USAF flying saucer pictures and document

Yes, anyone who thinks these are actual photos seriously needs to get their head checked.

Those pictures are funny. Just think if this craft was actually real how bad the visibility would be from the cocpit in that position! Landing that thing would be horrible, you would not be able to see anything.

Being someone who does CG stuff myself. I can say that those photos on that site are indeed CG. Of course their are ones that are obviously CG, but i'm referring to the ones that are superimposed over actual photos. I didn't read every single post, so forgive me if i start to explain things that have already been covered.

Ok lets start with the very first photo:



Firstly the thing that stands out to me is the shadow. It is very sharp not to mention the actual aircraft itself just seems a bit too sharp and clean around the edges. The shadows also have no variance. Shadows arn't generaly just one solid shade either. Reflected light from some parts of the aircraft should affect areas of the shadow as well as ambient blue light from the sky should also affect parts of it as well. Not to mention around the base of the wheels should be slightly darker since the black tires would reflect no light.

The reflectivity of the surface of the craft is just to crisp as well. The surface is too smooth. If you look up close on an aircraft it's usualy a little bumpy. Not only with just the rivets, but the skin of the aircraft usualy has some subtle bumps as well. Here is what a reflection should generaly look like of an aircraft with just plain aluminium skin:



note that the reflections are not sharp. They are fairly distorted and the surface isn't that smooth.

Now onto another photo. Lets take a look at this one:



Ok the first thing that sticks out to me is that blue colour used for the american symbol on the wing. That blue is just too saturated. Maybe it's just me, but i believe a darker and less saturated blue was used.

I believe some one else already pointed this out. The saber there in that pic really doesn't look right at all. One thing that really gives it away is the tail. Note how the horizontal stabilizers by the tail don't taper inward towards the ends in the aparent photo, while they do in the actual photo post above it.

Now if you scroll down further on page 2 you'll come across this image:



No doubt that this is CG. and you will see another photo below that one where it is placed into a photo (and not very well done mind you). You can see clearly that it's the same aircraft in both images, and also that it was used in the same image taking off with the saucer. If that doesn't prove it's CG i don't know what would.

The guy did a decent job, but not nearly good enough to be completely believable. The B&W photos turned out better, but they would be easier to do. I think this pretty much renders (no pun intended) the site a hoax.