Drone UFO pics on C2C

Originally posted by fooffstarr
It seems that some people need these photos to be real. Regardless of what is presented, we are all disinformants or desperate to prove it a hoax. Come on. Be serious here, there is nothing wrong with fair skepticism. You all complain about how hardline the skeptics are, look at yourselves.

The difference between a skeptic and a open minded person is the skeptic is bias-Ly trying to prove it as a hoax while the open minded person is open to the possibilities that it's a hoax or a fake.

No one was able to prove nothing, i read this thread and nothing proved it to be real and nothing proved it to be fake.

So to close this case right away would be an uneducated guess.

Man,

This is different...I guess? The first thing I think is very cool! Keeping an open mind here but I would think that an EBE race would more than not learn after a few trips here that it's better to send a probe than make a personal visit? And what is the other two objects in the picture?

Originally posted by selfless
So when pictures have too much pixels in them they are sure fakes but when they have no pixels in them they are fakes too?

Haha, that's pretty funny.

The only one who can see a smiley face out of that spot in the photo is the one who looked at this picture for hours bias-Ly trying to prove it was a hoax.

After hours of looking and unable to find any evidence it was a hoax he turns to madness and interprets the cause of his misery coming from the person who took the photo.

And then when his mind can't take it anymore he sees a smiley face due to the sheer madness and denial that the picture could very well be real.

Madman:But no it can't be real, it just cant!!! the smiley look !!! oh there it is!!!! It can't be real i can see a smiley face!!!! "shaking intensely and bitting his nails'' sheer madness of denial if you ask me.

Sorry but no one was able to prove this was a hoax so far.

The possibility remains that it could be real.

Dig deeper.

sigh i need to stop this thread and go to sleep.
the most basic form to catch a sloppy comp is to just look at the pixels. when light goes into the lens onto the ccd an overall pattern will emerge throughout the image. if you mix one image with another, and do it poorly, it's easy to see the variations in the patterns. on these images there were none which i thought was really awesome. unfortunaly a lot of other stuff didn't make sence.

this isnt rocket science, it's usually what tells your "gut" something lookes "real" or not - exactly why the picture from below looks so real - because it is (see the point im trying to make........) a real photo of an object as far as i'm concerned.

look you'd think i'd be able to separate my thumb from my ass in order to do some of what i do, lasseman.deviantart.com...

hours of trying to prove it to be a hoax? you think i would have given "cudos" to the fact that the image from below looked so great if wanted to 'smear' it?

and yeah, maybe it's just me seeing a smiley. i tell you though when i saw it i felt like an ass for ever thinking these images were real, now it just cracks me up noone seems to agree it's there oh the irony.

uuuh..this really is it. take care.

This is the question: How to decide about a picture. That is an issue I've been trying to get input on in another thread. It seems like at least some consensus could be reached that 'most' people would agree on as reasonable.

I doubt that we'll ever get to the place where every photo is 100% anything. But we ought to find an area where the balance tips one way or the other.

I started out thinking this set of pictures on this thread could, could, be real. I waited and listened, and kept an open mind until enough people pointed out flaws that I felt comfortable with saying to myself, "Okay, it seems like this one needs to go into the bin marked most likely a hoax." I still have a residue of thought that there could be further evidence that would redeem it, but not enough to waste much time on it.

In that other thread I am trying to find a way to reduce the amount of back and forth wrangling over the issue. This takes way too much effort, and is far too divisive to not set some sort of benchmarks for those photos that are worth the effort, and those that are not.

There's got to be a better way.

hey lasse, i had forgotten to write that i was joking and over exaggerating when i said the madman analogy.

I edited it to say it at the same time you posted a reply.

I meant no offense :0

I don't see a smiley in the sky though :0

This thread reminds me of an old 'Twilght Zone' episode where the aliens'
agenda was: Get the Earthlings to argue amongst themselves.

Originally posted by selfless

Why is it not possible that the ufo has a task to accomplish in that area?

Yes it could be a photos shopped job but it could also be a real photo.

There's really no way to prove either yet.

Its possible but seems unlikely. I mean these are supposedly advanced beings, advanced enough to design an advanced craft and yet they take several days to perform am Earth-based task? Nah not buying it. I also think the writing or symbology on the outside of the object is a human based mentality. Its not to say that adding markings to aliens vessals is impossible, but it also points to HOAX in my view.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by greatlakes]

Originally posted by lasse

Dude. I just spent 6 hours looking at these pictures. And trust me, I wanted to believe. In fact I was just about to post I was convinced it was an object in the sky when I sat down and tried to analyze my initial "gut" feeling. I just felt tired when I after 5 hours stumpled upon the final one below.

I went into it with a totally open mind, I would somehow been happier if it weren't such an obvious well played hoax.

Cheers

Edit to note: I love this forum

[edit on 7-5-2007 by lasse]

When I blew up the area you show here I saw a twisted tube like some we have seen recently and said to be ufos. My understanding is that when we see a ufo dropping things or breaking apart it is releasing probes to do some work. Those tubes which have been videotaped before in the sky and releasing balls are also releasing probes which are often photographed as orbs.

Originally posted by jritzmann
Springer-
Got your email. It's a CGI composite. Particularly noticable in the one where it's going over the trees. No shadow on the trees which should be all rights be there due to sun angle. Also note the trees in the shot are of less focus and clarity then the UO, even where the UO and trees meet.

Thats impossible.

I have to laugh, due to the one that appears to have been taken with the UO maybe just above some trees. So if the angle of the shot is such as it is...whats the shooter doing in the treetops? By this shot the object appears to be 6 ft long or so. Compare the perceptive size to the one going over the trees. It goes from being small in one shot and huge in another.

Thats a common error in composites, spatial inconsistencies/scaling errors. Definitely fake CG.

- looked at the photos and I don't see where your shadows are supposed to be going? still looks in order to me from perspective of the observer
- focusing seems legit to me but different camera manufacturers have different focusing programs so maybe an expert would be able to match the result to the camera?
- look at photo one, the camera phone shot, now tell me that that countryside cannot produce a photo shot of closeup to some treetops?

Send in some more experts.

He's dead on right about the size of it, its huge in some shots and tiny in others..LOOK PEOPLE

Originally posted by denythestatusquo

Originally posted by jritzmann
Springer-
Got your email. It's a CGI composite. Particularly noticable in the one where it's going over the trees. No shadow on the trees which should be all rights be there due to sun angle. Also note the trees in the shot are of less focus and clarity then the UO, even where the UO and trees meet.

Thats impossible.

I have to laugh, due to the one that appears to have been taken with the UO maybe just above some trees. So if the angle of the shot is such as it is...whats the shooter doing in the treetops? By this shot the object appears to be 6 ft long or so. Compare the perceptive size to the one going over the trees. It goes from being small in one shot and huge in another.

Thats a common error in composites, spatial inconsistencies/scaling errors. Definitely fake CG.

- looked at the photos and I don't see where your shadows are supposed to be going? still looks in order to me from perspective of the observer
- focusing seems legit to me but different camera manufacturers have different focusing programs so maybe an expert would be able to match the result to the camera?
- look at photo one, the camera phone shot, now tell me that that countryside cannot produce a photo shot of closeup to some treetops?

Send in some more experts.

Hello all, this is my first post. While I am about 51% sure that these are fake, I wanted to make a few points very quickly.
1. Photoshop Elements 2.0 is an extremely simplistic software, nothing like Photoshop CS2 or CS3, or even like Photoshop 5.0 was. Elements is a pedestrian photo editing program for fixing redeye, increasing contrast, and naming photos. Noting Elements in the exif data on a highly incredulous photo like this doesn't mean anything. Most people who own photoshop, myself included, batch process their raw camera files directly from USB through the program because it is the cleanest and easiest way to do so. It also requires no effort on the user's part, and the computer does all your work for you.
2. I am a little confused and require some clarification on the 500% unsharp mask where there is pixel data missing over and around the wing of the object. In the original photo, the pixel data exists; at 500%, blue-black branches can be seen directly over the lighter gray wing. Unsharp mask creates an undesired result that actual designers do not use, but I do see it get used a lot in the process of debunking photos. The effect of Unsharp mask is illusory; Photoshop's pre-programmed algorithms and the user's three choices from the menu essentially copy a new version of the photo onto a layer above, blurred the top layer to a user-specified pixel distance, and compared the two layers as if the first is a multiplied transparency over top. If the difference in pixel placement as recognized by the software is outside the user's specified threshold, that pixel data is subtracted. That's why in the original photo, the branches are seen in front of the wing clearly, but in the Unsharp mask of the same photo, the pixels are gone. Scroll down into the tree on the Unsharp mask. It is apparant that a lot of the branch data goes missing, essentially because the branches were thinner than a pixel. As is noted, it "bothers" the poster. It shouldn't bother the poster, because it is a common mistake.
3. The admitted CGI model created for this thread is not believable by any stretch of the imagination unfortunately.
4. That's quite an odd, hard-to-swallow smiley.

Theres now even more photos on the C2C site.

I see no inconstancies in the focus nor shadows, could you possibly point them out?. J Ritzman what are your credentials if I may ask, since you are making the claim "definitely CG".

[edit on 8-5-2007 by d1k]

Can't you people see the size inconsistencys?? Not to mention it has Japanese writing underneath it.

I could do a better job than this..what a joke..

Haha.. for anyone on right now - Stanton Friedman will be on C2C to discuss these photos briefly tonight.

I work at a video game studio, I know 10+ people who could fake stuff like this no problem.

This IDIOT chad has done nothing but HARM to the real case for UFO's, at some point his ego will force him to admit its a fake and the damage will be done yet again. He's probably a bonafide dis-informationist in fact.

Stanton's right, its a fake..

Originally posted by kronos11
Haha.. for anyone on right now - Stanton Friedman will be on C2C to discuss these photos briefly tonight.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by wildone106]

Originally posted by d1k
Theres now even more photos on the C2C site.

I see no inconstancies in the focus nor shadows. J Ritzman what are your credentials if I may ask, since you are making the claim "definitely CG".

[edit on 8-5-2007 by d1k]

D1k, let me save you a little embarrassment...

Do a Google search on "David Biedny" (who has already stated his opinion on this in this thread) and Jeff Ritzmann who is in the same league as and best friends with Biedny.

Springer...

[edit on 5-8-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by Springer

Originally posted by d1k
Theres now even more photos on the C2C site.

I see no inconstancies in the focus nor shadows. J Ritzman what are your credentials if I may ask, since you are making the claim "definitely CG".

[edit on 8-5-2007 by d1k]

D1k, let me save you a little embarrassment...

Do a Google search on "David Biedny" (who has already stated his opinion on this in this thread) and Jeff Ritzmann who is in the same league as and best friends with Biedny.

Springer...

[edit on 5-8-2007 by Springer]

Why would I be embarrassed asking his credentials? Are we just supposed to believe him without asking questions?



[edit on 8-5-2007 by d1k]

Originally posted by wildone106
Can't you people see the size inconsistencys?? Not to mention it has Japanese writing underneath it.

No doubt - does look Japanese. Couldn't it be some sort of TERRESTRIAL hovercraft. With modern technology it would be just as easy to make a small remote model of this thing as it would to render it in a computer. Don't you think?

A remote controll model? With anti gravity??how would it fly..ridiculous

Originally posted by kronos11

Originally posted by wildone106
Can't you people see the size inconsistencys?? Not to mention it has Japanese writing underneath it.

No doubt - does look Japanese. Couldn't it be some sort of TERRESTRIAL hovercraft. With modern technology it would be just as easy to make a small remote model of this thing as it would to render it in a computer. Don't you think?