Drone UFO pics on C2C

Originally posted by verstohlen
I've seen many pictures of real aircraft in flight on a sunny day and in those pictures the underside of the aircraft is very dark in contrast to the rest of it, unlike the craft in these photos.

nice reference photos

It all depends on the cameras dynamic range, most point and shoot cameras along with some cheap SLR's will "burn" either the high or low contrast area.

Originally posted by verstohlenI took a photo of the strange craft and darkened the underside as to how it should look, with a "before" and "after" picture and to me the craft looks far more realistic and convincing with the darker underside.

See what you guys think:

So it is of my opinion this is a hoax. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

[edit on 24-5-2007 by verstohlen]

i think your darkened image actually makes it look "more" fake. if i had seen your image from the get-go, i would have thought fake, straight up.

how do you suppose to know the actual composition or characteristics or even color of the materials used on this thing?

Originally posted by from downunder
i think your darkened image actually makes it look "more" fake. if i had seen your image from the get-go, i would have thought fake, straight up.

how do you suppose to know the actual composition or characteristics or even color of the materials used on this thing?

Well, the composition is either of bright reflective metal-like, or perhaps a dark, stealth like material. If it were dark stealth-like material, such as black composite, for example, you couldn't see anything at all except a black piece that reflected nothing. If it were a bright material capable of reflecting light very well, the question becomes, where is it getting light to reflect from? The fact that it has writing on it would indicate an intended contrast of some sort, no matter what material is used. In other words, it is intended to be read. Once, again, though. Where is it getting its light from? That's why this is an intriguing question. Why is it reflecting light as well as it is?

just to lighten the situation up a bit, no pun intended, for all we know there could be a reflective car windscreen near the object or a fish or duck pond of sorts - who knows? i'm not clutching at straws & i doubt either of these is the case - but how about a slightly duller brushed finish? - thats what it looks like to me - neither bright & shiney nor darker, stealthy type material, just (like) brushed & in broad daylight.

but its pure speculation isnt it? we just dont know what it is made of (& its subsequent characteristics) for sure do we??

Originally posted by schuyler
Where is it getting its light from?

same place as the white'ish ceramic telephone poll wire bits?

the california coast usually has a really low fog in the morning that burns of during the day and returns in the evening as the sun sets this time of year. june gloom. so that, i would think, would help at least help contribute to seemingly extra ambient light.

speaking of the phone poll, would it be possible to determine if the phone pole bits are specific enough to be identified as coming from the capitola area?







[edit on 24-5-2007 by spf33]

[edit on 24-5-2007 by spf33]

Ok folks I made a new video THIS IS A FAKE obviously. An f-16 from the IMAX movie chases the UFO with a pair of f-15s. I will probably update this video with added footage. Thanks rwiggins for the model.

Originally posted by spf33
speaking of the phone poll, would it be possible to determine if the phone pole bits are specific enough to be identified as coming from the capitola area?

The population of Capitola is approximately 10,000, so I'd think someone would be able to find the pole itself fairly easily if the pictures were actually taken there.

If you look at the shadow on the pole of the single cross beam (lower left) you will see a shadow that is straight making me believe that this photo was shot early morning or late evening. This would brighten up the underside of UO substantially.

On second thought, I'm pretty sure this is a fake.

When I first looked at these images, something stood out to me...
The craft sort of seems to be 'higher resolution' than the rest of the picture.
It's almost as if the craft is leaping out at you. This is especially noticeable in the first picture.

As for the strange writing, it looks like a pseudo-futuristic combination of Japanese characters and slanted letters. I can almost make out an 'L', a 'W', a 'V', and an 'X'.

I'm yet to see any model that is as realistic as the "craft" in the OP pics. I have however been away for a couple of weeks, and haven't been keeping up with goings on here at ATS as much as usual. Could someone point me in the direction of the best CG replica models? I'd appreciate it.

Cheers.

I've read most of the posts on these photos and I can only say that I doubt any photoshop touchups or animation was used here. Let me explain, I have been following posts of these and other photos of similar looking objects on another web site for a couple of weeks now. Complete with discussion from a NASA R+D engineer. The concensus is they are UAV's. Also there is a video posted on Youtube of the craft lifting off from a parking lot. They have been seen flying by several individuals over the past 2 years. Their flight is discribed as moving like a dragonfly, hovering then quickly moving off in a different direction. The long wing is actually the rear of the craft while in motion.

If anyone is interested I can post the name of the other web site, but will do so only if a moderator says it is OK.

Umm, you should check what you post as "evidence" more closely.

The YouTube video of the object lifting off from the parking lot is a self-identified CGI animation. But I guess you have good company. Even Linda Moulton Howe made the same mistake, FWIW

Originally posted by Areal51

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The poster of the YouTube footage,saladfingers123456 has added a more detailed explanation in the comments section of the YouTube page, saying in his first post,

"Hello everyone... This isn't real. I did it as part of an investigation as to the legitimacy of the original images supplied by 'Chad'. I'm trying to see at what point can we be convinced by CG images, and what are the things to look for when disseminating an image that could be 3D in origin."

Yes you are right about the Youtube "evidence". I should have known not to post a reply late at night and low on sleep. My appologies.

For those that may have missed our newest addition:





read about it here:

New Drone Version

What say the CGI-pros?

[edit-link fix]

[edit on 6/7/2007 by Outrageo]

Who ever can contact this photographer ask him for google earth coordinates where this was taken and ask him why if these are 'original full size' then why aren't there any exif info on the pics.

Originally posted by Outrageo
For those that may have missed our newest addition:

[

Looks like the other three combined as one plus a few added features.

Yeah - the 'appendage' on the right side looks like a "docked" version of our previous drones (though I can't make out the "wire basket" on top).

Anyway - more fun to ponder...

[edit on 6/7/2007 by Outrageo]

I agree that it's a complete fake. It looks great, but it doesn't really reflect the light the way a real object would.

If it was real, it looks like something earth people would build, not alien.

Originally posted by Outrageo

What say the CGI-pros?


[edit on 6/7/2007 by Outrageo]

Jeff Ritzmann's comments:

I told ya. The last words I said to either Dave or you about these were that the next set of pics would be even more elaborate and "transformed". This is either viral for a movie or a video game or someone inspired by it.

The fact it is "TRANSFORMING" or evolving into a more complex amalgamation of the "originals" is VERY TELLING to me.

Springer...