UFO Online by dandare

UFO Updates, documents, archives, anything ufo related

Isaac/Chad/CARET/california drones…what is going on? (part 2)

Posted by dandare on April 5, 2008

In part 2, i will try and discuss the drone sightings in much more detail…..(it looks like this will now be part 2 of 4…explained near end of post ).

I have tried to gain as much information, from forums such as Above top secret, and from blogs, and so on…as well as my own analysis. 

The drone photos and documents, have been creating alot more debate recently, mainly due to the hiring of 2 detectives ..    http://www.tkdavisinvestigations.com/_california_drone_investigation  . What i am not sure about, however, is why they are just looking for the location of these photos…should they not be following up on Internet information, and so on and cover all angles (maybe they are, but i am not aware of it).
fox news video below (with the 2 detectives)

Some of the immediate questions that spring to mind are:

  1. Was the whole thing a hoax (photos and documents)
  2. Was this  CGI photos?
  3. locations debate…..
  4. Was it an ARG viral campaign? did it get out of hand?
  5. Why no witnesses named/or identified?    

I would just like to add, what was first mentioned in (part 1)… which raises serious questions for points 1+2 above…… 

“At this point, i will add the link from MUFON, as it argues this is a fake  http://www.hyper.net/ufo/vs/m05-001.html  with an interesting argument; also analysis’s check the photos supplied. These were steve Neil (computer generated images for history channel) and Marc D’Antonio (owns and operates FX models)….both believe in ufos/extraterrestrials being real.

ufo online

 Of particular note in this, is the following:

“In one of the images, you can see that the faker used, something called “radiosity” to render the images. The technique allows for more realistic images and makes things look very good, as if lit by the sun in this case.  Well, in ONE of the radiosity images supposedly looking up at the ‘fake ship’ from directly below it is clear that the faker didn’t take care in setting his settings for the renderer and you can see classic “radiosity render artifacts” in the dark shadow areas of the CG craft. They show up as mottling in the shadows instead of smooth transitions.

It is what happens when you want the rendering to be finished quickly. If radiosity settings were used to make the image look absolutely real, each image could take tens of hours to render perhaps.In another shot where the craft ought to have been some distance away, it is sharp and clear as if there is suddenly no
atmospheric haze.
Finally, in one image the faker composited the craft to appear behind tree branches. This is easy to perform.

The faker used something called an Alpha map which affords you JUST this capability.Sooner or later, I will bet that a ‘video’ will emerge, and the faker is no doubt working on it but doesn’t like the results I guarantee because the radiosity renders take a long time to render per frame and in motion, he has to get all his Photoshop type filtering done on the fly within his rendering software and it isn’t as easy.When I saw this I winced at how obvious the fakery is and how utterly uneducated the coast to coast people are for falling for it.
The faker, named ‘Chad’ is a complete and total fabricator.”
I have still sent a request to the above witness Email address wishing a interview, following Mufon investigative proceedures.I plan to play this interview ‘dumb smart’ (if it ever occurs- but hope so) wishing to glean any further information if possible and post it here. It maybe possible these images submitted were hoaxed by someone else, rather than by the
witnesses themselves (names stated above).
I suspect the Coast to Coast web site appearance was a trial run before posting here in the Mufon CMS. The attached images files from Coast to Coast read in the image file text’ the name ‘McKinley’. The same witness name above in the witness report.I seriously doubt the ‘Coast to Coast’ people may even know about this authenticity issue.

As of May 16, 2007, I have not recieved any reply from these witnesses.Clearly a ‘HOAX’. Case completed, but will reopen should I recieve get a reply from the witness. (hopefully).

Very Respectfully, Steve Reichmuth” 

Obviously, no real video were forthcoming, and the e-mail was never replied too…. (for an idea of radiosity see http://freespace.virgin.net/hugo.elias/radiosity/radiosity.htm , and also here).

  Also, there has been a comparison made, with the Chad photos, to an incident in Devon (england) in 1967 (26th october, in South Devon)….did ‘Chad’ get some of his ideas from this?….. see below for video.


For a report on the incident see http://www.ufologie.net/htm/dorset67.htm and http://www.project1947.com/shg/hennessey/ufoinv4-4.htm (with diagrams)…thanks to http://www.hyper.net/ufo.html for making this information aware to me, on the website.

So there is straight away, a question as to the validity of the photos as being real… however we need more debate than this…..

On above top secret there is a mention that:  

“Within the 3D modeling software, you can actually take real life pictures and include them into the render. So If I made a 3D model of a jet, I could easily take a real picture of an airport, and place the jet at the right angle and position, and then, I can even move the lighting node placed in the 3D scene to match the picture, and when I render it, it will look almost realistic.

You can play with the render until you get it just right. So trying to debunk these drone pictures because of “lighting” can be difficult, because all the 3D artist has to do is position the light node anywhere he believes the background images light source is. Then they can simply change the settings of that light node, like brightness and contrast and color. So the object will have all the shading in the right places” (extract from above top secret forum…unfortunately lost the link to the exact post). An interesting point…..

We will come back to this later on, but moving on to point 2

Was this A CGI effects photograph

What is CGI : (Computer Generated Imagery)….as you can see from Reference.com it covers many areas (also here for basics)….. in the computer software department, for example there is lightwave 3D   maya , maxwell render  software.

….. there were some who believed that Kris Avery, a highly talented CG/3D expert, and who created the drone video, might have been involved in the photos…. but he heavily denies this.


His site is at http://www.kaptive.co.uk/index.cfm I will add a range of videos at the end of this post……. At http://io9.com/374831/cgi-artist-did-not-create-ufo-pics-++-who-did

the blogger e-mailed Kris, who confirmed that he did this to prove that it could be done, but was not the maker of the initial photos. At Open Minds Forum it mentions:

In my exchange of emails with Kris, Kris believes that some (at least… if not all) of the drone photos are CGI and explained to me why he thinks so. If Kris is the creator of the drones (which he has already denied), I am not sure why he would fight so hard to say they are fake (which would expose himself)… if he was the one behind the hoax. Just my thoughts.
There is no doubt that Kris is a very talented artist, and if anyone has the knowledge on how do this, he would be one of those people. Also, he is very aware of the limitations in the current CGI software. Exposing those limitations exposes photos that are CGI
” (extract from post in forum). 

At ufocasebook, they take a look at the photos and take another viewpoint: 

http://www.ufocasebook.com/unmannedprobeanalysis.html (done by james vinyard and Frank Valentyn).

At http://www.theparanormalreport.com/home.html  in “debunking the drones” it mentions that:

We live in the post-Photoshop world, which has proven painful for the UFO field. Anyone can hoax a UFO photograph with knowledge of Photoshop, basic camera work and editing, or CGI movie making abilities. It is imperative in light of these techniques to keep an objective viewpoint when analyzing photographs and video footage of UFO’s. At the Paranormal report, we certainly believe that some UFO’s appear to represent a superior intelligence of unknown, perhaps extraterrestrial origin, but this does not seem to be the case with the drone UFO’s” (extract from article). It also question the pixel density of the UFO compared to the rest of the picture, among other things.

At this point, i will add http://ovnis-usa.com/drone_investigation_FAQ.pdf  It is basically saying ,there is no proper proof to say that it is a hoax….. it also has a go at Above top secret for those that say it is for ‘real’ (ie posters back stab,ect) .. However, it can also be said that the other end of the spectrum can be said for Open Minds forum, that seems to have a negative response from those who believe it to be a hoax (although both moderators attempt to keep everything fair, but this can be an almost impossible task).    

Point 3…. (locations debate)….

From the Open minds forum, there is a debate about where certain drone photos were taken from….

   stephen\'s originalsee stephen\’s location photographs for an indepth disscusion on this…..this is in reference to stephen’s photos taken on the 5th june 2007: it is stated as being from the Big Basin, but it is argued that it comes from Saratoga; there are alot of photos, maps and so on to support this theory.

stephen location

 Point 4 … was it an ARG viral campaign? To start with ARG=Alternative Reality Game; see http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Alternate_reality_game for a definition of this. In fact, The Blair witch project (1999) was similar to ARG, but started out as almost an urban legend and ultimately a hoax, which became a movie (at the time no ARG existed of course); for viral marketing please also see  http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Viral_marketing .

 I mention this because quite a few believed (including myself) that it was a viral campaign… it still could be, that ultimately went wrong, or not, as the case may be. I point you to 2 links these being http://www.perplexorum.com/showthread.php?t=1725 (read both pages) and http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=11299627&postRepeater1-p=3 for a heated debate on this.

society of the ancientsemail glyth halo3Also please see  http://hushedcasket.com/node/2060 for why “society of the ancients” is possibly significant. 

 

Many have tried to translate the writing on the photographs…. many to begin with thought it might be japanese, but that proved wrong; others believe that It’s no language…

 

It’s just fancy standard english font put into italics and made to look like an otherworldy language. You can read “Ay07+” and “+cxa+X+” on the wing. However, at the open minds forumthey have devised this…for the symbols

 Many thought it might be Klingon language, but no matches, some=font from the Matrix, but that seems not to work either.

I have decided that as this has become a rather long post, i will do 2 more posts to help with the overall drone EFFECT (as it were). The next post will be solely links to relevant forum posts/articles/ and videos to the drones. The second post will be on the document itself……and an overall conclusion.

I am not totally happy with this post, and might redo in more detail, certain parts of it….. unfortunately i am short on time and wish to get something out…. so hope this will be good enough for now. 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

About these ads

4 Responses to “Isaac/Chad/CARET/california drones…what is going on? (part 2)”

  1. manny said

    great recap! I am at abovetopsecret.com and we are pursuing the hoaxers as best we can. the main obstacle for us has been for LMH to give up the HIRES pix of the TY witness Drones so they can be analyzed and this horse put to sleep once and for all. She has done ufology a dis service holding on to the pictures, and apparently pushing their reality by lumping disconnected aand questionnable sightings to bolster her claims. At the same time she has not even provided her own independent analysis.
    You tell me why she won’t.
    thanx for the site and great work putting this together.
    Manny
    Sys_config
    ATS

  2. dandare said

    Thanks Manny for your kind comments…. and kudos to abovetopsecret.com… its coverage of the ‘drones’ has been excellent.
    LMH has lost all my respect (totally), and i’m afraid those around her, tell another tale….. and i’m afraid its not pretty.
    Good luck with the on going saga…lets hope its put to bed ASAP….
    I do not know if you are aware, but i have written a few more posts on this… if you would like to take a peep, then go to the top of the page (on the left is topics i write about, please pick from the drop down list ‘california drones’, and it will show the posts;mmm the list does need reorganising though).
    Regards

  3. Blixer said

    The major problem with the ufo community, that is the believers, is that they commit the fallacy of missing evidence and try to force skeptics into proving a negative. For instance, the ovnis web site says that there is no proper proof that its a hoax. Big mistake. The believers must come up with proof that its real and ONLY then can the “proof” be examined to see if its real or a hoax. To date this has not been done. The burden of proof rest with the believers, not the other way around. A proper study of informal fallacies will do the serious reasercher much good.

  4. ian said

    nail in the coffin?

    http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/sarah-connor-california-drone.jpg

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,010 other followers

%d bloggers like this: