Author Topic: Physical studies of the drones: size estimations, shadows consistencies.....  (Read 27681 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline elevenaugust

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1230
  • Karma: +34/-1
  • א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ך ל מ ם נ ן ס ע פ ף צ ץ ק ר
Here's the physical drones studies.
IPACO, the new tool for photo and video analysis is on-line! www.ipaco.fr

Offline Kaelos

  • Full Dronie
  • ***
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: +2/-0
Hi,

As a reminder (it seems that it had already been done on OM) is there a comparison
of some parts of the Caret planche and Drone Big Basin elements!

No doubt, details of the bracket (A) for the main arm on ring 14b is obvious, no chance
possible for a coincidence!
(for the ring 16 it's also obvious!)

Relationship between Caret and Drones seems to be sure!
 
Bye
« Last Edit: May 13, 2008, 05:21:01 PM by Nemo492 »

Offline Kaelos

  • Full Dronie
  • ***
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: +2/-0
Hello,

Last thing I do is to try to compare the devices caught on pictures (~30)
like this:

1  'Rajinder/Chad' type versus 'Big Basin' type,
2  with CARET elements.

What a chance ?! We have elements of both devices on same picture (CARET)!!!

The result is shown on picture, no comment needed!!
(Big Basin witnesses = 15 persons, they spoke about an 'enormous' stationnary and silent aircraft !)


All of this seems very serious:
  18 witnesses, which depict coherent facts (and strange one!) and coherent devices,
  6 witnesses with photos,
  3 witnesses with sketches,
  ~30 photos, on which nobody can say they are fakes,
  1 extra witness which speaks of retro-ingineering on alien technology and gives photos on which we find elements photographed by witnesses...

For me it's enough to justify some good scientist take a look at this, seriously !!
Please Isaac give us more informations...

We are like Tesla (or Marconi) 100 years ago if we had shown him a cellular phone.
He could surely understand the concepts but nothing about the technology involved...
Then by comparison, I think that what we saw there, is a technology with 100 years advance... and probably not in the same direction we did.

Bye

Offline Kaelos

  • Full Dronie
  • ***
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: +2/-0
Hello,

We see same number of 'bolts' (red) on the bottom of the ring in Chad's and Raj's picture: 24.

But not the same number of antennas (green): Chad/16, Raj/18.

That suggests that Chad and Raj drone have the same basis.

Then, these drones (Yosemite, Chad, Tahoe and Raj) represent, perhaps, some sort of experiments of a same 'modular drone'.

 Bye

Offline onthefence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1045
  • Karma: +49/-0
Classifications of "drones"

We may be looking for more than one phenomenon. It appears that the "drones" may come in four possible classes/families so far:


A

B

C

D
Jerky motion

Invisibility

No spires

Metallic look






Please let me know if anything needs correction above.

majicbar

  • Guest
In going through some of my older material, I found this comparison of photographs of Chad's pictures on the OVNIS website, http://ovnis-usa.com's drone pages, on page 15.

The question would be to Chad were these photographs taken on the same day, or were there multiple days that Chad's drone was photographed.

Clearly the outer portion of the "tail" or paddle is not the same. If these were not photographed on the same day, then we would have to ask, is this portion of the drone able to transform, or shape shift, to become longer, or shorter?


« Last Edit: May 31, 2008, 09:57:12 AM by Nemo492 »

Offline elevenaugust

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1230
  • Karma: +34/-1
  • א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ך ל מ ם נ ן ס ע פ ף צ ץ ק ר
Hi Majicbar!!
As Chad said himself, the photos were not taken the same day; however, you're right in the two examples you gives, and we don't know for sure if they were taken the same day.

The differences between the two tails is something that have been discuss long time ago (in 2007 June) on OMF by Sqt, Jeddyhi, OTF, Spf33 and Kris.
The solution was given by OTF, Spf33 and Kris: they specifically showned that that was just a matter of perspective:

From Kris:


And Onthefence can surely gives you other examples of perspectives illusions.

IPACO, the new tool for photo and video analysis is on-line! www.ipaco.fr

Offline onthefence

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #3
  • **********
  • Posts: 1045
  • Karma: +49/-0
That appears to be a simple perspective issue. In the image below:
  • The bottom part shows the straight on view.
  • The top part shows the proper 3D perspective image
  • and the middle shows a comparison to see how items closer to the observer appear longer than items further from the observer.



Conclusion: it does not appear that the arm has changed length during one photo session.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2008, 04:36:01 PM by onthefence »

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Hello,

We see same number of 'bolts' (red) on the bottom of the ring in Chad's and Raj's picture: 24.

But not the same number of antennas (green): Chad/16, Raj/18.

That suggests that Chad and Raj drone have the same basis.

Then, these drones (Yosemite, Chad, Tahoe and Raj) represent, perhaps, some sort of experiments of a same 'modular drone'.

 Bye

Yes, we had fun with this exercise back in January.  It's generally accepted that the Chad drone has 16 antenna and the Raj drone has 14.  Arkhangles had the best illustrations.
http://lucianarchy.proboards21.com/?board=cali1&action=display&thread=2156&page=1

Offline Kaelos

  • Full Dronie
  • ***
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: +2/-0
Sorry but I've done some verifications and I think now everybody perhaps is wrong...

The Raj's drone presents 16 antennas and not 14 nor 18 (me) like said previously.

In the joined picture we saw that the "antennas rings" well visible are 7 and the 2 we imagine to be, are on the diameter of the circle.
Thus, by symetry, the total is 16... like in Chad's drone.



Other point, this verification revealed (at least to me), that we can see some 'ionized air' right in the center of the circle (which seems to be confirmed or to confirme the last drone report -2001- by LMH).

Offline 10538

  • Administrator
  • Hero Dronie #2
  • **********
  • Posts: 826
  • Karma: +33/-0
Hey Kaelos,

No need to apologize.  Good point about the diodes possibly being directly connected to the spires.  We seemed fairly certain the Raj drone only had 14 but if you have evidence that proves it wrong by all means post it.  We are to too big headed to admit when we've made a mistake.  I really thought Archangel's illustrations proved it.  Compare your diagrams to his and tell us where the discrepancy is.  Thanks.

Yes the ionized air has been brought up before.  It's especially evident in the Birmingham drone.

« Last Edit: June 10, 2008, 02:26:26 AM by 10538 »

Offline leviathan

  • Major Dronie
  • ******
  • Posts: 290
  • Karma: +22/-0
    • L E V I A T H A N


This is a filtered image showing the anomaly in the ring of the Birmingham Drone.
IC
We at L E V I A T H A N were banned from the UFO Casebook Forum and it is so sad.
http://livyatan.blogspot.com/

majicbar

  • Guest
"Looking closely at Chad photograph looking into the torus of the ring I count a symetrical number of high voltage connector rings (16) and a matching number of antenna, while the Rajman1977 photo into the torus of the ring provides 17 high voltage rings and a even number of antenna.

Just looking at the Rajman1977 it is obvious that this is not the same number of rings and antenna, the lower-most ring is aligned to the antenna just above it, while at the opposite side the upper-most antenna is splitting two high voltage rings, thus couldn't possible connect as speculated.."

edited>>>> I've been fooled by seeing the lowermost fins of the torus, and believing that they were related to the alignment of the high-voltage rings. These items are lost to the perspective of the torus in the Rajman1977 photographs, so these fins appear to be between the alignment of these rings.
Perhaps we should have a good drafting of the drone to establish building a good model of them. Again a model would seem to be helpful in answering certain questions with certainty.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2008, 01:54:46 PM by majicbar »

Offline Kaelos

  • Full Dronie
  • ***
  • Posts: 34
  • Karma: +2/-0
Hi 10538,

Here is the explanation...

The chance we have is one antenna is exactly a circle diameter
(3/Ark. or 4/me)
thus to check counting is easy:

the line of two joined antenna must pass by the center of the circle
(or center between the 2 focus of the ellipsis),

if not, the count is false...

Arkhangels didn't use a good perspective...(the ellipsis is too flat)

I assume of course (it's geometrically very important!):
   "wire loops" = antennas
   upper part of the "wire loop" is taken for counting
   
Ionized center: OK for Alabama drone but in Chad/Raj this was new
                     for me and a good point for telling Alabama, Chad, Raj
                     and Big basin drones use same principle.


Offline tomi

  • Hero Dronie #2
  • ********
  • Posts: 668
  • Karma: +36/-26
Ok... this just goes to show the proof of things.. or it doesn't  :P
Ionised air is denser, heavier than normal.  (I've just been told..) 
So, this or another effect we don't know about in that highly concentrated center could be producing this effect that your fabulous filter shows so clearly.

Thanks again Lev  :D For all your interesting insights   ;D

By the way.. It doesn't get funnier or more true, than your latest blog. ;D