I just got off the phone with a friend who shoots with Rebel xt and he said:
1) Rebel cant take pictures without exif data.
2) There isn't an autofocus point where the craft is located in the frame so manual focus must've been used. Additionally considering the closeness of the flowers in the first pictures I'd have to assume it's a lens with macro cabability.
3) He was unsure of this so if anyone knows better then correct me. Rebel cant take pictures if the focus isn't locked. This further supports manual focus theory. I know that some cameras dont allow this and my D200 let's you choose in the configuration wheter to take out of focus pics.

If we'd get the focal lenght that was used to shoot this then wouldn't it be possible to calculate the size of this object relative to different distances from camera? I suck at math but I think it might be possible.

Originally posted by knows_but_doesnt
For one, UFO's DON'T FLY. Airplanes fly.

Then why is it called Unidentified Flying object

Originally posted by greatlakes
Is this is an elaborate hoax perpetrated for a COMMERCIAL venture

More than likely, 'numerous' sightings and no news interest. Im leaning that way, in fact Im falling that way..

like for the movie Transformers, wouldnt this be deemed ILLEGAL in some way, since it would be conducted with full intent BY A US COMPANY to purposefully hoax the people? Or at least deserve some sort of lawsuit by some citizens or groups?

Nope, not in any way at all.

Many MANY movies and TV shows have utilies the internet as a medium for extraneous aspects of their product.

Lost use it (many sites with various 'clues' and tricks), DR. Who used it (UNIT websites), and many other shows to a lesser extent.

Its not a crime..

IF you feel you've been done hard by, you would have a very hard time proving it in a court.



I mean lets say that someone actually believed all these well made images, and actually thought that the aliens were using these ships for nefarious purposes, then commits suicide over the thought. This is akin to a War of the Worlds scenario. Now in the above case, who's liable? I think the persons family would most definitely have a valid multimillion dollar case on their hands and the company would receive MUCH NEGATIVE press, I'd argue to say it would almost incur some turning point in the companys financials and future.

hat do your think?

Originally posted by adjay
[The amount of different "configurations" he has made in different settings and scenes

All 3? Wow... Umm.. no..

He would and could be any one of a billion people with maya.

Sorry.

Originally posted by Implosion

Originally posted by schuyler
I don't think that's what he meant. The rest of your original comment was that people force their ideas and perceptions on others. He's saying, welcome to earth in that this behavior is typical.

Thank you, that is exactly what I meant.

Yea, the reason I got confused is because you commented on something that I mis-wrote.

My comment was meant to say that we as humans often try to force our perceptions and beliefs onto things we don't understand or can't explain.

I should have said it right in the first place.

OK, back to the business at hand.

Originally posted by newtron25
If this were an invasion, what better time to launch one than now? And in this country?
[edit on 8-6-2007 by newtron25]

Floating around trees and bothering no one ? Mighty invasion !!

Nope, my views are obvious, but for a hoax its doing very well..

Originally posted by badw0lf

Originally posted by newtron25
If this were an invasion, what better time to launch one than now? And in this country?
[edit on 8-6-2007 by newtron25]

Floating around trees and bothering no one ? Mighty invasion !!

Agreed. These are possibly the most boring UFOs ever. They're not even cool and streamlined like a nice, shiny flying saucer. They're just sort of bulky and clumsy and it looks like they'd get tangled up in the trees pretty quick.

Where are the Vogon Destructor Fleet ships?

Originally posted by Implosion
The CGI argument is a good one, however, I'm yet to see anyone create any replica which is nearly as convincing. What happened to that effort anyway? Is there a 3D model which is even close to looking as "realistic" as these drone pictures? If so, where?

It has been done. Someone from youtube (I dont know the url, and its somewhere else on here) created a direct copy of the initial pronged object, and made it fly.. You just arent willing to see beyond your beliefs..

Until someone proves to me otherwise, its CGI, and its NOT hard to do.. sheesh..

Originally posted by SuicideVirus

Originally posted by badw0lf

Originally posted by newtron25
If this were an invasion, what better time to launch one than now? And in this country?
[edit on 8-6-2007 by newtron25]

Floating around trees and bothering no one ? Mighty invasion !!

Agreed. These are possibly the most boring UFOs ever. They're not even cool and streamlined like a nice, shiny flying saucer. They're just sort of bulky and clumsy and it looks like they'd get tangled up in the trees pretty quick.

Where are the Vogon Destructor Fleet ships?

Only the Original tho - "attention earthlings..." - bollocks to mainstream media...

It has been done. Someone from youtube (I dont know the url, and its somewhere else on here) created a direct copy of the initial pronged object, and made it fly.. You just arent willing to see beyond your beliefs..

yeah, I've seen it. It's unfinished. It's no where near as believable as the original pics. I asked where the best attempt was. Not some unfinished mock up.

Is that proof that it's a real alien craft? No.

However, if it's so obviously CGI, then I would like to see a comparable CGI replica. I thought that was being done by some ATS members. Where is it?

You're also making incorrect assumptions about my beliefs. What the hell makes you think you know what I believe?

[edit on 8/6/07 by Implosion]

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by knows_but_doesnt
For one, UFO's DON'T FLY. Airplanes fly.

Then why is it called Unidentified Flying object

Because calling it a "Strange anti-gravity intersteller magnetic surf machine" didn't sound as cool?

LOL!

i love the drone, because it looks cool.
and we have wonderful sharp pictures of it.
but maybe we really see "a transformer" building up here.
its obvious that from drone to drone sighting the drone "transformed" with
wings, antennas and stuff.
what will the / a drone look like next time???

by the way, the movie start of transformers at 7.4.7 is also the 60th anniversary of roswell.

[edit on 8/6/07 by cometa]

I'm hoping that the next drone sports really, really cool stuff like chrome accents or neon lights under the fins so when we look at it at night, the girls all say "Ooooh baby, baby!"

I sent these photo's overseas and this is what has been found in regards to these sightings. Funny thing is, this was found on this sight as well.

Moigne Downs UFO incident
1967 was the report by former RAF intelligence officer J. B. W. 'Angus' Brooks.
While walking his dogs in the early morning of 26 October at Moigne Downs in Dorset, he witnessed an object descending at phenomenal speed before abruptly levelling out at a height of approximately 250 feet, some quarter of a mile from where he was positioned.
Brooks described the object as a central circular body with a leading fuselage in the front and three separate fuselages at the rear. During the period of observation the three rear fuselages moved so that with the fourth fuselage they formed a cross shape. Brooks reported no obvious power units or noise and despite a very strong wind, up to Force 8, the object apparently remained motionless for over twenty minutes.
During the encounter one of Angus Brooks' dogs, an Alsatian, was very distraught and frantically pawed at him, disobeying his commands to sit.
A team of researchers from the Ministry of Defence, Dr John Dickinson of the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, Leslie Akhurst from S4 (Air) and Alec Cassie, a psychologist, interviewed Mr Brooks and offered their explanation; he had seen a vitreous floater, i.e. dead matter in the fluid of his eyeball, the sighting of which had become dramatic due to Brooks' falling asleep or entering a near sleep state and dreaming.
Brooks seems to have been less than impressed with the MOD's explanation and not least the idea that he had dozed off to sleep during a Force 8 gale with an Alsatian clawing at him.

A photo has also been sent back, i could not open it

Hope this helps.

It has some similarities to the flying cross seen in Dorset, but the witness described a central chamber rather than an aperture.

Floaters, Pah! I've got oodles of them and have never come close to mistaking them for anything very much. Unless its the shadow cast by a hair in the toilet when you've just had a pee, but that's none of your buisness.

His poor dog died six weeks later of "acute cystitis".

I'm leaning towards disinformation, and that they are real, at least in as much as actual units seen by people. Why? I promise it's not transformers. I have heard two people claim to see these things with no purpose to lie. For those of you that heard one of their testimonies on C2C, it sounded real to me. That is they were simply eyewitnesses. They didn't even take pictures. What's worse a persona posing as a federal government employee (park ranger) said it was something the witness didn't have to worry about. And, that this was no big deal. These things exist! In one form or another. For what purpose and degree, I do not know.
Disinformation why?: because these objects are actually being seen as hoaxes, when they obviously are roaming wherever they are. That is where the military comes in. Yes, maybe they are from a foreign intelligence, however someone in our government must be aware of this, or it would be a lot bigger deal. If you ask me, California is some of the most heavily regulated airspace, aside from NYC and DC. I'm not saying the government is in on it, but I am sure someone in the government has knowledge that they are flying around, although they may not know why either.

Unless what was said on C2C was all B.S,......then I have no idea.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by theutahbigfoothunter]

This looks really fake. It's almost worse than the previous ones. You can so EASILY tell how that someone's thrown in a crappy CGI into a real-life photo.

Definitely the worst set so far, seems like it could even be a copycat hoaxer to me, either that or the original is really slacking. The photoshop'd blurring is not even on par, and the model just does not "jive" with previous sets somehow.

I've seen many shots from a Canon Rebel and none of them approach that poor quality. You'd really have to *try* to get photos that bad with it, and you'd still have to butcher them in photoshop to get the contrast and color balance that bad.

[edit on 9-6-2007 by STArG8]