After this account was hacked and closed Marc D'Antonio then quickly created a CGI model to show that it certainly wasn't beyond the realms of possibility that the original images were a composite (CGI model dropped into a genuine photograph). Unfortunately he then had to repeatedly explain this to the majority of the Flickr users who left comments on the page where the model was located, constantly having to remind others that Marc,
"Was only trying to show what a good 3D tool can produce on first pass."
However some valid points regarding the authenticity of the images were raised so here's an edited and heavily condensed version of the original comments:
- Taken in a place with no name
- A simple reproduction of the fake Tahoe UFO...
- Total development time of this model: 1 hour 30 minutes.
- Textures were simple and no time taken to 'paint' any lettering or anything.
- Just a quickie for purposes of show and tell.
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.
Don't understand George Noory. I told him it was a hoax from the get go. And thanks for the compliments. YOU got it. It was a quick proof of concept piece that goes far to show how easy this is to replicate. I can use Photoshop to add filters or use the animation program itself to add on the fly filters so it can be made to look like lousy video, or black and white film complete with streaks and artifacts from 'age' and so on. But for 90 minutes it gets the job done as you have said.
I use Cinema 4D although we have in my studio many different packages. The GI is just cinemas STOCK GI and not even HDRI ! Mental Ray will probably make yours look much better than mine! I understand the Radiosity issues ... had 'em, hated 'em.... Got past 'em! Oh and the falloff material would be brilliant here yes! Great idea!
I was thinking of a Fresnel which I think does a similar effect for the backlit material. That would make it look much more like a film/silver halide type image blend you might expect to see on a negative.
If you read, I stated that I spent 90 minutes off and on to create the model using elementary techniques available to the amateur. We do this for a living so my point was simply to show how much can be done using the simple basic tools that beginners use in 3D programs. That said, there was very little effort expended on this in fact so where you say "all the effort spent on this" it is directed at 90 minutes of work and stock textures, and no efforts other than defaults to make the GI sky.
I dont need to defend myself against the likes of you BUT ... I stated clearly some facts that you conveniently choose to overlook as they dont fit your case:
1: I clearly stated that I used 90 minutes of time to show what COULD be done in 90 minutes.
2: I clearly stated that I used ELEMENTARY CG techniques from our VAST arsenal and I DO mean VAST.
3: I clearly stated that I used STOCK textures and STOCK Global Illumination settings with NO changes to show the BASIC DEFAULT RESULTS obtainable. The sky in the other photos is a real photo, mine as stated is a simple 2 minute CG generated sky.
4: I clearly stated that I was NOT trying to reproduce these images but to show [which I successfully accomplished] the typical FIRST pass you can get from a reasonably good 3D tool.
5: I clearly stated that I was a MUFON investigator for a number of years and have been involved in many cases.
6: Maybe I have NOT been clear about something: I am a believer and have had a 3rd Kind encounter with surgical evidence that YOU dont have a prayer of ever getting out of me.
7: Maybe I have NOT been clear about something. We have done CG television documentaries for the Discovery Channel, A&E, and History channel. A FRACTION of what we do is publishable as we work for the NAVY most times.
I recognized a basic glaring flaw in the photos and called it out for what it was. ANYONE who has good experience in CG knew this was fake from the get go.
For you to sit and claim I was trying to make it sound like I equalled what I am sure was an effort of weeks on the faker's part in just 90 minutes is ludicrous and you simply needed to froth at the mouth and attack someone.
What makes you think I just jumped in here to render an opinion?
What makes you think I am NOT qualified to discuss this?
The California MUFON investigators contacted me and asked me to get involved in this case from my location here in Connecticut . Did they ask YOU to get involved?
I have been retained to do a fair number of UFO investigations with State Police, Airline pilots, and first hand witnesses in the general public. How many have YOU been retained to do?
You are an armchair attacker with nothing but an opinion. But, it gave me the opportunity to show a little more about my background that is helpful in this case so thank you.
In the 'more impressive set' of images on Coast to Coast, these are the images I was provided from the beginning of the investigation and which give away the CG nature of the object the most!
The image in particular that sealed its fate was image 5 from the top which is the closeup of the fin. At the far right of the image is a shadow and this is where the problem is located. If you took the time to read my analysis in the other forums then you know the issues with the shadows I discussed ad-nauseum. If you don't know then you have not fully informed yourself and are speaking from a far less knowledgeable
Again, since you obviously have NOT read my posts, you did NOT see how I dissected the CG nature of the image to the satisfaction of other investigators on this case, and illustrated how the render artifacts present in image 5 came to be. Perhaps it is simple. Perhaps you just did not see the OTHER discussion and if so you would be fine.
We were asked to provide not an AMATEUR opinion of this so called UFO, but a PROFESSIONAL opinion based on our experience that I tried to gently point out to you without you embarrassing yourself. But, as with many who just dont get a clue, you have indeed embarrassed yourself with your lack of knowledge of both who we are, and how CG is created.
Your challenge is silly. You repeatedly ignore my facts surrounding the creation of my image. You expected that I was TRYING to create a fully convincing image.
From the beginning when I stated I was going to show people what an initial stab could create these days in a 3D package [again, Mr informed, see the other thread I linked you too] I was creating the control image that shows you what the BASIC STARTING point would be for someone with a decent 3D tool. And you, feeling the froth in your mouth and the rabid need to attack decide to ignore the facts and just attack!!! Did you yell in glee as you wrote your words too? Did you feel like you were 'putting me in my place' too? Well goody for you. But you are not qualified to criticize me. You admitted yourself that you 'grew up with CG' but you do not create CG.
As I said, and you have reaffirmed again, you have no CG experience so you have no idea what to LOOK for in that photo. Saying that you 'know what computers are capable of" is a far cry from understanding undersampling rendering artifacts in a renderosity render. In the other discussion that I provided the link for to you, I discussed it and explain exactly what I firmly believe is the simple, obvious case with this hoax.
And how come no one has bothered to respond when I clearly provided information that said that at the time of the Tahoe sightings, on that crystal clear blue sky day, it was RAINING AND CLOUDY during those days!??!?!
I was only trying to show what a good 3D tool can produce on first pass.
Also it is not my fault if you are not CG savvy. I spot a CG fake and you say it looks real to you. Of course it does because you dont have the CG background to analyze the more difficult cases. Is it just because I say I have the background that you feel the need to contest it? Go ahead and contest it. I was asked by MUFON to analyze the imagery as I said. Why do they ask me? I guess because maybe I have certain experience that you dont? Maybe I was just a random survey caller. Yeah that must be it.
I am reminded of a quote by a Hollywood actress when she was asked what she thought of the special effects in Jurassic Park .
She said and I quote:
"It was incredible! I didnt know where the real dinosaurs left off and the special effects dinosaurs began!"...
Clearly she too has no CG background and probably no High School either actually to make such an inane comment. You of course are much smarter, just not CG savvy. And somehow you gauge my ability to judge the imagery by a further ability to reproduce it exactly if not better.
Had I spent the kind of time that he did on his FAKES which is what they are, then I would indeed have produced similar results. I already have been doing similar things for shows on underwater technologies for the History channel and Discovery. People thought they were watching video right down to sea snow trickling down in the lights of the 'camera'. Participating by invitation in an investigation and taking part in spirited discussion about it is what I can agree to provide. I do not have the time to do more than that. The CG model I have is actually enough as it is. I dont have to work on that at all. The only thing needed is to work on the atmosphere you know. Keep in mind that my atmosphere is ENTIRELY CG . His is a photo that he composited the model into. That already adds a tremendous dose of realism since 80% of the photo is real from the get go.
I also refer you back to the other picture in Flickr where we discuss the artifacts from the CG render. I think that you like RichardAkai here must not have read that or followed my posts there because what the two of you are saying indicate that you are re-asking questions for which I rendered opinions.
It is the considered opinion of myself and what appears to be many MUFON investigators that this is a hoax plain and simple. To those with no CG experience, let the aliens come/
IT WAS RAINING AT TAHOE ON MAY 5 2007 !!!!!!!!!
How could you pass that link to the weather site and tell me with a straight face that the weather was sunny???? The weather facts, richardakai, were provided to me by MUFON and you are wrong. If you look again, on your OWN link you can see that on 5/5 in particular for which you crow about the supposed cell phone time stamp, it was in fact RAINING at lake Tahoe on that very day and partly to mostly cloudy the remaining days! Your OWN link told you that but boy you really do see what you want to see dont you...
Had the FAKERS been more clever, they would have arranged the time stamp data to indicate a day that was clear but NOOOOOO they were too anxious to foist the hoax.
I said VAST arsenal once and once only. I simply cut and paste what he OUGHT to have seen already but obviously missed... I do like how you try to imply I say it every message by using the phrase 'over and over'... Uhhh once written, once copied for expedience in the context of the rest of the points I was making.
And if you have doubt about that arsenal then visit our web page and go to the CG section and read the list. It is already outdated. We now have upwards of 25 computers for rendering not 15 or so as it might say and we have spent many additional thousands on software for these purposes! There. You accuse of me of posturing? Well there you go. That was a genuine posture effort.
Oh and on the weather thing where you mention that because I sought weather information that it proves something? I am completely convinced this is a fake. I knew it from day one from the first moments of analyzing the image ... And now the BIG point you will conveniently ignore:
YOU are just pissed at me because you feel I am trying to make myself out to be someone who is somebody. If you even bothered to take the time, you would have noticed that I spent most of my time fending off attacks. So I get a little testy when fending off an attack. So what? You have a problem with that? I dont roll over and just take it. Maybe you do but I respond from a reasonable high road and drive my points out hard.
I did not seek any weather information at all. MUFON investigators provided it to ME .