Enhanced images of famous 2007 Drone UFO sighting

it is real

the concept of autonomous system with strange language etc

infact magic whether white/black
is the same concept

the symbol with some element could unlock something
and has some interesting effect etc

The renders (if they were renders) were WAY ahead of their time.. yea it might be doable today, but its far different now. now go look for CGI renderings of spaceships from 2007.

My take...you are likely incorrect.

No offense, I am entertained by your recent image enhancements here.

But, it should be of some concern to readers that you claim the artistic skill and technology were not capable of "faking" the drone images in 2007.

This makes you seem to be either pushing a rationally laughable and obvious falsehood or worse that you're incapable of true discernment.

No i just actually looked at what was being put out at the time. You can restrict a google image search to a certain year. And i know 2007 sounds modern. But If you actually look, its amazing how far we have come in CGI.
It would be a different story if the drone images came out today.. I could do it in Blender. heck it's just the texture mapping that would be a pain because i would need the alien fonts. I would need to be well versed in hard surface modeling and array and mirror modifiers to get a lot of the repeating details, again that's only stuff that really became easily accessible in blender very recently with some newer easier tools and tutorials.
Plus the craft is well designed its not symmetrical, to me it looks more like rule of thirds and phi ratio. And don't forget to make it whim you would need the reference images or concept art. Even as a intermediate generalist in Blender i would not take this project lightly. But again we are talking 2019! The way its composited into the scene as well, behind wires and trees and such. Very clever for the time.

As for true discernment. No of course im not capable of it. We really need professionals of the time who were employed by some of the big name studios. They would be able to really shed light on it.

Last Edited by Agent Smith 2014 on 01/17/2019 11:49 AM

I read over every link posted about this, damn that French blog has a CRAZY amount of info about this stuff. Here's the problem: every time one of these 'witnesses' is interviewed, they trip over their own horseshit. Of *course* the woman with the beaded symbols on her purse had a close encounter with a UFO before this. Of *course* she was visited at home by 'Men in Black' when she was a child. ALL these witnesses always have a history of 'encounters', or they were 'abducted', or their family has paranormal powers, or they receive messages from the Pleadians. EVERY TIME there is a 'witness' it is a person who has major events in their past.

I will concede that the pictures have not been proven to be hoaxes. In fact, looking over that French blog carefully (and they have several pages with hours of reading), there is some pretty eye-opening stuff where people tracked down the actual locations of the original pictures, people since then have stitched panoramic shots together at those locations that perfectly match the multiple shots of the originals, and the one showing the tarmac at a military airport apron and how it matches up with with photocopied inventory picture is frankly pretty amazing...

What doesn't add up is 'Isaac's story'. He put out several very long letters, with TONS of information about where he worked, how the symbols acted as full programming and control mechanisms, etc, etc. It is very, very well done - BUT, there is simply no fucking way that a genuine 'whistleblower' would be that cavalier about releasing that information. They would be able to track him down in minutes. Even just the way he structures sentences, the style of his grammar, those things would point to who it was in a matter of a few keypresses at the NSA. They would never, ever be okay with someone leaking that information.
Since he put out multiple messages over time... The other thing that doesn't make one lick of sense about 'Isaac' is that he is reaching out (through Moulton, who let's face it is slightly unhinged and has certainly been a willing participant in many known hoaxes) to 'contact' the witnesses. Uh, yeah. As if he would want to do that, as if any witnesses would want anything to do with that, etc.

All of the 'witnesses since then' are the usual fare of people who again - always have some history they are more than willing to gush on about, where they had major encounters with UFO's or something on top of seeing something "exactly like that!" It seems that in the Ufology circles and the type of websites that thrum with this stuff, a person talking about having previous encounters is par for the course - unfortunately here in the real world it exposes them for an attention seeking larper or someone who is legitimately mentally ill. It is never "oh, as a kid I once saw an unexplained light that zigged and zagged in the sky", no they always have over the top stories of 'Men in Black', or up close encounters with craft and occupants.

I hear you. And it seems like they could have gotten their hands on the images from an anonymous source and then knowingly went to to town on hoaxing a big story and fanfare about it.

As for the tech, im wondering if it was tech that was so far ahead of our own that the NSA or those actually working on the project for it, knew that captured parts or craft or not, this tech cannot be replicated for hundreds possibly thousands of more years, would they really be absolutely paranoid about its secrecy. I mean special symbols printed onto special nanotechnology materials of which cant even be found on earth, that actually bring the atomic structure to life and direct it based on a software like code so complex a human cannot comprehend it, it's not like China is going to run off start a 20 yr project hand have working prototypes of it at the end... no they would be totally stumped and stupid not to spend their money elsewhere like reverse engineering Russia's fighter jet engines.

Im thinking the NSA or whoever might be ok with letting images of alien technology out, as long as they are certain it could not lead to any possible military use via reverse engineering in any kind of reasonable timeframe like this century.

Honestly, even though Isaac comes across as an extremely competent Larper (I mean, like high level spook dis-info level), what he talks about is legit. The material that these things would be made of would be Nitinol. That's what all the wreckage at Roswell consisted of, and of course I don't need to tell anyone that all of those bits of recovered material also had symbols and such on them that were described as 'like heiroglyphics'. That was what baffled the military scientists who combed over the wrecked craft - that there were no 'parts' as we would think of them to the craft. In fact nearly the entire craft was comprised of the same exact kind of substrate that Isaac describes.

The government funded a 'civilian' lab that studied the material, it was located fairly near the base where the wreckage and bodies were kept. They knew right away that the 'metal' was nothing more than an alloy of nickel and titanium, but it took them more than 20 years to synthesize even a crude formulation. That's because it isn't easy to mix the two metals. We know it as 'shape memory alloy', and it is used in various crude implementations as such. Dean Kamen famously designed heart stents out of it, which along with his portable dialysis machine made him very, very rich. 'Project Ginger' was supposed to be much more than the Segways that came out of it. He wasn't just obsessed with gyroscopes, he was obsessed with Stirling engines - which are an ancient design that only needed the perfect alloy to be developed for the seal between the two chambers.

Dean Kamen was also obsessed with flywheels, which can act as gyros as well. Flywheels are an incredible form of energy storage, and in large skyscrapers they are often used as backup power. You can mount them suspended in 'magnetic bearings' inside a low atmosphere chamber - and then spin them up and take power off with leads that aren't even touching. Flywheel energy storage also follows the 'inverse square law'. Doubling the weight of a flywheel doubles the amount of energy it can store - but doubling the speed results in FOUR TIMES the energy. Taken to an extreme, they have made cars that have a dozen near transparent record sized discs made of carbon-nanotubule mesh, again in low atmospheric conditions. They spin them up to 300,000 rpm, and the amount of energy they can store is shocking (they were roasting the tires on this car, driving it around for hours).

It was already determined 40 years ago that we didn't have the means to make Nitinol in truly advanced molecular structures here on Earth. Like many other things, creating it in a zero gravity environment would allow you to build crystalline structures on a sub-microscopic scale. The material of the Roswell craft was like this. It did everything - it was the controls, it was the computer, it was the programming (along with the symbolic language). The only part of the craft that wasn't made of Nitinol was the generator that allows a 'warp bubble' to form that can move the craft and of course shield it from surrounding inertial reference frames. This generator used mercury (probably) spun up in a hyper-toroidal vortex, if you have seen super-cooled dia-magnetic field stuff you get an idea of the basics of the field this can produce even with static neodynium.

No doubt many of the shuttle missions attempted to 'grow' Nitinol in LEO conditions, but I can't see them having much success with such limited conditions. It is possible they have also tried various experiments on this front aboard the X-35, but again those would be simple tests to try and form various types of alloy using a base powder mix and magnetic fields, etc. Again, even aboard the ISS (if that is legit) you simply don't have the power or machinery on hand to do serious work towards trying to simulate the structure of the materials they have recovered - and even if you did, they are probably completely clueless as to how to go about controlling it, programming it, etc.

Because of THAT, I seriously doubt the notion that these Dragonfly drones would somehow controlled or created by human hand. Let's say they are real, and that the U.S. black Military R&D labs have been handled samples, entire working units, whatever. We have the tech to study material on a sub-atomic level, but our ability to mimic exotic substrates is still at infancy levels. I mean, look at the insane potential breakthroughs regarding simple carbon nano-tech. You can fill an empty box with X amount of Hydrogen, but with the right substrate of molecular bonds of carbon filling that box, you can fill it with a million times more Hydrogen. Again, we are crippled by the limitations of trying to form these structures under the weight of 'gravity'.

That's why it is so very fucking laughable that Musk talks about going to Mars, or yesterday's NASA announcement that they are going to land a probe on Titan. They have ignored the Moon for 45 YEARS now, and that is so insanely ridiculous that it boggles the mind. The Lunar surface (if there is one) would be the most insanely powerful testing and research grounds imaginable for all manner of science and development of tech related to outer space (if such a thing actually exists).

Look at this classic XCFD comic: [link to www.explainxkcd.com (secure)]

The Moon would be the obvious choice to have manufacturing and development of almost all high tech stuff. Look at how cheap it is to get something off the surface. There is zero atmosphere, and (again, one last time - if what they are telling us is true) you can have a perfectly stable orbit at just 7km off the surface. You could have dirt cheap automated mining, building of underground habitats, an orbital maglev tether, etc, etc, etc.

I've strayed pretty far off the path, and I could keep going for hundreds of pages, but... We can envision how 'anti-gravity tech' would work, the fundamentals are proven. Developing the materials, that is another story. In the meantime our planet has lost 80% of all insect bio-mass in 20 years, we are probably two or three years away from a total loss of Arctic ice and the resulting collapse of the global heat conveyor belt (which will freeze Europe below habitable status literally overnight, to start), we are likely going to get hit at any point in time with a CME so powerful that it kills most life on Earth with radiation when the magnetosphere and Van Allen belts are stripped away for six months (never mind putting all of Humanity into Pioneer times overnight), we are one single DNA strand away from a 100% resistant viral strain of some common staph infection forming in the sewers of New Delhi and wiping out 90% of all Humanity within two years, the desperate dregs of the Illuminati have gone to 'plan B' after failing to become immortal through technological transfer of self and so they are pouring Trillions into CERN in an attempt to crack open a portal to the Archons so they can beg them for help (which will doom us all by starting the Rapture before the forces of good have prepared accordingly), 8 out of 10 boys will be born severely autistic within ten years if we allow our genetic pool to run rampantly out of control even further down the dark path we tread when survival of the fittest is removed from the balance of Nature...

Should I go on? Is that enough?

I mean hypothetically let's say you're at the NSA and you are deciding what could be safe to leak out to the public in terms of alien advanced tech, and based on risk assessment, national security, what your enemies might be able to do with it etc.

Let's hypothetically say they had a time machine and they were able to go back once and drop off a piece of today's technology to 17th century Rome just as a random example. [link to ibb.co (secure)]
This was 100 yrs after Leonardo Da Vinci and his sketches of winged flying machines and mechanical devices, but there was still only minimal mechanical technology Quoting wikipeida "However, these designs were not always intended to be put into practice, and often practical limitations impeded the application of the revolutionary designs. For example, da Vinci's ideas on the conical parachute or the winged flying machine were only applied much later. "

If Italy was a potential enemy country in the future and you're the CIA would you risk dropping off this Lamborghini [link to www.carki.club]
To them in the 17th Century?
Some of the technology involved in this car are as follows

-The all-electric car is powered by supercapacitors rather than conventional batteries.

-The car has an energy storage system which allows it to rapidly charge and hold more power than a battery.

-The supercapacitors are made using carbon enabling them to be formed into the car's body panels as they are smaller and lighter than conventional batteries

-Each of the car's wheels includes its own integrated electric engine that glow as you drive.

Composed of a carbon fibre structure, the car has the ability to "self-heal" and can conduct its own health checks using sensors to detect any cracks and damages in its substructure.

If a small crack is detected, a self-repairing process begins filling in the fissure with nanotubes – preventing the cracks from spreading any further into the car's structure.

+all the mod cons we are used to - lcd displays computer controlled gears, steering, traction, engine monitoring, GPS sat nav etc.

heck these guys in 17th century Rome could not even implement Da vinci's airplanes from his detailed mechanical sketches made 100 years earlier. They did not even have the technology to go about building it.

Just an interesting thought experiment. i think even if we were to drop that lambo off in the town square in 1750, it would probably be lost to time, and damage, weathering and people taking it apart. Their scientists might be able to derive some basic concepts from it like the fabric stitching or possibly even the concept of electricity or lighting.
But the point im getting at is we are talking about a gap of a mere 300 years. And It's Earth based Italian technology.

Now imagine a drone made by aliens in an alien language using concepts and tooling say 500K years ahead of our own.

its laughable that China or Russia would be able to do a damn thing with it except put it on a pedestal and marvel at it.

eer im 3/4th through your very interesting detailed reply.
And yea im surprised actually just how much we humans can derive from an alien craft that might have crashed here that might be from a civilization a million years older than we are.
So yea, and its kind of like the sketch books of da vinci, it took hundreds of years before they even thought about making a practical winged aircraft.

But after your post i realize the NSA would NOT want to risk pictures and concepts about the drone leaking to china. Although i suspect they would need the actual parts in order to stand a chance at deriving crude technology based on it.

Thanks for your reply.

Edit. Im, not sure i buy into all that stuff in the last paragraphs. But its a very pessimistic outlook. I mean we humans got through the ice age with only spears, stone knives and fire. And the planet has been through a lot worse than us! Lets not write off the human race that easily. our getting knocked back down to the iron age of technology could only be a small part of a longer story of us reaching technological mastery of interstellar travel. Maybe it will take us another 100k years. but that's nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Last Edited by Agent Smith 2014 on 01/17/2019 02:22 PM

This is why it is such a great mental exercise to imagine yourself being transported back in time - to, say, the peak of Rome. What possible knowledge could you impart to anyone that would change anything about their lives? Unless you have studied basic metallurgical processes, you wouldn't even know anywhere close to what they did about forming alloys, like making Brass (admittedly an accident of coincidental rock in one quarry, for them). Unless you were seriously into chemistry, you wouldn't be able to deliver the formula for gunpowder to them (again, simple materials, but where do you start looking for saltpeter?). Unless you had background in organic chemistry, you aren't just going to magically come up with penicillin.

Taking your example of the Lamborghini, the situation is much, much worse than you give it credit. You could drop a fully working, fully charged up car onto a nicely cobblestoned road for them. They could get in, they could push buttons, they could push on foot pedals, they could drive it around in short order without you saying a word. What they couldn't do would be to conceptualize the notion of 'electricity' at all. They could carefully take the car apart, and it wouldn't mean anything to them. They would accidentally destroy all of the 'technology' just by trying to dismantle and understand it. If they started meddling the inner workings while things still held a charge, people would probably be killed. The electric motor would be something they could vaguely grasp, if they very carefully studied it as a physical mechanism. Still, they wouldn't be able to advance their own technology from anything they gleaned.

On a related rant... There is one rather obscure book from long ago, that looked into the matter of UFO's from a perspective that perfectly explained what was going on. The premise of the book was the fascinating idea that over time the descriptions of UFO's has changed with the advancement of our own knowledge. This goes way back, too, to the time when sprites and fairies were "what people saw". Again, this book relied 100% on totally, perfectly, provably isolated cases - in other words, these people did NOT have any preconceived notions of what a UFO would look like, or what an alien would look like.

The book studied this phenomena with a startling new explanation as to why this happens. To delve off for a moment into something else to provide background to this (I do this a lot), let's talk about topology. It is a rather obscure field of math that has to do with the shape of objects. By itself that doesn't sound too exciting, but topological math gets extremely haywire when you start dealing with 'dimensions'. A short primer on that: A single point is obviously one dimensional, and a line would be considered two dimensional. We exist (simulated or not) in a 3 dimensional world, and (this is key) at all levels of existence, you experience your environment in your 'top dimension' but you also experience the next higher dimension as something that tangentially intersects with your reality. In our case the 4th dimension is time. So we exist in 3 dimensions, but we also 'experience' the 4th dimension as it intersects our reality. Now, one thing about theoretical topology is that a conscious entity can always 'imagine' the conditions of a lower dimension - but they CANNOT 'imagine' the conditions of a higher dimension. Again, this is all proven math - not simply esoteric conjecture. A being that existed in the 4th dimension would see us as a worm. At one end of the worm we are born, and at the other end we die. Any finite 'slice' of that worm would be a single snapshot in time - to us. In the 5th dimension, they would see us as a single point, with an infinite amount of worms radially pointing outwards from that point. Note that I am describing how they would see us, because again you can always conceptualize how a being from a higher dimension would 'view' a being from a lower dimension. What we CANNOT do is to 'imagine' what a being from a higher dimension would experience as their OWN reality.

A Mobius strip isn't just a cute thought experiment, in fact it is an object that actually breaks the laws of our reality - and I mean for real. The person who discovered the nature of a Mobius strip fully understood what it was. In fact he was a highly trained theoretical astrophysicist. A Mobius strip only has one side. It only has one edge. It is in fact an object that can only exist in 2 dimension. You can say "well that is only theoretical, it is a piece of paper that has actual thickness", but the truth is a Mobius strip really does break the rules of our reality. If you travel along the surface of a Mobius strip, you will only ever be on one side. BUT, at one point in time you will be standing in a spot where on the other side of the surface you are standing, you were also standing at some point in time. This isn't being cute, and the fact that this 'reality' is NOT possible to grasp without serious study of topology is one of the key points I am trying to make. Studying Mobius strips (especially what happens when you cut them in half lengthwise, in various ways) is a very serious field that any serious meta-realist needs to undertake to try to grasp the nature of our reality. It only gets crazier from there, and Numberphiles have several fantastic videos on the subject of Klein bottles (4 dimensional objects creating by attaching 2 Mobius strips along their edge) and topological oddities in general. Now I have gone WAY off topic here, but for good reason.

Do you recall the fascinating story a little while ago where it was claimed that up until very recently human beings were unable to see the colour blue? Even in Roman times, there was no word for blue. In fact the ocean was described as being 'the colour of wine'. Now, this may seem like a play on words, but it IS NOT. They aren't mincing words (no pun intended). They really mean it when they say that human beings could NOT 'see' the colour blue. In fact there are isolated tribes deep in the Amazon where they have done tests, and these people cannot see the colour blue. They can show them a wheel with segments of colour, all of them bright green and one that is bright blue. The tribesmen could NOT pick out which colour was different. Amazingly, these same tribesmen could see variations of the colour green that none of us could differentiate. Now, this interesting phenomena is NOT because of genetic differences, and it is NOT because of neural pathways being formed by experience. Amazingly, the explanation for why human beings could not see the colour blue was... Because they had no word for it. Again, that sounds like cheap trickery, but it is as simple (and as complex) as that. Because humans could not *conceptualize* the colour blue, they did not, and *could* not, see it. (again, lending extreme evidence towards the Tibetan theory of 'manufactured reality by consent' - but that is a *WHOLE* other story)

I finally come full circle, back to the topic at hand. The fact is, our eyes and visual cortex do not work the way we have been taught in school. Some of that is coming to light in the odd shocking example, and next gen VR tech will emply a lot of the 'biological shortcuts' that we aren't even aware of to simulate these features. I'm talking about foveated rendering, autosynchronous reprojection, etc. Not critical for this discussion, BUT keep in mind that when we 'see' something, our brain extrapolates data from that based on what we *understand* of it - on top of the biological trickery employed that we are wholly unaware of (study saccades, and blind spots, and on-the-fly fine rendering of 2% of FOV, the fact that computer monitors cannot show the colour blue, etc). Again, critical to my whole barely coherent lunatic rambling is the notion that what we *see* is based on what we are capable of *understanding*.

When a person sees a UFO, and I mean a very detailed craft right in front of them, here is what is happening. Something from a higher dimension is breaking through to our reality. Photons are bouncing off the 'object', entering the lenses of our eyes, stimulating the optic nerves, transferring that data to the part of the brain that translates that information, and then giving us that data in our conscious and sentient fore-brain. The problem is, our brains are simply not capable of processing the information that is being to them in this circumstance - for the reasons I listed above. We simply CANNOT comprehend the data, because we are seeing something that exists in a higher dimension. The result is that our brains translate the information into something that we CAN understand, and this is why the description of UFO's has evolved over time. It isn't that they aren't 'flying objects', with 'alien entities' aboard, it is that we can only process the data we are presented with in a format that we understand.

Now, I can hear all kinds of objections from the peanut gallery, but worry not they are all covered. The book I am referring to went to great lengths to dig into how and why there would be similarities between different sightings, and why different people would 'see' the same thing (just look up the visitations of Fatima to understand how collective consciousness affects that, or dig into everything Rupert Sheldrake has ever said and done if you want to go balls deep into the nature of our reality as far as morphogenic resonance fields goes). These 'Dragonfly Drones' would also fall directly into this same topic. "But how would pictures taken with technology show the same thing?" would be the first question. Again, to answer that study the exercise that Tibetan monks would undertake for 15 years, to use the power of a 'tulpa' and create a tree out of nothingness. There are a dozen TED talks on this very subject - when you open your eyes and see an apple, you are CREATING that apple. The tree doesn't make a noise if it falls and no one is around to hear it - because if there is no one around, there is no tree, or forest. Study all the modern variants of the double-slit experiment (delayed quantum erasor is the newest, and the most frightening), same thing. TIME has no bearing on the creation of reality.

I've gone so far off topic at this point that I am even lost myself. But, if you can understand how witching for water works even if you don't believe in it (yet fails when put to the test in laboratory conditions), then you are on the right path to understanding how pictures of Dragonfly Drones may be 'real' but may simply be a crude representation of something else entirely, something that 500 years ago people would have witnessed as fairies dancing about in their garden.

ok, but are you implying that the tribes man could not see blue because of their 'belief system about their reality and and what they were taught growing up" or how a hypnotist could easily hypnotize a person into not seeing blue, or seeing mops as an attractive blond female, or into believing they were a chicken etc, OR are you saying they couldn't see blue because they don't understand enough about colors?

And you reminded me of something i was visualizing in my minds eye the other night, i was trying to imagine new colors! taking for example that super saturated vivid deep violet of some flowers, and applying the same vividness to other colors and im pretty sure in my minds eye it was a unique color, simply because it had that vividness.. or saturation. (something many monitors and displays lack in many of the colors due to limitations of technology).

As for the physics, i know its still up for debate on which interpretation will turn out to be the correct one. Many worlds, copenhagen and other collapse theories. Who knows if those virtual photons actually have a life in alternate multiverses whilst they do their thing and we end up seeing the collapse of the waveform back into particle in our double slit experiment.. Got to love those PBS space time youtube videos, they are teaching me a lot.

I shall check out the numberphile video sounds good. Although PBS spacetime did an episode referring to an experiment done measuring the arrival of a gravity wave from the collision of two neutron stars and the timing of the arrival of the gravity wave vs the light proved that gravity was not leaking into a higher dimension and thus there can't possibly be any higher expanded space dimensions than the 3 we observe. Anyway dont quote me on that im just going on memory.

And now you have me thinking about colors. Is it just coincidence that recently my monitor is displaying this damn color banding or obvious gaps in the hues even in the supposed highest quality images... Im not learning to see more variations in color am i? That should be theoretically impossible due to the three types of cone cells in my eyes. Surely.

Looks way too small to be an alien drone or spy thingy. Also, looks man made and that writing? Yeah, that's common nerd stuff.

Fan-bleeping-tastic thread.

Bumping to comb through later.

The sense of scale is very misleading. These drones were huge, like 30' in length. The pictures had infinite depth of field so it is easy to assume they were only about 6' long or so. If you follow the leads you will see that the 'photocopied' inventory picture released by Isaac is showing rings that are like 8' in diameter.

it is real
and it will be look so fake …

paradox