Author |
Topic: Maslin Beach, Australia (Read 2370 times) |
|
HUBCAP9
UFO Casebook Staff
member is offline
Gender: 
Posts: 243
|
 |
Re: Maslin Beach, Australia
« Reply #101 on: Sep 27th, 2006, 08:53am » |
|
Sorry to keep banging on about this case but I consider it to be of the greatest importance.Please take a look at this link which shows the front cover of the book written by Eric Thomason, the same man who took the Maslin Beach photos. Please note the DFC and DFM after his name,which gives us a fair indication of the calibre of this man.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/CRYSTALVIEW9/memoirsofEricThomason.jpg
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 27th, 2006, 08:58am by HUBCAP9 » |
 Logged
|
|
|
|
diamond
Full Member
member is offline
sand is not a place for heads
Gender:
Posts: 57
|
|
Re: Maslin Beach, Australia
« Reply #102 on: Sep 27th, 2006, 4:03pm » |
|
on Sep 27th, 2006, 08:53am, HUBCAP9 wrote:Sorry to keep banging on about this case but I consider it to be of the greatest importance.Please take a look at this link which shows the front cover of the book written by Eric Thomason, the same man who took the Maslin Beach photos. Please note the DFC and DFM after his name,which gives us a fair indication of the calibre of this man.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/CRYSTALVIEW9/memoirsofEricThomason.jpg |
|
hi hubcap, don't worry about banging on about this subject. it along with the valentich case are central to my interests in ufology and sparked my interest.
i'm still of the opinion that these craft are made of some copper type metal and may be linked to the many sightings of green coloured meteorites entering the atmosphere, if i remember my science from school ,copper burns green when superheated as would anything containing copper entering our atmosphere. a copper brass mix would give great protection in the saline conditions of bass strait . i too have wondered about the possibility of valentichs aircraft being taken aboard such a craft ( hence the metallic sounds heard in the last part of his transmission). we'll just have to keep asking the questions.
we have our own bermuda triangle in bass strait for sure.
diamond 
|
|
Logged
|
imagine all the people living life in peace.
john lennon
|
|
|
Luvey
Global Moderator
member is offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3079
|
|
Re: Maslin Beach, Australia
« Reply #103 on: Sep 27th, 2006, 9:56pm » |
|
I believe the photographs to be authentic....(But I am no camera buff)....but I do know that photographs can be deceiving, given light, and angles, they can change the appearance of an object. Even one of the legs on the craft looks a bit crocked, but this can be due to the angle of the shot. The colour of the craft is another subject in question. This could have also been altered due to the light available. But you know.....we use paint that can change colours on our cars.....? I think myself that it looks a bit rusty, but then I live near the sea and just about everything rusts pretty fast around here, especially iron.
So I ask myself what are we really asking about these photographs...."are the craft of Alien origin or man made?" We are not going to get that answer unless the occupants are interviewed.
Luvey 
|
|
Logged
|
Chinese Proverb:
"When someone shares something of value with you and you benefit from it, you have a moral obligation to share it with others."
|
|
|
HUBCAP9
UFO Casebook Staff
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 243
|
|
Re: Maslin Beach, Australia
« Reply #104 on: Jul 26th, 2007, 6:44pm » |
|
Here's a nice photo of Eric Thomasson taken by a good friend of mine at Eric's home in Adelaide. He is actually signing a special copy of his book called Whirlwind Squadron which is about his memories as a fighter bomber pilot during the second world war.The book which Eric is signing is one of my most treasured possessions.
Eric is a true gentleman,a man of honour.It is a privilege to know him,and it is because I know him that I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that his photos of the ufos at Maslin Beach are genuine.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Imshadi
Junior Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 22
|
|
Re: Maslin Beach, Australia
« Reply #105 on: Oct 31st, 2007, 07:41am » |
|
I am fascinated by these pictures, because the pros are a lot more then the cons in terms of this being an authentic UFO.
1. Many pictures like this are attained by throwing objects in the air, hence they end up having a lot of vertical motion blur, which is not likely for an object that's traveling horizontally. These objects are in perfect focus and are executing a choreographed interception. One might be able to throw one object in the air and take a shot so that it doesn't look motion blurred, but it is next to impossible to do that with two objects at the same time.
Besides, the fact that the objects are perfectly focused diminishes a lot the possibility that they were small and close to the camera, so to me, models can be discarded.
It was stated that it was suspicious that in the first picture, the horizon looks a bit fuzzy. The fuzziness is due to haze at a very long distance. To my judgment, the entire picture is at the same focus, which is very consistent of a camera with its focus locked at infinity.
The photographer says he tried to change position so as to avoid direct sunlight, and the changes of camera position seem plausibly consistent with his explanation. Roughly estimating the distance he might have traveled from shot to shot, my guess is that the object measured about 5 to 7 meters in diameter, and was at a distance of about 30 to 40 meters away from him in most shots.
2. There was already digital compositing back in '93. But I have read here that the negatives were analyzed by Kodak. The images do not show to me any sign of the objects being hung from strings, and I assume that laser film printing was dismissed as a possibility (something that was then and still is today expensive.)
3. On the last picture you can see clearly the underside of the larger object. The hole in the center is just too small for the object to have been able to use rotor blades as a means of lift, so the question as to what kept the objects in the air is, to me, unexplained.
4. The object's illumination is very diffuse and shows clear signs of the environment being the main source of global illumination. For a CG UFO, this would have required the use of a technique called image based illumination. that did not exist back in 1993. It can only be achieved easily now, as some of the CG reproductions of the California Drones in YouTube show.
Only a few questions remain for me. But none of them really attacks efficiently the credibility of the images from the FX perspective.
1. Just as the legs disappear from the first image to the second, the first image does not show three hemispheres that protrude from the underside of the vehicle, as can be seen in this next image. This might simply be an error on my appreciation of the size of those hemispheres.
2. It's really interesting how the square "windows" do not seem to be all of the same size and at the same position.... a little bit of human "symmetry chauvinism"?
3. On the next image, there is a curved line with a bit of a highlight at the top that does not seem to match the underside structure seen on other images. I am tempted to imagine it as a circular open hatch door, but it does not seem to match the surrounding illumination correctly.
4. On this next image, the bright curve in the center gives the impression that the object was hollow, and this really bothers me for I would assume this was not likely. I must say again that my opinion here is based only on assumptions.
I consider this sequence one of the best captures of a UFO I have ever seen. As for the apparent cheesiness of the object I have nothing to say, since we really have no idea of what alien technology is supposed to look like, and I am definitely in no position to state with certainty that his UFO is actually extraterrestrial. Being unidentified and being from another world are two very different things. And proving this object as alien would require very "extraordinary evidence, as Carl Sagan used to say.
I hope you find my comments useful. Let me remind you to visit my web site if you want to see my work just to make sure all I have said is not pure BS.
|
|
Logged
|
__________________
Oliver Z.
VFX Supervisor
www.martestudio.com
|
|
|
HUBCAP9
UFO Casebook Staff
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 243
|
|
Re: Maslin Beach, Australia
« Reply #106 on: Nov 5th, 2007, 6:07pm » |
|
Hello Imshadi,
Many thanks for your professional evaluation of Eric's photos,and yes I did find them useful.
I have a copy of Eric's original sighting report which was sent to me by a mutual friend.Certain details from the report may be helpful.
The large ufo was originally sighted rising vertically out of the sea in a swirl of foam at an estimated distance of 2 kilometres.It began moving towards the shore,rising higher above the sea.It had 3 legs projecting straight down below it.As the vehicle slowly rotated,the legs began to retract into the body.The first photo was taken while the vehicle was between 4 and 5 hundred metres from Eric.He estimated the diameter of the vehicle to be 30 metres.The smaller vehicle had an estimated diameter of 10 metres.The larger vehicle passed over slightly to the south of Eric and stopped over the middle of Maslin Old Quarry.The smaller vehicle came into view from the north and came beneath the large one,hovered a few seconds,then moved up into a circular recess in the base of the large vehicle.There were lights around the recess inside and there were also 3 large luminous lights beneath the large vehicle.As Eric felt water falling on and around him dripping from the combined vehicle,it shot straight up into the sky.Eric believes the speed to have been such that the vehicle would have been in space in around 3 seconds.
There are a couple more points worthy of mention.Firstly,Eric had been a decorated fighter bomber pilot during the second world war,and was used to seeing engineering of all kinds.What particularly impressed him was the seamless way in which the legs retracted into the body,and the smaller vehicle melded into the larger one.It was as if they had become one vehicle and he marvelled at the quality of the engineering.
The larger vehicle was indeed hollow and the double ring of lights seen in the middle of the craft are part of the internal structure.
The curved light below the large vehicle is thought to have been caused by the craft's propulsion system,i.e. the craft bent the light!
Finally,as the smaller vehicle was drawn upwards to meld with the larger craft,beams of light can be seen between the two of them.Could this be a tractor beam of some kind.I think it is likely.
Eric is now 83 years old and has grown tired of the ridicule and insults which have come his way since the sighting.I have recently been informed that several independent witnesses have now come forward to confirm Eric's amazing sighting.However,Eric will say nothing more about the subject and I for one do not blame him.
If there are any further questions about this sighting,I will do my best to answer them.
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Imshadi
Junior Member
member is offline
Gender:
Posts: 22
|
|
Re: Maslin Beach, Australia
« Reply #107 on: Dec 7th, 2007, 07:10am » |
|
Hi, Hubcap9
Thank you so much for your info.
This case is very interesting. I did a couple of things on CG that gave both impressive and at the same time suspicious results.
Thanks to your info, I was able to find out at http://www.ozcamera.com/k-pointshoot.htm that the Kodak S50 had a focal distance of 44mm. This coupled with the fact that it used 35mm film, allowed me to reconstruct the camera in 3D. I modeled a mock up of the UFO based on Mr. Thomason's estimate of it being about 30m in diameter. I then placed the camera in an orientation that seemed to match the picture.
There is a bit of uncertainty as to the inclination of the camera because the horizon is not visible, but the sun should not have been very high since Thomason went out to photograph the sunrise. So, assuming no lying on the part of Thomason, the sun should have been just above the horizon on the images where you see the second smaller UFO. That, in turn, means that the horizon is not far below the vegetation that you see at the bottom of these pictures.
Mr Thomason was smart enough to put the camera as low as possible as to not get a huge lens flare instead of the UFO. The shadow of the vegetation protected the lens from the sun, but if you look closely, you can tell where the sun was because there's a hint of its glow at about 60% to the right (bottom) behind the bushes.
I used the original photo to try to move the CG UFO and match its orientation. The result was interesting, if the UFO was indeed 30m in diameter it should have been at about 360m from the camera, which is pretty close to Thomason's statement that the UFO never came closer than 400 meters frrom him. This precision is really convincing on the pro side. Here's the picture I produced:
And this is the picture that I was based on:
This bit of simulation tells me that he was right about his perception of both the size and distance of the object. If the object was a bit less than 30 meters then the distance would get even closer to 400m but this still remains a positive fact. The port hole under the UFO in my CG test ended up being about 12 m in diameter. Also pretty close to Thomason's estimate of 10 meters.
The distance measured here is about 360 meters. Any closer or farther and the UFO wouldn't match the image. A somewhat notorious thing is how much I had to tilt the UFO to match the perspective. On the photos you may get the impression that the UFO is parallel to the ground, but to get it to look like that I had to tilt it a lot. It could look a bit straighter if the horizon had been lower than I estimated. The camera inclination here is 15 degrees. I think no more than 30 degrees could be possible unless the sun was really too high in the sky. But still at 30 degrees the UFO would be strongly tilted.
On the picture from the other angle the UFO seems more parallel to the ground, but I did not have time to reproduce this second one:
There is, for me, a worrisome side effect to the UFO being so big. This is the con part:
Originally I estimated the UFO to be about 7m in diameter for one reason: Mr Thomason said he moved "a little" to the side to catch a better angle as you can see in other pictures. From his statement I felt that he should not have walked more than 50 meters to get to that second POV. Because he was at the top of a cliff even 50 meters sounds like a generous estimate. Now If the UFO was 30m diam. The problem would be that to get to that second place he should have walked from 300 to 400 meters (about a quarter of a mile), and that doesn't sound like "a little" to say the least. To me this is evidence that there is an incoherence to his testimony. But it is not as serious as it sounds, if you consider the possibility that the object itself could have been moving, although Thomason does not suggest it.
One last observation, the object seems to be closer in this last image. Closer than 360 meters at least.
If you have any more info that I can use, I will surely appreciate it.
Best regards,
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 7th, 2007, 07:17am by Imshadi » |
Logged
|
__________________
Oliver Z.
VFX Supervisor
www.martestudio.com
|
|
|
|
UFO Casebook
