Drone UFO pics on C2C

I sent the photos off to Europe to be examined with all information that was posted on C2C. Who knows maybe something will turn up in the database

I'm not entirely sure why this thread isn't marked "HOAX" now, but hey, I think Springer is enjoying watching people hang themselves still thinking it's real

None the less, a thread like this echoes of people still distrusting experts in subject matters. We've had jritzmann & David Biedny both kindly lend themselves to this and still people question them or choose to ignore the facts completely.

Its sadly ironic that on a site like ATS, we have people who still won't believe the people who are on the same "side" as them.




[edit on 8-5-2007 by timb3r]

I think that people are looking at the photos and jumping straight in to the end of the thread to make a comment without reading the other posts which contain the analysis.

I suppose it's to be expected on a thread this size...

Originally posted by Mogget
Being able to create a digital replica of an object in a photograph proves absolutely nothing.

Someone went through a whole lot time to create a premeditated hoax. Though it seems not much time was invested in shadows, mapping or image information. In groingrinder's cgi model it has a great amount detail and he's not even done yet, so it does take time to create. However, the replica craft that I made only took a couple of hours with not much detail and the rendering was done in minutes. These reproduced objects proves anyone can do this, it also shows you how far someone is willing to deceive you.

Anyway yeah, it's a hoax, I'm just hanging around this thread waiting for groingrinder's final result.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by XPhiles]

haha I'll tell her that

Dude, in my studio they could whip up a model like the one seen in the C2c pics in a few hours, fully textured and normal mapped ready for prime time. Its EASY. Does'nt take a team. 1 guy with Maya/3dsmax and photoshop is all it takes.

I thought in this day & age people would be less gullable..but the fact its gone past 15 pages of debate leads me to think otherwise

Originally posted by bash the bishop

Originally posted by wildone106

Whats the grays done with that ladies hands and face? Still they gave her nice hips

Seriously though just shows that it can be done. Who knows how long these people are spending on their hoaxes. It might even be a team of them!!

People ask why would people waste time doing this stuff (the hoaxes that is)? I say for the same reason that people play practical jokes.

As for this threads original pix, for the reasons of CG and editing as stated by many here, I say faker than a porn-stars orgasm, but not as entertaining

Originally posted by Luther Blissett
There has been no English translation of the claimed Japanese letters underneath. Could someone please post what these Japanese characters mean in English?

You'll be waiting quite a while. As I previously posted, this is not Japanese (except for 1 character). It's simple enough for anyone to google a katakana chart and look through the 46 characters yourself. I find any kind of inscription on a ufo suspicious. What is all that, user instructions? The human correlation of inscribing serial numbers etc. is possible but somehow it seems unlikely aliens would utilize the same conventions as humans on their vehicles.

I totally agree...

Originally posted by yuefo

Originally posted by Luther Blissett
There has been no English translation of the claimed Japanese letters underneath. Could someone please post what these Japanese characters mean in English?

You'll be waiting quite a while. As I previously posted, this is not Japanese (except for 1 character). It's simple enough for anyone to google a katakana chart and look through the 46 characters yourself. I find any kind of inscription on a ufo suspicious. What is all that, user instructions? The human correlation of inscribing serial numbers etc. is possible but somehow it seems unlikely aliens would utilize the same conventions as humans on their vehicles.

its just a model hanging by wires (that were edited out with photoshop) built by some idiot human who just wants attention and publicity.

Totally Fake IMO

-Mayan

timb3r, wrote: "I'm not entirely sure why this thread isn't marked "HOAX" now, but hey, I think Springer is enjoying watching people hang themselves still thinking it's real".
_________________

Keep in mind Springer's an owner and class person who's been here awhile. I can't see you or anyone making assumptions not admitted to by people you make assumptions of thought against.

Dallas

Notice the dots beside the object - They are out of focus - Or could be dirt on the original photo.. if it's fake. (blue dots)

One thing I notice on this picture is those things that stick up in the air..
They have blue ends... It's like they change color in the top.

There is this blue shine around the object...
Just an observation. Also inside the rim.. the inner egde of the circle - it's blue in there.


I took the blue color and lightend it up a bit to white... So you can see what ends i mean.

Maybe some know how blue screens work - This might be a bluescreen - Or perhaps Plasma of some sort..

i dunno.. I think it's supose to be a big ship..

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Ram]

Its amazing that little dots in the sky are "good" and a photo like this (clear and visible) is an instant fake!

Noone here can verify this one way or another!

Its the same thing every time! Good clear photos are fakes while the dots get all the credentials?

Not one of you knows what is a fake or not, stop with all this grandstanding!

I'd suppose there is a certain point between real pic captures and fake where even the best such as Bruce Maccabee can't tell the difference to make a certain distinction? Just a suggestion.

Dallas
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by XPhiles

Amazing work groingrinder, very good detail, I would like to have an .obj file of that! The original pictures do have a lot of detail, your very close to it

Thanks XPhiles. I will donate my obj file to whoever wants it when I am done.

I like your composite. Did you post a link to your completed model that I missed?

My proportions are obviously off in several places. I am used to modeling from a 3 view drawing for the real life stuff. I mostly do WW2 warbirds. I know there have been several people saying how easy it is to do and that anyone with 3DS Max or Maya could do it in several hours, however I have not seen their models posted to this thread yet. I am so slow that someone could probably learn Maya from scatch and still beat me to the finish line.

Sorry didn't know I was not allowed to post pictures here..
my bad

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Ram]

Originally posted by wildone106
I totally agree...

Originally posted by yuefo

Originally posted by Luther Blissett
There has been no English translation of the claimed Japanese letters underneath. Could someone please post what these Japanese characters mean in English?

You'll be waiting quite a while. As I previously posted, this is not Japanese (except for 1 character). It's simple enough for anyone to google a katakana chart and look through the 46 characters yourself. I find any kind of inscription on a ufo suspicious. What is all that, user instructions? The human correlation of inscribing serial numbers etc. is possible but somehow it seems unlikely aliens would utilize the same conventions as humans on their vehicles.

Me too! I also agree. I looked through the alphabet chart and saw only minor resemblances. I think if the negatives from the original photos become available a lot will come to light. We may even be able to read the small print. I know it's possible to decipher from the photo from under the craft because the Roswell letter was deciphered using computer technology.

Latitude

Hi, I'm new here. I just wanted to add a few words after reading all of the posts in this thread. Many here had the gut reaction that either the photos in question were fake or that something was wrong with them. My first reaction to the photos as I first encountered them on C2C was that they were faked. The thing about a photo is that any photo is a real photo, but what it depicts, the information that it delivers to one's brain is either in sync with the "realness" of the photo or it isn't. I'm going with my gut. And here's a good reason why: It is normal to encounter photos that depict some sort of strangeness, and it is normal to ask, "What am I looking at here?" That's okay because the brain understands that although there are questions about the subject of the photo, there aren't any discrepancies relative to the subject of the photo and the photo itself. If someone shows a photo of a pig's head cut and pasted onto a man's body the initial reaction would be to understand that the photo's subjects (the pig and the man) had been altered, and then one would most likely laugh as a result of the intended humor; one accepts the photo. With photos that are faked but which are meant to be taken seriously the opposite happens; rejection and confusion occurs. It's as if one has taken a bite of rancid meat or swallowed soured milk. The brain knows that something is wrong with the food, and so it commands the body to reject the food before ingesting any more. Sometimes the brain commands the body to expel any food in its system just to make sure it has rid itself of any potential toxins and poisons. The important thing to note is that any explanation for what was wrong with the meat and the milk comes afterward. There was no way to tell that the meat was bad or milk sour until the brain was able to get a snapshot of the quality of the food.

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.

In reply to Areal51,

Hi. I'm new too. I just wanted to say thanks for causing me to think a little deeper about this. You're right. When people see pictures like this their first reaction will be "That's not right". For that reason may say it screams fake or hoax. When the brain sees something too wierd and out of place it can reject it. If real UFO pictures like these with this kind of detail or maybe even better emerge, how many people will imediately scream fake? So I'm thinking it's a natural reaction.

As far as the focus goes, let me play devils advocate. Chad, in his email said that there was a wind and the craft was not blown by it. That could explain the better focus of the craft against the trees. The leaves were blowing but the craft was not moving.

I think this could be real. A few of the photos do look too crisp as some of you have said. Meaning these pics are made by a program like photoshop, etc. We'd like it to be real, right?

I didn't write it was fake!!!

This could be real.
To repeat again - I dunno about this one. im 50% sure it's fake.

Until my brain taste the milk I cannot say it.
It has the sharpness of being a pretty huge thing, compare to the tree line - It's not in the same place - cuz of depth of field.

Until then - Try find out what the letters are.
I don't care if it's real or not.

What can I do about it if it's real?
Nothing.

- Im not a debunker I belive in Sonorasightings.com 100%
I have seen - lights - dots of plasma - what ever it is - Moving lights.
And I can do nothing about it - It's just there.


Im just pointing out the blue stuff inside the ring of this thing
- Maybe sombody else could see it
- I thought wrong i guess.

[edit on 9-5-2007 by Ram]
That half-moon thing in the image
- Is the only thing that has that kinda blue in the picture.

[edit on 9-5-2007 by Ram]

Originally posted by Ram
I didn't write it was fake!!!

This could be real.
To repeat again - I dunno about this one. im 50% sure it's fake.

Until my brain taste the milk I cannot say it.
It has the sharpness of being a pretty huge thing, compare to the tree line - It's not in the same place - cuz of depth of field.

Until then - Try find out what the letters are.
I don't care if it's real or not.

What can I do about it if it's real?
Nothing.

- Im not a debunker I belive in Sonorasightings.com 100%
I have seen - lights - dots of plasma - what ever it is - Moving lights.
And I can do nothing about it - It's just there.

Im just pointing out the blue stuff inside the ring of this thing
- Maybe sombody else could see it
- I thought wrong i guess.

[edit on 9-5-2007 by Ram]
That half-moon thing in the image
- Is the only thing that has that kinda blue in the picture.

[edit on 9-5-2007 by Ram]

All of this represents confusion. When people try to understand why they initially rejected something they search for a logical reason. They want a simple answer. Just about anything will do as a placeholder until a better explanation is discovered or offered. My point is that folks want to believe, on way or the other, something based on inconclusive evidence. That's why I used the Getty Museum example because even though there is conclusive scientific evidence that the materials used to make the statue could not have been faked, it doesn't rule out that the statue itself is not a forgery. So the gut reactions of the curators, archaelogists and other experts of antiquity still count for a great deal. Many of us have seen photos of newly discovered marine animals found somewhere deep in the world's oceans and our reaction is, "Well what on Earth is that!?", it's not "I think this is a scene from Finding Nemo."

[edit on 9-5-2007 by Areal51]

[edit on 9-5-2007 by Areal51]