Board Logo
« #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jun 22nd, 2017, 8:42pm


Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

*Totally FREE 24/7 Access *Your Nickname and Avatar *Private Messages

*Join today and be a part of one of the largest UFO sites on the Net.


« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21  ...  103 Notify Send Topic Print
 sticky  Author  Topic: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH  (Read 115820 times)
castles4me
Guest
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #270 on: Sep 6th, 2007, 08:52am »

on Sep 6th, 2007, 08:21am, murnut wrote:
The image shows none of the telltales of a pure cgi creation. The lighting is absolutely consistent with a real object photographed against a clear daytime sky with the sun behind the camera at roughly a 7:00 position (12:00 being the direction the camera is pointed). Since the pic is a crop from a larger image it's not possible to use the timestamp to compare with actual time of day for sun height angle.The details of surface textures do not break down under high magnification as with applied textures on a cgi object, but are what is seen in magnification on a real metallic object
such as a metal ship hull under natural light.CGI also seems out of the question from the standpoint of file fingerprints. The only graphic prog prints I could find in the file header were for Windows Photo Gallery 6.0 and Photoshop 3.0. The first is just the built in windows photo handler and the photoshop is a really old version not up to the level of work needed to fake such a pic. Creating a CGI at this level of excellence is the sort of thing ILM and Pixar spend hundreds of thousands to do with a full team of specialists and pay through the nose cutting edge software.


which photo was he analyzing here?
User IP Logged

murnut
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 614
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #271 on: Sep 6th, 2007, 09:20am »

BB hi-res scan...I am no photo expert...but I dont see how the scan can be analyzed anyway
User IP Logged

You want a revolution?
You've got to make a difference on your own
You want a revolution?
Stand up, stand out and make it known
elevenaugust
Senior Member
ImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

APPONO ASTOS


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 286
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #272 on: Sep 6th, 2007, 09:42am »

on Sep 6th, 2007, 06:41am, Atrueoriginall wrote:
We need originals, plain and simple. LMH needs an expert in photography to LOOK at the Ty photos. They're originals. He had them delivered to her instead of sending them via an email. Has she done that? Has she had a real honest go God expert look at them. Who know!

That is where our problem sits. Bringing in people to look at what we've already got is like spitting in the wind.

Elevenaugust, please don't take this personal, it's only the fault of LMH and nobody else.


OK, agreed.
But I do not want to discourage myself and I would go until the end of my step.
If I utilize experts and specialists, it is also to show to LMH that other people as “amateurs” can be interested in the UFO.
If she does not answer at the requests of the professionals, then I am sorry to say that, but it is that she hiding place something.
And that will harm to her more than another thing....

I also think that Isaac will give further information other documents or other to us, because I cannot believe that he revealed all that and that he does not follow the evolution of its disclosure on the Net.
It is a point more important than you think it, and for several reasons....

Cheers
« Last Edit: Sep 6th, 2007, 09:43am by elevenaugust » User IP Logged

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


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 910
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #273 on: Sep 6th, 2007, 10:46am »

on Sep 6th, 2007, 08:21am, murnut wrote:
Update to my post of yesterday

My contact is in yellow and "his" expert comments in red

Well, this is why I'm not an image expert. My guess was wrong. Here's what I've gotten on the scan issue;

Nah, a high res scan wouldn't blur it. Nor would it remove all edge traces... that had to have been done deliberately at some point.




He seems pretty confident on that one, so I guess I'll stick with purposefully blurred at some point to hide something as my guess at this point.


Take it for what it is worth

Perhaps the expert is only offering his opinion since he feels it cant possibly be real to him/her

Before the expert knew it was a scan, he had this comment

The image shows none of the telltales of a pure cgi creation. The lighting is absolutely consistent with a real object photographed against a clear daytime sky with the sun behind the camera at roughly a 7:00 position (12:00 being the direction the camera is pointed). Since the pic is a crop from a larger image it's not possible to use the timestamp to compare with actual time of day for sun height angle.The details of surface textures do not break down under high magnification as with applied textures on a cgi object, but are what is seen in magnification on a real metallic object
such as a metal ship hull under natural light.CGI also seems out of the question from the standpoint of file fingerprints. The only graphic prog prints I could find in the file header were for Windows Photo Gallery 6.0 and Photoshop 3.0. The first is just the built in windows photo handler and the photoshop is a really old version not up to the level of work needed to fake such a pic. Creating a CGI at this level of excellence is the sort of thing ILM and Pixar spend hundreds of thousands to do with a full team of specialists and pay through the nose cutting edge software.
havent this been done before on another tread? I think so,and we got the same results as this.
User IP Logged

Free Will Does Exist But Only When It Is Used To Break Out Of Malevolent Disagreeable ,Bad HABits THat Have Been Developed IN LIFE.
Marvin
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Mmm, yes, very curious, very interesting....


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1119
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #274 on: Sep 6th, 2007, 4:14pm »

on Sep 5th, 2007, 3:02pm, murnut wrote:
I made a contact who submitted to a third party regarding the hi-res BB photo.

I dont know who these experts are or even if they are...but I trust my contact...of course they want to be anonymous....post the email below.

Just to be clear, it is not George Knapp

Thanks Andrew! I certainly wish you luck in getting the word out.

I thought I'd send the results of the analysis of that pic to you, and not bother OMF. Neither person wishes to be named, as they don't want a bunch of people tracking them down saying, "Well, what if..." I hope you understand.

First one says this quote below in conclusion(after ruling out CGI completely):


I say the model fake is possible because when I ran an edge finder routine on the pic to search for possible removed suspension lines the routine found NO edges whatsoever, even those which are clear in the picture. This leads me to suspect that the image may have been sneakily run through a "blur" type processor and then resampled as this is the only means I know of to remove all edge distinctions (there are none found at all even under grey scale or negative image). If such has been done it would handily erase any fine
suspension wires or threads.
Basically the second person says the same thing, except he lays it down at 65-35 chances of it being a photographed model because he feels a little more confident that for some reason the picture's been purposefully blurred.

Neither of them would step out on a limb and say "yes, it was manipulated", and, in fact, they both said that if it was it was probably professionally done, and quite well at that. One thing that might lend credence to that, is that apparently the file shows signs of cross-platform processing(Mac and PC), and, of course, many pros use Macs.

In the end, they both feel it's plausible that it's a model, but neither are certain at all.

I just wanted to give you all of that since you were kind enough to send it on to me



on Sep 5th, 2007, 6:50pm, Latitude wrote:
How can you get an honest opinion from somebody who refuses to believe in ET visitation? To them it's one of two things, CGI or models. So the guy can't find any sign of wires to hang a model. So what does he suspect? Some blur processing must have been done. Anything but ET, I guess. rolleyes

I'm beginning to think that taking these photos to any experts on CGI and models is the wrong thing to do. These people are so into their fields that they put way too much credence in them. Ask a cgi expert and he'll likely say "heck yes it is CGI". Ask a model expert and he'll tell you it's models. The cgi people like Saladfingers came out en mass over this thing. Most of them never believed in UFOs but showed up only to spread their CGI propaganda. To them anything can be done with cgi (even though they know the dirty truth that cgi has many limitations).

All these people have their own agendas. It's rare to find a true open mind person in these days of cynicism.



I believe what the folks in murnut’s post was trying to say is that it is real easy to hang a model, then to remove the evidence (remove the wires), then blur the edges to look “natural.”

I played with this and I am CGI ignorant. But if I can do it with Paintbrush (remove something and blur it), then someone with Photoshop can do it better.

User Image

User Image

This is not proof conclusive it is fake, but it definitely does not "strike one up" in the real column either. At best, it places these photos into the unknown category until we can prove them one way or the other.
How big did Ty say the craft was?
User IP Logged

Oh Goody! My Illudiom Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator!

User Image

"You naughty earth specimens!"
Latitude
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1024
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #275 on: Sep 6th, 2007, 4:48pm »

on Sep 6th, 2007, 09:20am, murnut wrote:
BB hi-res scan...I am no photo expert...but I dont see how the scan can be analyzed anyway


You could verify that all lighting and shadows are correct as well as depth of field. You could check the detail for signs of cgi shortcuts and rendering artifacts.

Me, I really don't need to check those things. I already checked all those many times as far as I could. I am still amazed how skeptics can raise questions when I analyzed the shadows and detail of the Raj and Chad pics. Run the hi res ones through Neat Image and they get even better. For the Raj pics I used the noise profile made specifically for the Dimage X at the exact settings.
User IP Logged

My Drone Video
Gort
New Member
Image


member is offline

Avatar




PM


Posts: 0
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #276 on: Sep 6th, 2007, 6:20pm »

After the next Osama Bin Laden video comes out you CGI types need to put a drone in the background. That'll get their attention.
User IP Logged

DrDil
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Fighting against truth decay!!


Homepage PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 4224
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #277 on: Sep 6th, 2007, 8:19pm »

on Sep 6th, 2007, 4:48pm, Latitude wrote:
You could verify that all lighting and shadows are correct as well as depth of field. You could check the detail for signs of cgi shortcuts and rendering artifacts.

Me, I really don't need to check those things. I already checked all those many times as far as I could. I am still amazed how skeptics can raise questions when I analyzed the shadows and detail of the Raj and Chad pics. Run the hi res ones through Neat Image and they get even better. For the Raj pics I used the noise profile made specifically for the Dimage X at the exact settings.


But don’t you wish you knew what it appears LMH knows?

I feel that it’s beyond the realms of possibility that LMH has received all of these, “Professional” emails claiming to further advance the credibility of the entire Isaac saga, and hasn’t once thought,

“Hmm I’m 100% sure I have the real deal here, in fact I could single-handedly force full disclosure!! I may as well have them authenticated so that they are beyond reproach by handing out a couple of the ACTUAL photographs to trusted friends and experts in the relevant fields.”

Even if this entailed supervising the images every step of the way, the ends surely justifies the means?

We all know LMH is a very shrewd operator; she had to have been to attain the loyal following, semi-celebrity status and media power that she wields today. Sure she’s had her ups and downs, her wins and losses, but that’s what happens when you conduct your investigations in, “Real time” and in the public eye. (This may also explain the hesitance to publish her findings so quickly this time around, whatever those findings may be.)

If anything this makes LMH more likely to verify any evidence personally, as she’s a tough cookie and should be very hard to fool (again), remember the (Southern I think) old adage immortalised by Bush’s less than perfect recital,

“Fool me twice, fool on me.”

Or perhaps she hasn’t been fooled at all. Perhaps we are the fools and the joke is on us!!

So do we not credit LMH with practising one of what surely must be a fundamental and the most basic of protocols, i.e. get everything independently verified!! (Then ideally get at least a second -and hopefully corroborating- opinion/hypothesis!!)

Can we really safely assume that LMH hasn’t had any of the Big Basin images checked out?


Who knows, this could be why they can’t be released to the baying crowd of forum members, CGI experts etc. because they are already doing the rounds with the relevant experts.

Personally I don’t think this is the case but I do think that LMH would have had an independent analysis done on at least ONE of the original images by now, even if just for her own piece of mind before she pushes forward with any more disclosures from Isaac.

So, if you’ll further indulge me in this thought process, then I feel it at least alludes to the possibility that LMH knows, “Something” she doesn’t as yet want to reveal. “Something” she may have known since she received the Big Basin images, but that, “Something” wouldn’t keep the subscribers happy so she humoured all involved and sent a particularly nasty email to Isaac knowing full well that he is no more a whistle blower than the Big Basin Drones are, “Huge” in size?

Or maybes she pre-warned Isaac then purposefully misled the PTB into thinking that her and Isaac aren't as close as they are, or that they aren't in contact?

Maybes I grossly underestimate LMH, maybes even as I type this she’s putting together irrefutable evidence and irrevocable proof that will conclusively determine the origins and credibility of the, “2007 Drone Flap,” one way or another.
But somehow I doubt it..............

Possibly part of the reason that she has still failed to release the images is that it will prove conclusively what her unannounced status is in the disclosure game, whether that be the, “Player” or the, “Played.”

"Don’t hate the player/s, hate the game?" grin
User IP Logged

Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied & twisted, just an earth-bound misfit.
Latitude
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1024
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #278 on: Sep 7th, 2007, 12:36am »

on Sep 6th, 2007, 4:14pm, Marvin wrote:
I believe what the folks in murnut’s post was trying to say is that it is real easy to hang a model, then to remove the evidence (remove the wires), then blur the edges to look “natural.”

I played with this and I am CGI ignorant. But if I can do it with Paintbrush (remove something and blur it), then someone with Photoshop can do it better.


Sure. But it's not that easy. Not only do you have to hang the object from wires but you have to make it look large and make it fit the rest of the photo. That's the hard part. It's not easy to get the lighting and shadows just right. Then there's the depth of field issues. I get a kick out of looking at the Raj pictures and studying the shadows. There is no way a hoaxer could have got them so perfect.
User IP Logged

My Drone Video
Latitude
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1024
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #279 on: Sep 7th, 2007, 12:53am »

I saw this ufo report on Nuforc.

Quote:
Occurred : 5/11/2007 20:35 (Entered as : 05/11/07 20:35)
Reported: 5/11/2007 9:07:56 PM 21:07
Posted: 6/12/2007
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Shape: Other
Duration:3 min
Slowly moving crescent shaped object seen for 3+ minutes then disappearing.

Myself and 3 other friends were standing outside our dorm room throwing a ball around and looked up to see an object "floating" through the sky. It was moving very slowly but not with the wind. It seemed to hover above an area about 1/2 a mile from us and then we lost sight of it in the evening sky. I know this sounds sorta hoaxy but it looked like a half moon shape with a elongated triangle protruding from the middle out between the arms; the best way I can describe it is to say it looked similar to the Klingon (spl?) ship style in the Star Trek movies I saw as a kid.

((NUFORC Note: Student report. PD))


Could (s)he be describing this?
User Image
User IP Logged

My Drone Video
nekitamo
Full Member
ImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 87
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #280 on: Sep 7th, 2007, 02:34am »

on Sep 6th, 2007, 8:19pm, DrDil wrote:
Personally I don’t think this is the case but I do think that LMH would have had an independent analysis done on at least ONE of the original images by now, even if just for her own piece of mind before she pushes forward with any more disclosures from Isaac.

LMH is known to discard independent analysis if it doesn't fit her goal, so it is a sure bet which way her 'independent analysis' would point. I've read somewhere recently that if you want to spread a hoax or something fishy, you write to LMH or C2C for they will publish anything. That reminds me, would someone please ask Mr. Doty about drones so we can discard this case if he confirms them for real? Though, he'll probably have some 'secret documents' with additional details... smiley

What I really mean is you can't have an independent analysis if LMH, C2C or such are anywhere in the loop. Not if it's their bread and butter.
User IP Logged

oljack666
Guest
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #281 on: Sep 7th, 2007, 06:57am »

on Sep 7th, 2007, 12:53am, Latitude wrote:
I saw this ufo report on Nuforc.


Here's the area he/she was speaking of. University of California, Santa Barbara below in trees. Westmont College down the road.

User Image
« Last Edit: Sep 7th, 2007, 07:15am by oljack666 » User IP Logged

Marvin
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Mmm, yes, very curious, very interesting....


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1119
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #282 on: Sep 7th, 2007, 07:36am »

on Sep 7th, 2007, 12:36am, Latitude wrote:
Sure. But it's not that easy. Not only do you have to hang the object from wires but you have to make it look large and make it fit the rest of the photo. That's the hard part.



Actually, in the Ty photos, it is not that hard. If the object is a model about 8 feet long (which is large and bulky), then it will be quite dramatic, it would fit between the foreground and background trees. It can be in a “fixed” position as long as it can “spin” and then you just have to move the camera around to get the photos you see. I believe you will find this solution can work. I am not ready to say this is the case, but I can not rule it out for the Ty photos either.

I think this is why the “experts” keep “foot hopping” with their answers. The question is, who is willing to connect the dots, when the evidence has been so badly contaminated. It has been copied, resized, scanned, cropped, copied (and who knows what all), basically manipulated until it is worthless as evidence of being a real extraterrestrial spacecraft.



on Sep 7th, 2007, 12:36am, Latitude wrote:
It's not easy to get the lighting and shadows just right. Then there's the depth of field issues. I get a kick out of looking at the Raj pictures and studying the shadows. There is no way a hoaxer could have got them so perfect.



The Raj drone appearance is different, the drone is not blurred. It is not as detailed as the Ty drone.

When it comes to anything CGI, I am not willing to bet any of my money. We need the original photos to really begin to know anything. Otherwise, it is pure speculation if it is fake or real. And it just does not help us to demonstrate to the world that it is real when the photo EXIF source states Photoshop.
User IP Logged

Oh Goody! My Illudiom Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulator!

User Image

"You naughty earth specimens!"
LangLee
Guest
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #283 on: Sep 7th, 2007, 07:39am »

I have a professional photog going over the Rajman/Capitola pics.
He stood in silence for 5 minutes as he went over it in front of me, he stated that there is nothing in the photo that tells him the object wasn't there as photgraphed.
He took the copies I gave him and I expect to see him this afternoon.
Oh yeah, one of his first question was did I know where, on what street they were taken.
Has anyone found that out yet ?
His comment on the BB pics was that it looks too funky to be trusted fully, with the white background it's difficult to determine if any manipulation had taken place. He said if any pics tell the story it will be the Rajman pics.
I have to agree, but that's me.
User IP Logged

oljack666
Guest
xx Re: #5 THE DRONE ENIGMA A GLOBAL SEARCH FOR THE TR
« Reply #284 on: Sep 7th, 2007, 08:19am »

on Sep 7th, 2007, 07:39am, LangLee wrote:
Even thought the linguistic primers are on the Rajman drone, the BB is as if not more important since it ties more closely to Isaac.

His comment on the BB pics was that it looks too funky to be trusted fully, with the white background it's difficult to determine if any manipulation had taken place. He said if any pics tell the story it will be the Rajman pics.
I have to agree, but that's me.


Tell him we all thought it was funky until we matched it up with Isaacs linguistics. It does look weird, no doubt. And also tell him that what looks like rust could be gold.

That California sky I am very familiar with. We did a large area here in the forum regarding the whiteness of the sky in particular. It's the kind of California smog you cannot see (opposed to smoke). Also make sure he understands that the Big Basin photo was taken directly next door to the Silicon Valley. In 1998, the population of the Silicon Valley was 2.3 million and of course that was 9 years ago so I'm sure it's much higher today. This way he will understand the air quality.

Here is another typical California white sky, which is actually the worst kind of pollution.
User Image

Quote:
OnTheFence said:

The Ty images are very overexposed due to haze/smog and aiming the camera at the sky. I'm pretty sure that automatic exposure settings on the camera tried very hard to get a decent image while sacrificing dynamic range (white sky levels off at 255 max).

Also of importance was the note of LMH saying that someone "adjusted" the images for clarity. That's a shame, since it rendered these images only useful beauty and not scientific study.


Quote:
Atrueoriginal said:
What makes the sky white in California is smog, the worst kind - photochemcial smog or summer smog - usually the kind you can't see, which is the most dangerous. We had many days like that in Southern California each year.

The State of California just game me this tid bit -"photochemical smog is caused by the action of sunlight on a mixture of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen. This smog contains secondary pollutants such as ozone, aldehydes and fine particles."

So essentially, it's not like smoke such as from factories - that's a different kind of smog we're use to that is harmful but not as harmful as the other. Smog from smoke is very noticeable as you stand on top of a foot hill or a mountain because you can see the layers. Also, sitting in your car, you can't see three stop lights ahead of you. It's not that kind. It's white.

Big Basin sits next to the Silicon Valley, which could easily be producing photochemical smog but then it would be blown inland eventually due to the off-shore breezes, which kept the Silicon Valley essentially pretty clean for California. The population of Silicon Valley is over 3 million people.

Fog is the first thing someone would assume but the trees are fairly visible so the fog would have been moving out. Just the same, remnants of fog mince with a photochemical smog and you'll have an extremely white sky. That's what makes it so much worse too for the Central California people because the fog is a carrier for photochemical smog.

You can see a photochemical smog in the following picture. Look at the foothill in the background. It's not green like it should be normally. And, it's not smokey brown either like a regular smog.


Quote:
Latitude said:
Right after the news broke about the Steven sighting, one of the first things I did was to check the weather report for that area. What they had that day is very typical for this coastal area. Fog/overcast lifting and burning off in the afternoon. That's your white sky. Remember that I live out here and have spent much time in the Santa Cruz and San Jose area.


Please make sure he knows these things because it was of course an issue in the photographs of Stephens and Tys both.

« Last Edit: Sep 7th, 2007, 08:57am by oljack666 » User IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21  ...  103 Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Become a member of the UFO Casebook Forum today and join our more than 18,000 members.

Visit the UFO Casebook Web Site

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls