Drone UFO pics on C2C

Originally posted by rocksolidbrain
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

)

Thats a stretch to explain the scaling differences in Chad's pics. He mentions NOTHING about 2 different sized UOs. I'm no mind reader, I only have the pics and his words.

I also dont see anything "so skilled" about this. Could it be a kitbashed model? I dont believe so. If it is, what model kits are pieced out to build it.

The underside's uneven small fins look very much to me like uneven booleaning and thats also not an uncommon error.

All I can say is someone has an awful big set to show something this close up with actual script written on it to boot and think they could get away with it on C2C.

Yes,others have done close ups but seldom do they call so much attention to themseves knowing how many experts are out there to tear them apart.

I wanna party with this Chad guy! Or at least hire him to work at my company...then party....

OK... That is just 'freaky' looking...

I, at first thought it was one of the streamlined ciling fans...

The strange thing about it, it that is seems to have a very 'purposfull' look to it...

The very asymmetry of the thing, lends it a bit more credence with me, as most people would never consider putting together something that asymmetrical...

The positioning of the jets(ducted fans, emitters, access ports, logos, :puz is very interesting... If they are supposed to be lifters of some sort, most people would have placed them at the ENDS of the segments, instead of toward the inside...

I really wish I could see more detail on the left and right fins, as I would like to know if the one opposite the diagonal one it bigger than the one on the same side to counterbalance it...

This thing has so much of the 'form follows function' look about it, that if it was not for the strange writing, I would think it was some kind of instrument... Even the strange 'birdcage' structure on the top looks VERY familiar...

Originally posted by jamesraykenney
The positioning of the jets(ducted fans, emitters, access ports

I can't for the life of me see these things. Other people have also mentioned seeing jets or vents but I'm not seeing them in the pics. Would somebody describe which pic shows them and where these are located on the thing?

Two more test images. Can someone double check the originals? The winglets appear, to me, to be different lengths in relation to the fuselage. In one photo, the rear winglet is as long as the big wing. In others, it is shorter.

To note, my model doesn't duplicate the original exactly. The original model has the winglets at 270, 0, 45 and 90 degrees with the main wing at 180 degrees.




I haven't pulled out the render engine, yet. I haven't even got around to texturing the model. Again, the above two images are test renderings intending to check level of detail (model) and lighting/shadows. Comments and criticisms are welcome.

By the way, if group consensus is to let this thread die or if I'm just wasting everyone's time, please let me know and I'll quit posting to it.

Originally posted by rwiggins

By the way, if group consensus is to let this thread die or if I'm just wasting everyone's time, please let me know and I'll quit posting to it.

Is that rendered in 3ds Max?
By all means keep continuing what your doing, looking very good, I'm always checking this thread to see what's new, Chad is probably doing the same lol... (The rumor so far, the birdcage is some kind of inductive dipole that follows the Earth’s magnetic field..) hmmm... anyway, very nice examples.

Linda Moulton Howe is going on C2C for the first hour tonight to talk about this.

Rwiggins, it is starting to look much better. I say keep up with it because at least you can show people that it can be done. I still haven't seen anyone else replicate the originals yet...

Originally posted by Mekanic
Linda Moulton Howe is going on C2C for the first hour tonight to talk about this.

Yeah.. she seemed to have some faith in this Chad guy and these photos. She even has another photo of the craft that was supposedly taken in Lake Tahoe by someone else?



Doesn't it look like this one only has 4 "appendages" as opposed to the 5 in Chad's photos?

rwwiggins can you post the model in Maya format (.ma) if you dont mind I would like to make a video of the object in my spare time. By the way your model is excellent great job, could not do it myself.

Originally posted by kronos11

Originally posted by Mekanic
Linda Moulton Howe is going on C2C for the first hour tonight to talk about this.

Yeah.. she seemed to have some faith in this Chad guy and these photos. She even has another photo of the craft that was supposedly taken in Lake Tahoe by someone else?

Doesn't it look like this one only has 4 "appendages" as opposed to the 5 in Chad's photos?

The "object" in that photo has already been proven to be taken from one of the original "Chad" photos. It is the same exact angle, and fits perfectly when scaled down. The photo which shows this is in the thread about the "lake tahoe" pics...

What would be good is if people stick to what they know. There are people who want to believe and know, there are people who want to believe and know very little or nothing, then there are those who know enough to ask appropriate questions, and finally, there are those who don't know very much of what they speak but are adamant that their conclusions are correct.

It is very clear who understands CGI, lighting, natural lighting, photography, digital photography, and foreign languages other than English. It is also clear who does not understand any of the previous mentioned. There are a ton of people riding on belief in this thread, and then there are those who have taken a stance of caution or rejected outright because of what they know. I chose to go with my gut, but I asked the best questions that I, with my limited knowledge, knew how to ask. The questions I have asked have been thoroughly answered by the professionals and amateurs in this thread who know a great deal more about the subject of my questions than I do. Still, there are others whom no reasonable explanation is satisfactory. Never mind the fact that much of the reasonable answers given are not even taken in full by those people.

All I'm saying is that as far as we who are here all know, none of us were with "Chad" at the time he took the photographs. We all are at a distinct disadvantage with regards to "Chad's" photos and claims. The witnesses that he referred to in his story have not come forward to support his story. There are a lot of believers here who do not have anything but there strong feelings to support their position. There are more than enough knowledgeable professionals and amateurs who have done extremely well at supporting their contentions with data and results that have been easily corroborated by their colleagues. I'm someone who chose to believe in his gut feeling that the photos were not genuine, and to my great surprise, I never imagined so many capable people taking part in this community and debate, my hunch has been well supported. That's all I really had, a hunch. Believers on the other side of the line are still without any support whatsoever. They are still in the same position that they were when the photos first appeared. It must really suck, and so I can understand why they feel they must be relentless in their questioning and periodic indignation of those who are offering up countering well supported hypotheses. No one likes being made a fool of. I guess what I'm saying is that "Chad" and company haven't done any of us any favors, but many dedicated folks of this community have. So speaking at least for myself, I'm going to take the best evidence offered by our community, circumstantial though it is, and rest my own personal case. The photos are contrived. Those wonderful individuals have done more than enough to support the contention that the photos are not depicting true events than "Chad" and company have done to support that they do.

There's a great and well balanced community here. Thanks for letting me pitch in my two cents.

Thanks, The Professional. I can't export to Maya from 3ds Max, unfortunately. However, I can export to VRML which is a standard format all 3d applications should be able to handle. There's tons of support for it on the net. I haven't had time to create a texture map. If you do create one, please share it. And thank you all for your patience and comments!

Strange Craft in VRML Format

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
rwwiggins can you post the model in Maya format (.ma) if you dont mind I would like to make a video of the object in my spare time. By the way your model is excellent great job, could not do it myself.

Let me just assume for a second that this is a real picture of a real UFO. Benefit of the doubt, and all that. You people have just created the perfect cover story, or at least, you will have when the texture mapping is done, and you've done it for free? I guess the "men in black" are out of a job.

OK, I'll throw that assumption aside now. It's always nice to see how a hoax can be perpetrated. I have no knowledge of 3D rendering programs, and there are some truly amazing images contained within this thread. Good work to all involved. You've reinforced a firm belief of mine. If it looks too good to be true, it is.



[edit on 16/5/07 by Implosion]

The "object" in that photo has already been proven to be taken from one of the original "Chad" photos. It is the same exact angle, and fits perfectly when scaled down. The photo which shows this is in the thread about the "lake tahoe" pics...


Diplomat ! As I stated in "cooperating" thread adress

www.abovetopsecret.com...

the UFO passing the roof in Tahoe is not at all a modyfied copy of
one in the first "Chad" pictures. The iclination angle of wings are not the same and the cages very obvious different (not to mention other differences) - revealing the pics are taken from different (although not very different) perspectives. This was obvious already by using very
simple LViewPro programs - if not obvious already without "tools".

So the Tahoe pictures are not derived from "Chad" picturas. If I haven't
misunderstood something.

Geez. I this thread still growing and going on? It's a hoax and a decently well done hoax (I'm comparing it to some slack cut&paste, not to the likes of the CG the discovery channel put together for promo which some nuts still discusses over at youtube and other places as it was genuine video).

The CCD grain is rather nice in some images but as stated here previously (what I referred to as 'nice pixels') there is so much blur & stark light in some of the photos that it makes it tricky to tell what is what. Grain is also easy to get around (but I looked at it because if it were really sloppy you easily see a lot of differences in the grain). The blur and stark light is located in very convenient places.

There are clear inconsistencies in the images.
There are clear inconsistencies with the story (from a 'common sense' perspective)

I mean it's funny most people happily videotape a weird small light in the sky for hours, cursing they don't have a better camera, while supposedly Chad grabs whatever and shoots whatever. But again, I'm repeating what has already been brought up in this thread.

I don't see how it is worth much further debate until "Chad" puts more information out there (which I doubt we will see much of)?

It is frustrating and a bit disappointing to me to see how blind some chooses to be about these things. It's frustrating that a majority of people don't take the UFO subject seriously and some not serious enough to expect material put forth as supposed factual images/information having to withstand any form of scrutiny.

Originally posted by lasse
It is frustrating and a bit disappointing to me to see how blind some chooses to be about these things. It's frustrating that a majority of people don't take the UFO subject seriously and some not serious enough to expect material put forth as supposed factual images/information having to withstand any form of scrutiny.

Seconded.

Originally posted by lasse
Geez. I this thread still growing and going on?

Yes. And thank you for keeping it going. If it bothers you, you could simply ignore it.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by Latitude]

Thanks rwiggins, I will try to work with this in maya do some things. I have no modelling skills, You are simply amazing anyway I will see what we can cook up here. Appreciate it. :-)

Originally posted by Latitude

Originally posted by lasse
Geez. I this thread still growing and going on?

Yes. And thank you for keeping it going. If it bothers you, you could simply ignore it.

Sure he could. We all could. But reading the entire post, rather than take his opening remark out of context, I think lasse is expressing a useful sentiment about this board. The issue as I see it is that it is difficult to make any progress. Perhaps it is the nature of forums themselves, bits of conversation that scroll on by and ultimately disappear. Or perhaps it's the nature of the posters with extreme views on both side of the issues. Perhaps it's the 'instant gratification' issue where readers and posters alike are criticized for taking time and space to develop an idea. Maybe it's all these things.

However, time and again on ATS we find threads that have 1,000 or more messages in them where the issue itself has been thoroughly explored, and thoroughly explained by experts in the field. And then the next message is, "Wow. These are really good! I think they are real." Obviously the poster has not explored beyond the first page of messages before deciding to 'contribute.' Then we have people who will never let something go. Example: Billy Meier Ray Gun and Billy Meier garbage can lid (wedding cake UFO). These two pictures have been thoroughly and completely explained, complete with physical evidence of fakery, complete with photographic analysis of perspective, focus, and parallex issues which prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these are fakes.

Yet the believers will defend to the death. It's as if they never even read the comprehensive explanations, or if they read them they didn't comprehend them. I've seen jritzmann, for example, give an absolutely perfect and comprehensive explanation of how a picture was made. The next post says, "Well, you haven't proved it's fake." Huh? He just did.

As a result, there is no sense of closure of these forums and these issues. None. You could come back here in two years or maybe more and find threads dealing with exactly the same thing with exactly the same arguments. For people who put time and effort into their research and explanations, it is frustrating.

Yes, one could choose not to come here. That is definitely an option.