He doesn't even try to get the object in the centre of the screen, which is natural to do if you try to photograph something. Google 'aircraft' images and see for yourself how many aircrafts are in the centre (main object you want to put the viewers focus on) Either he off-centred on purpose or the pictures are taken as background.

Originally posted by Cygnific

Originally posted by highCT

Originally posted by Cygnific
Why are NONE of the pictures focused on the object itself? If i try to make a picture of an object i would atleast 'try' to focus/point my camera on the object itself.

grab the pictures off flickr and throw them in photoshop. looks in focus too me!

if this is fake.... anything in the world now can be faked and that is it period end of story over.

I dont have to put them in photoshop to see that the object is not in the middle of the picture, why would you take a picture from a object half the screen away from it?

honestly, most people just dont know how to use there digital cameras correctly. or it could be fake? im just leaning towards the real now that its came from 3 different places now and the writing is different on the objects. just alot of stuff for it to be a hoax. and if it is, its a damn good one.

Originally posted by fooffstarr
The writing is different, and the 'wings' are rotated and switched around again... but that is the same as what changed on the second set of images as well.

My bet is that it is the same 'Chad' guy making slight alterations to his original model and skin and simply rendering it with different background images

That was my thought when I noticed the one identifiable katakana character, "fu," has been altered by the addition of an extra marking inside it. It now has no identifiable Japanese characters on it.

Originally posted by highCT

honestly, most people just dont know how to use there digital cameras correctly. or it could be fake? im just leaning towards the real now that its came from 3 different places now and the writing is different on the objects. just alot of stuff for it to be a hoax. and if it is, its a damn good one.

If you make a few fonts you can write all you want. How many pictures do you take from lets say a person or object where you not focus on the person or object itself? You really belief that "don't know how to use a camera" is a valid point to not point the camera on the object itelf but half the screen away from it?

If this stuff is all fake (I am leaning towards fake for the whole show until something changes my mind), do you think "Chad" and other "photographers" have posted on forums and interjected themselves into the case?


If these images are from the same hoaxer, it is almost like the hoaxer is listening to some common criticisms and fixing them in the next set of images.

EXIF data, changes to the lettering... makes me wonder.

Originally posted by highCT

some people dont wanna be known as "a crazy person" because they saw a "ufo" so they are not quick to come foward, but use the internet to get it off there chest kinda.

Sure, but we're not talking about someone with a far-out narrative dependent on one's credibility. Is it reasonable that 3 different people who have taken wha-zoo photos of ufos are being this evasive? On the other hand, if it's a hoax, it all becomes very problematic to come forward.

Originally posted by jra

I got to admit the hoaxers compositing skills are improving. I remember the first set there were some that stuck out as being very obviously CG (lack of appropriate blur and what not).

Thats the sad part of this, he will make a new model and flood the web wit h fakes. It will get harder and harder to 'debunk' and in the end nothing can proof fakes and we have to wait for them to land on the White House (or any other important place) if it is real

Originally posted by Dulcimer
, it is almost like the hoaxer is listening to some common criticisms and fixing them in the next set of images.

Since he's probably reading along, i kindly request a video of the thing moving. See if you can manage that!

[edit on 21-5-2007 by errorist]

Technical question: If one or more of these heretofore elusive photographers finally did come forward with the photos on their cameras, would that indicate authenticity or is it possible to fake that as well?

Yes. There are 2 reports on the page. His comment is the one above it.

Also, in the Earthfiles article, the unnamed author says:

"It should be noted, too, that the angle of the bend on each element permits a nearly vertical aperture perspective, enabling higher flying craft (or lower flying, as the case may be) to be able to communicate with this ring-drone; a sort of look-down-look-up communicating ability with no loss of sight."

OK. Now take the time to find Chad's original photos from C2C. In one where the craft is in view with bushes in the foreground left, high up above there appears to be a UFO shaped object (maybe two) in the sky above, approximately over the object. Interesting concurrance.

Originally posted by bprintz1

OK. Now take the time to find Chad's original photos from C2C. In one where the craft is in view with bushes in the foreground left, high up above there appears to be a UFO shaped object (maybe two) in the sky above, approximately over the object. Interesting concurrance.

I did notice this, very interesting and another piece to the puzzle.

The original Flickr images have been removed I think, I can't access them,
not sure if that's a good sign or not..

Originally posted by October
The original Flickr images have been removed I think, I can't access them,
not sure if that's a good sign or not..

still works for me

Originally posted by fooffstarr
The writing is different, and the 'wings' are rotated and switched around again... but that is the same as what changed on the second set of images as well.

My bet is that it is the same 'Chad' guy making slight alterations to his original model and skin and simply rendering it with different background images... not very hard to do or very time consuming either...

There are other minor model differences too.

Personally, I'm still a little confused over them. As I've said before, I think they are very good fakes if they are fake. The rendering is high quality, as is the model.

This new one however, confuses more over the fact its different than the fact it shouldnt be. I mean, sure an F16 jetfighter look different than an F18, but if you where to send drones somewhere which are almost certain to be shot down, making a bunch of different ones doesnt make sense. Different writing, sure. But this model is clearly different too.

Originally posted by merka
This new one however, confuses more over the fact its different than the fact it shouldnt be. I mean, sure an F16 jetfighter look different than an F18, but if you where to send drones somewhere which are almost certain to be shot down, making a bunch of different ones doesnt make sense. Different writing, sure. But this model is clearly different too.

IF they are real the speculation by the Engineer report on the Earthfiles does kind of explain the diferences.

I'd also say that having worked on spacecraft for a number of years, the trick of keeping unintended interference down to an acceptable level is to place it further away from the noise source. So on our spacecraft - say Voyager, for example, which is well known and has been seen many times, it has extended arms for this function. One arm is for the nuclear power device; we don't want that next to the scientific instruments so they are kept at opposite ends or hidden behind the body or shielded as design permits. In this ring-drone, my guess would be the same thing is being applied; you see three sections of the extended 'front-arm,' as I called it, each with rod-like pins separating the section. Each section appears to have one or more sensors,

So if the "arms" were to conatin the sensors then there would be different arms for different purposes. The ring and the cage being the "Support" for the sensors. Compare the different F16 & F18 armament / fuel pod configurations for example..

I stress again the first ..IF..

[edit on 21/5/07 by CthulhuRising]

Originally posted by Cygnific
He doesn't even try to get the object in the centre of the screen, which is natural to do if you try to photograph something. Google 'aircraft' images and see for yourself how many aircrafts are in the centre (main object you want to put the viewers focus on) Either he off-centred on purpose or the pictures are taken as background.

And why would a hoaxer not center the object ? It would be easy to center in the photo. As the person said, he was running and "wobling" around while taking the photos, which could explain why they are not centered. But I just can't see why a hoaxer would not have centered this object. And if we are talking about a hoaxer, he is pretty good with cgi and photoshop and everything, so I don't think the answer is "because he didn't know how to center the object"