Drone UFO pics on C2C

Originally posted by bergle

Picture #1 makes mr think this is a small device,as the tree behind it looks to be in close enough proximity to delineate its size through comparison.
The writing looks earthly actually,exactly like an earth person had tried to design an unknown style of writing....
I believe this is a model or at least very small.
It does not apear to be big enough to climb into....
bergle

When you say "model" do you mean a real-life model? Like something that is hanging by strings, or maybe remote controlled? Because that would explain why it looks so clear and crisp, because it is a photo of a real model. But then again there are CGI guys who can make things look pretty much real, we know that from the movies these days... so I guess it's hard to tell whether it is an actual real model or a CGI model...

[edit on 14-5-2007 by Diplomat]

I made another test render with an omni light, this time. Note the bright areas on my cg model versus the areas previously indicated on the original photograph.

Hey Diplomat,

I understand you. As for an explanation, remember, I'm doing this on my free time and am not getting paid. As such, it's a bit here and a bit there. I've already demonstrated that the lighting is wrong. That, in and of itself, should key you in on whether or not the original photograph is real or not.

As for the "crispness" of the originals, you are joking, right? The quality is mediocre at best. In my opinion, it is intentional.

If you want us to do it right, give us time. The original creator had plenty of time before posting. The reason I am submitting test renders is to backup my statements regarding the lighting problems. Understand?

Originally posted by Diplomat
First of all, I am in no way trying to put you down, and I actually admire you CGI guys because you are way better with those types of programs than I am. BUT... every model you guys have posted so far doesn't even look close to "looking real." I know you said it is a test run and everything, so I am assuming you can make it a lot better and crisper right? Because the original images are very crisp, basically the type of quality you might see in movies these days. So I am anxious to see one of you guys create a model that looks that realistic, I'm just saying that so far they don't look very real at all...

So you are saying that the light source in that pic is coming from the bottom-left corner? Are you sure? To me it looks more like the light source is coming from the upper-right corner where you put your omni light. I'm referring to the lighting in the original pic...

[edit on 14-5-2007 by Diplomat]

Originally posted by Diplomat
To me it looks more like the light source is coming from the upper-right corner where you put your omni light.

You know I was just about that say that myself. The lighting in the original pic is obviously coming from top left behind the camera (as seen on the tree).

Everything I've seen in this thread just proves that if the original is CG, its very good. I still question whether its real due to the stupid story though.

[edit on 14-5-2007 by merka]

Why, am i? Loading these picutres into photoshop

Folks these are fakes CGI, the minute I saw them within 1 second I knew these were fakes. Ship is too clear, doesnt match film grain of the digital camera. The Joker applied blur to some areas correctly but I dont know photoshop as well as other people in this forum.

Even the CG experts agree that this is infact a fake
forums.cgsociety.org...

End of discussion.

[edit on 14-5-2007 by THE_PROFESSIONAL]

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
...doesnt match film grain of the digital camera.

You have your terms mixed up, digital cameras have ccd noise and film has grain. Personally I'd love a dslr camera that could do film grain
If the grain was added later into a digital image then he could've used something like optikVerve labs virtual photographer. It's a free filter plugin into photoshop that simulates pretty much any kind of film effect and more.

I know everyone is discussing that these could be real and how it would be so hard to fake and so on and so forth but here is what I dont understand:

If this guy saw this thing TWICE, why would be only take only 6 pictures? It's a once in a lifetime opportunity to see a ufo and if you saw one twice, and had a camera at the second encounter, why take only 6 pictures and go " wow, that was neat, lets keep walking."? I mean, I would be snapping pictures like crazy because I'd want to document this amazing machine I was witnessing!

None of these pictures seem spontaneous and they look really framed up like, " Ok, get these trees in here and make sure its behind a branch because you know they are going to look close at it.

Secondly, Why is one picture taken from what looks like a high mountaintop off of a cliff or something and the other ones are taken in what looks like a park with it like 15 ft over their heads? "Chad" said it moved really fast?

I am not close minded, I read ufo books, watch ufo shows, and i even paint ufos. I love this stuff. And even though I want to believe it, its very suspicious that the original author just sent these pictures in and gave a short story of his encounter and disappeared. It looks like a computer artist is just flexing his muscle.



[edit on 14-5-2007 by D.Gribble]

[edit on 14-5-2007 by D.Gribble]

Maybe it's just the story that is a hoax. If he had a good reason to not tell the truth he would make up something that he thought sounds credible. I'm thinking that he could've been tresspassing on military ground or something and only could snap few pictures before he had to high tail out of there and then make up a story of it being some place else.
Just a thought...

For those of you wanting a copy of the model I made of the "Strange Craft", click here.

The file has been zipped with WinZip and is around 6 Megabytes in size. It contains a file named "strange craft.max" which is around 20 Megabytes when decompressed. The winglet tubes are not modeled.

Yes, it's huge and no I didn't optimize it. lol

For those of you insisting that the "Strange Craft" is a real object (real ufo or real model), take a look at the craft's construction and ask yourself these questions:

1. What is the purpose of the thrusters located under the main wing and why so many and no visible evidence of their use (soot, etc.)?
2. Where is the fuel stored?
3. Why are there three thruster nozzles located next to and pointed at the main body of the craft? Can you say, "Challenger"?
4. Where is the fuel/power supply for the craft located?
5. If this is supposed to be a uav, where are the cameras and how does this thing fly with the weight of the main wing?
6. What is the purpose of the "crown of thorns"?
7. Why does the object look large far away, yet small when close up?

Originally posted by rwiggins
For those of you insisting that the "Strange Craft" is a real object (real ufo or real model), take a look at the craft's construction and ask yourself these questions:

1. What is the purpose of the thrusters located under the main wing and why so many and no visible evidence of their use (soot, etc.)?
2. Where is the fuel stored?
3. Why are there three thruster nozzles located next to and pointed at the main body of the craft? Can you say, "Challenger"?
4. Where is the fuel/power supply for the craft located?
5. If this is supposed to be a uav, where are the cameras and how does this thing fly with the weight of the main wing?
6. What is the purpose of the "crown of thorns"?
7. Why does the object look large far away, yet small when close up?

I'm not insisting the craft IS real but I am very open to the possibility that it is. Thrusters? I saw no thrusters. You might be thinking, "without thrusters how does it move"? To understand the possibilities you need to think outside the terrestrial box. If this is a real craft then it does not use any known method of propulsion. So forget asking questions such as "where is it's fuel stored". It simply does not apply.

Holy crap! Guess what I just saw off my back porch?!?!?!










or not...

Paracast discusses this object this week. Listen to what a PhotoShop professional, David Biedny, has to say about this craft--and about ATS.

Rwiggins, I am sorry, but those pics look nowhere near as real as the originals. They are pretty damn good I must say, nice work, but just not as good as the originals.

And to the person who posted a link to the CGI message board about this subject, that thread does not solve anything. It is almost the same as this thread here on ATS, some of the people claim it is obviously fake and others claim that it is real. So who can you trust even amongst those CGI guys?

I am afraid that no one knows for sure yet if this is real or fake...

Originally posted by rwiggins1. What is the purpose of the thrusters located under the main wing and why so many and no visible evidence of their use (soot, etc.)?
2. Where is the fuel stored?
3. Why are there three thruster nozzles located next to and pointed at the main body of the craft? Can you say, "Challenger"?
4. Where is the fuel/power supply for the craft located?
5. If this is supposed to be a uav, where are the cameras and how does this thing fly with the weight of the main wing?
6. What is the purpose of the "crown of thorns"?
7. Why does the object look large far away, yet small when close up?

are you serious?

Originally posted by Diplomat
Rwiggins, I am sorry, but those pics look nowhere near as real as the originals. They are pretty damn good I must say, nice work, but just not as good as the originals.

i'll second that.

We do indeed discuss these FAKE images with Jeff Ritzmann on the Paracast, the show that aired yesterday, and as I've mentioned previously on this thread (as well as Jeff), these images are fabricated. What more does anyone need to know about them? It's a hoax.

Seriously - the quality of these images is nothing to write home - it's the work of a decent hobbyist.

What amazes me is that people on here continue to debate the veracity of these things, as if there was something compelling in them. Boggles my mind.

dB

Originally posted by davidbiedny
We do indeed discuss these FAKE images with Jeff Ritzmann on the Paracast, the show that aired yesterday, and as I've mentioned previously on this thread (as well as Jeff), these images are fabricated. What more does anyone need to know about them? It's a hoax.

Seriously - the quality of these images is nothing to write home - it's the work of a decent hobbyist.

What amazes me is that people on here continue to debate the veracity of these things, as if there was something compelling in them. Boggles my mind.

dB

What I don't understand is if images like these are supposedly SO EASY to recreate by "decent hobbyists," then why have I still yet to see one single recreation that looks as realistic as the originals? All I need to see is one and I will shut up about this, I promise! "Show me the money!!!"

[edit on 14-5-2007 by Diplomat]

Paracast discusses this object this week

The first minute was enough. According to them anybody name Chad cannot believed. Well, I guess that pretty much sums up this interview, a waste of time.

[edit on 14-5-2007 by Latitude]

Originally posted by Latitude

Paracast discusses this object this week

The first minute was enough. According to them anybody name Chad cannot believed. Well, I guess that pretty much sums up this interview, a waste of time.

You really did not give it enough time, dude. They kid around. they have a good time. Is that okay? I think so. You certainly don't think they were serious about 'Chad,' do you? Are they opinionated. Oh, yes! If you don't like to hear Cheney described as a war criminal, you won't be happy listening to the off-topic political rants, believe me. But if you can get through that, they have some great material. It's not a typical Coast-to-Coast interview when all the host can manage to say is, "Oh, wow!" and "Gee whiz!"

The point is that on that show you have two acknowledged photographic experts, Biedny and Ritzman, discuss the very pictures at question here. You don't think they're experts? Name someone better and show how you arrived at your conclusion. Google Biedny and you'll find a ton of stuff about him. He teaches Photoshop. Ritzman has his own photographic forum right here on ATS dedicated to just this kind of analysis.

People wonder why those interested in UFOs are considered nutcases. Looking at an egg beater and calling it a UFO is like looking at a microwave and saying, "Ah! TV!"