Witness releases UFO close-up photos taken at Maslin Beach, Australia.

Cool story bro....

Seriously I can't get over that this looks like a poorly constructed plastic model.

well to a certain extend.. and thats all opinion not fact. lots of "ufos" cant be debunked... and yet.. lots of "skeptic" probly try debunking cause tehysimple wouldnt believe

reply to post by Swills





ok here is the pic... now I was not there for the nude olympics but I reckon there would have been many many Unidentified Flying Objects there that day!!!

reply to post by Thurisaz


Omg nude Olympics?! I've always wanted to visit AU, now I have too

Originally posted by Thurisaz
reply to post by Swills

 

ok here is the pic... now I was not there for the nude olympics but I reckon there would have been many many Unidentified Flying Objects there that day!!!

Are you sure its not a lot of unidentified swinging objects...........

reply to post by ANOMALY502


Definitely looks cheap, like a plastic model. Oh, I think it's to let go of "Cool story bro", unless you really like to play WoW

I have done a fair bit of reading on Aussie ufo encounters and i think if i remember correctly there was another report about this incident from a separate witness a few km's away,

Maybe it could of been in Keith's work or Bills. if i get some time i will search again, but if someone else wishes to look go for it.

as for the picture, who knows, i have to say thou, comments like its out dated, really make me laugh . why it doesn't look like it came out of independence day , what we are all experts on designing ufo's now

Wal

reply to post by auswally


This is all new info to me so I didn't know there may be other stories about this. If you can fond that story again that would be great. I'll look too and see what I can find tmrw

From a photographic perspective I have a bit of a problem with what is visible on the dark side of the object.

The shot is taken looking into sunlight, which usually has the effect of leaving the dark side in complete darkness due to the contrast of light and dark. This image shows a lot of detail on the visible dark side. For this to happen the object would have to be massive in size.

I'm unconvinced of it not being a hoax.

Originally posted by Swills
reply to post by DrZrD

 

Interesting, but the YouTube video says he entered a photograph contest. Wouldn't that camera suck for a contest? I'm no photographer but that's how I view it. In any case, did you read this online & do have links to that story? If not, I'll look into it more tmrw

A in depth discussion and analysis of this event is found HERE. Below is an excerpt that discusses the camera focal plane inconsistencies.

The camera Eric used was a cheap Kodak S50, purchased in a department store for 40 USD. The S50 uses normal 35 mm film, and has never been available on the Swedish market. Its focus is set, and cannot be changed. There are, on the whole, no buttons to push except the shutter release. Cameras of this type are always set on infinitude, and have a large depth of field. And here's where an uncertainty becomes apparent. If you look at the first photograph the object, which supposedly is 400 metres away, is in focus while the horizon is fuzzy. As a matter of fact, both the object and the horizon should be in focus.

Best regards,
Z

Read the article, there are a couple of different pictures in there, Still undecided here.

Well its definitely not just released pics. a simple quick search comes up with this from 2002 not as good quality thou

2002 maslin beach ufo pic

Also there is a series of these pics, apparently there is pictures of the legs retracting, again I only did a quick search and i dont have clue on what to think, only what i just read from a comment left

Wal

Check out the central window. It wasn't built by aliens or the RAAF...maybe a children's TV programme with cardboard, glue and safety scissors?

reply to post by DrZrD


Sweet! You rock! Thanks for finding it and posting it! I added to my original post with credit to you

Interesting pics. I remember seeing the 'three leg' pic years ago and finding it a little weird. But in the OP's video there is another pic from under the craft - or two crafts it looks like - that are far more convincing. This is many years before Photoshop had any real sophistication, so it's hard to imagine it's 'doctored' in any way. I wonder why skeptics always find the clear pics 'too good to be true' - and the out-of focus pics ''too poor' lol! I've seen a UFO at a very close range in daylight - so detailed pics don't suprise me in any way...the quality of the pic is all a matter of luck really...

reply to post by Swills


Cute story, it sounded like my 8 year old made it up. I bet she could make that UFO too LOL! Sorry but soooo fake!

reply to post by Swills
Rather interesting photo,since I do not know what a u.f.o looks like up close I cannot discount the possibility that it is a genuine photo.What I don't understand is how these people can claim fake,when these are the same ones that complain that video's are always too shaky or blurry and when someone comes up with a clear picture ,it's a fake?...I don't get it,if people are serious about this subject,unless someone has proof that it is a fake,shouldn't it be treated within the same realm of possibility?I'm not saying believe it 100%,but at least give it the respect that it could be probable?


What constitutes a real ufo photograph?.....What criteria catagorizes them as fake?please enlighten me

Originally posted by Starwise
reply to post by Swills

 

Cute story, it sounded like my 8 year old made it up. I bet she could make that UFO too LOL! Sorry but soooo fake!

Okay, so you think not only are the pictures fake but so is the story? I guess we're all entitled to our own opinions, but your kid most likely writes a terrible story and creates crappy UFOs, it's only 8. I am better than your kids

reply to post by TWILITE22


That's always the problem posting things on a forum, especially here. Being a skeptic is fine, and needed, but a lot of skeptic responses are short winded, lame, unoriginal, and borderline trolling.

It is what is. Its easy to just ignore them and move onto more constructive posts

I agree it looks old and outdated. I agree the legs look skimpy to say the least. But here is my question; If it's rising out of the ocean, leaving a foam swirl behind, why, oh why, does it have it's landing legs down? Wouldn't those legs hinder the dynamics any ocean (or air) activity? Doesn't make sense. imho