War on Drones

[Marine One]

The war on drones continues. The center piece is the bogus drone by the lava shot.

‘Turn it off’: how technology is killing the joy of national parks

 

[BillyTexas]

Is this fake? Seems that phantom would melt that close to lava.

 

[FlushVision]

Is this fake? Seems that phantom would melt that close to lava.

Yes. Clearly photo-shopped.

The person who [allegedly] took the photograph, Andrew Studer, was at the park May 1 when he spotted the aircraft hovering near the hose. Studer said that he was more than 2,600 feet from the hose when he witnessed the scene.

I don't know about anyone else but I, personally, wouldn't be able to witness a Phantom that is much more than a thousand feet away, never mind 2600 feet away.

A concocted picture in an effort to publicize a negative fake news story against UAV use.

 

[gwhuntoon]

Having stood on the lava flow near Kalapana I concur this is fake. I'm pretty sure a flow like that would be near Kalapana from Kilauea. Just standing near a lava flow, my shoes were smoking. Where the flow was slow you could actually stand on the glowing lava, however where the lava was flowing fast and bright, your skin would singe. Just the thermals alone rising over the lava would make flying there near impossible. Any of our drones would be toast. I would also question the legality of flying the drone there. I was told by the locals that most of the tourist helicopters there fly over their land illegally. While yes, it is a national park, it is also privately held by the local people and you're supposed to get permission from the chief or his sons to fly or hike there. None of the tourist choppers get permission to fly there. Permission usually consists of paying for a guide, then asking the guide if it's ok. Most of them would probably be ok with it. Also in the middle of the flow, there are no trees or vegetation of any kind and no good reference points to judge scale or distance. It basically looks like an alien world. Really cool if you get the chance.

 

[NorWiscPilot]

Just curious,

Can anyone find the shadow of the drone in the image?

 

[Murray Martz]

The image is either fake, or he did it himself for attention to his business. I have an image of the photographer using his own drone, the same one in the image. In the article, he says...“I do feel like drones are extremely obnoxious, and I’m sure it was frustrating for some of the people there.” Then on his facebook page, he has the caption that comes with this image..."Captures beautiful nature footage* *Frames shot so picnic benches and road aren't in shot* Thanks for the BTS photo of me, Ryan! "
So I think if we do the math, he flew the drone for the image, or added it in as there are no reflections of the drone but the are of other items. I sent him a message asking to produce the meta data....we'll see what happens from there. I plan on exposing this guy to the media and public for trying to harm the industry, and gain attention to his sites at the same time for profit.

 

[Murray Martz]

I also contacted the photographer through facebook and asked him to send me the meta data to dispel any doubts about it being altered post production. He said he would give me a dropbox link. I'm waiting still............tick tock.......

 

[Windluv]

I saw that also. My question is what camera is he using? If I had a consumer camera that can resolve a 1 foot object that is 2500' feet away with the level of detail displayed in a very challenging atmospheric environment, I would buy that camera.

 

[gwhuntoon]

I'm sure he's busy editing the metadata now...

 

[gwhuntoon]

Where is the light coming from to illuminate the drone?

I would expect it to look more like this


Also there appears to me to be obvious distortion around the drone image which doesn't match the background however if the drone was the focus target and much closer to the photographer then this could be a real shot.


In fairness, there is intense light coming from the left and behind which is casting a shadow against the lava from the exploding debris would also highlight the drone. Without the original image and nothing to judge scale or distance the image is suspect. While the drone appears to be on on top of the lava and close, it's more than likely several hundred if not thousand(s) of feet away from the lava making it appear riskier that it may have been and also explains a lack of a drone shadow. The pilot could have been standing on a flat part of the lava field a great distance from the lava, nowhere near anyone or anything with the drone above which would also explain how he was flying without scorching his drone. Zoom compression would make for a crazy and risky looking image.

Either way, if the intent is to make drones look bad an image like this taken out of context would clearly do that. Too bad a potentially pretty cool image would be used in this way.

 

[ThunderChicken]

Fake news. There is no way a phantom could be that close to an active flow and not drop out of the sky.
I'm fairly certain that the props would melt or the electronics would fail from a temperature extreme like that.

It would not visible from that distance either. The pixelation between the two subject is very obvious.
Two different images combined.

 

[ThunderChicken]

I saw that also. My question is what camera is he using? If I had a consumer camera that can resolve a 1 foot object that is 2500' feet away with the level of detail displayed in a very challenging atmospheric environment, I would buy that camera.

Not only that atmospheric conditions but holding and focusing a lens with a focal length sufficient to capture that image would be pretty close to impossible. Or just extremely good luck to have the shot setup and the multi-rotor
just happens in at the time.
But it is faked.

 

[FlushVision]

Fake news. There is no way a phantom could be that close to an active flow and not drop out of the sky.
I'm fairly certain that the props would melt or the electronics would fail from a temperature extreme like that.

It would not visible from that distance either. The pixelation between the two subject is very obvious.
Two different images combined.

I've just looked at the guy's FB page. A very capable photographer who, interestingly, also uses a drone exactly like the one in the fake picture. It would be well within his ability to photo-shop such a picture combining a picture of the lava flow with an image of his own aircraft.

 

[BrightonBlue]

I've just seen that the article was posted in 'The Guardian' which tells me a lot, it's a kill joy newspaper so wouldn't believe a word of it. Also the picture above is a definitely a photoshopped file. I've been using Photoshop since the early 1990s and can tell you for sure that it is fake. The drone is too sharp compared with the surrounding.

 

[Murray Martz]

I've just looked at the guy's FB page. A very capable photographer who, interestingly, also uses a drone exactly like the one in the fake picture. It would be well within his ability to photo-shop such a picture combining a picture of the lava flow with an image of his own aircraft.

And that was why I posted the image of him with the identical drone. And yet he still claimed drones are so bad. Then don't use one.

 

[FlushVision]

And that was why I posted the image of him with the identical drone. And yet he still claimed drones are so bad. Then don't use one.

Which is why it's so baffling for him to photo-shop an image to put drones into a bad light and massage public opinion against drones. Unless, of course, his aim is to get publicity for his own ends...?

I've said it before: I'm sick of all the fake stories going around about drones, be it airline pilots with super-human eyesight seeing drones that no normal person could possibly see, to this sort of story based upon a concocted picture (done rather well, i'll give him that) that all go towards feeding the general public's gullibility and perceptions that all drones are bad and are flown only by bad pilots.

 

[Murray Martz]

Which is why it's so baffling for him to photo-shop an image to put drones into a bad light and massage public opinion against drones. Unless, of course, his aim is to get publicity for his own ends...?

I've said it before: I'm sick of all the fake stories going around about drones, be it airline pilots with super-human eyesight seeing drones that no normal person could possibly see, to this sort of story based upon a concocted picture (done rather well, i'll give him that) that all go towards feeding the general public's gullibility and perceptions that all drones are bad and are flown only by bad pilots.

Pretty sure it's to promote his business. He still hasn't sent me the files. I'm going to message him again on FB

 

[FlushVision]

Pretty sure it's to promote his business. He still hasn't sent me the files. I'm going to message him again on FB

It's the only logical explanation...to get publicity. One thing's for sure: he has our attention.

When I went to his FB page I posted this comment: 'Looks like YOUR drone Andrew. A set-up to gain publicity at the expense of the drone hobby I wonder?'

 

[ThunderChicken]

It's the only logical explanation...to get publicity. One thing's for sure: he has our attention.

When I went to his FB page I posted this comment: 'Looks like YOUR drone Andrew. A set-up to gain publicity at the expense of the drone hobby I wonder?'

Any response from the faker?

 

[Murray Martz]

Said he was on a photo shoot so he was busy. Didn't say if he was still going to do it. If I get no reply, I will message him one more time. If there is no reply after that, he will have confirmed it is a fake.