UFO-Blog.com Fighting against truth decay.....
DroneHoax.com Home - (* Denotes recently added/updated article)
Original Drone Reports

Chad – California
Wife/Mufon 7013 - Lake Tahoe
Rajman1977-Capitola, California
Listserv: Stephen, Big Basin
Ty – Big Basin, California
Isaac Caret/Pacl Documents

Related Drone History

Mufon Report (After 1 - Year)
The LMH Effect (Earthfiles.com)
The Dreamland Drones (Strieber)
The 'Walter' Drone Hoax

Dronehoax.com (Issac) Critiques

Who Is Isaac & The Drone Link
Identifying Isaac
Isaac's Alien Treaty

Linguistic Analysis Primer (LAP)
The CARET Facility

Drone Image Analysis

1111 Analysis Part 1
*1111 Analysis (HPO Model)
*1111 Antigravity Device Analysis
Biedny/Ritzman Analysis
*
Freelance_Zenarchist - LAP
JB Analysis
Jeddyhi Analysis
Kris Avery Analysis
Marc D'antonio Analysis

Marvin Analysis
Mufon/Reichmuth Analysis

Radi Analysis
Torvald Analysis
Wayne/Secret Web Analysis

Personal Beliefs, Perceptions & Reality

Skeptical Of Believers?
Marcello Truzzi - Zeteticism
The Burden Of Skepticism
UFOs - Age Of Information
Failure Of Science/Ufology
UFOs - Edge Of Reality
Logical Trickery Of UFO Skeptic
7 Warning Signs Of Bogus Skepticism
Marcello Truzzi, Pseudo-Skepticism
Unfair Practices On Paranormal Claims
10 Signs Of Intellectual Dishonesty
*What Is Pseudoscience?

Additional Witness Information

Rajman1977 Additional Info
Lake-Tahoe Additional Info
Isaac - Follow-up Emails
Location, Location, Location!!

Other Online Critiques

Issac's Hoax: A Sad Story
A “Viral” Fantasy
Issac's Letter
Caret Documents - Another Hoax
A Skeptical Point Of View (Jeddyhi)

Drone Image Analysis From 1111 (Part 2)
(OMF/ATS Member)

Forum member 1111 weighs in again with yet more image analysis, concluding (yet again!!) that the Drone images are CGI.....
(This post was based on/using the Drone model made by OMF member HPO).

I believe HPO's model further proves that the drone is CGI. It highlights the lighting issues even more (when you are an expert with light).

I will try to explain.....

As we all know, light reflects. When an object is hit with a strong light, like the Sun, that object then reflects light back. This is why we are able to see the object.

On PICT0016 there is a small shadow under the large arm, close to the main body.

DroneHoax.com - (Drone) Image Analysis


HPO's model doesn't have the small shadow.

DroneHoax.com - (Drone) Image Analysis

The reason HPO's model doesn't have that shadow, is because the light is reflecting off of the main body of the drone,
and illuminating the bottom of the arm.

DroneHoax.com - (Drone) Image Analysis

On the drone in PICT0016, the main body is NOT reflecting this light, BUT IT SHOULD BE.

This is a sign of CGI lighting.

In CGI, they call light reflections "bounces". You can choose how many light bounces you want to render. If you choose 0 bounces during the render, the program will not calculate any light reflections off of objects. The higher you set the bounces in render, the more light will reflect off of objects. Here is an example of a program rendering light, and every pass is adding more bounces:

DroneHoax.com - (Drone) Image Analysis

The more bounces you add, the more passes are needed, and the longer it takes to render.

My conclusion is that the drone in PICT0016 is a CGI render, which has a very low light bounce/reflection setting, or not enough passes were done during render. Even though the main body of the drone is fully illuminated, it is not reflecting any light where it should, and there is an obvious shadow. This is a sign of fake CGI lighting, and missing light bounces.

A low bounce setting is common, because it cuts down render time, and you can produce images much faster. Also, it would take a super computer to calculate light bounces/reflections and display them like they would be seen in reality. So it is very rare for CGI light reflections to match reality.

(Radiosity is the type of light that calculates bounces).

HPO Model = correct reflections/bounces
PICT0016 = incorrect/missing reflections/bounces

--There is more lighting issues with PICT0016. I will explain later.

The animation below was made by SPF33, and displayed at DRT. I think he forgot to mention he changed the brightness and possibly other settings of HPO's image, so that it better matches PICT0016. These are also the images I used in this post:

DroneHoax.com - (Drone) Image Analysis

There is a very important shadow that is going ignored. Here is the shadow:

DroneHoax.com - (Drone) Image Analysis

There is only one object that can create this shadow, and it is the large arm.
I know this is a shadow because in PICT0017 supposedly taken after PICT0016 doesn't show that shadow:

DroneHoax.com - (Drone) Image Analysis
The shadow is gone, because the drone has tilted.

However, in PICT0015, that shadow is there again:

DroneHoax.com - (Drone) Image Analysis
This proves the shadow is from the drones largest arm/wing!!

What this means is, in PICT0016, there is very few directions the light could possibly be, in order to make the shadow of the arm appear in that spot.
The image below illustrates the only possible angles of light that would create that shadow:

DroneHoax.com - (Drone) Image Analysis

Since we know the shadow is from the arm/wing, we can draw lines from the arm to the shadow, and estimate the direction of the light source. The maximum angle of light that would display the shadow there, is the yellow line. This is because it is the end of the arm/wing, and if the angle was more, the arm would not cast a shadow in that spot. The red lines are other possible light angles that would create that shadow, but they can not be correct because it doesn't match the rest of the image.

  • This shadow also shows again that the drone has incorrect lighting compared to the telephone pole.
  • There is two different light sources.
  • Once again, it is a fact that the shadow is created by the arm/wing.
  • That shadow is very important, and missing from HPO's tests.

In PICT0015, the drone appears to be flying level, and the shadow from the arm is showing in the same spot as in PICT0016. This is a clue to the angle of the drone in PICT0016. It appears the light source used on PICT0016 was level with the arm, and the part of the body that is showing the shadow, which is very inconsistent with the light and shadows on the telephone pole.

It's the second smoking gun shadow problem.


Source: Open Minds Forum (HPO Model Thread)