Lettering Update:

As many of you know, in the last day or so I've been focused intently on the characters/writing on the underside of the large arms (yes, we're aware there appears to be some writing on the smaller arms as well, but the typeface is much too small to discern anything worth investigating, and enlargements over-pixilate beyond recognition).

After consulting several linguistic/writing scholars around the world, I'm starting to hear back from some of them.

First of all I'm amazed (though I guess I shouldn't be) at the level of trepidation coming from our planet’s “educated” leaders. I thought academia would take a greater interest in such a curiosity. From here on, I’m just sending enlargements of the arms/writings and not of the craft/UO itself…

Anyway – the consensus seems to be (among those that were willing to step up) that this is a man-made hybridization of existing, ancient, and artificial characters. One prof mentioned a software program that can take font types from several different languages and “re-combine” them into a new character set containing amalgamated attributes from each of the input character sets. The suspicion was that that is what was going on here, i.e., hoax.

One linguistics expert insisted that what we are looking at is any one of several Asian texts (choose your flavor) that has simply had one or more “pen strokes” removed until the perpetrator had an acceptable “unique” font.

Still pecking away at this – and waiting to hear from a few more profs (note to self: in the future, never mention “UFO” as a possibility/source – academics have a tendency to run for the hills when the acronym is raised!).

In the meantime – if someone with better CGI skills than I could possibly enlarge/enhance the smaller typeface on the shorter arms that would be much appreciated….

Ciao




[edit on 5/24/2007 by Outrageo]

Don't know if this is already been said but looks like Chad and this guy are from the same state at least. California

Found 3 people with the name R. Satyanarayana

2 people with R. Satyanarayana in California

San Diego, CA 92109
San Mateo, CA

And one from Ohio

Gates Mills, OH 44040


Also have phone numbers, and full addresses to both people but I'm not going to post it here. I just did a simple search for persons online to get it. I wonder if this is the person Linda Howe has talked to?

[edit on 24-5-2007 by quick]

Originally posted by Latitude
You seem very zealous in your attempts to make sure this proved to be a hoax. Even to the point of making false claims about it. I think that instead of making a decision and then attempting to find proof to back it up it should be the other way around.

Seems to me there are also people who seem very zealous in attempting to prove these things real as well. Scrutiny is a good thing. This is the second question on power lines. The first looked as if the line disappeared under the craft. It was pointed out the line is simply lighter in this area. Okay. Same with you. You pointed out some issues on the lines and how they sag to accommodate earthquakes, etc. Okay. Good job. The OP did not make a "false claim," he pointed out what looked as if it might be a flaw. Looks like that isn't true. We can move on.

Frankly, I don't think we're going to find miniscule flaws in the photos that prove them a hoax. The proof, one way or another, is likely going to come from another area altogether. I'm thinking the lettering, myself, but it could be something else.

What will REALLY be fascinating, assuming a conclusion can be reached at all, is all the back pedaling that will happen as people who have come down on one side or another will be saying, "Well, I knew that all along." Of course, sitting on the fence is the safest place to be. That way you can't be wrong.

Originally posted by schuyler
Seems to me there are also people who seem very zealous in attempting to prove these things real as well. Scrutiny is a good thing. This is the second question on power lines. The first looked as if the line disappeared under the craft. It was pointed out the line is simply lighter in this area. Okay. Same with you. You pointed out some issues on the lines and how they sag to accommodate earthquakes, etc. Okay. Good job. The OP did not make a "false claim," he pointed out what looked as if it might be a flaw. Looks like that isn't true. We can move on.

Frankly, I don't think we're going to find miniscule flaws in the photos that prove them a hoax. The proof, one way or another, is likely going to come from another area altogether. I'm thinking the lettering, myself, but it could be something else.

What will REALLY be fascinating, assuming a conclusion can be reached at all, is all the back pedaling that will happen as people who have come down on one side or another will be saying, "Well, I knew that all along." Of course, sitting on the fence is the safest place to be. That way you can't be wrong.

Agreed. I did not automatically assume the pics were real. I still am not completely decided. I don't assume all UFO pics are real. For example I believe that most if not all of the Billy Meiers pics are phony. I have to admit that the Chad/Rajman pics do stand up well to scutiny. The fact that we have these pics from three sources adds to their credibility.

But if the OP did not make a false claim would you call it an incorrect claim? Incorrect/false, I thought they were the same. When you take a true false test, an incorrect answer would be false, right?

Originally posted by Latitude
But if the OP did not make a false claim would you call it an incorrect claim? Incorrect/false, I thought they were the same. When you take a true false test, an incorrect answer would be false, right?

Look at what you were reacting to. You quoted him on this:

I've circled the spots that look like they aren't straight. I didn't circle the 3rd one because it's straight. So are the lines over the Drone just like that because the whole wire isn't straight or is it because it was copied and pasted on?

That's a question, not a 'false claim.' He didn't say, "This is X, period." He said, "Could this be X, or could it be Y?" I think that is a fair question. You gave a fair answer. You then went on to implicate him in zealotry. That isn't fair at all.

(I corrected his English because it made me cringe too much. I just can't help it.)

We do not have proof of this.

Originally posted by Latitude
The fact that we have these pics from three sources adds to their credibility.

I must say that I find it very odd that there is writing (fake or real) of any kind on this object. The "UFO" I witnessed from a distance of aprox. 20-50 ft. (extremely close) not only was completely void of any markings (foreign or domestic) but was also astonishingly enough was completely void of any doors, windows, seams, rivets (you get the picture).... it appeared to be molded or stamped from one solid piece of chrome.


Now keeping in mind that there are reportedly dozens of different types of UFO's reported and none that I'm aware of, are described or depicted with any type of "writing" on them.


I personally am still on the fence with these pics because of that reason (and a few others, ie. credibility?) but there are a few points that still have me wondering. Keep up the good work guys and I appreciate the time and research that some of you have put into this.

I look forward to hearing from Springer further on this subject as I believe he is talking to the right people to bring some light to this recent rash of "drone" sightings....

Guys, haven't you thought that if there would have been an alien writing on the wings, it would have appealed to you much quicker. It would instantly tell you that it's something extremely unique.

When I saw the writing the first time, I just though "gay". That's a lame attempt of making sci-fi reality.

[edit on 24-5-2007 by ZikhaN]

Originally posted by ZikhaN
Guys, haven't you thought that if there would have been an alien writing on the wings, it would have appealed to you much quicker. It would instantly tell you that it's something extremely unique.

Well, for me the writing is a point in the hoax column, but I still think figuring it out might be valuable, particularly if it's a "Goodyear blimp" situation. Writing on most aircraft is functional. It tells you who the aircraft belongs to, in writing or logos, and it tells you the hull number to identify the specific craft. The quantity of writing on his craft doesn't make much sense, imo, unless it's all advertising, like the moving LEDs on the Goodyear.

[edit on 24-5-2007 by schuyler]

the craft is fake because it doesnt look like what we think a ufo should look & behave like. also it doesnt have room for an alien to sit & it has no means of propulsion. besides, its not even aerodynamic.

also, its fake because the writing looks too similar to some here on earth & even too close to what we think it may look like in sci-fi movies etc. besides, why would an advanced alien race need to write anything on a craft? only we humans do such things!

& the photos are too clear.

in order to be real, i believe it has to be just like what our pre-conceived ideas of ufos are (ie a big silver saucer with lights around the edges). the writing should not be there for us to see & besides it definitely should not like look any other ancient or modern language we have ever written in thousands of years.

& blurrier photos would perhaps only then change my opinion.

it has to be fake - cant you see?



[edit on 24-5-2007 by from downunder]

The writing looks 100% human

Originally posted by 212121
The writing looks 100% human

oh yeah? is that right? what does alien writing look like then??

Originally posted by from downunder

Originally posted by 212121
The writing looks 100% human

oh yeah? is that right? what does alien writing look like then??

Not like that, that's for sure.