another UFO pic.....
- Thread starter chris beacham
- Start date
I thought that UFO's were silvery saucer shaped craft or things more or less like that, Now i'm to believe that they are in fact psychadelic lightning bolts? I feel so confused.
Realy though Chris, you should get one of those digital fractal programs. They can make some trippy pictures, you can say you saw them in the sky too.
Realy though Chris, you should get one of those digital fractal programs. They can make some trippy pictures, you can say you saw them in the sky too.
(1) JUST A SMOKESCREEN: 'METEOR' PIC WHICH FOOLED NASA
The Sun, 7 October 2003
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003461335,00.html
By PAUL SUTHERLAND
Sun Spaceman
NASA boffins who hailed a British lad's photo as a dramatic snap of
an exploding meteor were exposed as duffers last night.
Jonathan Burnett, 15, had emailed them a picture of what looked like
the trail of a blazing meteor.
NASA saluted it as "Astronomy Picture of the Day" on their website.
But other experts spotted it for what it really was - SUNLIGHT reflecting
off the white trail of a jet.
Robin Scagell, of Britain's Society for Popular Astronomy, said:
"The trail must have been a spectacular sight but it clearly was not
a meteor.
"It was not a hoax and Jonathan is not to blame - he did the right
thing in sending his snapshot to NASA.
"It is surprising NASA jumped to the conclusion this was a meteor
before they examined other possibilities."
The space agency had told Jonathan, of Pencoed, South Wales, that
his picture showed a sofa-sized meteor exploding in a fireball.
Yesterday, they admitted getting it horribly wrong.
And the agency - based in Houston, Texas - has amended its website
caption.
It now says: "Perhaps a better hypothesis is an unusual airplane
contrail reflecting the setting sun."
Jonathan took the digital photo while out skateboarding.
His dad Paul said: "We never said this was a meteor in the first
place. It was NASA who said that."
(2) The nasa link is http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031001.html
(3) BURNING METEOR "WAS SUPERSONIC CONCORDE"
icWales, 7 October 2003
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100...teor--was-supersonic-Concorde--name_page.html
IS IT a bird? Is it a plane or is it even a meteor?
The intense debate about what a schoolboy snapped burning up in the
sky while out skateboarding last week rages on.
But the latest in a long line of explanations comes from aircraft
enthusiast Mike Stradling, who claims 15-year-old Jonathan Burnett
actually took a picture of supersonic Concorde and not a galactic
space rock.
Mr Stradling, from Brackla, near Bridgend, said Concorde regularly
flew over South Wales on its flight path to and from the United
States. He said the flames and long smoke trail were from the
jet's engines hitting full power.
His opinion is one of many offered to Jonathan, who contacted an
astronomer at Nasa for an explanation following his remarkable shot.
However, there have been some wacky definitions too including those
from people who've e-mailed the teenager saying the bright orange
fireball was Dr Who's Tardis or even the blazing image of Wales'
red dragon.
But Mr Stradling isadamant. He said, "There's no doubt in my mind
that the picture Jonathan took was of Concorde and not of a meteor.
It regularly flies over South Wales when travelling to and from
the United States.
"The orange flames in the picture would have been from Concorde's
engines."
The remarkable shot has made Jonathan from Pencoed, near Bridgend, a
star at Nasa which made his photo Astronomy Picture of the Day -
beating off pictures from professional competitors from around the
world.
Jonathan was taking action photographs of his skateboarding friends
when they spotted the orange ball of fire tearing across the evening
sky.
The quick-thinking teenager grabbed his new digital camera to capture
the once-in-a-lifetime frame.
Then he e-mailed his picture to the Nasa space centre in Houston,
Texas, where experts said it was one of the best shots of a meteor
they'd ever seen.
There has been doubt cast over the integrity of Jonathan's
photograph, but space experts are now sufficiently confident his
picture is genuine. In fact, they are so excited about what they're
now describing as a "magnificent" shot that they want to hold
a conference to debate it. They want shooting star Jonathan to be
the guest of honour at the event which is likely to be held at the
SpaceGuard Centre, in Knighton, Powys, which analyses the threat of
asteroids to earth.
The Sun, 7 October 2003
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003461335,00.html
By PAUL SUTHERLAND
Sun Spaceman
NASA boffins who hailed a British lad's photo as a dramatic snap of
an exploding meteor were exposed as duffers last night.
Jonathan Burnett, 15, had emailed them a picture of what looked like
the trail of a blazing meteor.
NASA saluted it as "Astronomy Picture of the Day" on their website.
But other experts spotted it for what it really was - SUNLIGHT reflecting
off the white trail of a jet.
Robin Scagell, of Britain's Society for Popular Astronomy, said:
"The trail must have been a spectacular sight but it clearly was not
a meteor.
"It was not a hoax and Jonathan is not to blame - he did the right
thing in sending his snapshot to NASA.
"It is surprising NASA jumped to the conclusion this was a meteor
before they examined other possibilities."
The space agency had told Jonathan, of Pencoed, South Wales, that
his picture showed a sofa-sized meteor exploding in a fireball.
Yesterday, they admitted getting it horribly wrong.
And the agency - based in Houston, Texas - has amended its website
caption.
It now says: "Perhaps a better hypothesis is an unusual airplane
contrail reflecting the setting sun."
Jonathan took the digital photo while out skateboarding.
His dad Paul said: "We never said this was a meteor in the first
place. It was NASA who said that."
(2) The nasa link is http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031001.html
(3) BURNING METEOR "WAS SUPERSONIC CONCORDE"
icWales, 7 October 2003
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100...teor--was-supersonic-Concorde--name_page.html
IS IT a bird? Is it a plane or is it even a meteor?
The intense debate about what a schoolboy snapped burning up in the
sky while out skateboarding last week rages on.
But the latest in a long line of explanations comes from aircraft
enthusiast Mike Stradling, who claims 15-year-old Jonathan Burnett
actually took a picture of supersonic Concorde and not a galactic
space rock.
Mr Stradling, from Brackla, near Bridgend, said Concorde regularly
flew over South Wales on its flight path to and from the United
States. He said the flames and long smoke trail were from the
jet's engines hitting full power.
His opinion is one of many offered to Jonathan, who contacted an
astronomer at Nasa for an explanation following his remarkable shot.
However, there have been some wacky definitions too including those
from people who've e-mailed the teenager saying the bright orange
fireball was Dr Who's Tardis or even the blazing image of Wales'
red dragon.
But Mr Stradling isadamant. He said, "There's no doubt in my mind
that the picture Jonathan took was of Concorde and not of a meteor.
It regularly flies over South Wales when travelling to and from
the United States.
"The orange flames in the picture would have been from Concorde's
engines."
The remarkable shot has made Jonathan from Pencoed, near Bridgend, a
star at Nasa which made his photo Astronomy Picture of the Day -
beating off pictures from professional competitors from around the
world.
Jonathan was taking action photographs of his skateboarding friends
when they spotted the orange ball of fire tearing across the evening
sky.
The quick-thinking teenager grabbed his new digital camera to capture
the once-in-a-lifetime frame.
Then he e-mailed his picture to the Nasa space centre in Houston,
Texas, where experts said it was one of the best shots of a meteor
they'd ever seen.
There has been doubt cast over the integrity of Jonathan's
photograph, but space experts are now sufficiently confident his
picture is genuine. In fact, they are so excited about what they're
now describing as a "magnificent" shot that they want to hold
a conference to debate it. They want shooting star Jonathan to be
the guest of honour at the event which is likely to be held at the
SpaceGuard Centre, in Knighton, Powys, which analyses the threat of
asteroids to earth.
Jesus, what would a fake pic of a flying saucer prove? I can cut and paste anything into an image to make a UFO, are you that stupid? I could apply filters to a close up of Mars, and get a nice out of context blob and claim it to be a UFO. How about a nice open shutter streak, of say, Orions belt, which will show the star's differing temperatures via their colour, and then add some effects? Hmmm, streaks, colour, photoshop, UFO formation! NOT.
The rest of my comments aren't worthy of a response? Because you don't have one, you charlatan. If you did have a killer comeback, you'd use it. BUT, you know damned well that a single picture FAILS to demonstrate that an object was in controlled flight, (FLIGHT, Unidentified FLYING Object!) and could easily be a static object, cloud formation, planet, star, or meteor under parabolic path. So once again, pictures cannot prove UFOs, only film footage IN CONTEXT can do that.
As to keeping off 'your' threads, this is an open forum. I'll make you a deal, I'll stay off YOUR website, but carry on debunking here as much as I feel fit. Ta ta!
phlogistician
Of course Chris is a fraud, but you have to admire what he's doing - that is, making money off the UFO nutters. Unless someone tries to sue him, he'll keep selling. He's actually got quite a good scam going.
Maybe we should have thought of that.
Of course Chris is a fraud, but you have to admire what he's doing - that is, making money off the UFO nutters. Unless someone tries to sue him, he'll keep selling. He's actually got quite a good scam going.
Maybe we should have thought of that.
Up above I posted an article from the Sun in the UK which claimed that the fireball picture Chris posted was in fact suggests that the image is of a "unusual airplane contrail reflecting the setting sun."
Not so fast. Even James Oberg still regards that image as unidentified, and more consitent with a fuel air explosion as opposed to a bolide meteor.
Not so fast. Even James Oberg still regards that image as unidentified, and more consitent with a fuel air explosion as opposed to a bolide meteor.
I said I _could_ make one, I didn't say I _would_ . Maybe if you learned to read, you'd understand the subtle difference in those two words. I have nothing to prove, and you didn't answer what another fake UFO picture would achieve anyway? That my fake would look different to yours, proving mine a definite fake, and therefore your fakes real?
And, no, I won't f*** off your posts. I'll debunk as much as I want to.
Now, address my points, you know, the one about a static picture not being able to show controlled FLIGHT, and therefore single pictures not counting as evidence for UFOs, and we'll get somewhere. If you're capable, that is.
I'll leave the ad-homs unaddressed. I don't need to sink to your level.
Last edited:
What, no retort from Chris today?
I was really hoping he'd reply with some substance. Still, maybe he's working on an essay to address my points. Meanwhile, Chris, on the second page of this thread, you posted an image, which clearly shows camera shake in the bottom left hand corner. Care to explain how a massive shake like that doesn't compromise the integrity of the entire picture?
I said in my claim that I could fake a UFO pic by using streaking of a light source, and this is _exactly_ what you have done. You've been a bit too quiet on that subject, hit a nerve have I?
Now, maybe you're too much of a believer to be able to see it, I guess verified by the fact that you use the term 'craft' in your first posting, not object, and the fact that you still dodge the 'flying' issue. You haven't supported any photograph with descriptions of how these 'craft' flew.
I was really hoping he'd reply with some substance. Still, maybe he's working on an essay to address my points. Meanwhile, Chris, on the second page of this thread, you posted an image, which clearly shows camera shake in the bottom left hand corner. Care to explain how a massive shake like that doesn't compromise the integrity of the entire picture?
I said in my claim that I could fake a UFO pic by using streaking of a light source, and this is _exactly_ what you have done. You've been a bit too quiet on that subject, hit a nerve have I?
Now, maybe you're too much of a believer to be able to see it, I guess verified by the fact that you use the term 'craft' in your first posting, not object, and the fact that you still dodge the 'flying' issue. You haven't supported any photograph with descriptions of how these 'craft' flew.