UFO in Sydney Australia

Missing exif data doesn't mean much - many programs and processes remove it, and some of the smaller/cheaper cameras and phones do not have useful exif data anyway.. On a serious camera with an image where the user's camera settings are being questioned or where 'photoshopping' is suspected, exif data is really useful. But in this case I doubt it will tell us much except to give the timing/sequence of the images. I don't see any evidence of fakery, just misinterpreted blobs and lens-/windscreen-flare.

But a person's willingness to supply the original files *with* the exif, tends to give them a little more credibility. Exif data can be faked but unless you know exactly what you are doing it's extremely easy to screw up and be busted - I would generally recommend to hoaxers that they do NOT go down this path, not that I'm accusing this one of being a hoax.

As to the changing story and confusion over when the images were takedn, what sequence, whether she was inside or outside the car, well, I'd have to say I know quite a few folks whose stories tend to change a lot especially when they are excited about something. Maybe I hang out in the wrong circles, or maybe some of you guys need to get out more...

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

Great

reply to post by CHRLZ

 

The iPhone does not have optical zoom only digital.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by cripmeister]

Thanks for the info. I'm not an iphone type, but that makes it even less attractive to me..

For the purpose of this process, namely identifying where the streetlight is, I guess it doesn't matter if the shot is a little pixellated..

Good luck, Maybe...

If you look at this particular cloud formation (which I circled in Green) this 'thing' does appear to have moved its position.

I think I can comfortably debunk the 'smudge' on the window-shield. I really think this was airborne.

reply to post by TwoPhish

Please refer to Chadwickus' experiments posted earlier. A slight movement of the camera makes the smudge appear to move against the background.

reply to post by cripmeister


Had to leave a comment, don't see it yet:

A classic Saturn shape at times.
Might be some revolving electric field that I imagined would be taking place.
Made a youtube video but since figured the fields extraneous to the lift forces
and only move the illumination around.
Lift and propulsion are from Tesla ether sounds waves of pressure and
momentum capture.
Yeah I know, I had to find out.

Originally posted by zazzafrazz

Who are the researches?

Id be interested to know, is it CHalker?

This is a comment I sent to the media (news) not released

my comment Bill Chalker is not an active ufologist he's a has-been. Taking months to complete and "I'm only interested in the hard evidence cases" = Inactive.
There are a lot of newer up to date ufologists in Australia now that write daily, weekly on this phenomena. Ufologists have been active as soon as the Fiona Hartigan's case was released. Not Bill, someone would of rang him about the case I bet. LOL

There I go I do have a question for Fiona Hartigan,

Question: how did Bill Chalker get involved did you ring him or did the media bring him in?
It's a good question relevant now, later may not.

Because Fiona, Bill has already written you up as investigated here check SYD picture your up about your report(fourth paragraph) then he(Bill) takes the reins.


Zelong.

Stacking up the images definitely shows that the bright object (Street Lamp) doesn't move when aligned to the tree next to it.

So I'd agree with Phage... Although I hate too...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TwoPhish

 

Please refer to Chadwickus' experiments posted earlier. A slight movement of the camera makes the smudge appear to move against the background.

I know darlin'. I just want to believe Fiona I s'pose.

I just find, what some of you are suggesting, to be way too contriving and almost painstakingly difficult to pull off.

I mean put yourself in her shoes (according to the debunkers):
You spot a spot on your car window... so you get an idea! You then precede to re-position your iPhone ever so unassuming (so to capture a different angle 5 different times...... ) then, you decide to have this Mama 'spot' to have 2 little offspring 'spots' that..... just so happen to coincide with the lamp post illumination THAT....just happened to be turned on at that precise moment (but then again, you already KNEW that because it was dusk) and then, go peddle this story to the whole entire world THAT, may not even buy it from the get-go!

I am just having a difficult time absorbing all that.

If it were a plain ol' video, where CGI is effortless then, I'd probably think twice.
But this 'story' took a lot of effort that had no guarantee of making it to the media!!
Being a mother of 2 or 3 kids, somehow I don't imagine she would have THAT much free time.

Do you really think this was the simplest way to make money/fame/hoax? I don't.
Even though (according to some debunkers) it used very simple things (smudge, lamp post) but....... just the same, it seems incredibly hard to orchestrate.

reply to post by Zelong

Curious.
If Chalker has a "secret backer", why did he send Fiona here? Isn't he being paid to conduct his own "investigations"? Shouldn't ATS get a cut?

I'd also have to agree with Phage on this, and Chad. I'm pretty much convinced at this point. Great work guys.

People shouldn't be so biased towards their beliefs. All that matters in the end is the truth.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Zelong

 

Curious.
If Chalker has a "secret backer", why did he send Fiona here? Isn't he being paid to conduct his own "investigations"? Shouldn't ATS get a cut?

Dunno, we should ask though no harm if we are doing all the work!

reply to post by TwoPhish

No.

I don't think she planned it. She took sunset pictures, got home and looked at them. Saw the blob that "ruined" them. Thought "Hey! It looks like a UFO". This is when the plot began to thicken.

I have no idea why she would do it but people do it all time.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TwoPhish

 

No.

I don't think she planned it. She took sunset pictures, got home and looked at them. Saw the blob that "ruined" them. Thought "Hey! It looks like a UFO". This is when the plot began to thicken.

I have no idea why she would do it but people do it all time.

Ya have a point. Damn! I guess I don't/can't think like a hoaxer.

I guess she claims to have taken these photos on the 21st yet it came to light on the 24th. So maybe she DIDN'T realize this until she reviewed her photos. Dang!!!!!

I just don't know which way to lean.

reply to post by Phage


You are so wrong on this.

If and object is fixed , as you are saying this is, just a mark on the windscreen it follows by the tenets of perspective that the following happens.

If you move the camera to the right and sightly down, over a succession of images in a short period of time, the static objects will, appear to move, slightly to the left and up the frame of each picture.

Now i suggest, everyone does this for them self and then make whatever comment they think of the results. I find Irfan is a great little free app for this as you can open a separate instance of it for each picture and move them round to your own satisfaction.

You can tell, once you open the 3 pictures that Ms Hartigan took 3 pictures within a short space of time, moving the camera either to the right and down or to the left and up. As i don't know what sequence they were, in fact taken in, try it both ways, the maths is commutative anyway.

Take the 3 pictures taken by Ms Hartigan that do not feature the road. The trees and the street lamp are your fixed objects.

The lay them side by side to each other with the street lamp showing on the right of each picture. You will see that to line up the static objects in all 3 frames you have to adjust each frame. Fair enough, so it follows does it not? If the object she is claiming is actually a mark on the screen and nothing more, it will move in a commensurate manner with all the other fixed objects?

Right so if you decide that Ms Hartigan, over the space of the 3 pictures moved to the right and slightly down the smudge should move slightly up and to the left. it further follows that, the picture that shows the whole of the street lamp compared to the picture that shows just the end of the rays of the lamp, if it's just a smudge on the glass. The object will have moved considerably to the left of the frame and up towards the top, because, Ms hartigan has moved the camera to the right and slightly down to show the whole of the street lamp?

So now, you tell me where the *smudge* is having done that?

For those who can;t be bothered with all that rigmarole, i have uploaded a couple of the composites where i have matched up the *fixed objects in the pictures to each other.

img.villagephotos.com...

and


img.villagephotos.com...

Phage's reply and plausible explanation notwithstanding, I have seen the exact same thing. Same brown/orange colour and transparency standing on my balcony a year or so back. Two of them moving very fast, changing positions, no noise.

Originally posted by FireMoon
You are so wrong on this....

If and object is fixed , as you are saying this is...

Nice work, Sherlock. But we are saying the blob is fixed to the WINDSCREEN.

Now, try applying a tiny bit of lateral thinking. Is the windscreen only going to be in one position, or can it ALSO possibly move in relation to the background? The background being the trees, the road, the streetlights, if it helps.. Dunno about you, but mine tends to follow the location of my car and things stuck on it therefore tend to move in relation to the background, via that process.. If I shift the car, the windscreen moves - amazing but true.

In regard to perspective, as soon as you re-angle the camera or move it nearer or further from the close objects, their spatial relationships will CHANGE. This is really basic stuff.

So given the objects on the screen can move relative to one another depending on the camera position/angle, and the vehicle/camera can also be moved independently between shots, your postulations are not valid.

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by FireMoon
You are so wrong on this....

If and object is fixed , as you are saying this is...

Nice work, Sherlock. But we are saying the blob is fixed to the WINDSCREEN.

Now, try applying a tiny bit of lateral thinking. Is the windscreen only going to be in one position, or can it ALSO possibly move in relation to the background? The background being the trees, the road, the streetlights, if it helps.. Dunno about you, but mine tends to follow the location of my car and things stuck on it therefore tend to move in relation to the background, via that process.. If I shift the car, the windscreen moves - amazing but true.

In regard to perspective, as soon as you re-angle the camera or move it nearer or further from the close objects, their spatial relationships will CHANGE. This is really basic stuff.

So given the objects on the screen can move relative to one another depending on the camera position/angle, and the vehicle/camera can also be moved independently between shots, your postulations are not valid.

Answer me this? Why is it if you jump up whilst travelling on a train moving at 100mph you aren't splattered across the back wall of the coach?

So we are meant to suspend the laws of perspective because it suits argument are we? if it it is a smudge it is a fixed point right? in those pictures all the fixed points, bar the smudge, obey the laws of perspective,

If you are right you would not be able to line up any of the fixed points because the camera angle would have moved. so drastically, as to change the whole perspective of the photos..It hasn't has it those pictures line up almost perfectly? Conclusion, they are commensurate with a set of pictures taken over a short period of time FROM VIRTUALLY THE SAME VANTAGE POINT, Id guess only the camera moved a couple of inches as the photographer stood still. Which, funnily enough, is exactly what Ms Hartigan said herself.

Lateral thinking doesn't come into it.

Originally posted by TwoPhish
If you look at this particular cloud formation (which I circled in Green) this 'thing' does appear to have moved its position.

I think I can comfortably debunk the 'smudge' on the window-shield. I really think this was airborne.

I have a friend who has spoken to the woman who took the photo's and it would appear that the good ol' MSM have NOT published ALL of the photo's.

Looks like the one of a "mother ship" was not included in the MSM article.

BTW, Sydney is alive with this story and it keeps on going, very unusual for the MSm to keep it "UP" for so long????

reply to post by FireMoon


When I look at your composite, I ask, did Fiona say that the object moved closer of further away?
By the reflection in the clouds disappearing (little bottom cloud in the square you highlighted) It would indicate that at a later time the object moved closer, if she said it moved away, the clouds do not reflect this.

I cant find what she said on the movement aspect.