New Drone, similar to the C2C one

Originally posted by wildone106
To all those people who say this some kind of military aerial drone, PLEASE explain how it flys..with no props, no jets..so they're using anti-gravity eh?? Is'nt that pretty amazing then?
Lets hear it//

Scientists moot gravity-busting hyperdriveMars in three hours - theoretically
By Lester Haines → More by this author
Published Friday 6th January 2006 15:03Â GMT
Like this story? Receive others like it in your inbox
The US military is considering testing the principle behind a type of space drive which holds the promise of reaching Mars in just three hours. The problem is, as New Scientist explains, it's entirely theoretical and many physicists admit they don't understand the science behind it.

Nonetheless, the so-called "hyperdrive" concept won last year's American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics award for the best nuclear and future flight paper. Among its defenders is aerospace engineer Pavlos Mikellides, from the Arizona State University in Tempe. Mikellides, who reviewed the winning paper, said: "Even though such features have been explored before, this particular approach is quite unique."

The basic concept is this: according to the paper's authors - Jochem Häuser, a physicist and professor of computer science at the University of Applied Sciences in Salzgitter and Walter Dröscher, a retired Austrian patent officer - if you put a huge rotating ring above a superconducting coil and pump enough current through the coil, the resulting large magnetic field will "reduce the gravitational pull on the ring to the point where it floats free".

The origins of this "repulsive anti-gravity force" and the hyperdrive it might power lie in the work of German scientist Burkhard Heim, who - as part of his attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and Einstein's general theory of relativity - formulated a theoretical six-dimensioned universe by bolting on two new sub-dimensions to Einstein's generally-accepted four (three space, one time).

As New Scientist explains, Heim's two extra dimensions allowed him to couple together gravity and electromagnetism, and permits conversion of electromagnetic energy into gravitational and vice-versa - something not possible according to Einstein's four dimensions, because "you cannot change the strength of gravity simply by cranking up the electromagnetic field".

Heim, then, proposed that "a rotating magnetic field could reduce the influence of gravity on a spacecraft enough for it to take off" - an idea which caught the eye of Wernher von Braun when it was first proposed in 1959 and the rocket scientist was working on the US's Saturn launch vehicle.

Read the entire article at www.theregister.co.uk...

Originally posted by spf33


and yes, you have a CGI expert here telling you that i am not even 90% convinced these or chad's or the tahoe images are faked.

Are you saying that you are in the same league as or a peer of David Biedny relative to CGI, photography and graphic arts?

If so, I'd like to see the list of universities you teach imaging at, the list of books you've authored on photoshop, CGI and or graphic arts, and the bleeding edge companies you've honed your craft at.

Springer...

The basic concept is this: according to the paper's authors - Jochem Häuser, a physicist and professor of computer science at the University of Applied Sciences in Salzgitter and Walter Dröscher, a retired Austrian patent officer - if you put a huge rotating ring above a superconducting coil and pump enough current through the coil, the resulting large magnetic field will "reduce the gravitational pull on the ring to the point where it floats free".

Sounds like an accurate description of this craft huh?

Someone should really try and contact: rajman1977 on flickr and get him to reveal location and other information regarding the pictures he posted on Flickr.

Originally posted by zyntax555
Someone should really try and contact: rajman1977 on flickr and get him to reveal location and other information regarding the pictures he posted on Flickr.

Maybe you should do it

The thing that seems fishy to me is that the two people who reported seeing this thing only went to the ufo community to tell their story, not to the news or the papers.

If I saw that thing I wold be snapping pictures like crazy and not submit just three of the best looking ones. None of these pictures are blurry or have any imperfections that normal pictures have, they are too clean and perfect.

And there is one pic where the object in the sky is crisp and smooth, and the telephone pole in the foreground, closer to the camera is slightly blurry.

If this this is sooo slow and just wandering about, how come only two people have seen it? It's as big as an office building! Someone else would notice it!



[edit on 21-5-2007 by D.Gribble]

Originally posted by jhamende

Originally posted by zyntax555
Someone should really try and contact: rajman1977 on flickr and get him to reveal location and other information regarding the pictures he posted on Flickr.

Maybe you should do it

Ok, i just dropped him a line, here is the e-mail i sent:

Hey!

I just saw the pictures on Flickr.

Do you have them in higher resolution?
You should also sign up at www.abovetopsecret.com... and make a statement there so people can get some answers.

Hope you will.

Best regards,

Originally posted by Springer

Are you saying that you are in the same league as or a peer of David Biedny relative to CGI, photography and graphic arts?

If so, I'd like to see the list of universities you teach imaging at, the list of books you've authored on photoshop, CGI and or graphic arts, and the bleeding edge companies you've honed your craft at.

- yes.
- school of the art institute of chicago, kendall college of art and design.
- no authorship of any books, manuals, etc. (photoshop v2 or otherwise)
- bethesda softworks, dna studio, brand new school, tigar hare studio

i suppose next you'll want my demo-reel, resume, and shot breakdown?

Originally posted by spf33

Originally posted by schuyler
Photography experts such as jritzmann and david biedny passed on these pictures as fakes hundreds of posts ago...

are these 2 specifically commenting on these photos from Capitola?

the only things i could find in the other c2c ufo thread that either of them said weren't convincing at all, no real details or facts mostly just opinion based off what seem to be initial impressions.

Well ya didnt look, as I listed alot of items in question. No one seems to be giving us anything past jpg's so there's not much more to say. These latest ones seem to be a developing CG model, with more add ons.

Another item to put on the growing pile: The detail on the UO when close to the telephone pole....look at the res and detail of the pole then look at the UO. That ought to be enough to tell you whats probably going on here in regard to CG.

Ur wasting ur time, I too have work in graphics & animation for over 12 years and spotted this as fake the first time round. But ur preaching to people who just dont have the visual finess or experience to tell the signs of a bonafide fake. Aside from the fishy story surrounding this!!! Chad must be laughin his f'ing ass off a this & how gullable people are.

Then the other theorist's who claim its some kind of secret earth vehicle, wow as if thats not amazing huh??! We have anti-gravity technology thats being used to fly weird looking spikey things around the sky. If it was such a vehicle it would probably have a very utilitarian design as does all military things, not some final-fantasy esque nerd boy orgasm ship. Please..

Im gonna check back here in 6 months, when Chad's ego has forced him to reveal it as fake.

f'king hilarious..!

Originally posted by spf33

Originally posted by Springer

Are you saying that you are in the same league as or a peer of David Biedny relative to CGI, photography and graphic arts?

If so, I'd like to see the list of universities you teach imaging at, the list of books you've authored on photoshop, CGI and or graphic arts, and the bleeding edge companies you've honed your craft at.

- yes.
- school of the art institute of chicago, kendall college of art and design.
- no authorship of any books, manuals, etc. (photoshop v2 or otherwise)
- bethesda softworks, dna studio, brand new school, tigar hare studio

i suppose next you'll want my demo-reel, resume, and shot breakdown?

Looking at both SAIC and Kendall and going into their Digital Media and Design centers I did not see any two names that match up.

Also heres a question if you teach at SAIC and Kendall that has to be some heck of a commute seeing as Kendall is in Grand Rapids, MI and SAIC is in Chicago.

As for where you have worked, did you look at your wall and copy all the game designers you could find on the box?




i suppose next you'll want my demo-reel, resume, and shot breakdown?



Yeah I think it would be in order.

$-T-fu

Originally posted by ghostryder21
Looking at both SAIC and Kendall and going into their Digital Media and Design centers I did not see any two names that match up.
stfu..


Also heres a question if you teach at SAIC and Kendall that has to be some heck of a commute seeing as Kendall is in Grand Rapids, MI and SAIC is in Chicago.

As for where you have worked, did you look at your wall and copy all the game designers you could find on the box?



[edit on 21-5-2007 by wildone106]

Originally posted by jhamende

The basic concept is this: according to the paper's authors - Jochem Häuser, a physicist and professor of computer science at the University of Applied Sciences in Salzgitter and Walter Dröscher, a retired Austrian patent officer - if you put a huge rotating ring above a superconducting coil and pump enough current through the coil, the resulting large magnetic field will "reduce the gravitational pull on the ring to the point where it floats free".

Sounds like an accurate description of this craft huh?

No, it doesn't.

I do not see any "huge rotating ring", all the object appears to rotate in one piece.

I also do not see anything that could be a superconducting coil capable of sustain "enough current (whatever that means) to reduce the gravitational pull", and in this case it should be enough to completely negate the Earth's gravitational pull, not just reduce it.

good reply thank you for backing up your statment. or are you mad i caught you in a lie?? so bring a new one on.

Originally posted by jritzmann
Well ya didnt look, as I listed alot of items in question. No one seems to be giving us anything past jpg's so there's not much more to say. These latest ones seem to be a developing CG model, with more add ons.

Another item to put on the growing pile: The detail on the UO when close to the telephone pole....look at the res and detail of the pole then look at the UO. That ought to be enough to tell you whats probably going on here in regard to CG.

Just for the sake of us unwashed masses, what specifically do you see in the pole and the OU that tells you it's CGI? Oh, also I noticed you left yourself an out this time with the "probably". Smart move. I mean, just in case this thing turns out to be legit, especially as these reports start to pile up.

I toned the Starwars beige color back to the grey color you see on the other version/photo..
And all that purple stuff turns blue.

I still think bluescreen -
I think it was cyan that needed to be -100% - then the ship turned grey again - And the purple turns blue again.

So it could mean it's the same creator behind the images - Just with a few more details added on it.

Or it could mean somthing completly different offcourse.

I repeat...

I swear if this is a viral ad I WILL SUE. End of story.

Originally posted by jritzmann

Well ya didnt look, as I listed alot of items in question...

Another item to put on the growing pile: The detail on the UO when close to the telephone pole....look at the res and detail of the pole then look at the UO. That ought to be enough to tell you whats probably going on here in regard to CG.

yeah, i guess you guys did delve a little deeper than i first gave you credit for. but not much, on just the images alone i think it's a big mistake to categorically label them as fake.

and what are you seeing in the light pole image that bothers you?
the res and detail seem to be inline with the focus to me.

Originally posted by ghostryder21
Looking at both SAIC and Kendall and going into their Digital Media and Design centers I did not see any two names that match up.

sorry. past tense on both of them.

Something got stuck in the anti-gravity generator?



Some problem here to.

Originally posted by Ram

So it could mean it's the same creator behind the images - Just with a few more details added on it.

Or it could mean somthing completly different offcourse.

like chromatic aberrations from a camera, a digital one in particular:

Purple Fringing