UFO in Sydney Australia

reply to post by CHRLZ


"So we are meant to suspend the laws of perspective because it suits argument are we?"

"No. Why do you keep making these silly sarcastic comments? To avoid actually being specific? "

Maybe, because i am sick to the back teeth of people acting so damnably high and mighty on here and treating people like idiots, at the first opportunity. People who, when they themselves, don't even understand some totally basic still prate on about a subject they obviously haven't , in truth, a clue about?

if it it is a smudge it is a fixed point right?

"To a fixed point on the windshield, yes. To the camera, NO. As no-one is seeing the smudge from the reference frame of the windshield, then it is irrelevant. "

What are you actually talking about? Is the tree a fixed object? yes. is it a fixed object to the camera? NO... If i take 3 photos of a tree and move the camera to the right, the tree will appear to move to the left, because we know trees don't move we know it hasn't, well that same law applies to a smudge on a window, so quite what are you trying to say?

I fully explained it earlier on in this thread.

If a person takes a series of photos from the same vantage point but moves the camera slightly. The trees, the road etc etc etc, will all stay in virtually the same place. If it's a smudge on the window, it therefore logically follows that, as it is also fixed object, it must move in a commensurate manner with the trees, road, street lamp, etc etc?

If i move the angle of the camera to such an extent as to give the impression the smudge has moved, you will no longer be able to match the back ground between shots. IN THIS CASE, it has been clearly shown that this is not so.

When people use erroneous thinking to prove an erroneous theory and then, accuse someone of being a liar, why do you think they then deserve to be treated with respect, especially when they are so arrogant in their ignorance?

Why is it that there is one law for the UFO witness and another for the skeptic? The UFO witness makes one mistake, they are patently a fraud and everything the claim is therefore suspect. However, when as in this case, the skeptic makes a basic error and in doing so, show they are nowhere near as clever as they think they are, that's fine. Despite their obvious lack of knowledge, they are still free to hold forth on the subject at will , without anyone picking them up on it?

If Stanton Friedman makes one mistake, that on here, to many many people, shows he is just a fraud, period. Well, why shouldn't that attitude be taken towards the skeptics. If you can't deal with the consequences of your own behaviour don't get involved, right?

What is so hard to understand about the concept that. If skeptic believes that a sighting must be a smudge on a window and then ignores the laws of perspective to prove it, it is absolutely no different to, the mindset of the believer, who does exactly the same in order to back their own beliefs up? In short they are both believers willing to ignore the facts in order to *prove* their point.?

To my mind, there isn't an iota of difference between David Icke and James Randi. Neither of them is, actually interested in the paranormal, past what it can do for them personally.

On a different level, that is exactly the same as ATS. if you want to understand what I'm talkniga bout . Check any of Karl12 threads on this forum, and then check the names that never seem to post on them, yet these same names, don't seem to be able to get to a computer quick enough, to give us the benefit of their knowledge when someone submits photo's or cam footage..

In this case Ms Hartigan has , pretty much, gone out of her way to co-operate with people on here and in real life. I suspect by the time i have finished this post, she wail have realised, in the heat of the moment, she made a genuine mistake. over part of her sighting. However, that doesn't mean the rest of her tale is also hooey.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FireMoon

 

For crying out loud. She says she saw a "big orange light". It was a streetlight. How hard is that to figure out. She wasn't traumatized.

You're a hell of a researcher. Tell me, do you use hypnotic regression too?

C'mon you two.
You clearly both are having different reactions and approaches to this.
Let it go!
Fire is giving her the benefit of doubt at the moment
Phage has bagged and tagged her as a debunker, forever.

You're both are polar opposites and it doesn't behoove this thread by Phage trying to change someones mind. Yes, point out your reasonings but let people 'change' their own minds at their own pace.

You're both entitled to your opinions but stop forcing the other one to see it your way and when they don't they're just plain wrong. That's really not being fair.

Now, play nicely or I'll put you both in TimeOut!
Smile~

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

G'day wayaboveitall

Those superfluous pictures are interrupting the flow of the discussion.

Can you save them for later?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Sure, No problem Mate!

TwoPhish
I believe she said she was 5'2" and it took 8-seconds to snap all five photos.

Thats not what this data says (thankyou interno)

Date: March 21, 2010 7:18:37PM
Date: March 21, 2010 7:18:41PM
Date: March 21, 2010 7:18:52PM
Date: March 21, 2010 7:19:05PM

33 seconds, while travelling the distance between a few streetlights.
How fast can Fiona run along the side of the road, while snapping photos on her iphone?
Its not an olympic sport yet is it?

Internos Cam data shows those four pics were shot in a 33second series.
The images themselves show the veiwer is advancing down the road in the direction the shots are taken. How long does it take the phone to be ready for the next shot after you click it? I imagine its processed on the fly? and appears on the screen? With most phones theres a breif pause while it loads the image no?
Can anyone verify that?
Then she has to aim the camera, since shes following this 'object'. Does she use the screen veiwer to line the shot up first? Or just keep snapping?
Afterall she beleives she is seeing a ufo.
Theres 5 shots, over 33 seconds.

Did she stop the car on the shoulder and get out, to shoot all 5 pics?
Or did she slowly drive along the shoulder (jogging opace), and snap 5 photos from inside the car ?

Originally posted by missfee
reply to post by phatpackage

 

my story has not changed this is just an other theroy / opinon i was out of my car leaning on the bonet and im sorry Maybe..maybe not your recreation photos never came out the way you wanted them to but REALY
sticking gum to your windscreen and taking shots with an IPHONE if thats what you call an investagation then excluding the truth than i think i have brought this to the rong peoples attention maybe the investagater from the american goverment who is ariveing monday can get to the bottom of it

There is something to be said about her conviction.
MaybeMaybeNot appears to have approached/investigated this with unbiased hands. He didn't want to lean one way or the other. He just wanted to state the facts which, he successfully did and we thank you for that (you went above and beyond your call of duty. Much obliged)

But again, I can't help but notice Fiona steadfast 'sticking to her guns' attitude.

I dunno. I think if I were her, and I purposefully hoaxed this I think, I would've admitted defeat, thrown my arms up in the air and surrendered to have duping everyone. But.....alas, that's not what's she's doing.
Gotta give her credit one way or the other.
Fiona? I still believe you for what it's worth.
Call me either a sucker or someone who can hone into someones heart!

reply to post by wayaboveitall


Okay, so? 8-seconds? 33-seconds? Close enough. It's not like we're talking minutes (or hours) here.

In the heat of an exciteable moment, 33 seconds can feel like a nano-second! And personally, unless I am microwaving something, I can't differentiate 20-seconds from 2-minutes.

So........her 'seconds' were off by 15 seconds! Let's sentence her to a mob-lynching.

Again, I still believe her until proven (to my satisfaction) otherwise.

Good for you TwoPhish.

the interior of my pt cruiser is dark gray and material not even leather i was out of the car i have asked this before could the reflection be a car coming towards me from behind could that make the reflection you are all talking about apear in the pic

No, im afraid not, if that was the case the reflection would be of the front of the car (as you would see in the rear vision mirror).
The reflection appears to be the back of a car that has passed you already,
in the opposit direction.



[edit on 26-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

Here are the links to the original images: I've excluded the fifth one because it has no exif data.
The links have been kindly provided by Maybe...maybe not



rapidshare.com...
rapidshare.com...
rapidshare.com...
rapidshare.com...


[edit on 26/3/2010 by internos]

reply to post by internos


THx for the analysis, I haven't had a chance to review any of maybe maybe not's observations, but I did notice Internos that you wrote "something is missing" Can you be more specific what you meant by that?

Mile Grazie Bello!

reply to post by internos


Two questions if I may internos?

What are your thoughts on the two small orbs?

Do you believe these were taken from behind glass?

If you are going to cover this in your analysis I can wait.

Oh and is it possible to share the 5th hires image with us?


(Yes I have a theory lol)







[edit on 26/3/10 by Chadwickus]

[edit on 26/3/10 by Chadwickus]

I have said it before and I'll say it again....

There is no substitute for research and diligence!

Star - Flag - and Applause for your efforts!!!!

Thanks for a terrific contribution!

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by internos

 

THx for the analysis, I haven't had a chance to review any of maybe maybe not's observations, but I did notice Internos that you wrote "something is missing" Can you be more specific what you meant by that?

Mile Grazie Bello!

Exposure time
Exposure time is missing and it's always important to know it: especially in order to atribute to shadows and whatever might look to be some motion blur some value. BUt pleease someone check if i'm correct about this detail.
I can't find this data.
This case deserves Jeff Ritzmann's attention, IMHO: if no one alerted him yet, then I'll try to.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by internos

 

Two questions if I may internos?


What are your thoughts on the two small orbs?

Do you believe these were taken from behind glass?

I honestly can't rule it out: some points are good about this sighting, plus the partecipation of some first hand witness boosted it.
All the work is being done correctly, I have no reasons to believe that we will forget any important details about it.

If you are going to cover this in your analysis I can wait.
Oh and is it possible to share the 5th hires image with us?


(Yes I have a theory lol)

[edit on 26/3/10 by Chadwickus]

It's the last one of the series, I'll share it:
rapidshare.com...



[edit on 26/3/2010 by internos]

I shot this to Jeff Ritzmann. I am also looking forward to what Internos comes up with.

I'll update this thread when I hear from Jeff.

Springer...

reply to post by TwoPhish


Thank YOU!

I'm so glad someone finally said something....This thread is long enough without having to sift through childish name calling and bickering.

Personally, I nominate Phrage for the Skeptic of the Year Award.

I find it funny that so many people automatically believe the theories he comes up with as if its always the indisputable truth. 99% of the posts on this site are just theories about theories really. Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that we have people who believe everything and people who believe nothing. It makes for a good well rounded discussion, sure. But people seem to forget this is a CONSPIRACY website. If your mind is already made up about UFO's not being real...ever! etc, Skeptic magazine is better suited reading material.

Ok, with that being said I have no clue what the object/things in those pictures are. Could this finally be a real picture of alien craft? Maybe. Could it be just another government test craft? Maybe. Could it even just be a bug on a windshield? Who knows! But no matter what it is, I prefer to keep my options and my mind open.

After all, being quick to jump to conclusions, ( based on a few pics of a blurry object) and always thinking YOUR theory is the only correct one is truly the antithesis of denying ignorance. Developing a condescending attitude towards people just because they think differently is just plain wrong.

[edit on 26-3-2010 by WhiteDevil013]

Looks like a splotch on the windshield.

If you look at the treeline and then at the object, the object is significantly more blurred. Meaning it was out of focus ... much more so than the trees or anything else at a distance. And you can tell by the sun streaks that it was taken from behind a pane of glass.

It's a bug. Nice try though.

[edit on 26-3-2010 by tyranny22]

May I ask something (which I would've thought be mentioned before but just the same.....) was the road wet? I ask because I can't help but notice the headlight reflection from the on-coming vehicle on the street:




Is it at all possible that this bone of contention; this 'glare, was caused by light reflecting back UPWARDS into the camera's lens (causing a prism-like anomoly) from the grounds surface???

The most telling giveaway is that you can see detail in the whiffs of clouds, yet the area around the edge of the object remains fuzzy.

Originally posted by tyranny22
The most telling giveaway is that you can see detail in the whiffs of clouds, yet the area around the edge of the object remains fuzzy.

Giveaway meaning a hoax? If so, I beg to differ. In one of my many posts (way back yonder) I pointed out, in green, how this said-object appears to move when in relation to the clouds.

It always amazes me how one species, humans, can have such diametrically opposing opinions on the same thing. Wonder if other animals go through this? *smile
But, it keeps our lil 'zoo' interesting!

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

 

33 seconds, while travelling the distance between a few streetlights.
How fast can Fiona run along the side of the road, while snapping photos on her iphone?
Its not an olympic sport yet is it?

Internos Cam data shows those four pics were shot in a 33second series.
The images themselves show the veiwer is advancing down the road in the direction the shots are taken. How long does it take the phone to be ready for the next shot after you click it? I imagine its processed on the fly? and appears on the screen? With most phones theres a breif pause while it loads the image no?
Can anyone verify that?
Then she has to aim the camera, since shes following this 'object'. Does she use the screen veiwer to line the shot up first? Or just keep snapping?
Afterall she beleives she is seeing a ufo.
Theres 5 shots, over 33 seconds.

Did she stop the car on the shoulder and get out, to shoot all 5 pics?
Or did she slowly drive along the shoulder (jogging opace), and snap 5 photos from inside the car ?

Except for the GPS coordinates embedded in the Exif data.

• 0430 La=33° 54.00' 56.27"S Lo=150° 57.00' 11.30"E
  
• 0431 La=33° 54.93' 00.00"S Lo=150° 57.23' 00.00"E
  
• 0432 La=33° 54.93' 00.00"S Lo=150° 57.23' 00.00"E
  
• 0433 La=33° 54.93' 00.00"S Lo=150° 57.23' 00.00"E
  

The 1st coordinates seem to be off a bit but run in sequence she would be moving in the opposite direction of your claim.

T.

Originally posted by TwoPhish
Is it at all possible that this bone of contention; this 'glare, was caused by light reflecting back UPWARDS into the camera's lens (causing a prism-like anomoly) from the grounds surface???

It's also possible they are the street lights reflecting off the hood of her car. She did say she was leaning on the hood when she snapped the photos.

T.