Author Topic: Chad  (Read 18336 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BigFnTuna

  • Full Dronie
  • ***
  • Posts: 31
  • Karma: +6/-0
Re: Chad
« Reply #15 on: July 25, 2008, 04:27:30 am »
I was searching to find out when the helipad was constructed and I searched the restaurant name, Deer Creek Bar(I think is the name), and the word accident.  This is what came up in the search:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=l&source=s_l&hl=en&gl=us&q=Deer+Creek+Bar+accident&near=37.131865%2C-121.979981&btnG=Search+Businesses

Check Tab E  :o
I thought is kind of unny that PARC would be on the short list for that search...

Tuna

Offline HPO

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #1
  • **********
  • Posts: 316
  • Karma: +27/-0
Re: Chad
« Reply #16 on: July 25, 2008, 07:48:30 am »
I seem to remember there may have been an "alternative" use for some of this land!
IC ::)

Was that also on that particular piece?,..I didn't really read in to that side of the story yet.

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: Chad
« Reply #17 on: July 25, 2008, 05:14:34 pm »
Well,...maybe it's to sensitive information, but was there any attempt from you or the PI's to contact the land owners of the private property where Chad has taken the photo's?

Yes, the PI's have went door to door up on the ridge by the mouse house and talked to almost all of them.  Nobody will own up to the photos.  They never heard anything about it.  It seems these people are very tight lipped about this subject.  You can't force people to come forward.  You can ask but if they refuse nothing can be done.

There are a couple of houses down below.  We have a contact who lives down there who is checking it out.  This is unfortunately a very slow process. 

But don't expect anybody there to jump up a claim responsibility.  From our information, Chad never wanted to be a UFO witness.  He wanted absolutely no part of it.  Remember that Chad gave Linda the false location of Bakersfield.  There may be many more false statements in his report designed to through seekers off his trail.  I don't even think his real name is Chad.

It takes a special person to give up their normal life just to be ridiculed and lambasted.  It seems Ty was ready to be that person but something changed his mind.

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Re: Chad
« Reply #18 on: July 25, 2008, 05:24:54 pm »
Here is a picture of the helipad that the PIs took.  I thought we had more pics of it but we cannot locate any right now.



But this angle is in my opinion useless and a waste of time.  We spent much time there walking on the pad.  There is no way it has any more relation to the Isaac concrete than my own driveway does.  As a matter of fact, my driveway looks more like the Isaac pad!

I'm sorry but I can only ask that you simply take our words for it.  It's not like we are not observant.  Remember that we discovered the actual Chad photo locations.  That's was not a simple task.  All those trees and bushes down there and it was only because the Chad photos were seared into our minds that it hit us while wondering around.


Offline BigFnTuna

  • Full Dronie
  • ***
  • Posts: 31
  • Karma: +6/-0
Re: Chad
« Reply #19 on: July 25, 2008, 08:09:40 pm »
NUmbers, I agree that pad has nothing to do with the inventory photo.  The pad in that photo was worn out from MANY years maybe even decades of use, like at an actual airstrip or air station.  The inventory photo pad looks just like the pads I walked on all of the time in the Navy, old and beat up...

Tuna

Offline majicbar

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 226
  • Karma: +24/-3
Re: Chad
« Reply #20 on: November 05, 2008, 09:12:57 pm »
I'll post here some mathematical findings on the Chad drone that I posted in OMF a while ago. It is not sooo complex as one would think, but it adds on the complexity of the entire Drone saga, and increases the mistery behind this fantastic ufo episode... Every inch of the crafts was carefully designed.
-------------------

Since there's no metric unit to use, I used the 'pixel' unit. But the important in these findings are the proportions and relations between a 'pixel' measurement compared to the other in some way.

They shows us that the distances of some parts of the drone were specifically and purposely calculated using logarithmic curves and, in one particullar case that I'll point out, a same curve is used, with precision, in at least 4 parts of the drone, being one of them of high importance.

Backed up by 'knowhow' findings, these reveal us that, as Rajinder's Drone, Chad's drone measurements were not created randomly, but were based in mathematical relations, and precisely repeated in different parts of the drone.

First I thought in trying to see any relations between the thicker and the thinner parts of the small arm:

Since what I was searching was based in proportions, the slight distorted perspective would not interfere since it variates all the distances but keeps the proportions between them.

To make that I separated those distances in two, like I said, the thinner ones and the thicker ones. The thinner one could call intervals.

I choose the blue color for the thicker parts and the red for the intervals. You can already see that the intervals change in some particullar way.
After that I measured them, and the result was:
Red: 3 - 9 - 18 - 27
Blue: 28 - 21 - 16 - 71

ps: a mathematical relation is already present in the red - intervals - sequence. First times 3 is the second, that times 2 is the third, that times 1.5 is the fourth and so on ( 3, 2, 1.5, ....)

Using the numbers I made a graphic where a curve is visible:



Here you see the logarithmic curve to the red intervals, call it CurveA
And a logarithmic curve for the blue with a highly accentuated variation for the last point, call it: CurveB.

Since the total distance of the small arms appear to always be the same for the four ones in all the drones, and in the Chad images it is apparently true as well (it cannot be checked though) I would risk saying that those curves are the same for all of the other three secondary arms of Chad's drone.

The other thing I measured was, then, the large, primary, arm.
There are just 2 intervals in the large arm, that have the exact same distance, so I didn't consider them. I measured just the large sections with the inscriptions.
But there was a problem, going from left to right, I could not say exactly were finishes the last section (from the right) that connects the entire arm to the body of the drone:


So I thought: would the curve of the distances of the small arms be the same of this large arm and indicates me where exactly finishes the last section of the large arm?
I measured the parts and the results were
365 - 118 - ??
After cheking a match between the proportions of the both first sections of the small and large arm, I could go on with the due estimate of the third part.
Applying the same variation to the last part, there was a surprise:

The last measurement came up with a line that finished exactly in the middle of that triple 'round artifact'. Tracing a line that connected those three 'round artifacts', forming a isosceles triangle, I then discovered that the line ends in the exact baricenter of the triangle, what is considered the 'true center' of a triangle.
This just confirmed that the same CurveB is present in both primary and secondary arms of the drone.

And I would risk saying that all of this probably applies to Raj's drone as well.

Regards
Ark

It has occurred to me that the thoughts of Ark can be applied to the foreshortening seen in the Boom/Tail of the picture of the drone above. With the dimensions set from the picture below this feaure in scannedimage3, the foreshorening seen in scannedimage2 should yield an increase in the proportion nearer the camera. This change in proportion should be allow us to calculate a relative change in length which then should allow us to figure how close the camera had to be to the "drone". Using the calculated distances we should be able to fit the drone in the image of scannedimage2, or perhaps find that the dimensions don't fit and we'll have to reconsider things. I'm working on this thought and will publish my further thoughts when  have the time, just thought to pass this along for others to also consider.

Offline mgrandin

  • Full Dronie
  • ***
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +9/-0
Re: Chad
« Reply #21 on: November 05, 2008, 11:27:02 pm »

It has occurred to me that the thoughts of Ark can be applied to the foreshortening seen in the Boom/Tail of the picture of the drone above. With the dimensions set from the picture below this feaure in scannedimage3, the foreshorening seen in scannedimage2 should yield an increase in the proportion nearer the camera. This change in proportion should be allow us to calculate a relative change in length which then should allow us to figure how close the camera had to be to the "drone". Using the calculated distances we should be able to fit the drone in the image of scannedimage2, or perhaps find that the dimensions don't fit and we'll have to reconsider things. I'm working on this thought and will publish my further thoughts when  have the time, just thought to pass this along for others to also consider.

Hello Majicbar!  I made such geometric/perspective calculations on that tail wing segments last spring.  Although
some simplifications I had some difficulties derive an appropriate formula - but at last I had a usable one.

But the result I got from rough measurements inserted in the formula gave a distance too narrow - perhaps due to some error or bad measurement/approximation.

I never continued this because I also had begun doubting this was a good method compared to using a 3D program matching a correctly segmented drone model with the Chad picture - in all respects and not just regarding proportions of tail.  My impression was also, that CG-guys here had made such matchings to estimate distance in terms of drone size.

But maybe you have further ambitions than this,  if so
good luck!    :)