Chad Drone Omnibus..Chadsquito

Due to the number of threads now covering the various pictures posted showing this new Drone or similiar I thought it time to start a central thread covering the story...

Associated threads:
Original thread on Chads drone
The Lake Tahoe thread
The Rajman1977 Pictures thread
The Birmingham story from Earthfiles

A quick timeline:

lw2525 posted the first story from C2C on the 6th Of May covering the report from the mysterious and elusive Chad. Apart from a brief up-date a few days later nothing has since been heard from Chad nor has he revealed the location of these first pictures.
The experts opinions..

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by greatlakes
This thread brings into question "What will happen when we are presented an authentic ufo photo, one that is clear and detailed and has numerous non-affiliated witnesses?

In the digital age I believe even image experts won't be able to conclusively call a photo or video fake or real regardless of the evidence.

Youre absolutely right. I've told David on the phone several times, thats it's getting to the point where the ability to fake photos is getting nearly level to the ability that we have to detect them.

Hence, thats why you have to know more then digital imaging and manipulation- Light, shadow, angles, color, perspective, etc etc.

There will always be though, some tell-tale signs that will be inescapable.

But, look at it this way, IF say this set of photos were found to be real (and they arent)...what are you going to do with that? All people like me and David could say is, theyre real photos of a real event. Past that, there's no more to say. Where from there? We dont know much more then we did before we looked at them, except that they depict a real event.

Where'd it come from? Dunno.
Whats it doing? Dunno.
Who's inside? Dunno.
Whats it there for? Dunno.

As David has said, everyone wants some sort of disclosure...but what exactly are you going to do with it? And what if it isnt what you want it to be?

Ponderous man...frikkin ponderous.

Moserious then found two more pictures showing a slightly altered craft reported to be taken from Lake Tahoe on the 13th May.

RedStar11 then picked up the story with the most hotly debated pictures yet posted by Rajman1977 on Flickr. Rajman1977 has suppossedly come forward and is willing to talk on another discussion forum. We are still waiting to see if this will happen..

On the 25th May Linda Moulton Howe posted This Report on The Earthfiles. Giving Two new eyewitness accounts of similiar crafts.

Which lead to Cydonian Priest creating the (NEW) Even MORE C2C Drone**** thread on the 27th of May.

So anyone interested in this twisted little tale please browse through all the links to get a good background on what is happening up to now.

Cheers

CTH

P.S My Opinion??







P.P.S Nods to Flatwoods for the Chadsquito tag

[edit on 27/5/07 by CthulhuRising]

As I mentioned on the other thread, though the stills were supposedly from the US, the Youtube video was made in the UK or at least the basic stock was from the UK as it shows road markings for driving on the left hand side of the road

Thanks for making this Cthulu.

Hopefully Springer will pin it or something so that all the half-informed members will check it out before posting 'z0mg new pixxxz' rants... it really frustrates me... they start another 2 or 3 page debate every time and just wastes our time.

In saying that, we shouldn't discourage people to post something they think is new information, they just have to research it first.

A way above vote for you! (if they still existed heh)



[edit on 27-5-2007 by fooffstarr]

Gallery of images so far..

The Original Drone by Chad






Lake Tahoe



Rajman1977 animation thanks to SPF33



Birmingham Alabama

i'm starting to get a very strange feeling looking at the timeline of these pictures. i only wish i knew the truth

Worthwhile Quotes:

Re Chad's;

Digital or 35mm?

Originally posted by TrentReznor
Can I just point out that appart from the Mobile phone pic, the other 3 were taken with a Film Camera and Scanned in not with a Digital Camera,

Thats why the Pics don't have Camera Information

You can tell by the Colour Temprature and "Natural Film grain" Amongst other things like Lens Effects like the Purple & orange Hue on the side of Objects, allong with Dust and other "Film" induced prosesses.
The "UFO" also bares these Artifacts assoiciated with somthing took with a Film Camera, and matches the Backgrounds Artifacts

This further Explains why Only 4 Pics were taken, in the sence that He may of only had 4 Shots left, and you cant exactly Delete them of the camera, although I wo0uld say he's a bit silly not to have bought a new roll of Film.

This is why I don't think it is A CGI model, and it was somthing Taken there and then with a Film Camera,

Hats off to That CGI Model your Doing its Very good, But were you to make an CGI model of lest say Your Car or A Picture of an Airoplane , Does that mean that the Car and Plane Arn't real because you can re-create it in CGI?

if this Thing Is going to be fake then it is a Real model that was actualy there and taken with a 35mm Film Camera.
Which of course is a Probability, but If i Went to the trouble of doing all that and MAkeing the damm thing, I would have Made shure people know about it and not just send it to C2C,

Important point re EXIF data

Originally posted by rocksolidbrain
Resizing/editing the pic in Photoshop can strip off the exif data.
Scanning can also add the "created in photoshop" tag.

Similiar story from1960's ??

Originally posted by 10538
Someone mentioned a similarity between these photos and a report by a "Mr Brooks" I did some googling and found this.

www.ufoevidence.org...

THE experts opinion..

Originally posted by davidbiedny
As many here have noted. this is obviously a 3D rendered ship composited into photographic backgrounds. The uniformity of the surfaces and textures, the lighting and the modeling of the ship all underscore the fact that we're looking at a 3D rendered element.

it amazes me that some folks here think that this would be so difficult to model and render - sorry, it's a passable modeling job, nothing that would get the artist hired at ILM.

These images are fabricated. EOS.

dB

And because he spent so much time on it ..
The opinions of Lasse

Something to think about..

Originally posted by Areal51
Dealers in rare art and artifacts face an extraordinary high risk of investing in forgeries. Over 20 years ago the J. P. Getty Museum, of Los, Angeles California, invested $10 million in an ancient Greek statue called a kouros. The first gut reaction of many experts was that it was a fake, that it was "putrid". Many couldn't put their finger on why the statue repulsed them, so forensic scientists were hired to vouch for the authenticity of the statue. The scientists said that the statues materials could not have been faked and therefore the statue was authentic. But the expertise and carefully nurtured minds and sensibilities of some of the world's foremost authorities of Greek antiquities said otherwise. To this day the issue has not been resolved. The Getty Kouros reads, "Greek, 530 B.C. or modern forgery." Science versus the intuition, instinct, and knowledge of those who are supposed to know better. One thing is for sure, the chap who sold the statue to the Getty for $10 million will never tell.

The most striking thing about this current debate is that people are willing to forgo their initial reaction in favor of inconclusive evidence. It's as if the need to believe that the photos are real has taken precedent over the split second conclusion made by the brain––a brain that's used to discerning what is authentic and what is not. There is only one argument in this thread that has been compelling to me, and that is in every photo, except the cell phone photo, the craft has a sharper resolution than any of it's surroundings. I noticed this myself before I found this forum. I don't need a masters in CGI or 3D modeling or photography to notice that very obvious fact. I've taken a look at some Billy Meiers photos and as unsettling as some of those photos are, they all hold true. I can only ask, "What in the cosmos is that?" I do not ask, "What is wrong with this picture?"

The anonymous "Chad" created the wrong type of mystery with his photos. We are concerned with the authenticity of his photos instead of the mystery of the apparent visitors.

man that animation really gets me to think that these pictures might be real. something is going on here, we need to get more information, and not fight over the authenticity of these pictures so much. we really need to try to get in touch with these people and get more details, i am aware that we have already tried numerous times but i'm getting antsy lol.

Hi, does anybody know about "telegraph poles"?

Or know someone who does?

If the pole in the photo could be identified and a location (country, state etc) determined. This would narrow things down a bit.

I'm not sure how "regional" they are, but know from some searching, that the one in some of those shots has "power, communications and maybe traffic signals"?

I realise that they are probably a hoax, but proof for those who still believe they are real could come from unlikely sources. Knowing where these shots were actually taken may shed some light on things.

quote: Originally posted by TrentReznor
Can I just point out that appart from the Mobile phone pic, the other 3 were taken with a Film Camera and Scanned in not with a Digital Camera,

I'm glad that at least one more forum member thinks this way. I made a post saying the exact thing in that long thread on chad's sighting. It looks more of a real model rather than CG model, because of so much resemblance with film . May be it was hung with a string in front of the camera in right perspective, and the string removed in Photoshop or Elements.

Someone is really inspired by Billy Meier and such and is trying trick photography in the days of digital cams.

How can he hang it above the pole? He cannot, so he took a pic without the drone model first then a second pic with drone in FRONT of the pole. Then he made two layers in Photoshop with the second pic above the first one and erased the parts of the drone so that the pole and wires could be seen.

Same with the pics with flowery trees. I'm ready to eat my words afterwards, but thats what I feel at this time

@rocksolidbrain-

The photos that appear to be real because of grain and the appearace of being scanned in are probably just that, scanned in pictures. The object(the "Drone") however is CG. The picture that was scanned in was simply brought into any 3d software and used as a "background plate" most likely at full resolution. After the model is set up(textured an lit properly) it is rendered over the background plate at the same resolution as the original scanned in photo. Then its a simple task of bringing that rendered image into photoshop and placing any structures that should have been in front, using the original scanned photo(sans the cgi drone).

Infact the "Drone" appears to have been rendered in either the "Brazil" renderer or the very popular VRAY renderer. If they wanted to match a more photo like appearance, I would have used "Maxwell", a render engine that gives a very photo like appearance due to its photograin like render appearance if it hasn't been given long enough to equalize the the photon bounce within any given render.

LordBaskettIV,

I'll ask you to take a closer look at chad's pics. May be I'm wrong, but the grain looks consistent across the sky and the object. Jpg compression ate most of the grain info, but I still think it matches closely. Strange thing is that in one or two of the chad's pics, there is no grain at all. I wonder what happened...may be it got lost while scanning in or may be he used a "reduce noise" filter in photoshop.

The bloom also appears natural. It is not rendered on a plate directly, as it is not possible to get such color bleeding and bloom in this way. In CG bloom is added mostly in post production, but that results in a image that looks obviously processed.

It is anyway not rendered on a plate, because some of the pics show branches in front of the object, so some kind of post processing is involved. There is no "make a real looking render" button in any CG app, its a long and tedious manual job to make a render look photoreal. He did all this just to fake a ufo....thats very strange.

The writing is out of place in this whole so called CG affair, because an artist of this caliber would not go for some crappy mixed fonts that are so obviously earthly looking, if he is going to make something ET.

My opinion is that a hoaxer normally chooses easiest possible way, if all he wants is some kicks and laughs. Hanging a toy in front of a camera is easiest way to get something real looking.

RSB, I respectfully disagree. The method I outlined in my previous post is outright simple and should take no longer than a few hours(including modeling time) to produce the same results as "Chad" ect...

Here is what I did, following the same procedure as I outlined. I spent 25 minutes in my 3d program and photoshop. If I actually cared about this whole hoax I may have put more time into it...but to anyone who uses 3d and 2d CG software can see that this whole drone affair is a hoax. Maybe you should look into just how easy compositing in 3d software is.

Your work is not comparable to originals, almost everything is incorrect here, proportions, angles, lights and so on. Thats all one can do in 25 min, I can expect that. So what does it prove?

The only SOLID evidence shall be the WIPs, 3d models, background pics etc that can be found on Chad's PC. In this case its very difficult to prove that its CG by just looking at the images. I guess no one is going to do a search on Chad, its too unimportant.

I dont think my quote up top is really what David and I had said about these photos but rather a reply I'd posted about the techical aspects of CG and the tools for detection of fakes.

However David Biedny and I have both unequivocally stated these photos are faked, just so it's clear for everyone's perspective.

profile.imageshack.us...

[edit on 30-5-2007 by spf33]

I am not completely convinced, and feel that the skepticism presented has helped maintain a balance.

There are aspects of these drone sightings that do not seem to follow common characteristics of typical UFO sightings.

This drone's basic form is not very aerodynamic. There is so much alien writing on this thing--reminds me of a mass produced toy. and what is with all the wires ticking out?

Isn't the object in this video, the same one in the pictures?

Am I crazy to think it looks homemade and terrestial?

I tried to point this out in another thread and no one replied....

UFO-cross video

Originally posted by GreenRobot
Isn't the object in this video, the same one in the pictures?

Am I crazy to think it looks homemade and terrestial?

I tried to point this out in another thread and no one replied....

UFO-cross video

That video was made by a discussion forum member as an example of CGI work. It is not real and was never intended to be mistaken for such..

Ya know, it's funny. When I first saw this object on C2C's website. I was excited. I thought "These are the best pictures I have ever seen of an unknown craft". I called my fiancee over and said "Check this out!". She came over and looked, squinted her eyes a bit and said "Somethings not right...I think it's a fake." and immediately, all the air squealed out of my balloon. My fiancee is a published, professional photographer and I trust her.
I still stand by the thought that this is the best set of photographs of an unknown object I have ever seen. But, it's really based on my artistic mind and nothing else. I'm a scale modeler. I build models in scales from 1/25th to 1/160 and I'll tell ya what, I could build this "craft" in scale, set it up in a scene and make it look a HECK of a lot more real. Shadows WOULD be correct because there would be an actual object. No taking pictures of two things and then melding them, that would be silly to even show. There would be flaws that would stand out...just like the pics we've been examining.
But as a modeler, I don't understand why they did this in the first place. Why not just build a model of the craft and set it up in a real scene? Why try to "draw" the object into an existing photo? It seems (to me) it would be better with an actual, physical object.

I'm sad it's looking like it's not real, though. It's a cool craft.

Meh.

Cuhail

this was posted on the anon thread...

Chads drone erases memory...

Many people have seen this DRONE... But they have little recall of it.

It erases your memory and alters your experience of viewing the craft...

For those of you struggling to remember: Just take a moment to think back... Recall it's familiarity. It was in CLOSE proximity to you if it altered your memory. Silence your mind and let it focus on your DRONE CRAFT experience.. IT WILL COME BACK TO YOU.

I know. You know. Many others know. Don't be afraid!

I will try to tell you more about the significance of your visit in due time.