Chad Drone Omnibus..Chadsquito, page 1

Worthwhile Quotes:

Re Chad's;

Digital or 35mm?

Originally posted by TrentReznor
Can I just point out that appart from the Mobile phone pic, the other 3 were taken with a Film Camera and Scanned in not with a Digital Camera,

Thats why the Pics don't have Camera Information

You can tell by the Colour Temprature and "Natural Film grain" Amongst other things like Lens Effects like the Purple & orange Hue on the side of Objects, allong with Dust and other "Film" induced prosesses.
The "UFO" also bares these Artifacts assoiciated with somthing took with a Film Camera, and matches the Backgrounds Artifacts

This further Explains why Only 4 Pics were taken, in the sence that He may of only had 4 Shots left, and you cant exactly Delete them of the camera, although I wo0uld say he's a bit silly not to have bought a new roll of Film.

This is why I don't think it is A CGI model, and it was somthing Taken there and then with a Film Camera,

Hats off to That CGI Model your Doing its Very good, But were you to make an CGI model of lest say Your Car or A Picture of an Airoplane , Does that mean that the Car and Plane Arn't real because you can re-create it in CGI?

if this Thing Is going to be fake then it is a Real model that was actualy there and taken with a 35mm Film Camera.
Which of course is a Probability, but If i Went to the trouble of doing all that and MAkeing the damm thing, I would have Made shure people know about it and not just send it to C2C,

Important point re EXIF data

Originally posted by rocksolidbrain
Resizing/editing the pic in Photoshop can strip off the exif data.
Scanning can also add the "created in photoshop" tag.

Similiar story from1960's ??

Originally posted by 10538
Someone mentioned a similarity between these photos and a report by a "Mr Brooks" I did some googling and found this.

www.ufoevidence.org...

THE experts opinion..

Originally posted by davidbiedny
As many here have noted. this is obviously a 3D rendered ship composited into photographic backgrounds. The uniformity of the surfaces and textures, the lighting and the modeling of the ship all underscore the fact that we're looking at a 3D rendered element.

it amazes me that some folks here think that this would be so difficult to model and render - sorry, it's a passable modeling job, nothing that would get the artist hired at ILM.

These images are fabricated. EOS.

dB

And because he spent so much time on it ..
The opinions of Lasse

Something to think about..

Originally posted by Areal51
Dealers in rare art and artifacts face an extraordinary high risk of investing in forgeries. Over 20 years ago the J. P. Getty Museum, of Los, Angeles California, invested $10 million in an ancient Greek statue called a kouros. The first gut reaction of many experts was that it was a fake, that it was "putrid". Many couldn't put their finger on why the statue repulsed them, so forensic scientists were hired to vouch for the authenticity of the statue. The scientists said that the statues materials could not have been faked and therefore the statue was authentic. But the expertise and carefully nurtured minds and sensibilities of some of the world's foremost authorities of Greek antiquities said otherwise. To this day the issue has not been resolved. The Getty Kouros reads, "Greek, 530 B.C. or modern forgery." Science versus the intuition, instinct, and knowledge of those who are supposed to know better. One thing is for sure, the chap who sold the statue to the Getty for $10 million will never tell.

The most striking thing about this current debate is that people are willing to forgo their initial reaction in favor of inconclusive evidence. It's as if the need to believe that the photos are real has taken precedent over the split second conclusion made by the brain––a brain that's used to discerning what is authentic and what is not. There is only one argument in this thread that has been compelling to me, and that is in every photo, except the cell phone photo, the craft has a sharper resolution than any of it's surroundings. I noticed this myself before I found this forum. I don't need a masters in CGI or 3D modeling or photography to notice that very obvious fact. I've taken a look at some Billy Meiers photos and as unsettling as some of those photos are, they all hold true. I can only ask, "What in the cosmos is that?" I do not ask, "What is wrong with this picture?"

The anonymous "Chad" created the wrong type of mystery with his photos. We are concerned with the authenticity of his photos instead of the mystery of the apparent visitors.