New Drone, similar to the C2C one

Originally posted by BO XIAN
I think one key element to the park ranger being dissed was the fact that he did not even look up toward the object.

I think the one key element is that the object is poor, unskinned CGI.

I hate to be the skeptic and debunker, but it is the worst copycat fake i have seen in a long time... it isn't even worth discussing.

I'm not singling you out BO, i'm just saying that the image in question here is of a far lower quality rendering than the Chad and Tahoe images.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
I think one key element to the park ranger being dissed was the fact that he did not even look up toward the object.

His responses came across to the witness as pre-canned, scripted, as well.

It is plausible that a park ranger in the area would have been briefed on how to respond. He is dependent on the government for his livelihood, after all.

Yes, they do, as a figure of authority, have to come off like they have all the answers. One of his duties is to keep the peace, and looking up and going "OMG, what in the world is that" might just insight panic among the park visitors.

Originally posted by fooffstarr

Originally posted by BO XIAN
I think one key element to the park ranger being dissed was the fact that he did not even look up toward the object.

I think the one key element is that the object is poor, unskinned CGI.

I hate to be the skeptic and debunker, but it is the worst copycat fake i have seen in a long time... it isn't even worth discussing.

I'm not singling you out BO, i'm just saying that the image in question here is of a far lower quality rendering than the Chad and Tahoe images.

Errm One thing you seem to be confusing here, and you are not alown as this is getting murky, is that their are no photographs attached to the park ranger story. "The unskinned" photo belongs to the second eyewitness story on earthfiles...So I think BO's point is valid. though in my oppinion the fact he didn't even acknowledge the craft by looking at it is very unlikely..

Originally posted by CthulhuRising
Errm One thing you seem to be confusing here, and you are not alown as this is getting murky, is that their are no photographs attached to the park ranger story. "The unskinned" photo belongs to the second eyewitness story on earthfiles...So I think BO's point is valid. though in my oppinion the fact he didn't even acknowledge the craft by looking at it is very unlikely..

Gah... i see what you mean now, my bad.

I keep getting the shoddy photo mixed up with the ranger incident.

*runs and hides*

Originally posted by Springer

That lends itself to the fact a few of us spent the week trying to help her understand all the images are CGI to no avail. That's just the way it is, I accept that and will peruse her reports with this new information accordingly going forward.

So we are to take it that you and your colleges assess these pics unequivocally to be CGI?

And what data besides resident "experts" opinions do you have that may sway some of the people that are still on the fence? If in fact you do believe this, would it not behoove you (and us) to post your hypothesis on these photos, helping all those who may still feel its real to deny ignorance and stop the perpetuation of a hoax?

I ask these questions humbly and with only a deep respect for your opinion.
Getting your perspective and that of your colleges in one post may shed some light for those of us who aren't buying the CGI theory.

Thx in advance...

The CGI experts have proven nothing to me, I'm still leaning towards a model + photoshop IF this is a fake.

"1nL1ghtened"

Regarding your question about why we know it's CGI and a hoax, I would point you toward www.theparacast.com and have you listen to David Biedny (Google that name) and Jeff Ritzmann's discussion about why these objects are CGI on last week's radio show.

I would also suggest you read the posts in this thread, back in the early pages, that explain the facts.

I am not trying to be obtuse here, but this has all been laid out and I don't have the time or patience to re cap it again.

There is also a very good "new thread" that highlights the "highlights" found here www.abovetopsecret.com... .

I don't blame anyone unfamiliar with the process and technology involved for believing these images are real or a physical model, that's the whole idea behind the software and why studios like ILM and Lucas Films are able make such amazing movies with it.

Remember, the technology we see in movies today is two or three generations old, the stuff that the artists are working with today we won't see on the screen for two or three years.

Springer...

I'm still thinking this is a hoax, and I'm fully onboard with
Springer and the others.

For those too lazy, or too far in denial to Google David, I spared ya'll
the effort :

David

Regards,
Lex

If all these photos are faked, does that not mean that the witness in this case who saw the same object in the park is full of crap?
She identifies the exact same object so either she told the hoaxer about it and the hoaxer made the fakes on this description, making her a part of the hoax aswell, or she saw the pictures and just made up a bogus story.
Either way, one either verifies the other or proves the other to be bogus.

So, my question to you Springer is do you think that this witness is involved with the fraud or maybe the person who created the photos?

They would have to be some way in cahoots for this to all be fake, right?

Originally posted by Megadeth
If all these photos are faked, does that not mean that the witness in this case who saw the same object in the park is full of crap?
She identifies the exact same object so either she told the hoaxer about it and the hoaxer made the fakes on this description, making her a part of the hoax aswell, or she saw the pictures and just made up a bogus story.
Either way, one either verifies the other or proves the other to be bogus.

So, my question to you Springer is do you think that this witness is involved with the fraud or maybe the person who created the photos?

They would have to be some way in cahoots for this to all be fake, right?

Not trying to answer for Springer here but there is a third possibility the National park sighting happened quite some time ago and it is possible she is filling in her memory of the event by replacing what she actualy saw with an image of chads craft. It is well known that memory is very fallible over a period of time and this can happen (more so in some than others). So while she may not have understood what she saw at the time, and I certainly have no explaination for it, chances are it wasn't that similiar to chads craft and may even have been mundane just misunderstood.

Originally posted by CthulhuRising
... it is possible she is filling in her memory of the event by replacing what she actualy saw with an image of chads craft. It is well known that memory is very fallible over a period of time and this can happen (more so in some than others). So while she may not have understood what she saw at the time, and I certainly have no explaination for it, chances are it wasn't that similiar to chads craft and may even have been mundane just misunderstood.

I thought about this, too, in this way.
Years ago another person and I witnessed a criminal incident and both of us gave separate, detailed accounts of what happened to the responding police--conflicting accounts! And we were both sure our version was the correct one!

Maybe it was possible that Sequoia National Park in 2005 was experimenting with common uav's. They have a major problem with marijuana gardens, and maybe they used something for surveillance.

Originally posted by Megadeth
If all these photos are faked, does that not mean that the witness in this case who saw the same object in the park is full of crap?

Not necessarily, see CthulhuRising's excellent post.

Originally posted by Megadeth
So, my question to you Springer is do you think that this witness is involved with the fraud or maybe the person who created the photos?

I have no idea, it doesn't really matter one way or the other, I am pretty sure the artist who created the images is a professional and very talented in his/her craft. When my friend, David Biedny makes a statement to the effect of "the person who did these is good enough to be a mid tier pro at a studio like ILM", I take that to mean this person is exceptional and way beyond the average "hobbyist". I've never known David to lightly toss out praise, and for him the statement above is PRAISE.

Originally posted by Megadeth
They would have to be some way in cahoots for this to all be fake, right?

Not at all. Why would they be? One sees the images on the internet, they seem to fit perfectly with what she saw 2 years ago and starts talking OR she dreams a fantastic tale and starts talking.

Either way there is no requirement for the artist to have anything to do with the witness or vice versa.

To me, the witness is a moot point, these things are ART not UFOs.

Springer...

[edit on 5-28-2007 by Springer]

Well then, I guess I should not have got all happy about these photos.
If your experts say they are fakes, then they must be faked. They just looked so good..... like something to realy believe in.

This is my first posting on here, and it's these sets of 'UFO' photos that have compelled me to sign up. Fake or real, I've really enjoyed these photos. They've created some fantastic debate on topics ranging from CGI to Ion Propulsion, and it's interesting to see communities contest each other which the evidence they can muster.

I've so enjoyed the debate that I've decided to chime in with my own thoughts. I have no experience in CGI, in science or physics, astrophysics or even UFO's - so my credentials don't mean much (in fact, music is my profession, most useless in this context). Nevertheless, some of my observations and thoughts, just to keep the debate up!

I have to say that overall I'm skeptical. I'm a pragmatist and I think there are a few key issues that go against the grain of the pro-UFO argument:

* In the first set of pictures (Lake Tahoe), I must admit some of the closers shots do appear to be 'CGI'. My limited knowledge aside, something tells me instinctively that the shadows and texture of the object don't quite seem right.

That havign been said, I have seen pictures of very real objects that have actually looked quite fake because of the way, manner or conditions in which they were shot.

Despite being a pragmatist however, I'm a romantic, and would love to believe these pictures are real! There is some, perhaps not 'evidence', but compelling reasoning behind the pro-UFO community.

Firstly, I must admit that many of the CGI-artists attempting to prove the object is a fake through example are not doing a convincing job. I've been frustrated by the amount of people who have claimed they can "prove" the object to be a fake, only to present a half-finished and frankly very basic 3D model with a ream of excuses, usually centred around the "I've rushed this so far" angle. While I think it's interesting and important to demonstrate how this could be done using CGI, it's really an "all or nothing" scenario. Somebody either has to show us a convincing 3D model composited into a photo, or consequently the argument becomes moot. After all, anybody could work on 3D modelling a car for a few hours and give us a faithful but unrealistic looking replica. If this is to be in any way debunked by CGI artists, it's the details that count.

If I assume this is real (from this point forward), then I do think it is almost certainly man-made, and not ET. It's not that I don't believe in aliens, but this craft has a man-made quality to it, and is far more likely to be a military aviation or scientific project if it does prove to be real.

Regarding the language and text on the underside of the vehicle, these do nothing to persuade that the craft is ET. The military have quite a humorous and very pop-culture streak in them (playing to the music from Gladiator to psyche soldiers up, naming military operations after lines in films etc.). To that extent, it is by no means illogical to suggest the 'alien' writing would be a really quite interesting joke, vaguely the same as the Americans writing German on their WWII bombs, or painting beautiful women on the sides of their aircraft. Overall, the CGI community (even, I believe, David Biedny) are ultimately incapable of debunking this. It's not that I doubt their knowledge, but they cannot impart that knowledge to your 'average Joe' (insomuch as you can't explain CGI to a novice, myself included, only show).

There is one problem that expert knowledge brings - and that is a skewed sense of reasoning. For example, I've studied Mozart's Requiem extensively (which was completed by his student when Mozart died during composing). I've looked in great detail at their compositional styles, the student's inexperience, and where I felt the student's work was evident. Over the years I've convinced myself I knew one from the other, and that I've had evidence to back up my opinions. Over the last 4 years, I've been physically proven wrong. 'Expertise' isn't everything, proof is.

Originally posted by Springer
Regarding your question about why we know it's CGI and a hoax, I would point you toward www.theparacast.com and have you listen to David Biedny (Google that name) and Jeff Ritzmann's discussion about why these objects are CGI on last week's radio show.

I just listened to Paracast, and I must say, I'm not overly convinced. I do a lot of amateur photoshop stuff myself (touching up photo's for friends, prank pictures) and I've done many space scenes in 3d max too. I know how to use both of these programs fairly well, but find it hard to believe someone made these images as a model. (I'm talking about Chad's, not the shiny grey one)

Biedny? called whoever did these, an advanced hobbyist. Considering he has 1 year working for ILM, at 80-100 hours a week, I would say his level of skill is considerably higher than this - any chance you could ask him to do some kind of "UFO" in a similar style, and photoshop it to a random sky pic, to prove how easy this is?

The thing is, the points I heard made to class these as CG, are flaky at best, for example that this type of craft hasn't been reported before, or writing hasn't been reported as being seen on a craft. The shadows analysis I can part read into, but when you try and model real world shadow (not film effect shadows, these are hardly "real"), you realise that most of the time shadows are impossible to recreate as you would see them (hence the use of extra lights in lighting scenes etc..)

Maybe I would have had a better time following some of the points if there was less child like laughter and ridicule, and less comments like "toast to toast" with reference to Coast to Coast.

I'm still up for seeing some of Biedny's handywork, if he could find time for the challenge - if this is the work of an advanced hobbyist, I'd probably have a nervous breakdown seeing the work of a professional (and it would make a great link to show people that try and bluff CG imagery as real on these forums!).

to quote corda "I've rushed this so far" i just made this (model by rwiggins):

The font appears to be a mix of korean and chinese. Looks like alot of chinese cursive to my untrained eye. Can someone look into this further and find better matches i have no more time tonight to devote to this. Furthermore i notice that the aliens or the hoaxer placed the letters upsidedown on the second panel.... Seems odd to me.

Originally posted by corda
This is my first posting on here, ...
Firstly, I must admit that many of the CGI-artists attempting to prove the object is a fake through example are not doing a convincing job. I've been frustrated by the amount of people who have claimed they can "prove" the object to be a fake, only to present a half-finished and frankly very basic 3D model with a ream of excuses, usually centred around the "I've rushed this so far" angle. While I think it's interesting and important to demonstrate how this could be done using CGI, it's really an "all or nothing" scenario. Somebody either has to show us a convincing 3D model composited into a photo, or consequently the argument becomes moot. After all, anybody could work on 3D modelling a car for a few hours and give us a faithful but unrealistic looking replica. If this is to be in any way debunked by CGI artists, it's the details that count.


There is one problem that expert knowledge brings - and that is a skewed sense of reasoning. For example, I've studied Mozart's Requiem extensively (which was completed by his student when Mozart died during composing). I've looked in great detail at their compositional styles, the student's inexperience, and where I felt the student's work was evident. Over the years I've convinced myself I knew one from the other, and that I've had evidence to back up my opinions. Over the last 4 years, I've been physically proven wrong. 'Expertise' isn'

Welcome to the discussion Corda. All very good points but these 2 I agree with the most. In one of the discussions someone posted a CGI test showing some cgi and some real. You had to pick which was which and while I picked most of the CGI pic's I also mistook a couple of real for fake. Of course I am not a boffin in this field by any stretch..The skewed sense of reasoning point is the only reason I am still giving these pictures a chance of being something.

Welcome

CTH

Originally posted by adjay

Biedny? called whoever did these, an advanced hobbyist. Considering he has 1 year working for ILM, at 80-100 hours a week, I would say his level of skill is considerably higher than this - any chance you could ask him to do some kind of "UFO" in a similar style, and photoshop it to a random sky pic, to prove how easy this is?

No. I wouldn't ask him to waste his valuable time just so people who seemingly think they are owed some sort of proof, when they are NOT (they should use their common sense and reasoning abilities) get it.

Believe whatever you like friend. I for one don't want to "believe" ANYTHING.

The rest of your post made me laugh....

Springer...

Originally posted by Springer
No. I wouldn't ask him to waste his valuable time just so people who seemingly think they are owed some sort of proof, when they are NOT (they should use their common sense and reasoning abilities) get it.

Believe whatever you like friend.

I for one don't want to "believe" ANYTHING.

The rest of your post made me laugh....

I don't think I am owed any proof of anything. Neither do I believe anything about this. But if he's going to say it's the work of an advanced hobbyist, surely as a professional he could whip something up as good, or better, in no time at all.

I am a little disappointed by your post, seeing as you are a moderator of this message board who's motto is "Deny ignorance". I have always been keen to read your input on threads until now as you seemed to post without bias, or any ridicule.

I am glad to have at least made you laugh with my message, which was actually posted with all due respect and courtesy to you and Biedny.

EDIT: Another thing analagied in the radio show, was that a Doctor can tell by looking at someone (their symptoms, etc) what the problem is, whereas an average Joe wouldn't stand a chance. Well I almost died once due to a completely missed diagnosis (by more than one Doctor), and as a previous poster mentioned, "expert" opinions are merely that, when they are not backed up by evidence.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by adjay]