There is nothing in any of these pictures that can't be easily be replicated by even a casual user of Maya and Photoshop. Yes, it was many hours of work - proving that these people were paid. If these are 'real', then where is your rationale for the obvious renderings of pieces in the 'perfectly lit studio' format that is a base default output of any high end rendering suite? As for the 'symbol analysis' papers, again they overplayed their hand with that crap. They would have been much better off sticking to the 'casual pictures taken by witnesses when the cloak failed' shots.

You seem to forget that this was already discussed to death at the time. People already pointed out the obvious composite proof of the objects seen behind tree leaves, etc. The people who were PAID to generate this stuff for an aborted attempt at a viral marketing scheme were ferreted out. The studio output shots were obviously never meant to be released, for very, very obvious reasons.

It is cute to say "hey remember this?", but to act like you are 'enhancing' these pictures is a childish and laughable joke.