a 'typical' sighting...

Interesting

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Guys, guys, guys (you know that tone)

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

US

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

 

Re: Guys, guys, guys (you know that tone)

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!

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!