New Drone, similar to the C2C one

Originally posted by hiii_98
The font appears to be a mix of korean and chinese. Looks like alot of chinese cursive to my untrained eye. Can someone look into this further and find better matches i have no more time tonight to devote to this. Furthermore i notice that the aliens or the hoaxer placed the letters upsidedown on the second panel.... Seems odd to me.

I dont know why that would be wierd, i am assuming that you think this because of the 4th large letter on the long section when comared to the 2nd large letter on the short side. But, our 6 is a 9 upside down, and vice virsa.

So i don't see other things that would give the indication of placed upside down letters, but i could be wroung.

more from saladfingers..

It only took about 3, maybe 4 hours to put this together, so it might not be as polished as the ones you've already seen.. but see what you think...

link to thread


[edit on 29-5-2007 by errorist]

Originally posted by adjay
But if he's going to say it's the work of an advanced hobbyist, surely as a professional he could whip something up as good, or better, in no time at all.

i spent 45 mins recreating one of the chad images among a bunch of other observations, animations, etc. haven't had time to tag or title anything, so it's just a random image drop location:

profile.imageshack.us...

current conclusions?
i spent tens of minutes recreating the thing to a believable level and spent tens of hours examining the object images (keeping in mind that i'm looking at highly compressed jpg's from a digicam and jpg's that were most likely scanned photos and are also highly compressed).

i see no verifiable proof that these images are cgi.

which is not to say i don't think 100% that the images could be cg creations.





[edit on 29-5-2007 by spf33]

[edit on 29-5-2007 by spf33]

Damn!

It really looks like someone is trying to push us all believing in this crap, or it's just a massive ufo wave

Originally posted by adjay

I am a little disappointed by your post, seeing as you are a moderator of this message board who's motto is "Deny ignorance". I have always been keen to read your input on threads until now as you seemed to post without bias, or any ridicule.

I should like to apologise to you for my "snippy" reply adjay. Alas I am but a human being and subject to exhaustion of patience. I was pretty short with you and for that I am sorry.

My point is, David Biedny, Jeff Ritzmann, myself (I am one of the three owners of this site and the company it is part of) and several others, are extremely busy people in RL. We are not willing to spend what precious little free time we get working to disprove things that are obvious to us after we've already explained it several times (it's all here in this thread and a few others).

Now the fact they are not obvious to many people is appreciated by me but doesn't change a thing, I commented on that bit a few pages back as well.

This "case" is quickly becoming comparable to the great Monty Python "dead parrot" skit IMHO.

I am certainly not trying to persuade anyone one way or the other either, I am merely pointing out what my opinion is on these images and their ridiculous back story. All I have to go on is 20+ years of involvement in this bizarre "field" and the opinion of experts. Can the experts be wrong? OF COURSE they can! I just don't think they are on this particular data.

One of the beautiful things about ATS is we have a forum within which we can express our thoughts, ideas, opinions and convictions without wasting time on the childish name calling and useless rhetoric of fanatics drowning us out.

To that end I encourage EVERYONE to keep digging until there is no question left in their mind one way or the other.

Do I hold out any chance these images are real? Sure I do, anything is possible, I just don't think it's very likely that art imitates life to this degree however. Does that matter to anyone else? I doubt it.

Springer...

[edit on 5-30-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by Springer

We are not willing to spend what precious little free time we get working to disprove things that are obvious to us after we've already explained it several times (it's all here in this thread and a few others).


Springer...

greetings.

so you say that its really obvious to you and others that these are all just photoshop. That then would imply that all 3 people are the same, or connected n some conspiracy of wanting to create 3 or 4 different 'models' or 'types' of object and photoshop them into pictures, set some back story, (granted, there is precious little backstory), and then start putting them up in forums and geting mentions on c2c and earthfiles and ATS.

I would be in total agreeance if hte models weren't so damn different loooking, if they are all photoshops from the same person(s), they shoudl be more similar. the one from 2006 is radically different looking.

if anything in the hoaxing/fake arena, i'd be inclined to think that these are real drones, test models or the aforementioned, viral marketing campaing for some future film. if it IS viral marketing, those people are going to be publicly lambasted for this .



~lightwaveryder~

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]

If it is a viral marketing campaign then its a very bad one. I work in a company with 150+ employees and i reckon i'm the only one who will have seen / studied the photos. Thats not very good for an IT company with access to the net.

If its for the movie Transformers like many have suggested then it would put me off seeing the movie (even though i liked the cartoon as a kid) because they have taken advantage of a very close knit community.

I showed the photos to my g/f who believe in aliens but hasn't researched as much as I have. When i showed her she said "fake" that seems to be a lot of peoples first reaction to the photos.

I'm still sitting firmly on the fence. I would rather have seen a photo of a disc close up in all its glorious detail (dont start with any Billy Meier crap). I think because this "craft" is so different to anything i've seen before its sparked so much interest.

A part of me thinks it looks like a japanese toy i dont know why thats just the feeling i get.

I surprised so many people think they are real. My first look I can see that they all are fake. Now I am also open to new information..if it can be proven by a top notch professional that the pictures are of a real craft and have not been faked then I might change my mind. But until then they are obvious fakes.But thats just me I'm not experienced by any means in that field of cgi and such.

The modeler should have rendered them with some Anti Aliasing!!!!

the steps don't match the others in the image.

Could be related to this???

www.lerc.nasa.gov...-nasa

Originally posted by corda
Some are looking very good, but has anybody as yet been able to create a picture that rivals the Capitola pictures?
[edit on 29-5-2007 by corda]

Corda, why don't you have a look around on this site: CGTalk? For starters have a look at this person's work: Andrea Bertaccini. Maybe after you spend an hour or so browsing that forum you'll come to understand that the CGI guys here know a bit what they are talking about. It is pretty clear to me that they can see things and notice things that the rest of us can only possibly have vague feelings about.

This link, Andrea Bertaccini, is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of what we've been trying to explain is possible all along and why the images in question are so lacking and obviously fake.


Andrea also got the lighting/shadows PERFECT, unlike our hoaxer.

You see, a real photograph of a real object, outside in daylight with no other light source is always perfect with regard to lighting/shadows because there's no way to screw up the sun's natural light and the shadows objects in it cast.


Superior contribution Areal51!

Springer...

Originally posted by Springer
This link, Andrea Bertaccini, is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of what we've been trying to explain is possible all along and why the images in question are so lacking and obviously fake.


Andrea also got the lighting/shadows PERFECT, unlike our hoaxer.

You see, a real photograph of a real object, outside in daylight with no other light source is always perfect with regard to lighting/shadows because there's no way to screw up the sun's natural light and the shadows objects in it cast.

Maybe we could invite Andrea or some memebers of their forum to look at the drone photos as I know the experts on the paracast don't have enough time.

You see, a real photograph of a real object, outside in daylight with no other light source is always perfect with regard to lighting/shadows because there's no way to screw up the sun's natural light and the shadows objects in it cast.

are you kidding? how can you say this is more correct?

it's supposed to be on the moon-no atmosphere, no particulate matter in the air, no reflected blue sky, no haze?

the chad\rajman images are spur of the moment shots...there are blurs, chromatic aberations, bad compression artifacts, dirty scanner.

please, someone show me where the "incorrect" shadows are in any of the images?

the Andrea Bertaccini looks more 3d to me than any of the object images, talk about perfect and too sharp and defined.

it barely passes for the real thing:










[edit on 29-5-2007 by spf33]

[edit on 29-5-2007 by spf33]

[edit on 29-5-2007 by spf33]

Originally posted by corda
I still feel if one image, at least to the untrained eye, threatens to expose this as a hoax, it would be this one:

I agree. That's exactly what I pointed out on page 16. It screams out the word FAKE. It's so easy to tell. It just looks so out of place.

Originally posted by errorist
more from saladfingers..

Those images actually pretty much prove the other pictures to be fake. Even though they're not as well made.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by ZikhaN]

Thanks for pointing out that link. It's a wonderful reproduction!

I must, however, admit that I noticed it was 3D, and comparing it with the real photograph only served to heighten the discrepancies. I don't say that in a snide way, it's nothing short of magnificent, it's just that I don't think this proves a whole lot one way or the other.

At the end of the day, I'm fairly impartial to the concept of these 'drone' photos. I don't have any particular affiliation with Ufology or CGI, only that I believe both to be fascinating subjects, and love looking at good examples of both.

I believe that, even if the sets of 'drone' photos were real, they are nothing more than pictures of a human science project, military vehicle, or simply the work of a rich enthusiast. To that extent, I'm not desperate to prove these pictures one way or another, but would nevertheless love to know the truth about them.

As I've said before, the burden of proof doesn't rest with expert CGI artists, but they must be aware that when they post messages saying "so obviously fake" or "amateur at best", it is inevitable people will want detailed, and very likely visual, evidence of their meaning. There has been a fair deal of hostility from both camps, with the phrase "you don't know what you're talking about" being the main line of defence. Debate is debate, and even the opinion of the most experienced, knowledgeable CGI artist can by default be nothing more than opinion. That David Biedny knows this is a fake is no more valid than somebody "knowing" it is real, because the problem is that no one side could dissuade the other without meaningful, conclusive evidence.

I look forward to the continued debate of the evidence and theories available to us. Presuming the drone to be real, I have read some wonderful articles on how it might utilise Ion Propulsion. Presuming it is fake, I have read some wonderful pieces on the visual anomalies and evidence of CGI. All I hope is that debate remains civil and progressive, and doesn't merely ascend into a "you don't know what you're talking about" fiasco, from either camp.

Wow nice pictures of Buzz Aldrin Btw;O Looks like 21st century photo quality.

Would be cool if they could make a wallpaper out of that picture.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by ZikhaN]

Originally posted by spf33

You see, a real photograph of a real object, outside in daylight with no other light source is always perfect with regard to lighting/shadows because there's no way to screw up the sun's natural light and the shadows objects in it cast.

are you kidding? how can you say this is more correct?

There's plenty "wrong" with Andrea's work, but then when you fully consider the original source you realize that Andrea's work is exceptionally faithful to it. All I can say is to keep looking and comparing the two images. Andrea's work is a stellar accomplishment, in my humble opinion.

This is what one poster at CGTalk had to say in relation to Andrea's work, "Things in real life don't necessarily conform to what we expect. It's an art directors job to make images read "correctly." That often involves cheating reality so that what we see is what we expect, not what actually should be there."

Which subject is more complex? The subject of "Chad's" photo or the subject of Andrea's endeavor? If anything "Chad's" photos should ring true and survive the scrutiny of CG artists. So far they haven't. "Chad" didn't have to work with human anatomy or complex textures or reflections and seemingly complex light sources. If one pays close attention to the lighting in the original moonwalk photo, then it will be noticed that the Sun alone is not capable of producing all of the evident light and shadows. That's an entirely different controversy altogether! In Andrea's reproduction it is very easy to imagine that there is a person in that space suit; that the suit, gloves, and metal gear accessories are real. It does have a little studio quality to it, "too clean too perfect", but that is only in comparison with the original photo. And, anyway, it doesn't seem that the intention was to do a perfect reproduction, it was more to get as close as possible to the original while still managing to produce a meaningful work of art. I would say that Andrea thoroughly achieved that goal. The lighting of his work is gorgeous, even though it is imperfect. He certainly caught the spirit of the original, and he also managed to communicate his own sense of beauty and harmony.

I certainly didn't mean to turn this thread into a debate about Andrea's work, but it is clear that even the most complex subjects can be CG rendered to a very high level of realism. And so, the "Chadsquito" saga continues. So far no one has claimed to offer proof one way or the other, but I have to say that my hat is off to the CG guys. They are some sharp eyed talented individuals who can produce mountains of evidence to back their contentions. It's remains possible that "Chad" may have just taken a few bad snapshots or some good ones, who knows. Meanwhile, "Chad's" photos are not convincing to CG artists, or myself, and "Chad" has yet to offer up any original material to be scrutinized by anybody.

There was a time when I believed that there was no water on Mars. That's because I had to rely on the "expert opinion" of "experts", and because I have never been to Mars myself. Now they tell me that there is water on Mars, lots of it. Well, I'm still in the same position.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by Areal51]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned....but did anyone see this clip of the C2C UFO thingy? I was stumbling around stumble video and saw it and noticed it was the same strange craft. Looks a lot smaller in the video

Not sure if this link will work but here goes:


video.stumbleupon.com...=lgsskxuhx3