Chad Drone Omnibus..Chadsquito

one thing i'm certain its not, it is not connected to the transformers movie or the halo game at all.

there is no continuity to either of those properties. all the effort in the detail of the drone thing does nothing to promote interest in any of those properties. everyone in the ufo community is highly likely to already be the audience for games and movies like that, why preach to the converted? there are always thinly veiled hints to perpetuate brand awareness in viral marketing. there are none found here.

the effort involved in making this a believable thing is massive. to what end? say we're all convinced its the real deal. then what?

is it just for a laugh on a talented pathological pranksters part? hardly seems a worthwhile payoff.

what would be the difference if everyone accepted this as the genuine article? anything? its all about motive when it comes to hoaxes, dont you think?

One person on cgtalk.com has pointed out that there seems to be a cursor visible in one of the images of Chad, taken by a cellphone. He says that rather than faking a pic taken from a cellphone, chad simply used a clean nice render of his drone, displayed it on his monitor and snapped a pic of the monitor using his cellphone. BUT he forgot to move his mouse away !

Here is a 2x zoom of the image. You can see the white cursor on the trees on right side of the drone.
img406.imageshack.us...

Interesting thing is - The original image size is 640x480, so 2x size is 1280x960, which is the resolution I'm using and when I placed my cursor on the 'cursor' in the image, they match exactly in size, except some blur in the image. Given that the cursor size is standard (in pixels), you can test this by making your resolution 640x480 and checking with original image.

May be he used a screen capture or something??

Edit: Note that the 'cursor' cannot be a hole in the trees, as the sky should look bluish if it were a hole (just extrapolate the gradient of the sky), but its pure white.

[edit on 28/6/2007 by rocksolidbrain]

The Drone story is a Honey Trap. It has genuine ET markings, mixed with Star Trek rubbish. The whole point of the story is to Tract and Locate a Translator, someone who can make sense of this, and this is where the danger is.
If anyone SHOULD come up with good ideas on this.. Bingo, You in the secret state black budget world then on in, for the rest of your life.

So anyone posting and saying "Hi I know what it is" should be VERY careful.

Nice find, rocksolid!

HHmmmm, I seem to recall that once I had said in another "hoaxy looking" thread, that I thought it would be possible to photograph a monitor (I also said a blowup of a printed digital picture), to be able to capture a digital ufo and have pictures with seemingly correct exif data, if the original images straight from that camera were available.

But even if this is some sort of "screen capture" by Chad, it is sloppy work.

I'm surprised this was middes for this long.

to the guy that originally noticed this.

Originally posted by rocksolidbrain
Interesting thing is - The original image size is 640x480, so 2x size is 1280x960, which is the resolution I'm using and when I placed my cursor on the 'cursor' in the image, they match exactly in size, except some blur in the image. Given that the cursor size is standard (in pixels), you can test this by making your resolution 640x480 and checking with original image.

May be he used a screen capture or something??

[edit on 28/6/2007 by rocksolidbrain]

If i´m not mistaken 640x480 is quite common downrez when preparing video content for the web as well as a default size on many cell phones. I don´t think it mean much as it is only seen in one image. If i somehow managed to capture high quality footage of a UFO, transfered it to FC and was eager to show it to a buddy of mine i would probably do the same thing...snap an image with my cell phone and send it over without caring to much about my cursor location.

Originally posted by tomra
.... i would probably do the same thing...snap an image with my cell phone and send it over without caring to much about my cursor location.

But you have to admit, it does raise some interesting questions. I would think that if he really wanted the images to be considered as authentic, he would have done everything possible to remove all suspicion that they were less than genuine.



my 2 cents.

Originally posted by Mechanic 32

But you have to admit, it does raise some interesting questions. I would think that if he really wanted the images to be considered as authentic, he would have done everything possible to remove all suspicion that they were less than genuine.



my 2 cents.

IMHO i don´t think so. I mean, it could be a slip but then again the most logical procedure is to shoot, capture to a computer, edit and then record to whatever suitable media. Seriously, i really would snap a cellphone image of the display and send it of to a friend just for fun, cursor included.

Give away for me is not the cursor, on the contrary, it adds some sort of real life amateur_ish aspect, dead give away is the fact that it looks like a 3D render composited into real footage.

There´s one thing that really puzzles me however...
The first versions showed a fairly simple non textured 3D model, then some textures was added, odd looking letters but still on a white "clay" model, then came additional model details, then came the poor chrom_ish material, then even more modeled eyecandy, then some rudimentary animation tests...what´s next? Explosions? Every 3D artist on planet earth loves to blow things up.

I mean, if i were to make such a hoax i would not go public with a simple white "clay rendered" WIP?!? And then to follow up with more WIP´s?! It just does not make any sense...

Somehow it gives me a feeling that these images are taken out of it´s context...like it is stolen artwork or model files from someone else working away on his/hers project without knowing what´s going on. If you chime in to cgtalk.com you will clearly see from the thread regarding these images that the majority is not aware of what´s going on or does not care, it could actually happen without the initial artists knowledge.

Last month (April 2007), my wife and I were on a walk when we noticed a very large, very strange "craft" in the sky. My wife took a picture with her cell phone camera

These are chad's own words and you must have missed the beginning of the story. Now the question is if it was taken on site with a cellphone, whats a cursor doing there?

The size 640x480 is indeed standard on many cellphones. This particular picture has no exif as far as I know. So its not straight from a cellphone. Perhaps he added some 'finishing touches' later and re-saved it, thus losing the exif. Finishing touches may include removing parts of the monitor and windows etc. Later he re-saved it in standard size of 640x480.

Edit: Well...I tried to replicate the effect by taking a picture of monitor with the cursor. I couldn't , it produces a sharp picture of the cursor even after blurring and compressing it at 100% loss.
Perhaps my camera is too good or we need lcd monitor and I get those bands in the pic. Or perhaps its not a cursor and only a gap in the trees.

[edit on 28/6/2007 by rocksolidbrain]

Originally posted by rocksolidbrain

Last month (April 2007), my wife and I were on a walk when we noticed a very large, very strange "craft" in the sky. My wife took a picture with her cell phone camera

These are chad's own words and you must have missed the beginning of the story. Now the question is if it was taken on site with a cellphone, whats a cursor doing there?

I don´t hold "chad"´s account credible but yes, good point, if the images in question features an unedited cellphone image featuring a cursor there is things not adding up. Mm...if my memory serves me right the first drone version was without the spikes at the top?

Mm...it´s a bit too far fetched but transfering cellphone images to a computer is also quite common...could explain the cursor although that does not sound right to me either. Perhaps the "cursor version" has gone through 3.rd party computer before it is in it´s current state?

None the less, to me they are still 3D generated WIP´s unless proven otherwise.
Mind you, i have no problem with altering my opinion if other better explanations is offered

I am still of the opinion that this is a real aircraft, and not some kind of photoshop image. LMH found another witness for George Noory tonight. The witness described an encounter with a very similar object about a decade ago in which the object seemed to be performing surveillance on a militia gathering.

Could the drone be FBI?

If so, it makes me wonder if all the new Isaac material might be government disinformation.

I suspect that this is a marketing ploy of C2C, LMH and others involved in serving spicy ufo entertainment to the public, to crank up their listenership/book sales/ad revenue/dvd sales or whatever. There is so much competition these days in the 'UFO and alien business' ...

A hoax of this quality must be expensive, although a lot more cheap than serving ads on TV and newspapers/magzines. Think, who else is benefiting? Follow the money.

Originally posted by rocksolidbrain
A hoax of this quality must be expensive, although a lot more cheap than serving ads on TV and newspapers/magzines. Think, who else is benefiting? Follow the money.

Always a good question. Outside of a couple of sites like this one, where is the drone thing going? C2C and LMH are in on it, but other media is not. Where else does this thing have traction? Just asking. I don't know, but it seems to me to do anything it has to get beyond the ATS-type crowd.

i dont understand what these pictures show.. they look like egg-beaters.. this thread is almost 2 months old.. is there a significant mystery being solved? if these pictures are what they appear to be, what would the most shocking result that would come from this?

Originally posted by schuyler
Always a good question. Outside of a couple of sites like this one, where is the drone thing going? C2C and LMH are in on it, but other media is not. Where else does this thing have traction? Just asking. I don't know, but it seems to me to do anything it has to get beyond the ATS-type crowd.

Considering the Viral Marketing Scheme you are absolutely correct. The reality is that very few VMS actually get the type of "main stream" attention they are aiming for, but when they do (and many have) they are a HUGE BOON to the PR agency who created them.

Imagine what it costs to run a serious television/radio/print/web "identity capmpaign"... Hundreds of thousands for the low end. I can tell you that 3 months of a combination of 30 and 60 second spots on C2C will cost you right at $100,000.00 today. Now toss in TV and print and you've quadrupled that.

The point of a VMS is to get the same attention for a fraction of the cost.

IF this was done professionally it wouldn't be more than $20,000.00 on the high side which is peanuts.

Springer...

Another Chad sighting 6/29 Maxwell AFB area..Tech Specialist Witness interviwed by Linda Moulton Howel at


Earthfiles.com

Confirms siting is more like the original Chad fotos. Describes movement as looking at double exposure, with original position merging into second position . Seems to confirm visibility in infra red (had a bank of infrared operating at time) and that interferes with invisibility. Great reading

I forgot to mention, that object described was totally silent, that it looked so clean it scared him. Same look as chad foto. Of interest is that signals can jam invisibility, maybe why its not ready for battlefield conditions like Irans nuclear sites. The original Roswell craft was I read somewhere..due to inadvertent radar/radar jamming that was routinely used at nearby base for obvious reasons, as opposed to a lightning strike. We can knock them down if they are visible. We can duplicate some invisibilty, but like the Roswell incident are vulnerable to jamming or presence of certain signals.

Originally posted by Sys_Config
Another Chad sighting 6/29 Maxwell AFB area..Tech Specialist Witness interviwed by Linda Moulton Howel at


Earthfiles.com

Confirms siting is more like the original Chad fotos. Describes movement as looking at double exposure, with original position merging into second position . Seems to confirm visibility in infra red (had a bank of infrared operating at time) and that interferes with invisibility. Great reading

For a long time, I was sitting on the fence on this, looking at both sides. But After reading up on this one, again somebody won't give a name. For this many people to claim they've seen the drone, somebody should have been willing to give their name. I can tell you for a fact that I would have if I'd seen it. But for all these people to refuse to submit names? Again, I really want to believe in this, but the lack of tangible evidence, pictures that look entirely too perfect, and the fact that not one witness will provide a real name.....

I think I've tilted heavily to the hoax side of the fence. So unless "Ted Conners" can provide real evidence of the drone from these Infrared Cameras he's monitoring, I feel that this case is better left alone.

While looking at the "linguistics analysis primer" pages, I noticed that the images are indeed straight out of a scanner. The scanner was set for a document size of 8,5" (thats standard) and 300dpi, so...
8,5 inches x 300 pixels/inch = 2550 pixels

And all these images are 2550 pix wide. The height is also around 3300 roughly. So I can confirm that the document pages were 8,5"x11,0".

More analysis here

[edit on 1/7/2007 by rocksolidbrain]

Originally posted by rocksolidbrain
I suspect that this is a marketing ploy of C2C, LMH and others involved in serving spicy ufo entertainment to the public, to crank up their listenership/book sales/ad revenue/dvd sales or whatever. There is so much competition these days in the 'UFO and alien business' ...

A hoax of this quality must be expensive, although a lot more cheap than serving ads on TV and newspapers/magzines. Think, who else is benefiting? Follow the money.

I've always been suspicious as to the degree of accuracy when it comes to info provided by either C2C or LMH...but I can't, and don't, believe they would deliberately hoax such an event. To do that would go against their entire purpose, pure and simple.

Also, the sheer number of witness testimonies showing up in such a short time make me doubt the drone is some kind of photoshop item. I believe it's a real UAV of some kind, until someone proves to me that it's not.

Originally posted by Flatwoods
[Also, the sheer number of witness testimonies showing up in such a short time make me doubt the drone is some kind of photoshop item. I believe it's a real UAV of some kind, until someone proves to me that it's not.

What 'sheer number?' They have not come forth of their own accord. As I understand it, only Linda Moulton Howe 'knows' their identities and whereabouts. Seems to me, at least so far, this is centrally controlled. Let's see these numbers of witnesses come forward and say, "Hiya guys. I saw the drone. I was here at this time." Etc.