Marc d'Antonio

[Nemo492]

link : no available report so far

[Nemo492]

Marc d'Antonio use to work as a contractant for

Curtiss Wright Flow Control Corporation,
Northrop Grumman,
General Dynamics,
Nautilus Memorial Museum,
USS Connecticut (SSN22) Commissioning Committee,
Naval War College Museum,
Lockheed Martin,
Undersea Systems,
Space Systems,
Naval Surface Warfare Center,
Smithsonian Institution,
United States Navy,
GMD/Japan Research Laboratory Kitakyushu Japan,
NAVSEA (US NAVY),
US Congress..

[EVS]

Yet another CGI "expert" coming forward, without testifying why the "Drones" are a CG hoax:

fxmodels on UFO Casebook: (exerpt)

Quote:

3:I discussed the Drone Hoax in a presentation that Jim Carrion asked me to do out in San Jose this past week or two ago and showed how a CG version of the drone could be easily created and why I felt strongly that the imagery was all hoaxed. I also examined the artifacts and deduced their CG nature as well. Someone who does disinformation I guess would do exactly what I did. But, the drone is a CG hoax. I am not the only one who said it, as Michael Naisbitt on this board also has done his independent analysis along with about 30 others on various boards and using high end tools as we use every day.

Quote end

[leviathan]

I have used High End tools also and see no real conclusive sign of a hoax.  We have made over 50 Drone models and we know from where we speak.
L E V I A T H A N
PS:  In all this work, we have discovered an oddity that we have never seen mentioned.  We are going to stay quite on it for lets say insurance.  MUFON or whatever does not seem that interested and we are not that concerned about MUFON.  Their opinion is just that an opinion, as is ours.  We have never explained our credentials as another insurance for the future.  The Drone/Isaac event is a very long way from death and be sure to understand it can be resurrected in the future.
THE  L E V I A T H A N (ALL 9)

[Nemo492]

Yet another CGI "expert" coming forward, without testifying why the "Drones" are a CG hoax:

So he said. Any more questions ?

[leviathan]

So he said. Any more questions ?

Nemo492, you are exactly right.  The "expert" speaks and all MUST BELIEVE.  We know that there is no easy answer and to say "I say so" therefore it is finished is really quite stupid.  There is still debate about the Trent case, Roswell, Majestic 12, on and on.  What about Billy Meier!  The Drones seem to really frighten the UFO establishment.  Recently the two technological claims of the Drones, levitation and invisibility, have been in the news.  What a coincidence, but little mention of this is made by these UFO and CG "experts"  Maybe too close to home.  The Drone/Isaac Event will go through a cycle as does all such events, but those who can see will learn a lot such as the slow release of discoveries about levitation and invisibility.  The other side will always be the other side, they have too much of an investment in their negative attitudes and egos.  They must be right for their worldview and self esteem to survive.  As all creatures, do when they are threatened by the unknown they go into a defense mode and expect all to follow their lead even in the WRONG direction.  We just won't do that and it makes um mad, too bad.
L E V I A T H A N

[Nemo492]

DrDil offered a short video on OMF, with Hoax tags all over
and owner copyrights on the drones images...

"Marc Dâ??Antonio is the owner/president of fxmodels.com and was asked by Mufon for his expert opinion on the Drone images.
Marc briefly elaborates on the reasoning behind his conclusion that they are hoaxed, (recently he presented his analysis and reasoning at a Mufon conference). He was one of the first â??expertsâ?? to weigh in with his conclusion that the Drones were indeed a deliberate hoax..."

At last we have confirmation that the guy has not conducted any serious analysis.
He has very little to say, except that Chad - if real - should have made a video !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjmG0uU4lWQ

[elevenaugust]

We all know his conclusions, extract from the famous MUFON ppt report:
"â??Those of us in the (CGI) community can look at and immediately spot fakery. I have to say that this one is not actually even a GOOD fake.â?
â??In one of the images, you can see that the faker used something called â??radiosityâ?? 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. 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.â?


Here's the deepest analysis I ever seen....

[10538]

"â??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.â?

Seems to me the trees have more mottling than the craft shadows do.  Maybe he thinks those are CG trees.  Wait... we found those trees and know they are real!

[Nemo492]

FxModels / Marc d'Antonio :

[onthefence]

I re-read Marc's comments. Of note: this one in reference to the Chad image looking up at the craft:

They show up as mottling in the shadows instead of smooth transitions.

This "mottling" comment appears to me to be the only scientifically traceable basis that MUFON had to discount the drones at the time.

This might be a valid point, but it does not address the mottling appearing beside the craft in the non-shadowed sky:



Does that mean the sky was rendered also? If so, then the comment of "mottling in the shadows" seems to counteract the fact that mottling shows up in the sky also.

[onthefence]

I see that the mottling issue was already tackled here:

http://ufocasebook.conforums.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=drone&num=1188266784&start=705

and a very sensible explanation of "film grain" was presented by "Latitude".

[nekitamo]

Here's something to add to Mr. d'Antonio's "CGI expert" resume (from this flickr comment):

Oh that Italian video? Not CG actually. Just a radio controlled vertical Take Off and Land design... Pretty easy design but not as practical to fly since it requires constant feedback sensing for the several prop systems to manage torques. As you saw when it stops and turns it drifts because you have to steer it around like the ship in the Asteroids video game...

It has several small props in shrouds around its perimeter [even number to cancel torque] and one main vertical lift prop. Its a cool design actually but you need a computer to assist with the thrust balancing.

The hoaxers got a hold of the video and added the high speed vanish at the end which of course was just some fun they were having.

Not just CG expert, but also RC model expert and... well, seems like he knows everything about anything. But the problem is it seems that he's talking about this Italian [Air Force] UFO video, recently explained as - what else - a CG hoax.

[Nemo492]

Yes, this one :

UFO over a river in italy

[10538]

Not just CG expert, but also RC model expert and... well, seems like he knows everything about anything. But the problem is it seems that he's talking about this Italian [Air Force] UFO video, recently explained as - what else - a CG hoax.

I wish these debunkers would make up their minds.  I mean if they are so sure it's a hoax why can't they at least come to a conclusion about how it was done? 

So Mark says it's a simple RC model, huh.  Wow.  I'd like something like that.  Is there really an RC model that has that kind of maneuverability in such a sleek package?  Complete with ducted fans that pop up and down all computer controlled with automatic attitude adjustment?  If it's so simple why aren't we all flying around in those?   

Then there's the cgi side.  Mark is correct about one thing.  The object does look like a real flying (terrestrial) object because of the way it deals with it's own momentum.  Why would a cgi artist make this project so complicated?