Drone UFO pics on C2C

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 6 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   
I've got to agree with Grim- on this one. There's not enough evidence to label it a hoax. There even seems to be some more evidence to support it's reality than not. For instance, a hoaxer picking such a hard to manufacture design seems odd. I would expect that anyone wanting to depict an otherworldly craft would come up with something less mundane.

This thing looks like a piece of hardware. Which is what a UFO would be. And if the propulsion was such that flight did not have to be concerned with design factors, then this odd duck would be a fair bet.

The writing is there, but does not seem to be any known language. Did these people invent a set of stencils too? (And no, I have a nephew who's into the Klingon thing, and it doesn't match that.) So, it's an unknown.

Now it could be ours, or some other nation's, or a hoax, or real ET. We just cannot know with the evidence at hand. But I have to agree with the poster who said that we don't really want clear pictures. I think the UFO community is so gun shy that a clear picture is scary. We seem to want to shoot it down before the debunkers can, because we're too worried about our credibility. We're now in the habit of doing their job for them, instead of remaining objective.

We might consider being objective in the pursuit of discovery, and worrying about our image less. I think the unbelievers already think we're crazy, so it's not going to matter.

In that interest, has anyone tried to contact these people? Is there information on the locale? If the 'thing' is a regular visitor to that area, and someone lives nearby that is on this forum, could they perhaps check it out?

Or do we wait for another O'Hare type photo that is so fuzzy it can be debunked easier?




posted on May, 6 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   
so tell me, why is someone with incredible cgi skill and/or photoshop skills (considering the fact that all of this was produced from scratch, and if so, that's pretty damn amazing) doing creating incredible ufo models simply to fool a hand full of listeneres on coast 2 coast?

don't you think someone who has the skill to digitally create a craft that incredible would be working on a production team for some sci fi movie?

sure it could be fake, but i'm leaning towards it being real simply because someone with cgi skill like this wouldn't be wasting their time trying to fool a couple people on the internet.

yes i'm aware of the australian ufo website which hosted a bunch of pretty professionaly made ufo vidoes that were hoaxes.. but that atleast had a purpose, was an experiment and in the end they came out and said it..

and so what if the things at the top aren't the same? what if it's an organic mechanism and the top part is similar to tentacles on a sentient being? thus explaining why they look slightly different each pic..

you can't simply confine yourself to these thoughts on how a ufo should think or act.. let alone do or look like.. so instead of passing it off as fake, be a skeptic, but be a skeptic with an open mind.


d1k

posted on May, 6 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malakai
...


Thank you, sir.

Finally a post that isn't the usual dribble. Pictures of this caliber demands some serious questions. Again, thank you. There is hope for ATS member base yet.



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   
i think malakai should be aplauded for that post

very well said my friend, everything is passed of as CGI now days but what about the days before CGI and there were still tales of UFOS just not the pictures to prove them



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malakai
don't you think someone who has the skill to digitally create a craft that incredible would be working on a production team for some sci fi movie?


Maybe they are and this is just a little hobby. A personal experiment. Why does anyone do anything.

(Location is unknown - the person who sent them in didn't want to reveal it. Maybe it's his property and he doesn't want a bunch of loons tramping around the place.)



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 12:08 AM
link   
By 7AM mountain time I will reproduce this vehicle to the best of my ability in Rhinoceros 3.0. I will try to post a few WIP's as I go along.


d1k

posted on May, 7 2007 @ 12:09 AM
link   
I would have voted him for way above but I don't see the button for him.

I think this is "more real" and/or "more ET" then most if not all the other pictures we have ever seen. Just like Mal said, the craft itself is so unusual and there are so many little details it can't just be waved off so easily. The writing is just mind blowing. The antennas (or what ever they are) on the top looks like they could be used to focus some kind of energy or something, I don't know I'm just guessing but it does look way too weird to just be claimed a hoax without any thought or questions about it.

If you were to ask me I think it looks like some kind of time machine or dimensional transport or something. It does look like some serious hardware and because it is so different I think that's why this could very well be real. If there ever was any pictures that should be examined by real photo experts these have to be it.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by d1k]



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I have a book from the early 70s that describes a very similar craft in one or two of the accounts.

I know one of them was passed off as 'floaters', that being something on the eye membrane.



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by d1k
I would have voted him for way above but I don't see the button for him.


[edit on 7-5-2007 by d1k]


yea same here... i dont see the button either, weird..



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   
@ d1k

The most obvious sign is the general lighting of the scene:

• the lighting on the craft does'nt match the scene. In the first pic the general colour saturation of the craft versus the scene is wrong.
• the shadows (on the craft) are too crisp.
• if you look at the area on the craft where the "egg beater" spines meet the "ring", you can see shadows being cast from the "egg beater" over the edge of the ring, they are at the wrong anlge versus the light source in the scene (the sun)
• there is no real sense of depth, is the craft in the foreground or the background? (second image)
• the craft is too crisp.
• It just does'nt feel/look right.....I realise that statement is'nt conclusive proof, but like I said, without trying to sound cocky, I've been doing this for a while now.

In terms of 3d modelling, that is not a very complex craft to model, it consists of very basic shapes and would take an experienced 3d artist not longer then a few hours to model and map, the trick comes with the lighting, but these days with VRay/Mental Ray renderers its not that difficult to recreate pretty convincing lighting.

Why would somebody do this?

I'm not speaking for all the 3d guys out there, but I know that I love the challenge of trying to create images that look as real as possible. Its a labour of love and I've spent many a late night tweaking and adjusting images for hours just for the challenge of it all (much to my wife's dismay)

You get a major sense of accomplishment when you manage to fool people into believing that a CGI image is real.



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malakai

don't you think someone who has the skill to digitally create a craft that incredible would be working on a production team for some sci fi movie?



No, cgi stuff is pretty easy now days. no need for any skills with user friendly software.



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPhiles

Originally posted by Malakai

don't you think someone who has the skill to digitally create a craft that incredible would be working on a production team for some sci fi movie?



No, cgi stuff is pretty easy now days. no need for any skills with user friendly software.


Speak for yourself XPhiles, and join me in reproducing the craft. You can download an evaluation copy of Rhinoceros at the McNeel website.



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 12:25 AM
link   
here is my ufo.1
Link


[Mod Edit: Link format - Jak]

[edit on 7/5/07 by JAK]



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 12:26 AM
link   
I Don't know if its fake or not but people really need to stop dissmising UFO pics and vids just because of the fact that they're clear. When people see a blurry ufo pic they always dissmiss it because its to blurry or to far away. But whenever a pic or video surfaces with amazing clarity, its automatically considered to be CGI or photoshoped. Its to the point now where if a UFO lands outside my house and I snap a few pics of it, then come back and put them on ATS, most of the people on here would scream out the same things thier saying with this pic because it looks "to real" for them. Once again Im not saying that these particular pics are real, but im not gong to say its fake just because it CAN be faked.



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I also find it strange that he went back on pupose to find it, then gets pics of it with the sun facing many directions, even under it, but only gets
4 pics.



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
join me in reproducing the craft. You can download an evaluation copy of Rhinoceros at the McNeel website.


d1k how long have you used Rhinoceros? I would bet one could get close to reproducing the craft with anim8tor lol.... and it's free... I think there is a version of UV mapper that's free as well.....



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 12:33 AM
link   
If it has been faked then you can almost guarantee this person has been interested in UFOs for a long time, and/or has read many many sighting reports to come up with something so similar described in this book.

The title is 'UFO: Flying saucers over Britain?' by Robert Chapman. First published by Arthur Baker, 1969.

The account starts on page 24.

The report (Sighting 26/10/67) is from a former comet flight administration officer with BOAC(?), named Mr. J. B. W. Brooks. He was in his 50s at the time so I'm sure hes long gone now.

The account details a foward 'spoke', and multiple spokes that can rotate around the central disc. He describes the craft as being '175 feet in diameter'.

There are other accounts from the time of 'flying crosses'.

The article also mentions that the sighting was not the only one of a similar if not same craft within the space of a few days.

I'm sitting on the fence with this one, just thought I'd share this little piece of information. It may be CGI, it may be real, but I prefer not to go either way until every angle has been explored as much as possible.

***A letter of response from the MoD is also included in the chapter, mainly debunking the sighting as a 'floater' (on the eye membrane). IMO, such an explanation is pretty ridiculous.

***Brooks Blurb




[edit on 7-5-2007 by seenitall]

[edit on 7-5-2007 by seenitall]

[edit on 7-5-2007 by seenitall]



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 12:42 AM
link   
at first glance, I was like "o common".. but...thats just because I have never seen a clear picture of something other worldly. when i was thinking about why it would be there for that long and why there is no area to hold an "alien" i got thinking, maybe thats like the "base" or the thing they use to get from A to B. They could have another "craft" that they can explore or do whatever their here for. Those "antennas" look like it would hold something in or something.

If someone would have "CGI" skills, whatever that is.. would they not be able to think "the suns here, the shadows go here." Maybe the camera is casting light or something. I don't know, I don't know much about this at all.

In the forth picture(counting cellphone,) whats that "dot" in the sky? Possibly the other part of the "craft"? When ever i add things in photoshop(I suck) the pixels are always different sizes. Is that easy to fake?

If someone recreates it, that won't nessisarily mean its fake... just that it is an object, like everything else.

-Bumross

EDIT: Why is it not symmetrical, I hate when i see like a "UFO" and its unsymmetrical lol(on the internet, not RL)

[edit on 7-5-2007 by Bumr055]



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Look at the writing on the image from underneath the object.

Now look at the writing on the other images, most notably, the last image.

The text looks like it has been through alot of perspective correction.

Look at the strip of writing on the small "beam" underneath the craft.... now look for the text in the other photos.


Also try to understand the size of this thing. Look at the underneath image and then look at the last image.

Does it not seem small?

The first image makes it seem quite large... but...... *shrug*



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bumr055
at first glance, I was like "o common".. but...thats just because I have never seen a clear picture of something other worldly. when i was thinking about why it would be there for that long and why there is no area to hold an "alien" i got thinking, maybe thats like the "base" or the thing they use to get from A to B. They could have another "craft" that they can explore or do whatever their here for. Those "antennas" look like it would hold something in or something.

If someone would have "CGI" skills, whatever that is.. would they not be able to think "the suns here, the shadows go here." Maybe the camera is casting light or something. I don't know, I don't know much about this at all.

In the forth picture(counting cellphone,) whats that "dot" in the sky? Possibly the other part of the "craft"? When ever i add things in photoshop(I suck) the pixels are always different sizes. Is that easy to fake?

If someone recreates it, that won't nessisarily mean its fake... just that it is an object, like everything else.

-Bumross


Bumross, regarding 'Shadows and light" it seems pretty straight forward if you first think about it....but it becomes a whole other kettle of fish when you try to recreate those effects in 3d software.

There is just so much to take into consideration (main light source, secondary light sources, light colour, decay, light saturation, global illumination, light bounce and all of these parameters are affected by the scale of your model and scene) and this is where the little glitches creep in that can be spotted.

When they do the big bidget space movie CGI effects, they will often recreate the entire scene backgrounds and lighting, this way they avoid having to match their 3d creations with existing "pre-filmed" lighting. This helps to make it look more real.

Your photoshop "suckiness" is probably down to using different resolutions when combining or "super imposing" images from different sources.
Always check your dpi on all the images before photoshopping them.





top topics
 
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join