More photos of this craft can be seen here http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1730&category=Environment
Looks like it is emitting a beam of light towards the ground. You can tell it isn't a beam coming up from the ground like some of these nightclub lights because there are the row of lights above this, on the top of the craft.
Hmm, so now they have the audacity to divert our air traffic for four hours?
It's very unconvincing where authorities say they withheld information for a while "because they knew what the object was". It sounds like double-speak for didn't know.
Again, it's just photos, which are interesting to look at. But the best UFO cases IMO involve multiple witness accounts as well which have been carefully recorded. Also cases where traces or effects have been left behind...
The beams of light downward, though, are UFO-typical: so much so that they've passed over into sci-fi too.
V
If you look at image 2 where the beam crosses the top of the fence, it's been clearly photoshopped. On image 1 there are some issues with the CCD noise on the beam, so it's probably been similarly photoshopped.
However, I have do doubt the incident actually happened because I read a number of Chinese newspapers and it's been consistantly reported.
It's just a shame that someone along the line has felt that they needed to "guild the lilly".
There are more photos here:
http://www.china.org.cn/photos/2010-07/09/content_20460805.htm
Myarka.
I can't see any evidence of Photoshopping (and I work in PS everyday) but then I can't see the fence you mention either! It did say the images couldn't be verified. The fact they had to close the airport must mean there was something of great importance around the area. Very interesting. Hopefully we'll get more info soon.
It's why photos are always very poor evidence for UFOs - except for rare occasions such as the Phoenix event where a fair percentage of the city reported them, and the object(s) were filmed from different locations. Rarely, you get photos with multiple, perhaps dozens, of independent descriptions by witnesses. Then you can look back at the videos or photos with the comprehension "it" was there.
It's tempting, and nothing wrong with it really, to concentrate on images, still or moving, on the internet. They're quick and interesting to see. Let's keep 'em coming. 🙂 But I still far prefer multiple-witness accounts with detail. Also traces (any effect left). Reading thousands of words about one case over the net is simply more off-putting.
Rather than photos, even the first famous abduction account (Betty and Barney Hill, 1961) is better to me. There you have 'lost time', only a vague memory that anything happened, a detailed twin story coming out under hypnosis, and strange effects upon the body.
I left detailed interest in the subject behind decades ago, so wish I still had the knowledge I once had of many amazingly multiple-witnessed events.
I still think some of the best evidence is also military (admitted or covered-up) encounters, such as uncovered in the books of Timothy Good.
V