UFO in Sydney Australia

reply to post by wayaboveitall


hi wayabovitall, good post and i could probably agree with all that. im pretty sure there's nothing in the photos but im not certain that fiona is an outright liar or hoaxer. its obviously hard to judge someone i dont know from over the net but she hasn't given me a reason to think she has an ulterior motive. so hopefully she has just made an error and got a bit confused.

thanks

rich

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
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

Rich,

I personally don't need proof of ET visitation (I've been abducted by what I perceived to have been Greys) but....acknowledgment from the upper-crust Elite would be nice some day. But again, I don't require proof. I've had too much of it anyway. Movin' on.............

No, I am referring to this case.

I think, as I reflect, I am so into what other people feel because I ......seemingly feel like the only one who believes her. So, my ego is at stake. I don't like being fooled not to mention, being wrong.

So, if others can weigh in on "why" they are leaning one way or the other, it would be nice to read. After all, if I didn't want to debate and bandy this about, I could've simply just watched, read and listened to her interviews and, call it a day.
I like intelligent exchanges. I don't get much of it in the real world so....(smile)

And..... I don't like candy-coating and mincing of words (so to be politically polite). She's an out and out liar or, she's not. None of this 'mistaking' crap. There's no room for that in this particular case!

Peace~

Originally posted by TwoPhish
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.

It's not that simple.

People can be wrong instead of being liars (you first didn't believed that missfee was really Fiona, but you weren't lying when you said she wasn't), people can have memory failures/changes/"interferences"/whatever, without being responsible for them, so if someone forgets about a detail and later remembers it in a way that is not how it really happened, that person is not lying, but he/she is not telling the truth either.

That's the problem with truth, it's independent from the people trying to get at it.

reply to post by TwoPhish


ok mate, you seem like a decent guy. im hearing you. and ive tried to put across where i am at the moment. and its not about middle ground or candy coating for me,
my stance on it is at this moment there could be more explanations, some photo experts are examining them and i await their findings before i decide that its 100% hoax or not.
at this time im still unsure because fiona hasn't given me reason so far to think she's an outright liar.
as ive stated many times i do believe its possible for people to get confused and make mistakes but if and when everything has been covered and i think its a deliberate hoax then i will say so as i have no sympathy for people that do it.
but still at that point i will not resort to downright abuse or name calling in any way.
hope my stance is now very clear.
thanks
rich

reply to post by ArMaP

hi, i agree with what you say about confusion and things, i stated earlier in the thread about a tv programme i watched a few years ago. a group of unsuspecting people were taken on a hiking/camping trip in a forest but had been set up to witness a staged ufo crash site surrounded by military. the group were then interviewed separately and gave their accounts of the event.

it was amazing to see how different all the accounts were and how many people saw things that didn't actually happen.

these people also gave statements again at a later date and almost everybody gave a different account of events to their first one!!!

thanks

rich

reply to post by ArMaP

Forgetting a "detail" like whether they were inside or outside of a vehicle when taking photos?

The reflections seem to contradict that detail.

The continued insistence that there was no streetlight in that location seems to contradict the facts.


[edit on 3/27/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage

Yes, specially if more than one photo was taken.

The reflections seem to contradict that detail.

Maybe they do, may they don't, for that we need to know if it's possible to have a reflection (supposing that is a reflection) like that on the lens itself.

The continued insistence that there was no streetlight in that location seems to contradict the facts.

In my opinion, that is one of the reasons I think this is not a deliberate hoax but the result of something like a sequence of misunderstandings/confusions/etc.

[edit on 27/3/2010 by ArMaP]

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by TwoPhish
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.

It's not that simple.

People can be wrong instead of being liars (you first didn't believed that missfee was really Fiona, but you weren't lying when you said she wasn't), people can have memory failures/changes/"interferences"/whatever, without being responsible for them, so if someone forgets about a detail and later remembers it in a way that is not how it really happened, that person is not lying, but he/she is not telling the truth either.

That's the problem with truth, it's independent from the people trying to get at it.

You're right. I felt terrible I didn't believe it was her but that is not the same thing m'friend.

What you're referring to (as possible mistakes in identity) are very important items that are CRUCIAL to her story.


She sees something flying, in space.
A smudge doesn't fly.

She was outside her car anyway
You can't be inside your car too in this particular incarnation of ours.


She sees two orbs being released from a second UFO, in space.
Lamp posts don't fly and to the best of my knowledge, don't produce flying orbs either.


Again, no room for mistakes here people.



If she said, I snapped a photo of a UFO emerging from the ocean...... iridescence in color.....and it suddenly dove back in----------only to find out later (through a lot of research) she was mistaking that for a breeching whale then, that would be a legitimate mistake on her part. Totally understandable (and entirely different)

However, if she added: this UFO that emerged from the ocean, suddenly produced 2 more UFOs that whizzed by her then, returned to the ocean then,...............there is NO room for her to have mistaken that for a breaching whale unless of course, she's delusional!

You see what I mean?
I guess you don't and I am ready to give this argument up. I know it's not me.

reply to post by ArMaP

But when shown that there is a streetlight where she said there is not, shouldn't she reevaluate her position? It seems like a good time for her to rethink exactly what happened.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ArMaP

 

But when shown that there is a streetlight where she said there is not, shouldn't she reevaluate her position? It seems like a good time for her to rethink exactly what happened.

Absolutely! But........people are just being polite.
Naive, but kind!

(I want to ask her about that too)

reply to post by TwoPhish


you seem to be the one thats confused and you're answering your own questions. now read back through your last post and see what i mean?.
thanks
rich

Originally posted by TwoPhish
What you're referring to (as possible mistakes in identity) are very important items that are CRUCIAL to her story.

Yes, but she only needs to be wrong in one recollection to make it easy for the other changes in the story. If she took the photos from inside the car but she remembers being outside of the car, then the smudge was seen from inside the car as something flying. In the same way, if she was inside the car and didn't noticed (probably by the same reason we cannot see the post, too much light near it) that that was a street-light, the two things we see on the photo could be understood as coming from that bright light.

A description of an event, like any story, is based on just some supporting premisses, if one of those is changed by some reason the whole story is automatically changed, even without the person understanding the change, although the person would probably think that something is not completely right about his/her own story.

However, if she added: this UFO that emerged from the ocean, suddenly produced 2 more UFOs that whizzed by her then, returned to the ocean then,...............there is NO room for her to have mistaken that for a breaching whale unless of course, she's delusional!

That's another possibility, someone delusional is not lying or hoaxing, but it's not telling the truth either, we always tell our understanding of the truth, with the interference of all of our own preconceptions, fears, problems, hopes, etc.

You see what I mean?
I guess you don't and I am ready to give this argument up. I know it's not me.

Your guess is wrong, I see what I mean.

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by TwoPhish

 

you seem to be the one thats confused and you're answering your own questions. now read back through your last post and see what i mean?.
thanks
rich

Which? The one below?

Originally posted by TwoPhish

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ArMaP

 

But when shown that there is a streetlight where she said there is not, shouldn't she reevaluate her position? It seems like a good time for her to rethink exactly what happened.

Absolutely! But........people are just being polite.
Naive, but kind!

(I want to ask her about that too)

If so, I am not confused. Perhaps, misunderstood (if this is what you're referring to)
I for one have not heard her explanation.

But playing both sides here:
I too would overlook a lamp post in my description of a UFO event. And yeah, I may even be empathic about it not being there too.
That's an honest mistake.

WE'RE the ones who are making the 'lamp-post' a possible culprit.
I for one, am not convinced that this is what she saw (that produced these two orbs)


You can have a (forgotten) lamp post AND a UFO at the same time in an event!!!!!
So to me, it's not a case-buster!

(was that good enough? I ask cause a lot gets lost in the typed word)

reply to post by Phage


hi phage, like ive stated many times, i think you may well have been correct right from the start, however i am willing to just give fiona a little benifit of doubt unitil the photos have been analysed by an expert and its all proven to be what we think, then i will state outright hoax because although people can get confused i don't think they could confuse every single detail of an event.

thanks

rich

reply to post by Phage

Yes, but how can we know if she is rethinking what she said or not? We can only know that if she tells us.

And you have been on ATS long enough to know that when someone sees that he/she may be wrong that doesn't automatically mean that that person will correct his/her story, right?

reply to post by TwoPhish


hi twophish, no i meant your other post, you are stating the evidence that shows that fiona is either wrong or lying and also saying there cant be no middle ground but then are saying you believe her?. i don't get your stance on this. you seem to be frustrating yourself more than anything .
and again, no offence meant.

thanks

rich

reply to post by ArMaP


You are the voice of reason! Thank you. I guess I am a little more feisty (and impatient) than most.



If it turns out she is indeed delusional..... I will sue her for the last 36 hours of my life back! (kidding of course).
But that would help to explain why I liked her though! (smile)

reply to post by ArMaP

Yes.


But someone is much more likely to admit the possibility that they were mistaken than to admit they are lying (or delusional).

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by TwoPhish

 

hi twophish, no i meant your other post, you are stating the evidence that shows that fiona is either wrong or lying and also saying there cant be no middle ground but then are saying you believe her?. i don't get your stance on this. you seem to be frustrating yourself more than anything .
and again, no offence meant.

thanks

rich

Sorry dear, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking/stating here.

I believe her.

The ones that don't are giving her way too much wriggle-room to have been mistaking. (see my "whale" analogy)

You just can't be mistaking a little bit here.

It's too detailed (by Fiona) and all components (that are being debunked) are element to her entire account.

So again, not sure where you're going with this but you know what? I am going crazy here trying to explain myself. I sure wish we can figure out telepathy already!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ArMaP

 

Yes.


But someone is much more likely to admit the possibility that they were mistaken than to admit they are lying (or delusional).

Now THAT should be embroidered on a pillow. Very deep! Very good!!!!