Drone Research Team

Drones Research Team - Research => Drones dimensions and location measurements => : Nemo492 August 02, 2008, 02:08:26 PM

: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: Nemo492 August 02, 2008, 02:08:26 PM
SPF33,

"I want to thank you for continuing the investigation of MY discovery of the missing shadow that I published on June 29th 2007 at AboveTopSecret.com in this post, and below it:"

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single/3312357.html

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/single/3312519.html

This discovery single-handedly proves this image is CGI.

You could try to argue that there is another light source present, but since the light source is not shining on the armature, and it is not shining on the inside of the main body, and on PICT0017 the light source is still there, and the shadow is still missing, this means the light source would have to be a laser beam, and it would have to be following the drone. This is highly unlikely, and it pretty much proves with out a doubt that this is all a major HOAX.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

1111 (from OMF)
: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: Nemo492 August 02, 2008, 03:25:32 PM
From SPF33, on OMF :

"you're welcome, i guess.

had i had a moment to calm down and focus on the results i got in the first max study on 2007-05-29 21:18:54 i eventually would've noticed the shadow...i hope;
"

(http://ovnis-usa.com/images/SPF33_rajmaxsim01aq6_small.jpg) (http://ovnis-usa.com/images/SPF33_rajmaxsim01aq6.jpg)
: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: leviathan August 02, 2008, 03:34:44 PM
Sorry, I do not follow this at all.  IMO there is no missing shadow.  The POLE shows just as many anomalies of light and shade as the Drone is supposed to.  Additionally the POLE shows the SUN can not be at a high angle.  The data from the camera is WRONG.  This is no proof of any HOAX.
L E V I A T H A N
: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: Nemo492 August 02, 2008, 04:42:43 PM
From Marvin, OMF :

"You do awesome work SPF.

I do not have anything to add either, other than to say thank you for making this clear and easy enough for me to understand.

Regards,
Marvin"
: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: Nemo492 August 02, 2008, 04:44:43 PM
Proper Thread :

http://droneteam.com/drt/index.php?topic=128.0
: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: Nemo492 August 03, 2008, 12:26:32 AM
I am disappointed that 1111 never signed any of the many works that he claimed to have done, since all his life he "reverse engineered and modified PC versions".
But he should get credit for the many fights he launched at ATS.
: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: elevenaugust August 03, 2008, 09:34:37 AM
From 11 11 (I like this number ;D)
"Since the telephone pole should be vertical ( 90° ), and the shadow is creating nearly a 70° angle, and 90 - 70 = 20. This means that the Sun is about 20° above the horizon. This would make the time of day about 5:20 p.m. on the day of May 16, 2007. But, EXIF data from the original image says the image was taken at 5:42 p.m."

"The pole should be"...... ;D ;D
Another possibility is that the pole is NOT absolutly vertical and therefore that the date should (or should I say "could"?) be correctly set.
Since 11 11 based his whole analysis firstly on the "right" shadows on the pole for proving the drone shadows are wrong, we can also assume that it's really possible that the drone shadows are right and the pole shadows are wrong (for a 90° vertical pole), therefore that this pole could not perfectly vertically be aligned at 90°....

Simply logic.... ;D

Is there someone to try various possibilities with tilted poles?? ;)

(http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/2152/23117781407f74ae140fzh6.jpg)
: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: majicbar August 03, 2008, 04:12:41 PM
Excellent example elevenaugust! I often see poles which are off vertical, especially in the case as illustrated, where the pole supports wires which are going off the direction of the main lines and are pulled from being vertical in the direction of those other wires. In the Rajmann1977 photo16, two notes: one, the wires on the top crossbars change angle, and, two, the pole already has a supporting cable attatched to the left side of the pole to help offset this pulling effect. It is common in that case to have the pole off vertical, and in photo16 this should be to the right side, bisecting the angle formed by the wires on the top of the crossbars. This will exagerate the shadows on the pole and make the image look somewhat "earlier" than it actually is. My impressions are that the sun angle is about 10 degrees and this is about an hour from sunset.
: Tilted Poles
: knowhow August 03, 2008, 04:22:13 PM
Typically the power companies tilt a pole over when they are going to replace it.  They then put in the new pole and simply move the wiring over to the new pole and insulators making the outage, if any, quite short. The old pole is cut out and destroyed.  Pole life varies by region but is usually in the 40 year range.Poles can be tilted over weeks or months before being replaced.  The tilted pole in the photo appears to be tilted about the right amount for replacement.
knowhow
: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: spf33 August 03, 2008, 04:41:22 PM
Is there someone to try various possibilities with tilted poles?? ;)

ok, finally got around to making some tests with the pole tilt.
can't get any tilt to really change the results with or without a slight change in compass direction orientation:

(http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/340/pict0016poletiltfl1.gif)
: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: elevenaugust August 03, 2008, 06:07:55 PM
Thanks for clarifying this to me, Spf: so Raj's camera date was improperly set?

So probably the pole was tilted like this:
(http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/726/610xhp0.jpg)

JK, of course ;D ;D

PS: Nekitamo's idea is interesting, but is there a way to concile the drone orientation with possibly incorrect camera setting date/tilted pole/Drone altitude/or whatever?
(http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/2256/p16newig2.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: 10538 August 03, 2008, 08:40:51 PM
Sorry, I do not follow this at all.  IMO there is no missing shadow.  The POLE shows just as many anomalies of light and shade as the Drone is supposed to.  Additionally the POLE shows the SUN can not be at a high angle.  The data from the camera is WRONG.  This is no proof of any HOAX.
L E V I A T H A N

I agree with you Lev.  The question for me is, daylight savings time or not?  It's a 28 degree sun altitude if the camera had it's time corrected.  If not, 16 degrees.  I'm leaning to the latter.  I also think there is some confusion of what shadows are caused by what.  Oh, and by the way, the drone also tilts at about 16 degrees.

(http://home.comcast.net/~dl1027/files/object/poleshadows.jpg)

(http://home.comcast.net/~dl1027/files/object/poleshadows1.jpg)

: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: MidusTouch August 04, 2008, 06:45:31 AM
It's much easier to claim Raj's photos were cgi.

But in our perfect world ;), rendering materials and shadows casting effects are a piece of cake for today's 3D software.

Really no need to carry on arguing about the missing shadows to prove it's cgi when 3D software do not make mistake on shadows casting calculation at all since a decade ago.

One other thing, do you believe the hoaxer deliberately tilted the pole and the drone just to make sure we spent extra time checking the shadows and the angle of the sun.   :o
 
: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: tomi August 04, 2008, 02:14:20 PM
This is the pole turned 45 degrees to the left. 
Unless I'm wrong, wouldn't all shadow/sun considerations have to also take this pole at almost 45 degree angle to the right into consideration before lighting effects can be considered correct?

(http://ovnis-usa.com/images/Tomi_image3rfje7.jpg)
: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: spf33 August 04, 2008, 03:06:12 PM
...but is there a way to concile the drone orientation with possibly incorrect camera setting date/tilted pole/Drone altitude/or whatever?

not that i can see, i've tried many different combinations of theories and every time
the camera is matched the arm still casts a shadow.

one thing i surely haven't looked at in 3d is the possibility that reflected light is essentially erasing the shadow somehow.

but here is a comparison between the differences in daylight savings being used.
arm still casts a shadow.

without daylight savings;
(http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3919/rajp16daylightsavingsofdg1.th.jpg) (http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3919/rajp16daylightsavingsofdg1.jpg)

with daylight savings;
(http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3049/rajp16daylightsavingsonpg7.th.jpg) (http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3049/rajp16daylightsavingsonpg7.jpg)

: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: spf33 August 04, 2008, 03:24:23 PM
I also think there is some confusion of what shadows are caused by what.

(http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/9241/rajp16shadowpartsxb4.gif)
sun azimuth 274 altitude 27
may 16 2007, 5:43 pm pdt dst
: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: 10538 August 04, 2008, 03:51:17 PM
I also think there is some confusion of what shadows are caused by what.

(http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/9241/rajp16shadowpartsxb4.gif)

Hey Spf, that's pretty cool.  Nice graphic.  What is the sun altitude on that?

: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: 10538 August 04, 2008, 03:59:31 PM
not that i can see, i've tried many different combinations of theories and every time the camera is matched the arm still casts a shadow.

Tilt the drone.

: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: spf33 August 04, 2008, 04:05:31 PM
Hey Spf, that's pretty cool.  Nice graphic.  What is the sun altitude on that?

that's cropped from this render (http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3049/rajp16daylightsavingsonpg7.jpg)

sun azimuth 274 altitude 27
may 16 2007, 5:43 pm pdt dst

Tilt the drone.

tried it...many times in many directions.
the only way to get the arm to not cast a shadow is to tilt the drone so far that matching the photo becomes impossible (http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/3632/rajarmshadowsani02hi9.gif).
: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: elevenaugust August 05, 2008, 04:56:25 PM
Spf, thanks for your nice rendering.
My question may seems strange, but, let's say Raj's camera date was improperly set and forget for one moment the pole; is there a way to estimate the azimuth of the sun, thus the "theoretical hour" by looking only for the drone shadows?
: Shadows and timing
: knowhow August 05, 2008, 05:36:13 PM
I show picture 17 exif data at 2007-5-16 at 17:43:02 (almost 6pm) and it doesn't appear to be out of sorts with the shadows on the pole and drone.  If his camera is right with the shadows, then there are roofs, car winshields and all sorts of things that can be reflecting light.  If there is a missing shadow (which I can't see) perhaps it is blotted out by a reflection.
knowhow
: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: 10538 August 05, 2008, 06:15:32 PM
Hey Spf, that's pretty cool.  Nice graphic.  What is the sun altitude on that?

that's cropped from this render (http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3049/rajp16daylightsavingsonpg7.jpg)

sun azimuth 274 altitude 27
may 16 2007, 5:43 pm pdt dst

Tilt the drone.

tried it...many times in many directions.
the only way to get the arm to not cast a shadow is to tilt the drone so far that matching the photo becomes impossible (http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/3632/rajarmshadowsani02hi9.gif).


Try moving the sun more to the north.  From my perspective the pole crossbars do not line up east west .

(http://home.comcast.net/~dl1027/files/object/Cap2.jpg)
(http://home.comcast.net/~dl1027/files/object/Cap1.jpg)

: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: spf33 December 03, 2008, 01:44:39 AM
today 1111 over on omf (http://lucianarchy.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=cali1&action=display&thread=4526&page=1) so graciously pointed out thru linking to this thread that there was a date error in my original pic16 sun angle study (http://ovnis-usa.com/images/SPF33_rajmaxsim01aq6.jpg).

thanks to his keen awareness in all things observable i've re-posted the corrected version here (which already was posted months ago, i just can't track down where-if anyone does know, please pm, thanks);

(http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/7374/rajmaxhm0.th.jpg) (http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/7374/rajmaxhm0.jpg)

i trust any significant or result changing errors on my part will be quickly pointed out.
: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: 10538 December 03, 2008, 04:47:01 PM
Hey SPF,

Don't let that guy get your goat.  We know your research is very valuable and would never attempt to nitpik it simply to be contrary.  No need to put any stock in someone's misguided opinion that can't even visualize compass directions from different perspectives.  That shows how limited his mind is.   All the guy did was make a fool of himself.

When I think of all the work you have done over almost two years I'm sure everybody knows you are way beyond reproach. 
: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: elevenaugust December 04, 2008, 09:53:42 AM
"So, looking at the reddish color of the image, I know that it must be in the evening. Those are not "morning colors" in the sky, or reflecting off the telephone pole."

(http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/6320/2481744272dea2b274e3oqh6.jpg)
So I guess this photo (from a Minolta DimageX) was also taken during evening ::) ::)

Using shadows, I estimated that the Azimuth of the Sun was above 270. Simply because the telephone pole is casting a shadow on itself at the top, which wouldn't happen if it was below 270. So that narrowed down the Month from between April and August, because the shadows are above 270 compared to the telephone pole which i estimated to be aligned with a compass. The majority of telephone poles in California are aligned with the compass, to make a "grid". This is because most telephone poles run along streets that usually run North/South, or East/West. So I started with that assumption, only for it to be confirmed later.

(http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/9834/capitolamapyv5.png)
Capitola map, with all the streets run North/South or East//West.... ::) ::)
: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: elevenaugust December 04, 2008, 10:37:18 PM
Original post from 1111 here (http://lucianarchy.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=cali1&action=display&thread=4540)

I would like to discuss the probability of a specific shadow occurring in these two following images:

Mi8
(http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/5876/mi8ra226691in9.jpg)

Mi17
(http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9625/mi17ra255291di7.jpg)

I outlined the specific shadow in question. Upon looking closely at these shadows, I see that they are almost perfectly the same.

Two different images.
Two different helicopters.
Two different cameras.
Two different "witnesses".
Two different locations.
Two different times of day.
Two different lighting enviornments.
Two different angles.
...and much more...

BUT THE SAME SHADOW?

I believe the probability of this happening is very very very low.
Anyone want to do the exact calculations?


Even though these images are supposed to be from completely different places, they both have the same exact fake shadow that seem to be made from the same exact light rendering software. This alone kills the helicopters, IMHO.


 ;D
: Re: 1111 : "MY Discovery"
: 10538 December 05, 2008, 12:28:33 AM
This 1111 stuff should be ignored.  It's non-sense.  He has not illustrated any similarity between shadows (any more than there should be).  Sure those areas of those drones will be similar.  They are essentially identical in that area.  Locations very similar too, about 10 miles away.  Both occurring in the afternoon about the same time of the year and about the same elevation off the ground.  Same color and texture. 

Sure the shadows will be similar.  But they are not exact copies.  Anybody can zoom in on those areas and see the difference.  1111 did not prove anything.  Anybody who falls for this simply has not checked it out for him or herself.  Why should 1111 be believed any way?  All he does is spout non sense and false accusations.  His rant from yesterday proved that.  So now he starts a new one hoping everybody will forget his last feeble and embarrassing attempt.