New Drone, similar to the C2C one

Yeah, you could do that, unless he used a proxy to post it... Though hacking into forums is a little farther than some of us are willing to go. You could get the owner of the site to release the IP, but I don't know if that's even legal.

[edit on 21-5-2007 by Johnmike]

"Curiouser and curiouser." I hesitated to use that line, which is apt to so many places here at ATS, but on this thread, I felt at ease doing so. After all, we have coaxing hoaxing presented by a cigar smoking pooch and attested to by a flying pig.

I love this place.

Originally posted by fooffstarr
The writing is different, and the 'wings' are rotated and switched around again... but that is the same as what changed on the second set of images as well.

My bet is that it is the same 'Chad' guy making slight alterations to his original model and skin and simply rendering it with different background images... not very hard to do or very time consuming either...

I'm fairly sure Jritzmann will back me up on that as well

Which are my thoughts.
If you ask me the craft looks too "CGI-ish'' to be real.
Just look at it, it screams "HDR + CGI" if you ask me.
No photoshop required (of course it can be used), but 3d modeling skills would be required (since you don't want to get busted using someone else's model).

Insert background image, insert HDR file, insert model, voila, CGI scene that's *almost* real.

If you think that the only hoaxes possible are photoshop, then you either don't know about 3D animating or HDR-lighting.
Or you simply don't want to believe.

PS.:
About the IP thing, some people have Dynamic ip's
Which means they never have 127.0.0.1 for a week(which is localhost btw, goes back to your own pc), it's like they have 127.0.0.1 one day, they shut down their pc, and next time you see them online their ip suddenly shifted to 127.149.129.1

Also I doubt that any image professional could 100% proof that something is fake or not, considering HDR uses the amount of light in the area coming from all directions, to try and perfectly emulate light / shadows, and increase realism.
(Of course saying I doubt does not mean that it is).

Though like I said, if you ask me, just look at the craft, it looks pure CGI.
Take a look at Final Fantasy XIII (ps3 game), if you ask me, they could insert any object from that game in an image with HDR, and call it UFO.

PPS: Is it me, or haven't I seen ANYONE shouting HDR yet?
CGI is nothing if you do not use HDR as well.
CGI without HDR is like modeling a pacman, screenshotting it, then copy pasting it into an other photo, it just won't work.

If mr. whomever made this will ever show his face, I shall congratulate him on this magnificent piece of art.

If this is *authentic*, then I praise the aliens for their skill to make CGI-like space craft.

[edit on 21/5/07 by -0mega-]

Many of the forum members have a lot of knowledge with photoshop and CGI
I have a question as I have no experience.

Could a real photo be considered as fake based on what the experts say about light, shadow, etc?

I am curious about the reliablity of knowing for sure a real photo being called fake.

I know the photoshop and CGI people can spot lots, I also see UFO people who have video imaged by experts and many are not considered faked

I just wonder how probable is it to think a real photo is faked?

Thanks and keep up the good work

[edit on 21-5-2007 by junglelord]

Could there be any relation between that and this?

[edit on 21-5-2007 by Seen the Future]

I have just posted that news article lol. I dont see any similarities though.

As a side note, Seen the Future and 50/50, with all the questions about the use of cgi, what would be photo proof of a crime? Couldn't the cops use 'special effects' to have as "evidence"?

All of this opens up a real can of worms.

50/50: Me neither but it's possible that the 'drone' system is being used for operations other than surveilance and this thread is an example of that... we know the technology exists now and the possibilities for its application are endless; now we just need to determine what else it could be used for.

NGC: I know, it's frightening. These things are being implemented at an alarming rate this year. I'm still reeling from the BBC showing a vehemently pro-CCTV documentary on television to help this agenda... 1 in 4 of us are being filmed every single second in this country. It's getting ridiculous.

[edit on 21-5-2007 by Seen the Future]

random pre-coffee thoughts-

wow, these are super nice if fake, exquisite, in fact.
the resolution, the ccd bloom, the matched lighting and shadows, the blur.

there is a lot of photoshop work on these. there's no render engine out there that will produce the ccd effects of a digital camera. all that stuff is done in post.

-0mega-, i don't know that these images scream hdr. they scream global illumination for sure. which is why i did my own fake using the VRML "chad" model that was posted in the other c2c ufo thread. very similair results were achieved, but also some serious discrepancies.

all these photos could be real, as in acheiving photorealism. if we are dealing with one hoaxer, that's what, 2 dozen images that hit the mark perfectly or close to it? pretty talented individual, not that it can't be done. but anyone saying that it's a simple thing to tack some new geometry onto the old model, swap out new textures and re-match the lighting\shadows to a whole new set of bg images is out of their f'ing mind. it's a lot of work.

part of me expects a video will soon follow, someone is probably tweaking the camera tracking points right now!

on the other hand, other than the unbelievabilty factor that my brains taints my eyes with, i have yet to find an actual technical fault in any of the latest, tahoe, or chad images.

i don't know why someone would say there is no camera shake or blur in some of these new photos. the blur\sharpness and lighting\shadow is inline correctly with the environment.

as for the writing on the object pointing to fakery, compare to
something like this:

really don't think these look like transformers at all. not nearly shiny and chromey enough. plus, this sort of marketing tactic isn't michael bay's style.

as someone who has been doing cg for 15 years, i'm really torn on believability of these. i think any pro worth their salt would pause to consider all of these images.







[edit on 21-5-2007 by spf33]

[edit on 21-5-2007 by spf33]

I agree, there is so much more than surveillance this could be used for. However the technology used in these 'Police Drones' is pretty basic in a sense using multiple rotors for lift. The craft in the C2C pictures doesn't have these and if it is real uses some kind of technology that we do not fully understand yet or is being kept hidden by our military.

Originally posted by NGC2736
As a side note, Seen the Future and 50/50, with all the questions about the use of cgi, what would be photo proof of a crime? Couldn't the cops use 'special effects' to have as "evidence"?

All of this opens up a real can of worms.

The crime scene technicians use image authentication hard and software which in theory prevents images taken with a digital camera from being altered. I've never heard of any case where someone has been able to hack or bypass this, but it's not a very interesting hack anyway.

Thanks PsykoOps. My real concern though is with the police themselves. With the track record our cops here in the US have for fabricating and planting evidence at times, I was just curious about the official misuse of it.

I can see a time in the near future where no photo could be trusted, no matter the source.

Here’s my 2 cents o this:

Honestly I don’t believe this to be real. There are too many discrepancies to make this a believable UFO or drone or whatever you want to call it. The first one appeared in a forest now this one in the city?

If this was a military drone I’m pretty sure they have land where they can test this sort of thing. Unless its one of those listening devices by big brother like the type used in 1984 or V. throw you for a loop there.

If it’s a UFO those have got to be some small aliens in there. Maybe a new alien race we got to classify now.

Now I’m photography buff not the best but I know my way around a camera, and I know that 90% of the digital cameras sold now have a recording feature. Why not record the thing? I understand pictures are great and all but to me they seem a little too great for someone “running down the street with shaking hands”.

Ok so I gave you about 5 cents….anyone need change??

timb3r, thanks for the callout.

I'm not surprised that we're seeing more shots of this modeled, rendered object. Either the person who create the first version has modified the model and created a new "witness" backstory, or it's a copycat. Either way, my professional opinion is that both sets of images are fabricated. If anyone had seen something this clearly and publicly, you can bet there would be other witnesses who would come forward. Did no one find the "Chad" backstory just downright ridiculous? The new one is only marginally better.

In the history of UFO sightings, there is simply nothing that looks like this, or has underside lettering of ANY kind. The fact that folks are focusing in on these elements and trying to claim that they mean that a hoaxer would not try to employ such things in a fake, is just silly. Someone is having a good laugh here, and I for one would not put it past the C2C folks for putting this out there to drum up their numbers.

Of course, there are those who will claim that I'm a debunker - nope, I'm a rational skeptic - or that I work for the gubmint - nope, never got a check from Uncle Sam that wasn't a tax refund - or that I'm just down on the whole topic. The thing that really makes me sad is that people fall for this kind of bunk - or worse, the Meier nonsense - and then wonder why the mainstream doesn't take UFOs seriously.

I take them VERY seriously, and am looking for some answers. And I'll keep looking, but not at this junk.

These images are fabricated. I wish they were genuine, but they're not.

dB

"We sent a copy of the photos to their newspaper but haven't heard back yet. I dunno how long that kind of thing takes"

anyone call the newspapers around Capitola, CA?

When i see a video of it, moving like an insect and then speeding off maybe i will be more convinced...

OP Ghostryder

If it’s a UFO those have got to be some small aliens in there. Maybe a new alien race we got to classify now

I'm not saying i think it's alien but why would there have to be aliens inside it? I think it would be far more likely that they would send a probe down in the same way we do to other planets. Think about it. would we find a planet light years away and go and land on it without checking it out first? I dont think so. If they managed to get here im sure they must be intelligent enough not to put themselves at that kind of risk.

A lot of people have been saying "If these pictures are real, then why isn't the craft centered?"

There is a very logical explanation for this.

The thing is MOVING. In the description the guy says the craft is moving across the sky. So even if you DID center it, it does take a second or two after you hit the button for the picture to actually take. So if a craft is moving, it would move out of the center of the photograph by the time the picture takes.

My digital camera takes a second or two for the picture to take.
No matter how much you try to compensate for this, by following the object and timing it just right, etc. it is hard to center a moving object.

I have tried many a times to take pictures of my friends skiing off of small jumps, etc. and I almost never get a GOOD picture.

FiftyFifty

Understandable that they would send drones first in order to scout out the area. But if I was part of a superior race and could travel across the galaxy I think I would be in contact with others that could also and ask them about this blue marble over here. But the drone scout idea is a good one I’m surprised I didn’t think of it.

I still stand on my belief that it is a faked image. Unless some video surfaces of it hovering that has some good ground/sky ratio and references I wont change my mind.

Here are a couple questions I have about this craft though:
What could it be used for?
Why is it so low to the ground?


Anyone else notice the trees in PICT0018 are a different species from PICT0014 or PICT0013? If the person were in the same general housing area I would think the trees would be similar.

Personally speaking if I would see something like this in my neighborhood I would try to capture it or something.

We are all entitled t our own opinion I value yours and hopefully you value mine.

I would shoot it down and then we would have no dispute