Drone UFO pics on C2C

Wow – this has been one of the better threads of late – that’s for sure… 22 pages and still going strong…

Have been reading and studying intently – I am one of those that chimes in only when I think I have something meaningful to add. Hopefully, some others would agree:

Although I’m personally leaning toward the CG hypothesis, we have no definitive proof and may never get it. Admittedly, what this very meaningful discourse to date HAS proved (thanks to all the talented artists in these parts) is that with enough knowledge, skill, time, software tools, and a substantial quantity of bravado, it is indeed POSSIBLE to perpetrate a hoax of this type using CG technology.

What this indicates is that we can be fooled by CG (as we often are to our collective delight at the movie theater a la Lucas/Spielberg, et al). Granted – and many thanks and kudos again to those who have hopped aboard to prove as much to us, but in spite of several attempts by highly credible endorsers, many here have yet to be irrefutably convinced that this is what we are dealing with in this case. Persuasive arguments indeed and aplenty perhaps – but no universal conviction as yet.

Yes, “Chad’s” story is suspect. His methodology abysmal. His follow-through atrocious. Is he genuine or not? I have my doubts, as many do here, but again we are still left with a nagging feeling that he may just be a bumbling country bumpkin that prefers anonymity, can’t think to take more than a few pictures at a time (as far as we know), prefers the limelight (however subdued) on himself rather than his neighbors, can’t point and shoot very well, etc. And yet it is possible, however remote, that this guy actually witnessed something highly irregular – the subject of our debate.

Although I wouldn’t subscribe to some of the extreme ideas presented (such as “capturing” the object, “shooting it down”, etc.), it would be nice if we had a bit more empirical evidence to evaluate and digest. Perhaps we can persuade C2C to interview Chad a bit more extensively, maybe we can engage him here on ATS (maintain decorum, please), or how about a campaign to get Chad a decent video camera and send him back out into the field with promise of a few bucks (or some other incentive of his choosing) in return for a bit more evidence. I would be the first to chip in to that kitty!

I find it intriguing that with all of the dozens of posts regarding CG modeling, with several folks going so far as to actually constructing beautiful models to share with us, that nobody has yet mentioned the rapid prototyping printers that are available. Yes – we could be dealing with an actual physical model that was created from a CG model such as those mentioned/made by viggins, groin-g, Wayne, Dave and others. In my line of work, we often take highly detailed CG computer imagery, and, depending on the requirements can “print” out a physical pixel-by-pixel 3D color model from the digital file. Here is just one such method and machine we use to do this:
3D Prototyping. Here’s another.

With a little post-processing fx, a physical model can be had in a day or two that can look like anything you wish. Depending on the number of rendered surfaces, internal colorization and reflectivity desired, an actual model such as our UO can be had for anywhere between $800 and $2,000. Expensive but not exorbitant for a determined hoaxster. Add a decent fishing pole and some 20lb test monofilament, a conveniently placed rooftop or tree branch, and, Voila! A conspiracy is born…

Let’s be clear: I’m not suggesting that any of this has taken place here – only that it is NOT impossible. Given that such technical wizardry is increasingly readily available to practically anyone – we can’t discount the possibility that some prankster will put the time and effort (and not much of it) to capture their “15 minutes of fame”.

Finally – and I apologize for my lengthy post – but this has been a fascinating thread and I’ve waited patiently to speak up: I would SO MUCH prefer that this was real. It would be a wonderful discovery. A revelation of profound significance to science, society, humankind…

I too am tired of all the grainy, out-of-focus imagery of distant specks claiming to be “proof”. Like many of you (most of you perhaps), my heart aches for the final definitive, unambiguous image – undeniable proof.

But alas – as our trusty forum dictates: we must Deny Ignorance! Hence, our waiting will continue. Our hearts will ache a while longer. But please – let’s continue to explore together – debate these morsels of intrigue – savor our moments of hope. Our truth will come…

Just to humor you and myself, I'll attempt to answer your questions. To tell you the truth, I don't know what this thing is and I'm not prepared to make a decision. I think anyone that has a firm, conclusive opinion is just silly. Kind of like religious people with blind faith in their conviction. The truth is, I don't know and neither do any of you! That is, unless Chad is a hoaxer and is reading this right now! I do feel confident however, that it isn't CGI. Whatever it is, hoax, alien, or government, I feel confident that it is a physically existing object. I attempted to prove this in my post on page 20 of this thread, but everyone seemed to ignore it. Some guy immediately tried to debunk me by saying something completely convenient to his argument. I addressed what he said before he said it, fearing that someone would go in that direction, but he still ignored it. I think too many people feel confident that it's CGI. TOO confident. Maybe it's a miniature model that was later superimposed on that background, but I'm not making a decision. That would be absurd because there isn't enough data! What are you people? Psychic!? Why do you trust yourselves so much? Anyway, on to to the fun question answering.

Q: 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.)?
A: They aren't thrusters. They're air intakes to cool internal circuitry.

Q: Where is the fuel stored?
A: The crown collects static electricity from Earth's magnetic field which it concentrates and converts into energy.

Q: Why are there three thruster nozzles located next to and pointed at the main body
A: That's the same question as number one.

Q: Where is the fuel/power supply for the craft located?
A: That's the same question as number three.

Q: 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?
A: It's probably detecting static and magnetism among other things... No cameras. There are probably dynamic gyros inside the craft making thousands of adjustments in tilt thousands of times a second. That's how the front-theavy craft maintains it's level appearance. Think of Dean Kamen's Segway gyros. Those things are incredible and that's just civilian technology!

Q: What is the purpose of the "crown of thorns"?
A: Something to do with electricity and concentrating it or discharging it. Think of a tesla coil.

Q: Why does the object look large far away, yet small when close up?
A: It looks perfectly proportional in every picture to me... I don't know where people are getting these ideas that size and shadow are inconsistent. The sun creates ambient light and many times can cast shadows from the opposite direction due to the Earth's atmosphere's reflective nature.

Anyway, with that said, I assure you I was only answering those questions in fun. Just trying to exercise my imagination.

Note the image names: test1, test2 and test3.

Keep in mind, my model is NOT textured and is NOT an exact match of the original. I'm just experimenting with light and scale. Sorry, again, that I'm not moving fast enough for you and am doing this on my own free time for free and for EXPERIMENTAL PURPOSES ONLY.

Originally posted by rwiggins
Note the image names: test1, test2 and test3.

Keep in mind, my model is NOT textured and is NOT an exact match of the original. I'm just experimenting with light and scale. Sorry, again, that I'm not moving fast enough for you and am doing this on my own free time for free and for EXPERIMENTAL PURPOSES ONLY.

Well you posted some newer pictures where you actually took the time to place the "object" behind tree branches and stuff like that. You didn't exactly explain them, all you really said was "look what I saw in my backyard" or something like that. So to me it seemed as if you were presenting your final copies or something, I hadn't thought of right-clicking the images to see their filenames...

Yes, these are serious questions. They go to prove a point about scientific and rational thinking. So the three thruster nozzles pointing at the fuselage don't concern you or strike you as odd - real or model?

Originally posted by from downunder

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 Nezuji
I've drawn the "unmolested" Japanese katakana characters onto the original image, so that you can verify for yourselves that they ARE, in fact, all just katakana that have been played with a bit (please excuse my writing;

Nezuji

Sorry Nezuji, they're not katakana. I've been studying Japanese for 10 years, but anyone can see your characters don't match. You've taken all kinds of liberties in order to make it work. Your "so" looks more like an A--why are you ignoring that other obvious line? Your "tsu" and "shi" are missing double lines. Your "ro" looks like 2 parallel lines. And c'mon, you know you can't see that small tsu on the wing. Nice try at trying to get them to match though.

I apologize if I'm coming across the wrong way. I hope no one is taking offense.

groingrinder! where are you???

Well I think I am personally going to throw out the "Japanese katakana" theory, at least in my own mind, because it keeps going back and forth. Some people say it is a variation of katakana, and then some people say it has nothing to do with katakana at all.

And since the Japanese Katakana is the only type of writing that people seem to connect these "symbols" with, it lends more credibility to the possibility of the symbols actually being an Alien language, or maybe just some creative writings invented by an imaginative hoaxer...

[edit on 14-5-2007 by Diplomat]

[edit on 14-5-2007 by Diplomat]

What do you guys make of the underside of the other, smaller blades? Looks like there's 2 or 3 labels/placards with writing on them as well.

Also - it appears that these smaller arms/blades have a hinge pin close to where they are attached to the main ring body. Perhaps this is designed to allow for the smaller arms to pivot up (or down, but my guess is up) out of the way, when, e.g., docking, etc. Assuming, of course, that we're momentarily entertaining the 'physical object' hypothesis...

Are you guys still talking about this? I thought we made a very waterproof case of this on the Shadow level already, not to mention that they Look very CG and just, made up, especially since at least one of the characters are Japanese.

Originally posted by rwiggins
Yes, these are serious questions. They go to prove a point about scientific and rational thinking. So the three thruster nozzles pointing at the fuselage don't concern you or strike you as odd - real or model?

Originally posted by from downunder

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?

yes, the whole damn thing strikes me as odd - isnt that the whole reason its here being discussed? maybe rational, scientific thinking needs to go out the window when dealing with strange flying objects - alien or earthly, real or not!

Originally posted by Drexon
Are you guys still talking about this? I thought we made a very waterproof case of this on the Shadow level already, not to mention that they Look very CG and just, made up, especially since at least one of the characters are Japanese.

Well some supposed language experts have been in here and on other forums claiming that the writings were adapted from Japanese Katakana, and then other supposed language experts are saying the opposite, that the writings have nothing to do with any Japanese language. So which one is it? Everything I have read surrounding the writings/symbols seems very inconsistent.

And as far as the shadows, I am not completely sold on that yet, and I actually strongly disagree with the idea that the shadows are "off." I have seen people claim that the light source in certain pictures are coming from all kinds of different directions. Like I said, most of the shadows look dead on to me, but that is just my opinion...

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
In fact there is one fault with the photos and one of the good membership caught it and mentioned it and neither you nor Ritzman even mentioned it.

Can you guess what it was?

I dont have to go any further then the scaling issues. Once thats seen, whats the point. I dont believe in wasting any time after so many issues are found.

Originally posted by DiplomatWell some supposed language experts have been in here and on other forums claiming that the writings were adapted from Japanese Katakana, and then other supposed language experts are saying the opposite, that the writings have nothing to do with any Japanese language. So which one is it?

i would tend to believe those that say it isnt katakana or katakana related - simply because anyone that would definitively know what katakana really is, would also know what it isnt - if you know what i mean.



[edit on 15-5-2007 by from downunder]

I was just reading a website (which seems to be a website about fake movies and hoaxes, I am not sure) about the "Lake County Incident" video and I noticed that the webmaster's name is "Chad." Could this guy be our hoaxer? I am basing this only on the fact that I saw this guy's name is Chad and runs a website that seems to be interested in this type of stuff, so there might be nothing to it whatsoever and a total meaningless coincidence. But if anyone wants to check it out or something be my guest. Here's the link I was reading:

www.badmovieplanet.com...

Hi guys,
Well, I think Diplomat just scored. Just had a quick browse over the website and it's looking more and more like it's a set-up. Seems to me like this thing could in fact be a really impressive hoax.

Such a shame as it all looked so cool

Originally posted by nos_482
Hi guys,
Well, I think Diplomat just scored. Just had a quick browse over the website and it's looking more and more like it's a set-up. Seems to me like this thing could in fact be a really impressive hoax.

Such a shame as it all looked so cool

What have you found making this "more and more" looking like set-up" ?
The name "Chad" in the site mentioned? I haven't found anything indicating a hoax hitherto. If you have found something indicating hoax
you should tell us and not keeping it for yourself. To me this is more and more looking real - but I may have missed something.

I highly doubt that a supposedly very talented CGI artist would have a website that is so horribly designed, colored and the images are so blurry, and other graphics look like they were drawn by a 5 year old kid.

Just for a balanced argument I'll put some counter arguments:

1. If I were a hoaxer, as smart and talented as the one here, I wouldn't ever think of putting any writings on the craft or taking its close up shots. At least I won't use anything remotely similar to the matrix code or Japanese, as I know that these are extremely popular languages and everyone have at least seen them , if not studied them. I'd choose something sci-fi-ish, far far removed from the reality.

Second, aliens (if this advanced) wouldn't need any form of writing for communication. Its a very low tech thing, nearly stone-age-ish way to communicate. How do I know? Well think for yourself, its perfectly logical.

2. The scaling anomaly can be explained easily. What if there are two crafts of different sizes?

Second, why would an artist so skilled in CG, completely miss the so obvious scaling error? This is a strong argument against it being CG and favors my stand of it being a constructed model (Ya I need to be right always )

3. I searched chad 3d in google and found that there are many Chad's who are 3D guys, not only the one mentioned in above site. A hoaxer wouldn't use his most well known handle for such hoax....

4. The second sighting of similar ufo can be a "me too" attempt, just to throw some oil in the fire. Given that the design and photos are already available, its an easy job to fake two more crappy quality pics.....


So what does it prove actually? Nothing as usual.... x-file closed.

Originally posted by rocksolidbrain
Second, aliens (if this advanced) wouldn't need any form of writing for communication. Its a very low tech thing, nearly stone-age-ish way to communicate. How do I know? Well think for yourself, its perfectly logical.

Well, maybe. You may be over-estimating their technological superiority. I believe the people of Earth are only one breakthrough away from being able to do what this object represents.

2. The scaling anomaly can be explained easily. What if there are two crafts of different sizes?

What scaling anomaly? Are you refering to possible differences between Chad's object and the Tahoe object? I'm thinking these could be two different objects from the same source.