UFO in Sydney Australia

Originally posted by keepureye2thesky

Originally posted by TwoPhish
This entire thread has been reduce to science!!!!!

Reduced? Science?
Hahahahaa, ohh gosh geee wiz, not scientific data
Would you rather discuss cake recipes or hard scientific data?
Don't understand any of it? Google it. Research and learn.

I have not interjected here cause there is no reason to until now.
However, I need to point out how ridiculous your comment is and to let Maybe..Maybe not what a superb job he has done and one worthy of recognition. Keep up the good work. You can't let your heart get in the way
of scientific data. There's a conflict of interest.

What I meant was, after reading some scientific input, there seems to be lack of emotional output....on what it all means.

We know: A equals B so therefore C divided into AB squared leaves, D to the third power which then leaves ABCD as no other result.
Okay! We KNOW this but (coming from the emotional arena) what does this mean as far as Fiona's claim?

And instead of an answer, they just keep repeating the formula.

All I wanted to know, these people who are giving us all the science logistics please; break it down and tell me where does this place Fiona's credibility. But its THERE, that no one seems to want to commit to their overall emotional raw (but science-backed) opinion.

But, I do get one of two people saying 'few of her photos were obviously taken from inside her car but she might've forgotten that"

And when THAT is thrown out there, I try to think, how can that possibly be because what that suggests is, it WAS a blob on her windshield and.............................
we start the whole scientific cycle of explanation all over again.

I guess what I'd like to hear are how many think she's lying. How many believe her? A consensus.
I don't need to know to justify my own opinion because I've said all along, I believe here.
I am just curious at this point given all the brain-cell power that has gone into this thread. That is all.

And please remember, it's hard some times to convey your message/feeling/intent via an email. So.....sometimes, expressions get lost in the process.

MMN, I really love your work and devotion. All I wanted was your findings based on your feelings. that's all.

We've gotten this far and after 30 somewhat pages, I just want to read what people think. A people-poll sorta~

[edit on 27-3-2010 by TwoPhish]

reply to post by TwoPhish

I have not changed my original thoughts on what the images show, the inside of a windscreen...and a streetlight.

[edit on 3/27/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by missfee
reply to post by TwoPhish

 

i still dont understand ?? what MSN rounds are you talking about how do i get to that what web sight do i go to

I was referring to the radio talk shows, local news interviews and newspaper reports.

It's no big deal. I highly doubt you pulled off the Stunt of Year in Sydney, to get your 15-minutes of fame via a news program, radio show, newspaper articles and ATS.


I believe you are real. You took photos of something FLYING in the air (and not, an opportunist who saw a blob stuck to your windshield which then turned into two more baby blobs which you then...............catapulted into a UFO event)
You don't strike me as a person who would (or even could) do that.
I know I couldn't nor would I ever want to try to fool the public. Not only isn't it honest it can be very risky! And who wants to risk their reputation?
I don't think you do at all!

I don't think many people think like that (a trickster) overall. Not saying there aren't a few.
I believe you saw something and you are looking for people's explanation but instead, it doesn't look like we're getting too much of that (based on one of your last posts) at the moment.

Maybe I'm just wanting the female-emotional and male-logical to blend and come to a conclusion. (and BOTH, based on science)

Because like I have repeatedly said, you can't have it both ways.
There is no grey area of confusion.

She saw something unexplainable or

She lied. (But some are saying outright, you're lying. So be it!)

Period!

Thanks Fiona, I don't mind being 'familiar' with you. I am real. Others sound like they're drones.



[edit on 27-3-2010 by TwoPhish]

[edit on 27-3-2010 by TwoPhish]

[edit on 27-3-2010 by TwoPhish]

Interesting Videos... "the rounds" you speak of TwoPhish???

3AW (radio)Sound interview with Fiona H. about UFOs over Sydney...

www.dailymotion.com...

2GB radio interveiw....

Chris Smith talks to Fiona Hartigan regarding her UFO sighting in Chipping Norton.

www.2gb.com...

Any news from the "Apple© iphone scientist Fiona?"

The Today Show channel 9 sydney

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 27-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

reply to post by TwoPhish


I try my best not to believe, I want to know. Fiona might be lying but I'm not yet convinced of that. Maybe her sighting will never be proven real or fake, there are many cases like that.

If you want to check the accuracy of the GPS data just check your own images (MBMN) on your phone??

You took a couple of images inside and outside the car right?? Check your GPS Exif data and see if that also drops out..

Originally posted by missfee
reply to post by wayaboveitall

 

i was out leaning onthe hood not centerd a bit to the left, look i never took the pics from in side and not through the sun roof i have asked before the could the reflection be a car comeing from behind me

Not being a photographer but, seeing you are dealing with a LCD screen (instead of an eye-piece) I don't see why you couldn't have picked up glare from a passing vehicle.
Makes sense to me that that is a possibility. How far in front of your field of vision did you place your iphone? I mean, at arms length? Above your head? Against your eye?
I think you may be on to something here Fiona.

reply to post by TwoPhish


i dont see what difference an l.c.d screen makes as its not on the same side as the lens???

thanks

rich

Originally posted by TwoPhish
And instead of an answer, they just keep repeating the formula.

The formula is set before you. With that, you should draw your own answer.
If you are expecting everyone here to agree on one possible explanation, you
are being unreal. I ask you this: What conclusion have YOU made with 30+
pages of debate, facts and information. Check your heart at the door. There are
a few logical explanations to this.

I think liar is a strong word. However I will say for certain that Fiona has too many inconsistencies to explain what we are reviewing.

I think that Maybe.. Maybe Not has solved this one.

Indeed. The lense is on the opposit side and nothing reflected on the lcd screen will be captured.

www.curatormagazine.com...

Fiona hasn't answered many of my direct questions, so I'll make a conclusion here from my perspective, and you can make of it what you wish.

I think the witness was driving somewhere, possibly home after work,
and she gets to this stretch of the road, and granted, itsa nice veiw of the setting sun, ok.
So shes pulls over to the shoulder, slowing to a crawl, and shoots pic 1 & 2, (#2 being the one with the reflection), the camera loads it on the screen , one hand on the wheel remember, and shes looking at this 4" sq iphone screen in the darkness inside the car (note time of day), she see's
what she is quoted as calling, 'The Main Ufo". (aka the blob)

Naturally she assumes it was in the sky, she wasnt looking through a veiwer, it was point and click, so she leans over toward the passenger side (left) and upward out the windscreen, She see's with her own eyes, this dark shape, outlined across the setting sun.
So she shoots in that direction, again capturing, the shape.
OMG! a ufo, right.

So now, being a bit further along the shoulder, after having done all that while keeping one eye onwhere she was going, she leans forward in the drivers seat , see's the shape again, yet from a different perspective, and assuming its travelling left to right across the roadway, snaps three more shots, the last of which is facing upward right, where she notices, a bright orange light, (it can't be a streetlight , She's never really noticed the steet lights, since she isn't usually staring with avid attention at the sky while driving) and goes home.

As far as she is concerned, she just saw and might have good photos of, a ufo. This bright orange light will be rembered when she see's it in the photo, and become more unusual when she finds the 'orbs' , nearby.

As soon as she gets home and uploads the pictures, of what she already assumes is a Ufo, Sees the full sized image, notices these 'orbs' next to a mysterious bright orange light (as seen in the photo), and you have another three ufos, each different from the other, and a rather exciting story, if not outright self conviction.

A "reasonable conviction", might be enough reason to, send the photos to the paper, do two radio interveiws and go on television, and join ATS !
I wont even speculate on the source of the youtube vids about it.
A case of unwarranted conviction based on error and the excitement of the moment. A bit embarressing perhaps, but no big deal.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by TwoPhish

 

i dont see what difference an l.c.d screen makes as its not on the same side as the lens???

thanks

rich

Only that, let's suppose, she held it out at arms length. Why couldn't it pick up a reflection and somehow -----some way was superimposed on the picture (from the LCD screen side)?
After all, many ghost debunkers use the ol' superimposed theory when something shows up that's not supposed to.


And to the other person asking why I want to know? Well........because Fiona wants to know too. That's the reason she showed up on here. To get your opinion. Not to let her know whether she is a hoaxer or not for, she would already KNOW that!

Again m'friend unless I am not seeing this clearly, there are NO in-betweens.

She's either a hoaxer (is that a better word than a liar?)
or
She is genuine and captured photos of UFOs.

Why is THAT so hard to follow?
Once again, there is NO misunderstanding stemming from that night.
She either SAW something 'up in the air flying' that evening or....she didn't.

You're all throwing in way too many other factors (like mistaking the light for another UFO) etc.

She either SAW all these things that she's claiming to have seen with her own two eyes, in the sky or............she didn't.

I guess I am inquisitive by nature. I want to know what others have concluded now that we've taken up a bunch of bandwidth.
Again, there is no allowance for Fiona misunderstanding man-made items that some of you are saying were, misidentified! She's not that stupid!!!! No one can be.
How can you 'think' you see something flying (then spit out two more UFOs) and mistake that for a damn lamppost???
It makes no sense what you're saying.

If it were stationary then, YEAH. I can see how she might've confused a lamp post with a hovering UFO but................she added another element though. This "lamp post" some how produced, two other UFOs.
HOW CAN YOU MIX THAT UP?????

With the 'blob' UFO.....again, it's not like you're saying perhaps that was a satellite which, is a very good alternative explanation.
No! You people are saying it was a SMUDGE on her windshield.

And again.....you're kindly saying 'she's misidentified it?

Are you kidding me????

Fiona? Did you drop acid that night? Because I just need some help to allow myself to.... incorporate your delusional-confused-unclear self into what some of these people are suggesting but YET......not calling you a liar!


[edit on 27-3-2010 by TwoPhish]

[edit on 27-3-2010 by TwoPhish]

reply to post by TwoPhish


Never mind.
You edited your post so much there is no point.

[edit on 3/27/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by TwoPhish


erm... simply because the screen has nothing to do with the picture, its a viewfinder and doesn't pick up anything at all, and cannot possibly reflect anything into the lens.

thanks

rich

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TwoPhish

 

Never mind.
You edited your post so much there is no point.

[edit on 3/27/2010 by Phage]

You know what Phage? You might get a bad-rap here but I....like you!
You're the only honest 'say it like it is' person (besides one or two others)

Are the others just being polite? Well-mannered? Afraid to call the kettle black? I just don't get their stance.

Anyway............can you show me where she said there were no street lights please? I know I (think) reading that but, forgot that.

But more curiouser (is that a word?) now, what was her response when MMN pointed it out that night for her (assuming he did)? Did she just 'forget' that (because THAT, I can see being overlooked by Fiona. That's a detail that I, as a human being, can forget and say, wasn't there too)

Now THIS is the kinda banter I like.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TwoPhish

 

Never mind.
You edited your post so much there is no point.

[edit on 3/27/2010 by Phage]

I edited the misspelled words and added the end. Sorry bout that!

(smile)

reply to post by TwoPhish


whatever anybody thinks, nobody can prove it either way so all anyone can do is debate and offer opinion and draw a conclusion. we are still waiting for the photos to be checked out by some other people.

your asking why its so hard, well every case is pretty much impossible to prove unless at some poing a ufo with aliens lands in front of lots of witnesses in some busy place and it gets caught on camera and is irrefutable.

now why cant you decide for yourself after all the points that have been made?

thanks

rich

reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND



I have and I won't ask anymore. Promise.

I just see this case as Black or White. And because of the simplicity of that, I can't understand what is so hard.

It's not like we're trying to identify what kind of CRAFT she saw or........whether it's alien or government.

It's come down to
Smudge (liar) or UFO (honest).
A lamp post (liar) or two orbs (honest)
Inside the car (liar) Outside the car (honest)
It's as simple as that.

I guess in a debate forum, I have a desire to want to know what others think (conclude). Not just the science. Their heart. Their mind. Their better senses.

I am NOT totally absolutely without another inch-to-budge convinced, but I am pretty sure she's telling the truth.

reply to post by TwoPhish


yes people are being polite and well mannered, why is that so hard to grasp?. im holding back on coming to a complete conclusion until everything has been covered as best it can.

fiona has been nice and handled herself well, she has also gone out of her way to co-operate with us when she didn't have to.

there is no way in hell that im going to start calling her an outright liar at this point until every possibility has been ruled out,

i dont understand your stance either but im not going to try and alter it or try to pressure you into saying something. im capable of coming to my own conclusion and im sure you are too.

im not trying to argue with you, im just reasonable.

hope this helps.

thanks

rich

reply to post by TwoPhish


i sort of understand that you want answers my friend but im sure everbody does. i bet everbody on here would love to see irrefutable evidence of alien visitation but all we do is live in hope at the moment.

as for the photos at hand, in my mind i think its pretty much obvious that at least two of the pictures were taken inside the car, im also certain that the orange light is a street light, for me the blob/ufo/smudge still isn't absolutely proved as anything but my feeling is that its something on the windscreen but i could be wrong

thanks

rich

Originally posted by TwoPhish
Only that, let's suppose, she held it out at arms length. Why couldn't it pick up a reflection and somehow -----some way was superimposed on the picture (from the LCD screen side)?

Reflections always go back to the same side from which the light came, that's why you can see yourself in a mirror on not on the back of the mirror.

Saying that the lights from a car can be reflected on the LCD screen of the phone and appear on the other side (the lens side) is the same as saying that your reflection in the mirror should appear on the mirror's back.

I hope I haven't made it worse with my explanation.

I think it looks like a reflection, but in that case the reflection must be from a light in front of the phone, and it can be (depending on the way the lens is made) a reflection inside the lens, that happens many times.

As for the "Orb" or "UFO", it looks slightly out of focus or diffuse, while the trees are all on focus, meaning that the object was closer to the camera than the trees or, for some unknown reason, was not on focus. The photos do not show any noticeable (to me) motion blur, either on the object or the background, something that should be visible on a photo taken in a low light environment.