Drone Report Analysis From Marvin
(Open Minds/UFOCasebook Forum Member)
Ty photo examination, specifically KK and LL
Method: Use a method of animations with photo overlays to simulate a form of wiggle stereoscopy.
Unfortunately, there isn't much detail on a white sky for this, but this approach is still useful in trying to locate where things are three dimensionally.
Research Chemist in the Petrol Chemical business, mainly doing work with color, perception and appearance (over 30 years in the field).
Photo overlay using Photoshop, Paintbrush and Beneton Movie Gif
First, let me start out by admitting, I am not an expert in this field. I do not work with CGI for a living. I am not a professional photo analysis. I am just using a critical approach, some life experiences and a little common sense. I have been wrong many times in my life. I suspect the future will not be much different (wish me LOL).
In order to understand the foundation of my argument, one needs to understand perspective.
Any artist will understand, in order to have realism, you need perspective. As same sized objects are located further and further into the distance, they will appear to get shorter. Also, the same sized object will appear get narrower.
So basically, as an object moves away from you, it will appear to "shrink" in size.
Here is an example that has been set up, where between Photo 1 and 2, the camera moves back 5 feet and to the left 5 feet (about).
Photo 1 (squatting)
Photo 2 (standing)
Let's do some simple comparisons:
If we compare the pinkish building on the left, between Photo 1 and 2, we will notice the build appears to be larger in Photo 1. This is because the camera was 5 feet closer to the building in Photo 1. In order to get the building to be the same size in Photo 2, one has to enlarge it to 108%. This method of comparison will be come an important tool later on.
If we compare the light brown build on the right, between Photo 1 and 2, again we will notice the build appears to be larger in Photo 1. In order to get this building to be the same size in Photo 2, one has to enlarge it to 104%. The important thing to remember with perspective, the further away you are from the same object, the smaller it will appear to be.
Also, we should keep in mind, the further away you are from the object (when moving the camera as we have) the smaller the difference in size of the object between the two photos.
Ty's photos KK and LL offer a unique opportunity (IMO). There has not been any debate that these two photos appear to represent photos that were taken "steps" apart. If you remember have a stereoscopic viewer (like the ole View Master):
Update to note...
Approximate distance to:
Pink building on left ... 120 feet
Brown building on right ... 200 feet
White building middle center ... 600 feet
We can then "gleam" some three dimensional data from these two photos.
2. Ty's photos KK and LL: The Foreground
Comparing the images in the foreground overlay:
Since we are just looking at the foreground, the main difference we see is a size change. let correct LL (since it is smaller):
How did I do this:
Enlarge LL 118% to match KK
Rotate LL 2 degrees
Crop to fit and overlay foreground tree
This gives me base line enlargement of 118%, but it is interesting to note, there does not appear to be any change in the foreground perspective details between the photos. It appears to be the same image of the foreground tree in both photos.
3. Ty's photos KK and LL: The Background
Comparing the images in the background overlay:
Since we are just looking at the background, the main difference we see again is a size change. let correct LL (since it is smaller):
How did I do this:
Enlarge LL 120% to match KK
Rotate LL 3 degrees
Crop to fit and overlay background trees
This is where things get weird. If the background trees are further away, why do I have to enlarge LL 120% (compared to 118% for the foreground)? As with the foreground, there does not appear to be any change in the background perspective details between the photos. It appears to be the same image of the background tree in both photos. It is as if there is one Photo being used, the sky color has been removed, and all of the objects are being cut and paste to create a 3D like appearance. except, the details of the scenery (the angle of view) does not change with the movement of the camera.
As you may remember from the perspective example, even at a distance with only moving about 5 feet back and about 5 feet to the left, an objects appearance will change with the change of view angle.
The background trees show no change, zero, zilch, nada.
This is what put a monkey wrench into any distance calculations I tried to make. When the background was enlarged in LL to be the same size as KK, it makes the drone appear to jump straight towards you. Because of perspective, any size approximation made the drone then appear to be small and close, not large and far away. To reinforce the distant of the drone, we need to focus on the drone itself.
4. 4. Ty's photos KK and LL: The Drone
Comparing the images by drone overlay:
How did I do this:
Crop to fit and overlay drone centers
Ignoring for the moment what we have learned about the foreground and background. if one were to just look at how the drone behaves when it is the center, how everything appears to rotate around it. IMO, it gives the appearance that it sits comfortable between the foreground and background trees. that the tilt and rotation would be due to simple camera movement.
Look at the "double ring segment" that sticks out toward us. Notice the fairly significant change in perspective or angle between KK and LL. If these drone were large and far away. would a movement of 5 feet by the camera cause this great of a change?
As a far away object, would the drone change size that much when we make the background trees the same size in LL as they are in KK (see the part on the background).
This opens the possibility for the drone to be "pasted" into the photos. Click here.
4. Summing it up
1. It appears that the statement by Ty that the drone was huge, can not be supported by the "photographic" evidence.
2. Perspective would suggest that the background trees should not have to be enlarged more than the foreground trees. since both sets of trees (the foreground and the background) are the same trees in both photos and do not change their actual size between photos.
3. Perspective would also suggest (unless the camera did not move), the background trees can not be the same image (other than being resized) due to the change in angle of view.
4. This goes along way to understanding the lighting issue on the High Resolution photo, since if the scenery is fake, where does that leave us with the drone itself?
5. How is it possible for the drone to remain the same "physical distance" from the camera in both KK and LL?
5. My Conclusions
I strongly suspect the Ty series of photos are a HOAX. This is based on:
1. It appears there is one photo that has been used for the background of LL and KK, we may want to look at the rest of the Ty photos as well.
2. Any sky details have been removed from this one photo. Notice, there is some hint of blue left next to the trees and in "holes" in the trees.
3. LL and KK are crops from the same photo, giving the appearance of being different photos.
4. To give the appearance of camera movement, the foreground and background trees have been cut, resized and pasted to new locations in the photo. and the drone added,
5. The trees show no change in the "angle of view" from LL to KK.
6. It seems unworkable to determine distance and locations using LL and KK, except to say that they make the drone appear to be closer to the camera rather than far away (relative to the background trees).
The above shows the strangeness of the background distance change, while the drone remains the same "size" or "distance" away from the camera. While the drone does not change "distance" from the camera, there is an appearance of changing perspective being suggested (due to forward movement, and not zoom... zooming will not make the drone tilt like you approached it). this was my "red" flag for the drone being pasted in.
So does Ty really move?
So does Ty really move?
So if Ty is not zooming or moving (if there is movement, is it small... otherwise there would be a perspective change in the trees)... how do we explain the same size drone... the change in distance to the trees and between the trees, all of which there has to be movement, when there is no movement/perspective change to account for it? Note: AA and LL will almost exactly overlay each other (the trees on the left and right).
Now... as to the Drone "rushing at Ty" nonsense. what did Ty have to say about this?
"So we got moving again and about a mile further into our trip it appeared a second time. This time it was about a mile closer too, which told us that it was stationary."
"We were working out way up the mountain and were right on the edge when it happened. And it hung there for at least a good minute of so, during which time I got all the pictures I could! All it really did was rotate. It was moving very slowly as well, but not much activity."
So how do we explain the drone "moving" closer to Ty in LL from AA if Ty admits he really didn't move very much (he did not have time to move much in a "good minute") and the Drone remained "stationary" or "just hung there and rotated?"
The photos don't even fit Ty's story line... unless we change it for him.
The Ty photos in order (centered on the drone):
The Ty photos in order (based on "background" trees - on the right)
| Possible 3D models (top view)...
Large drone far away;
Smaller drone closer;
As the drone is moved further away:
1. The trees on the left and right have to be further apart.
2. The distance between the camera locations have to be further apart.
3. The drone has to be larger and higher in altitude, to where visibility from further locations becomes an issue (like very near by San Jose).
So the model concept as a whole works better as the drone gets closer and smaller. The issue is that it will be much too small to be the 75 foot craft at 100 feet. (This concept predicts that the distance difference between the camera locations to the trees on the right, is about equal to 33.33% of the length of the drone. so a 5 foot difference would make the drone about 15 feet long base on the 20% change of the trees, that you can see in the above KK to LL as is example.)
Is the closest to a working model I can get, but the perspective would be radically different for the trees and the drone (than what we see in KK and LL). Therefore it becomes unworkable.
Drone size and distance:
SPF33 demonstrated the drone would be 75 feet wide at 100 feet away.
I believe (if it is really photographed), this is a close estimation (base on the distance of 120 away, how a 75-80 foot wide object would fill the frame of the photo when compared to KK and LL using the above model concept.
As you move the drone closer or further away, it will have to be a different size. In the above example, it is estimated the drone is at about a 45 degree angle from the camera (based on the view of the drone in KK & LL, and my camera field of view). This gives us some calculations for tree heights, as well as drone size and distance from the camera.
Using SPF's 100 foot distance and 75 feet wide, we can calculate the approximate size and altitude of the drone at different distances away from the camera. For example:
- 100 feet away: 75 feet wide and 75 feet in altitude
- 200 feet away: 150 feet wide and 150 feet in altitude
- 400 feet away: 300 feet wide and 300 feet in altitude
- 800 feet away: 600 feet wide and 600 feet in altitude
- 1600 feet away: 1200 feet wide and 1200 feet in altitude
- 3200 feet away: 2400 feet wide and 2400 feet in altitude
The further away, the larger the drone. of course the more visible it will be from other locations. That becomes an issue. If it was like an "aircraft carrier" in size, then one would think it would be easily visible in near by San Jose. But the only ones to report a sighting are the same ones who took photographs (what a lucky coincidence).
The inverse is also true:
- 50 feet away: 37.5 feet wide and 37.5 feet in altitude
- 25 feet away: 19 feet wide and 19 feet in altitude
- 12.5 feet away: 9.5 feet wide and 9.5 feet in altitude
Therefore, the drone was not likely to be larger than SPF's estimate. the smaller and closer, the more likely it will not be seen by other eyes, if indeed it is really there at all.
Issues with the model and with KK and LL:
The main issue with the model is lining up the camera positions of KK and LL with the Drone and the trees. As you can see with the concept models (which are not to scale). getting the parts of the drone to be in line with the correct parts of the trees is tricky. This is complicated by the distance to the trees on the right, to create the 20% change in size that is seen between KK and LL. It may be possible to find the "sweet spot" and push the drone further back into the background (the further back it goes, the larger it is in physical size). But then a new issue quickly arises, as to why such a large aircraft carrier size craft wasn't spotted by more people. especially by locals, folks along the road and in near by Saratoga and San Jose. which at that "altitude" and "size", would be visible.
Ty was familiar with Chad's sighting. "If I remember, Chad describes a kind of low rumbling with hisses and crackles." Actually, this is not quite what Chad had said a month or less earlier. In his first contact Chad said "The craft is almost completely silent and moves very smoothly." It was Chad's (later) second contact that stated "It is almost totally silent but not quite. 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. But it is nothing loud like a jet engine, it is very quiet for the most part."
Personally, I find this knowledge of Chad's encounter interesting, how the news of Chad's encounter spread this quickly (to Ty) before the story was "main stream" is very intriguing. I guess the only conclusion one can make is that Ty is an avid reader/listener of the Earthfiles/C2C. Coincidence built on coincidence. what are the odds for all of these these events to happen by chance?
Add to this that Chad claimed to live where the photos were taken (which would be in BB, but stated it was Bakersfield), are we dealing with more than one person... or is Chad, Stephen and Isaac the same person?
Was it Cut and Paste?
Was it Cut and Paste?
Since this has been so hottly debated and misunderstood. I have decided to post this example:
I used a model of the Roswell craft. I photographed it twice, both photos are the same distance away from the model but there is a lateral difference in distance of a little over a foot.
The models are the same size in both photos (as close as one can do such a thing).
The photos of the models are resized (the same amount each) to approximately match the drone in Ty's KK and LL photos.
They are then simply cut and paste into KK and LL (after removing the drone in the photos).
The new photos are overlaid:
The above is the craft overlay.
The above is based on the background trees (without adjusting for difference in the angle of the trees), enlarging LL to match the tree size in KK.
|If there is any question as to the issue being debated, it is one of two:
1. A camera is placed on a tripod (a "fixed" location) and a model is placed at a "fixed" distance away. rotated and tilted in place.
2. The model is already a CG creation (by what ever method). and the size is not being varied, but rotated and tilted in place (see the 3D example) and pasted into the photo.
These possibilities must be eliminated before the assumption for the photos to be real can be made.
Click on the craft after it load to see this:
Some after thoughts:
IMO, the drone legacy is unique in UFOlogy.
Never have there been so many (multiple) witnesses, who have taken so many clear and up close photographs, that have all reported in anonymity and disappeared. The sightings include incomplete and misleading information about the locations, as well as out right deception.
Never has such sighting been followed up with another anonymous report of back engineering of alien technology, complete with smuggled documents (and photos) of components from the same craft.
3. Flap and flap over.
Never has there been such a short lived high quality photo, multiple witness events of drone craft with "alien" writing," that was over as quickly as it begun. and no one to talk to about it.
- How many people rode with Ty bicycling?
- How many people were with Chad?
- How many were with Stephen or knew about what he saw?
- No one has talked to a relative?
- No one has talked to a neighbor or a friend?
- I'm not sure the US government can keep a secret this well...
- No one else has witnessed the events (of a gigantic craft that was not only witnessed,
but it came right up to them to be photographed)?
- No one has come forward (that knows a friend of a friend and heard something)?
Are the "issues" we are seeing with the photos, planted on purpose, so that...
1. The hoaxer can laugh their arse off at the believers who are missing these obvious mistakes?
2. Or are these the markers so that they can prove this is their work by identifying these issues?
There is a fine line between dreams and reality, it's up to you to draw it.