• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

UAV or UFO?

Frobush said:
Fight! Fight! Fight!

My money is on rynner!

Well in fairness to 551166G (?) he had a few good points in his last big post there! It's good to find the holes in the evidence, he/she (?) obviously read a lot of the Isaac pdf, I merely glossed over it and looked at the pictures. :) Hardly the investigator me...

Anyhow, If we could refrain from silly stabs at one anothers intelligence, we'll be fine, and may even get to the bottom of this. :) Maybe...
 
Waylander28 said:
Well in fairness to 551166G (?) he had a few good points in his last big post there!
The guy is bang on the money in his critique of the Isaac stuff. It did seem a little too Will Smith to me, or maybe Ed Norton, walking out past high-level security guards with saucer docs down your pants.

I like the photos but they seem really very staged, mostly; machines peeping out from trees/double-wide roof overhangs/power lines, they all read like good fakes.

I dont relate it to the Halo 3 gear that Mooks has picked up, cant see the stylistic resonance that I feel would be there, the device has the appearance of being pretty well thought-out, and is not very "sexy" as they say.

Photo-manipulation for me, really good reproductions, but i only have my hunches.
 
HenryFort said:
I dont relate it to the Halo 3 gear that Mooks has picked up, cant see the stylistic resonance that I feel would be there,

I've been reading comments on some of the sites I posted the other day. There's as many folks posting out there who are saying it's related to Halo 3 as there are saying it's nothing to do with the game. Some of the reply posts to the pictures being included in this Halo 3 stunt are childish. It doesn't really help.

The site links (where you add numbers) are like a hidden online competition that has the prize of earning three free character credits in the Alternate Reality Game being released at the same time as Halo 3. (Great prize kids! Launch and run: "Woo Hoo" program......woo hoo) Great gimmick!

The game is rumoured to have the Covenant (the bad guys in Halo) finally reaching planet Earth. Though Henry's right about the style though it may be a new direction the game designers are heading. I will say the time frame for Halo (the future) isn't right for Lake Tahoe in 2007. But you see why the fuss about the "giant alien ships overhead" can be roped in.

I'm now thinking that the "conspiracy" marketing approach by Halo 3's team has accidentally scooped up the ships in the photos, like a snowball rolling down hill being pushed by Halo fanboys. I think they both "emerged" online at the same time.

Although Isaac's description of "manipulating" the space alphabet to power devices.

Sounds like a puzzle from Resident Evil!
;)

mooks
 
Looks like viral marketing to me. Why on earth would the US government want to get involved in viral marketing?
 
I come down on the cgi side of the fence in this case, but is viral marketing becoming the new swamp gas ?
 
I keep coming back to these photos... if its viral marketing its stealth-mode viral marketing... in fact its almost anti-marketing. i mean check out the toronto ghost girl for effective viral marketing, it was pure sex compared to this... if this is marketing, its amateur.

when i look at the original photos, i have lots of problems... but i got to make the movies in 20 minutes, be back in a couple hours with some groundbreakers on this. i think ive broke its back.
 
What is the thrill in that? I mean if your going to remain anonymous, how many people can impress with your tale?

I can hear the t*sser now..."Oh but I inspired debate, made you look at and read things you would never have looked or read before...".

My reply is, "How would you know!"

HenryFort said:
be back in a couple hours with some groundbreakers on this. i think ive broke its back.

Hope he's not been "erased" for stumbling across the "truth".
 
Die Hard 4.0, what can I say, my first DH experience, frankly, it kept up the pace pretty well. Good ole bruce.

i had typed up a page before going out but the more i scrutinised the photos the more i saw other things. These are the problems I have with them:

1. scale and size
in some shots its the size of a car, in others a house

2. camera position
its almost as if the guy got right up to the thing, on a level with it. did he climb a tree or a hill, look at the tree line:

low.jpg


3. mise en scene
compositionally all the photos look artificially arranged, i was trying to put my finger on it in an earlier post but the degree of staging looks so wrong. im not a whizz with photoshop, only used it twice (first time was the spacemen montage) but you know, i fired it up an did some basic checks...


...first up, the double-wide, the (admittedly very fake-looking) more prominent "wing" lines up pretty much exactly with the double-wide roof, as if the object had been manipulated to fit with the existing picture:

doublewidealigned.jpg


then the perspective on the device looks wrong on this shot (i am making the assumption that it needs to remain horizontal) it looks like it is dipping at the far edge:

perspectiveannotated.jpg


This photo, in terms of the composition of the undoubtedly real elements, ie the trees, makes more sense to me when rotated through exactly 45 degrees counter, which would invalidate it:

throughtreesrotated45annotated.jpg


finally, the 2 shots of the device over the pylons, seem to be in fact the same photo rotated. the pylon is identical in every way in both pictures. how possible is it to take 2 consecutive photos in which the camera angle hasnt changed (angle on the pylon). nothing is any different other than the image quality, and the device has moved ahead and the sky looks like it has been smoothed over to try and differentiate the two shots, but the cloud that is behind the uppermost "fin" in left-hand picture, is identical to the cloud remaining in the right-hand picture, but in the right-hand picture the rest of the sky has been smoothed out, this can better seen again by tilting your laptop screen away from you, a circular effect is clearly seen in the sky at bottom right corner:

pylonswithrotation.jpg


to me it all looks like rotations, cropping and drag and drop. hope some of that makes sense. i did just sit through 140 minutes of high adrenalin non-stop kickass action while i was mulling it all over.
 
moderators, i realise that the images may have widened the page out a little (along with the mortgage ad) any chance you can let the images sit on the page rather than replacing with a link... thanks
 
Sorry, HF, I can't say I agree with any of your criticisms here!

1. Difficult to judge size of airborne objects anyway.

2. So maybe he was on a hill..?

3. Alignments can happen by chance, and why assume the UAV has to remain level? As for trees, they grow every which way, and are well known examples of fractal patterns anyhow.

As for the last pair of pictures, the only thing that seems to have rotated is the camera itself. The pole looks the same (give or take a smidgen of zoom) because the snapper took two pics in close succession, standing in the same place. That's the sort of thing I often do myself.

As for the Mufon analysis, I don't have the expertise to judge it.


I jus hope I don't see a nice big UFO in the near future, because yesterday my digital camera died.... :cry:
 
yeah the first few points above really describe the problems i have with the photos, subjectively, which add up to an undermining of their overall value.

when it comes down to the two pylon shots though, i dont think there can be any doubt that they both derive from the same photographic source, which blows the whole thing out the water. looking at the pylon in situ and not the airborne device, we are supposed to think the photographer repositioned for the second shot, as per the framing, or as rynner says:

only thing that seems to have rotated is the camera itself

the camera has not rotated, its not making a new angle on the pylon, it is the photographic image that has been rotated. consider the pylon with its various details up its entire height, every angle shade and nuance is identical between the two shots, bar a slight quality degradation, a minor resizing and the rotation through somewhere around 55 degrees on the clock.

spot the difference:
spotthedifference.jpg


again, how possible would it be to take 2 photos, which are framed entirely differently, that result in the what appear to be the exact same image? to me it seems clear that it was one image, that was manipulated to appear as a different background.
 
well my first impression is,where are the lights?

seems like almost all ufo pics are of bright lights of some kind(well atleast lately)

so where are they?
do the only use them at night to be seen on there secretive missions?

the photo i would say is hung below a hotair balloon,retouched out,to explain the wires abover said craft
 
Frobush said:
Fight! Fight! Fight!

My money is on rynner!
Soz, but all bets are off - go get your money back. All have made at least one reasonable and fair point so far, plenty to chew over, so no more ad-hominae from anyone, and let us instead devote our energies to the discussion at hand.

Most kind :).
 
Isaac's comments still sound reasonable, more so than those of the people who criticise him.

Just because certain computing applications weren't in the public and commercial domain until recently doesn't mean they weren't available to high-tech research units much earlier.

And many of these ideas have been around for decades - I remember trying to impress a gf in the 60s with a sci-fi story I'd written about a conscious robot..... :roll: - and that was well before I first got my hands on a (gasp!) ZX 81! :D
 
Timble2 said:
Does anyone think this looks a bit like the drone thingy's big brother or sister.
With those erections, it would have to be big brother.... ;)
 
one things for sure, that camerawork was cheap coinage...
 
The general consensus seems to be that this is a viral ad campaign for Alienware (a gamer oriented PC and laptop manufacturer owned by Dell).

Alienware are running a competition using related material and there's a really nice video at metacafe that seems to support the theory that this is all just an elaborate hoax (did anybody seriously think it was real?) -

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/845277/ufo_drone_video/
 
phi23 said:
The general consensus seems to be that this is a viral ad campaign for Alienware (a gamer oriented PC and laptop manufacturer owned by Dell).

Funnily enough I popped along to say exactly the same thing after seeing this at the Alienware site today :)

Edit: phi23, that video was created by a film maker at the Open Minds Forum as a result of a musician posting a track inspired by the subject.

Original thread:
http://lucianarchy.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=cali1&action=display&thread=1183652116&page=1
Music:
http://www.myspace.com/droneonline
Video:
http://www.kaptive.co.uk/index.cfm
 
phi23 said:
....there's a really nice video at metacafe that seems to support the theory that this is all just an elaborate hoax (did anybody seriously think it was real?) -

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/845277/ufo_drone_video/
Yes, great video!

But is the hoax the idea of the drone itself, or the idea that the drone is just a hoax...? :shock:

It could all be disinformation by [the usual suspects]! ;)
 
586FAC75 said:
Has anybody seen these pictures? I got the Coast to Coast article through the UFO UpDates mailing list. I got hold of the nowpublic.com pictures and after some more digging I found some more pictures.

It's a very strange looking object, eyewitness say that it produces very little noise albeit from a few cracking sounds and humming. Those who have seen it say it's fast and is able of making sharp turns.

Link 1 - Coast to Coast Website, April 2007 sighting, unknown location.
Link 2 - Nowpublic.com, first May 2007 sighting, Lake Tahoe, Calafornia. Includes MUFON report
Link 3 - Nowpublic.com, second May 2007 sighting, Capitola, Calafornia.

The coast to Coast pictures are particulary interesting due to the writing on the underside of one of the arms. I have no idea what language it's written in.

(To see the pictures and maps in the article below, click the link:
http://aliencasebook.blogspot.com/2008/ ... ators.html )

CHAD DRONE LOCATION SPOTTED AND
STEPHEN'S BIG BASIN DRONE LOCATION ALSO UNCOVERED


This photo above shows the location that the private investigators discovered and it is exactly where the Chad drone was photographed.

As previously reported here, the drone research team (DRT), affiliated with the Open Minds Forum had hired private investigators Frankie Dixon and T.K. Davis in order to locate the Capitola drone. It appears that they were sent out to look for other drone locations as well. It is now being reported that the private investigators have located the actual spot where the Chad drone was photographed.

In earlier reports, it was stated that the Chad drone was somewhere around Bakersfield, but it appears that this is not the case. Originally it was thought that Chad was trying to hide his location since the foliage in his photos did not coincide with Bakersfield.

The photo above is the original 'cell phone' picture, which Chad presented to Coast to Coast. Many thought that this was a computer generated image (CGI) thinking that the white spot in the trees was a cursor from a computer mouse. When the private investigators discovered the location, that white spot turned from a mouse to a house.

Last month (April 2007), my wife and I were on a walk when we noticed a very large, very strange "craft" in the sky. My wife took a picture with her cell phone camera. A few days later a friend (and neighbor) lent me his camera and came with me to take photos of this "craft". We found it and took a number of very clear photos.

The craft is almost completely silent and moves very smoothly. It usually moves slowly until it decides to take off. Then it moves VERY quickly and is out of sight in the blink of an eye. MORE THAN ANYTHING I simply want to understand what this is and why it is here?

We found your show with Google and I have listened for a few nights now. I have decided that if anyone can help me understand what this thing is, it is you and your audience. I must admit I am deeply unsettled by this thing. I have never seen anything like this in my life... Location: I would prefer not to say for now.

--Chad

By all appearances, Chad must live very near where that picture was taken since he took it while on a hike near his home.

Pictures above and below are just a few of many photos taken by the investigators showing close ups of the vicinity where the Chad drone was originally photographed.

As you can see in this photo, all of the trees, hills and other foliage match up exactly to Chad's photograph.

Photo supplied by Nemo492. The infamous mouse house.

Taken by a camera on a different day and not a cell phone, this photo above is another picture taken by Chad, which was also presented to Coast to Coast. The photo below shows the exact location of the drone in Chad's picture.

This photo proves that the private investigators did their job and located the exact vicinity where the Chad drone was photographed.

I believe it is fair to say that private investigators Frankie Dixon and T.K. Davis are certainly worth what ever fee they're being paid since they've given thousands of people answers to unanswered questions. Considering the tremendous amount of foliage in that locale, attempting to find such is likened to finding a needle in a haystack.

LOCATION OF STEPHEN DRONE DISCOVERED

It was reported earlier by Stephen and Jenna that Stephen had taken his drone pictures "in the area around Big Basin". Unfortunately and until now, we were all under the assumption that this drone was in Big Basin when actually it was a few miles from the border of Big Basin.

More recently, while investigating the Capitola drone, an individual who caught the Capitola story contacted Open Mind's DRT member elevenaugust. Back in September of 2007 this individual named Tom had taken a picture of the area and stated the following.

"The reason I knew where the photo may have been taken is because I used to work in the area for Pacific Gas and Electric as a meter reader. Though it was several months before I actually drove to Saratoga, California to look in 2007, I knew right away when I saw the photo back in June that it was Saratoga and not Big Basin State park, as Linda Moulton-Howe stated in her website www.earthfiles.com. In fact, I even wrote Linda Moulton-Howe explaining what I found and questioned the validity of the drone photos by questioning how the photographer could have mistaken the location. All that Linda Moulton-Howe did was correct the caption on her website to change the location of the tree line photo, to Saratoga"

The photo above is a small version of the original Stephen drone.

This photo taken by Tom shows the ridge in the background. The area is up above Saratoga, California and is commonly referred to as Bohlman Road Ridge where he worked for Pacific Gas and Electric.

After Tom presented his drone picture to the Open Mind's Forum, private investigator Frankie Dixon drove to the area to confirm Tom's findings for the DRT. One of his photographs is seen here above. The investigator was obviously standing in a location somewhat different than Tom, but closer to where the drone was originally photographed by Stephen. The tree line is identical.

http://aliencasebook.blogspot.com/2008/ ... ators.html
 
Its fake, if you look it up on youtube, theres loads of CGI videos...
 
Some videos are copycat videos, just to show what can be faked.

But this doesn't mean that all videos are fake.
 
Took some finding this thread did.

Picture6-3.jpg


Is IT back?

UFO or pterodactyl over Argentinian Lake? Photo

Michael Cohen [email protected].

A UFO of a very irregular shape has been spotted by more than one person as well as photographed in Argentina (images above and below). The UFO sighting took place in the vicinity of the village of San Rafael on the artificial lake of El-Nihuil

The witness originally did not want to be identified due to fear of ridicule however later changed his mind, seemingly realizing that 'seeing a UFO does not make you mad'.

Mr Rafael Pino, 44, a fisherman of San Rafael, often comes down to the lake to relax and watch the swans. On Saturday however, as he was approaching the shore of the lake he noticed an out of place object hovering over the lake. He grabbed his cellphone and managed to get the pictures.

'I was excited and I do believe life must exist on other planets' Mr Pino noted.

Not long after Mr Pino came forward, another local, Mr Cristian Adrian Figueroa, claimed to have seen the UFO along with his father as they passed in a bus. 'We froze (with shock)' noted Mr Figueroa.

There is another angle to this sighting however. Judging by the image below for certain, and possibly even in light of the image above, the cryptozoology crowd might stake a claim to this sighting and note that this could be a unknown creature or a still existent flying dinosaur such as a Pterodactyl. Many might argue that in this instance they might well have a case.



Did we ever find out if this thing was hoaxed, CGi'ed or used in an viral campaign?

And for posterity's sake that quote again.
'seeing a UFO does not make you mad'

mooks out
 

Attachments

  • Picture6-3.jpg
    Picture6-3.jpg
    7.1 KB · Views: 9
Last edited by a moderator:
Guess there'll be more UAV/UFOs soon.

Civilian drones to fill the skies after law shake-up
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... akeup.html
03 February 2012 by Paul Marks
Magazine issue 2850.

Law changes mean uncrewed aerial vehicles aren't just for the military any more – civilian uses are taking off, too

Editorial: "High time to welcome the friendly drones"

THE hobbyist was testing the camera on board his small uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV), when he spotted it: a creek in Dallas, Texas, running red with blood.

He'd captured a picture of a stream of animal blood flowing north away from the Columbia Packing Company's meat-processing facility. Acting on the visual evidence, investigators monitored the plant before raiding it last month. The company may now face criminal charges from local, state and federal authorities for polluting city waterways with a gory mix of pig's blood and toxic chemicals.

Such a story may crop up more often as UAVs fall in price and become simpler to use. What is traditionally thought of as a military technology is about to change the lives of private citizens as well as big businesses.

For the moment, the law stands in the way. The US Federal Aviation Administration allows for recreational use of remote-controlled air vehicles, but the Columbia Packing case blurs the line because the UAV became a surveillance tool. Commercial use is also illegal - last week real estate agents in Los Angeles, California, were ordered to stop using helicopter drones to shoot aerial movies of properties they are selling. "Although the FAA allows hobbyists to fly model airplanes for recreational purposes, that authority does not extend to operators flying unmanned aircraft for business purposes," the Air Division of the Los Angeles police department reminded the California Association of Realtors.

That could soon change. The FAA plans to unveil a new set of rules this year that will cover the burgeoning interest in flying commercial and private UAVs.

And on 9 February, the European Commission's Unmanned Aircraft Systems Panel will meet in Brussels, Belgium, to agree on the key flight rules and technologies essential for commercial UAVs to operate safely in civilian airspace. This will include discussing technologies such as collision avoidance systems, says Mike Lissone of Eurocontrol, the pan-European air traffic control organisation.

The moves, which are expected to go into effect between 2013 and 2015, will likely mean hundreds of people apply for permission to fly UAVs, predicts Peter van Blyenburgh of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (UVS), a global trade association based in the Netherlands.

What van Blyenburgh wants is for aircraft weighing up to 25 kilograms to take to the air without the owner needing permission to fly it. The craft will probably have to remain in line-of-sight of the controller, but that shouldn't be a problem, he says. It's only when the drones get much heavier, and present a greater safety risk, that he expects they'll need expensive sensors so they can automatically avoid other air traffic.

Meanwhile, UVS members are investigating how drones could become vital tools in many fields, from helping police track stolen cars to assisting emergency services in crisis situations such as fires, floods and earthquakes, to more prosaic tasks like advertising or dispensing fertiliser from the air.

This is already happening in some out-of-the way places, where air traffic problems are unlikely. In Brazil, for instance, small helicopter UAVs carrying 12-megapixel cameras are surveying soybean and sugar cane.

"They fly grid patterns, using algorithms to stitch the photos together to identify tracts where they have to resow, optimising growth on the fields," says van Blyenburgh.

In Antarctica, meanwhile, a team from the Australian universities of Tasmania and Wollongong, New South Wales, have been using two types of UAV helicopters, one remotely steered and another that can fly between GPS waypoints on autopilot. The drones are helping the team create 3D maps of moss beds, whose health may be an indicator of climate change.

In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, a fixed-wing UAV made by Gatewing of Ghent, Belgium, (pictured right) has been taking aerial photographs of Easter Island, with a resolution down to just 5 centimetres - Google Earth can only manage several metres in most places. Archaeologists are using the images to produce the highest resolution survey of the World Heritage Site ever made.

Germany's renewable energy industry has turned to drones to solve a skills shortfall, says Lissone. With nearly 22,000 wind turbines in the country, he says energy firms do not have enough skilled people who can climb them to perform close visual inspections of the turbine blades, which can become delaminated after lightning strikes, for instance. So small UAVs, such as those made by Microdrones of Siegen, east of Cologne, are doing the job instead.

Across the border, France's TGV trains travel from Paris to Lyon at 320 kilometres per hour - a super-high speed that can upset the pebble bed supporting the rails. To find the dents that need to be flattened out, a helicopter drone travels alongside the track and films it with 3D stereoscopic cameras. It is easy to spot serious undulations that need attention by watching the footage.

With UAVs already proving their worth, the future looks bright for uncrewed aviation as the upcoming regulatory changes enable still more uses to be dreamed up. But operators should not expect a free-for-all, says Lissone. "The key here is safety. Unmanned aircraft, regardless of their size, can only fly in civil airspace if they are as safe, or safer, than piloted aircraft are now."

Cattle rustlers no match for Predators

Military drones are finding a role in civilian life, with armed cattle - rustlers their first target.

When police in Nelson County, North Dakota, lost track of some suspects last June, they called in the US Customs and Border Patrol's drone: a Predator-B UAV normally used to hunt illegal immigrants and drug runners with its swathe of cameras and heat sensors. It worked and the rustlers were caught. Police have used the drone many times, much to the dismay of privacy advocate, the Electronic Frontier Foundation. It sees the move as an escalation of invasive airborne surveillance technology. The group has filed a lawsuit demanding the US government reveal how often military drones are being used by police in the US - and on what basis.
 
I thought we had a dedicated UAV thread but can only find this.

Anyhow, I notice real life Partridge Richard Madely has been kicking off on Twitter about being buzzed by a drone in his back garden.

He's also written a gloriously Partridgesque piece for the Torygraph about it.

I thought about fetching my .22 air rifle and shooting down the nasty little intruder. It would have been an easy one-shot snipe, and the robotic carcass would have fallen on to my lawn, but the words “criminal damage” whispered in my ear. Do I own the airspace above my property? Probably not.
 
Back
Top