<a href="http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page2022.html?theme=light" target="_blank" title="tahoe_ufo.jpg"><img src="http://strangeattractor.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/tahoe_ufo.jpg" title="tahoe_ufo.jpg" alt="tahoe_ufo.jpg" align="left" border="0" hspace="4" vspace="4" /></a><a href="http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page2022.html?theme=light" target="_blank">Set one</a><a href="http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1252&amp;category=Environment" target="_blank" title="capitola_ufo.jpg"><img src="http://strangeattractor.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/capitola_ufo.jpg" title="capitola_ufo.jpg" alt="capitola_ufo.jpg" align="top" border="0" hspace="4" vspace="4" /></a><a href="http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1252&amp;category=Environment" target="_blank">Set two</a>

For the past couple of weeks, these images of what purports to be some kind of aircraft have been generating a lot of interest in the online UFO community. And judging from a number of personal emails I've received, are now spreading out into the wider world.

I'm 90% sure that these don't even constitute photographs of a physical object and are a CGI creation, perhaps well-placed viral marketing for an upcoming video game or film (<em>Transformers</em> has been suggested). I suppose by even running them here I'm contributing to the virus' spread. Ah well.

While I'm no photographic expert, something about the images just doesn't 'feel' right – partly it's a simple matter of 'too good to be true', partly the light reflecting off the craft's surface is too cold for the surrounding background.

Anyway, I'll cease my speculation and defer to someone who seems to know what they're talking about - this statement from Mark McCandlish came to me via the physicist and raconteur Jack Sarfatti:

<!--more--> <em>From Mark McCandlish:  </em>

"On the "alien probe" photos, I agree;  this looks like some very imaginative model and photoshop work.  While I was working for General Dynamics and the special effects company Introvision back in the early 1980's, I had occasion to work in photo retouching, matte painting, as well as create scale models that were photographed with the intention of making them look like actual, full-sized weapons systems.  (Among other things).  Christopher Ross, the brother of my college room mate, worked as a model builder for Industrial Light &amp; Magic. I saw the original models for the Enterprise starship for the second Star Trek feature film as it neared completion along with its scaled "space dock".  I have seen the best people in the motion picture industry at work, have visited their studios on multiple occasions, and closely examined their model work.  This is amateurish by comparison.  Heck, it even uses the exact same tone of flat, gray gelcoat that model builders use in their fiberglass mockups!  The uniformity of the exterior color is one clue to the fact that this is a model.  There are no seams, slight variations in surface color or texture as one would expect from a thirty to sixty foot craft constructed of multiple panels to develop the surface.  I believe that it is probably no larger than six to seven feet in its longest dimension.  Size would have to be limited to be able to string it up with 90 pound fishing line! LOL

Another give-away is the brightly illuminated underside, while retaining a nice, perfectly exposed sky.

I have spent twenty seven years photographing military aircraft, (both from the back seat of F-15's, F-4's, F-16's, and the A-7K and on the ramp) as well as painting illustrations of them, and I can tell you that a large vehicle, (as this "craft" alleges to be) would have had its ventral surface (belly) completely blacked out in shadow in order to have such a perfectly exposed sky while hovering above treetop level.  Conversely, had the underside been so beautifully exposed, the much brighter level of light from the sky should have been washed out and almost white.  But in order to satisfy the light exposure as shown, one COULD accomplish that by having a six foot model photographed from about six feet off the ground in broad daylight.  With the secondary lightsource of the ground in such proximity, one might actually be able to balance the two lightsources:  the sky and the ventral surface illuminated by reflected light from the ground.

This all says "MODEL" loud and clear to me.  In support of this theory, note that there is a slight warmth to the ventral lighting suggesting a nearby reflected lightsource, such as the tan-colored, dried grass seen elsewhere in the photos.   That sort of reflected light could never balance with nor overpower the lightsource of the sky from thirty to seventy feet off the ground passing over the trees.

And to have another guy jump in with an additional set of shots of a remarkably similar craft only says "conspiracy" in my book.  Note the vegetation.  It's the same in both sets even though the photos are supposed to have been taken miles apart on different days.  Bottom line: I SAY THEY'RE FAKE!"

So there you go!