Drone UFO pics on C2C

Originally posted by xiphiidae
You wouldn't catch "handshake" or motion in the photo unless the shutter speed were below 1/60 second, especially if the supposed object is moving slowly.

I meant that since he was so close to the craft for the overhead shots, and the craft was moving as slow as he suggests, then he should have been able to shake the hands of the Lilliputian aliens flying that ship.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by Areal51]

Originally posted by Areal51

Originally posted by xiphiidae
You wouldn't catch "handshake" or motion in the photo unless the shutter speed were below 1/60 second, especially if the supposed object is moving slowly.

I meant that since he was so close to the craft for the overhead shots, and the craft was moving as slow as he suggests, then he should have been able to shake the hands of the Lilliputian aliens flying that ship.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by Areal51]

If anything it would have been an unmanned probe sent to take samples of soil, air, water, etc.. No aliens yet! *kicks this dead horse*

In lieu of the baseball homerun steroid controversy I remember seeing a picture of a sign that a fan had stating “Babe Ruth did it on Hotdogs and Beer.” In the case of the “Strange Craft” C2C photos, “George Adamski and Billy Meier did it with 35mm Film and Garbage Can Lids.”

Originally posted by balckartgraphic
Thirdly;
It has no obvious way of flying, just appears to be a strange toy.

ok, thanks - thats it, its not an alien, an other-wordly craft at all - its fake, because it has no obvious way of flying

please!!

Originally posted by from downunder

Originally posted by balckartgraphic
Thirdly;
It has no obvious way of flying, just appears to be a strange toy.

ok, thanks - thats it, its not an alien, an other-wordly craft at all - its fake, because it has no obvious way of flying

please!!

That doesn't make it fake, I mean how many UFO's have obvious propulsion systems?

I am slowly getting the C2C UFO uv mapped for texture painting.


[edit on 5-11-2007 by groingrinder]

[edit on 5-11-2007 by groingrinder]

Something strange is going on here. I cannot seem to insert a link to the image shack where my image is stored. I will try again here.

UV Mapping the C2C UFO

That doesn't make it fake, I mean how many UFO's have obvious propulsion systems?

Have you ever heard of the term "sarcasm" ?

Originally posted by groingrinder
UV Mapping the C2C UFO

I have no idea what any of the stuff in that diagram means, but if it is helping to your model get it's textures than by all means, bravo!

Originally posted by Mogget

That doesn't make it fake, I mean how many UFO's have obvious propulsion systems?

Have you ever heard of the term "sarcasm" ?

Yeah, heard of it but obviously dont recognize it Sorry.

Here's the UV Map.



What I don't understand is who created the 3D model in the image above? Its not an angle that appears in any of the released images. Care to explain?

[edit on 11-5-2007 by Karilla]

Similar Object in Moigne Downs, Dorset, UK 1967

There is a famous sighting of a similar object from 1967.
Originally published by NICAP in 1969 the case was named
The “Flying Cross” Case. This is the reference and drawing.

www.nicap.org...




This case was also published by the british UFO Magazine on Sept.
2002 under the title: Police Officers who Observe UFOs by Gary
Gary Heseltine. Also on the book 'Beyond Top Secret' by Timothy
Good, London 1997. The description seems to match some of the
C2C UFO features:

Moigne Downs 1967
This was a single witness encounter which took place at Moigne Downs, Dorset, UK on the morning of 26 October 1967.

The object first appeared as a central circular chamber with one arm to the front and three separate arms together at the rear. While hovering the two outer arms moved to positions at the side of the craft to form a cross shape. The central chamber was about 25ft (8m) in diameter, and each arm was about 75ft (23m) in length. The craft appeared to be of a translucent material. Two arms (not the same ones as before) then rotated to line up with a third and the craft departed. If the lead arm on arrival was the one at 12 o'clock, then then the lead arm on departure was the one at 9 o'clock. The witness gave a detailed account of this object, specifying the shape of the ends of the arms and the three grooves underneath the arms. The central joint and arrangement of the pivots in the drawing is conjectural.

The object arrived in linear configuration by descending at lightning speed and decelerating abruptly, hovering at 200-300 ft (61-92m). It immediatey made its first change in geometry to a cross shape, rotated 90 degrees, then remained stationery for 22 minutes, despite a force-8 gale. After this time had elapsed the object made its second change in geometry to a linear configuration with a different leading arm, then climbed with increasing speed and disappeared. No noise was heard at any stage.

To me, some of the glyphs on (what would seem to be) the underside of the craft look like some of the glyphs seen on "The Matrix" when looking at the machine code. I do like the uniqueness of the shape. Kudos on that. But it appears to me to be nothing more than Photoshop.

Originally posted by Diplomat


Yea there is some interesting stuff on that page. Here is my favorite explanation:

A friend of mine who is an electrical/mechanical engineer said this in response to my email to him about Chad's mysterious craft pictures: "Yah, the US government has things like this, they build them up in Rancho Bernardo. Mini drones. They use them in Iraq to patrol neighborhoods. Someone has apparently built their own or acquired one and is having fun flying around, painting strange markings on it. It's basically a big fan with gyros to stabilize it. Technology is advancing fast. I just read an article where they're working on mini-bird-like drones as small as 6" that flex their wings and fly like birds through dense urban areas, subways, stairs, stores, that kind of thing. Pretty cool. I remember a Star Trek episode where a group of people were being followed by these, and how terrifying it was for them. These are actually pretty common." He goes on to say: "They use them to fly over areas where troops are going to move in, to check it for enemy troops and minimize casualties."

I filmed a wierd bird/insect in 2001 and got someone to make a still pic for me. I wondered if this was a drone, even back then. He de-interlaced(?) the still for me and I ended up with this. It shot past so quickly and looked strange, albeit a very quick glimpse. Sorry it's not clearer.

Originally posted by Karilla
What I don't understand is who created the 3D model in the image above? Its not an angle that appears in any of the released images. Care to explain?

[edit on 11-5-2007 by Karilla]

groingrinder is modeling the UFO, it's not part of the C2C photos. Though I'm sure you might see some of the same angles soon with this model for comparison.

Karilla I am the creator of the model posted above being UV Mapped in order for the textures to display properly. By examining the way the numbers are displayed in the Perspective view (3D) to the numbers displayed in the Texture view, you can determine whether squashing or stretching are occurring. You can also check for flipped and rotated texture coordinates and correct all of the same.

I realize that my model is not an exact copy, and it merely demonstrates that the model could be 3D. My modeling, rendering and uv mapping softwares are nowhere near the standard of 3DS Max and Maya. So you should realize that IF I can model and render this in low end software, how much better it could be done by someone who is using the premium stuff.

Its good that you are modelling it and all...its an inspiring thing after all, but its not a 3D model. You can come close but its not going to explain it away, even if there are many similarities with a 3D model.

I've no clue what it is, my best guess is that its some sort of 'sculpture' made out of stuff and hung with ropes. It was shot with a film camera (not a digital ccd one) and then scanned and processed to remove the ropes.

The bluish glow that you see on the edges is a sign of film, a ccd would produce contrast artifacts in those parts.

I see many unusual things in the pics (but you can see such in any pic, if you looks in a 'specific' way):

- The ufo in the cellphone pic is huge, compared to the one hanging around the flowery branches.
- The first pic is highly processed, there is absolutely NO film grain in it, no ccd noise (if we assume its digital)...
- The pic showing the close up of the underside has a lot of film grain and the object matched nicely with background, suggesting its not 3D.
- This thing is empty inside, with the 'cables' going in and terminating on a center ring. Its non-functional
- There is no motion blur, no signs of movement. Wonder why a video or a photo in motion was not taken.
- The writing is a weak attempt at creating alien signs, its a mixture of various fonts.
- The story appears to be clearly made up, as others have pointed out.

Originally posted by groingrinder
Something strange is going on here. I cannot seem to insert a link to the image shack where my image is stored. I will try again here.
[/url]

You may want to space out those UV's a bit more, if not your gonna have a problem texturing it. The UV's are crammed way to close together. Ideally you want to make as much use of the UV space available as possible, this means you have more space when it comes to texture time. (Everything that doesn't contain UV's is wasted space, if your using a 4k texture map you want to use as much of it as possible.

Hope you dont mind the hints, I'd like to see you finish this. Also look at using maxwell render for the final shot as I'm pretty certain thats what was used on the photos. (My only proof of this is a gut hunch as I've been working with maxwell for a client for quite some time now....)

The original has a pretty obvious Ambient Occlusion pass overlay in composite as well. You may also want to look into that to match it to the original 'photo' better.

Things such as film grain etc are childs play to add in post, when lighting as long as your using your background photo to match to it'll sit perfectly well. (Despite what some may say here.) A good composited 3d image wont show any external signs of it being composited. I've worked in the industry for some time and I know of what I speak.

Wayne...

PS Just to set the record straight before anyone gets the wrong end of the stick, no I dont fake images I work as a professional 3d artist. But like any 3D nodel there are cetrain steps that are required to make any render look 'real'.

[edit on 11/5/2007 by the secret web]

Originally posted by groingrinder
I realize that my model is not an exact copy, and it merely demonstrates that the model could be 3D. My modeling, rendering and uv mapping softwares are nowhere near the standard of 3DS Max and Maya. So you should realize that IF I can model and render this in low end software, how much better it could be done by someone who is using the premium stuff.

My first thought was that it was a little too close for comfort! I know how long it would take me to copy it, and I would still be at the thinking stage. Mayhap I'm a little too suspicious? Sorry!

If you can upload the model somewhere I can try rendering it in Cinema 4D, as well as an external renderer that shipped with it. It doesn't like running with explorer so I shall check what format I can accept later, but I'm sure a .dxf would be ok.

Originally posted by free_spirit
Similar Object in Moigne Downs, Dorset, UK 1967

There is a famous sighting of a similar object from 1967.
Originally published by NICAP in 1969 the case was named
The “Flying Cross” Case. This is the reference and drawing.

www.nicap.org...

I was thinking this was similar too. It may in fact serve a similar purpose but it's not of the same design. This new one has arms that fold up and also has the cage at the top. The story says that Brook's dog died a week after the sighting. I hope Chad or any of his people aren't in danger, especially his pregnant wife.