C2C Part 2? (Another one that looks the same)

Well, if this IS CG, the background "plate" would be the pic taken with the cellphone, which would retain the EXIF info, so that doesn't prove anything. The "object" is compositied into the pic taken with the cellphone. The entire pic isn't fabricated, just the object.

The lighting info is very essential in matching the 3D object with an environment, and since the person taking the pic is probably the one making the object, they would have the "set" light info to match the object info.

The object is rendered in a 3D app with an alpha channel which essentially isolates the object. It gets "plopped" on the photo. Then it gets "blended" into the scene. Sometimes the object is rendered in passes, so each pass can be altered. One pass might be a shadow pass, so the shadow can be altered independent of the object.

Just saying that's how it would be done if it WAS a fake.

First off, thanks to the original poster for bringing this to the board.

Now....

Same hoaxer? Different hoaxer?


EXIF data exists this time (are you listening Chad?), but does not tell us much.

The quality of these photos really gives us nothing to work with.

The plot thickens.

I have added an image I made that also alters the EXIF data just to show it is possible. You can check yourself.

Here's the nail in the coffin to prove part 2 is a hoax

The 2nd set could easily be photoshop work, or someone trying out a duplicate. Photoshop would be very simple, only a matter of correcting the color, brightness, contrast and editing the model slightly. All very easy on a low resolution image.




PS: We could do without the STFU in the future.

I'm sorry lol. I actually made that image for a guy on another forum who was patronising me for saying it's fake, and throwing minor insults at me.

I closed photoshop after that and didn't have the time to open it up and edit the text, because of how many fonts i have, photoshop takes like 10 minutes to open.

Apolagies again

This place www.vrbo.com... looks pretty close to the cabin in the picture. Even though you only see a little bit of the roof and some trees. I am trying to search for cabins in the area where it was taken and maybe go from there. What do you all think?

EDIT: This picture lake-tahoe-fun.com... looks a lot like the background.

[edit on 13-5-2007 by xtr1ckx]

I am glad I am at ATS these days. I really am appreciative of the people that can analyze the image data and form conclusions/opinions (I'm also appreciative of most everyone else too). I think that I am going to have to get involved in "image analysis" because it sure would be nice to "investigate" images myself.

Besides the obvious lack of windows why do some of you think it is a drone? I've seen quite a few discs that appear to lack windows but I am not sure if I've ever heard a disc referred to as a drone. Just curious as to how those of you who think it's a drone came up with that idea (not saying it's not possible just curious).

If anybody thinks it's real what do you think it's function is, theoretically speaking of course? I was thinking that maybe it could be gathering some form of "energy" and that the appendages at the top could "plug" into a larger vessel to transfer the energy. Actually now that I think about it maybe the appendages "beam" the energy. This is probably pointless as I am likely looking at a model or CGI. Thanks ATS, this place is awesome and filled with great minds.

How would it be anything other than a drone? Where exactly would you fit living beings in a craft like that? They would have to be pretty darn small I guess...

I don't know what the dimensions are. Some of the supposed discs are rather small as well. Thanks for the answer though and that is a good reason.

i don't think that would be a very good decision. a race with tech. like that could probably easily destroy our planet if they wanted to.

what would they think if we shot it down??? i think of it this way- what if a country had a plane flying over another country, and they just decided to shoot it down because they didn't know what type of plane it was and just wanted to find out?

just a thought.

What I'm seeing in the first picture is the segmented arm pointing to the left and a larger solid arm pointing toward the viewer.

In the second picture, the segmented arm is still pointing to the left and the larger solid arm is now pointing away from the viewer. That doesn't make sense to me.

I'm really a little disappointed because I was absolutely stunned when I first saw the pics on C2C. Now, I'm pretty sure they're just the work of some graphic geek with too much time on his/her hands.

The image at first suggests what you claim but this does not have to be the case due to distortions in the large paddle we see and reflected in the washout starburst effect in the blow up. The other large paddle is mostly top of the roof and hidden so the reversal you suggest may not be true.

Some good work in this thread but nobody has proven that the item is faked yet to my satisfaction.

Plus, now we have a good detailed story to go along with the images which help to explain plausibly what happened behind the pictures.

These two images are poor quality but they are not obviously faked unless one wants to believe they are.

I will be making comments in the first thread for those that want to see them.

This is garbage, its been garbage from day one. This doesn't add up, none of it has.

The opening story was sketchy, he sees it multiple times, and goes with multiple people and yet, no video, no back story on the person himself, he hasn't said the location.

The second shot is a diffrent craft, ie, a lame hoax attepmt.

I think we have a faker, a wanna be, a copycat.

Its a dark dark age, nothing is safe, no digital pictures will be valid soon, mabye we have already passed that point, i want to get a poloriod camera.

You make a good point that a film camera may be the best proof of a ufo image these days. Frankly, a good 35MM still takes a better picture than the vast majority of digital cameras out there today.

I think that a film video camera would be the same in terms of quality and verifiability as a digital video camera as these threads lead to heated arguments about what might be or what isn't in the images.

Still, just because something can be faked doesn't mean it was or that the intent was there. You need intent for a crime unless the person is insane and most insane people are likely not that good at photoshop or CGI or other digital video creativity.

I think that when an image is presented then the debunkers have to slam dunk discredit them without question otherwise it is just talk. This is due to the images being the evidence which has to be examined as it is rather than getting into a lot of hypotheticals as to people's assumed motives and whether something is too good to be true or not.

This supposed ship reminds me of a ceiling fan. What ugly ship this is, I mean what an ugly fake this is. I could not imagine anyone flying a ship that dumb.

Check out the thread link below to see a similar craft just recently dipicted on the History Channel.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If nothing else at least there is a location. So any members in that area have to keep looking up in the day time.

I have to go with Springer and our guys and if the pictures turns out to be legit I will be disappointed in the ones we depend on here to help us out.

The Tahoe pictures may at first glance appear inconsistent. But as suggested, rotation 90 degrees left make sense. If you accept it is an other
or altered craft than first occured, the Tahoe pictures may appear reasonable. The measure of central cylinder body is also 10 - 20 % larger in 2nd picture passing the roof, realistic according to more close position. It would be farfetched for a faker making things more complicated and spontaneously less convincing by letting the craft rotate that way between pictures. Only after some thinking (if you are not Einstein) you may realize these pictures may be real, after all.

Member "torsion" showed a suspecting resemblance between one of the first pictures and one of the two last pictures. But they are not identical - the angles of "wing elevation" are not exactly the same - and the cages also indicate a slight difference at that side. Nearly the same but not exactly the same rather indicate authenticity than fake, I would say.

I don't say Tahoe event is true, but it may not be dismissed as easily as
one may first think. Obvious fake att 2nd glance but not at 3rd glance.

All this strange ufo thing is really bugging me now, all these photos just look so real to me, the experts say it's fake, i'am trying to believe them, but then i'am saying to myself that these photos just look so real and I can't help thinking "what if this is all true" I just don't know what to think now Anyway if all this turns out to be true I still think it's man made.

Guys ya only need to look at one thing. The scale, or supposed scale of the object. Someone said here "how can ya fit living beings in there, it's so small" or something to that effect. Well he's right, it looks relatively small.

But look at the C2C pic set where we have it going over trees (partially behind) and it appears HUGE.

That doesnt jive man. At all. Thats the biggest reason I just dont buy it. Couple that with the sketchy story and alt/aurabesh lettering and it gets ever further out for me.

But thats just what I see. You guys have to make up your own minds.