chris beacham
Registered Senior Member
...
....
....
Last edited:
another UFO pic.....
- Thread starter chris beacham
- Start date
True, it could be anything, but I saw it in the sky. If I recall I took several dozen pics that morning and the image is one of thousands I have gathered over the last three years.
So, for the past three years, you’ve simply walked outside with your camera and snapped thousands of pictures of UFO’s that were coincidently flying overhead?
I don't post images for the likes of you, and if anyone has gained any insights into the phenomena by my material I find some small gratification.
That’s a laugh – you package and sell these images for profit claiming they’re UFO’s.
That’s no small gratification.
So, for the past three years, you’ve simply walked outside with your camera and snapped thousands of pictures of UFO’s that were coincidently flying overhead?
I don't post images for the likes of you, and if anyone has gained any insights into the phenomena by my material I find some small gratification.
That’s a laugh – you package and sell these images for profit claiming they’re UFO’s.
That’s no small gratification.
chris beacham,
The point I was making is that these pictures of yours are all very pretty and so on, but without any information they are nothing but blurred images of unknown things.
At the very least, you should post:
* Where the image was taken
* What the photographic settings were (f-stop, zoom, shutter speed etc.)
* What time the photograph was taken
* Any relevant events you know were occuring nearby at the time
* Any possible alternative explanations you can think of for what the images might show
The point I was making is that these pictures of yours are all very pretty and so on, but without any information they are nothing but blurred images of unknown things.
At the very least, you should post:
* Where the image was taken
* What the photographic settings were (f-stop, zoom, shutter speed etc.)
* What time the photograph was taken
* Any relevant events you know were occuring nearby at the time
* Any possible alternative explanations you can think of for what the images might show
Okay,
lets be realistic here.My first thought was same as James R.Can be a Pollen grain.But since you insist that its a U.F.O.Let me specify how to report a sighting.If:
<b>You saw the Object,without any camera or Corder</b>
Chances are that you saw the object without any evidence to report it.You are a verbal witness.How would people believe you?Your mother would i am sure.This means a verbal witness is usually ignored.
<b>You saw the Object,photographed it,distantly</b>
you are a witness with evidence but the evidence is static,which doesnt prove conclusively that the object is Unidentified or not human.So a witness with a photographed will or surely is ignored.
<b>You saw the object closely,took photos with greater details,Recorded the detailed motion of the object closely say 50-100 feet</b>
You are a witness who has to be taken seriously.And the footage will be examined or is entitled to be examined by an expert .
so Chris,No.I a not ready to accept any thing unless you have CE-III (CE-IV Possibly?
hehe) shoots,with a camera.Even then most of the people will ignore the evidence.This is primarily because of the fact that unless they see it for themselves in range of CE-III they wont believe in the stuff.<i>This although doesnt rule out the existance of U.F.O and their origins being E.T in nature,But to have solid and conclusive evidence is what this world would require.
For e.g I personally investigated the Fedrich Valentich Incident.I couldnt find any conclusive proof apart from the Tapes,in which the Fedrich reports seeing a cigar shaped object.And taking a tip off reply of Goofy i investigated the dubious history of Cessana Model and their ineffectiveness.
bye!
lets be realistic here.My first thought was same as James R.Can be a Pollen grain.But since you insist that its a U.F.O.Let me specify how to report a sighting.If:
<b>You saw the Object,without any camera or Corder</b>
Chances are that you saw the object without any evidence to report it.You are a verbal witness.How would people believe you?Your mother would i am sure.This means a verbal witness is usually ignored.
<b>You saw the Object,photographed it,distantly</b>
you are a witness with evidence but the evidence is static,which doesnt prove conclusively that the object is Unidentified or not human.So a witness with a photographed will or surely is ignored.
<b>You saw the object closely,took photos with greater details,Recorded the detailed motion of the object closely say 50-100 feet</b>
You are a witness who has to be taken seriously.And the footage will be examined or is entitled to be examined by an expert .
so Chris,No.I a not ready to accept any thing unless you have CE-III (CE-IV Possibly?
hehe) shoots,with a camera.Even then most of the people will ignore the evidence.This is primarily because of the fact that unless they see it for themselves in range of CE-III they wont believe in the stuff.<i>This although doesnt rule out the existance of U.F.O and their origins being E.T in nature,But to have solid and conclusive evidence is what this world would require.For e.g I personally investigated the Fedrich Valentich Incident.I couldnt find any conclusive proof apart from the Tapes,in which the Fedrich reports seeing a cigar shaped object.And taking a tip off reply of Goofy i investigated the dubious history of Cessana Model and their ineffectiveness.
bye!
Chris
The activity usually happened in a certain area of the sky at a certain time in the morning (usually around sunrise, and not overhead but several miles out to sea usually)
It sounds like all those phenomenons are effects of morning sunrise, probably on clouds and other atmospheric conditions, don’t ya think?
I spent thousands of dollars on further equipment to see for myself what was happening.
It appears you’ve wasted your money, unless you are finding other uses for your equipment.
In the meantime I have had to put several of my own business projects on hold
To take pictures of sunrise effects?
In my world you are expected to back up your claims
Then, why aren’t you taking your own advice?
As you know, no one here has yet found any of my material to be hoaxed, and I still challenge those sorry assed 'debunkers' to do so.
Whether you hoax the photos or not doesn’t really matter – there is no reason to suspect anything out of the ordinary. You’ve posted plenty of pics before that mostly resemble cloud formations or as James says, blurred images of unknown things. This one bares little difference.
The activity usually happened in a certain area of the sky at a certain time in the morning (usually around sunrise, and not overhead but several miles out to sea usually)
It sounds like all those phenomenons are effects of morning sunrise, probably on clouds and other atmospheric conditions, don’t ya think?
I spent thousands of dollars on further equipment to see for myself what was happening.
It appears you’ve wasted your money, unless you are finding other uses for your equipment.
In the meantime I have had to put several of my own business projects on hold
To take pictures of sunrise effects?
In my world you are expected to back up your claims
Then, why aren’t you taking your own advice?
As you know, no one here has yet found any of my material to be hoaxed, and I still challenge those sorry assed 'debunkers' to do so.
Whether you hoax the photos or not doesn’t really matter – there is no reason to suspect anything out of the ordinary. You’ve posted plenty of pics before that mostly resemble cloud formations or as James says, blurred images of unknown things. This one bares little difference.
chris beacham:
Thanks for the extra information.
The original image looks to me very much like a cloud.
You've taken that image, edited it using image manipulation software to add special effects such as highlighting edges, and then publishes it, claiming it is a flying saucer.
Altering the data and not telling anybody is, to say the least, a little dishonest, don't you think?
But let's ignore that for a minute. Obviously you have taken a photo of <b>something</b>. I can only guess that it is a cloud - I can't be sure. But <b>you</b> are very very sure what it is - an alien spacecraft. No other explanation is allowed for you.
How can you make statements like this with a straight face:
<i>Many ufo pics that appear 'blurry' are actually sharp images of a blurry subject. This 'blur' is caused by a craft's interaction with it's surrounding enviroment as well as it's own 'fields' from what I've sensed so far...</i>
The much simpler and more logical explanation is that blurry images are a result of bad photography. You don't know anything about the "fields" of alien spacecraft (if they exist). You're just making it up because it sounds good and excuses poor photos.
<i>It is not the appearance of a strange craft that suggests non human activity, it is it's behaviour. eg. Twice I have seen 'solid' sun-reflecting craft hover within a few hundred yards of me before instantaneously disappearing. No slow fade out, fire or smoke. These sightings happening quite early in the experiences and so I knew what I was dealing with. A couple of weeks ago I was setting up in the early morning dark at Palm Beach when I heard a 'whoosh'. I turned around in time to see a glowing undercarriage with trailing sparks fly past. By the time, I turned my head to the left to follow it, it was out of sight. I never did get to view the actual craft itself in that instance. I feel uncomfortable when craft break the 'normal' pattern.</i>
I find it extremely interesting that you seem to see many many more UFOs than the "average" person, such as myself. Why do you think that is the case? Are the aliens particularly fond of surfing and surf shops, or could it be something else?
Thanks for the extra information.
The original image looks to me very much like a cloud.
You've taken that image, edited it using image manipulation software to add special effects such as highlighting edges, and then publishes it, claiming it is a flying saucer.
Altering the data and not telling anybody is, to say the least, a little dishonest, don't you think?
But let's ignore that for a minute. Obviously you have taken a photo of <b>something</b>. I can only guess that it is a cloud - I can't be sure. But <b>you</b> are very very sure what it is - an alien spacecraft. No other explanation is allowed for you.
How can you make statements like this with a straight face:
<i>Many ufo pics that appear 'blurry' are actually sharp images of a blurry subject. This 'blur' is caused by a craft's interaction with it's surrounding enviroment as well as it's own 'fields' from what I've sensed so far...</i>
The much simpler and more logical explanation is that blurry images are a result of bad photography. You don't know anything about the "fields" of alien spacecraft (if they exist). You're just making it up because it sounds good and excuses poor photos.
<i>It is not the appearance of a strange craft that suggests non human activity, it is it's behaviour. eg. Twice I have seen 'solid' sun-reflecting craft hover within a few hundred yards of me before instantaneously disappearing. No slow fade out, fire or smoke. These sightings happening quite early in the experiences and so I knew what I was dealing with. A couple of weeks ago I was setting up in the early morning dark at Palm Beach when I heard a 'whoosh'. I turned around in time to see a glowing undercarriage with trailing sparks fly past. By the time, I turned my head to the left to follow it, it was out of sight. I never did get to view the actual craft itself in that instance. I feel uncomfortable when craft break the 'normal' pattern.</i>
I find it extremely interesting that you seem to see many many more UFOs than the "average" person, such as myself. Why do you think that is the case? Are the aliens particularly fond of surfing and surf shops, or could it be something else?
Chris, don't attempt to speak for others on this board. While Q
and JamesR certainly don't view the UFO phenomena the same
as I do, their posts relating to material presented is welcomed by
me. I agree with JamesR on your material. You take digital photos
and manipulate them. I have no idea what the original photos
represented, but you do alter them to make them seem more
"UFOish. " Hawking your website and DVDs on this thread is SPAM.
Debate on the subject of the UFO phenomena and any material
presented should be welcomed, personal attacks of a members
honesty or intelligence should not be. It is difficult enough to gain
any respect and informed opinion on this subject without trying to
exclude someone because they don't "believe." That is my view,
you and others will probably disagree.
and JamesR certainly don't view the UFO phenomena the same
as I do, their posts relating to material presented is welcomed by
me. I agree with JamesR on your material. You take digital photos
and manipulate them. I have no idea what the original photos
represented, but you do alter them to make them seem more
"UFOish. " Hawking your website and DVDs on this thread is SPAM.
Debate on the subject of the UFO phenomena and any material
presented should be welcomed, personal attacks of a members
honesty or intelligence should not be. It is difficult enough to gain
any respect and informed opinion on this subject without trying to
exclude someone because they don't "believe." That is my view,
you and others will probably disagree.
<i>I don't manipulate images to make them what they are not. I manipulate them in an attempt to see them clearer. </i>
That is a very slippery slope you're on there.
You come to a new photo with an idea of what kind of thing you want to see, and then you choose manipulation techniques to achieve the kind of look you want.
This process can be either conscious or unconscious. It is a common human trait to see what you want to see. Scientists are taught to be very careful of this kind of thing, which is technically known as "confirmation bias".
Still, what do you care? You're making loads of money, right?
That is a very slippery slope you're on there.
You come to a new photo with an idea of what kind of thing you want to see, and then you choose manipulation techniques to achieve the kind of look you want.
This process can be either conscious or unconscious. It is a common human trait to see what you want to see. Scientists are taught to be very careful of this kind of thing, which is technically known as "confirmation bias".
Still, what do you care? You're making loads of money, right?
Hi Chris, well, you might not want to hear from JamesR or Q, so how about listening to me instead?
That's a meaningless photo. If you have manipulated the image, that's no good. Using effects adds data that just wasn't there, and JamesR is right in accusing you of dishonesty therefore.
As for you calling him a liar, that's just a weak diversionary tactic. He hasn't made a claim, he's just dissecting yours. He cannot be a 'liar', therefore, so don't attempt to discredit him, just because he questioned your reliability.
So, what we know about this picture. It has no scale, no point of reference, has been enlarged hugely, and has been manipulated.
Not really of suitable quality therefore, to count as evidence.
That's a meaningless photo. If you have manipulated the image, that's no good. Using effects adds data that just wasn't there, and JamesR is right in accusing you of dishonesty therefore.
As for you calling him a liar, that's just a weak diversionary tactic. He hasn't made a claim, he's just dissecting yours. He cannot be a 'liar', therefore, so don't attempt to discredit him, just because he questioned your reliability.
So, what we know about this picture. It has no scale, no point of reference, has been enlarged hugely, and has been manipulated.
Not really of suitable quality therefore, to count as evidence.
Chris
Because people like you spend so much time on this discussion group interfering with others who wish to discuss the ufo pheneomena
But you rarely, if ever discuss the phenomena. You post pics and then try to flog your CD.
I now ask both of you to refrain from your same old tired inputs to my posts ( that haven't changed since I joined this group.... ) for the good of the whole group.
Who are you to judge what is good for the whole group. Don’t you mean for the good of your sales?
I find I receive more private messages to my posts than public ones. I don't even particularly like, as people, most of the persons that respond to my threads. That said, I have made some friends here to whom I have already sent my CD
So, it appears sales are doing well, despite your disdain for those to whom you sell.
Because people like you spend so much time on this discussion group interfering with others who wish to discuss the ufo pheneomena
But you rarely, if ever discuss the phenomena. You post pics and then try to flog your CD.
I now ask both of you to refrain from your same old tired inputs to my posts ( that haven't changed since I joined this group.... ) for the good of the whole group.
Who are you to judge what is good for the whole group. Don’t you mean for the good of your sales?
I find I receive more private messages to my posts than public ones. I don't even particularly like, as people, most of the persons that respond to my threads. That said, I have made some friends here to whom I have already sent my CD
So, it appears sales are doing well, despite your disdain for those to whom you sell.
something happening in our atmosphere for which we have no understanding
How do you know that – are you a meteorologist? Have you studied in-depth all atmospheric phenomena and can conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that these cannot be explained?
Perhaps these are very common atmospheric events that YOU do not understand.
Here you go:
http://www.bom.gov.au/
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/opt/home.rxml
How do you know that – are you a meteorologist? Have you studied in-depth all atmospheric phenomena and can conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that these cannot be explained?
Perhaps these are very common atmospheric events that YOU do not understand.
Here you go:
http://www.bom.gov.au/
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/opt/home.rxml
Bullying your way around here too, I see. Here is a link for you to review, Q, with information from James McDonald.
http://912a-87.umd.edu/ufosymposium/mcdonald.html
http://912a-87.umd.edu/ufosymposium/mcdonald.html
Only the stuff you show on here, before people order your CD?
Er, yes you can, I have done it myself.
Fiddling data does not determine or add crerdibility. All you have is corrupt data, from a corrupt source.
Woah! Careful with the WE there, bub. You saw something that YOU didn't understand, then determnined it to be FLYING (a really important issue for a UFO), not some other phenomenon, photographed it, made it look more like you expect to see a UFO, and hawked the image.
No, the images don't say a thing, actually.
The thing that I think many of you guys forget, is that UFOs should be FLYING objects. Not strange, meteorological phenomena, which are pretty static, contrails caught in sunlight, stars, planets, or meteorites. You need to show controlled flight, and that CANNOT be shown in any single photograph, get that? If you show a series of photographs, a reference point is necessary to show that the object was making controlled movements relative to that object. Same goes for a film, a tight zoom proves nothing. I've seen footage of Venus 'flying' because camera shake made it appear to move, which it did across the field of view, in which there was nothing to judge the shake by!
I'd also have thought a 'photographer' to be able to rig a camera to a long lense or telescope better too, btw. How come the shot is so mis-aligned?
Using photoshop filters to modify pictures such that they look like some sort of psychedelic acid trip really doesn't get anyone any closer to proving the existence of alien spacecraft or what have you.
Also, regarding the use of photoshop to create (even from scratch) a hoaxed UFO pic, or simply insert something that could look like a UFO into a picture is childs play. I myself can create from scratch a very nice picture of an anthropomorphic rabbit in lewd sexual positions (lets not judge here, yes I plan on making money with such images, but at least I’m upfront about the fact that I’m just looking to make a buck by using photoshop. . .) using nothing but that particular software package. It's a very powerful program and to be honest (I hate to put us all in this position, but it's got to be said) any picture posted on these forums are subject to claims of hoax, simply because programs like photoshop make it very easy to make very convincing hoaxes (something that you, Chris don't actually even come close to achieving, but then you admit that the filters are pretty much the extent of your ability). Other data must be presented before it would be reasonable for anyone to give provisional agreement to the idea that there is some sort of unified UFO phenomena.
Also, regarding the use of photoshop to create (even from scratch) a hoaxed UFO pic, or simply insert something that could look like a UFO into a picture is childs play. I myself can create from scratch a very nice picture of an anthropomorphic rabbit in lewd sexual positions (lets not judge here, yes I plan on making money with such images, but at least I’m upfront about the fact that I’m just looking to make a buck by using photoshop. . .) using nothing but that particular software package. It's a very powerful program and to be honest (I hate to put us all in this position, but it's got to be said) any picture posted on these forums are subject to claims of hoax, simply because programs like photoshop make it very easy to make very convincing hoaxes (something that you, Chris don't actually even come close to achieving, but then you admit that the filters are pretty much the extent of your ability). Other data must be presented before it would be reasonable for anyone to give provisional agreement to the idea that there is some sort of unified UFO phenomena.