Drone UFO pics on C2C

Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0�2007:05:06

Look at the source code. Need I say more?

C'mon people, lets get with it.

agreed matyas... but someone who'd spend their time making a spectacular couple of photos such as these... proves this person is pretty damn intelligent due to the fact this ship is so elaborate.. so then, why would someone with the excessive skill to make these crafts, be stupid enough to leave trails of adobe and how this person went about making such an extraordinary thing?



[edit on 7-5-2007 by Malakai]

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
First off, I haven't posted on this site for some months now due to the large number of debunkers and agents that I used to see around here.

Thanks for coming forward. I don't blame you for being hesitant. About these agents you speak of. Who do they work for and what do they do?

I am still trying to replicate the craft/device in question. Here I have started to add in some of the greebles. This definitely has a terrestrial look to it. I don't know why an extraterrestrial craft would need the pipes on top to support the beams/blades that extend out from the body. Lots of sharp corners and nooks and crannies. Just the way us earthlings like to make our science fiction devices.

[edit on 5-7-2007 by groingrinder]

If you're getting the photoshop tags from the exif data or the source code that doesn't necessarily mean the image was created in photoshop.


It only proves that the image was handled by photoshop i.e. uploaded to the guy's computer via photoshop if photoshop is his default image software.

That being said, it certainly makes one wonder when looking at these photos! They are VERY CRISP indeed and VERY CGI "looking".

I think I'll run this up Jeff Ritzmann's flag pole for a quick review.

Springer...

Originally posted by Springer
If you're getting the photoshop tags from the exif data or the source code that doesn't necessarily mean the image was created in photoshop.


It only proves that the image was handled by photoshop i.e. uploaded to the guy's computer via photoshop if photoshop is his default image software.

Yep. That is something folks in this thread need to get straight. We KNOW its been through some photo software, but that does not tell us what is really in the picture.


BTW: That model is looking good

Springer,

Don't bother blasting this to Jeff, I promise you that he'll concur with my assessment. It's a so-so rendered ship composited on photographic backgrounds. The Photoshop tags are meaningless. EOS.

dB

Springer I didn't reconize you.... you were invisable, did you lose your uniform.

I was hoping you would get here and let us know if you found out anything for us.

I'm perched on the fence waiting.

i immediately thought it was fake as soon as i saw it. but, my mind remains open to other opinions. i think i'm leaning more towards fake right now, but more people keep coming in and are providing good evidence. good work people, and thanks for keeping me intrigued.

I've flipped these images backward and forward and taken a hard good look at them.

Here are my findings. Now lets close this thread as it is surely...completely and utterly debunked


My guess, it's not CGI (i.e not pure render work) but an actual homemade object thrown/placed (by hand and by photo editing software) in the sky. Why? Because the pixels are perfect on the photo from below, as are they on the cell phone photo. The rest of the images uses extensive bright tones and tons of white which makes checking pixels tricky to say the least. The image where it "peeks" up from over the tree I believe was placed there by simple copy & paste action
after the scene had been nicley lightened up.

However I think most peoples "gut" were right on this one, I certainly wasn't sure after until a good 5 hours of looking at these. Still I think one should go easy with comments such as "omg, can't you see it's a kitchen appliance thrown in the air"... if you're going to state something like that - BACK IT UP

Which in this case...was easy..although I missed it..until _right now_..while typing this.. I actually didn't find the last piece of obvious evidence until I had looked through all the darn pictures. Frikkin joker.

Here goes:








(it bugged me because it was not "supposed" to be in front of the foreground)








(why the blur you ask? who knows, they forgot the stamp from hoaxers r us?)





The final one, utterly proving this a hoax..just sucks I found this last, would have saved me quite a lot of time....sigh...







Quite the hoax huh? And yet it was so darn obvious if anyone had bothered to use a zoom tool on that image (i noticed it while looking at C2C but thought I had crap on my screen darnit), which of course were the last one to succumb to my all seeing eye...(hrmpf).






[edit on 7-5-2007 by lasse]

looking good so far groingrinder, way better than mine, I didn't do much detail so far.... after a couple of hours, no textures yet, dunno if I have time for that.




took a picture in my backyard.

It's obvious to you, but..........

Help me, explain your findings please. Particularly in regards to the blur in the sky you enclosed in the box.

Added after seeing XPhiles post: I'm never gonna trust a photo on the Internet ever. Ever.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by MrPenny]

I don't understand what needs to be clarified really? All my findings is nothing compared to the smiley. Go to C2C and check out this image:

www.coasttocoastam.com...


Then download it and zoom it
Watch the little smiley.
And there you go. A hoaxer with a sense of humor.

That is a really cool rendering Xphiles nice work.... it proves that if we can imagine it...we can make it...on a computer. Again very nice work! I want to remain open minded, but not so much so my brain falls out! One point I dont believe anyone has touched on which bothers me is one pic in particular looks like a pose or "thoughtfully arranged" photo...as I am an artist it looks like a "composed" image as to lead the eye through the picture.








Say cheese?

Springer-
Got your email. It's a CGI composite. Particularly noticable in the one where it's going over the trees. No shadow on the trees which should be all rights be there due to sun angle. Also note the trees in the shot are of less focus and clarity then the UO, even where the UO and trees meet.

Thats impossible.

I have to laugh, due to the one that appears to have been taken with the UO maybe just above some trees. So if the angle of the shot is such as it is...whats the shooter doing in the treetops? By this shot the object appears to be 6 ft long or so. Compare the perceptive size to the one going over the trees. It goes from being small in one shot and huge in another.

Thats a common error in composites, spatial inconsistencies/scaling errors. Definitely fake CG.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Welcome back, sorry that your first post is going to get debunked.

Thanks for the welcome, I may be more active around here once again.
You can't be a member here and believe in ANY conspiracy and not be attacked.

How do you know that.

I know the device is a probe owned by the grays because I was told that by my source. You may not believe me but I am a channel of sorts.

If you know that, than translate it for us.

I don't speak or read the language and I'm not sure we would understand what it says in the first place. I can ask and find out if the words have meaning to us. Later.

A photo is a 2D image, there is no way to tell the scale of the object, it the size of a foot ball, it could be ten mile long you just can’t tell.

Beg to differ on all counts. We have approximate height from ground, close by items with estimated size and we have photos from different perspectives.

Nor is the starship Enterprise.

Unless I am mistaken most sci-fi even recent stuff still is obviously fake. This is not.

Consistent with a modal or CGI.

The model would be very large. Furthermore, the detail on the device increases as you magnify the image and does not DECREASE as it does with models.

Or could be made up by someone for the fun of it.

All languages are made up by somebody period.

That could be interpreted as meaning a human could have designed it

Yes, if technology was understood and need arose, but the exact form may vary due to cultural variations of course. The point being that machines especially simpler ones follow form for function more than esthetics.

What’s it made of then? Please forward the detailed schismatics if you know what all the design features are for.

I don't have a schematic nor any desire because the device is useless to humans.

People build modals all the time for no other reason then to build them. Why could it not be that someone put this to gather and decided to fake some UFO pics?

Models are costly to make especially when large and detailed, ask any aircraft manufacturer or automaker if uncertain. There is no gain to be had for an anonymous source to fake this for no money or acclaim.

I await your reply.

you have my reply but your questions were a bit 'weak' indeed.

What? Am I not being clear?



The hoaxer made a smiley. Look a smiley! Just look at it. Should not be a reason to debate the images any further?

Check out the source too. It's there.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by lasse]

I really can't see a smiley face in that... but...

Jritzmann basically blew this open as well. It was fun while it lasted.

Originally posted by 10538

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
First off, I haven't posted on this site for some months now due to the large number of debunkers and agents that I used to see around here.

Thanks for coming forward. I don't blame you for being hesitant. About these agents you speak of. Who do they work for and what do they do?

They work for the 'brotherhood' either directly or indirectly, their job is to contain exposure to the true world order until the elected time arrives.

When that time comes they will not be needed any longer for that purpose.

Also, despite the desperate efforts to explain away the image I find the following after reading each subsequent post:

- poor representation of the object especially in detail
- poor justification for the composite image they claim exists
- furthermore, no attempt whatsoever to understand what the object could be except as a figment of somebody's imagination
- regards the images being worked with, what did C2C do with them? if anything? does anybody here know?
- there is a lot of discussion of shadows and size of the object but we are not in a perspective to see shadow from any of the images
- there is talk about focus but the main focus should always be on the chosen image in the picture
- in the image crafto506076b.jpg the one arm of the probe is in fact before the tips of the tree branches of the tree on the right. This is consistent from our angle of observance as I see no other area where the device is behind the branches of this tree.

Originally posted by fooffstarr
I really can't see a smiley face in that... but...

Jritzmann basically blew this open as well. It was fun while it lasted.

Not for nothing but I did spend 5 hours with it, made all those photos and mailed springer... me thinks me blew this open.. sniff..

And yeah. It's a smiley...it even has a punctuation mark.



You don't even have to zoom to see it?

Edit: I got some points I humbly take a bow for the ops.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by lasse]