Chad Drone Omnibus..Chadsquito

If you do I'll give you the floor and back you with all I can to make sure you get to present your case.



Fair enough. That's your opinion/ perspective, it IS welcome here, but not at the derision of anyone else's.



None, you have worn me out with "grouchiness", I am merely pointing it out as politely as I can in order to preserve that which millions of people find attractive about these boards AND preserve your ability to participate.

How do you call wanting all the DATA we can get "flawed logic"?! If you are stating my OPINION is flawed well that's your prerogative, but my logic is to get as much data as we can from the best people we can get it from. That's all I've EVER wanted or asked for.



That's either intellectual dishonesty on your part or I have failed in communicating the "civil" message.



ABSOLUTELY NOTHING if it's done POLITELY. We seek to moderate TONE, never content, is this making sense yet?



THANK YOU! That's what I am talking about!

I am glad you didn't give up, I want you to know that I TRULY APPRECIATE what you are bringing to the table here, I have said it already in a previous post, ALL I am asking is that you bring it with a FRIENDLY TONE rather than an aggressive or impolite tone.

Fair enough?

Springer...

[edit on 6-21-2007 by Springer]

Hopefully we can all play nicely now!

Any word on the Halo3 front? The timer was supposed to end today...

Doc Moreau

Isn't it kind of pointless to argue about these new cgi pictures since it only proves that the originals can be dublicated, not wheter the originals are real or not?

absolutely fair enough. this is your joint after all.

when one of the most visible and trafficked sites discussing these objects presents, by the owner of the site, cg experts that claim "hoax!", with barely a visual aid to support their positions, or support their positions with weak or incorrect data and information...it's very frustrating.

but yes, it is a fact, not my opinion; all the jpg's, from each sighting, are greatly compressed compared to uncompressed .tif's or .raw files.




ok, you may not. but the difference is night and day to me...ok, well that may be an exageration.

and if you knew about stuff like polys and pixellation you would understand that for wayne to declare these fakes using the evidence he has put forward is patently wrong. and is an offense to someone like me who sees the unworkability of what he suggests.



i already had my turn creating a 45 minute crappy render weeks ago on this forum.

and for the past 6 weeks, i haven't been playing the "who can create the best fake of a fake ego game", i've been tearing apart about the now 30 images of the thing like a madman, animating them, recreating the actual scenes in 3d to realworld scale, and posting my results on "that other forum".

now i feel like i have to put a smiley in each of my posts to negate the grouchy effect...



[edit on 21-6-2007 by spf33]

Thaks mate you have restored my faith in humanity... I had no idea of what you have been doing/going through elsewhere, (I've been a little busy securing major investment capital, lauching a huge radio show, doing a book deal with a MAJOR author/publisher, yadda, yadda, yadda,) and for that I ask your forgiveness, for it seems I've been an ass.

You TRULY cracked me up with that last comment (quoted above) and I now "get it" and TRULY APRECIATE your sense of humor and grace.

You are hereby granted a PASS, official and bonafide in all counties!

Great!

Please DO continue to add your voice and DATA to this mix and we will see where this leads, for NONE of us know for sure do we?

Springer...

yes, that was me.

so this; "I used the same model, same HDRI and an image I pulled from Google." relates to this image?;

Wow! I will skip the controversy part lol. I think Springer and secret web's representation is excellent....

What we have here is another independent, professional opinion that raises the bar that much more. I liked the in-depth analysis from secret web's posts. The crucial details in lighting and shading, be it CGI or not is just not right in Chads photos.

In the art world it's the lighting and shading that makes or breaks some works. Even though a hoaxer intends to deceive, what they are doing is somewhat artistic workmanship as well, some good and not so good. If this wasn't on C2C, the photos would of been mute long ago. I'm really surprised it's gone this far lol.... This is only the beginnings of what's to come... The CGI community has seen this coming for years.

Now if one would evaluate all of the qualified CGI professionals on ATS who have chimed in on this, that information would lean towards being a hoax. The process of investigating is using well-qualified experts, I think secret web tallies it up more so....

Anyway, interesting subject.... especially when there are those who deny professional opinions.

The way i see it, a little analogy here: If you was sick, who would you take an opinion from? From a highly qualified doctor/s or from your neighbor/s who may know a little about your illness? ....... I know some of you would use wiki lol.

1) These experts all are prudent to voice their opinion yet none of them have provided any solid proof that these images are cgi. If my doctor would whip up a report saying I have cancer I'd like to see where that conclusion comes from, some proof before I take the 'experts' word for it.
2) The evidence itself is not very good quality so to come to some kind of conclusion from those is at best questionable.
3) The cgi copies of the originals aren't even close to the originals, wheter it's the lighting or shadows they have nothing on the originals.

Dont take the experts word for it, read their case and take it into consideration when you form your own opinion. Dont take their word for it.

Wouldn't you want expert opinion for your illness? One point is that you would take more than one professional opinion for your illness... Such as the case here... The bottom line is, the professionals here at ATS have come to that conclusion.

Of course I'd hear the conclusion of a pro, and with medical situations you get proof of their word. The experts here that have concluded these to be cgi images are just saying that without proof. Well the little proof of 'wrong lighting' we've got actually proofs exactly the opposite of the cgi theory imho.

Yes, actually I think you have been playing at that game, with words here. After all, the differences I can;t see to you are like night and day. So you have chosen to display your expertise somewhere else? That doesn't do us much good. If you won't show us, then I'm afraid it's game over for me and your expertise. The 'appeal to authority' argument is tricky enough to use logically anyway, and if you won't even show us the beef, then I think maybe it doesn't exist. All I've seen is a resume and proclamations of expertise.

You see, I don't really care about all this expertise floating around here because, unlike some, I don't have x-ray pixellation vision, therefore arguments based on x-ray pixellation vision are kind of like arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. You are arguing about things no one else can see. Maybe you are an expert on seeing angels; I don't know. People speak to Greys around here all the time. Who am I to argue with them?

So to me the value of Wayne's contribution so far is to prove that yes, it can be done, and it can be done without much effort. That answers the usual (and fallacious) argument of, "If these are fake, prove it by making one yourself." Well that's now been done. Does that PROVE they are fake? No, of course not. It proves they COULD be fake, and that's the question we wanted to answer.

So lt' move on. Now, so far we have these possibilities:

1. The drones are fake. 3 out of 4 experts say so.
2. The drones are real.
3. The drones are a fake for a viral marketing campaign.
a. Transformers
b. Halo-3
c. ?????
4. The drones are a fake to embarrass (sp?) Coast to Coast.
a. Art Bell
b. LMH (already accomplished)
c. The dweebs at ATS!
5. Any other ideas out there?

Add mythbusters to the list, everything about this just screams Adam and Jamie to me

Just so nobody thinks I am ignoring them should they ask me something in this thread, I thought I should mention I am about to leave for a camping trip and won't be back online until Sunday night. If we get the "smoking gun" over this weekend I am going to cry.

Nah, not really, I'll be happy as a pieman.

In any case everyone have a GREAT weekend and PLEASE be FRIENDLY with eachother, it's the AboveTopSecret.com way.

Springer...

It really hasn't. As much as I appreciate Wayne's contribution, if anything, it's proven that it really would take some effort, because these images fall so short of the mark.

If you want to believ it's CGI, that's fine-- I still think that's one of the most likely explanations-- but I'm getting really sick of everyone going on and on about how "any 12 year old can do this" or "it takes little effort". In the nearly 2 months since this started, god knows how many people have tried to duplicate it, a list that now includes an ILM-level artist brought in personally by Springer, and so far they've all fallen so short that it's honestly reduced my faith in the CGI theory just a little. So yes, it's still VERY likely that it's CGI, but until we sign off on the "any 12 year old can do it" theory, let's work on getting even one highly-qualified adult to do it.

I don't want to attack anyone's opinons, so if you really believe these are as real as the Chad images, I'll respect that, but I can honestly say that Wayne's images were the first time that I didn't feel like I needed to be an "expert" to make a conclusion. My own eyes alone are good enough to tell me they weren't even close. I think even most (MOST) laymen can see that these are apples and oranges.

[edit on 22-6-2007 by alevar]

Wouldn't it just be the end all to end all if Springer happened to see the drones on his camping trip... But he didn't bring a camera! Now that would be like a tree falling in the woods, and no one hearing it...

Enjoy your Trip Springer!



On a more serious note... California is the most populated state in the country (over 33 million at the 2000 census), with many, many people using the natural parks everyday (Big Basin, Tahoe areas among others). It also has quite a few major Airports and Air Force Bases.

Besides the expert analysis's (pro/con) of possible CGI, it seems to me that it is highly unlikely that drone craft could be 'witnessed' so many times in a 600 mile area, but not be witnessed by hundreds. I could understand if this many sightings of similar craft were seen/photographed in Montana or Wyoming, but in California it doesn't seem feasable to me. I live about an hour north of Sacramento, and I see every contrail/chemtrail (even if they are contrails, it creates quite a misty haze cloud cover when they slowly dissipate)from almost every jet flying south into SAC/San Jose/ SF and probably Los Angeles... Nobody but Chad, Raj and a couple others have seen it? Come on...

The above is a slight tirade to try to prove that one piece of 'evidence' does not make the case (CGI), but every piece, even the ones that you realize are from other puzzles.

Hope everyone has a good weekend. If I were a gambling man, I would say Earthfiles should have some new drone pictures...
Doc Moreau

If the timetable holds up, should be any time now.

Waiting with mild anticipation....

And for good measure Springer... Before you leave, make sure that you do bring a camera with you, just in case. (in regards to DocMoreau's opening line in his last post)

[edit on 6/22/2007 by Mechanic 32]

The 12 year old can do it" theory only applies to the design of the craft, Seriously!.even a caveman can do it...

However photo realism is another ball park, examples of that have been done on this subject, just go back to the first thread. Your expecting the full package. Why even bother, when both bases have been covered?

But..

Since Wayne did a photo reproduction (a very good one indeed), I don't think a child would even bother to do that lol... Just run Wayne's image through Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0, use some touch up tools or whatever else you think Chad would use, and bingo... you would get photo realism or a full reproduction.

[edit on 22-6-2007 by XPhiles]

Then it's official, this case officially has it's "weather baloon/swamp gas" theory.

"Wayne's conclusively proven it's CGI, folks. Even though the entire purpose of the exercise was to duplicate the level of realism, the fact that our best guy has been unable to do so is of no consequence. We don't need to actually see it demonstrated, all we need to do is remind ourselves of how easy it WOULD be if we wanted to waste our time doing it. No need to address any of the gaping holes in our explanation. Move along, nothing to see here."



[edit on 22-6-2007 by alevar]

lol... photorealism isn't "another ballpark", it was the whole point of Wayne's images! Did you even read the thread so far? No one's disputing that we can duplicate the design of the craft in 3D. Someone had done that 2 days after the first images came out. The purpose of these images was to show that Chad's images had numerous realism errors (something I still think is probably true) and that a "professional" could easily surpass his work in TERMS of photorealism. That didn't happen.

And I'm expecting the "full package" beacuse that's exactly what Springer told us to expect. Wayne's images were supposed to be better than Chad's and "fix" all the "problems" like lighting and focus. Not only has it not improved on Chad's images, it hasn't even matched them. So what exactly is your point? We were promised a photoreal rival to Chad's, we didn't get it, and now you're saying I'm asking for too much beacuse that's what I was expecting?




I gotta say, with all due respect, the fact that someone would say that about Wayne's images really shows how impossible it'll be to "prove" the originals are CGI to anyone, which is dissapointing. If Wayne's images pass for a photo, then just about anything can pass for a photo.



Alright man, keep telling yourself that. Nevermind the fact that in almost 2 months, no one's been able to do something that apparently boils down to simply "running it through Photoshop Elements 2.0". Have you ever even used Photoshop? Could you actually provide a single detail of this magical process you keep referring to? Or is it possible that you're just BS'ing us?

And why exactly is it that an ILM-level 3D artist was incapable of something that you think was this easy?

Why are people so eager to talk crap about somethign they clearly don't understand? Everything is easy until you actually try it. I admit my 3D/photoshop skills aren't half of what Wayne or Chad's are, but at least I can be honest about that, and not pretend that everything is "so easy a 12 year old can do it."

[edit on 22-6-2007 by alevar]

Yes it is.... your asking a guy who works in the three-dimensional medium to reproduce a photo?



Your the one who mentioned the 12 yr old theory, the theory itself (the one everyone talks about) refers to the model, not the photo reproduction, so why even bring it up?
your comment....

but I'm getting really sick of everyone going on and on about how "any 12 year old can do this" or "it takes little effort".



That's your opinion, so what. Even in the first thread photorealism was not a problem. Wayne's is a photo reproduction, though not a full reproduction because I dont see the Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0 EXIF data.... but it is a reproduction. Don't you get it?

Read what Springer said:
[color=red]

Springer

posted on 20-6-2007 @ 09:26 PM

BIG NEWS:

I have been in contact with a VERY HIGHLY PLACED (ILM STUDIOS quality and former employee) CGI artist in the UK who has not only reproduced Chad's initial "drone" in 2 hours of work, he has made an additional renering in whch the drone image is PERFECT. He corrected all the lighting/focal errors Chad left in his original. [/color]

Where does he say TERMS of photorealism???