NBC: "Capitola 'UFO' Pictures Create Online Buzz"

Capitola 'UFO' Pictures Create Online Buzz (www.nbc11.com)

Could the quiet seaside town of Capitola end up challenging Roswell, N.M., as the country's capital for extraterrestrials? The Santa Cruz County community well-known to Bay Area residents is getting national attention after pictures of a strange flying object surface on the Web.

SLIDESHOW: Images of Alleged UFO

RAW VIDEO: UFO Over Northern California?

Still photographs of alleged UFOs have been appearing on multiple Web sites across the Internet. Some UFO researchers believe the pictures show an extraterrestrial drone hovering over the city of Capitola. However, no one has taken credit for snapping the photographs.

Now, other photographs are appearing on the Internet from an anonymous source claiming to be involved in secretive work on extraterrestrial projects. And his photographs show a similar object apparently under study, along with schematics.

The anonymous source, known only as "Isaac," feels the two objects could be related. But even the UFO researchers admit that they cannot prove or disprove authenticity of the images.

[edit on 9-5-2008 by ChadAndrewATS]

I had first seen these pictures on UFO hunters (History channel I believe) and I was cautious about them then..even more so now.

In a couple of pictures there appears to be a lack of certain detail, ie, shadow.
Yet in another picture there appears to be way too much detail, ie clarity.

IMHO there is something not quite right about these pictures. If they are genuine then these craft must be made out of some form of material that is not only super strong but has an amazing ability to upset natural light.

In no way am I about to tread on Internos' recently promoted toes (don't think I can reach) but I will attempt to use his style of pointing things out to show my opinions on these pictures..then maybe Internos will drop by some time and give these pics the once over...

There is even evidence of photo manipulation... Although this manipulation may have been done by any one of millions of others on the internet after the pictures became available, it does shed some doubt as to the authenticity of the objects in the sky.

Picture 1.
(arrows numbered accordingly)
1. The shadow below the pylons 'arms' and the shadow under the craft are of different strengths. This could be due to the UFO being underlit by a reflective surface somewhere below and way over to the right side of picture, but this underlit effect is contradicted by arrows numbered 2,3 and 4.

2. From the illuminated side of this object, the sun appears to be coming from a 'horizontal to object' position, yet in the photo and according to shadows formed on pylon, the sun appears to be coming from a diagonal direction. There is one answer to this and that is that the object is huge and many thousands of feet above the observer. But it's not high enough to be in the cloud visible. Also, the arrow number 3 (and to the left) does not have a shadow consistent with a horizontal sun direction. Arrow number 3 on the right does not have a shadow consistent with a diagonal sunlight direction either.

Arrows numbered 4 show estimated sunlight direction and fall of shadows on pylon.

Arrows numbered 5 and 6 show photo manipulation. There have been some cables painted out of the picture. It appears that the sky colour has been grabbed from the end of arrow 5 and that colour has been used to paint out all of the 3 cables. It seems the editor was too lazy to grab the different colours of the sky and cloud to properly mask the cables. Why has this been done?


Picture number 3 shows a lot of detail...Too much in my opinion. There is a mixture of shadows, Some in the correct position in accordance to others, yet there are shadows completely missing from places where you would expect to see them.

Take the large 'ring' on the right hand side for example. It has a shadow on its inner left vurve, yet no shadow on the outer right casing. How can an object get a shadow in one place yet be the same consistent brightness throughout the rest of it's body?

Looking at the white, almost square 'box' on the side of the object, there appears to be no shadow anywhere involved with it. It is very difficult to obtain even the slightest hint of sunlight direction due to the mix of various shadows and and lack of...

The writing on the onject in picture 5 is so very strikingly similar to something.. i can't yet remember where I've seen this style of writing but I am searching for it.

Picture 10 just looks way to 'clean'. The trees are as normal as one would expect but the object itself seems to stand out way beyond the norm IMO.
It doesn't look like it's part of the same picture. It's too highly defined and the colour doesn't match...
Sunlight appears to be coming from the east or south east of the photographer and the object doesn't appear to be lit up in the same manner as the trees do. The trees are suggesting that the right side of the object should have a lot more light on it than is seen in the picture. It just looks like one of those images that you might see in a movie where you just know it's obviously CGI.

I've been doing photography almost 30 years and, to me, these pictrures are 'out of place'. There are several inconsistencies that stand out to me and the objects just do not look right.

Even if there were other objects in the photos, like a building or other known aircraft, I don't think you would have the same sort of clarity as you do with the objects.

IMO, I think these are fakes..nothing more than a hoax. Only a few pictures of a couple of slightly different objects. If it had been me, I'd have been reeling off roll after roll of film to capture these objects in photos. I would have loaded all the pics to the web as fast as I could. This seems to be a few high quality images that you can almost hear the photographer saying "I didn't see it until the film was developed"....

Picture number 5 looks like a model photographed on a piece of sky coloured paper.
Look at the slight shadow underneath the object as highlighted by arrows numbered 1. You'll see a shadow that suggests the object is resting on something. And what's with the motion blur pointed out by arrow number 2?

Was the table jogged as the picture was taken? Why is it the only part out of focus?


Something stinks about these photos. I, for one, am finding it very hard to believe they are real pictures of real UFO's.

You should probably take a look at this thread - Isaac CARET Drones. Many answers lie within.

I'm afraid to say this is old, very old indeed.

Thanks anyway

[edit on 10-5-2008 by dodgygeeza]

There is a very long and robust thread on this here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since there is not anything really new in this thread, comments are redirected to the existing thread on the subject.

Thread closed.





[edit on 10-5-2008 by NGC2736]