Flying saucer spotted over Portsmouth

Originally posted by jritzmann
Actually I got a better one...

Actually, I think you could be right. Your Beamship looks better than my Beamship.

Whatever the actual source I think it's fairly obvious we have a "Billy Beamship" pasted into the scene.

From Looking we could only see a round lght that seemed to be changing colour
When i zoomed in with camera we could see what is in the photos but seemed to be moving really fast

If the guy has faked these pictures and is working for a press agency, then his 15minutes of fame that some people are claiming is going to be very shortlived (as a press photographer, at least.) Perhaps this is the reason why the Mail on Sunday dropped the story so quick?

OK, I emailed the Portsmouth Evening News last night and had a response from them, see below....

I asked if anyone else had come forward to say they had seen the same thing.


As of yet, it was just the one photographer who's come forward and said
he's saw the flying object - well only noticed it when he uploaded it to
his camera.

Another story with lights over Portsdown Hill should be in the paper today
and I'm meeting with some other people today regarding pictures and stories.


I may email her back to tell of the findings of ATS.

Originally posted by jritzmann

Now, 3 Guesses where the composite craft came from.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by jritzmann]

Astonia? Sarasota? Gulf Breeze?-- I give up..

As soon as I saw page 1 I had the exact picture in mind..got to page 4 and lo-behold, JR played whack-a-ufo..

gj and animation


b

[edit on 13-2-2008 by Bspiracy]

Great work as always JR, is that a Beam ship your useing for comparison? (Billy meier ship).

Either way, it would be nice if you had more to work with I agree.

However I read the thread, quickly, and didn't notice if there was any mention of whether or not the photographer stepped out of his vehicle when takeing this shot or not.

I belive he's in his car, and he is faceing his subject. As already mention, and that what we are seeing is a reflection of His interior light (dome lihgt) in the windscreen.

This would account for alot of the how's-

Like how is is lit so well, how did he not see it when he originally took the picture ect.

-JR did you notice any other evidence of shady business withing the photo (because I'm a total dummy when it comes to this field), as to whether it was a cut and paste job, do you see any other anomolies except for it is "almost" the exact same shape as the UFO you used in comparison. I just wish you has a bit more to give us, like clear use of photoshop ect.

Because To me the reflected dome lite fits perfectly with what we are seeing here, and again it answers all the questions that we don't have answers to very nicely.

It's just way too obvious that the photographer could have missed this obeject, had he been standing out of his car takeing the photo. But he could have missed the reflection easily, which shows up VERY clearly sometimes in a photo. Again it also answer why the craft is so well lit ect.

Are there any other photos, or just this one? Because If he was stopping to take a shot of the nice scene on a foggy Street Lit night (looks like something taken right out of Silent Hill). I would imagine he'd snap off a few. Then he may have some with partial, or distrorted reflections of the interior dome light.

Original Poster Did the original link, which is now down, show any other pictures? If not did they mention any, or do you know of any. I'd love to see at least two or 3 other pictures taken withing 30 seconds of this one, poibnted in the same general area.

In conclusion though, JR, the match is uncanny, and is near perfect. As the domelight is just a theory, you being an image expert...and all, if I were a betting man, I'd go with your opinion, if I had to. Thanks a bunch for weighing in on this topic.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by Nola213]

I found this image interesting for one certain fact that I think has been over looked by and large. Many people are quick to cry HOAX if they see a "UFO" picture, that displays any variant of pixelation around the "object" in question.

I propose that pixelation around the object is verification of its authenticity. Over the years I have noticed several anomalies surrounding UFO photographs.
One of which is the apparent "distortion" or if you will, pixelation around an object that is reported using gravity generator (or some exotic means..) of propulsion.

Supposedly, this phenomenon (also referred to a corona effect) is directly associated with the manipulation of gravity.

This is where I get confused. The OP of this thread posted a altered image. Now I'm not slinging mud here by any means, just reporting some curiosities. I have no way of knowing whether this image was altered to highlight detail or structure, or if it was deliberately "filtered" to remove or blur the pixelation that the photo I have shows. I am in no way contending that the OP altered it, just that someone did.




This is the photo presented. My problem with it...is that it was offered to the community in altered fashion.





This is the image I had to work with. Complete with the "ugly" pixelation.
Note the color and shape are clearly altered. My belief is that someone isolated the "UFO" and ran a gaussian filter on the background to cover the pixelation, probably in an attempt to try and "legitimize" this photo and not have people cry "HOAX" right out of the gate on this one.

This of course does nothing but contaminate data, and undermine the hard work of serious researchers that are trying to analyze these or ANY photos for that matter and I don't mind saying that it really pisses me off. (Rant over, yes I feel better thank you.)

So, in support of this hypothesis, I offer this line of reasoning. If you are going to try and perpetuate a hoax, you want it to be at least semi-believable
to try and fool as many as possible. I took this photo, and in literally seconds.....did a quick "cut and paste" job on a copy of the photo I obtained.





Clearly you can see the object on the right ( the cut n' paste) does NOT show any pixelation around the "object". Which in my opinion...would look more believable or realistic to laymen and skeptic alike.






This blow-up will help demonstrate this "theory". Why would someone whom supposedly posses photoshop skills, (Hab Whoever) try and push off a "FAKE" as sloppy as the originally featured picture on The Sun ? Makes me wonder...is there actually something to the "atmospheric pixelation" surrounding some UFO photos? Or just sloppy hoaxing?













[edit on 13-2-2008 by 1nL1ghtened]

reply to post by 1nL1ghtened


Your comments reminded me of something I once read. In one of the more famous of the old UFO pics, (1950s maybe?) people who saw the original photos said there was a visible disturbance in the air around the craft. It was a wave or ripple effect. I think it was the McMinville, Oregon case.

reply to post by 1nL1ghtened


Good question.

First consider a couple things:
-can a camera, digital or otherwise, pick up such fields if they are there at all.
-do we know for a fact that these craft even use anti-grav. Are we only assuming and making assertions on the photo to prove those already unknown assertions.

I took your clean composite, and reduced it (which obviously would have been done to the original, by virtue of us seeing a closeup which is clean (there must be a larger version) I then saved it with no compression. Then I opened and reduced (for web, as so would have been done with the original) and compressed. This is what I got:



Note the one your composited cleanly, is now as bad as the original. It's a product of sizing and compression.

If you look at my old fake Meier shots, you'll also see "distortion" around them. On another message board these photos were touted as real, and several people did "analysis" on them (well one of them I can label as some sort of "analysis") and pointed out the "gravitational field".

I guarantee you the plastic model gave off no propulsion field. It's compression and sizing artifacts.

So, we have no way of knowing how big our original was here, but we can say it was reduced and compressed, just as was done with your example. My compression is extreme to make the point, but with a much larger image (how big we dont know) how far was it compressed? How big was it? We dont know, and really cant make the assumption of supposed "fields" and such...to do so is second guessing the propulsion because thats based on our physics.

These things clearly don't believe in our physics.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by jritzmann]

[edit on 14-2-2008 by jritzmann]

reply to post by jritzmann


Thanks for the clarification Jeff. (checks in the mail)

Often we find that the easiest answers...are often the hardest to find... because, they're right under your nose!


So, unknown photo size = unknown amount of compression...

OR

The degree of compression, cannot be determined, without knowledge of the original photo size?

Is there a program that will help you determine a compression ratio if the exact size of the original photo is known so it can be properly de-compressed?

Or is it more of a matter of original vs copy... raw image vs photocopy type thing?

As always Jeff, thanks for sharing your expertise on issues such as these because not only does it help me tremendously...but will also help educate others on some of the "photo" process.... so we can all intelligently offer evidence...or debunking material!

I did some color correction on this image (JPEGs are compressed WAY more than most people realize, so sorry about the artifacts) in 48-bit per component color-space, and... at least to my eyes, this thing in the image seems to be very crudely composited.

See for youself:

i28.tinypic.com...

At least to my eyes, there doesn't seem to be any way this thing could be lit by any of the lights in that parking lot. And it seems a lot brighter on the top than it should be if it were being lit from below.

Edit: added direct link, in case the forum is clipping the pic in your browser too

[edit on 15-2-2008 by fwombats]

hi if this photo is a fake why? would you do it what would you gain from doing a fake like this ufo I have been getting photos like this one for a long time in and around portsmouth and there is much more going on around hampshire than anyone would know in are skys Chris

Nine or ten years ago a UFO was spotted flying over Bournemouth (like Portsmouth situated on the South coast of England). A drawing published in the local paper "The Echo" showed a Kite shaped object with a light showing at each corner. I thought at the time" that's never a UFO, it"s a delta winged aircraft".

A couple of days later the London "Daily Telegraph " reported that an American Aurora Plane had been forced to make an emergency landing at the RAF experimental station at Boscombe Down near Salisbury(England's very own Area 51). This is about 20 miles from Bournemouth. A photograph published in the Telegraph with the article showed a shape covered in tarpaulins with a tail fin sticking out.

Much Later the "Telegraph" showed an artists impression of the Aurora-it was kite shaped. Clearly the Bournemouth UFO was the Aurora coming in to land.

All the above info can be checked in a newspaper library.

Can anyone who knows Portsmouth work out where this UFO is heading( it could be an Aircraft seen head on). I wonder if it was heading towards Salisbury?

This has got to be a throwback to a Billy Meier saucer.

Except for a new idea in the saucer propulsion system.

I had my own ideas of how high voltage and frequencies might develop
ions and current flow around the craft and provide the propulsion.

It seems that part might be so, but the new explanation to me may be an old
explanation to all those who have kept pace for the UFO phenomena and
read the many book on the subject.

Well theory goes that the air is filled with electric momentum, from atoms
and electrons and such, such that a horizontal antenna (on the bottom of the
UFO) is like a rock on a pond sending out rigid electrical waves. Somehow
this generates an upward flow of electrons that can be noticed
emanating from the top of the craft.

Well just like we have here.

reply to post by Bashibozkedi


I don't think he saw this Billy Meier saucer when he 'took a picture of the fog'.

And a lot of secret craft look like Belgian Triangle type craft these days.

Mass media does not lie.

At least you never reported you saw anything like a secret plane.

Or is it possible it's only visible in the iR spectrum?
When you photo a remote iR diode it comes up white in the picture.... that ship is rather white too.

edit: that would explain why some people don't see them until afterwards.

[edit on 18-2-2008 by GhostR1der]

Originally posted by GhostR1der
Or is it possible it's only visible in the iR spectrum?
When you photo a remote iR diode it comes up white in the picture.... that ship is rather white too.

edit: that would explain why some people don't see them until afterwards.

[edit on 18-2-2008 by GhostR1der]

OK
Based on an electrical UFO.
Air is ionized around the craft.
This makes the surrounding 'air' exhibit a dark violet light.
UV radiation included.

I'm guessing this darkness is just not noticed, only by the camera.


However, this brings up a point about no sonic boom from any UFO
going above supersonic.

The ions formed in the wake repel one another and thus drift apart
and do not crash together as air does to make a loud sound.

That explanation should be in one of Mr. Lyne's books and web pages
but it was more involved with his dark matter (formerly ether) explanation
and not put in simpler terms as noted above which was in a message
answer to the sonic boom question.

So it jives with the sight unseen problem.
So all we see is light in the sky and I think putting down some of the
chemtrails with those ions.

Oh, flying low and slow might allow some sightings.

Excellent post, and a fantastic photo analysis, Jeff, 1nL1ghtened, & Fwombats.

I just wanted to add a note about the composition of the photograph itself. I don’t have as much experience with Photoshop and image manipulation, but coming from an art and film background, I know a thing or two about composition and what it takes to get a shot.

In both the original and color-corrected image, it’s easy to see why the photographer took this picture to begin with: the display of light and fog down the corridor of the parking area is rather fetching. But it also says something about the UFO.

Many credible UFO photographs are taken by people just shooting a landscape or a scene and then noticing something odd in the background. However, in this case you can see how the photographer took the time to try and line himself up with the guidelines of the corridor for the best composition. This probably took a few minutes of view-finding and may have even included a tripod (notice how the photo seems fairly low to the ground, indicating either a tripod, or a short photographer).

This could truly be a snapshot, someone just taking a picture on the fly, but look at the surroundings. It’s a large, empty parking lot in the middle of the night. So if this is a snapshot, the photographer was walking through this empty parking lot in the middle of a foggy night with a decent digital camera around their neck and just decided to take a quick picture?

If it was the intent of the photographer to capture this image, they would surely have taken multiple shots (especially with the modern age of digital cameras, where shots wasted does not equal money and time wasted). Regardless of whether or not the UFO was noticed while taking the picture, there would be subsequent shots taken of the same angle, just in case. Why then are there no other photographs?

Unless of course the UFO was moving and left the frame before subsequent shots were taken. But if so, wouldn’t the UFO in this image be a bit blurred by movement? Or maybe show up in different locations in subsequent shots?

In the old days, where we (photographers) were bound by our own eyes and 35mm cameras, there was no chance to check a digital preview of what we just shot. With most modern digital cameras having an image display (and very few people, amateur, professional, or otherwise, using 35mm film these days), it’s far less likely that a photographer would walk away from a planned shot without checking to see if they got exactly what they wanted. And to be honest, the UFO in this picture is kind of hard not to notice, and would be easily spotted when checking the preview.

So what we have here is a photographer strolling to their car in an empty parking lot in the middle of a foggy night with a digital camera who just happens to line up directly with the parking corridor and the light posts, takes a quick snapshot, and gets into their car and drives off without taking spare shots or shots at different angles, and doesn’t check the preview to see if they got it right? They then notice later what they’ve got, and go straight to the local paper (unless I’m not getting the story straight)?

Sometimes why someone takes a picture has as much to do with the hoax as the picture itself. Has to make you wonder. Just my two cents guys.

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Wow, thats an awesome picture, so very clear

Which makes me believe it is a fake. Looks to be too crisp for such a small part of the picture...