THINK ABOUTIT UFO SIGHTINGS REPORT

The 1993 Maslin Beach Photo Case:

Australia’s Most Scrutinized UFO Photographs

At dawn on March 10, 1993, a 69-year-old man walking his dog near Maslin Beach, South Australia says he watched an object rise dripping from the ocean, spin, retract three legs, and hover — and that a second, smaller object rose to dock with it before the whole thing shot skyward, showering him with water as it passed overhead. He photographed all of it on a cheap fixed-focus camera. The photographs went on to appear in an American UFO almanac. They have also been subjected to some of the most specific, pointed skeptical analysis of any case in this archive — much of it from the very investigator who first reported the story.

Date: March 10, 1993

Sighting Time: Approximately 6:00 a.m.

Day/Night: Day — early morning, overcast dawn (per the witness’s account; see Researcher’s Notes regarding a documented discrepancy with the photographs’ actual sky color)

Location: Ochre Point, near Maslin Old Quarry, Maslin Beach, South Australia, Australia

Urban or Rural: Beach/coastal cliff

No. of Entity(‘s): None observed directly; the witness stated he had heard of people being abducted by UFOs and moved to a less exposed position out of that fear

Entity Type: Not applicable

Entity Description: Not applicable

Hynek Classification: DD (Daylight Disc) — corrected from the source material’s original CE-I. The witness’s own closest distance estimate — 400 meters — is still well beyond the roughly 500-foot (150-meter) proximity CE-I requires; a daylight sighting of a metallic/grey object at this range is better captured by DD

Duration: Approximately 5–10 minutes, based on the interval across the four photographs taken

No. of Object(s): 2 — a larger primary object and a smaller second object that reportedly approached and docked with it

Description of the Object(s): The witness described the larger object as initially resembling a submarine’s conning tower emerging from the water, with three legs extending from the hull before being retracted as the object spun; once airborne, it appeared as a light-grey, disc-like craft with three lights around an opening on its exterior. The smaller object approached from the north, halted, then moved into a recessed opening in the larger object

Shape of Object(s): Submarine-tower-like when first emerging from the water; disc-shaped once fully risen

Size of Object(s): Estimated by the witness at 40 meters in diameter, per his report to the Australian Flying Saucer Research Society

Color of Object(s): Light grey

Distance to Object(s): Given inconsistently by the witness across different accounts: 2 kilometers in his written report to the Australian Flying Saucer Research Society (describing the distance when the object first rose from the ocean), versus a statement in a phone interview with UFO-Sweden that the object never came closer than 400 meters at any point

Number of Witnesses: 1 direct witness (Eric Thomason); his wife did not witness the event itself and saw only the developed photographs afterward, more than a year later

Special Features/Characteristics: The witness reported feeling water dripping from the craft as it passed overhead during its final ascent; he waited more than 14 months (from March 1993 to May 1994) before having the film developed, deliberately using up the entire roll first, and did not tell his wife what he believed he had photographed until after seeing the developed images; upon later inspection of the developed film, he noticed an additional, previously unobserved object — a black dot partway between the main object and the frame’s edge — which he speculated could have been a distant airplane or the smaller object en route to the larger one; the negatives were reportedly sent to Kodak in Adelaide for analysis via an intermediary described as a “UFO fanatic,” and the witness states he was never informed of the results; investigative analysis of the first photograph found the object in sharp focus while the horizon appeared blurred, an inconsistency with the behavior expected of the witness’s fixed-focus camera, which should render both a 400-meter object and the horizon equally in focus at its fixed infinity setting; the claimed overcast dawn conditions do not match the bright blue sky visible in the first photograph

Case Status: Disputed/Insufficient Data — a single, uncorroborated witness account with photographic evidence subjected to specific, documented inconsistencies (timeline, sky color, focus behavior, and contradictory distance estimates) identified by the same investigator who first reported the case; no independent laboratory confirmation of the negatives’ authenticity has been made public despite a claimed analysis having been conducted

Source: Eric Thomason, via UFO-Aktuellt/UFO-Sweden (investigation and reporting by Clas Svahn, translation by Stefan Isaksson)

Summary/Description: Eric Thomason, a 69-year-old Maslin Beach, South Australia resident, reported photographing an object rising from the ocean near Ochre Point on the morning of March 10, 1993, along with a second, smaller object that appeared to dock with it before the pair departed. The resulting photographs drew international attention, but detailed investigation by UFO-Sweden identified multiple specific inconsistencies in the witness’s account and in the photographic evidence itself.

Related Cases: None documented

Detailed Report

The four photographs Eric Thomason reported taking at Ochre Point, Maslin Beach, March 10, 1993.

Eric Thomason, 69, lived near Maslin Beach in southern Australia, not far from an abandoned mine, Maslin Old Quarry, where he regularly walked his dog. In March 1993, prompted partly by a newspaper photo contest for the best image of a land sunrise, he set out with his son’s camera — a basic Kodak S50 loaded with Fuji 100 ASA film — hoping to photograph the sunrise from Ochre Point, a 60-meter cliff once used by hang-gliders.

On the morning of Wednesday, March 10, the sky was overcast and the temperature a cool 14 degrees Celsius. From the clifftop, Thomason found the sunrise obscured by cloud and turned instead to face the ocean to the west. It was then, he says, that he saw movement on the water’s surface and something resembling a submarine’s conning tower emerge. As it rose, he saw three legs extending from its hull, which then retracted as the object began to spin. He took his first photograph before the legs fully retracted, estimating the object’s distance at the time as roughly 400 meters.

Realizing his exposed position atop the cliff — silhouetted against the rising sun — Thomason, citing awareness of UFO abduction reports, climbed down to a position roughly five meters below the clifftop. From there, he watched the light-grey object move somewhat south of him and come to a halt over the old mine. At that point he spotted a second, smaller object to the north, and took his second photograph, adjusting his position slightly to avoid the sunrise’s glare in his viewfinder.

From his lower vantage point, Thomason watched the smaller object approach the larger one, pause, and then move upward into a recess in the larger object’s hull, describing three lights visible around this opening. Shortly after taking his fourth and final photograph, he says the larger object rose straight up and passed directly overhead, at which point he felt water dripping down onto him from the craft.

Thomason returned home afterward but chose not to tell even his wife what he believed he had witnessed, wanting first to have the film developed to see whether anything had actually been captured. He was in no hurry to do so: he made a point of using the entire roll of film before submitting it for development, and it was not until May 1994 — more than 14 months later, after watching a television program about UFOs — that he brought the developed photographs forward. Mrs. Thomason later told UFO-Sweden that her husband had initially said nothing because she was unwell at the time, and that he doubted the photos would show anything meaningful; upon seeing them developed, she stated her belief that they showed a genuine spacecraft, and vouched for her husband’s honesty.

Investigator Clas Svahn, writing for UFO-Aktuellt, identified several details worth close examination. Thomason had reportedly set his alarm for 5:45 a.m. to catch the sunrise around 6:00 — a 15-minute window in which he would have needed to wake, dress in multiple layers against the cold, retrieve his camera, collect his dog from the rear of the house, walk to Ochre Point (a walk Mrs. Thomason herself estimated at five minutes), climb the 60-meter cliff, wait through the failed sunrise, and then relocate to a second vantage point facing the ocean — all before taking his first photograph at exactly 6:00 a.m. Separately, the first photograph itself shows a bright blue sky, inconsistent with the dense cloud cover the witness described blocking the sunrise that morning.

On developing the film, Thomason noted a previously unobserved detail in the first photograph: a black dot partway between the main object and the edge of the frame, which he speculated could have been a distant aircraft or the second, smaller object already approaching — a detail identified only in retrospect from the film, not observed live during the event itself.

Thomason stated the negatives were sent for analysis to Kodak in Adelaide, arranged through an acquaintance he described as a “UFO fanatic,” and that he was never informed of the results of that analysis. Examining the Kodak S50 itself — a simple, roughly 40 USD department-store camera with fixed focus, no manual controls beyond the shutter release, and a large depth of field fixed at infinity — Svahn noted a specific optical inconsistency: in the first photograph, the object itself appears in sharp focus while the horizon behind it appears blurred, when a camera of this type should render both equally sharp if the object were genuinely at the claimed distance.

Despite these specific concerns, Svahn noted that the photographs were otherwise consistent with Thomason’s verbal account, and that in direct conversation, Thomason answered questions consistently, including attempts to catch him in contradiction. The photographs subsequently drew significant international attention, including inclusion in an American UFO almanac. Thomason himself has said he continues watching for UFOs during evening dog walks, describes himself as critical of other UFO photographs he has since encountered, and states he has otherwise only ever seen meteorites. Asked directly whether the photographs were genuine and truly depicted what he described, Thomason affirmed unequivocally that they did.

Researcher’s Notes

The Maslin Beach Photographs — 1993 and a Case Built on Specific, Checkable Problems

• This is a DD case, not CE-I. Even using Thomason’s own closer distance estimate (400 meters), the sighting exceeds the roughly 500-foot proximity CE-I requires. Using his own numbers rather than the source material’s default classification resolves this cleanly.
• The timeline is tight enough to be a genuine problem, not just tight. Fifteen minutes to wake, dress, collect equipment and a dog, travel, climb a 60-meter cliff, wait through a failed sunrise, and relocate to a second vantage point — all before an exact 6:00 a.m. photograph — is a demanding sequence to complete precisely on schedule, and it’s the investigator’s own noted concern, not an outside skeptic’s speculation.
• The sky color discrepancy is a specific, visually checkable problem. A photograph showing bright blue sky is difficult to reconcile with a described dense, sun-blocking cloud layer at the same moment — this isn’t a subjective interpretation but a direct conflict between the verbal account and the visual evidence meant to support it.
• The focus anomaly is a real optical inconsistency for the camera in question. A fixed-focus camera set to infinity should render a 400-meter subject and the horizon with comparable sharpness. An object in sharp focus against a blurred horizon is the kind of detail that would be expected if the object were significantly closer to the camera than claimed, or otherwise inconsistent with the stated conditions.
• The witness’s own distance estimates contradict each other. A written report stating 2 kilometers at first sighting, against a verbal statement that the object never approached closer than 400 meters, is a direct, first-person inconsistency — not a case of secondary sources disagreeing, but the same witness giving different figures in two different tellings.
• The claimed Kodak analysis was never independently confirmed or made public. A claimed forensic examination of the negatives, arranged through an unnamed intermediary and with results the witness says he was never told, provides no actual verification value — it’s a claim of verification having occurred, not verification itself.
• None of this proves deliberate fabrication. Svahn’s own conclusion — that the story is either “the most astounding [photographs] so far” or “a simple hoax” — reflects the genuine difficulty of resolving this case either way. The specific inconsistencies documented here are substantial enough that this page does not treat the account as established fact, but they also don’t amount to definitive proof of a hoax on their own.

The Maslin Beach case stands as an instructive example of how a single set of striking photographs can generate international attention while containing enough specific, checkable inconsistencies — in timeline, lighting, optics, and the witness’s own retellings — that neither confident belief nor confident dismissal is fully warranted by the evidence available.

“Either Eric Thomason’s photographs are the most astounding so far, or it’s just a simple hoax.”

— Clas Svahn, UFO-Aktuellt/UFO-Sweden, 1994