Drone UFO pics on C2C

Looks like a weird ceiling fan.

I don't know what the heck it is though.


I burned the hairs on my arm today.

Hey GroinGrinder,

I've been modeling this in 3ds Max. I've got the outer wing done and will be working on the rest as time permits. If you want a copy, let me know. Here's what I have so far:

Originally posted by Grendizer
First of all it’s NOT Japanese!

Yeah, several of us have pointed that out already, but the thread is too long so folks are skipping it all to post and keep repeating the same mistakes.

Originally posted by Grendizer
But what people seem to forget is that the hard part is actually coming up with the design, and in my opinion I think this one is bloody fantastic!

Again, at least one other person pointed out that this is a poor reason to suspect authenticity. Yes it looks cool. But designing something unique looking doesn't take excessive, nonhuman creativity. In fact, what I WOULDN'T have done was include the spires on the top. That struck me immediately as very human-like design overkill.

It's a drag with a thread this long, but if you plow through about the 1st half of it, you'll find it's been handily debunked as a cg rendering. It's fun at first to analyze something like this, but I hate to see ufo ethusiasts give a hoaxer (he's sitting there chuckling) this much traction. Good god, he said himself that he took the additional photos the next day, having "found" it again in the same area. Even the guy's narrative, the easiest element to fake, reeks of a hoax.

Hms. Seems I missed an invite to C2C to talk about this regarding my concerns that this is an elaborate hoax. Oh well, would have been tricky with the time zones anyhow

It just might be genuine. Why would anyone go to all that trouble to create a hoax like that? I have seen 5 UFO'S and i certainly would'nt waste my time making fake picture's. Either that or they need to get a life. Be nice though it could be real. If that's the case then they need all the support they can get. I never got any.

Originally posted by happinness
It just might be genuine. Why would anyone go to all that trouble to create a hoax like that?

I always chuckle when people say that...Maybe most normal people don't enjoy making hoaxes, but it takes all kinds. Look at the alien autopsy video, took lots of work to create that... along with many other hoaxes ranging from simple to elaborate.

Here's more of a cover story than a hoax, but it was a large scale one...


Stealthy ship. The $200 million Glomar Explorer set sail in 1974 to find deep-sea minerals. But that was just a CIA cover story. The ship's mission was to secretly salvage the wreck of a Soviet nuclear sub 3 miles under the ocean, 750 miles off Hawaii. Eccentric billionaire Howard Hughes helped with the hoax: A Hughes subsidiary built the Explorer, based on designs pioneered by a Hughes vessel doing deep-sea exploration.

Reporters revealed its mission in 1975, and the CIA admitted that the attempt had been a limited success; the sub broke in half while being raised off the ocean floor and several nuclear warheads were lost. Claims that the CIA had pressured journalists to keep quiet prompted a Rolling Stone reporter to file a Freedom of Information Act request to uncover intimidation tactics.

The petition was foiled by the agency's refusal to either confirm or deny the existence of such documents, the first time that the dvasion–now known as the "Glomar response"–was used.

Hi Greatlakes,
You have a point. I think there's lots of money to be made too for a good hoax...I have just thought of that you know as well as the government's trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Sometimes young guys starting out in 3d treat it as a way of 'flexing their 3d muscles' and see if they can pull of what they think is a movie quality scene. Now 90% of people realise pretty soon that its a REALLY bad idea and dont actually do it.

Out of the other 10% about 9% are so bad its laughable, leaving 1% with both the inclination and amount of talent required. I've personally had to put off 4 young guys starting out from doing either UFO fake vids or fake alien vids in the last month. (I also am supermod on a large well known 3d forum.)

After explaining to them that lots of people dont see it as a *joke*, and that they can really make people angry, they usually agree to head in more productive areas like game mods etc...

It is a very small minority of 3d artists that fake footage or photos (I'm talking about pros or people starting out here...) Learning 3D is getting easier all the time due to DVD's and tutorials by people like myself. As a result more people try it and hence a bit of an increase in the brainless horders of fakers.

Wayne...

the secret web: Thank you for being about helping somebody out with your knowledge instead of tearing them down. I really appreciate your input. My rendering choices are Bryce 6.1, Carrara 3D Basics, and Flamingo, which is Rhino's renderer. Obviously I do not have the tools to do a "Hollywood" job, but I am doing the best I know how, with what I have available.

rwiggins: I am so jealous! It looks like you have gotten the large blade proportions much better than I. It seems like the fans on the underside stick out too much though.

Yes, I would very much like to have your model when done.

I hope those little fans are not what is lifting this monster. I remember somebody saying it was a recon drone that was powered by a fan, but the only fans I see are the small ones and they certainly look to small to lift this. If these are indeed locally manufactured, then what is with the odd writing on it?

As far as SciFi models goes, there are much nicer ones out there with details galore that the eye gets lost in. I call them greeblelicious. Chad certainly picked an odd one to send to Coast to Coast.

Originally posted by XPhiles

Originally posted by Latitude

Which one do you think looks more real? I'm picking the first pic any day!

I think you guys don't understand.. your comparing his model without textures ? it's not even finished?

I give up lol.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by XPhiles]

Thanks for the support. I certainly appreciate it. It appears that those who can walk the walk are doing it here. Those who can only talk the talk are also doing what they do best. We who have actual modeling experience can tell who is walking and who is talking.

[edit on 5-12-2007 by groingrinder]

Your model looks fantastic. The more I study the imagery, the more interesting details I find. Did you observe the main body over the winglet to the right of the main wing? It's either cut out or highly reflective. I'm going with cut out as the winglets appear to be able to pitch up and down. They are also stepped, as if to suggest they can retract (although that doesn't correlate very well with the winglet pipes).

I'm using the actual photographs within 3ds Max (set bitmap image to a plane) for scale. Those "fans" are actually thrusters. Look closely and you will see there are four nozzles. They are approximately the height of the wing thickness and can be observed as so in one of the photographs. I've had to pull some tricks out of Photoshop to enhance and clarify some of the imagery.

As soon as I'm done, I'll get you a copy.

Yeah, the greebles are fun! That's what is making this project so fascinating. I'm glad you suggested it.

If this thing is real, I'm going with a model. The fan would be located within the main body of the craft. The thrusters on the main wing are just too small to provide any lift. If they are gimbaled, they could provide roll and yaw but not pitch.

The greebles are odd, if this is supposed to be an alien craft. Why all the fasteners? Look at a modern fighter plane or stealth aircraft: very smooth lines.

The other possibility is that this is a cg model. Either way, modeling it is fun.

Originally posted by groingrinder
rwiggins: I am so jealous!

It looks like you have gotten the large blade proportions much better than I. It seems like the fans on the underside stick out too much though.

Yes, I would very much like to have your model when done.

I hope those little fans are not what is lifting this monster. I remember somebody saying it was a recon drone that was powered by a fan, but the only fans I see are the small ones and they certainly look to small to lift this. If these are indeed locally manufactured, then what is with the odd writing on it?

As far as SciFi models goes, there are much nicer ones out there with details galore that the eye gets lost in. I call them greeblelicious. Chad certainly picked an odd one to send to Coast to Coast.

Originally posted by Diplomat
Wow you guys are coming along pretty fast with your "models." At this rate you might be able to completely replicate the original images by 2009...

This thread was started a whole six days ago dude...and most of the modelers probably didn't jump on the project till after the thread was going. So are you saying that the hoaxers completed the same modeling in less time? Highly doubtful.

This isn't a happy meal your ordering Diplomat

the secret web please check your U2U In Box.

Diplomat give it a rest and try being more like your username or there will be "issues". I deleted your snide post, these guys are DOING something that you obviously can't. I suggest a whole LOT of RESPECT for those who CAN from those can not.

Springer...

Subtle imperfections suggest inconsistency with CGI. CGI images are exact cookie cutter renderings. Always symmetrical and flawless in appearance. I've noticed that the notches along the bottom of the circle are imperfect. It appears as though they may have been shaped with a tool. Fashioned that way with something by hand. Perhaps carved. I was leaning toward believing this was a CG rendering based on what everyone says here, until I noticed this. Another poster pointed out an anomalous "slant" inside the "track" that the "antennae" rotate on. Again, inconsistent with computer generated imagery. Correct me if I'm wrong, but inside 3D modeling software you can create one notch and then automatically repeat it around the perimeter, forming a circle of identical notches. If not, I don't see a reason that the 3D programmer wouldn't make them identical anyway in order to make it appear like legit alien or government hardware instead of some irregular carving; even if each notch has to be replicated and modeled individually. If you look closely you will notice that some are large, some are small, some are square, some are rectangular, and some of them even appear elliptical. Very inconsistent. In my opinion, this craft--whether alien, government, or hoax, appears to be a physically existing object. Whether it is a superimposed miniature, I cannot decide. I'd also like to point out that Adobe Photoshop Elements (which appears in the EXIF data, according to some posters) is not the real Photoshop. It's a cheaper version with basic editing tools for the average consumer. I know people that use it to scan images and quickly edit brightness and contrast. I think a person that renders textures in Photoshop to use inside of 3D modeling software would most likely use full blown Photoshop CS3 for professionals.

With all that said, here is what I offer as evidence:

Please do not simply glance. I urge you to carefully observe each notch around the perimeter in relation to it's adjacent ones.



Color enhanced for contrast:



Original large:



[edit on 12-5-2007 by MetisElara]

Fair point, MetisElara, but good cg models can look however the designer wants it too. You can usually separate a novice from an intermediate to advanced modeler by looking at details such as, aging, weathering, battle damage, scars, imperfections, etc. Beginners tend to have "clean" models. As for complexity and detail, I have seen cg models (for example cars and motorcycles) that are accurate down to the last bolt and screw. For an example, go to turbosquid.com and check out the suzuki hayabusa model (over $1000.00!!!). That will give you an idea of how complex models can be. Also look at some 3d galleries for examples of imperfections and "real life" texturing. You would be surprized!

As to the details on the bottom of the craft, remember that they don't appear crisp to begin with, suggesting artifacts/pixeling. Even so, it's easy to model them as an array and add random noise in the x,y,z. Also, the interior of the main body is very dark and I can only tease out the grossest details, having to surmise the rest. The cg model won't be perfect because the original images are not perfect. They contain a lot of noise, artifacts and are definitely not crisp! lol

Since I'm not making any money on this and am doing it in my spare time, I'm not going to put in the level of work I would on a commission. I don't plan on doing a hack job, either. This is just a test, really. I'd like to check the scale, etc. against the original photographs.

Originally posted by MetisElara
Subtle imperfections suggest inconsistency with CGI. CGI images are exact cookie cutter renderings. Always symmetrical and flawless in appearance...

If true, what does it mean?

Let's for the sake of discussion assume this thing is a real ET craft. When searching back through this thread I came upon this post which attempts to explain what this is.

I have information about the pictures for those interested and take it with a grain of salt if you like.

Here it is:

- device is a probe owned by the Grays (aliens)
- probe searches for magnetic hotspots and when finding them has a means of transferring magnetic energy to mothership which controls probe
- probe is controlled by larger ufo and its propulsion system relies on it to some extent.
- the probe resembles upside down funnel as it funnels energy from the earth hotspot to the craft above it
- device has folding arms where rivets can be seen such that probe folds up in mothership
- writing on device indicates the mothership the probe belongs to and other technical issues related to the probe
- normally such device may be invisible to human eyes but in this case was not because: remote area of activity and increasing confidence of grays and other aliens as they invade our earth. Also, sometimes mistakes are made and as activity increases more mistakes will be seen in the presence of the aliens more and more.
- probe is probably one of many owned by grays and operating on the earth
- there are said to be hundreds of such areas on the earth where such probes can tap into earths magnetic field at selected frequency (less than one thousand places though).
- grays use probe as energy is stronger than tapping cosmic rays and easier than using artificial power sources on crafts, also depends on need for energy, end purpose.
- these motherships operate as exploratory craft and recon and communications around the earth

If this thing is an ET probe what could be it's ultimate purpose? Let's say the poster is correct and the probe is only sending magnetic energy to a mothership. What is the mothership up to? Recon? If the probe is simply "mining" magnetic energy then this means the people of Earth are sitting on an untapped resource of infinite possibilities. If there are indeed hundreds of these probes here, could they be doing any damage to our planet and it's magnetic field? Does anybody have any theories on how a planet's magnetic field can be a source of energy? Also, am I the only one who sees the circular part of this as possibly Faraday effect type donut.

Helllo again, great discussions about this thing.. Im impres with the amount of investigation that is put into these photos! you guys are great! keep em commin! What is thee to belive in now with generated photos. We are now in a advance time were we simply cant send the truth within the digital media anymore. There must be another way of finding our neighbours out there, what kind of actions can we do to do this?

hollywood's tools of magic that i know of are:

3d:
3D studio max
Maya
XSI
Lightwave
Mudbox
Zbrush 3
photoshop

Compositing:
Digital Fusion
Combustion

3d tracking for any 3d objects that fits into a background plates:
Boujou 1.3
digital fusion.

3d sites with awesome state of the arts:

cgtalk.com
zbrushcentral.com
3dtotal.com

Ps: here are my other works of my 3d skills

Ohmarshian Race | Sculpt:

www.theeffectslab.com...

Other Works:

www.theeffectslab.com...

www.theeffectslab.com...


[edit on 13-5-2007 by MDB101]

That thing abducted me last week and probed me! It's very real.

I can't judge it's authenticity, but all arguments seem valid. Personally, I don't see the point in hoaxing photographs. I have photographed ufos and the paranormal; I wouldn't dare hoax a photo, as I would like to retain my credibility.

In some way, hoax photos are good, as it makes it easier to define the real photos from the fake online. I hate hoaxed photos, However, I look at them with a skeptical eye.

This photo is either an elaborate hoax, or the genuine article. If it is a hoax, then it is CGI, or something similar. If it is real, it looks like it is designed to collect particles in the atmosphere. It would have helped to see it in a video clip rather than a photo.

The reason that I am saying this is that I have read the other posts, which leads me to believe that this object could be man-made.

Also, the information given is very vague. If I got that close to an object and photographed it. I would get as much information as possible about it. I would also try and get it on video first then still. I would obtain as much evidence as possible.

The ufo I photographed in July 2002 has a negative to prove it's authenticity and the one my husband photographed in 2005 is genuine. (1) because my husband photographed it (2) he is one of the worst skeptics I have ever come across. He still tries to rationalise what he photographed by saying he was inside the vehicle, when in fact, he was standing outside the vehicle. His negativity to what he photographed and his feelings on the subject lead to the credibility of the photo which he had taken.

According to the post, another neighbour saw it. Why didn't the other neighbour take videos or additional photos?