1111 : "MY Discovery"

[Nemo492]

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)

[Nemo492]

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;"

[leviathan]

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

[Nemo492]

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"

[Nemo492]

Proper Thread :

http://droneteam.com/drt/index.php?topic=128.0

[Nemo492]

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.

[elevenaugust]

From 11 11 (I like this number )
"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"......
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....

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

[majicbar]

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.

[knowhow]

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

[spf33]

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:

[elevenaugust]

Thanks for clarifying this to me, Spf: so Raj's camera date was improperly set?

So probably the pole was tilted like this:


JK, of course

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?

[10538]

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.

[MidusTouch]

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.   
 

[tomi]

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?

[spf33]

...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;


with daylight savings;