPORT HERE:

Amy Mek

525,994 次观看 • 2 个月前

「わらわは何をしても許される。なぜなら、わらわは美しいからじゃ!」👑 23秒版本 「女帝水上穿越姿势挑战」第二弹 💃🌊 Seedance 2.5 × Pollo AI Prompt 🔽参考背景图放在评论区 👇👇👇 【参考图定义】 图片1=舞台、挑战平台、泳池、巨大面板装置及整体节目环境参考 图片2=指定姿势唯一参考 图片3=主人公唯一人物参考 准确分析三张参考图,并严格按照以下分工使用。 图片1|舞台与环境参考 图片1只负责: 夜间大型水上竞技舞台 长条高架挑战平台 蓝色泳池 巨大面板发射装置 钢结构灯架 大量现场观众 电视节目摄像设备 整体空间布局 夜间节目照明与水面反光 场景的时间、灯光、舞台颜色、结构比例、观众分布和现场氛围全部以图片1为最高视觉依据。 整体保持: 日本大型水上竞技综艺 × 夜间户外录制 × 蓝色泳池反光 × 高亮节目灯架 × 大量现场观众 × 真实电视转播现场。 图片2|指定姿势参考 图片2只负责: 主人公挑战时需要完成的核心倒立动作结构 巨大面板中央人形开孔的标准正向轮廓 指定姿势是: 三点支撑倒立横叉 Pose。 核心动作结构: 双掌稳定撑地 头部位于双手之间并轻触平台 双手与头部形成稳定三点支撑 躯干倒置 髋部明显抬高 双腿向左右大幅伸直打开 两腿接近水平一字展开 巨大面板中央的人形开孔必须按照图片2的标准正向倒立横叉轮廓制作。 图片3|主人公唯一人物参考 图片3只负责主人公: 脸部五官 黑色长发 自然侧分发型与脸侧短发丝 金色椭圆形长耳环 橙色挂脖深V连体泳装 腰部自然褶皱与金色装饰细节 赤脚状态 成年女性年龄感 身材比例 整体成熟、精致、冷艳、自信的综艺嘉宾气质 从第一帧到最后一帧始终保持同一人物。 严格保持图片3中同一套: 橙色挂脖连体泳装 + 金色椭圆长耳环 + 黑色长发。 不得改变: 脸部、发型、发色、耳环、服装、身体比例和人物身份。 全片: 不出现任何手持道具。 【输出规格】 23 秒,16:9 横屏,真人实拍。 整体风格: 2000 年代日本大型水上障碍竞技 / 体育综艺节目。 像真实日本电视台正在夜间大型水上乐园录制挑战节目。 摄影语言: ENG 电视摄像机 + 长焦电视机位 + 自然摇摄 + 快速 Zoom + 真实电视转播式跟拍。 全片保持: 正常真实速度 实时发生 真实人体重量 真实机械推进 清楚的空间关系 清楚的物理因果 明确的综艺喜剧节奏 禁止: 慢动作 回放 定格 电影化时间处理 MV式运镜 广告式摄影 【核心空间关系|最高优先级】 以图片1中的长条挑战平台作为唯一空间基础。 巨大面板发射装置所在的平台远端定义为: A侧。 平台末端以及泳池方向定义为: B侧。 巨大面板全程只能沿平台纵向: A侧 → B侧 稳定直线推进。 不得: 横移 漂移 改变运动轴线 自行反向 主人公开始时站在: 靠近 B侧的挑战区域中央。 她与平台末端之间必须保留足够距离,支持之后: 被卡住 → 被推动 → 倒立小碎手后退 → 一只手到达平台边缘 → 摸空 → 翻入泳池。 主人公不能一开始贴着平台末端。 前4秒: 摄影机位于主人公 B侧正前方。 主人公身体朝向 B侧,因此: 主人公正面对摄影机,巨大面板发射装置位于她身后的 A侧。 挑战启动后: 听见机械声 → 肩后回头 → 发现巨大面板 → 快速 180° 转身。 之后始终使用场景方向描述运动: 巨大面板持续从 A侧向 B侧推进。 即使主人公之后把身体斜侧、倒立,也不得改变面板的运动轴线。 【巨大面板与人形开孔】 全程只有: 一块浅蓝色巨大实体面板。 面板中央存在一个: 真正贯穿的人形开孔。 能够从开孔直接看到另一侧。 不能是: 印刷图案 黑色剪影 平面轮廓 贴图 假洞口 人形开孔严格按照图片2的标准正向倒立横叉轮廓制作。 【本期核心喜剧机制】 主人公看到人形洞口以后,并没有选择完全正面对齐。 她观察一下洞口后,产生一个明显的“小聪明”: 她认为把身体侧一点,再倒立进去,会更容易通过。 因此她仍然完成图片2的倒立横叉核心结构,但是在最终对位时: 将整个倒立身体相对于巨大面板斜侧约 20–30°。 不是90°完全侧身。 必须保持图片2的倒立横叉基本轮廓仍然清楚可读。 观众必须一眼明白: 她是在故意取巧,想用“侧斜倒立”的方式钻过去。 【0:00–0:04|挑战者登场】 始终保持一个连续镜头 整个 0:00–0:04: 始终是同一个连续镜头。 不硬切,不换机位。 视频直接从主人公: 腿部近景 开始。 摄影机沿人物身体自然向上移动: 腿部近景 → 橙色挂脖连体泳装与上半身中景 → 黑色长发、金色耳环与面部特写。 随着摄影机向上移动,背景逐渐展示: 夜间水上竞技舞台 蓝色泳池 水面节目灯光反射 钢结构设施 大量现场观众 电视摄像设备 主人公神态: 轻松、从容、自信。 镜头来到脸部时,她自然看向摄像机,露出自然、自信、带一点冷艳感的笑容。 随后: 轻轻握紧一只拳头,在胸前做一个简洁、充满信心的加油动作。 另一只手自然放松。 动作幅度小而清楚: 自然真实速度、节奏清楚、利落、干脆。 观众立刻响起掌声与欢呼。 主人公自然收回动作。 随后转头看向挑战区域。 笑容逐渐收起。 眼神由轻松变为认真、专注。 身体留在原地。 双脚不移动。 只轻微调整站姿与重心。 短暂停顿,等待挑战启动。 【0:04|硬切进入比赛】 0:04: 立即硬切至比赛 ENG 大全景。 一次性交代清楚: A侧发射装置 → 巨大面板 → 主人公 → B侧平台末端 → 泳池。 正式进入挑战。 【0:04–0:07|巨大面板启动】 开始蜂鸣器响起。 紧接着机械启动: “ガコン!” 巨大面板从 A侧启动。 沿挑战平台稳定向 B侧推进。 主人公听到背后的机械声: “嗯?” 肩后回头。 看见正在逼近的巨大面板。 随后看到面板中央那个倒立横叉形状的人形洞口。 她明显愣住。 先看洞口。 再低头看一下自己。 又看回洞口。 产生明显的二次确认: “诶?要这样?” 随后快速 180° 转身,面对巨大面板。 巨大面板持续从 A侧向 B侧接近。 【0:07–0:12|想出捷径,侧斜倒立】 使用: 斜前方 ENG 中远景。 主人公与巨大面板必须同时存在于画面中。 主人公观察洞口。 短暂思考后,脸上出现一种: “我知道怎么过了。” 的小得意表情。 她决定: 侧着倒立通过。 动作连续发生: 快速蹲下 → 双掌撑地 → 头部位于双掌之间并轻触平台 → 建立稳定三点支撑 → 髋部抬高 → 躯干倒置 → 双腿向左右大幅打开 → 形成图片2的倒立横叉。 随后她不是完全正面对准洞口。 而是在保持图片2基本姿势的同时,将整个倒立身体: 相对巨大面板斜侧约20–30°。 她轻微调整: 手掌位置 髋部方向 双腿展开角度 最终形成: 清楚、稳定、略带侧斜角度的倒立横叉。 完成瞬间,她倒着露出一个短暂、自信、甚至有点得意的表情: “这样应该稳了。” 【0:12–0:16|看似成功 → 突然卡住】 切至 ENG 广角镜头。 必须同时清楚看到: 主人公完整身体 巨大面板 完整人形开孔 A→B的面板推进方向 巨大面板抵达。 主人公维持: 20–30°侧斜倒立横叉。 接触开始时,不要立刻卡死。 人形开孔先顺利套过: 主人公头部以及上半身的一部分身体轮廓。 一侧腿部与一侧肩线看起来也几乎已经顺利进入。 视觉必须产生明显错觉: “她这个办法居然真的能成功?” 主人公本人也保持短暂得意。 但下一瞬间: “啪!” 开孔继续经过她身体时, 她身体的主要卡点—— 髋部 / 骨盆外侧最宽的位置 被洞口边缘明确挡住。 外侧大腿根部随之受到阻挡。 一侧肩膀只允许轻微擦碰开孔边缘,不是主要卡点。 主人公整个人无法继续通过。 她的表情瞬间从: 得意 变成: “……诶?” 这里保留极短的真人反应停顿。 不是定格。 而是她本人倒立着愣住半拍。 这是本期第一个核心喜剧点。 【0:16–0:20|卡住 → 倒立小碎手后退】 巨大面板没有停止。 继续严格沿: A侧 → B侧 推进。 主人公仍然被卡在人形开孔处。 她不会立刻散架。 而是本能继续维持: 侧斜倒立横叉。 随着巨大面板继续推动, 为了避免头部在平台表面持续摩擦: 她的头部自然从轻触平台逐渐离地。 双掌接管主要支撑。 身体转变为: 以双手支撑为主的侧斜倒立状态。 双腿仍然尽量左右大幅打开。 然后: 巨大面板继续把她整体向 B侧推。 主人公被迫使用双手在平台上连续后退: 啪、啪、啪。 形成非常清楚的: 倒立小碎手后退 必须是真实的手掌交替支撑、移动。 不是身体整体滑行。 不是漂移。 不是悬浮。 人物运动必须表现真实身体重量。 她的黑色长发在倒立后自然向下垂落,在每一次小碎手后退时自然摆动。 长发仅用于增加视觉喜剧效果。 绝不能成为卡住或失败的原因。 主人公一边被推,一边还在尝试: 收腹 稍微夹紧髋部 微调身体角度 像是仍然想把自己“缩小一点”硬挤过去。 但完全无效。 表情逐渐变化: 得意 → 错愕 → 不服气 → 开始慌张。 这是本期第二个核心喜剧点。 【0:20–0:21.5|一只手摸空,翻落泳池】 巨大面板继续从 A侧向 B侧推进。 主人公仍然保持侧斜倒立,并用双手小碎手后退。 她已经接近 B侧平台末端。 由于此时主要依靠双手支撑, 最先到达平台边缘的必须是: 其中一只手。 继续后退时: 一只手掌突然越过平台末端,直接摸空。 主人公身体瞬间失去一侧支撑。 倒立状态立即失稳。 原本左右打开的双腿开始失去控制。 她惊叫: “呀——!” 另一只手也无法继续维持稳定。 身体顺着原本的侧斜角度: 向侧后方翻倒。 整个人以明显、夸张、真实的翻转方式跌入泳池。 完整物理因果: 髋部卡住 → 面板持续推进 → 双手小碎手后退 → 一只手到达平台边缘 → 手掌摸空 → 支撑失稳 → 身体侧后翻 → 落入泳池。 落水产生明显大水花。 接触、后退、手掌摸空、失衡、翻落必须全部在画面中清楚可见。 主人公开始翻落、动作已经不可逆之后, 巨大面板立即在平台末端前方制动停止。 巨大面板不能掉入泳池。 【0:21.5–0:23|浮出水面,无声抗议】 主人公: “哗啦!” 重新从水面冒出头部和肩膀。 电视摄像机立即: Quick Zoom。 快速推近脸部。 主人公不说话。 嘴巴闭合。 双颊明显鼓起。 眉头轻微皱起。 表情明确表现: “我明明都想到捷径了,怎么还是不行?” 带一点: 不服气 委屈 尴尬 不愿接受结果 她直视摄像机。 最后完整保留这个无声抗议表情。 现场观众爆发笑声与掌声。 结束。 【现场実況】 使用高情绪男性実況员。 风格: 2000 年代日本大型体育综艺节目现场実況。 実況只能根据已经发生的动作反应。 不得提前预测。 反应稍慢动作半拍。 例如: 主人公回头: 「振り向いたーッ!」 看到奇怪人形洞: 「なんだこの穴はーッ!」 开始撑地: 「手をついた!」 进入倒立: 「逆さになったーッ!」 双腿打开: 「脚を開いたーッ!」 发现她侧着对位: 「横から行くのかーッ!?」 看起来似乎要成功: 「おっ!入るかーーッ!?」 髋部突然卡住: 「あれ!? 引っかかったーーッ!」 继续被推动: 「そのまま押されてるーッ!」 开始双手小碎手后退: 「手で下がってる! 手で下がってるーッ!」 一只手摸空: 「あーっと手がない!」 翻进泳池: 「落ちたーーーッ!」 浮出水面: 「惜しいーーーッ!」 说完最后一句后停止実況。 保留主人公无声抗议以及现场观众的笑声。 【声音】 全片只保留真实节目同期声: 现场观众欢呼 掌声 笑声 惊呼 开始蜂鸣器 巨大面板机械启动声 面板移动机械声 手掌快速撑地移动声 主人公自然短句与慌张声音 男性现场実況 泳池环境水声 落水大水花声

小宇Chengzi

18,467 次观看 • 1 个月前