I still feel if one image, at least to the untrained eye, threatens to expose this as a hoax, it would be this one:
Some of the photos, to my eye (and I expect the eyes of most novice or amateur CGI of UFO enthusiasts) look remarkably real. This one however, has
immediate 'problems', and although I cannot 100% say this picture proves the whole thing to be a fake, I think it's this one that most people would
have to agree requires the greatest leap of imagination.
There is just something too uniform about the shadows and texture of this object. Although I wouldn't say it looks completely 'pasted' in, there is
something immediately different with regards to the foreground treeline and the object.
Many people have, however, commented on the angle at which the photograph has been taken as evidence of its forgery. I would disagree strongly with
that point. After all, regardless of whether the object exists, there is no dispute the original photograph of the treeline would have been shot. To
this extent, whoever took the photograph would have physically been in the position from which the photograph has been taken. I have heard some people
say "it can't be real, the guy is in the trees", but regardless of the objects authenticity, whoever took this picture would still have been in the
trees! I think it's more probable that there is some sort of a hill or rock face overlooking the forest from which this picture was taken.
With regards to Springer and the CGI/David Biedny argument, unfortunately no party is wrong. David Biedny is an expert, who probably has little time
to go disproving CGI hoaxes by spending hours of his own modelling and photoshopping images. If he knows it is fake, he probably has very little
reason to replicate the forgery.
That having been said, the naysayers do have a point. Nobody, regardless of their CV, can claim a picture a fake and proceed to explain how it could
be done, without expecting the average person to want proof of their word. It's akin to saying you know how to make an Elephant disappear without
ever performing the trick. I don't think for one moment David Biedny owes anything to myself, the believers or the doubters, but you must accept that
once you call somebody an "advanced hobbyist", people will be immensely curious to see the work of a seasoned professional.
I have seen the 2006 picture and, to my mind, it looks like a fake. I am particularly swayed by the composition of the picture, which too is taken
from below power lines that run directly under the object. Although I still presume the other sets of pictures are fake, I still have not been
definitively convinced of the fact.
I have seen many people creating CGI pictures and videos replicating the craft. Some are looking very good, but has anybody as yet been able to create
a picture that rivals the Capitola pictures? I don't say this condescendingly, I just maintain still that once somebody creates the definitive
picture, that matches that quality of the Capitola set and is definitely a forgery, it would throw serious doubt on any potential authenticity the
picture sets may have.
Fake or real, I think we still must all be thankful for the throroughly entertaining few weeks this have been. I know that hoaxes can be immensely
frustrating to Ufologists and enthusiasts, and especially to those who maintain they have seen real UFO's. But despite this fact, I think many of us
have enjoyed pouring through pictures and articles about all different kinds of subjects, looking for evidence to prove whatever theories we have
regarding fakery or authenticity. Real or not, few of us can deny it has been fun, and will probably continue to be so for a while yet.
[edit on 29-5-2007 by corda]
Does that matter to anyone else? I doubt it. 
