An investigation by MUFON into drone photos from California determined they were likely a hoax. Two CGI experts examined the photos and found numerous errors and inconsistencies indicating the images were computer generated fakes, not real drone footage. These included artifacts in shadow areas from the rendering software and an apparent lack of atmospheric haze or compositing mistakes. The MUFON investigator concluded the photos were a "complete and total fabrication."
An investigation by MUFON into drone photos from California determined they were likely a hoax. Two CGI experts examined the photos and found numerous errors and inconsistencies indicating the images were computer generated fakes, not real drone footage. These included artifacts in shadow areas from the rendering software and an apparent lack of atmospheric haze or compositing mistakes. The MUFON investigator concluded the photos were a "complete and total fabrication."
Original Description:
MUFON Investigation Shows Drone Photos Hoaxed.
Email circulated on Wednesday 4th July 2007.
An investigation by MUFON into drone photos from California determined they were likely a hoax. Two CGI experts examined the photos and found numerous errors and inconsistencies indicating the images were computer generated fakes, not real drone footage. These included artifacts in shadow areas from the rendering software and an apparent lack of atmospheric haze or compositing mistakes. The MUFON investigator concluded the photos were a "complete and total fabrication."
An investigation by MUFON into drone photos from California determined they were likely a hoax. Two CGI experts examined the photos and found numerous errors and inconsistencies indicating the images were computer generated fakes, not real drone footage. These included artifacts in shadow areas from the rendering software and an apparent lack of atmospheric haze or compositing mistakes. The MUFON investigator concluded the photos were a "complete and total fabrication."
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
California Drone photos by "Raji" - MUFON Investigation Shows
I received this on the MUFON LA mailing list and thought
it would be worth posting it here. I have examined the related CARET docs and have detected some erroneous statements on antigravity. The whole affair seems contrived as a hoax, but why?
-Bill Hamilton
-----
Dear MUFON LA Members and Supporters,
Many of you have expressed your certainty that the alleged drone photos which appear on C2C and Earthfiles are the real deal. I decided to log on to MUFON.com, and see what the field investigator assigned to the case came up with. Incidentally, the investigator turned out to be the SSD for that district. Befitting for such a high profile case, don’t you agree? Here are his comments:
INVESTIGATION AND REPORT
May 16, 2007
The object in the attached images within this report first
appeared several weeks earlier on the Coast to Coast web site page. This new witness report was posted May 12, 2007.
I had several trusted friends & experts in CGI (computer
generated Images) examine these images, as well as the earlier Coast to Coast images. One examiner is Mr. Steve Neil who has and continues to do computer generated images for the History channels television program 'UFO Files'. The other effects person is a Mr. Marc D' Antonio. He owns and operates a business in Connecticut named FX Models.
Marc is a former MUFON Field investigator, and has taught
Astronomy for a number of years at a local area east coast college. Both Marc & Steve I would consider well grounded and I would consider them both 'non-skeptics' related to 'UFO's. They think UFO's are 'real' and likely 'extraterrestral' in origin. Marc works with computer generated images every day. Both experts state all images of this object are clearly fakes. Mr. D' Antonio is one of my valued expert contacts I network with in studying UFO photographs. He has volunteered to assist in future cases.
http://www.DroneHoax.com Marc examined the Coast to Coast images days earlier week (May 10) earlier. I contacted Marc again when this latest witness report was posted on CMS shortly later (May 12, 2007).
Attached images have been studied by these two friends in the
Special visual computer effects industry. They both independently state this object is clearly a CG fake.
Marc writes "Those of us in that community can look at and
immediately spot, fakery. I have to say that this one is not actually even a GOOD fake."
Marc further writes:
Why?
In one of the images, you can see that the faker used, something called "radiosity" to render the images. The technique allows for more realistic images and makes things look very good, as if lit by the sun in this case. Well, in ONE of the radiosity images supposedly looking up at the 'fake ship' from directly below it is clear that the faker didn't take care in setting his settings for the renderer and you can see classic "radiosity render artifacts" in the dark shadow areas of the CG craft. They show up as mottling in the shadows instead of smooth transitions. It is what happens when you want the rendering to be finished quickly. If radiosity settings were used to make the image look absolutely real, each image could take tens of hours to render perhaps.
In another shot where the craft ought to have been some distance away, it is sharp and clear as if there is suddenly no atmospheric haze.
Finally, in one image the faker composited the craft to appear
behind tree branches. This is easy to perform. The faker used something called an Alpha map which affords you JUST this capability.
Sooner or later, I will bet that a 'video' will emerge, and the faker is no doubt working on it but doesn't like the results I guarantee because the radiosity renders take a long time to render per frame and in motion, he has to get all his Photoshop type filtering done on the fly within his rendering software and it isn't as easy.
When I saw this I winced at how obvious the fakery is and how utterly uneducated the coast to coast people are for falling for it. The faker, named 'Chad' is a complete and total fabricator."
I have still sent a request to the above witness Email address
wishing a interview, following Mufon investigative proceedures. I plan to play this interview 'dumb smart' (if it ever occurs - but hope so) wishing to glean any further information if possible and post it here. It maybe possible these images submitted were hoaxed by someone else, rather than by the witnesses themselves (names stated above).
I suspect the Coast to Coast web site appearance was a trial run before posting here in the Mufon CMS. The attached images files
http://www.DroneHoax.com from Coast to Coast read in the image file text' the name 'McKinley'. The same witness name above in the witness report.
I seriously doubt the 'Coast to Coast' people may even know
about this authenticity issue.
As of May 16, 2007, I have not recieved any reply from these witnesses.
Clearly a 'HOAX'. Case completed, but will reopen should I
recieve get a reply from the witness. (hopefully).
Very Respectfully,
Steve Reichmuth Mufon - Northern California SSD - Alameda / Contra Costa Co. May 16, 2007 (20:19 hours)”
As you can see from his comments, Mr. Reichmuth is convinced
that the photos are a HOAX. So don’t get too excited. Know that there are people out there who get their jollies from spoofing the unsuspecting and gullible. Hey, don’t feel too bad. If it makes you feel any better, I thought they looked real too. As ancient Chinese proverb say; “believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see”. Or maybe that was Kwai Chang Caine. No matter.
