....

you're right. I can't identify it.

excellent backdrop
perhaps it is possible to photoshop the ufo out and use it on the desktop??

thoughts?

The object appears to have moved on a basically horizontal axis across the three pictures, if not slightly downwards. Yet the jetstream/ motion blur appears to indicate the object is moving diagonally upwards. Explain?

Contrail. An almost non-persisting contrail. It appears to fly in a straight line, with constant altitude, in keeping with the expected behaviour of a jet-liner. You will have seen it as a lit object even before the sun came up, because at 30,000ft, it will see the sun rise much earlier than you do at ground-level.

You are unlikely to hear any sound, again because of the altitude.

Hans

Originally posted by ScRaMbLe
The object appears to have moved on a basically horizontal axis across the three pictures, if not slightly downwards. Yet the jetstream/ motion blur appears to indicate the object is moving diagonally upwards. Explain?

Er, that's called perspective.

Er, that's called perspective.

Ay?

Perspective. It's so simple, I'm surpised you need it explaining, but here goes.

The world is in three dimensions, right, and this plane is flying quite high, and is a fair way off.

Imagine, it is flying straight and level. It's flight path, and that of any other aircraft also flying straight and level on the same heading, although maybe at a different altitude, and different position, all would appear to point back to the same point, called the 'vanishing point', and contrails would appear to point this way too.

From where you observe, your 'perspective', the vanishing point is on the horizon. Things above you appear to trace down to it, things below you would appear to trace upward to it.

This is simply because things appear smaller the further away they are, so if this plane started out at 30,000ft a hundred miles away, 30,000ft at that distance looks smaller than 30,000ft up close. Draw a line between where it was, and where it is now, and the plane (and it's contrail) draw the line that we see, that appears to be rising. Same goes for horizontal distances too.

Here are some basic illustrations;

http://mathforum.org/sum95/math_and/perspective/perspect.html

You guys can't at least entertain the guy?

I mean, you can't be sure it's a plane right?

That makes it a UFO damnit.

Originally posted by wesmorris


That makes it a UFO damnit.

You mean it is a UFO with a flight behaviour that is impossible with human technology!

Entertain the guy? Sorry, no, I find debunking far more entertaining.

Especially when there is no supporting evidence offered with the photos of the 'sighting'.

For starters, why did the object arouse suspicion? What did it it do that an aircraft doesn't?

it abducted my mother and took out her uterus.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
You mean it is a UFO with a flight behaviour that is impossible with human technology!

Damn straight! You see it's not that it was moving fast, it's that it was moving SLOWER than human technology allows. Incredible.

Originally posted by phlogistician
For starters, why did the object arouse suspicion? What did it it do that an aircraft doesn't?

The gaul of some people to question such obviously convincingly mind-bending photographic evidence. You just don't want to believe man, you're locked into the dogma of the pardigm!

exactly! it should have fallen out of the sky lick a brick...a heavy brick.

I think it is safe to say that this particular UFO used an as yet unindentified source of anti-gravity propulsion system. But to say which of these anti-gravity propulsion systems it used exactly would be pure speculation, and I would not dare to go that far. I am a serious scientist after all.

I'm sorry to hear about your mom's uterus.

:(

Maybe they'll put it back and she can birth alien monkeys.

You think they'd be spurious?

I think it might be unethical, but maybe aliens have different ethics.

Is there a thread on this important topic somewhere or a website? (ethical values of aliens)

Anyway, the mysterious glowing orb moves from right to left across the picture, and grows considerably in size, so I don't understand why Scramble thinks it looks like it's going downwards, .....!

Ph - Is your left the same as my left? It STARTS left and moves right. I dont think the craft is getting bigger, just increased x zoom as the diameter of the sun is bigger also!. In the first photo (assuming top photo is first in series, middle second etc) the "craft" is higher in the sky than in the second photo, the second higher than the third. This indicates it is moving in a downwards trajectory or further away (your vanishing point), however, the contrails appear downwards diagonally indicating an upwards movement of the craft. I guess, depending on the distance from the observer, your explanation could account for this. What I was alluding to was that perhaps the "craft" had been cut and pasted into the picture, but looking back I think that was just the :m: talking ;)
In summary my sober opinion is that it is a jetliner flying upwards and away from observer left to right and the curve of the earth makes it look like its getting lower. Sorry for the confusion!

Originally posted by ScRaMbLe
Ph - Is your left the same as my left?

'mysterious glowing orb', moving from RIGHT to LEFT would be, ......


THE SUN.

Is irony pointless?

If this is indeed a "real UFO" then I would like to know where this photo was taken, and an honest response from the photographer as to whether he (or she) is hoaxing everyone.

Anyway, the mysterious glowing orb moves from right to left across the picture, and grows considerably in size, so I don't understand why Scramble thinks it looks like it's going downwards, .....!

'mysterious glowing orb', moving from RIGHT to LEFT would be, ......


THE SUN.

Is irony pointless?

Yes, and so is mis-placed sarcasm. I confuse easy. Make up ya mind. I never said the sun was going downwards. ;)

Originally posted by chris beacham

The first signs are a dull red glow relatively low on the horizon. I know exactly where to look for it seems to appear in the same spot most times.

The same spot, you mean, like a commercial air lane, regularly used by commercial air liners?


Sometimes this 'glow' may remain motionless for several minutes. Then it will intensify and start to move across towards the first signs of the rising Sun. Someimes the light will peter out shortly thereafter and I lose sight of it. Other times it will gather speed and start to throw a trail. These trails can be very short or in some cases, several miles long from the look of it. The colour varies from white to yellow, to pink, to red, to black.

Sounds exactly like the contrails I see from the aircraft at my local air port.



and at no time does the activity show signs of being sourced from any airports

Doesnt mean it isn't though. Just because the aircraft aren't coming in to land, or still taking off (and aircraft gain altitude pretty quickly), doesn't mean they aren't from a fairly local airport, or that they are long haul, and cruising at tens of thousands of feet. You can't say they aren't from an airport from their flight path.


. As I said in my original post I have made an effort to indentify the craft with closer up photography. So far all I can really come up with is that the subject has no wings or tail section, is very bright and silent, and has the ability to disappear instantaneuosly.

OK, let's get a few things straight. The fact that you can't see, nor capture wings or tails on film, does not mean the craft do not have any. The fact you cannot hear any noise does not mean the craft doesn't make any. I live near an airport, and see aircraft every day. I seldom see wings and tails, never hear their engines, but often see bright reflections from the fuselage. Often, all I can see if the reflection, so if the aircraft banks slightly it might not reflect in my direction any more. It has not disappeared, it's still there, it's just I can't see it. Or the sunlight falling on it could be obscured by a cloud, same goes, the reflection is no longer visible, that all.



The 'exhaust' thrusts straight down from the center of the undercarriage and starts to flow behind the craft as it gathers speed giving the impression that is is being ejected out the back like a normal aircraft.

That sounds like pure speculation! You are saying it looks like it comes from the back, but you _think_ it comes from underneath. Unless you have a picture to confirm that the 'exhaust' comes from underneath, you should be careful about making claims you can't substantiate.


You would being doing both yourself and me a disservice if you choose not to accept these insights as honest attempts to try to understand what is happening in my neighberhood......

Honest? I hope so, but then honest mistake in interpreting what you see. All of your problems seem to be rationalising your perceprtions. Nothing you have posted looks out of the ordinary. The only extraordinary things, are the claims.

You would being doing both yourself and me a disservice if you choose not to accept these insights as honest attempts to try to understand what is happening in my neighberhood

And the disservice to you would be a dip in your sales of manipulated photographs?

Some of the suggestions to Chris on what these photos may be make good sense; the reaction to the lights appearing at the same place on the horizon suggesting an airline pathway was particularly good.

I note that UFO Watchdog.com features Chris' photographs. I know that Chris will appreciate honesty; photographs like this are not what peak my interest in the phenomenon. I must say they are beautiful photographs.

What I don't see is a basis to attack his character. The fact that he sells his photographs should be taken at face value; many investigating UFOs do so on their own time and I strongly suspect that, contrary to what debunkers often allege, an interest in UFOs is not a huge source of income.

Nor should we discount the fact that Chris has spent some time pondering what he sees and does not feel that conventional explanations apply. If he wants to pursue this and offset his costs by selling his photographs, big deal.

Even if what he is seeing has an prosaic explanation, all the better, since his documentation presents a fact pattern which can be analyzed for consistency with some explanations, like airline flights. And if I'm wrong about Chris, and he is doctoring his photographs, that will certainly be exposed too.

So I don't see a lot of value from any point of view, from attacking his character with no basis.

Ives

And if I'm wrong about Chris, and he is doctoring his photographs, that will certainly be exposed too.

Chris admitted to doctoring his photographs after telling everyone he thought it was ET.

He runs a scam for profit.

No big deal if you consider that OK.

None of you can prove they are fakes and none of you can prove they are real. I am going to lean towards the "they are real" statement. From the discriptions given of how it performs and the exhaust, I say I would bet money that it is real. Good Job Chris

I would bet the saucer you are seeing is a "spy saucer" in that they just use it to observe the public and communications in the area. (when I say "they" I mean the secret U.S. government, but thats another story) (refere to my sign in name)

...

If people must have an opinion on everything, wait and see what people who have seen my CD, and have actually done some research on the subject think.....

Oh yes, I’m sure we’ll see unbiased opinions from those other UFO proponents. :rolleyes:

With being able to travel at very high speeds, it could be any government, I correct myself. Also, I said "secret goverment", thats why the "non-secret government" doesn't know anything about it, or claims not to know. Of course its all theory so Im not gonna agrue with anyone about it, I will believe what I want, you can believe what you want, either way: "The facts of reality are what they are, irrespective as to whether you know them or not."-Ayn Rand

Originally posted by manmadeflyingsaucer

I would bet the saucer you are seeing is a "spy saucer" in that they just use it to observe the public and communications in the area. (when I say "they" I mean the secret U.S. government, but thats another story) (refere to my sign in name)

A 'saucer', wow! What a leap! Even Chris hasn't claimed what shape it is! But now, it's saucer shaped, and involved in a conspiracy!!

There are far simpler and less obtrusive ways to spy on the public and to listen in on communications than to fly around in 'saucers', causing some people alarm! Simple terrestrial aerials are pretty good, go do a search for 'Echelon' and see what the govt are capable of doing while sitting perfectly still!

Originally posted by chris beacham

but I now accept that that will never be good enough for some inbdividuals who thrive on slander,

You admitted to using photoshop to 'enhance' anomolies in your pictures. You admitted that sometimes you can't see anything in your pictures until they've been tweaked, saying something along the lines that UFO activity often happens below the limit of human perception,and that you make it visible my manipulating the images. That said, some people will see this as deception and saying that is not slander.

ignorance

Afraid not. I was a trained physicist, and have worked in various scientific departments. I have offered simple explanations for many of the pictures offered up here, and none of these has been objectively dismissed. Points raised are ignored, and original arguments re-made. Enter debate, show intelligence and depth, don't just sling mud.


and alround sadness.


Now who is throwing insults? Some may think that you are insulting our intelligence by postig pictures of airplanes and asking us to accept they are UFOs. Calling us sad for disagreeing with you however, damages your credibility.


Rich Dolan (author of Ufos and the National Security State) also has a copy of the CD and will be doing a review shortly, along with Flying Saucer Review.

You are selecting your audience,and expecting us to accept the results of a researcher who has an obvious bias. Put out the footage on general release, and take critiques from all angles. I'm not anti-UFO, I'm a skeptic,and a scientist, and both animals are swayed by quality evidence. If you have some, show it.


If people must have an opinion on everything, wait and see what people who have seen my CD, and have actually done some research on the subject think.....

I'm ready, but I like to make my own mind up. Thing is, paying is one of the problems I have. Too many charlatans make a living from selling their dogma, be they Scientologists or Christians.

If you don't want to be seen as a charlatan, don't charge.

phlogistician: "Afraid not. I was a trained physicist, and have worked in various scientific departments. I have offered simple explanations for many of the pictures offered up here, and none of these has been objectively dismissed. Points raised are ignored, and original arguments re-made".

Quite frankly phlogistician I didn't read your post. I'll have a look at it....

"The same spot, you mean, like a commercial air lane, regularly used by commercial air liners?"

No. This could not be considered a commercial airlane. I have lived in the area for 50 years and I have not seen this activity before.

"Sounds exactly like the contrails I see from the aircraft at my local air port".

Trails are not the only aspect of the activity.

"Doesnt mean it isn't though. Just because the aircraft aren't coming in to land, or still taking off (and aircraft gain altitude pretty quickly), doesn't mean they aren't from a fairly local airport, or that they are long haul, and cruising at tens of thousands of feet. You can't say they aren't from an airport from their flight path".

The airports are not open during much of the activity. It's too early. The activity usually begins and ends at sea. Sometimes I have seen craft fly out to sea from land, although very rarely.


"OK, let's get a few things straight. The fact that you can't see, nor capture wings or tails on film, does not mean the craft do not have any".

After several years of photographing the subject.....Yes it does.

"That sounds like pure speculation! You are saying it looks like it comes from the back, but you _think_ it comes from underneath. Unless you have a picture to confirm that the 'exhaust' comes from underneath, you should be careful about making claims you can't substantiate".

I believe I can substantiate it.

Apologies Chris, you've already got ManMadeSaucer stuck to you like an ideological remora, and it may be difficult for you to get him off. He's already dubbed your UFO a "spy saucer for the shadow government"; soon he'll start talking about the Gnomes of Zurich and this thread will be toast.

Nice pictures! Given your propensity to photograph UFOs, you should probably start putting out for some better equipment, like a good long range telephoto that might get you a clearer picture. Then those doubting Thomases would get a better look at your UFOs.

BigBlueHead: "Apologies Chris, you've already got ManMadeSaucer stuck to you like an ideological remora, and it may be difficult for you to get him off. He's already dubbed your UFO a "spy saucer for the shadow government"; soon he'll start talking about the Gnomes of Zurich and this thread will be toast".

Hi BigBlueHead,

I don't have any problems with ManMadeSaucer's views. But I do think it complicates the subject and distracts from what is already a huge mystery.

"Nice pictures! Given your propensity to photograph UFOs, you should probably start putting out for some better equipment, like a good long range telephoto that might get you a clearer picture".

I'm glad you like the shots..I have many more. I've concentrated on movie mainly in the last couple of years. As the first pics show it's hard to get behind the light to see. Here's a still from a movie clip that gets the craft without the trail.

<img src=http://www.surfin.com.au/mc1.jpg>

Here's another movie still showing a sample of the downwards 'propulsion'. The craft is at the top of the light.

<img src=http://www.surfin.com.au/mc3.jpg>

But that's not to be confused with this shot of a craft in front of trail heading down towards the Ocean surface.

<img src=http://www.surfin.com.au/mc2.jpg>
Avalon

Too many artifacts in the first picture; that could be a Dodge Challenger for all I can see...

Second and third photos look like contrails to me... can't see what's making them.

Chris - The problem with movie stills is that it is very difficult to identify an object in motion from just one frame. The human brain works a lot better when it can take an "average" from multiple frames in motion. Any chance of you posting a link for the entire movie footage?

ScRaMbLe:
" Chris - The problem with movie stills is that it is very difficult to identify an object in motion from just one frame. The human brain works a lot better when it can take an "average" from multiple frames in motion. Any chance of you posting a link for the entire movie footage?"

Hi Scramble,

The first images is a still from an early movie sequence that I don't think I could find again in a hurry. The second still is from an edited clip on my CD that is about 35 megs long. All the video sequences on my CD are edited by a professional video company because I don't have the means to do the edits and mpg transfers. This, together with the disc space needed, means I am unlikely to be posting any full clips online.... as much as I'd like to.

Well you can understand why people would have their doubts as to your motives for posting the images you have. Your intentions are probably honourable, but, on the surface it could appear that you're merely trying to drum up sales for your cd, by posting blurry pics then saying "If you want the full version, please sent $29.95 to such and such".
I had a quick look at your site and you do have some interesting photos there, but they could be of anything. In this day and age people are very wary of shelling out their hard earned cash for what could be taken to be just another scam.

C'mon dude, I dont want to dismiss you as just another con-artist, but you've got to give us something to sink our teeth into, even if its just a hi-res 10 second clip... :)

Give it up Scramble - Chris's ONLY interest is in how wide you're willing to open your wallet.

Originally posted by chris beacham
This, together with the disc space needed, means I am unlikely to be posting any full clips online.... as much as I'd like to.

35Mb, Wow! Get broadband, set up PWS on your PC, and register with a dynamic DNS, and then you have easily enough space to serve out 35Mb files. Or get someone to do that for you,
or upload them to an anonymous ftp site, so we can download them.

Come on Chris, don't use technology as an excuse. If you _wanted_ to share these clips, you'd find a way. I've named two, I'm sure there are more. You only need to pick one.

So if someone who bought the CD put it online for free, you wouldn't mind?

We have the ability to put everything on your CD online. No shortening needed. Would you mind?

I don't expect to be altering my present arrangements in the forseeable future.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Lol. This, together with the disc space needed, means I am unlikely to be posting any full clips online.... as much as I'd like to. We just took care of your excuse.

I think Q has the right idea here.

Chris - you've got a bit to learn about marketing. Post the 35mb clip on the web, but get your "professional company" to put a "copyright Chris Beecham" watermark across the bottom of the entire footage. That way no-one can steal it and you get free advertising and increased credibility for any future endevours you wish to achieve. This will lead to you making more money than you would doing things the way you are at the moment... and we get to see the footage as you intended. Everyone wins... unless you are just a dodgy scam artist... :cool:

Originally posted by ScRaMbLe
This will lead to you making more money than you would doing things the way you are at the moment...
Lol. I thought he wasn't in this for the money?

unless you are just a dodgy scam artist
5 points for ScRaMbLe.