New Drone, similar to the C2C one, page 26

This is my first posting on here, and it's these sets of 'UFO' photos that have compelled me to sign up. Fake or real, I've really enjoyed these photos. They've created some fantastic debate on topics ranging from CGI to Ion Propulsion, and it's interesting to see communities contest each other which the evidence they can muster.

I've so enjoyed the debate that I've decided to chime in with my own thoughts. I have no experience in CGI, in science or physics, astrophysics or even UFO's - so my credentials don't mean much (in fact, music is my profession, most useless in this context). Nevertheless, some of my observations and thoughts, just to keep the debate up!

I have to say that overall I'm skeptical. I'm a pragmatist and I think there are a few key issues that go against the grain of the pro-UFO argument:

* In the first set of pictures (Lake Tahoe), I must admit some of the closers shots do appear to be 'CGI'. My limited knowledge aside, something tells me instinctively that the shadows and texture of the object don't quite seem right.

That havign been said, I have seen pictures of very real objects that have actually looked quite fake because of the way, manner or conditions in which they were shot.

Despite being a pragmatist however, I'm a romantic, and would love to believe these pictures are real! There is some, perhaps not 'evidence', but compelling reasoning behind the pro-UFO community.

Firstly, I must admit that many of the CGI-artists attempting to prove the object is a fake through example are not doing a convincing job. I've been frustrated by the amount of people who have claimed they can "prove" the object to be a fake, only to present a half-finished and frankly very basic 3D model with a ream of excuses, usually centred around the "I've rushed this so far" angle. While I think it's interesting and important to demonstrate how this could be done using CGI, it's really an "all or nothing" scenario. Somebody either has to show us a convincing 3D model composited into a photo, or consequently the argument becomes moot. After all, anybody could work on 3D modelling a car for a few hours and give us a faithful but unrealistic looking replica. If this is to be in any way debunked by CGI artists, it's the details that count.

If I assume this is real (from this point forward), then I do think it is almost certainly man-made, and not ET. It's not that I don't believe in aliens, but this craft has a man-made quality to it, and is far more likely to be a military aviation or scientific project if it does prove to be real.

Regarding the language and text on the underside of the vehicle, these do nothing to persuade that the craft is ET. The military have quite a humorous and very pop-culture streak in them (playing to the music from Gladiator to psyche soldiers up, naming military operations after lines in films etc.). To that extent, it is by no means illogical to suggest the 'alien' writing would be a really quite interesting joke, vaguely the same as the Americans writing German on their WWII bombs, or painting beautiful women on the sides of their aircraft. Overall, the CGI community (even, I believe, David Biedny) are ultimately incapable of debunking this. It's not that I doubt their knowledge, but they cannot impart that knowledge to your 'average Joe' (insomuch as you can't explain CGI to a novice, myself included, only show).

There is one problem that expert knowledge brings - and that is a skewed sense of reasoning. For example, I've studied Mozart's Requiem extensively (which was completed by his student when Mozart died during composing). I've looked in great detail at their compositional styles, the student's inexperience, and where I felt the student's work was evident. Over the years I've convinced myself I knew one from the other, and that I've had evidence to back up my opinions. Over the last 4 years, I've been physically proven wrong. 'Expertise' isn't everything, proof is.