NBC Huge UFO - Drone - 2009, page
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 25-7-2009 @ 04:55 AM by l_e_cox
I have spent about 2 hours back-researching this, and my jaw is on the table.

This story broke around 2007. It got heavy attention at that time. So far, I haven't found any real follow-up after that year. If anyone else has they should post it on this thread. These are known in UFO community vernacular as the "Dragonfly Drones."

There is of course a hoax theory to explain them, as these objects are totally bizarre and unlike most others being reported. The photos, for instance, are quite clear, and taken during the day. The objects are constructed of beams, intricate rings, and wire arrays that resemble tentacles.

So of course there are those who insist it is Computer Generated Images (CGI).

But my research lead to this site:

isaaccaret.fortunecity.com...

Now, this site was posted over 2 years ago and as far as I can tell has not changed in all that time. But what happened to this guy? Is he still around? Is he a total faker? This evidence is strong. And it aligns with what other insiders are saying.

To summarize: These appear to be earth-based experiments with extraterrestrial technologies. The project was being run my the military but included civilian engineers and scientists. The strange little craft are intended to remain invisible, but the cloaking sometimes gets interfered with or intermittently shuts off. These projects are well-guarded and intended to be top secret. All we know about them is through leaks and people like Dan Burisch.

What is amazing about the mainstream media coverage of these subjects is what they leave out. To me this speaks of either insincerity or extreme ignorance. We are so past the "wondering if we are alone" stage that it isn't even funny! And yet the media insists on framing the subject in those terms. It is just so naive!

Considering where this post took me, I think it deserves some attention. In my 30 years of interest in this subject and 6 months of intense internet research, I had never run across the "Dragonfly Drones" before. I am hoping there is another member who has devoted more time to this subject and can post a more well-researched summation of it for us.



reply posted on 25-7-2009 @ 05:22 AM by LiveForever8
reply to post by l_e_cox


I remember reading about this some time ago. Unfortunately i dismissed it as being too good to be true although i would like it if some of the more technically minded guys and gals on ATS were to dissect it.

It might have been explained in the link you posted ( ill read it all properly later ) but how do the drones fly? There doesn't seem to be any propulsion or obvious way it stays in the air. It just looks odd for a flying machine

Also, i dont fully trust anyone who goes on a website under a false name and starts "explaining" certain topics like this. Could literally be anyone.

Does any of the info this person gives check out?

[edit on 01/06/09 by LiveForever8]


reply posted on 25-7-2009 @ 05:25 AM by meaguire
reply to post by l_e_cox


msm or the controllers thereof still obviously want attention on these drones. They are back in the media with 2 private detectives of 30 and 32 years respectively in law enforcement on the case, they found the location of the photo. Unfortunately not the photographer.



possible drone nasa vid 10 months ago.





[edit on 25-7-2009 by meaguire]


reply posted on 25-7-2009 @ 06:43 AM by warrenb
reply to post by meaguire


Has anyone bothered to show them the youtube videos of the drones?
Or are they just working off of the pictures?

Interesting stuff. I always wondered if these ones were real or not.





reply posted on 25-7-2009 @ 08:59 AM by Sam60
reply to post by meaguire

That second video is a chunk of ice from the large tank.

There are plenty of videos around to show that.


reply posted on 25-7-2009 @ 12:48 PM by JimOberg
When did this segment air?


reply posted on 25-7-2009 @ 04:02 PM by the secret web
Originally posted by cartmanrules
OMG these stupid things again? these were easily debunked here at ATS a couple of years ago...please use the damm search button...


My thoughts exactly..... I busted them myself within the 1st few pages....I have a HIGHLY detailed explanation and even pointed out which damn render engine was used. I even did a replacation of the damn image inside of 24 hours (only spent about 1 or 2 on it) back then. Then I did a 'corrected' vesion to correct faults in the orginal image lol.

Although people may find it interesting that something very similar appeared in the sarah conners cronicles I'm told. But the one thing the whole drone thing taught me was that those who WANT to belive will belive regardless of any actual facts to the contrary.

They were fake a couple of years, back and they are still fake now. Run it past any 3d / CGI artist with even a rudemetary ammount of skill or experience and they will laugh if you tell them they are real..Plus there are a number of tell tale signs of CGI work in them.

Back then ATS wasn't as experienced with CGI fakes as it is now....its still got a way to go but there's been a large improvement in ATS member knowledge.

If ayone thinks I'm blowing smoke...just drop Springer a line, he knows my background / experience and that I'm no 'sceptic' at all costs type. I hope to good this thread doens't run for another 100 pages :| 3d is my business and my stuff is used to tech at firms like WETA digital, sony Pixar, digital domain etc (and the rest of the industry in a few weeks time in a live masterclass for Autodesk for siggraph). So I know my stuff. Thos who want to belive regardless will, and those who see its a fake wont...simple as that and not a damn word I or anyone else says will stop that unfortunately.


Mr Flibble says: 'Game over Boys!'


Wayne...


reply posted on 25-7-2009 @ 04:24 PM by the secret web
A copy of my old analysis can be found here (amazing what google turns up):

LINK


Below is the render I replicated in 2 hours way back (by about page 4 I think) and below that a more 'correct' one done at the same time.




a 'correct' version I did back in the day to prove the fakey-ness.



I could probably do a far better job 2 years later than I did to bust this back then.

Wayne...


reply posted on 25-7-2009 @ 05:13 PM by kinda kurious
reply to post by the secret web


Wow Wayne, no doubt you are an extremely talented CG artist and warrant your high opinion of yourself.

You successfully 'emulated' or 'replicated' the look of an inanimate object.(real or fake) I see that done quite successfully via 3D CGI (Maya, Flame, Softimage etc.) all the time in movies, video games, TV Spots and simulations.

But I am curious, how does 're-creating' or being able to 'mimic' the exact look of something actually 'debunk' it?

I don't mean to be contrary, it's just I would think that by actually exposing the party responsible and their motives would actually be 'debunking' as opposed to replicating their technique with the luxury of images to model from.

For the record, I am in no way saying the Issac Caret pix or story is real. Just trying to assess what constitutes debunking something. (i.e. proving it false/fake/hoax)

Respect and Regards...KK



[edit on 25-7-2009 by kinda kurious]
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 9 days ago with 65 member flags
Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 17 days ago with 60 member flags
UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 12 days ago with 31 member flags
The Dyatlov Pass Incident--Russia\'s Mountain of Death
  Posted 19 days ago with 28 member flags
The Aurora, Texas UFO Incident (1897)
  Posted 3 days ago with 27 member flags
Jacques Vallee: Implications of UFO Phenomena - Thinking Allowed.
  Posted 1 days ago with 21 member flags