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]

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.

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...