Originally posted by Grendizer

The object from Chad's photo with the yellow flowers is the same exact angle and same exact size when scaled down to be smaller

No, it's not.

Thanks for very impressing illustrative animation showing what I had tried to explain !
Should render a Nobel Prize !

its not the "exact" angle because it was also tilted. when i am "cheating" 3d sprites, sometimes i will re-scale and tilt a made sprite, then edit it to "fake" another angle.
to me, it looks like the artist tilted the image, edited it a bit, cropped it and inserted the craft into the new picture.
just look at it this way, if its too good to be true....

Here's a tilted one and it's still not a match. I'm not saing it hasn't been photoshoped into a new backgrond, but if it has it's more than a "tilt-and-scale, cut-and-paste" job.



[edit on 19-5-2007 by Grendizer]

Grendizer,

Good job man !

Did you also notice that the lighting is very different in two. First one has a 'noon' light with skylight and AO and the second is hardly lit and has orange lights coming from left.

So again I'm not saying that its not a photoshopped version of the original ones but it takes a little more effort to create.

The other poster (STFU one) tried to match only an arm and some of the body....hmmm..why so? And if it matched how do you explain the second pic of the same sighting?

Originally posted by Grendizer
Here's a tilted one and it's still not a match. I'm not saing it hasn't been photoshoped into a new backgrond, but if it has it's more than a "tilt-and-scale, cut-and-paste" job.

[edit on 19-5-2007 by Grendizer]

There are more points that match than do not match. The parts that match are exact matches. The parts that do not match are apparently from other sources. The spires do not match. The broad one o'clock arm does not match. The five o'clock arm is missing in one of the photos. Everything else is an exact match; The four o'clock arm, the seven o'clock arm and the nine o'clock arm. Also, the seven o'clock arm is obviously a dead give away from one to the next because the tree branch prevents it from being transferred to the other photo fully intact.

[edit on 19-5-2007 by Areal51]

Originally posted by spf33
anything is possible these days...

having been intrigueed with these photos for a few days now; about an hour of 3ds Max and Photoshop work using chad's original photo as a background and using the 3d model that was provided by someone in this thread:

That is excellent! No one else has commented on it? I wonder why?

Originally posted by Areal51
That is excellent! No one else has commented on it? I wonder why?

Because it's an obvious fake. It does not look nowhere as real as Chad's photos. You can tell it's cgi by the:

1) Lack of detail
2) Incorrect lighting and shadowing
3) object looks "cut in"

Originally posted by Latitude

Originally posted by Areal51
That is excellent! No one else has commented on it? I wonder why?

Because it's an obvious fake. It does not look nowhere as real as Chad's photos. You can tell it's cgi by the:

1) Lack of detail
2) Incorrect lighting and shadowing
3) object looks "cut in"

Why should it look "as real as Chad's photos"? I can tell it's CGI first and foremost because spf33 said that it was. He gave a decent explanation of what he had done. I think it's excellent for an hour's work.

Sure, I saw exactly this object just in a peace of the documentary, but we need to enter in contact with the program prodction cause it was on last octuber, and they must have the film on their files, what you want that I say then? I not represent this site, think that need to be someone representing coast2coast or abovetopsecret, cause I´m just a participant.
I showed it to a japanese descending friend of me said that the caracters is really
fliped.

[edit on 19-5-2007 by BRAINMASTER]

the render wasn't meant to be anything other than a quick self-exercise with the rough model that rwiggins (btw, thanks for posting that. any updates?) posted earlier in this thread. but thanks, Areal51.

chad's images scream "global illumination" to a trained eye, so i wanted to see how the actual 3d model of the thing, even if it's just an approximation, would behave in a 3d scene using gi. i wanted to see if there were any aspects, flaws, or other inherent tell tale signs that would show up in the renderings that would also be visible in chad's photos.

before i started the exercise i expected to become more convinced chad's images were 3d.

and while i do see evidence of gi use, i see a couple of things that put checks in the "not a hoax" column;

the blue'ish ccd bloom is so right on when comparing the leaves and the object. not that i've spent a ton of time trying to duplicate this effect, but now having tried to do the same technique on the yellow flower image, creating the blooming is a challenge.

the reflected light colors on the underside of the object as it's over the trees are what's to be expected on a white'ish object; shades of green, yellows, and browns. but then again, reflected color is artschool 101.

i dunno at this point. i've studied the images now for several hours, worked with them in 3d, examined their colors and lighting down to the pixel level, stared at them zoomed to thumbnail sitting inches away from the screen, stared at them zoomed fullscreen standing from 10 ft away.

and i'm still not 100% convinced they are fake.

wish we could get the images straight from the camera. what kind of goofy res 792x519, is that so they fit the c2c site? and what's with the adobe elements metatag? the original images show evidence of having had brightness\contrast and color tweaks. again, is that c2c or chad?

so frustrating to potentially have one of the clearest photographs of a ufo in history and to have as much information about it as a photo of the most random, tiny blip of light in the sky.

chad! where are you, buddy?!?

I´v sent a email to the program production asking 4 help and I´m waiting what they can do to help us!!!

Originally posted by Latitude
Because it's an obvious fake. It does not look nowhere as real as Chad's photos. You can tell it's cgi by the:

1) Lack of detail
2) Incorrect lighting and shadowing
3) object looks "cut in"

You mean exactly what the original pics had wrong with them as well?

[edit on 21-5-2007 by selfless]

So are these filenames original ones as well? That would imply that these are infact taken with a film camera and then scanned.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
So are these filenames original ones as well? That would imply that these are infact taken with a film camera and then scanned.

good questiion, i already asked him in my thank you email.
waiting to hear back.
asked for generic ip address info too...

well I don't have a trained eye or experince in photoshop or CGI.
How possible is it for a real pic to be concluded fake based on any set of cirteria?
just wondering.
I could see no differnece in the fake one supplied by a member on this page.
although basic things were pointed out like the ovbious cutout...which I could not see on the one hour member pic.

also if it was scanned is that from a movie camera then why give stills?
is that correct saying its from a movie camara?
I know diddly poop about this stuff.



[edit on 22-5-2007 by junglelord]

I received the response, they are thincking about do an reportage about. We must wait!!!

[edit on 22-5-2007 by BRAINMASTER]

Originally posted by junglelord

also if it was scanned is that from a movie camera then why give stills?
is that correct saying its from a movie camara?
I know diddly poop about this stuff.



[edit on 22-5-2007 by junglelord]

I mean with a film still camera