Thursday, July 05, 2007

MUFON Investigation Shows Drone Photos Hoaxed

In one of the images, you can see that the faker used, something called "radiosity" 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. Well, in ONE of the radiosity images supposedly looking up at the 'fake ship' from directly below it is clear that the faker didn't take care in setting his settings for the renderer and 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. It is what happens when you want the rendering to be finished quickly. If radiosity settings were used to make the image look absolutely real, each image could take tens of hours to render perhaps.


And that's just for starters.

The question on my mind: will Linda Howe or Whitley Strieber, both key players in disseminating the "drone" images and their accompanying mythos, dare post this on their respective sites?

26 comments:

Elan said...

Nothing in the world is more powerful than an idiotic meme.
e

Anna Murphy said...

I knew it!

I had been waiting for somebody with the expertise to prove it to come forward -- which apparently already happened months ago. Thanks for the link. This is oddly satisfying.

mr. intense said...

"The question on my mind: will Linda Howe or Whitley Strieber, both key players in disseminating the "drone" images and their accompanying mythos, dare post this on their respective sites?"

That's the question? Here's the answer: of course they won't. To do so would show their respective audiences just how wrong they are about most things. To expect the promoters of known frauds to expose themselves is extremely unlikely.

Mac said...

To expect the promoters of known frauds to expose themselves is extremely unlikely.

Then again, there's such thing as damage control.

Mac said...

I had been waiting for somebody with the expertise to prove it to come forward -- which apparently already happened months ago.

I was aware of some of the imaging work but, since it hadn't hit the Web (to my knowledge), decided to leave it alone.

The believers won't care, of course, but that's the way it goes.

Anonymous said...

You guys really disappoint me. Here I was expecting a rational breakdown with some solid evidence.

Every point this "expert" makes is debatable if not a touch arrogant. Wow, you make cheesy FX for bad History Channel docs, you MUST know what you're talking about. I deal in CG daily and this numbskull is making some broad assumptions without doing due diligence. Once again the burden falls upon the "experts" to replicate the images in question with the subtleties present in the images. This has not been done successfully to date and you REALLY need to ask yourself why. I've tried Mac, I really have and there is more going on here than a simple CG fake. IF it is a fake then I have no doubts it's a physical model shot "on scene".

I'm not saying this isn't a hoax but come on people, we need better "investigation" than this to write the whole thing off. Mac I thought you of all people would proceed a bit more cautiously given the nature of your interest in these matters. Are you really that jaded with the UFO scene that you prefer to jump on the skeptic bandwagon at first blush just because something is "too good"? Should we rename the Blog to "Jaded UFO Blues"?

*RADIOSITY* The point he makes about radiosity artifacts is true BUT he's completely missing the fact that digital camera artifacts do THE SAME THING under challenged lighting conditions! You can't prove this one either way without knowing what compression and exposure settings were on the camera and or taking curve samples across the entire photo for comparison...something I'm sure this halfwit didn't do. The photos are consistent in this regard.

*FOCAL DEPTH* He then goes on to criticize the lack of atmospheric haze and clarity of the ship in another photo. This one made me laugh out loud as a number of "serious" researchers have already established the approximate size of the craft by comparative analysis. The point he's missing on this one is that the craft is much closer to the camera than it appears. This is an issue of scale and focal depth, not haze.

*BEHIND THE TREE* WOW! um...when do we see his proof and photometric analysis on this point? Certainly this can be done in the manner he describes but that doesn't constitute "proof" does it Mac?

Overall I'm just really bummed out that you've made an assumption here without gathering the imperical evidence to support it. You've propagated a bit of propoganda that has no foundation but will hurt this case if there is ANY validity to the story. I hope for your sake you can pat yourself on the back when this turns out to be a hoax but the question begs; what if no solid evidence for trickery is ever found?

Steve Huff said...

All I know is that on the day that the "IsaacCaret" guy joined in the fun with his site at FortuneCity.com, some lawyer in Oregon also registered IsaacCaret.com. I smelled paranormal hoax, viral marketing, or a bit of both. I sent the info on the domain registration (which was quickly made private) to Linda Howe, and she of course ignored it.

mr. intense said...

"Overall I'm just really bummed out that you've made an assumption here without gathering the imperical evidence to support it. You've propagated a bit of propoganda that has no foundation but will hurt this case if there is ANY validity to the story."

Anon--

First off, Mac has _not_ made an assumption without evidence. The evidence is, well, self-evident to anyone who isn't already a "believer".

From the way the "Chad" photos were introduced (to Coast to Coast, not really considered an objective, analytical resource), to the anonymity of nearly all the photo sources, to Rajman and Chad having nearly identical IP addresses, to the obvious CGI artifacts, to the absurdity of the "alien language", to the silliness of the "isaac / caret / pacl" docs, etc., etc., I think a very good case can be made for fraud and hoax.

Even MUFON, not very objective in my book, has declared the photos hoaxed. And there are many more _facts_ that could be noted that further establish this as a hoax, and not a very good one.

Everything points to a hoax. The fact that you apparently cannot clearly see that is interesting, and a reflection of your own bias.

Perhaps you need to challenge your own assumptions and beliefs in this regard.

BTW, you also misspelled empirical and propaganda.

Anonymous said...

Check this out, ref. drone extrapolation:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://ovnis-usa.com/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://ovnis-usa.com/%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

Anonymous said...

Mr.Intense
BTW, you also misspelled empirical and propaganda.

No need to get your panties in a knot spell check Nazi. It’s called a late night blog post, I’m not writing a thesis here. I’m trying to have an adult conversation here about issues you might be missing. Jerk.

Anyway, I never once said this isn’t a hoax, what I did say was that the burden to prove otherwise remains on the shoulders of the staunch skeptics. Thus far none have done a competent job of it by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly there are circumstantial oddities with the case (key word here Circumstantial) but to throw it out completely based on “well, it just can’t be true because it’s too sensational” is foolhardy and egotistical. I mean really, that’s what we’re talking about here isn’t it? The merits of the photographic evidence can be argued all day but this halfwit from the History Channel is just plain wrong in his sweeping assumptions. I (and many others) can find counter arguments to every point made and have ALREADY brought them to your attention (did your personal bias brain go on autopilot and skip over those points?).

The photos themselves stand up quite nicely actually (to those of us who have some foundation to know what we’re talking about). I’ve worked in 3-D animation, compositing and graphic design professionally for over 13 years and I’m telling you that IF this turns out to be “CGI” it is either coming out of a studio with big bucks or it’s a physical model being shot on location. No basement dwelling 15 year old has the sophistication or experience required to pull of the subtleties I’m seeing here. If hoaxed this is a group of people with a definite agenda and some money behind them.

So take your jackass, high and mighty attitude elsewhere if this story is already dead to you. I mean, why bother calling me a fool if you’ve already made an assumption about what this case is? Does it make you feel better about yourself? For everyone else with an objective brain, we can remain skeptically engaged without being so completely jaded that we discount everything we see without the necessary “damning evidence”.

There’s actually a really fascinating conversation and analysis going on here: http://lucianarchy.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=cali1 . The lengths people have gone to in order to find the symbol sets and break down the photos and rip apart the CARET docs is truly impressive. I can assure you these people have done mountains more research and investigation on this case than MUFON did. I would encourage Mac and anyone else who has thrown this case out the door to at least read through some of the threads there. You may just change your mind.

Denny

Anonymous said...

I don't like these personal attacks. The passive aggressive spell check thing is nasty, and the calling of names has no place in intelligent discussion.

I am not an expert in photography or animation.
I do give a strong vote of support to Denny. I have seen many "debunkings" by reputable scientists that do not hold water. If Denny has the expertise to debunk a debunking, then I thank him for doing so. The Face on Mars may be a natural formation, but I would not want to arrive at that conclusion based on the "cat scratch" photo.
It is not a question of believing that this is a hoax or "something else", it is a question of logical analysis of facts in order to decide.

Stan

mr. intense said...

"Mr.Intense
BTW, you also misspelled empirical and propaganda."

"No need to get your panties in a knot spell check Nazi. It’s called a late night blog post, I’m not writing a thesis here. I’m trying to have an adult conversation here about issues you might be missing. Jerk."

-----------------------------------
Might I venture the suggestion that if you truly want to engage someone in an adult, intelligent dialogue, that your comments above are not very helpful?
-----------------------------------

"Anyway, I never once said this isn’t a hoax, what I did say was that the burden to prove otherwise remains on the shoulders of the staunch skeptics. Thus far none have done a competent job of it by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly there are circumstantial oddities with the case (key word here Circumstantial) but to throw it out completely based on “well, it just can’t be true because it’s too sensational” is foolhardy and egotistical. I mean really, that’s what we’re talking about here isn’t it?"
----------------------------------
No, that's not what we're talking about here. Really. To even suggest that shows bias, sophistry, and an avoidance of the known facts.

As I briefly noted above, there are more than mere "circumstantial oddities" already evident and shown. The _whole_ context of the "drone" controversy needs to be examined. It matters not whether the photos originally introduced in an anonymous, suspect manner are of a physical model or CGI-derived. That is _not_ really an issue.

What matters are the many contentions made about what the photos represent, which is supposedly back-engineered alien technology idly floating around in parts of central California and elsewhere, and the alleged origins of such "technology."

And I have, long before you suggested it, read virtually all of the manifold threads about the drone controversy on ATS, OMF, and both Strieber's and Howe's respective websites. If anything, an analysis and honest, logical examination of the facts that have emerged so far, and the many pro and con characterizations of same drawn by various parties leads me to conclude that the drone photos and the isaac/caret materials are obvious frauds and generally speaking, an aesthetically interesting but definite hoax.

That's about all I feel I need to say about this matter. As the "gentlemen" we most obviously are, all I can say beyond that is that we will have to agree to disagree.

Anonymous said...

I knew it!

I had been waiting for somebody with the expertise to prove it to come forward -- which apparently already happened months ago.


The radiosity explanation "proves" nothing. Like most such explanations, it's extremely impressionistic -- one person's way of looking at the photos, albeit an expert way. (But we can always find some other expert who disagrees -- my own take would be that there are probably real shadows in some pix that exhibit similar "mottled" behavior.)

My own take on the whole thing is impressionistic too -- I also happen to think it's a hoax, essentially because it seems to me to have the "gestalt" of a hoax (also because Mac thinks it's a hoax and I trust his judgment in these matters :-).

But does any of this PROVE it's a hoax? Nada -- not the radiosity (or whatever), not my "gestalt" impression, and, no, not even Mac's own expert judgment.

The fact is, one of the huge problems with UFOlogy (it seems to me) is precisely that people sling the word "proof" around like they know what it means. In hard science, in fact, very few things can be considered "proved." Established yes, proved no. And UFOlogy remains anything but a hard science.

--WMB as Anon

Anonymous said...

Mr. Intense,

Might I venture the suggestion that if you truly want to engage someone in an adult, intelligent dialogue, that your comments above are not very helpful?

The mere fact that you didn’t address your own initial ignorance and jumped forward to my reaction to that venom puts your manipulative ego on display for all to see. Learn to eat humble pie once and awhile and you might avoid future childish arguments. You and I would most certainly not get along in a crowded room.

You continue to spew talking points that have been either completely invalidated or remain in the murk of subjectivity. Your reiteration of the circumstantial coupled with your black spirited tongue says a great deal about who you are as a person. Isn’t it interesting what a simple discussion regarding a UFO event will bring out in people? In your case it’s all about ego and trying to smack down anyone who offers a counterpoint to your premature, ill informed assumptions.

Again I would say to you sir, do your homework before you shoot your mouth off: http://lucianarchy.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=cali1

Sorry Mac but this guy is over the top and needs to take a chill pill. I’ll respectfully back off now for the sake of the Blog. I do enjoy it here which is why it disappoints me to find people of this close-minded, inconsiderate disposition floating around. I’ve never had much patience for bullies.

Denny

mr. intense said...

Denny--

You're "...not even wrong."

(re: Wolfgang Pauli)

You have such a lovely way with words. Before I attempt to parse your logic, perhaps you could elucidate for me how your phrase, "you didn’t address your own initial ignorance," makes any rational sense.

Or, my favorite so far, "I never once said this isn’t a hoax, what I did say was that the burden to prove otherwise remains on the shoulders of the staunch skeptics."

It's not often I see someone write an oxymoronic sentence that literally contradicts their intended meaning. Bravo!

"You and I would most certainly not get along in a crowded room."

Well, at least you said one thing that's true. In the meantime, for a little light entertainment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y05EmK66Gsk

Anonymous said...

Mr.Intense,

"Bite me!"

(Re: Bart Simpson)

Condescending prick.

Denny

Mac said...

OK, that's it or I start deleting. Please note that I'm not (publicly) taking sides, aside from my personal conviction that we're dealing with an obvious hoax.

I think we can *all* agree that this is intriguing, if only from a memetic point of view. Further discussion should be routed to one of the innumerable forums dedicated to this subject.

spell-check nazi said...

I could say many things, but since Godwin's Law has been effectively invoked, there is no point.

End of thread.

But it's still an obvious hoax.

Anonymous said...

As with any shock and awe strategy, you eventually have to control the ground. If not, you do not win the war.. Going to any of the forums like ATS and Open Minds and dozens of others like this that have some very capable ..it was Wow..but like in a shakespeare drama..Polonius saw some shoes visible at the bottom of the curtain..Hmmm.
Call the mounting evidence circumstantial..it is quality circumstantial, proven defects in the photo, light angles indicating incorrect position of the sun,etc.
You don't need 100% certainty to get a conviction, and if it was a model, you still need witnesses. Its just using common sense absent Bonafide witnesses there is no case,
Take People identified by email such as keith edwards, PHD and Todd shwartz,ESQ ( an SEC securities investments Attorney, who admittedly just wants to make money, Both who loved the Roswell story.

..now Mr. Edwards expressed surprise at the volume of interest, and that he was not the character Isaac. but if you research edwards background, and access formerly to Palo Alto and Georgia tech, he has phenomenal (Understatment publishing and white papers on Computer programming,(he wrote his own programming language Jini,including bit modeling of fonts) document management over multiple systems and platforms, paper that erases itself, some very unorthodox non visual systems development, group behavior and modeling studies Surveys of users engaged in photoharing..and his current partner a Computer Graphics genius by herself, one might suspect that perhaps someone is writing a book about him or doing a behavioral study of the forums,which give them access to study instantly over a period of time our activity data without having to leave his/her office. Georgia tech is also a Multiple DARPA/NASA grants recipient, for military UAV design and development, they have Machine mills etching, and tooling equipment to design the parts we saw from a variety of sources..So you have someome people, with time,means,motive and opportunity. In civil/criminal law thats good enough for an indictment even if I don't have the body..Ladies and gentlemen.


I yield towards Hoax.
and I rest my case.

I love you all

Sys_Config
ATS Forums User

Dr. x said...

Fact, not opinion:
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1268&category=Environment

Simply using Internet Explorer 7.0's lower right hand corner expansion feature, I blew the Rajman1977 Image 0016 up to 400%.

Note the visual discontinuity at the base of the upward pointing spoke of the "drone", where the thick, braided telephone cable or wire passes "underneath."

For a short distance, there is no cable there--there is a _gap_. Yet the rest of the CGI image of the drone object is composited to appear as if it's floating above the telephone wires, and shows all other wires below the object. The image is from Linda Moulton-Howe's own website. This fact has been noted on the UFO casebook website, also.

So, why is there no wire shown underneath the "drone" at the base point of the most upward pointing spoke? I will leave that to others to debate, but you can judge for yourself. I think it's very clearly a "tell."

Anonymous said...

This is almost like the spouse catching the other cheating..he/she will go thru a denial phase despite the signs. PI's will tell you that by the type a client comes with suspicians..99% of the time the other party is cheating, very easy money.
Despite all the experience,gut feelings, objective analyses, suspicious witness behavior, The believers (I was one of them) still are in denial. LMH has turned earthfiles, in to one of the worlds oldest professions. The least she could do is kiss us first. C2C has bought the subject up again and said, look folx take this with a grain of salt.
I'm going looking for other stories that will peak my curiosity, as this one does nothing more than insult our intelligence. Intelligence may have its limits..but remember...Stupidity has none.

SyS_Config

mr. intense said...

Ha! Good job, Sys_Config.

Thanks for posting your comments here--and let us know what you or others may find out about Mr. Edwards and Mr. Schwartz in regard to "Isaac" and their potential part in the hoax.

Sure would like to pin down who is responsible, and Linda Moulton Howe has made note of all the contact info she has from several of the "witnesses," in an attempt to dispute the hoax, which could be used to expose these clowns, but of course she has to keep such data "confidential" for the "witnesses' sake."

[Of course, just "knowing" who is contacting you begs the question of how they are being vetted, and particularly the primary point of how to establish whether what they claim is true or not. I doubt very much that requirement is being accomplished by LMH, given her history of, to put it most politely, gullibility.]

I'd say she's doing so to cover her own highly exposed ass, to put it bluntly. The analogy of LMH being a "pro" {and perhaps the earthfiles site to a house of "ill repute," with LMH serving metaphorically as the slovenly [with the facts] madam), was priceless-- yes, she could at least kiss us first, with a little reality and honesty! Guess it doesn't pay as well for her "trade." Heh! Disinfo procurers, pimps, and pros, oh my!

Sorry to be so cynical, but I'm more than a bit tired of the usual "anonymous sources." That never flies very well, and in fact encourages false reporting and precludes independent investigation. It's certainly not scientific or empirical. Perhaps she "doth not know" what she does, but that is giving her far too much benefit of the doubt in view of her more than adequate means and yet very inadequate process of inquiry and analysis. The truth will out, if not set one free (of responsibility for falsehoods).

I wonder if she ever contemplates the fact that she has become a paid "disinfotainment" source, and how her actions contradict her supposed intent. Aye, the gullibility, matey! Not to mention the lack of credibility and integrity in what she does for the money. Well, to paraphrase P.T. Barnum, there's a 'subscriber' to such "services" born every minute. Oh, how the will to believe can lead away from real insight and truth.

L. Ron Hubbard was right--if you're willing to sacrifice your honor and integrity, lie, and willing to engage in deception of your fellow human beings, one way to get rich is to start a religion, or maybe just proffer a belief system, massaging the current zeitgeist.

Extending the metaphor, I wonder if Strieber could be termed a deluded "disinfo pimp"? Yeah, I know that sounds harsh, but look closely at his history and writings, also, and their effects on legitimate ufo research. Sensation does sell. Strieber has become wealthy as a result. I think virtually everything he writes is a form of science fiction, IMHO.
----------------------------------

Note to Dennny--I apologize if you perceived my replies to your comments as being bullying or condescending. That was not my intention, but I did get somewhat pissed off at _your_ aggressive and rather dismissive contentions that the jury should still be out on the "drone" controversy. I just disagree with that--the evidence is quite apparent, to me at least.

I guess each of us, depending on our perspective and experience, act as our own judge and jury in cases like this, and while you are correct that perhaps we shouldn't be so hasty in our judgments, understand that from my viewpoint, after examining all the pertinent data I could find, I still do obviously think we are dealing with a multi-party hoax. So, please try to forgive me my excesses, if you still think I insulted you, and I shall do the same with you in turn.

I think we are kind of on the same "team," despite our conflict above. I should make it clear I'm neither a "believer" nor a "debunker"--I'm an agnostic, but very curious about the actual nature of the ufo/uap perplex. As such, and after over 15 years of periodic investigation in this field, I just feel people should be rather more discriminating in their analysis of the available data than is often the case. If that makes me appear "jaded" to others, well, so be it. I'm not too concerned about how others may perceive my efforts and intentions in the uap research community, such as it is.

I know I do good work, that it could be better if I had the time, resources, and support needed, and that I try to make an honest effort, and am fairly tolerant of the opinions of others, with some exceptions. I speak my mind. After due consideration, I call things as I see them. If I'm wrong, I admit it. See other past posts I have made here, for example, to see where I'm coming from.

I may seem hardcore, which is one reason I use the pseudonym Mr. Intense, among others, depending on my mood, what I have to say, and where I say it. But you should know that I'm also someone who's had a close encounter of the first kind over 30 years ago, know there is a US government cover-up of some kind involving ufo phenomena, and, like Dr. Jacques F. Vallee, who I know and have discussed these matters of mutual interest with periodically, generally keep my investigatory focus on uap/ufo phenomena fairly low-key. So, again, please don't misunderstand me or my real intent here.

While you're right that I should have avoided the references to misspelling, as that was fairly tangential to the issue that began this thread, I really just want to deal the facts, and from here on will try to restrain myself from any further personal remarks of that kind. Sometimes my concerns over precision of communication, and language, get the better of me. I really didn't intend to engage in a literary "pissing contest." Probably my liberal arts degree was showing. I'll zip up now. 8^}

Anonymous said...

Mr.Intense,

Whether or not we are intrinsically on the "same team" in this crazy little subculture, I now know generally how our conversations will devolve when things go sour. I hate to be the petty one here but when someone deflects and ignores core points with little spelling and grammar jabs, I walk the other way. This attitude leads me to believe that this is just one of many neurotoxin laden arrows in your quiver.

I'm here to have open minded conversation with critical but respectful peers who aren't afraid to look into the Grey zones. I come here to kick my shoes off and relax for a few minutes at the end of my day and I just don't have the time or the spirit to engage in odd little flame wars. Perhaps the reality is that my perspectives are minority here. I'm still trying to get a sense of what personality types are floating around PHB and how best to engage or avoid them. Maybe PHB is not for me, the jury is still out.

P.S.

Based purely on the photographic evidence, I have yet to see a compelling case that the CHAD probe is a CGI model. No one to date has been able to competently replicate all of the subtleties shown. A "fake" physical model shot on location perhaps but the tide of ill-informed and assumptive CGI ranting from a million "experts" has been thoroughly debunked by those who know better. It's too lengthy to go into here so I would suggest a hard study of some excellent grass roots investigation at the following site: http://www.lucianarchy.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=cali1 This is still a fascinating story even if it turns out to be an elaborate culture jam. Far from being insulted by it I am always intrigued by the motivations, structured engagement and self perpetuating nature of the material (when done really well).

Denny

Andy said...

I find this endlessly irritating that the community of folks who do believe in UFO's have grabbed on to this ridiculous fake. The some of the symbols on the bottom of this thing are just part of the make-believe "klingon" alphabet. This is an obvious attempt to humiliate people who do believe in UFO's. I'm glad the the guys at MUFON have labeled it a hoax. I hope that the people who have tried to perpetrate this hoax take note that not all UFO believers are idiots.

Anonymous said...

Andy,

I think you'll find with a little more research that the "Klingon" font speculation and a number of related font claims all lead to cold trails. There are loose "similarities" to this and other fonts but nothing matches stylistically 100%. Beyond that, a hoax of this caliber almost requires a scratch built font set to stay in line with the other sophistications.

This is just one of many odd little dismissive yet fascinating quirks that have built up around this story. What I find incredible is just how quickly people are taking a pass on this case without doing due diligence. Its interesting to watch unfold. They hear something through the grapevine and assume its true without actually digging into the meat of the claim for themselves. It might feel like a hoax and it very well may be one but to make the declaration by propagating sloppy research and rumor is irresponsible.

kim said...

Hey Guys,

The drone pictures are definitely a hoax created by "saladfingers12345" You can view it on youtube. It is admittedly computer generated. The FBI investigated the MJ12 documents-- they are also a fraud.
The fact that the government would investigate a possible leak of classified information regarding UFOs, suggests there is something of substance that they want to keep secret.

Caret is a hoax as well. Our buddy Mr. Todd Schwartz might know something about this.

What I can't figure is why. Is it to make fools of us. Sure seems like a lot of work for a laugh. I suspect someone will make money on this.