UFO in Sydney Australia

Originally posted by Phage
Then she has changed her story.

You mean just like you did in this thread

One page ago you were saying how it was obviously taken from two different locations until somone else comes along and proves your wrong.

You crack me up Phage.

Excellent , OP; I have sent a U2U to Internos, and we shall see what he can divulge from these photos.

Phage, chill out, bro, you'll get excited.

Let the pic experts work it over; if it is an unknown, cool, if it's bird poop on the windshield, oh, well.

seeker

Originally posted by the seeker_713g
Excellent , OP; I have sent a U2U to Internos, and we shall see what he can divulge from these photos.

Phage, chill out, bro, you'll get excited.

Let the pic experts work it over; if it is an unknown, cool, if it's bird poop on the windshield, oh, well.

seeker

if it's, "Poop on the windshield", i want one of the stealth cars she was driving

+ Given the angle the first picture was taken, pretty much straight and low to the ground, shouldn't we be seeing the hood of the car ?



[edit on 23-3-2010 by Eisbaer]

reply to post by kleverone

Yes, I changed my mind about one part of what I thought the pictures show. I do that when I have evidence.

I do find it interesting that in one interview she mentions a car (specifically), and in another makes no mention of a car and in fact tells quite a different story which would direct people away from thinking about a car. That does raise my suspicions.

I'm also wondering about the streaking seen in the lower image. Some of it could be glare on the lens but it could also be produced by the windscreen.

[edit on 3/23/2010 by Phage]

So what did she say.
A orange light on the top.
The other light orbs perhaps went straight up.
Like on a beam perhaps.
An invisible beam that only illuminated in an orb
of light when the pressure ether wave bunched up
enough air to light it up.
All our Star Trek knowledge can't be wasted we are just
not privy to this type of propulsion.
The light would have to be on top for the ship to go up.
She sounds correct again.

sigh......... dirt on windscreen. easily replicated.

Originally posted by Phage
Yes, I changed my mind about one part of what I thought the pictures show. I do that when I have evidence.

I do find it interesting that in one interview she mentions a car (specifically), and in another makes no mention of a car and in fact tells quite a different story which would direct people away from thinking about a car. That does raise my suspicions.

I am ignorant to the second interview which you speak of so I cannot comment on it. I also have yet to see definitive proof that these photos were taken inside of a vehicle, not saying thery were not, I just have not seen any definitive proof.

I'm also wondering about the streaking seen in the lower image. Some of it could be glare on the lens but it could also be produced by the windscreen.

Exactly, It could be either one, so to jump to a conclusion based off of preconceived notions of skepticism, is hardly IMHO objecitve. Which I believe should be the approach taken with any investigation. Just sayin.....

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by kleverone

 

I do find it interesting that in one interview she mentions a car (specifically), and in another makes no mention of a car and in fact tells quite a different story which would direct people away from thinking about a car. That does raise my suspicions.


[edit on 3/23/2010 by Phage]

The first "interview" was reporting done by a newspaper. Misquoting and misunderstandings happen in interviews all the time, resulting in published material that has discrepancies. If she had been quoted saying this in the article, I would tend to agree, but as it is the opinion of the author it is not evidence of her story changing. It is a point to remember, but not damning for her case by any means.

Also, Phage, you mentioned earlier in this thread and the other thread (that was closed), that you observed the trees in focus and the "object" out of focus. You concluded with this statement that the object must have been between the camera and the trees. I wondered if it is at all possible that the "object" is blurry due to the speed at which it may have been traveling, rather than it's proximity to the camera? An object moving at speed may not appear as clear as the surrounding terrain does, giving it motion blur?

reply to post by Phage


Without a doubt both photos were taken inside of her car.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/340e25e1b44c.png[/atsimg]

reply to post by kleverone

I used this account of the interview.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

My conclusion is based on more than one thing. It is based on a collection of things and they are not preconceived ideas, they apply to the evidence we have...these two photographs.

"It started off about 800m away but it came closer - to about 400m - and then two other little round things appeared from this bright orange light above.

The trees, those on the left, do not appear to be 400m away, in fact they appear to be directly overhead in the "up" shot. I doubt they are 400m tall. The trees (and clouds) are in good focus. Motion blur produces "trails". The blob(s) do not display trails but instead the blur seen as a result of poor focus. This indicates that the blob(s) are closer to the camera than the trees.

Add this to the streaking in the lower image. Add this to the discrepancies in the witnesses stories. Add this to no other reports from the "busy street".

[edit on 3/23/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Chadwickus


I see what your seeing there, but I think saying "without a doubt" might be a little strong. There are quite a few different lighting things happening in the pictures, and what you have circled does not prove to me that it was not glare from one of the light sources. Possible? Yes. "Without a doubt?" No.

I want to see the other three pictures.

based on what? That could easily be a mark on the phone lens. I'm not saying i believe her story or not., but to stridently claim it was taken from inside a car without acknowledging that, it could just as easily be a smear on the camera lens, not uncommon is a bit unfair at this juncture..

Phage..don;t put words into people's mouths. The original newspaper report does NOT quote her, directly, in anything that the other report is not concurrent with. The original report says she said.... but has no quotation marks around her words until the next sentence. That to me, suggests the editor changed it, provably because, the original reporter did not ask, or hear the answer, to the original question of; what she was doing prior to taking the pictures?

You love picking at details, that's fair enough, but at least get them right, if you do so.

In Australia, You Cannot Drive Anywhere without getting Dirt or a Bug Squashed on your Windscreen.

That's all this photo's shows. How Dirty Her Windscreen was at the time she took the Photograph.

The other important thing that was siad this morning on one of the News Channels is that there is no EXIF Data available with the Photo. So no-one can work out when the Photo was taken, What Speed it was shot at and what the aperture was set at.

All these things help in working out if the Photo was a Genuine UFO, Or Not.

The EXIF Data would also show Zoom and Focus settings and this could help work out how far the Object was away from the lens by reproducing those settings, manually.

reply to post by FireMoon

Right, it isn't a direct quote.
So the writer (or editor) invented the statement about getting out of her car to take pictures of the sunset? Possible of course, but likely? I don't think so.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by kleverone

 

I used this account of the interview.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That is a second hand account of what someone heard on the radio. Hardly conclusive.

The trees, those on the left, do not appear to be 400m away, in fact they appear to be directly overhead in the "up" shot. I doubt they are 400m tall. The trees (and clouds) are in good focus. Motion blur produces "trails". The blob(s) do not display trails but instead the blur seen as a result of poor focus. This indicates that the blob(s) are closer to the camera than the trees.

I was under the impression that this lady was estimating the distance. Also, and I may be wrong here, but I don't think she was saying that this was the distance the object was when she took the photo, but when she noticed the object.

"It started off about 800m away but it came closer - to about 400m - and then two other little round things appeared from this bright orange light above.

Add this to the streaking in the lower image.

Which to me resembles light coming from an illuminated obect much like when the sunlight shines through the clouds.

Add this to the discrepancies in the witnesses stories.

Which could have easily been misconstrued by the reporter.

Add this to no other reports from the "busy street".

That is was you call a busy street? I see one car, maybe two (possible tailights heading away). I suppose one persons defintion of busy differs from another.





[edit on 23-3-2010 by kleverone]

I have to agree with Phage and Chad , both pics taken from inside car ,
at a different angle , and 5 minutes apart ..... screenpoop!



[edit on 23-3-2010 by radarloveguy]

Thats what I find strange as well.

Governor Maquarie Drive is one very busy road, yet no one else saw anything. This road actually goes to the airport, and is not far from a major motor way, and links up to the Hume Highway.
Also The suburb where the siting occurred is not exactly rural, it total suburbia. Densly populated to say the least. On a warm Sunday evening you can bet there would be stacks of people outside in that area, having BBQs and so forth, yet no one else saw a thing.
The Bankstown Airport reported nothing unusual on their radar for that period, and I would bet, but I don't know for sure, that there would be planes up at that time, yet no pilots saw anything.


Strange one this one, Im leaning toward crap on the windscreen......

reply to post by nomadros


I was just going to say there was another orb by the tip of the tree.
files.abovetopsecret.com...
A goose no doubt.

reply to post by Phage


I've done umpteen interviews and what was said and what has been printed are often wholly different. The true question to ask is. Why didn't they quote on her that part of the story , when they did the rest?. The natural conclusion one arrives at, is that, the reporter made a mistake and didn't ask her or misheard her answer and the editor wanted some background so added their assumption, hence no quotation marks, so she has no comeback, if they are wrong.

As it stands at the moment, this would seem to be either, a genuine sighting, or a quite deliberate hoax. I don't think it's a misidentification. The details, about the objects distance, suggest, serious cognitive thought went into this. Therefore, it's either real or a total scam.