Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New Drone, similar to the C2C one

page: 30
34
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I don't know how many people check this thread now, so it might be an idea for someone to start a new one with these latest pictures.

They really do look like someone has taken all the previous models and combined them with some new features. Yes, i am in the 'it is CGI' party, and yes, this does look like it is simply someone with too much time on their hands




posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Please check the pics from the first post.

Seems the Flickr account is no longer hosting them.

I found this kind of odd.

About the new pics, I agree. Someone has taken all the pics and
added them into something bigger.

Regards,
Lex



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   
i'm still standing on my belief that this is authentic, i feel that it is either extraterrestrial or terrestrial. its one or the other imo. Why are there so many skeptics here recently? i feel that everybody who believes this is real hasn't spoken up much recently due to the rash of flames coming from the people who don't believe.... come on guys we are supposed to all have open minds here and respect everybody else's opinions.



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeffery2102
i'm still standing on my belief that this is authentic, i feel that it is either extraterrestrial or terrestrial. its one or the other imo. Why are there so many skeptics here recently? i feel that everybody who believes this is real hasn't spoken up much recently due to the rash of flames coming from the people who don't believe.... come on guys we are supposed to all have open minds here and respect everybody else's opinions.


Hah !!!

Oh, btw. Another one has been photographed.

Big Basin sighting



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   
every time a new image comes along, this "thing" gets additional appendages to those on the previous "version" - whats next?



posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by from downunder
every time a new image comes along, this "thing" gets additional appendages to those on the previous "version" - whats next?


More time to work on it. Unlike the earlier models, it's looking much more symmetrical, which was one of the criticisms. I'm thinking maybe a landing gear, or maybe a tail hook to allow landing on an aircraft carrier. Maybe a rope with a bucket on the end to get water out of alpine lakes, plus a crank to wind it up. And if it IS there to protect the electrical lines, a rack of blue flashing lights on top to intimidate passing crows from pooing on the lines.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 12:30 AM
link   
ill take a look at it in photoshop, but im no photo expert. ill see what i can add on to it if anything, see how hard it is. i actually am supposed to go airsofting with my buddy who has a cabin near big basin or big sur forget which one >.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Do we have anyone here who has this photog's email address? I'd like someone to pass along two questions (I'm repeating myself here):
1) Why isn't there any exif data on these photographs?
2) What are the google earth coordinates where this was taken?



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Do we have anyone here who has this photog's email address? I'd like someone to pass along two questions (I'm repeating myself here):
1) Why isn't there any exif data on these photographs?
2) What are the google earth coordinates where this was taken?


How can an image not have any exif data files, i thought all puictures had them...



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKainZero

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Do we have anyone here who has this photog's email address? I'd like someone to pass along two questions (I'm repeating myself here):
1) Why isn't there any exif data on these photographs?
2) What are the google earth coordinates where this was taken?


How can an image not have any exif data files, i thought all puictures had them...


It's not in seperate files, it's inside each picture. In these pictures there was no exif data at all, empty fields maybe but no entries. I doubt that canon rebel xt can make 'clean' files where there is no exif data.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I doubt that canon rebel xt can make 'clean' files where there is no exif data.
It does create EXIF data, a quick Google search will show some photos taken with that camera that have EXIF data.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
I'm thinking maybe a landing gear, or maybe a tail hook to allow landing on an aircraft carrier.
I think that the most needed thing is something that shows its size, this is still looking like it could be just some centimetres high or some tens of metres high.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I doubt that canon rebel xt can make 'clean' files where there is no exif data.
It does create EXIF data, a quick Google search will show some photos taken with that camera that have EXIF data.


Emphasis on 'no'
You missed that little crucial word there

I've spoken with a friend who shoots with xt and he confirmed that xt doesn't make clean files without exif data, all files automatically have focal lenght, iso speed etc. embedded in exif.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I asked this question twice previously, and I still don't have an answer, so once more.

If the photographer has the photos in his camera, is this an indication of authenticity or can that be faked as well? If I took ufo photos, I would leave them in the camera just in case it lent credibility to them, but I don't know enough about the subject to determine whether it matters or not. Anyone?



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by yuefo
If the photographer has the photos in his camera, is this an indication of authenticity or can that be faked as well? If I took ufo photos, I would leave them in the camera just in case it lent credibility to them, but I don't know enough about the subject to determine whether it matters or not. Anyone?


On a film camera, sure, but most of the stuff is digital these days. The pictures wind up on a memory card that simply unplugs and is quite small. Hundreds of pictures can be on one card. I think the pictures would be the same on the card whether or not the card was unplugged from the camera. the data about the shot, fstop and all that, travels with the card, not the camera.

If I had a film camera, that would be different. It could lend credence if a third party took the entire package, took out the film under scrutiny, and developed the film the same way.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
My camera uses compact flash and smart cards. I can write onto those cards just like I can read the pictures off the card into the desk top computer. I can also transfer from card to card in the camera.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Shuyler and Roadgravel, thanks. So my next question: would a film photo be more credible than a digital? My guess is yes.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
I think the pictures would be the same on the card whether or not the card was unplugged from the camera. the data about the shot, fstop and all that, travels with the card, not the camera.


The data is in the image on the card. The data will be with the image and copies of it unless another program rewites the image without it.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by yuefo
I asked this question twice previously, and I still don't have an answer, so once more.

If the photographer has the photos in his camera, is this an indication of authenticity or can that be faked as well? If I took ufo photos, I would leave them in the camera just in case it lent credibility to them, but I don't know enough about the subject to determine whether it matters or not. Anyone?


You can only verify authencity of photographs if you have used a special authentication kit that is available at least for nikon and canon. This in theory should prevent any manipulation of digital images and is used widely by CSI and law enforcement so images presented in a trial can be verified. Normal digital camera works as an external removable storage unit just like mp3 players and memory sticks so you can upload pretty much anything into them.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
You can only verify authencity of photographs if you have used a special authentication kit that is available at least for nikon and canon. This in theory should prevent any manipulation of digital images and is used widely by CSI and law enforcement so images presented in a trial can be verified.


I have a Nikon. Just so I understand, is this kit software that you use when downloading photos from the camera? This is the first time I've heard of this.





new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join