Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nekitamo]

are you guys positive of the location  the measurements were taken?

Like I already mentioned, indicated measurements need some kind of correction/offset 'cause this simply can't be right:



Also, elevenaugust's video from the spot provides better insight into tree positions then photographs - maybe there is more footage like that?

[elevenaugust]

Hi Neki!
Yes, I'll have to check this with numbers, but the bush at the right angle have probably a wrong estimated distance from the camera.
Probably 5 meters seems to be a better estimation.

[10538]

Unfortunately we had no idea about the shadow when 11A and I visited this place.  When we took the laser readings we focused on the tops of certain trees and bushes that stuck out as landmarks.  I don't know what went wrong on the bush to the right.  I remember at one point we were struggling with the laser unit but I thought we had worked out our problems by the time we got over to the photo locations down below.

Maybe we could have a new reading taken?

[10538]

Hi Neki!
Yes, I'll have to check this with numbers, but the bush at the right angle have probably a wrong estimated distance from the camera.
Probably 5 meters seems to be a better estimation.

Yes that sounds correct.  I vaguely remember doing that measurement.  I believe it may have been too close for the rangefinder so we simply paced it off.

[beefoo]

Hi,

First, I have to say I'm impressed by the work done by you guys.I'm not sure it's the right thread to post here but I have something where a CGI model may help.

Looking at one of chad pics, I've been disturbed by the reflection on the the central ring between 2 small arms, and by the way the spikes are apparently mixed with the sky background. Additionally, there is this idea of Douglas and 10538 in the thread "Drone Propulsion" about the possible role of the spikes in the invisibility system.

So I just tried to draw the outline of 2 spikes and one cylindric edge of the central ring to illustrate what I interpret as a mirroring effect. I don't think it is a reflection of the sun, what would produce a single vertical ray on the cylindrical form. Here, we have a reflection of the sky and the upper part of the ring (I attached the picture, waiting for approval).

What I find disturbing there is that the reflection seems to be local, or only active with a sufficient intensity of incoming light.

My question: did somebody already tried to reproduce this view in CGI?

[majicbar]

With the drone so close to the ground, the reflected light form below with mostly trees will give a somewhat biased imaging from below. Any open area, walkway, road, driveway would give a bias to the lighting too. In the plan view there seems to be a very light colored road to the right side where the drone should have overflown.

When one flies at altitude in a commercial jetliner there is a special sheen to the Laminar flow that divides to the upper and lower airflow, giving at times an odd reflectance. I think the contention of 10538 and Douglas is that the spikes in the crown/antenna have a similar effect with the boundry layer of the air on the surface of the antenna interacting with the atmosphere and causing this sheen and unusual reflectance. I would expect that a similar effect would occur all over the craft and as indicated a mirroring of the light would give unusual shadows and lighting effects.

Actually from what I'm considering as all of the factors involved with the lighting variables of the scene that CGI would fail spectacularly to replicate what is in the image. (Perhaps LEVIATHAN would care to comment on this lighting issue relative to their drone emulations.)

[leviathan]

Actually from what I'm considering as all of the factors involved with the lighting variables of the scene that CGI would fail spectacularly to replicate what is in the image. (Perhaps LEVIATHAN would care to comment on this lighting issue relative to their drone emulations.)

You are correct.  It is not that CG could not produce an effect with experimentation, but much experimentation would be required.  Some "experts" act as if you just use ambient occlusion or radiosity and all is well, but that is not the case.  The proper lighting, especially when compositing with a background plate, is all important in getting the brain to accept the CG as a part of the real scene.  Even the use of High Dynamic Range images captured from the original shoot of the background plate will not automatically insure success.  Then of course color of light, texture, reflection, environmental mapping of the Drone comes into play.  The complexity is very great.  All this done by a hoaxer to fool a very small and specialized segment of the population who as UFO interested persons will not be listened to anyway.  Can it be CG?  Yes, with money, talent, time, pre and post planning, skills at 2 and 3 dimension art, writing skills, excellent imagination in design and story telling, cleverness in general, understanding of composition of different elements, knowledge of cutting edge physics, knowledge of the look of documents from the 1980's, etc.  Yes it could be CG, but do you believe it is and if so for what purpose?  Just for fun!!!  We take it very seriously and we will continue to do so.

None of our 50 Plus Models, with all types of lighting, have come close to the "air of authenticity" that the original drones produced and since they were produced the professional software has improved.  We are not the greatest of CG artists, but we have given it a real try and stand in awe of the original Drones and their infinite detail and complexity.

majicbar Your point is well taken and correct.

L E V I A T H A N

[10538]

Thanks Lev for that explanation.  One thing you said that really stuck out to me was this:

The complexity is very great.  All this done by a hoaxer to fool a very small and specialized segment of the population who as UFO interested persons will not be listened to anyway.

Not only that but the ironic thing is it's only a small segment of ufology (us) who even had an open mind to it.  Most simply wrote off the entire saga as being to good, too elaborate to be true.  Most had the kneejerk reaction of "no way".  So the funny thing is, if it was a cgi hoax, it was done too well.  So perfect that it was not taken seriously.

[mgrandin]

How did you determine the drone location?  Nekitamo determined the drone to be at least 130 feet from the camera, I believe.

I believe he matched the distance and orientation of the drone until it looked exactly like in Chad's image, and inset image above his render shows excellent match indeed. This should be way better then my angular size method.

If these two different methods of estimating distance (in terms of drone size, at least)  coincide sufficiently well,  that must be a strong indication of reality.  At least if so is the case
in several or all measurable drone pictures.

While a CGI hoaxer must just have used fixed 2D photos as
background - and rather arbitrarily placed the drone.  Very
unlikely both the drone "internal" perspective relations and
view angle occupied by drone in picture had matched. 

I mean the known drone shape in perspective gives a unique
distance (in terms of drone size) independently of anything else in picture.  While view angle (aperture reasoning) also gives  unique distance (in terms of drone size), independant of
drone shape.

I have made some calculations on this - but have not studied the material sufficiently well yet 

PS:  At least a mismatching could prove a hoax ....

(I changed an earlier not quite correct version of this post)

[10538]

I agree Mgrandin.  To me the most important aspect of these Chad photos is the location itself.  The Raj and Stephen (and probably the Ty) sightings are on public areas.  This Chad location is 100% proven to be on private property.  What hoaxer walks onto private property to take background pictures?  Why risk a confrontation when there are an almost unlimited amount of public areas to choose from?  11A and I have been to this location and you don't just walk around down there.  If you do, you are asking for trouble.  The residents there (and their large dogs) don't take kindly to strangers wondering around.  We learned this the hard way.

[10538]

I found the actual sheet we used to scribble down the measurements on and now I know how the 15 meter descepancy happened.  The distant 15 meter bush is correct.  The close one is not 15 meters but 15 FEET.  So 11A is correct about the 5 meters roughly.

[EVS]

Thanks Lev for that explanation.  One thing you said that really stuck out to me was this:

The complexity is very great.  All this done by a hoaxer to fool a very small and specialized segment of the population who as UFO interested persons will not be listened to anyway.

Not only that but the ironic thing is it's only a small segment of ufology (us) who even had an open mind to it.  Most simply wrote off the entire saga as being to good, too elaborate to be true.  Most had the kneejerk reaction of "no way".  So the funny thing is, if it was a cgi hoax, it was done too well.  So perfect that it was not taken seriously.

I applaud that in the fullest way of interpretation of the original thoughts of mine, when I first saw the eyewitness pictures and then the release of the "Isaac" documents.

Too good to be true! Well, what is expected to be true..at some time it has to happen, and if it does, someone allways has an interpretation of that.

If we with today's "gear" , digital cameras and cellphones equipped with a camera, encounter something out of the ordinary, does it "have" to be blurry and hard to see?

I think we have to move on, and realize that much more is recorded today, that would be laughed at only a few years past.

And we are most likely to see much more photos in the future of the "not so blurry" kind.