Drone UFO pics on C2C

Originally posted by yuefo

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

I see there are still posts cropping up about the writing on this thing. I want to comment on it one last time and be really clear, after which you can draw your own conclusions.

Nezuji's characters are accurately drawn. But, all but one of them, fu, which looks a little like an upside-down and backwards L, don't match what's on the ship, and anyone can see that so no discussion is necessary about them. There is one other character, so, which is the second character on the right-hand section. Nezuji has marked that "flipped," and at first it appears to be. However, it is the spatial relationship between the two lines composing the character that are wrong. It doesn't matter if it's flipped, mirrored or anything else--it is never written this way, and you can see that Nezuji has correctly altereded that spactial relationship in his rendering.

So here's where you draw you own conclusions: you have one character that matches katakana, and one that is close. What are the odds that out of 46 characters, one alien letter would be dead on, and the rest would remind you of katakana? I really don't know, but as for me, I don't like it. My instincts tell me that writing shouldn't be on the thing in the first place, it shouldn't be "close" to katakana, and the guy's story should be more believable. But I am enjoying the discussion and looking forward to the finished product rwiggins is working on--can't wait to see how close he can get it.

Wow, just read through a good majority of the 26 pages, and I'm going to have to agree with the fake crowd on this one. HDR photo processes can make some nice, looking, CG.

Originally posted by OverlordQHDR photo processes can make some nice, looking, CG.

wtf?

I want everyone that is saying CG to stop and think for a second. Did you ever stop to think that the inconsistencies that you guys are talking about in the photos could be caused by bad picture compression?

Just something to think about.

[edit on 17-5-2007 by housegroove23]

Originally posted by housegroove23
I want everyone that is saying CG to stop and think for a second. Did you ever stop to think that the inconsistencies that you guys are talking about in the photos could be caused by bad picture compression?

Just something to think about.

[edit on 17-5-2007 by housegroove23]

That just screams even more fake. If you wanted to prove it was real would you post the raw files or compress the hell out of them to be sure and introduce artifacts.

Originally posted by OverlordQ

Originally posted by housegroove23
I want everyone that is saying CG to stop and think for a second. Did you ever stop to think that the inconsistencies that you guys are talking about in the photos could be caused by bad picture compression?

Just something to think about.

[edit on 17-5-2007 by housegroove23]

That just screams even more fake. If you wanted to prove it was real would you post the raw files or compress the hell out of them to be sure and introduce artifacts.

You make a good point but its still something to consider.

Im going with CGI to be honest... I terrible at 3d modelling, and considering that there are many very good artists out there with a lot of experience using 3d modelling software, when I can come up with things like this in a relatively short time, it causes me to be very skeptical about it.

These were done with Bryce and some parts modelled in maya. I didn't bother with any texture maps other than the default bryce ones, and didn't bother with any markings of symbols.

I also didn't do these to fool anyone, either, but for myself and purposely did it as quick as possible, so angles are not right, the spokes do not become transparent towards the top, there is no light source other than the default ambiant light in bryce and if I were to put serious effort into it, Im pretty sure I could pull off the exact same as the images in this thread.

Link to Linda Moulton Howe she seems to have a new photo and cgi craft is liking the lake Tahoe area also central cali is nice too. None of this makes sense but is very interesting. Kind of Blair witchy in UFOville. Greetings from the newest registerer


www.earthfiles.com...

Originally posted by badw0lf
Im going with CGI to be honest... I terrible at 3d modelling, and considering that there are many very good artists out there with a lot of experience using 3d modelling software, when I can come up with things like this in a relatively short time, it causes me to be very skeptical about it.

These were done with Bryce and some parts modelled in maya. I didn't bother with any texture maps other than the default bryce ones, and didn't bother with any markings of symbols.

I also didn't do these to fool anyone, either, but for myself and purposely did it as quick as possible, so angles are not right, the spokes do not become transparent towards the top, there is no light source other than the default ambiant light in bryce and if I were to put serious effort into it, Im pretty sure I could pull off the exact same as the images in this thread.

Well then PLEASE do, because I have yet to see any recreations that look as realistic as the originals. I am starting to think we need to contact the real professionals, like the ones who did CGI for the matrix and lord of the rings. Maybe they are the only ones who can make objects look as real as these "drone" pics.

I applaud your effort, but those 2 images you posted do not look real at all. And if you can sharpen them and make them more realistic, then please do.....

I can't stand Linda Howe. She gave out her email address when she was on coast to coast am, so I emailed her and explained to her that it has already been proven that the "lake tahoe" photos were photoshopped from the original "Chad" photos. The proof is in this actual thread I believe, or maybe the other thread about the tahoe pics.

The "object" in the Chad photo which has yellow flowers in it was the "object" that was photoshopped into the "lake tahoe" photos. It has been proven already that it is the SAME EXACT ANGLE and SAME EXACT SIZE when scaled down. So this doesn't prove the originals are a hoax, it only proves that the "lake tahoe" photos are a hoax...

Originally posted by Diplomat
I can't stand Linda Howe. She gave out her email address when she was on coast to coast am, so I emailed her and explained to her that it has already been proven that the "lake tahoe" photos were photoshopped from the original "Chad" photos. The proof is in this actual thread I believe, or maybe the other thread about the tahoe pics.

The "object" in the Chad photo which has yellow flowers in it was the "object" that was photoshopped into the "lake tahoe" photos. It has been proven already that it is the SAME EXACT ANGLE and SAME EXACT SIZE when scaled down. So this doesn't prove the originals are a hoax, it only proves that the "lake tahoe" photos are a hoax...

You continue stating these two pictures are "the same" - although it is easily seen that they aren't! Do you only read posts urging fake?
The differences in these pictures are very obvious if you look a little
closer - neither the angles nor anything else are alike in these pictures.
Have you lost your glasses?!

I just noticed this and I don't recall any mention of it. If there has been, my apologies. Why is the right panel blue in this photo? Reflection? Looks a little odd.

Originally posted by DiplomatWell then PLEASE do, because I have yet to see any recreations that look as realistic as the originals. I am starting to think we need to contact the real professionals, like the ones who did CGI for the matrix and lord of the rings. Maybe they are the only ones who can make objects look as real as these "drone" pics.

I applaud your effort, but those 2 images you posted do not look real at all. And if you can sharpen them and make them more realistic, then please do.....

I think the thing here is that you WANT them to be real, because as far as I can determine, they look fake and they certainly don't look real.

And as I said, I just did that in a very quick time, with little attention to detail simply to illustrate my point that if someone were to spend time trying to make images that would FOOL people, it's not outside the realm of plausibility. I certainly would consider that first, than it being some craft capable of flight with no visible method of propulsion and accompanied by a shonky story with no verification.

Take a look at some decent CGI - those a few posts above mine even - and apply that ability to the mind of someone out to dupe people.

There are people all over the internet, capable of such work, real professionals if you like and not necessarily the sort who'd be making movies for studios.

Until I see either verifiable footage, or this chad fellow grabs media attention (and who wouldnt if they could show off this craft) or it fly's over my house, Im calling it CGI.

That's simply my humble opinion.

Yes, I would be very suspicious too. It does appear to be quite earthly like it was designed by someone here on planet earth.

It wouldn't be a first one.

After all this debate, I'll have to stick to my original feeling that it's a model, not cgi. Photoshopped to a scenery in some pics and maybe in others hanging from fishing line or something. These 3D experts haven't convinced me. Even if you can recreate the craft in cgi doesn't mean that the original is too.

[im][URL=http://img228.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ufonewufotahoehd5.jpg][/URL ][/im]

The UFOs in pictures above are not very alike, "Diplomat"! Not even
"torsion" (who originally pointed at resemblance) stated they
were exactly alike. The perspectives are slightly different and therefore
Tahoe UFO picture is not a copy of "Chad" UFO picture.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Even if you can recreate the craft in cgi doesn't mean that the original is too.

Exactly. But it goes both ways.

To me, it's a simple matter of reading the details posted by the originator of the pics, ALONG with the easily created object. In my opinion, it deserves the benefit of skepticism.

It's been better said previously, and I'm only rehashing the obvious.

You guys can't possibly be serious can you? Here, I will post the photo that illustrates how the original "craft" was photoshopped into the "lake tahoe" photos. Please ignore the "STFU I'm Right" text, because it is irrelevent. The "artist" of this pic photoshopped the original "craft" from the photo with the yellow flowers, then scaled it down to fit exactly on top of the "lake tahoe" pictures to prove that it was photoshopped in the first place. If you can't see it from looking at this photo then I don't know what to tell you...

The reason the "craft" looks different and all "lit up" in this photo below is because it is the same craft purposefully placed on top of the "lake tahoe" craft. It fits perfectly and the angle is exact...

Originally posted by M Grandin
[im][URL=http://img228.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ufonewufotahoehd5.jpg]

[/URL ][/im]

The UFOs in pictures above are not very alike, "Diplomat"! Not even
"torsion" (who originally pointed at resemblance) stated they
were exactly alike. The perspectives are slightly different and therefore
Tahoe UFO picture is not a copy of "Chad" UFO picture.

Not very alike ? Huh ? Are you looking at the same images I am ?

They are almost exactly identical except for what I would only consider human inconsistencies. The main tail end prong has the same notches in the exact same position. The spokes are the same shape and taper off the same. The underlying design is almost identical.

The only difference is whoever was designing the object, was playing with the style of the prongs around the object. The phone camera shot has what appear to be 2 large wide prongs and 2 smaller thin prongs. The photoshop processed image (as per the exif data) has only 1 large wide prong, and 4 smaller ones - 2 perpendicular to the center, one in the front, and one off front centre.

I posted on this over 20 pages back. I can't believe it's still so hotly contested. But I am glad there are people here who are that interested in UFOs.

Because I'm going to do a one time trolling for another thread. Please read the one "Top Cleveland Anchor...............5 UFOs..........."

It's worth the look in it's own right, and it could be a very big deal to the whole UFO community. It could result in some professional pictures being taken, for you folks to analyze to your hearts content.

Everyone that cares about the subject needs to e-mail the station and try to get more mainstream media coverage of this sort. (Which for a change was taken seriously!)

Please take the time to read the whole thread, and then go back to the first post and use that link to reach the station. BTW, the station is an ABC affiliate, and it too has a UFO forum of sorts going on!

And NO, this is NOT my own thread I'm plugging. Just one that may be important.