I guess that’s possible, but I’d like to know how an assymetrical object like that can fly with no visible means of thrust. And with the attention this has been getting, you’d think someone would have recognized it if it’s a mass-produced hobby kit.
I disagree. I don’t think anything flew anywhere.
If it was a standard hobby kit, that would have come out by now.
Total dub job.
Thanks Chronos, for pointing that out. I actually read the quoted sentence three times before moving on with a terrible sensation that I would lose my mind if I kept trying to understand it.
Perhaps if you completely divorced that sentence from the context of the entire discussion that preceded it, you might feel that way. Otherwise, I can’t imagine what it is you don’t understand about my point.
Perhaps this will help: Go back and read post #46, where Mangetout says:
So in the context to which I was responding, it is established that the object was both created and photographed by Chad. Then the question is asked whether it’s a real object capable of flight. So my response, in this context, questions why Chad would go to considerable trouble to build a model capable of flight, and then not film it actually flying. What I meant was that the pictures are well-done enough to make it obvious that someone put some effort into the project. So it doesn’t make sense to me that he would put that much effort into it, and then not bother with the additional effort of filming it. What makes more sense is that it wasn’t filmed flying because it can’t fly (or isn’t even a real object).
Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
Oh, I see. So you were considering the possibility that it existed as a physical object, which was then edited into background scenes. It doesn’t make much sense to ask whether a computer-modelled image can fly, but it does make sense to ask whether a physical object can.
Well if you read Mangetout’s question, it’s in two parts, the second part being contingent on the answer to the first part. So no, he wasn’t asking if a picture can fly.
I don’t understand why one would conclude that if it’s not photoshopped and if it is a real flying object, it must be alien. What does Occam have to say about that? Humans who built something using new technology is still a simpler explanation than aliens.
Actually, lowbrass’s line of thinking was mine also… even if the flight characteristics of a real-life model were rather poor, you’d think he’d get a few second clip in anyhow. It would be unlikely to “[move] VERY quickly and [be] out of sight in the blink of an eye”, but you can always say your batteries died or something.
While the ‘strangeness’ of the model shouldn’t discount it from flying (there are any number of odd shaped yet flying models. (4th link is to YouTube, in case anyone cares).), I don’t think it does. Specifically wrt Chronos, there’s no way a RL model would be silent, disappear at warp speed, or not appear in a video despite appearing “VERY often” and being “very easy to photograph”.
I vote Photoshop, 30/70 with a RL non-flying model vs. CG. Alternately it could be from another planet, a possibility which everyone seems to conveniently ignoring. 
I don’t think anyone would conclude that either. I believe most of us said we think it’s very unlikely that it’s alien. IMO, what it is, in order of likelihood:
-
A plastic model, photographed and then pasted into a background photo.
-
A computer generated image pasted into a background photo.
-
A photo of a remote-control flying toy.
-
Some sort of drone used by the government or other entity.
-
A plastic model suspended in air by wires or other mechanism.
-
An alien spacecraft visiting earth.
And note that I think everything from 3 on is extremely unlikely, although not completely impossible.
Ooh, that’s another great point. If this were a model being flown by someone, and genuine observers who just happened to see it, then we wouldn’t be able to discount all the near-impossible things these “witnesses” claim it did. But if, as I suspect, the creator is also the photographer, we can assume the alleged eyewitness account is falsified and just part of the hoax. It just doesn’t make sense to me any way other than being a hoax.
what makes you think it is only visiting ? I welcome our new (and CGI/ Photoshopped) overlords…
As these would have to be at least 8 feet in diameter, the likelihood of this is nonexistent.
Yes, if it’s a real object, and it flies, I think it’s quite unlikely to be capable of the claimed behaviour, but (assuming for a moment that it isn’t just a photoshop job), it could still be the case that ‘Chad’ has built some kind of flying model, snapped a few photos of it ambling about and made outlandish claims about its manoeuvrability, in the hope that other reports will roll in from third parties - all they need to say is “yeah, I saw that thing too”, and it would immediately lend weight to his claims, including those regarding the flight patterns (which of course the third parties would not have seen if they never actually happened).
However, there don’t seem to be any third party reports, so all we have is this ‘Chad’ fellow submitting two sets of pictures from two distinct locations, but trying to pass them off as two independent reports from different people, which, at the end of it all, I think does point to it being a photoshop job.
I have seen this flying, or something very similar. Last year the GF and I took a driving trip from Seattle to Wyoming. Round about Idaho or possibly Montana, we watched a thing like this paralleling I90 for about 15 minutes, never got much closer than a quarter mile.
It flies with the long tail in back like a dragon fly and looked about 20-25 feet long.
I was very interested and watched it intently, it was gray and drizzly or I would have stopped and taken pictures as I had a very good camera with me.
:smack:
It did indeed stop in mid air and hover several times then take off again which was what really got my attention as it didn’t look like a helicopter.
It had no problems getting up to 70MPH in a few seconds then stopping again but it didn’t tilt like a helicopter, the body remained fairly horizontal and that also seemed just aeronautically wrong.
:dubious: :eek:
MacGyver
So, lemme get this straight. You passed up a once in a lifetime opportunity to capture an image of possible extraterrestrial intelligence… because it was raining.
Excuse me if I say… “Whatever.”
That sounds really rude of me but I’ve gotta speak my mind on that one.
I’m sorry if I offended you.
But really, man. It was gray and drizzly, come on.
It didn’t look particularly extraterrestrial to me, I was thinking it was an experimental helicopter or unmanned vehicle.
Still believe it is of human origin. If it truly is not of this earth then all I can say is.
:smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack: :smack:
In my pitiful defense, there were many other cars on the freeway with me and no one was pulled over looking at it.
At a quarter of a mile distance, a 25 foot object will only subtend an angle of 1 degree: 2 full moons. Even without grey and drizzly conditions you’d need a pretty fancy zoom on your camera to get an image that didn’t suck.
I did look for a exit or road going in that direction and would have gone off on a wild UFO chase if anything had been available, there was nada. I would have needed a helicopter myself to chase it.
I was not close enough to see it didn’t have rotors or engine. these photos are much better views than I got.
I did have a good zoom on my camera, about 150 power, but I would have needed to stop and set up the tripod to use it and the dohicky was not holding still by any means.
What about the version with two long “tails.”
In fact, I’ve seen three different versions of the thing.
