Rajman1977 Flickr Account History

You aren't signed in Sign In Help
Home The Tour Sign Up Explore Search rajman1977's photos Search
rajman1977's photos View as slideshow ( )

Sets Tags Archives Favorites Profile
PICT0018 PICT0017
Bizarre Thing in
Sky
6 photos
© All rights reserved. © All rights reserved.

Uploaded on May 20, 2007 Uploaded on May 20, 2007
5 comments 183 comments
PICT0016 PICT0015

PICT0014 PICT0013

Feed – Subscribe to rajman1977's photos
You Sign in | Create Your Free Account Send to a friend

Explore Last 7 Days | This Month | Popular Tags | Creative Commons | Search Save to del.icio.us
Help Community Guidelines | The Forum | FAQ | Sitemap | Help by Email
Flickr Blog | About Flickr | Terms of Use | Your Privacy | Copyright/IP Policy | Report Abuse
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.dronehoax.com/
PICT0013 on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Page 1 of 2
You aren
Home The Tour Sign Up Explore Search everyone's ph
PICT0013
Uploaded on May
by rajman1977
rajman1977's pho
Bizarre Thing
Additional Informati
© All rights reserved
{ Taken with a Konica

More properties
{ Taken on May 16, 20
{ See different sizes
{ 3 people call this pho
{ Viewed 23,260 times
This photo is public
Comments
gilligan4 says:
Nice Picture
Is this made with 3ds max or cinema3d?
Posted 2 weeks ago. ( permalink )
..Damian.. says:
Or even photoshop....
bark says:
Better, try a bit of motion blur on it.

chrisfurniss says:
It is not made with photoshop, but with hopes and dreams.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8418528@N06/506533380/in/set-72157600236430072/ 6/6/2007
PICT0013 on Flickr - Photo Sharing! Page 2 of 2
robert_mitchum79 says:
Why does every picture of this thing have trees, a house, powerlines etc ? And the
first pic has the corner of the house in it.....If saw somthing like this in the sky and
was going to take a picture of it i would at least try to center the object in the frame.
FAKE FAKE FAKE....looks cool though.
Posted 9 days ago. ( permalink )
Would you like to comment?

Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
You Sign in | Create Your Free Account S

S
Explore Last 7 Days | This Month | Popular Tags | Creative Commons | Search
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8418528@N06/506533380/in/set-72157600236430072/ 6/6/2007
Home The Tour Sign Up Explore Search everyone's photos Search
PICT0014
Uploaded on May 20, 2007
by rajman1977
rajman1977's photostream
6
photos
This photo also belongs to:
Bizarre Thing in Sky (Set)
6
photos
Additional Information
Taken with a Konica Minolta DiMAGE X.

More properties
Comments Taken on May 16, 2007
See different sizes
exitfromreality says: Viewed 10,420 times
poor PICT0014, nobody wants to comment on you. This photo is public

El Caganer says:
I love you PICT0014! I want to bear your children!
my_brain_hurts_now says:
Obvoiusly not as heatedly discussed as other pics.
Firstly I would like to say I got here via a link from an adult site aint life a hoot?
Secondly I immediately assumed that this was a hoax for the following reasons.
a) it looks about a metre across and an attempt has beeen made to juxtapose it
against a foreground to make it look bigger.
b) the pics do not look like they were hurridly taken as they would be if I took
them.
c) something else looked wrong and eventually I realised it was the light and
shadow does not match other objects.
So now having read the fascinating and rather long debate with the CG guys on
one side and the, errr dumbasses on the other I can see it is not a real object at
all.
I have to say especially to to his detractors I believe this is a pretty good job
perhaps on an industry insider level you can see things which could be done
better (but you need more time to reproduce) however I actually believed it was
a plastic model suspended in the actual location and then photographed.
I believe you when you say it is CG too many compelling arguments not to.
But no it is not a poor effort.
Stormwysper says:
As much as I wish it was some sort of aerial craft (I fall in on the dumbasses
side), this thing screams fake. I would love to get the orginal files and read the
xref date. And if this guy says he keeps seeing it, howabout using a film camera
that way we could see the negatives? Course since it's fake we know this won't
happen
Stormwysper
Geez sorry I take back the unkind "dumbasses" comment I once believed just
about anything was possible including UFO's visiting us and I dont think that
made me a dumbass, just ill informed.


PICT0015
view Uploaded on May 20, 2007
photosby rajman1977
6
photos
6
photos

More properties
See different sizes
http://www.flickr.com/photos/krisstag/ says: 1 person calls this photo a favorite
Viewed 15,053 times
You should work for pixar! Nice model :)
Posted 2 weeks ago. ( permalink ) This photo is public
fxmodels says:
He isnt good enough for Pixar.. His bright sky would have silhouetted the model
with any currently made camera. Instead he screwed it up and thought he had
to brighten the model too...
This image alone is a dead giveaway without having to examine the model
itself!
Marc
view onthefence55 says:

profile
You mean it would be silhouetted just like the electrical pole, trees, and the
lamppost??
view mcgorgomagan says:

profile
yeah i think the sun was behind him, so the bright lighting is okay... if the thing
is about 200 feet off the ground. i'm sure ATC would have noticed that.
it's a very detailed model, though. even so aliens have to obey our laws of
physics, we're in the same universe... if an alien craft wanted to get that close
(ie, inside our atmosphere) it would have to be fairly streamlined or else burn up
in our atmosphere.
PS I'm assuming you wanted someone to believe you. If not, then, yes, nice
model. And if you did, it's kind of sad that no-one did, not even for a moment.
Actually if you read the comments on the other pics it appears many ppl do
believe him.
I have tried a bit of 3d (as an amateur) and I know it is a lengthy process to

create something so detailed so I take my hat off to those ppl who can do this
sort of stuff.

profile
Why do you think it would burn up in our atmosphere. Just come straight down
slowly then slow up near the bottom. If it was ET then it might not have to go as
fast as our re-entering rockets/shuttle. The atmosphere is only 150km thick, if
you could drive a car at 150km/hr (93mi/hr) it would not heat up from friction.
So this device might just go at 150km/hr and take one hour to get to the
surface.
to stay in obit a craft must travel aprox 18000 mph, slow down incorrectly and
you either plung into the atmosphere and burn up or skip off it like a stone on a
pond.
is it possible to aproach the atmosphere at right angles at 150 kph?
It may be possible to carry a heat shield and dump it afterward that sounds
more likely, NASA have done that.
anyway I think mcgorgomagan's point was the craft is a fanciful creation rather
than a practical one

PICT0016
photosby rajman1977
6
photos
6
photos

More properties
See different sizes
eileenscrill says: 16 people call this photo a favorite
Viewed 36,733 times
Light source looks horribly off on this one...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/icwiz/ says:
Do you remember if any part of the craft was moving (like the center hub)
m1dlg says:
this is a poor quality photoshop job
view eratozee says:

profile
The long arm has no shadow on the underside ring comparable to the shadows
on the telephone pole.
Yet the guy is getting play from talk show hosts like George Norey, who must
be taking this for a ride for the ratings.
yawn......
view schkz says:

profile
this photo look like quite genuine , but there is something spookie on it , the
lower voltage cable , the thick one , look like in the juction with that ufo very
diminshed in thickness , and also it give the appearance that is behind the ufo
.if so , this photo is a very good fake

profile
"the lower voltage cable" is wrapped around a supporting cable. Look at the
hires image (click All-Sizes above). This seems normal.
view L.Arkwright says:

profile
To Rajman: Largest version of this I can download is 1024x768, I assume the
originals are bigger (1600x1200)? Could you upload them, it would be greatly
appreacited. *thank you*
phdstudent says:
It is possible to make 3d models look properly lit in a digital camera shot using
HDR. An example of a model from Half life 2.
--
Seen on your photo stream. (?)
lars 5 says:
i don't believe it... the website linked in the comments of the next picture claims
that the craft is often seen by many people in the community... all you have to
do is go on a hike and wait... so where's the videos?
My Secret Agent Lover Man says:

Even if this is a fake...what the hell is that thing
nickb says:
It's viral campaign for Transformers movie.
explosivelimes says:
Something to note: A few of the characters on the underside of this computer
model match the Klingon language. Reference for that can be found here:
www.kli.org/tlh/pIqaD.html
Most noticable is the 'w' Klingon character.

The letters can be seen better on the older version of the 3D model found here:
www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page2022.html?theme=light
Octal Khan says:

CG geeks can't resist putting Aurebesh or Klingon all over everything :)
geoff pedder says:

nice 3d render but the scale is blown by having too much occlusion and no
descernable shadows like the pole. It looks like it's 4 foot wide. You could also
add more atmospheric haze to push it back and make it look bigger.
weedymedusa says:
klingon has been pointed to a million times. strangely, no one cares (or is able
to) decipher it. Why would the hoaxer use klingon? the hoax would then be
obvious--klingons are fiction.
see my comment on the 100 comments thing about the transformers movie.
not.
edited to say I think this is a poorly executed hoax. i just don;t think it's the
transformers or klingon script. If you really do--translate it.
alburyphotog says:
lies
weedymedusa says:
wow, how profound and interesting, albury.
Yeah, I've read that others think it's the same symbols as what's on the
Transformer robot's faces. Those are more japanese looking while the ones
used in these photographs are made to look more sci-fi. I don't think it's straight
Klingon, but some of the characters are definitely similar. It most likely cannot
be translated because it isn't real in any fashion.
Oh well, it's kind of cool looking. Dumb though that they tried to pass it off as
real.
@zteco says:
METRAGON is back!
bark says:
NIce try. Change the font on the wings and watch your depth of field and you've
have a pretty convincing photo!
be OH be says:
Metragon?
Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

I've never seen a power pole with the wires at those angles. Bizarre.
alburyphotog says:
none of this is interesting...im just cutting to the truth
Posted 1 week ago. ( permalink )
The School House says:

Michael Bay is raping your childhood.
be OH be says:
it's so uninteresting that you just had to leave a comment to let the rest of us
know how uninterested you are. uhh...thanks.
view ivo5000 says:

profile
An in-depth discussion with photo and CGI analysis can be found at the Open http://www.dronehoax.com/
Minds Forum here:
lucianarchy.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=ufosandextrat....
weedymedusa says:
albury--then stop popping in. a lot of people apparently do find it interesting.
attani_s says:
www.flickr.com/photos/8497422@N07/514222811/
elFranZ says:
this is bad done, man, light source first... then, pixel quantity mismatch.. lol, with
a little tuning could be very very fine...
view honestmase says:

profile
There are 3 different UFO's. Each time it was posted somewhere, the craft has
changed.
weedymedusa says:
this has become an exercise in stating the obvious.
richardakai says:
A lot of people are claiming it's fake. Prove it, re-create it.
Could be a model with lines removed. Make me eat my words, re-create it. I'm
waiting for the evidence. You can't claim "Photoshop" every time you see
something you don't understand.
weedymedusa says:
Well, it's been recreated many times there, richard. why don;t you actually read
the threads and go see the created youtube video.
view shiva_proto says:

profile
Hate to tell you guys, but I work for a corporation which deciphers data. I used
several systems to analyze this specific picture and found that it came directly
out of the camera. With no known traces of editing.
Scary but...Every image created on a digital image device or a digital image

software embeds information about the source origin. In this case, the IEC
standards embedded in the cameras software which were copyrighted by HP
are still present.
The standard recovered off this image were (61966-2.1) You can look at this
standard at http://www.iec.com/.
Either the original provider of this photo is an expert hoaxer who is not only able
to trick analitic filters as well as write hexadecimal, or this photo is completely
ligit and straight from the camera.
Notice to originator... I'm an expert at finding data. I don't like being made a
fool. If this turns out to be a hoax, somehow your personal name and address
will make it to every corner of the internet galaxy along with your hoax(es).
To which, no one will believe you ever again...not even pictures posted of any
pets or kids you might have.
I will be contacting you shortly.


HAHAHAHAHAHA
"write hexadecimal"?!?!
"analitic" HA, is that anything like "analytic" ?
@shiva_proto either you are a master comedian or ... never mind, thanks for
the laugh.

profile
Glad you’re laughing. I didn't realize that I had to be more formal when writing
a....comment?
It didn't escape my attention that you didn't attack the argument, but me
personally. I guess I shouldn't have expected better. Your response is a bad
rendition of the straw man fallacy discussed in logic 101.
Why don't you take a course in logical philosophy, I hear they're $350 at your
local community college.
Oh, and Cheers!


Okay,
http://www.iec.org/ - - - the .COM is a squatter/scammer/spammer/luser
I, too, work for a company who "deciphers data" as an engineer. Through our
products pass most TV signals. BFD.
IEC 61966-2.1 is a standard for default sRGB color space. The color space http://www.dronehoax.com/
used for high quality printing is not the same as what normally comes out of a
consumer camera. It has nothing to do with this "UFO"
Just about any coder can "write hexadecimal", it's not some mysterious art
form.
Your threats, injured ego, etc. point to an immature kid with just enough smarts
to be dangerous to himself. Stay away from Antionline. QED
That's my philosophy.

profile
I have a feeling that the only ego flaring up is yours. I'm sure based on the tone;
you go place to place...getting your rocks off with your short sighted straw man
fallacies. I don't take it personally, because you visit many places and do the
same thing. Isn't that right?
I'm not coming back here, I'm not a typical Flickr user, there's no need for me to
be here. So I'm going to enter my rebuttal, and by on my way. For all I care, you
can say I'm a queer with a one legged step-mom in your next comeback. A
response will assuredly indicate that you can't control yourself, which makes it
easier for people like me to twist you anyway we want to...because we know
what you'll do next. What...a surprise?
Down to business, time for the rebuttal:

[1] Hexadecimal - never stated it was mysterious or hard to do. I personally use
3 of hex editors. My point was the dedication on his part, for editing hex to pay
tribute to a fallacy.
[2] Modified argument - 61966 is a color standard....period for digital machines.
Your source was screwed up because my site label was wrong. My real point is
that the specifier was intact. It would have been another story if Adobe
Photoshop Elements had shown up. Or, inconclusive if nothing was there.
[3] (www.iec.ch) is the correct source.
Last but not least:

[4] I think this is CGI. Some guy built something similar and posted it in
Youtube... it looks pretty real.
My argument was inductive from the very beginning. But then again, all science
is inductive as well... so I don't feel alone in that regard.
Nighty-night, this subject has just been put to bed.
Cheers
weedymedusa says:
wow, shiva photos really pays attention. a photo of this thing on youtube!?
people jumping in here without actually reading the posts...
and not a typical flickr user is right--there's lot of 'queers' here, and 'twould not
be seen as the pertinent & extreme insult as apparently intended. i say good
riddance.
view Doctor Grafix says:

profile
if you turn it upside down it may help remove the yolk from the white.
view crydiger2 says:

profile
Just copy that pic to Photoshop and zoom it until you see single pixels. The
"UFO" seems to have exactly the same edge sharpness as the poll and power
lines below. This could only occur if the object was a little RC model, flying
VERY close to the lines. Also, the sunlight shines from the upper right. So the
object would have to create a massive shadow on the pole. But there's just
nothing like that. A BIG object at high elevation wouldn’t create a shadow, but
would appear much more blurred on the pic, caused by common athmospheric
and UV lighting effects. For his next project the "artist" should consider to add
fitting shadows in correct 3D perspective and apply at least a few of the creative
filtering tools Photoshop comes with ...


PICT0017
photosby rajman1977
6
photos
6
photos

More properties
See different sizes
19 people call this photo a favorite
< Prev 1 2 Next > Viewed 40,526 times
(183 comments) This photo is public
the_paper_boy17 says:
hey there was another siteing in another area about a month ago of something looking very similar
view eileenscrill says:

profile
It is from the same Hoaxer you dumbass... He is just altering his 3d computer model...
view high247 says:

profile
I dont think its a hoax imo. It has not been proven! prove it dont just say it.
view analogx says:

profile
The scale and lighting on his digital model are pretty bad. He claims it is 'very large' but the perspective of his shots make it seem the size of a
vacuum cleaner. These shots are better than the earlier ones he posted as 'Chad'.
The design is also very cliche for a spaceship. I've seen more original work done in Maya posted on Renderosity.com.
Posted 2 weeks ago. ( permalink ) http://www.dronehoax.com/
profile
How can you claim the lightining is bad? The direction shadows fn the craft match rather well with the shadows on the pole. Same with the intensity of
shadows.
view kevin_finland says:

profile
They're hoxa! Shame on you!! you dumb jokes!
RavenNW says:
I don't think this is a hoax if OTHER people are seeing & photographing it and they are unrelated to each other. Bravo for taking such awesome pics
and sharing them with the public. Keep your eyes and camera ready in case you see it again.
view dark_sky_red says:

profile
Prove it, this is a hoxa! i want to see the reports and photos form the "other" people that are seeing this thing, if any one thinks they can prove this to
be real cantact me via email at [email protected], send me the photos and case files.
view robert3clemens says:

profile
I think that this is NOT a hoax. It's not from outer space, either. I mean, look at the damn craft. It's got a number of ionization rods arranged around a
central core. What does that tell you? It's driven by ion wind, i.e. the rods ionize the air (at their tips), and a powerful magnet draws them through the
donut hole. It thereby stays afloat. The "fat" leg features a number of correction jets (much better visible in the previous sighting linked by
the_paper_boy17). Such ion "lifters" have been built for years, although I must admit, none to my knowledge weighing this much. My guess is that the
donut houses a commonplace superconducting ring carrying a very, very large current. The current supplies the slingshot effect that draws ions
toward the ground. In time, the action of the passing ions drags on the ring current, and the craft needs a recharge (hence its apparent interest in the
telephone pole?). The writing is probably either to make it look cool (is that Klingon?) or to disguise key components because the inventor wants to
patent it. I suspect the "fat" leg houses an antenna assembly, and maybe a camera, through which a remote human controls the craft. But hey, nice
work. It would make a great upgrade to that old model airplane in my garage!
By the way, the reason I don't think it's from outer space is because it's so obviously atmospheric. (Ion lifters don't work in space where there's
basically no gas to ionize.) And if you have the technology to speed across space, why do you want to design a probe that can only function in the
atmosphere?
Anyways, great photos!

view jabwai says:

profile
it has to be man made.. I have been on the fence about these since they showed up on C2C, I would like to see them my self.. or higher resolution
photos would be nice also.
view jabwai says:

profile
but one thing I did notice is the design of the craft and the "markings" are very reminiscent of late 90s early 2000 graphic design (ie.. Designers
Republic ...). so part of me still thinks this might be fake.
nev888 says:
US government would never allow these strange crafts roaming around to scare people off especially since 9/11. It’s either from outer space or man
made and this man certainly has the technology/money to make it work.
If a company in the US or EU could make a craft like the one in the photos, it would make headline news all over the world and making billions of
dollars just by making the technology available for civilian & commercial use. If such company exists and why the craft has no company logo and
military marking? The only marking is some kind of language on its wing that cannot be recognized by us.
If this craft lands vertically then why the marking is on the bottom side of the wing and not the topside? I think this craft was designed afloat (in air)
without landing gear hence its purpose was to scan the surface of earth so it was made outside earth because earth has gravity.
In my opinion, it’s a space probe sent from outer space to gather information about us. It’s like NASA doing on Mars.
Sidereal says:
I think this craft was designed afloat (in air) without landing gear hence its purpose was to scan the surface of earth so it was made outside earth http://www.dronehoax.com/
because earth has gravity.
My god. That's brilliant.
view kirisjahu says:

profile
if it is real, why aren't there zillions of photos posted of it already? i mean if i ran into such thing i'm sure i would instantly take my cam or cell and
shoot!
nev888 says:
already 3 groups of people have spotted these strange crafts (slightly different in design).
1st one_http://www.ufocasebook.com/strangecraftphotos.html
2nd one_http://www.ufocasebook.com/strangecraftlaketahoe.html
if they're man made, why the mighty CIA and Homeland Security would allow these things to scare people.
the best way to find out is to ask rajman1977 to upload one of his original photos so we can download it and see the digital footprint of it.
anyway, i'm quite sure the US military has already shot down one or two of these crafts but we'll never find out.
view lumendelsol says:

profile
These pictures are a hoax. The world is flat. No planets besides ours exists, and to prove a witch is a witch you dunk her in water, if she drowns she's
innocent, if she lives then she's a witch. When are people going to see with open eyes. This craft has been seen by 3 people so far if anything it
should be investigated not debunked. What happened to our safe skies. Maybe that's why the 911 hijackers got their planes so easily, because we
are so vigilant about sky safety. We are a joke.
jd_starz says:
I suppose that a hoax can not be completely ruled out. But, at this point, in my opinion, it is highly unlikely. There really is nothing to gain at this
point.(Not that there ever is really) Plus, one of the people, "Chad", has already been interviewed by Linda Moulton Howe of Earthfiles.com. I doubt
that anyone would take a hoax that far.
I would like to see images or video of this craft in infrared.
The only issue I have with this, is that nobody has come up with any video of it. I think that some good video of the craft would settle once and for all if
it is a hoax or not.
If this craft is man made, it is conceivable that it might not need landing gear if it is remote controlled. The landing gear could be at a remote location.
In other words, it might land on the landing gear itself. Of course, this is the assumption that it ever lands at all.
All we are doing is speculating. Lets get some more facts. And they will come. Just be patient.
In the meantime, if any of you see it, I wouldn't advise that you get too close to it, as people have complained about health problems such as nausia
and headaches.
Two of the eyewitnesses have mentioned a buzzing sound coming from it, that is similar to the sound that we might associate with high voltage. That
is what makes it so compelling to see in other wavelengths.
This craft looks very man-made. Even if its technology appears to be very exotic. Anti-gravity with high voltage is nothing new, or extra-terrestrial. So,
lets not "UFO" the crap out of this.
jd_starz says:
Another thing...And this is not meant to be a personal attack, so please to not take any offense by it Nev888. Why do people always assume that just
because a craft can not be identified, it is automatically aliens or some secret black project? I mean, don't rule this stuff out, but open your minds a bit.
There are a thousand other explanations. Maybe some big corporation is stealing your data. Maybe some kid is just flying a craft that he built in his
garage. Maybe George Lucas is working on a craft for a movie. Maybe, the USGS is using a experimental craft to detect Earthquakes. These are as
likely or unlikely as aliens or Big Brother.
The three different eyewitness accounts show the craft in three different configurations. This is very compelling in itself. It is also very interesting that
all sitings of this craft so far reported have been in California.
nev888 says:
hi jd, http://www.dronehoax.com/
i'm very open minded and have been searching for more news since Chad's photos. the strange language on the wing made me think about this craft
is from outer space because it doesn't make any sense to make a craft to detect earthquake and forest fire without a camera.
our technology today is

here_http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23397459-details/'Flying+saucer'+police+spy+camera+takes+to+the+skies/article.do
and here_http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/269332_insitu08.html
why suddenly someone is testing 3 or just one craft in California without the knowledge of the government?
It's a huge crime to test flying objects in civilian areas anywhere around the world and i don't think anyone has the guts to do it right over people of
CA.
it just doesn't make any sense.
jd_starz says:
Thank You for replying Nev888. The first time, I saw Chad's photos, I said to myself. Gee, I know I have seen this somewhere before. Or it's just
familiar in some way. But, I still can not seem to get a grasp on that. Can anyone else comment on that?
I have to admit that the writing is very interesting. Assuming, of course, that it isn't just a diversion. I have heard the word "Klingon" a few times when
people were speculating about the writing. If it is a hoax, then the hoaxster isn't too bright. Because the type of people who would be attracted to this
sort of thing would recognise this right away. As they actually have..sort of. And, to add to that...This is the assumption that whoever hoaxed it really
cares if it is believable in any case.
The fact that it can hover so close to the ground might mean that it doesn't need a big bulky array of camera equipment. Just because we can not see
a camera in the photo, doesn't mean that it doesn't have all kinds of them. We all know now that there are cameras, even available to consumers,
that are smaller than a pea.
Maybe it doesn't take photos. Maybe it just collects data. Maybe it does nothing but hover, and make people wonder about it. A lot of maybes...
It is also plausible that whoever is behind it is above the law, not from here(North America), or just doesn't give a crap anyway. If there are really
health risks associated with it, and it is a danger to people and other life, someone with some background in this should be invesigating it.
I have another question? Where IS the Govt.(even local) in all of this? And the media? I mean, is it just me, or is this pretty significant? To my
knowledge, nobody with any authority has even commented about the craft. Isn't that odd?
I have to agree with you that without some solid facts, it really doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, it appears to be a lump of metals hovering above
the ground making high voltage sounds. To me, it appears to be pretty solid, and heavy. I would hate to be under it, if it ever fell to the ground.
And it isn't trying to escape from witnesses. Maybe this is because it can not see them in the first place.
I can tell you what it isn't. It isn't a weather inversion or swamp gas.
o_ashford says:
I think I've figured out what it's for!
spooky434 says:
I agree with JOhn *) But what is it? I think it's an Earth Rover, Like what we sent to Mars! But by the looks of it, It's not from this time line, or the
current earth. But I do think it's more of a machine that is taking samples, and doing research. *of some kind. There seems to not be any gun turrets,
*at least in the means we know of. It just looks like a free floater. I would be there is nothing in it. But I'd like to tune an AM radio next to it, to see if it's
putting out some kind of signal. Or picking up on one ! ~NiteOwl~
view not_a_true_believer says:

profile
Historically all anonymous UFO reports, pictures, and video turn out to be fakes. When something is really flying around in the sky police, radio, and
TV station switchboards are jammed with calls and it’s all over the news the next day. This is thing is as real as lonelygirl15. I translated the alien
writing, it reads: “To Serve Man”. Sounds good to me.
jd_starz says:
I like Robert3clemens explanation. And I would be very - VERY interested in what John Hutchison might have to say about this craft.
Larry Forney says:

i love how every non-sceptic is a fake account. if only you'd put as much work into making the pictures as you did making up fictional supporters.
If someone is getting paid for this, I'd find that more impressive than alien spaceships.
view plastictabs says:

profile
Why the hell isn't there any VIDEO!?
view analogx says:
profile
Let's get the facts straight about this hoax.
1. Linda Moulton Howe and Coast to Coast regularly have hoaxers call in and they have let them run on for months and years, doing nothing to
disprove them. Google 'Dr Jonathan Reed' for a perfect example of how C2C promoted a similar hoax for years. It took an outside group a couple of
weeks to debunk the entire hoax.
2. The three reports have all been made anonymously. The sightings are claimed to be from Santa Cruz and Lake Tahoe, two popular tourist
destinations in California. It's impossible to believe nobody else saw this and posted a photo somewhere.
3. Why are there no high res photos? These were allegedly taken by a 2MP Dimage X but the best resolution is a lame 1024x768, just good enough
to make it look real but hide any CGI flaws.
On the other hand, there is a sucker born every minute. Some hoaxer is laughing his ass off at all of us.
view fxmodels says:

profile
Aside from those who just say its a Hoax without substance, I have quite a bit of experience in these matters and I undertook an analysis of the
photos and it took me all of 60 seconds to see that I was looking at a CG model. The reason for the short determination? I know where to look and
now I will tell YOU where to look on such models. By way of background by the way, my degree was in Astronomy, and my business is creating
Digital Models. So, after a while you can pick these things out rather easily.
Now, the reasons this is a clear and obvious hoax are numerous and I am sharing them with the people that have brought these photos to the public
forefront, such as Coast to Coast and MUFON. Because I saw all of your comments, I will go through it a little to let you know what you are seeing
here.
Simply put the author made a very large blunder in his FIRST set of images, those where he was directly under the craft looking up from "close
range'. There you can see artifacts in the shadows indicating that he used what is referred to as a 'light dome' or 'radiosity' or 'HDRI" to render the
computer image. This manner of rendering very accurately in some cases reproduces the way an object lit by the Sun would look: There will be subtle
light in the shaded areas, from reflected light in the sky or from the ground and the object takes on a far more REAL look. He used this technique,
BUT... he did not use enough 'samples' during the render. What this means is that the light ray reflections falling on the model are calculated from
every possible light source, be it reflection off of grass, or a wall or what have you. The more samples, the better the overall result. He used a pretty
HIGH value but NOT high enough because in the shadows you can very clearly see characteristic mottling of the shadow which is due to too few
samples.
So look in the shadows! If it looks mottled in a patterned sort of way, almost a mathematical way, then its a rendering.
That was not the only thing. The other items included light sources being wrong, the model is way too clear for its supposed size and distance, and in
these latest images he REALLY goofed up big time with both light angles, and the fact that his photo shows a bright sunny day with the sun being just
out of shot to the right, yet the object suffers NO near-sun effects .... What are those? Take a picture of something near the sun and you will see... To
get the darker shaded undersides correctly exposed, you have to overexpose the image and meter the camera for the shadows. He failed to do that
and the telephone pole, rather than being overexposed as it should be, is perfectly fine. Further, the object's bright areas are not overexposed to
show the shaded areas and this is a huge problem.
As far as video? I can tell you why there is no video.... Each FRAME of a radiosity render like this takes a very long time to render because of the
calculations required for each light ray. Sometimes a radiosity rendering can take hours per FRAME. Sometimes minutes per FRAME. Since there
are 24-30 frames per SECOND, a ten second video would be 300 frames perhaps rendering at one frame every say 45 minutes. He would tie up his
computer(s) for 225 hours just for a 10 second video! So THATS why you dont see one. In addition the author probably doesnt know HOW to create
the proper atmospheric effects for an on-the-fly animation where currently for the still images he is probably doing additional work right now in a
Photoshop type tool to add the finishing touches.
Now for those who just simply want to believe, go ahead. I cannot stop you. But dont let good science become the enemy. Just realize we havent
found them yet. But they are here, dont worry.
Marc
jd_starz says:
I like the rover idea Spooky..Based on what the witnesses have said, it just kind of goes about it's business. And isn't bothered by anything. That is a
very good description of a rover.
view fxmodels says:

profile
I am dumbfounded by anyone who believes this clear and obvious digital computer model is anything but what it is, a funny hoax. Even after the
author admits its a hoax, you will say it is not a hoax...
For crying out loud, he started by modeling a BF Goodrich All Terrain Tire and got bored!!! He smooth shifted, beveled and Nurnied. Those three
things take about an hour in any reasonable 3D program. The whole model was probably an hour to build. Then he textured it and then he poorly lit it http://www.dronehoax.com/
as I showed.
Its a simple hoax.
weedymedusa says:
ha, o ashford.
view eratozee says:

profile
all of the earlier pictures were by the same guy, and I think the this one is also from the same source.
view NASAnerd1947 says:

profile
I'm not an expert on faking digital images, but I have studied the field of electric and electromagnetic propulsion as a professional aerospace
engineer. If the object is real, the explanation put forward by robert3clemens is pretty much right on. This would be an example of an
endoatmospheric Hall-effect thruster. The curved electrodes on the top would be charged to a high positve voltage. Since they are arranged in a
radially symmetric manner, they would create a radially symmetric electric field gradient that goes to zero in the middle. Any positive ions in the air
(nitrogen, oxygen, etc.) in the vicinity of and interior to the electrodes would therefore be forced radially inward. No central electrode would be
necessary. Electrons would of course be attracted to the electrodes and collected on their surfaces. Since the positive ions are tens of thousands of
times more massive than the electrons, virtually all of the momentum flow is carried by the positive ions. A superconducting ring or rings inside the
donut shaped annular shell would be arranged so as to create circular magnetic field lines centered around the symmetry axis. There are a couple of
different winding geometries that would work. As the ions move radially inward, they cross the magnetic field lines at essentially right angles. The Hall
effect says that charged particles crossing magnetic field lines will receive an acceleration that is proportional to the size of the magnetic field and at
right angles to both it and the velocity vector of the particle. If the velocity of the particle is radially inward and the magnetic field line is tangential, then
the particle will be accelerated downward and through the hole. This is the slingshot effect that robert3clemens was talking about and can increase
the size of the ion wind by an order of magnitude. Usually the limiting parameter on an ion wind thruster is the very low level of ionization in normal air
(a few hundred per cc). There simply aren't very many charged particles around to "grab" with the electric field, and this is why ordinary "lifters" don't
have enough thrust to get themselves and their power supplies off the ground. Theory and experiment show that this can be dramatically improved by
artificially boosting the ion concentration in the air. This can easily be done with ultraviolet radiation; I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't some
excimer lasers pointing upward, interior to the electrodes.
The electrodes on the top are curved because they follow the stream lines of the ion wind; they define what is known as the "stream tube". Since air
molecules flow radially inward between and around the electrodes, the volume of air flow increases as you move axially downward to the annular
hole; that's why the stream tube is bigger at the entrance to the annular hole than it is at the top.
Hall effect thrusters have been used in space for decades. In that case, you have to bring your working fluid with you (usually Xenon or some other
noble gas). Here, the air is the working fluid. One of the problems that all Hall effect thrusters have to deal with is charge build-up. What you're doing
in the vicinity of the curved electrodes is stripping electrons off and accelerating the positively charged ions downward. Therefore you've got a
positivley charged column of air moving away from the device. If you didn't do anything about that, you would eventually build up a pretty good charge
separation that would tend to kill the thrust and also possibly cause destructive arcing or sparking. That's where the "paddles" or "wings" come in. I
think their first purpose is to serve as electrodes that recombine the electrons with the downward flowing ion wind and thereby neutralize it. In order to
do that, you need a lot of surface area, because the natural conductivity of the air is low. I think they also serve a secondary purpose of steering the
thrust vector of the ion wind. If you supply a slightly different electron current to each of an opposed pair of paddles, you will pull the column of
positively charged air to one side or the other. The different photos of what is probably the same device ("Chad's", Lake Tahoe, and now Capitola)
have different numbers and configurations of paddles. However, the one thing they all have in common is that they all have a minimum of two pairs of
paddles, diametrically opposed to each other. This always allows control of pitch and roll. They also appear designed to have a large surface area in
contact with the air at the exit plane of the thruster. If this is a real object, I would guess that whoever built it is experimenting with different models of
paddles. For one thing, the long paddles appear to have hinges where they join the body of the "donut". This implies that they are designed to be
folded up to make storage or transport of the object easier. The short paddle with six corona discharge needles on it looks like it might not have to be
stowed.
The superconducting coil or coils serve two purposes, as robert3clemens alludes to. First, they provide the very strong magnetic field necessary to
produce the Hall effect; second, they are an energy storage medium. Superconducting magnets are capable of being charged and discharged
extremely fast and have very low internal losses. Depending on the quality of the superconductor material, the energy density can be equal to or
greater than primary lithium batteries. The main power consumption would for supplying the current necessary for maintaining the high voltage on the
top curved electrodes, and "pumping" the collected electrons down to the paddles
We are not the first to think about this. The attractiveness of a purely electrically fueled aircraft with no moving parts is self-evident. The intellectual
history of Hall effect (or magnetohydrodynamic) endoatmospheric thrusters goes back at least to the 1950's, when a great deal of classified work was
done in the area. What makes it feasible today is the availability of "high temperature" superconductors on an industrial scale (pioneered, I might add
in Silicon Valley, which appears to be at the epicenter of these sightings).
All of this says that these devices, if real, were built by otherwise ordinary, but extremely well educated and well informed human beings with a few
tens of millions of dollars to play with. A discussion of where the original idea for this kind of vehicle came from will be left for another day.
OK, so why are these things being flight tested over Capitola and Lake Tahoe, instead of Edwards Air Force Base or China Lake Naval Weapons
Test Center, or Area 51? Good question, it seems pretty risky. Actually, we don't know they didn't fly around Area 51 or China Lake, first. If these http://www.dronehoax.com/
things were built by one of the usual suspect aerospace contractors for a government Agency, they almost certainly would have been tested at a
restricted flight test center first. Maybe they have already undergone preliminary testing and they are now getting ready to move into the operational
phase and they are intended to operate in the mountains and near the sea. If that's the case, we shouldn't assume that the flights are occurring
without the knowledge of Homeland Security Department and other agencies. Maybe the Agency that built them wants to determine what fraction of
sightings will be conveniently dismissed by skeptics as hoaxes. On the other hand, any number of dot-com millionaires and billionaires live within a
fifty mile radius of Capitola. One of them could have decided to build something like this out of petty cash. In that case, they would not necessarily
want or need access to a government test site. Still, flying something like this inside continental airspace without permission would be illegal most
places and pretty cheeky, even for a dot-commer.
Why isn't there a video? Again, how do you know there isn't? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I often see such comments along the
lines of "If I had seen something like this, I would have taken a perfectly focused and professionally produced video and instantly published it
everywhere in order to satisfy the curiousity of random skeptics bent on character assassination." The facts are otherwise. Anyone who has ever
spent any quality time investigating UFOs or other cryptic phenomena knows that only a tiny fraction of witness sightings ever get reported to anybody
outside the immediate family. First of all, exactly who are you supposed to report it to? There is no official collection point for this kind of story.
Second, and probably more important, what's the motivation? In most cases you simply bring down accusations of being an idiot, a fraud, or both.
view LASooner says:

profile
If he see this thing so often, you'd think he'd go out with a video camera, but he's probably saving up to buy Boujou
view fxmodels says:

profile
NASANerd...
A very nice discussion of Hall Effect phenomena. I really enjoyed that.
But... The image is clearly of a Computer Generated spacecraft created by a faker who for whatever reason, is just trying to fool people. Did he fool
you?
All the great scientific discussion aside, I clearly pointed out the obvious damning artifacts that show the object is a simple CG model, lit poorly and
incorrectly and whose shadows give away the bad sampling for a 'radiosity" render. See my patterned shadow discussion in the above comments.
I am sorry but it is completely obvious that its a simple CG render done by a good but elementary CG Modeler, who has no lighting knowledge. Cant
have one without the other to be successful, and he, was not.
Marc
view fxmodels says:

profile
Another simple point if you need more obvious flaws...
If you look at the picture that shows the object on a very bright sunny day and its small in the shot, why is it that somehow the camera was able to
show EVERY detail of the object and the telephone pole and the rest of the sky etc... The camera meter meters not on individual objects, but on
zones.... Lets talk about that because there is one shot where the 'ship' is very bright in a very bright sky and the ship takes up only 4-6% of the shot,
tiny in a vast sky....
So about that shot:
Had he SPOT metered on the ship, then the rest of the shot would be highly overexposed because the meter would make the shadowed area on the
ship look good and to do that it would open up the iris and take perhaps a longer exposure.
Had he MATRIX metered then the ship which is only about 6% of the scene, would have been silhouetted just like when you take quickie photos at an
airshow, as the sky is SO much brighter overall, it would stop down the camera.
Somehow,the buffoon decided he needed to BRIGHTEN the object in that bright sunny day image. What he did unthinkingly was seal his coffin. The
object would NOT have been bright as it was unless it was self luminous. Maybe he is reading my assessments and taking notes. Next time he might
say "and uhhh it appeared to have a glow surrounding it ... Yeah! Thats right! A glow!"
In any case, if you have real knowledge, render an opinion. Your knowledge on Hall Effect seems to withstand rigor. But knowledge of CG Pranksters
is more in my comfort zone.
view fxmodels says:

profile
Also NASANerd,
Regarding your arguments about the video... Having been a MUFON investigator, there is really very LITTLE video evidence when people see that
extraordinary once in a lifetime UFO. Had that been the case here then the faker would have had a better shot of pulling this all off.
But this faker has decided that he can repeatedly go out and 'find it in a relatively short time'... And he claims to have done so and brought friends
with him to see it... So now lets ask again why there is no video.... http://www.dronehoax.com/
profile
FXMODELS:
I did read your patterned shadow discussion, and I'm not sure which set of images you're referring to or what kind of analytical tools you used to
examine the image; therefore I reserve judgment for the time being.
If you go with the hoax hypothesis, then I assume you would believe that all the images came from the same source. The Lake Tahoe images were
ostensibly taken on May 5, the Central California images were taken on May 6, and the Capitola images were taken on May 16. There seem to be a
total of 14 images now posted at various places on the web. One of "Chad's" Central California image was ostensibly taken with a camera phone, the
Capitola ones were ostensibly taken with a Konica Minolta DIMAGE X, Chad's" higher resolution images were taken with an unidentified
"professional" camera and the Lake Tahoe images were supposedly also taken with an unidentified phone camera.
I would like your opinion as an imaging expert; are the images consistent with being taken by 4 different cameras, of the types mentioned? (I assume
that the "normal" way to fake a photo like this is to take a real digital image of a background--trees, telephone pole, etc.--with a camera and then
superimpose a CG image onto it and that you are not disputing that real digital cameras were involved. Otherwise, your argurment about
inconsistency between shadow patterns wouldn't make sense. Please correct me if I misunderstood your assumption.) Which of the camera image
sets did you find the suspicious shadow patterning in? All of them? What kind of analytical tools do you use to detect the patterning? I assume that to
detect the patterning, you have to digitally zoom the image to peer into the shadow. I guess what I'm wondering is, what level of magnification do you
need to see the patterning and how close is the scale of the patterning to the digitization level of the image?
I'm prepared to believe the images are faked, but I'd like to understand the line of evidence a little better.
Also, it occurs to me that an experienced FX modeler such as yourself could probably easily design and render your own faked photo of, say, a
square UFO with the same level of detail as the Capitola photo and post it on Flickr. It would be interesting to see how long it takes and how
convincing it is.
view picoduck says:

profile
i was also planning to ask if fxmodels could make an image like this. i'd love to see the same shot from the same telephone pole with a different,
unusual craft floating up there.
also, i am disappointed that rajman never responded to my email to him when he first posted this flickr link on craigslist. it would be very helpful to us
if he responded to us with more info and links to the original camera images. he also deleted his craigslist posting soon afterwards which is
suspicious.
also, the text on the craft strongly resembles Klingon and the Japanese Katakana:
ufocasebook.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=reports&act...
so, this, plus fxmodels analysis makes me think NO on this matter.

weedymedusa says:
'to serve man?' how do you get that?

profile
fxmodels: Where exactly do you see low-quality shadows? I notice only compression artifacts.
view fxmodels says:

profile
NASANerd and picoduck
I was already thinking of creating another image to illustrate the shadow anomalies. But to first answer your question about which images I am talking
about, there are images on Coast to Coast which show this craft.The link is
The 5th image down shows the render anomaly. The shadow is obviously a rendered shadow. You can clearly see small circular patches of darker
shadow within the overall shadow. The shadow appears to be composed of 'pores' like on an orange as best I can describe. This appearance is
directly the result of not using proper settings for the "radiosity" type rendering and is prevalent in multiple rendering packages. To achieve a higher
end result you need to have the light bounce more in your rendering to provide depth in the shadow.
Cameras... The concept of a camera in the 3D arena is contrived . You create the camera for your rendering and you can set it to be anything you
want. All 3D packages allow you to set the exact output size... so a small cell phone camera setting of say 320x240 or 640x480... no problem. Set the
render to that, and take the result into Photoshop and add a matrix convolution to rough the image a bit as cell phones take poor pictures by and http://www.dronehoax.com/
large.
For the "Pro camera" pictures, just up the resolution a bit and your off to the races.
So as to whether the imagery is consistent with the type of camera he claims... sure. He can make the camera be anything he wants.
As far as the images being taken in these different places... Well, he might not be lying. Not about the BACKGROUND image. It could be that these
were all taken in the places he claims, but ... the little CG UFO was added later ...
That one image though where the ship was relatively small against a large expanse of sky and telephone pole [not the upward looking ones but more
long-wise looking ones] he brightened the UFO in the sky because he let his MIND tell him what he thought it should look like and not a CAMERA.
Had he thought like a CAMERA he would have made the UFO more of a silhouette as it would have been. The camera would have metered for the
sky and never taken a photo like he claimed and showed.
M

profile
Higher resolution pack of that first serie:
www.divshare.com/download/711765-1a1
Said to be copies of the original scans from the developed photos.
I assume that the fifth picture with just the wing is a magnification of the above picture :/ There are changes in the intensity of the shadow in the larger
resolution picture, but as the rim is uneven and it has distance to the wing, I cant judge for radiosity moire for certain. (btw, damn good bloom in the
close side-view pictures)
jd_starz says:
Just a note.
If these people are trying to remain anonymous, they probably will not reply to any of your e-mails.
nev888 says:
Thanks for some great analytical comments above that make this page the best learning place ever for me and I’m now 50/50 on this thing.
IF these photos were made using different software, then a Hollywood studio must be doing this to promote an upcoming sci-fi movie.
Spotted a good comparison photo in lucianarchy forum and it just makes you wonder why someone bothered to make 2 versions of this craft in CG
and with different writings and wing details. Only God knows.
See photo http://www.flickr.com/photos/8418528@N06/506533536/URL or click on my name (nev888).
What if this craft is real, then it is not a prototype cos it can withstand ocean wind in Capitola and fly steadily over a telephone pole (not even http://www.dronehoax.com/
spinning) over forest and residential district.
Whoever made this craft is extremely wealthy and heartless to all the Californians – a rich bastard indeed. If this craft crashed into a forest and caught
fire - just catastrophic.
view tmr_sinclair says:

profile
To fxmodels, NASAnerd1947 et al. -
I never join groups or post comments, but this thread and your comments in particular are very interesting and I would like to learn more, and intend
to do so. In the meantime, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to answer a quick question from an amateur.
I know nothing of Klingon, I am not particularly interested in UFOs although I do find the possibility fascinating, and I also have very limited knowledge
of technology, including computer graphics although I have been able to manipulate photos simply by experimenting, most often without really
knowing what I'm doing.
I have no idea whether UFOs exist or not. I try to maintain a "healthy skepticism." In essence that means that I am willing to consider any and all
information.
Looking at these photos makes me think they're fakes, but I cannot say that with any certainty, it is just my (amateur) opinion.
So my question is this: I was reading Chad's comments on the link that fxmodels gave above
(http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page2022.html?theme=light) and something jumped out at me:
"It makes kind of 'crackling' noises. It's hard to describe them but they are only intermittent and not very loud, but you can notice them. Sometimes
there is a very slight hum that sounds kind of mechanical, almost like when you are near very large power lines."
I have not yet closely inspected the photos to look for the telltale signs that they're fakes as described by fxmodels, but I was wondering whether this
"mechanical hum" might represent something that could emit a type of wave and possibly result in some distortion in the photo, and what that
distortion might look like.
To put it another way, on a very hot day you can visibly see the heat emanating up from the asphalt, causing a "wavy distortion", and I was curious as
to whether this type of thing could happen - not this exact situation, but something similar (e.g., electrical waves) - and possibly result in some kind of
artifact in the photos.
I'm also not sure what compression artifact means or what it would look like, so I'm going to try to look that up as well.
This is a very interesting discussion and I look forward to your additional comments.
view Cutefangs says:

profile
Viral marketing for the new Transformers movie
view fxmodels says:

profile
The clincher...
Nail in the coffin... The weather at the time and dates associated with his bright blue sky pictures, and at the locations mentioned in association with
the photos was?
Ready?
cloudy and rainy!!!! Its public record and was brought to my attention by an investigator in that area.
Fakers cannot think of everything. This guy did not think of synchronizing his imagery to the weather at the time.
Oh wait... the 'craft' has a special device making perfectly clear weather in a radius of 50 mi in all directions! Dang! Thought I had him... ha ha...
view fxmodels says:

profile
To Arkwright...
Re: Compression artifacts..
In the picture I mentioned on the C2C site, 5th one down, the shadows on the right side of the image show the orange 'pore' look. More than a
compression artifact, this is a rendering artifact in my opinion ... Further, such a craft that has harsh shadows from a fully exposed Sun, would exhibit
some level of harsh shadow as well instead of being SOFT shadowed. The Radiosity technique will make soft shadows. The only way to get proper
harsh shadows is to purchase what is known as a Physical Renderer such as Maxwell, or FryRender. We have both of these tools and I have to say, I http://www.dronehoax.com/
am going to take on the challenge of producing a UFO that looks as real or more than his and the FryRender version will have the proper shadows.
Reality is fleeting. Unless its on a film negative taken directly out of a camera after a multiple eyewitness account, it is hard to believe anything these
days.
That said, I want to once again mention the reason why I am quite sure there is no video yet as several people mentioned it again. As I mentioned it
takes a LONG time to render objects using this kind of light technique. Radiosity renders are among the longest you can make as are physical
renderer images. Further, I am CERTAIN he had to bring his images into Photoshop or a similar tool to add haze and any other additional tweaks to
make it 'real'. On a frame by frame basis he would have to do this because he probably doesnt know the best way to create the atmospherics
required for on the fly animation. Doing proper atmosphere DOES represent a whole new layer to creation of 3D models.
He probably isnt patient enough and when pressed might just as well say that gee, he tried to video but it was all blank for some reason... I would love
to hear how he comments [and he wont] on the fact that the weather was cloudy and rainy at the time he took the images.
Wellllll maybe his camera had the wrong date or he was suffering missing time...
As we speak I am recreating this UFO bit by bit.

nev888 says:
Hi Fxmodels,
I’ve uploaded a higher resolution (1.2MB in size) photo of this craft in http://www.flickr.com/photos/8418528@N06/506533536/URL or click on my
name.
Please do something as good as the one in the photo to convince a lot of us.
Thank You.
view fxmodels says:

profile
UFO...
I have examined the model once again and see very elementary 3D tool usage on the model. For those fluent with the types of tools available in a
typical 3D modeling program here are the ones he used. The names are tailored to Cinema 4D but Lightwave, Maya, and other tools have similar
tools:
1: Tube primitive object used as a baseline

2: Polygon manipulation tools:
a: Bevel
b: Smooth Shift
c: Knife and Cutting tools
d: Extrude
I am rendering a 10 minute creation right now and will figure out how to upload it... The point being that he chose a UFO that is EASY to make in CG.
I made one of the long fins sticking out in 30 seconds, selecting polygons, beveling it out, tapering the tips,and softening the edges on the fin.
I can imagine spending another 3-4 hours and getting something intriguing. And it would probably fool most people too. Not that I am this fantastic
artist but keep in mind that the TOOLS available now make it so much easier to pull this off.
view sp00nm says:

profile
If you don't think this is a hoax you're off your rocker. I've seen that font before and while I can't directly place it, I'm sure there is a Star Wars/Trek fan
out there who can confirm it.
Also, why would they put so much writing on the craft? Every panel of the wing has writing... ever seen a "UFO" or even a USAF craft with that much
writing on it, particularly an experimental one?
view fxmodels says:

profile
nev888...
I appreciate that you think his compositing skills are good. In using his telephone pole images as a baseline, it is clear that you found those to be the
most convincing for you. This is just what the faker could have hoped. I am not sure if you realize that fakers OFTEN will composite real live images in
front of their work in hopes of convincing people of their veracity. NOTHING about this set of sightings makes sense.
DId you see that the faker LIED about the weather? On the days in question when he took the "photos", it was cloudy and rainy in those locations. He
isnt batting 1000 here...
weedymedusa says:
Batting 1000? Wrong area of the stadium. The guy has the worst & cheapest seats, is drinking the last drops of his 5th Bud Light, and ordering
another hotdog. And, he has ketchup smeared all over his chin. And his shirt. Gross.
view fxmodels says:

profile
Weedy..
Ha HA!!! you are funny... I liked that.
;)
weedymedusa says:
hee hee. i'll bet when his identity is finally revealed, his wikipedia photo will prove my description isnot far off. Oh yeah, and he's wearing a Metallica
Tshirt.
view spf_34 says:

profile
fxmodels - if your cg skills are as weak as your meteorlogical skills maybe you should reconsider your position.
Capitola, CA Weather for the 16th of May:

http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KCACAPIT1&year=2007&month=5&day=16
You're treading down a well worn path, The Above Top Secret forum, has already beaten the cg route to a sloopy bloody pulp;
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread283514/pg1
view brainshrub says:

profile
It's a viral hoax for the Transformers movie. Geez, y'all are gullible. This is a "Space Bridge".
be OH be says:
brainshrub, do you have any supporting info about this viral hoax or is it just a hunch?

profile
To all :
I checked the issue of the weather. According to Linda Mounton-Howe's report, the Capitola images were taken on May 16, which was a Wednesday.
From the looks of the sun angle on the telephone pole, I would say it was maybe an hour or two before sundown--late afternoon, anyway. I live only
about 20 minutes away from Capitola, in the Santa Cruz mountains, am a private pilot, and so am very familiar with the weather patterns in the area.
Basically, except when there is a storm front coming through, the weather pattern is boringly similar from day to day. That's what makes the flying
conditions good, here. The standard pattern is for fog to form in the cooler and saturated marine layer of air over night at around 1500 feet above
ground level, and then to progressively burn off further back from the beach as the day warms up. Usually, by evening, the waterfront is completely
clear, but then around sunset, the fog comes back in and the pattern repeats. That's what appears to have been the case on May 16.
Anyone can go to the NOAA Geostationary Satellite archives for the day in question and get a satellite image of what the weather was like
(http://www.goes.noaa.gov/). (Select the GOES West archive and click on the desired week and day, then choose the "visible" channel.) Around
sunrise on May 16, there is clearly a fog layer filling the entire Monterey bay. It burns off around noon and stays clear until sunset. Another day in
paradise.
I would reccommend someone else check my work on this, just to be sure. Anyone checking this out should keep in mind that at sunset on the Pacific
coast, it is already into the next day on the Prime Meridian.
view fxmodels says:

profile
SPF 34...
I did make a mistake in my post and you did catch it I didnt. Sorry. The Tahoe photos were the May 5 ones with weather data and the weather there
was rainy and cloudy on that day. But to be fair I WILL obtain the weather data personally from the investigator.
And I am treading down a well worn path? You mean you actually BELIEVE this obvious hoax attempt is real? And if the CG guys in the Above Top
Secret forum cannot hold their own against those who can debate better than they, does that mean the ATS folks are right? And with a name like
Above Top Secret... well ... the name kind of tells you the people there are conspiratorial. My experience with forums such as that is that you never
are treated fairly as there are those who just relish the pounce and perception of the kill.
Why do any hoaxers perpetrate and continue hoaxes sometimes for years? [ala Bigfoot tracks ... fake loch ness monsters... etc....] They do it for the
ongoing thrill and feeling of importance in some cases, and in others, to gain publicity ... a million reasons. So to ask the inane question as I read
there that said in relation to the latest batch of pix: "NOW do you still believe that this is just photoshopped stuff?"
Ummm yes more than ever!
And SPF34 I did not see anywhere yet where they 'beat the cg route to a sloopy bloody pulp". I saw them just outright ignoring what the CG guys
have to say but no beatings...
This object is a most obvious fake ... and for those who only know how to believe, its going to be a very difficult run.
view fxmodels says:

profile
SPF 34
I looked at the ATS site in detail you referenced and that thread has more "I believe its fake" than "I believe its real" or "I believe the CG folks are
wrong"
So I am not sure if you sent me to the right bloody pulp thread... ;)

view spf_34 says:

profile
fxmodels-
perhaps the cg thing hasn't been beaten to a pulp, except for in my own mind (i'm one of the cg guys on the ats threads). yes, ats is questionable, but
unfortunately, i don't see a discussion at dpreview.com, ot cgtalk.com or msn.com, or where ever else.
i don't know if they are real or not. i don't believe one way or the another.
as someone who considers himself to be more than fairly competent in my profession, i find it almost unbelievable, if not unacceptable, that my peers
can declare, loudly too, that these images are fakes.
they are being presented as real, and i see no reason why the images cannot be accepted as real from a visual and techinical point.
there is not enough evidence to determine from just the photos themselves!
i take that back, one glaring reason why i see a reason for these to be faked is that we have heard nothing from any of the 3 original photographers.
but like most of the arguments for these images being fake, they have little to do with the images themselves.

profile
To tmr_sinclair, and all:
Apparently, Linda Moulton-Howe has interviewed another witness (not rajman1977) who supports the claim that the object is real. The interview
should appear on the Earthfiles website in a day or two, so it looks to me like there are still a few moves to play out here.
Continuing with the hypothesis that some of the photos show a real flying device over California during the last few weeks, I will try to address the
questions you raised. The reported "crackling" and "humming" sounds both imply the presence of high voltage equipment. If the curved rods on the
top of the object are electrodes charged up to a high voltage (as I postulate) then they would almost certainly be giving off corona discharges. This
would occur at the sharpest points, or tips of the electrodes, where the radius of curvature is tightest. If you've ever been near a Van DeGraff static
electricity generator, you probably will have heard similar crackling and hissing.
As far as the humming is concerned, my guess is that any superconducting coils in the device would be operating at pretty ordinary voltages, but you
would need tens of kilovolts applied to the rods. The usual way to achieve this would be with a step-up transformer and a rectifier. Transformers that
handle high power usually hum at the frequency or at a harmonic of the electrical frequency they operate at. That's because the magnetic fields in
them that are rapidly building and collapsing put a "magnetic pressure" strain on the construction materials of the transformer. So, the transformer
actually physically vibrates at the forcing frequency. If you've ever stood near a cheap flourescent light fixture, you'll be familiar with the phenomenon.
Finally, you raise the interesting question of possible optical distortion in the vicinity of such a device, such as "heat waves" or the like. Interestingly
enough, this phenomenon has been observed and described in other cases in which I suspect the involvement of a Hall-effect (or MHD) thruster,
such as the Chicago O'Hare Airport case from November 7, 2006. Several witnesses to that case report seeing a "swirling" in the layer of air
immediately adjacent to the skin of the object, like "bees buzzing". If the object is held aloft by the thrust generated by an ion wind, then the
downwash itself would be invisible. However, in the immediate vicinity of the skin of the object one might expect to get localized vorticity, turbulence, http://www.dronehoax.com/
and large changes in density, over short spatial scales. Changes in density, even in a transparent gas, would result in changes in the optical index of
refraction and therefore distortion of any light rays transiting the region. This phenomenon is often used in wind tunnels to visualize flow over test
models, and is called Schlieren Photography. To my knowledge, no one has explicitly reported this or a similar observation with regard to the
California objects, but if my hypothesis is correct about how these objects operate, then I wouldn't be surprised if someone did report it.
exitfromreality says:
This is by far my favorite fake UFO to date. I really like the design. Its nice to see something more than a flying saucer for once :)
I am a CG artist myself and I had some comments on this whole ordeal. As some people, such as fxmodels, have mentioned, this is an easy craft to
model. Im sure I could recreate it in a few hours. Where these images do shine is that they are composited really really well. He has gone as far as
including the chromatic abberation (red glow) on borders between dark and light areas that is commonly seen in cheap camera lenses.
The slight camera shake blur is also done well on the powerline shots and it matches well between the CG and photo. The problem is that there
should be no camera shake blur in such a picture. It appears to be bright and sunny and even a small digital camera, at ISO 50 would still be using a
very high shutter speed. the general rule of eliminating slow shutter camera shake is to have a shutter speed that is (1/focal length). The camera said
to have taken these pictures is the Minolta DiMage X as reported by earthfiles has a minimum ISO of 100 and a 37-110mm zoom lens. Even if this
picture was taken at 110mm there is no way there would be blur on the image because a shutter speed of 1/100 would be way to slow for a sunny
day, unless the camera was stopped down to F16 or more, something automatic exposure modes on small digital cameras would never do, they
would keep the Fstop around f5.6-f8 and increase the shutter speed instead. Also the DiMage X can take pictures at 1600x1200....why are these so
small?
I would love for this to be real, what fun it would be. I live 20min from capitola and id love to run over that way and take my own pictures.
Unfortunately we all know UFO's NEVER show up in front of anyone sitting around with a Canon 20D and 400 5.6L at the ready :-/
view Newlin says:

profile
So, let me get this right.
People are presented with a photograph, along with a narrative of what it represents, and are faced with deciding whether the photograph is a hoax or
not.
One possibility is that it is a computer-generated image. (It should be obvious that a text narrative can be fabricated, and does not constitute proof.)
Another possibility is that the photograph is not a hoax, and actually depicts an alien craft (or top-secret craft originating on Earth).
Now, it would seem to me that the most plausible explanation is that it is a hoax.
So, why do people jump to the conclusion that this is a real object, absent any sort of proof - extraordinary or otherwise?
astanhope says:
The writing is not "Japanese" or any other real written language.
The writing is what someone who is not literate in Japanese or Chinese thinks it looks like.
As a foreigner, once you learn to read Japanese or Chinese, you begin to see examples everywhere wherein people think they are making something
look like Japanese or Chinese but the resemblance is just cursory. The most common manifestation of this is computer-copied Japanese or Chinese
text that is reproduced backwards or upside down.
What we're seeing here is the same as if you took someone with decent observational and artistic skills, handed them a pad and asked them to write
"something that looks like Japanese" from memory - without a model to look at.
view fxmodels says:

profile
exitfromreality:
Bravo! I am glad you see how easy the craft is to create. A few hours ago I created a version of it in about an hour. I have been playing with
environment and haze and am about to upload my very first attempts which without even TEXTURING the thing, dont look that bad. I added a simple
texture of gray mottled ship panels ala a star wars type ship. As you saw exitFromReality, the base object is a tube that was beveled et al. I am going
to upload one of mine to just show it.
You are right about the camera conclusions too. As you know we just create our own cameras and set the lens effects etc... etc...
Oh yeah and Capitola is near Santa Cruz... you know, that HIGHLY UNPOPULATED section of California... No WONDER no one saw this thing! After
all, the faker says he can find it after only 30 minutes..
heh heh ...
Marc http://www.dronehoax.com/
view fxmodels says:
profile
Ok here is my 90 minute fun toy. I have not even scratched the surface of making the atmosphere more real or texturing the ship for real. If I do that
and spend another day or so, this can look as real as anything you can photograph....
www.flickr.com/photos/8455761@N06/511283665/
view fxmodels says:

profile
I uploaded it, and I cannot seem to make the photo any larger... It is 1024x768 but wont show that size...
midwinter_ says:
That's the fakest telephone pole I've ever seen.
view fxmodels says:

profile
ha ha...
view spf_34 says:

profile
fxmodel - you are delusional if you think you are in any way even close to approaching the sophistication and believability of the original photos!
i certainly applaud your efforts though...and having read thru your description now, i gotta tell ya you seem to have a but a rudimentary skill level with
3d (18 min render for that!? what proc\ram?). i can tell just by how you talk about your work.
please don't present yourself with quite as much authority in the future.
view Fotos Dan says:

profile
The simplest explanation is usually the best.
Not a hoax. A viral. For the new Transformers movie. I don't think aliens write in japanese katakana.
spf 34 - your a bit delusional if you think thats as good as fxmodel can do. That was 90min, its simple and quick and uses mostly default settings, its
not supposed to be perfect, its supposed to show how quick and easy someone could make such a picture. I doubt the original artist spent only 90min
on this. Give fxmodel 24 hours and im sure it will look identical. I could create an exact replica in 24 hours, its not that hard.
view spf_34 says:

profile
i'll give him 6 months.
he doesn't have the innate ability to ever get it to the level of these photos.
it's tiresome to hear "fake! i'm a pro, i can do this and that's why it's fake" they then turn around and present something like this turd.
and again, i don't believe these photos are real.

Fotos Dan - I think your theory might be the best. This thing doesnt look alien, and it sure isnt anything a human would bother to build if they had the
technology.
The "alien writing" looks like alien writing, it looks like if someone needed alien writing its the first thing they would create. Im sure if you google alien
writing something similar comes up. Why would there be writing on an alien craft? if they are trying to hide form us why would there be writing all over
their easy to photograph craft. Do aliens even have a written language, and if so, does it have to be constructed with a string of characters just like
ours?
As for man made, simple enough, asymmetrical things dont move well. I wold imagine it takes a lot more effort to design an asymmetrical craft that
flies than a symmetrical craft, why bother to make it asymmetrical. If you were building such a craft, and you wanted it to be a secret, why would you
put writing on it, and why in some silly looking alien font. If you really needed to write on it, say you needed it to say "don't touch this" on a particular http://www.dronehoax.com/
part wouldn't you write it in English so anyone helping you build this craft would actually know to not touch whatever it was. If it was such a small team
or single person that they could all know their secret alien language, wouldn't they just all know not to touch it anyways.
It looks to me to be created by an artist specifically to appear alien and unknown. Probably Viral, or at least someone having a lot of fun a 3d program
at our expense.
weedymedusa says:
and what do you guys think the chances of this hoaxer not assuming an identity within this thread--his own posting?
spf 34 - that took 90min. The most amazing 3d artist in the world couldnt recreate the original images in 90min.
view fxmodels says:

profile
SPF34:
I could have predicted your response IN SPITE of the MANY commentsI provided ahead of time. As expected, you were going to attack no matter
WHAT I created because you have made up your mind.
Perhaps you should visit our web site to see some of what we can do but then again perhaps not. You seem to be the type who would rather gleefully
and thoughtlessly attack and let the facts continue to elude you.
For instance, my hand rubbing friend, I said:
"I have not even scratched the surface of making the atmosphere more real or texturing the ship for real."
-what part of that makes you think I DID attempt a believable atmosphere or high end texture in 90 min of modeling time?
I also said, my neighborhood offensive tackle:
"Textures were simple and no time taken to 'paint' any lettering or anything. Just a quickie for purposes of show and tell. "
- What part of that statement leads you to believe this is NOT a quickie, using the SAME RUDIMENTARY TOOLS AS THE FAKER, to produce in 90
minutes a craft well on its way to being what he produced?
and then I said, my deaf dumb and blind conspiratorial cohort:
"Atmosphere was STOCK and not altered to make it more real. I used default settings for Radiosity, added Environmental haze prior to rendering,
and rendered for 18 minutes."
-What part of that statement my SO vigilant friend tells you that the atmosphere WASNT stock as I say?
So tell me again as I am confused... what part of my model study did you not understand?
Did you not see how I itemized the rudimentary techniques and these are what I would use to create a similar ship? Let me recite them again for you
as you apparently do not read well:
I said the model was created using the following SIMPLE and RUDIMENTARY objects and functions available in most reasonably good 3D Modeling
programs:
1: Tube primitive object used as a baseline

2: Polygon manipulation tools:
a: Bevel
b: Smooth Shift
c: Knife and Cutting tools
d: Extrude
Obviously you missed that and all the other things I said and only paid attention to what YOU wanted to see. As I said, I could have .. and DID ...
predict you would do this.
exitfromreality:
He is not delusional, just fixed on a viewpoint. He was going to attack if I provided an identical model...Thanks for the comments. Of course the faker
used up a good part of a week or more to create his model. I used 90 min using simplistic techniques to show how close you can get in just that much
time using beginner techniques. Then of course you can always count on someone to pounce and belittle without paying any attention to the FACTS
provided. Why let facts get in the way of a good trouncing!
view spf_34 says:
profile
yeah, 90 mins so what?
then why show us the thing, what good does that do?!!
someone that doesnt know any better is going to take fxmodel's judgement as "fake;declared by a pro" as fact. when in fact it is merely his opinion.
and an opinion that is based on not a whole lot of skill.
and just so you know, i'm a cg guy. i do this for a living. i already modelled, lit and rendered the thing a few days ago and posted it on ats. i spent 45
mins on it and it's virtually indistinquishable from chad's images.
i'm not arguing with anyone on whether or not the images can be faked...in 10 mins or 55 years.
bd2k+ says:
he doesn't have the innate ability to ever get it to the level of these photos.
do i detect a jealous cgi junkie defending his own work?

Octal Khan says:

CG geeks can't resist putting Aurebesh or Klingon all over everything :)
view picoduck says:

profile
it's quite clear from fxmodels' simple demo that pics like this can be easily created. i'm convinced now that with more time and effort one could be
made to look exactly like the pics posted by rajman. sp_34, you're unnecessarily harsh, ease up a little, ok? this was a proof of concept, not a
definitive work, i think the rest of us get that. why don't you go ahead and post yours here?
as for the pic sizing issue, flickr states here (http://www.flickr.com/help/photos/#18) that for free accounts no original images are retained and that
they resize them to maximum 1024 pixels per side. you must have a pro account to show and make available original images for downloads.
as for the astanhope's font comment earlier, it doesn't look japanese, but it most certainly resembles klingon font and btw, you can download and
install that font and use it.
view spf_34 says:

profile
"you're unnecessarily harsh, ease up a little, ok?"
yes, i am. i've been obsessed with this whole for going on 5 days. and if you knew me, you'd know.
apologies fxmodels. i think i am projecting my frustrations with this topic from elsewhere on you.
spf 34 - then I would like to see your rendering so that I may see for myself. I cant just take "fxmodel doesn't have the innate ability to ever get it to the
level of these photos" and "i spent 45 mins on it and it's virtually indistinquishable from chad's images" as fact, when it is merely your opinion, and an
opinion that is based on an as of yet unproven amount of skill.
so lets see it
view spf_34 says:

profile
see, now this is what i didn't want...to possibly be accused of wanting a pissing contest or ego stroke. i'm not going to post my work here. i already
posted a link to the thread at ats. you can find it there.
bethlovesmadonna says:
yeah. put your CG money where your mouth is spf_34. show us your superior modeling techniques. and bd2k+ and Octal- LOL!
view fxmodels says: http://www.dronehoax.com/

profile
SPF..
I look forward to seeing your work actually. I am intrigued. I will go to ATS and search for it. Where do I look?
Thanks for the apology, you get one in return if I pissed you off too...
Marc
ajholman says:
spf, i've looked right through that thread and can't find your cgi example. could you give us a pointer? we won't think you are being big-headed
spf 34 - I couldnt find it either. I hoped you'd post it here so we don't have to wade through all 18 pages of ATS....which I did to no avail. Can you link
to it directly?
chauss513 says:
It's all true, They are here, I got one of the suckers trying to steal beer from me last night.
view picoduck says:

profile
you must be spf33 at the ats forum:
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread281345/pg29#pid3205150
your pic is good, too. i see you obtained the original pics from c2c.. too bad Lex didn't give you the ip address of Chad, they must have the original
email and know how to expand the headers? i was thinking the same thing, to compare that ip with rajman's from the craigslist and flickr postings, as http://www.dronehoax.com/
well as with the woman from Tahoe. if no match no info, but if they match.. then the game's over. unfortunately, this info is nearly impossible to get for
privacy and legal reasons...
incidentally, i also noticed that rajman has posted his yahoo address in his profile here. it was not posted before late last night. he also gives his full
name. have you written to him?
view spf_34 says:

profile
hey picoduck, yeah, thats it. i did another, the one with the yellow flowers, but not wanting to muddy the waters, i didn't post it.
yeah, lex kinda implied that he might have ip #'s, but is respecting chad's requested anonymity.
nice job, thanks for the heads up on the email for rajman1977.
timashbrooke says:
just because you can create, or recreate this thing with software, doesn't mean it's not real! Anything you can see can be recreated using CG!
It's like me taking a picture of a car parked on the side of a road and you saying I don't believe it's there because I can recreate the same scene using
CG!?!?!?!
I'm not saying it's real, but I am saying don't jump to conclusions just because you CG artists can do this in the computer. It seem like a battle of the
ego's now!! (I can do better than that! etc)
automatist says:
This guy rendered his model using radiosity.
Still like it though...
view spf_34 says:

profile
the reason you are seeing a lot of cg people jump on this is because the object shows very particular shape, lighting, and shadowing characteristics
which are VERY typical of current rendering engines.
Many of these render engines and techniques have a telltale look and feel to them. So perhaps if someone spots one of these characteristics, we can
start to better determine whether or not this thing is rendered.
view toyrobot says:

profile
I'm a 3ds Max user, Autodesk trained, have TAUGHT Max and also a fairly accomplished Photoshop user. I've looked at most of the pix, but have
examined #0017 (this one) in detail.
I must say that the photos taken as a group sure seem to be a3d rendered model. There are some lighting issues with the model fitting into the photo,
but they are fairly slight.
One thing I CAN say FOR SURE is that IF these pix are faked (and I think this is just some viral campaign for Transformers), the people executing
the comps are VERY GOOD. I have examined a ton of photoshopped photos, and this one is clean all the way to the pixel level.
I do have to agree there seem to be some lighting abberations between the photo and the 'object.' They are subtle.
One other point: Others have described a propulsion system for such a device... I must ask, if the propulsion system functioned as described,
wouldn't the 'object' need to be fairly symetrical? Seems to me the large 'fin' on one side would be VERY off center of the center of thrust. But I'm not
a rocket scientist...
weedymedusa says:
why does everyone think this is about transformers in particular? Does it resemble anything to do with it? The transformers are completely
aesthetically different. Not to mention, what about all the hubris and legal issues/disgrace with the aqua teen hunger force marketing fiasco in boston?
I'm just not sure a major studio would actually partake in something like this now, at least not before the dust has settled. They would especially not
have these things flying around (if they did--why wouldn't they send one over the kodak theatre tonight?) and if they were simply trying to create a stir
with a planted hoax, why coast to coast am? by posting it that particular way, they were taking a chance of not even being seen. it's luck that it even
made it on. And LOTS of dumb stupid things and abovious hoaxes make it to the viewer photo section. one guy posted a shadow of his bass guitar
on the ceiling. a very recent one was so painfully obviously dumb (the one with the 'see-through' wallet. god.) I think a studio would probably use
youtube, to insure it gets seen. oh wait--a studio would use a professionally produced VIDEO.
I wish someone would get obsessed over my Victim of the Beast 666 headstone that was posted at Coast to Coast.
view fxmodels says:
profile
I looked on the ATS site at SPF's image... If I read it right, the model he used was someone else's? If that is true, well no wonder it only took 45
minutes to work it.
Not sure if I misread it though so SPF will correct this I am sure.
Marc
< Prev 1 2 Next >

(183 comments)


PICT0018
Uploaded on May 20, 2007
by rajman1977
6
photos
6
photos

More properties
See different sizes
dotcomvet says: 2 people call this photo a favorite
Viewed 11,210 times
wow
bark says:
too sharp
gierran says:
you're a monkey
anyjazz65 says:
Interesting.
darlancorral says:
Interessante. Great click.


Home The Tour Sign Up Explore Search the forum Search
Help / The Forum

Current Discussion account hacked?
Flickr 200 photo limit. spf_34 says:
Latest: 28 seconds ago
[link removed by staff]
Coding
Latest: 78 seconds ago how secure is flickr?
The Set Icon sorry...currently the link is not safe for work.
Latest: 15 minutes ago Posted at 7:10AM, 5 June 2007 PDT ( permalink )
heather (staff) edited this topic 42 minutes ago.
How to report abuse
Latest: 17 minutes ago
Free account set limit smilesalot123454321 says:

apparently not very! but i do not think that posting porn is the best way to raise
the awareness of this
account hacked? Posted 65 minutes ago. ( permalink )
search by date? dbthayer says:

spf_34:
Flickr in Dutch
Latest: 35 minutes ago do a forums search for "hijacking" and/or "phishing" and you'll have your
answer.
Posted 62 minutes ago. ( permalink )
Unloading photos help..
heather says:
Bulk Mail
Latest: 38 minutes ago Given that we don't like to be finger pointy in the forums, I've removed the
URL. Report Abuse, linked from the footer of every page is the best way to
[locked, directed to Flickr bring accounts to our attention.
Central] (and now for
some positive news)
Flickr in the New York
spf_34 says:
Times today!
not pointing fingers, i asked a question in regards to what the text on image
posted on the account said.
I'm new here. Posted 40 minutes ago. ( permalink )
More... dbthayer says:

what the text on image posted on the account said
the text on the image was incorrect.

lowly account hijiackers often like to imagine themselves as "hackers". there's
a world of difference.
spf_34 says:
well, respectfully, i disagree on your definitions.
why argue semantics for the umpteenth time?
the account's security was compromised, information was deleted, now the
entire account is deleted.
and i payed yesterday to upgrade rajman1977 to a pro account!

Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads

rajman1977 is no longer active on Flickr.


Rajman1977 Flickr Account History

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rajman1977 Flickr Account History

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rajman1977 Flickr Account History

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You aren't signed in Sign In Help

Home The Tour Sign Up Explore Search rajman1977's photos Search

rajman1977's photos View as slideshow ( )

© All rights reserved. © All rights reserved.

© All rights reserved. © All rights reserved.

© All rights reserved. © All rights reserved.

Feed – Subscribe to rajman1977's photos

You Sign in | Create Your Free Account Send to a friend

Help Community Guidelines | The Forum | FAQ | Sitemap | Help by Email

Home The Tour Sign Up Explore Search everyone's ph

© All rights reserved

{ Taken with a Konica

This photo is public

Better, try a bit of motion blur on it.

It is not made with photoshop, but with hopes and dreams.

Would you like to comment?

You Sign in | Create Your Free Account S

Home The Tour Sign Up Explore Search everyone's photos Search

This photo also belongs to:

Bizarre Thing in Sky (Set)

Taken with a Konica Minolta DiMAGE X.

poor PICT0014, nobody wants to comment on you. This photo is public

Would you like to comment?

You Sign in | Create Your Free Account Send to a friend

Help Community Guidelines | The Forum | FAQ | Sitemap | Help by Email

Home The Tour Sign Up Explore Search everyone's photos Search

This photo also belongs to:

Bizarre Thing in Sky (Set)

Taken with a Konica Minolta DiMAGE X.

view onthefence55 says:

view mcgorgomagan says:

I have tried a bit of 3d (as an amateur) and I know it is a lengthy process to

view onthefence55 says:

Would you like to comment?

Help Community Guidelines | The Forum | FAQ | Sitemap | Help by Email

Home The Tour Sign Up Explore Search everyone's photos Search

This photo also belongs to:

Bizarre Thing in Sky (Set)

Taken with a Konica Minolta DiMAGE X.

view eratozee says:

view schkz says:

view onthefence55 says:

view L.Arkwright says:

My Secret Agent Lover Man says:

Most noticable is the 'w' Klingon character.

Octal Khan says:

geoff pedder says:

Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

The School House says:

view ivo5000 says:

view honestmase says:

view shiva_proto says:

Scary but...Every image created on a digital image device or a digital image

I will be contacting you shortly.

Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

"analitic" HA, is that anything like "analytic" ?

view shiva_proto says:

Oh, and Cheers!

Happy Tinfoil Cat says:

http://www.iec.org/ - - - the .COM is a squatter/scammer/spammer/luser