Could be, but with a few strokes of a pen you can make something that looks even more alien. Hell it could have been just a bunch of "- -<- - 0- >--<- >-0 - ---" (ie gibberish that's supposed to be a language) or whatever if the designer wanted to make it incomprehensible.

I don't really understand why there would be letters on the underside of the craft. It doesn't really make sense, unless it was hovering upside down or something.

Originally posted by Drexon
To further prove that this is just a home CGI type thing, here, I found another few letters of those "gibberish" ones. One is another japanese one, "me"...

I disagree. This letter does not exactly match any on this craft. But even if it did it still does not prove anything because most languages have a character that resembles an X. Just because this craft has an X on it and written Japanese also has an X does not mean the craft is made by the Japanese.

Originally posted by groingrinder
Thank you Dulcimer. I am not nearly as brainy as most of the people who frequent these threads, so I am lost doing the intensive research that gets things done around here. I am doing what I know to try and contribute.

I like you models too, I just dont want to go down the path where you say that just because someone can fake something with CGI it is automatically fake, is this what you are saying groingrinder?

FAKE cant believe people are still discussing it. it looks like my ceiling fan, something that say Philips will manufacture. i dont believe its photoshop except for the writing, but its definitely a human design and maybe if u translate the writings i'm sure it would say Made in Japan. u dont need a brain to figure that one out.

There is something not quite right here...there seems to be an issue for me, relating to the proportions in the images. Note where the yellow flowering is in the first pic, then the same flowers appear at close range, and the 'object' which doesn't seem to be the right size.

I seriously doubt the credibility of these images, if my hunch is right.

I really like the photo's. The one thing I want to point out tho is just because you can model it doesn't make it fake. I were to assume that if I posted a pic of my 84 Camaro that you could make a model duplicate of it.
It doesn't change the fact that my 84 camaro is real...it only proves that you can make a model out of an exsisting object.
Making models does nothing to prove or disprove the OP's original pics.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by iggster]

I'm not sure if anyone's really familiar with 3Dsmax 7 and maya, but I've gotten a chance to dabble in both due to my 3D design class. Creating an image like this, if one wished to do it CG, would be a labor of love. You wouldn't be able to do it with a cheap/free program and obtain the same results. IF it is a CG, (and I'm not saying it is.) then there was a lot of work put into this, as well as probably Photoshop CS2, if not 3, work. I've taken three years worth of classes in 3D computer rendering and have only come close to making something look as "real" as this (though, I mainly use inventor 11 because I'm studying with ergonomics in the industrial field.) after a solid month's work. There's a lot of surface modeling a well as texture and shadow. It looks very crisp, but what do I know? It could be the real thing, it could be CG.

Not much more I can say now, I have to run, but I want to get a better look later when I get home.

Originally posted by Acharya

Originally posted by groingrinder
Thank you Dulcimer. I am not nearly as brainy as most of the people who frequent these threads, so I am lost doing the intensive research that gets things done around here. I am doing what I know to try and contribute.

I like you models too, I just dont want to go down the path where you say that just because someone can fake something with CGI it is automatically fake, is this what you are saying groingrinder?

Thanks Acharya. I am NOT saying that because you can make a model of this object that the object HAS TO BE A COMPUTER MODEL. Even though I am going ahead with the computer modeling, I have not made up my own mind that it is a fake. Looking at it, I can discern nothing that makes it fly or would serve as a crew quarters, or control area. It has lots of flat areas and many sharp corners that you do not find on "classic" ufo's which are spheres, discs, and cigar shapes. The hemorroid calibration wires sticking up out of the top look especially suspect to me.

It would be great to know that it is real, and if so, the guy who filmed it should get some kind of lifetime achievement award for it.

After some thought, i think people are looking in the wrong place with this one.

I really doubt now that it is CGI because, as many of the 3D designers have said, it would take considerable time and effort to make.

I think a better approach would be a miniature model.

There were some good posts early on in the thread that linked to parts that resembled the craft... maybe that is the right approach to analyze this one.

Not to rain on anyones parade, but this thing looks like it is about as big as a automobile tire.

These pics look great, but to vouch for their validity seems to be pushing it. With no corroborating evidence, these mean as much to me as the Gulf breeze hoaxes. And if this was a real UFO, then wouldnt it have caused the womans camera to malfunction, or cause her to have some sort of after effects from being in such close proximity to the craft?

Great pics nonetheless, but I believe they are fake.

First off, I haven't posted on this site for some months now due to the large number of debunkers and agents that I used to see around here.

But I felt compelled to post on this topic as these are some of the best pictures ever put forward on the topic of UFOs.

I have information about the pictures for those interested and take it with a grain of salt if you like.

Here it is:

- device is a probe owned by the Grays (aliens)
- probe searches for magnetic hotspots and when finding them has a means of transferring magnetic energy to mothership which controls probe
- probe is controlled by larger ufo and its propulsion system relies on it to some extent.
- the probe resembles upside down funnel as it funnels energy from the earth hotspot to the craft above it
- device has folding arms where rivets can be seen such that probe folds up in mothership
- writing on device indicates the mothership the probe belongs to and other technical issues related to the probe
- normally such device may be invisible to human eyes but in this case was not because: remote area of activity and increasing confidence of grays and other aliens as they invade our earth. Also, sometimes mistakes are made and as activity increases more mistakes will be seen in the presence of the aliens more and more.
- probe is probably one of many owned by grays and operating on the earth
- there are said to be hundreds of such areas on the earth where such probes can tap into earths magnetic field at selected frequency (less than one thousand places though).
- grays use probe as energy is stronger than tapping cosmic rays and easier than using artificial power sources on crafts, also depends on need for energy, end purpose.
- these motherships operate as exploratory craft and recon and communications around the earth

about the photos themselves:

- blow up photos and no aberations apparent and coloration etc and detail are consistent with actual object
- object is real and observe scale relative to trees
- object is not visibly hung by wires nor is such capability remotely easy to do without hugh operation
- object displays great deal of detail upon close examination
- language has typical language markers and consistency in use and structure
- nature of object is consistent with measuring devices any civilized civilization would use - useage of materials and design for function over all else
- size, weight and difficulty of manufacture of a representative model would not only be prohibitive but as pointed out not lead to any reasonable objectives in purpose
- object displays sensors inside rim of device and is area of note for observation
- radiating arms, one large one appears as antenna array of some sort with other arms either serving directional capability or for guidance
- splines likely act as waveguide of some sort to funnel energy up to source DRAWING it in
* look in two of the pictures and observe two dark and faint but still distinct markings in the photos, one is mothership, saucer other is like worm type ufo observed before in many places around the world. Blow up the images and the worm and saucer shape become more apparent

I will post more information or try to answer questions from intelligent, thoughful, and reasonable requests as I am able.

Ha Ha Ha!!!

Nice headgear. Looks like a futuristic cycle helmet with satellite sensors to enable the internal airbag to operate in the event of a collision.

I can say its an UAO!! An Unidentified Adobe Object.

Should this be renamed the Photoshop Forum? Nice composition though. Make a nice watercolour, I'll have two

Whatever any one says there is no useful EXIF data on this baby.

These jpegs is all we got here and they tell us that no camera took the photo and that Adobe Elements was used to create it, that's why there is no pixelation noise from the jpeg algorithms that you get when taking real world photos.

Jeez you guys, when a real one turns up you''ll bebunk it I reckon

Oh well must get back to the mothership, my tinfoils wearing out..........

-The lighting is off on the model, especially the 2nd picture. Its sharp in focus when the tree's infront AND behind are blurred. I dont think you can get such a depth of field shot with a point and shoot camera and with objects of this size. So right there Im suspicious.
-It has a slightly different grain than the rest of the picture (#2)
-Picture 3 its too bright, the reflected light on the underside is the wrong color and hue, the grain is off.

An open letter to "chad":

Come clean..why did you do this? Just so you could prove you can fake a picture on the coast to coast site? It aint hard dude, they accept pics of smears on t he lens as UFO's- so its not much of an achievement.

I say man up and at least come clean on why you did it. Like no one has ever faked a UFO picture before, if your gonna do it though at least get it right!

Get back into your lightwave/3ds max book and study radiance

[edit on 7-5-2007 by wildone106]

[edit on 7-5-2007 by wildone106]

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
First off, I haven't posted on this site for some months now due to the large number of debunkers and agents that I used to see around here.

Welcome back, sorry that your first post is going to get debunked.

- device is a probe owned by the Grays (aliens)

How do you know that.

- writing on device indicates the mothership the probe belongs to and other technical issues related to the probe

If you know that, than translate it for us.

- object is real and observe scale relative to trees

A photo is a 2D image, there is no way to tell the scale of the object, it the size of a foot ball, it could be ten mile long you just can’t tell.

- object is not visibly hung by wires nor is such capability remotely easy to do without hugh operation

Nor is the starship Enterprise.

- object displays great deal of detail upon close examination

Consistent with a modal or CGI.

- language has typical language markers and consistency in use and structure

Or could be made up by someone for the fun of it.

- nature of object is consistent with measuring devices any civilized civilization would use

That could be interpreted as meaning a human could have designed it

- useage of materials and design for function over all else

What’s it made of then? Please forward the detailed schismatics if you know what all the design features are for.

- size, weight and difficulty of manufacture of a representative model would not only be prohibitive but as pointed out not lead to any reasonable objectives in purpose

People build modals all the time for no other reason then to build them. Why could it not be that someone put this to gather and decided to fake some UFO pics?

I will post more information or try to answer questions from intelligent, thoughful, and reasonable requests as I am able.

I await your reply.

Originally posted by WeSbO
And personnaly if I saw something like this and had such good photos I would never say where I took them I wouldn't want to see half of the planets population at my door step ...

Hmmm. Personally, if I was able to see and photogragh something like this, I would want everyone to know where and when this took place so that anyone else in the area that might have seen it could back up my claims.

As many here have noted. this is obviously a 3D rendered ship composited into photographic backgrounds. The uniformity of the surfaces and textures, the lighting and the modeling of the ship all underscore the fact that we're looking at a 3D rendered element.

it amazes me that some folks here think that this would be so difficult to model and render - sorry, it's a passable modeling job, nothing that would get the artist hired at ILM.

These images are fabricated. EOS.

dB

I cant believe people are even debating this! Aside from the less than spectacular email he wrote, there's so many things off with this image it reeks of amateur 3d modeller work...

what a tool...

Originally posted by Scytale

Originally posted by WeSbO
And personnaly if I saw something like this and had such good photos I would never say where I took them I wouldn't want to see half of the planets population at my door step ...

Hmmm. Personally, if I was able to see and photogragh something like this, I would want everyone to know where and when this took place so that anyone else in the area that might have seen it could back up my claims.