Drone UFO pics on C2C

Originally posted by XPhiles

Originally posted by groingrinder
join me in reproducing the craft. You can download an evaluation copy of Rhinoceros at the McNeel website.

d1k how long have you used Rhinoceros? I would bet one could get close to reproducing the craft with anim8tor lol.... and it's free... I think there is a version of UV mapper that's free as well.....

You need to review the rules about using text.

I have been using Rhino about six years. I am the moderator of the Rhino forum at Renderosity. I am also the moderator of two UV Mapper forums, so I know all about UV Mapper Classic and UV Mapper Pro. Anim8tor is free, but I require more features than free offers.

Here is my first WIP.

Originally posted by groingrinder
, so I know all about UV Mapper Classic and UV Mapper Pro. Anim8tor is free, but I require more features than free offers.

Here is my first WIP.

Hey! very good job. I can see why you require more than anim8tor, that was fast. It would take me a day or two in anim8tor because I don't model much.

Oh! I was in a hurry when I posted, I tend to not care about text and sometimes get names wrong lol.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by XPhiles]

When the person was designing this model or.... somthin, i dont think he was trying to convince ppl that it was of Extraterrestrial origin, because the writing on the underside of the craft almost Korean, In fact im sure its Korean, see link www.ling.ohio-state.edu...

You can match some of the constants with the craft.

i found this "You are correct. I sent the picture to my Dad (retired Japanese teacher.) He agrees that it is Katakana and was able to decipher some of it. The writing on the left side (top to bottom) is Fuji something (too blurry to read.) The writing on the center section sounded like a technical or medical description."
here: www.freerepublic.com...
and using this i discovered this:
www.nema.org...
trying to dig more up. will keep searching.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by jetflock]

Just another hoax, like 99% of the stuff that comes out of CoasttoCoast.
"Location: I would prefer not to say for now."

Mhmm... a genuine person with a genuine case would have nothing to hide, nothing.

Originally posted by illigitimati
@ d1k

The most obvious sign is the general lighting of the scene:

• the lighting on the craft does'nt match the scene. In the first pic the general colour saturation of the craft versus the scene is wrong.

How so, it's in the middle of the sky. I see no difference in the light on the "thing" then on the trees.

• the shadows (on the craft) are too crisp.

What shadows? it's in the middle of a bright sky. The only shadow you can see is inside the ring and nothing looks out of the ordinary.

• if you look at the area on the craft where the "egg beater" spines meet the "ring", you can see shadows being cast from the "egg beater" over the edge of the ring, they are at the wrong anlge versus the light source in the scene (the sun)

Actually, if you look at the shadows on the trees they match exactly the same angle as the shadows casted by the "spokes". (in the only picture that has the rings casting a shadow)

• there is no real sense of depth, is the craft in the foreground or the background? (second image)

Ok maybe its hard to tell in the 2nd image but in image 1,3,4, & 5 you don't have that problem.

• the craft is too crisp.

Isn't todays camera technology wonderful. This is bad? This makes it more "fake" somehow?

• It just does'nt feel/look right.....I realise that statement is'nt conclusive proof, but like I said, without trying to sound cocky, I've been doing this for a while now.

That is your opinion, sir.

In terms of 3d modelling, that is not a very complex craft to model, it consists of very basic shapes and would take an experienced 3d artist not longer then a few hours to model and map, the trick comes with the lighting, but these days with VRay/Mental Ray renderers its not that difficult to recreate pretty convincing lighting.

I've seen all the latest lucasfilm movies myself and this is beyond anything the best of the best can do with 3D CGI IMO.

As someone else posted you can see a silver/grey something waaay up above the "thing" in the sky. You see this silver/grey thing in two different pictures. You can see it in image 3 and image 4 (from under the "thing) which I find very interesting. Especially in image 4 from under the craft, you can tell it's way up high in the sky above the "thing". I don't know if it's a smudge on the camera or not but I think you can even see it in image 2.

For those of you saying how easy it is to make a pic like this, do it. Don't just say you can do it, do it and post here. I'll be wlling to bet real life money, or even my ATS account that you cannot do it. Not even close. Not even a fraction. I think it's time to call people out on the "this is easy to do" claim that has been said in pretty much every single UFO thread over the last 2 years.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by d1k]

Funny that Lucasfilm would be brought up...the writing on the craft wing when it's "close" appears to be aurabesh, which is the lettering in the Star Wars universe. As near as I can tell the big letters are "MSY".

There's also a division symbol right before.

Great pic's. I can see the skeptism as these are very good quality(almost too good) and if proven to be real would be a milestone. However I see a camera lens type engineering in its design almost like my old camcorders lens and shutter sliders on the crafts central structure. Just an observation. Wild pics regardless and Id love to know what that writing is.

Back to picture 2, illigitimati. Looking at it again you can get some depth from it, you can tell the tree in the bottom right hand corner is much closer to the camera then the rest of the trees giving you an idea of where the craft is in the picture.

I can't quite tell but I think that big arm is casting a shadow over the trees as well. I don't know if its the arm or shadows from the tree, I think it could be from the arm.

it is Katakana. the writing, that is. take a look at my previous post.

Originally posted by illigitimati
Those pics are without a doubt CGI.

I am a 3d artist and I do digital photo manipulation for a living.

Been doing it for about 10 years now, and if its one thing I've learnt its to spot a fake.

Whoever did them knows what they are doing, with some clever little touches to make it seem authentic, but if you know what you are looking for its pretty easy to catch them out.

Close but no banana !

Perhaps you can show us a UFO you have seen before that you think is not a fake?

As far as I'm concerned, i can't say it's real or fake just by assuming.

Just like all the other ufo pictures out there, i will remain open to the possibilities.

Well if it's cgi it's pretty well made i think.

It looks like some advanced technology still in the primitive stage.

@ d1K

I will answer your points regarding my points a bit later, its going to take me a while and they've got me up against the grindstone at work at the moment, but I will get to it as soon as possible.

I never said it was easy to create an image like this, I said that if you knew what you were doing it would'nt be impossibly difficult.

Its still going to take time for the lighting...the modelling would not take longer then a few hours....maximum.

Maybe I will give it a shot tonight.

@selfless

I've never seen a UFO, but I take it you are referring to UFO pics.
I can only comment on "recent" (time of the digital age) pics, I have'nt seen many convincing ones that I can remember........

Why don't you post some and try and catch me out........

Originally posted by illigitimati
@ d1K
I never said it was easy to create an image like this, I said that if you knew what you were doing it would'nt be impossibly difficult.

That comment was not a personal attack towards you, just a general challenge to the many people who say they are easy to make.

Originally posted by d1k

Originally posted by illigitimati
@ d1K
I never said it was easy to create an image like this, I said that if you knew what you were doing it would'nt be impossibly difficult.

That comment was not a personal attack towards you, just a general challenge to the many people who say they are easy to make.

No worries, I did'nt take it as a personal attack

I remember something mentioned in the book by Philip J. Corso. It said something about how Alien Technology would be gradually introduced to the public over the next few years, and some of this "introduction" would include very real crisp photos published among the many fakes or hoaxes.

Let's all try to remember this when examining cases like this.

Oh.........and by the way....I don't think this case/thread is an example of this.

Or IS IT?

whatever. i am going to find a picture of this thing. i know i have seen it before.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by jetflock]

I have been pondering the consistancy of UFO photographs nearly always being hazey or blurred and am wondering if anyone here who has seen one can comment on wether they appeared blurry to the naked eye ?

Originally posted by illigitimati

@selfless

I've never seen a UFO, but I take it you are referring to UFO pics.
I can only comment on "recent" (time of the digital age) pics, I have'nt seen many convincing ones that I can remember........

Why don't you post some and try and catch me out........

Yeah i was referring to pictures since it's your field of work.

Sure i will try, might be fun :0

Hold on i will try to find one that looks decent and post it here.