UFO in Sydney Australia

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by TwoPhish

 

a couple more points, you're forgetting that she first said the light wasn't a lampost and the lampost was behind her, maybe....maybe not has already proven there was no lampost behind her until the roundabout. after this was pointed out and the orange light was also shown to be a lampost she then spoke privately to a member and told him/her that yes it could have been, but when people picked up on this she came back on here defending herself that it wasn't a lampost. that is not consistent....

and as far as the reflection goes, i really dont think anyone now needs an expert to show that those reflections are almost identical in those pictures that someone posted, anyone can see it with their own eyes, and because those two things have been pretty much proven, the whole story has tumbled like a house of cards.

thanks

rich

Please don't elude to what I might or might not be forgetting. You're starting to act arrogant. I've been with this thread since its inception and believe me, it's etched in my mind.

I don't know about you but, I've seen UFOs. Up close and personal. You become mesmerized in the event. Your eyes are trying to work with your brain to decipher and process exactly what you're taking in.
You're surroundings become, moot.

And when you try to re-create to others later on, many MANY obvious features get distorted, forgotten and/or over-looked.

The lamp post to her, was irrelevant. But it turns out (due to her photos) it's become a focal point. It's really crappy luck to her but.......it's happened.

There is a chance, she took the photo of this lamp post (that wasn't in the forefront of her mind that evening) at the SAME time, this second object appeared.
She didn't notice it because her mind (and what she thought her camera was doing) was fixed to this flying (not a dead bug) object.
It COULD have happened that way.

reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND


it wouldn't matter if there was a lampost every 2 foot behind her for the next 5 miles, she still photographed a lampost, its been proven beyond a doubt, and seriously nobody needs einstein ,sherlock holmes, columbo, poirot or any other detective or expert to show it. its proven and has been since maybe....maybe not and others proved it with photos and google absolutely ages ago......

thanks

rich

reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND


If this is a non-story and you have put a period at the end then, why are you still reading it?

This is YOUR opinion. This to me, has not been proven. I don't care that this Maybe/Maybe Not person went out there. Where are his credentials? (Not that I am not appreciative of his fine work) but that is why we have professions in all fields.

I am waiting for a professional to weigh in. Not some forum contributor.
UFO investigators (which I used to be) use very specific and MANY different tactics. They don't simply re-create the scene with some photos and call it a day.

Things happen.
Pertinent points get over-look or..............remembered.
So....as a former investigator, I am waiting for the proper people to do a proper investigation. Not just someone who snapped a few photos.
Sorry. That doesn't work for me.

Again, have your opinions and please allow me to have mine.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by TwoPhish]

reply to post by TwoPhish


wow, you're just changing it from one thing to another when shown you're wrong, im not being arrogant at all, you just dont like it that its not true. and no there's absolutely no crappy luck involved whatsoever because its a hoax. the only crappy luck she got was coming across far more intelligent people than she thought she would on here...
oh and the lampost is not the focal point, its one of many. once again the story killer is the reflection. which has been proven by someone, therefore thats two things proven along with many inconsistencies. and from that point i dont see any reason to even look into the rest
thanks

rich

reply to post by TwoPhish


wow, his credentials dont matter one little bit, he photographed and matched the lampost and other posters proved it with google earth and google map pictures.

thanks

rich

The lamp post to her, was irrelevant. But it turns out (due to her photos) it's become a focal point. It's really crappy luck to her but.......it's happened.

No it wasn't. It was a major part of her claim.

There is a chance, she took the photo of this lamp post (that wasn't in the forefront of her mind that evening) at the SAME time, this second object appeared.
She didn't notice it because her mind (and what she thought her camera was doing) was fixed to this flying (not a dead bug) object.
It COULD have happened that way.

The orange light could have appeared at the same as she took that photo? If it appeared at the same time as she shot this photo,
its because that was moment she noticed it on her veiw finder.

clearly the light is NOT behind her!

resources2.news.com.au...

So....as a former investigator, I am waiting for the proper people to do a proper investigation. Not just someone who snapped a few photos.

Someone like the witness? Who's testimony you defend rigorously despite it being refuted by facts?



mordred.bioc.cam.ac.uk...



[edit on 29-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by TwoPhish

 

wow, you're just changing it from one thing to another when shown you're wrong, im not being arrogant at all, you just dont like it that its not true. and no there's absolutely no crappy luck involved whatsoever because its a hoax. the only crappy luck she got was coming across far more intelligent people than she thought she would on here...
oh and the lampost is not the focal point, its one of many. once again the story killer is the reflection. which has been proven by someone, therefore thats two things proven along with many inconsistencies. and from that point i dont see any reason to even look into the rest
thanks

rich

You know what? I am done with you. Please refrain from directing anymore posts my way.

Thanking you in advance.

He may direct as many post as he pleases toward you. You are not obligated to read them and respond.

I am waiting for a professional to weigh in. Not some forum contributor.

Oh yeah me too, I cant wait to hear from the American investigator from nevada's area 51 who was alledgedly meeting the witness today. Remember that?

Threadstarter, are you satisfied with the investigation and majority conclusion?



[edit on 29-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

reply to post by TwoPhish


well whatever its impossible to talk to sense to someone that wants to ignore it, and im not going to bother answering you again became you've been on some quest right from the beginning of this thread to wind people up, you cant even make up your own mind on things and have gone backwards and forwards throughout and insulted a few people. you spent god knows how many posts demanding that people stop being nice and polite and condemn fiona and say how it is, as soon as people did that you madd it your quest to defend her and prove everyone wrong with wild speculation and ignored facts. you say you used to be an investigator but how did you do that when you just ignore everything that doesn't suit you and you couldn't even understand a lot of the scientific stuff that went on early in the thread. and some "experts" have already weighed in and stated they feel the pictures were taken INSIDE A CAR

wayaboveitall, it's chrLz, not chris.

In regard to the tinted windscreen, the problem is that (as you admit yourself) the darkened sky *could* be the scene itself. Therefore guessing that it might be a tint strip is pretty much a waste of time before you start. And like I said, if you shoot from 'behind' a deeply slanted windscreen, your phone/camera will very likely already be either under or even in front of the tinted area (especially given Fiona's description of how she holds her camera!), so it would need to be angled upwards a lot more than is shown in the images.

In regards to the flash-less iphone, it's not at all pointless:

First, I'm hoping that Zazz might use a *real* camera to take some shots.

Second, even if she has no flash, I explained a number of ways to ensure the reflections can be seen without flash.

Third, I'm afraid you are incorrect - using a flash in those circumstances is an ideal way to light up the dashboard and help ensure a bright reflection.

For light from the flash to come back into the lens, it must be reflected off something, and the screen is at about 45 degrees - so the only stuff that will reflect back is stuff that is UNDER the screen and well-lit. The flash helps with the 'well-lit' bit. You might get a tiny bit back from a filthy screen, but nothing that will detract from the clear image of reflected dashboard detail...

Now here's proof - I just took two pictures from inside a car, one without flash, 20 sec (handheld-eek) exposure and the other with flash, 2.5 sec. exposure. Because the dashboard on that car is rather featureless, I put a silvery-grey remote control on it to show what happens.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/803f0744aa77.gif[/atsimg]

Any questions?

So, no, flash isn't necessary for reflection... but it sure as heck HELPS.

reply to post by TwoPhish


Hi
I'm a bit perplexed at your outcome to all of this and your conclusion,. as far as I am aware I havent directed any ill words to you only offered my own opinion on the images presented in the thread.

from what I gather you still think Miss Hartigan witnessed a geniune ufo and captured it in these 5 photographs?

If my questioning is right I'd like to propose to you a series of questions, which i'd be greatful for you taking the time to respond with your opinion of it.

1. What is your thoughts on the witness statement to say that she was outside the vehicle when the photographs are taken?

2. What is your thoughts on the reflection theory being offered?
If the images offered to us show a reflection current with photography through glass, surely if you dont believe this explanation do you have any other explanation as to why the image has those discrepancies?

3. If you do still believe there to be a ufo in the picture, where exactly do you think/believe it is?

4. I'd like to ask that you summarise the key points of her witness statement and then re-read and review the evidence offered by her to the media and to us as a community. With any 'spectacular' claimed event all we can do is work from the evidence offered first and pair that with the statement.

It always looks bad doesn't it, when the statement offered doesn't fit the evidence? I do happen to agree with you on the 'event' that you do lose some element of remembering where certain things are, that is to say you get 'caught up' in the excitement.

I've done my level best to be polite in this thread and been as open and polite to you as a fellow forum contributor. I would ask that you review my questions seriously and respond in your own time.

Kind regards

reply to post by CHRLZ


hi chrlz, could the slant of the windscreen and lampost from above also be responsible for the darkening at the top of the pictures ?

thanks

rich

reply to post by wayaboveitall


hi wayaboveitall. yes i forgot about the supposed american expert. now that is either someone pulling her leg or an outright lie. im pretty sure that nobody from any professional government/military service is going to fly to australia to investigate a few very suspicious photographs. they probably dont even bother with most in america never mind some from australia. they probably get sent a report and file it under z in a dusty cupboard unless its a very major sighting.

thanks

rich

wayaboveitall, it's chrLz, not chris.

My apology.

In regard to the tinted windscreen, the problem is that (as you admit yourself) the darkened sky *could* be the scene itself. Therefore guessing that it might be a tint strip is pretty much a waste of time before you start

Im only considering it because Armap brought it up. Once suggested It must be confirmed or refuted no?

And like I said, if you shoot from 'behind' a deeply slanted windscreen, your phone/camera will very likely already be either under or even in front of the tinted area (especially given Fiona's description of how she holds her camera!), so it would need to be angled upwards a lot more than is shown in the images.

Please note..

Originally posted by missfee
reply to post by TwoPhish

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


hi my arms wearnt straigh the were bent i hold it with both hands so the pics are not tilted 1 side or an other and click with my right thumb

She dosent say it wasn't titlted upward and the veiw of streetlight, if you accept it was shot through the windscreen from a sitting position,
Suggests it was, as does the witness testimony that the orange light was 'high in the sky'.
Note the roadway is not apparent in that last photo.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/31943fdac48e.jpg[/atsimg]

Third, I'm afraid you are incorrect - using a flash in those circumstances is an ideal way to light up the dashboard and help ensure a bright reflection.

If you point at the dash it is. If you shoot at the glass, it will reflect the flash directly back into the lense.

For light from the flash to come back into the lens, it must be reflected off something, and the screen is at about 45 degrees - so the only stuff that will reflect back is stuff that is UNDER the screen and well-lit.

I disagree. The glass itself is shiny and reflective. Try this experiment yourself. Its the bane of reptile photography where you try to shoot an animal through the glass
enclosure.
Shooting at a sideways angle often does prevent this. With a windscreen sloping down and outward? With glass next to you aswell (drivers side window)?

In anycase, iphone not having flash, I still think its irrelevant. Photos were taken in her car, in daylight, without flash and still showed reflection of dash.

So, no, flash isn't necessary for reflection... but it sure as heck HELPS.

Fair enough, your images illustrate that nicely, but its still irrelevant since there was no flash. Its accepted the reflections in the screen are there anyway.
Good demo though, no effort.

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

hi chrlz, could the slant of the windscreen and lampost from above also be responsible for the darkening at the top of the pictures ?

thanks

rich

Good question, but no, I can't think of any optical mechanism that could cause that, just from the slant of the windscreen. And (if I'm reading you right about the bright streetlamp) while you can get 'blooming' and other effects from overloaded areas of pixels, you don't get a nice smooth gradient like that one. And no camera (well, none available to Joe Average) can deliberately adjust its exposure in different areas of the same image. So there are only three possibilities that I can think of:
- the scene was like that
- it was shot upwards through a tinted area of the windscreen (and I think that unlikely given the angles involved)
- it was shot through a 'graduated ND' filter (unlikely given they don't make them for iphones)

I've taken a LOT of sunset shots in my many years of photography-ing and seen that effect frequently in wide angle images (google 'wide angle sunset' and look for yourself!) so I'm going with the first option. Also, if you look at the sequence of images, all of them show some darkening overhead. It is most obvious in the two images where there is more of the bright sunny area included - and in those images, the camera would have decreased its exposure accordingly, thereby making the darkening a little more obvious.

hi chrlz, could the slant of the windscreen and lampost from above also be responsible for the darkening at the top of the pictures ?

thanks

rich

Seems a reasonable possibility. chrlz suggest light wont reflect directly back from a slanted glass surface, in that light from a bright source would reflect downward to the dash. On the outside the streetlight being the bright source, the light could conceivable reflect upward from the top of the windscreen, rather than penetrating directly the (upper) edge of the windscreen, making it appear darker.

Feasable. The windscreen in 'maybe's' photo from the witness cruiser shows a pale sky, but then its daylight outside.

Originally posted by Superiorraw
reply to post by TwoPhish

 

Hi
I'm a bit perplexed at your outcome to all of this and your conclusion,. as far as I am aware I havent directed any ill words to you only offered my own opinion on the images presented in the thread.

from what I gather you still think Miss Hartigan witnessed a geniune ufo and captured it in these 5 photographs?

If my questioning is right I'd like to propose to you a series of questions, which i'd be greatful for you taking the time to respond with your opinion of it.

1. What is your thoughts on the witness statement to say that she was outside the vehicle when the photographs are taken?

2. What is your thoughts on the reflection theory being offered?
If the images offered to us show a reflection current with photography through glass, surely if you dont believe this explanation do you have any other explanation as to why the image has those discrepancies?

3. If you do still believe there to be a ufo in the picture, where exactly do you think/believe it is?

4. I'd like to ask that you summarise the key points of her witness statement and then re-read and review the evidence offered by her to the media and to us as a community. With any 'spectacular' claimed event all we can do is work from the evidence offered first and pair that with the statement.

It always looks bad doesn't it, when the statement offered doesn't fit the evidence? I do happen to agree with you on the 'event' that you do lose some element of remembering where certain things are, that is to say you get 'caught up' in the excitement.

I've done my level best to be polite in this thread and been as open and polite to you as a fellow forum contributor. I would ask that you review my questions seriously and respond in your own time.

Kind regards

You have been very kind. Most have. I just don't like being called "wrong'...at least, when there is an element of room for this to totally turn around for Fiona with some professional explanations.

It's fine that some are calling this a hoax. It might be. The key word is, is "might". And while we still have a 'might' in the making, no one is absolutely positively 100% correct. Not at this juncture so.....we need to still allow differences of opinions to bandy about. If we took this slam-dunk approach to every UFO report then, we could explain them ALL away and then, NONE would ever exist.Crazier things have happened especially in UFOlogy (see: Ed Walters)

As to your questions:

There is a GREAT chance of her being exactly where she stated. Outside the car. Someone (about 10 pages back) explained how that is possible given what appears to be reflections.
Lights, whether natural or artificial can play tricks. And as far as cameras, I am not related to Kodak so I don't know for certain what a photo can accidentally capture either.
We haven't even concluded WHAT that reflection was of. I thought it was another vehicle. It might be, Who knows? But, yes, I totally believe she was outside her car.



I believe the UFO, that originally caught her attention is that black 'smudge'. She was then distracted by possibly ANOTHER object however...........in the excitement it COULD'VE been, just the light and something flying by.
This whole time I've been saying, even though she MAY be wrong about the second sighting that does NOT negate her first one. But people want to dismiss that one too. So be it. And while they were doing that, they weren't calling her a liar. No. They were calling her confused and THAT...really got me. You can't be confused about the whole entire incident.
There is also a possibility that she DID witness a second one too (and who knows....maybe the damn UFO beamed her backwards *smile) and she captured the lamp post instead. Again, who knows?????


I think she's been rock solid and hasn't wavered too much. I believe (not sure) she IS allowing the possibility that the second UFO might have been something naturally whizzing by (in the heat of her excitement) now that she's reconsidered the lamp post conundrum. I'm not sure. But other than that, what she's said to the media and on here (although not too much) is consistently consistent.

I just wished I had this case to work on. I love challenging cases and this, is one of them.

I've taken a LOT of sunset shots in my many years of photography-ing and seen that effect frequently in wide angle images

Its not a wide angle image, the witness makes no mention of an attachable lense and the iphone is standard.

Also, if you look at the sequence of images, all of them show some darkening overhead.

They dont actually, they vary.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and in those images, the camera would have decreased its exposure accordingly, thereby making the darkening a little more obvious.

Would it? I asked about iphones capabilities in that regard earlier.
Can you find the specifications ?

twoPhish

We haven't even concluded WHAT that reflection was of. I thought it was another vehicle. It might be, Who knows? But, yes, I totally believe she was outside her car.

What it was, is irrelevant. If she was out of her car, There is nothing infront of her lense to reflect anything.

They were calling her confused and THAT...really got me. You can't be confused about the whole entire incident.

Why not? Your posts seem pretty confused to me.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
In anycase, iphone not having flash, I still think its irrelevant. Photos were taken in her car, in daylight, without flash and still showed reflection of dash.

I think you've forgotten the point of this - we are trying to clearly see what the reflections from her dashboard look like, what shape they are. I'm not suggesting Zazz try to match the initial conditions, but to get her to try to show up the reflection shapes as clearly as possible using any means available and acceptable to Fiona. IF we can show that the shape matches the one shown in the original images, then we can definitely state the images were taken inside the car. So surely ANYTHING we can do to increase the chances of rendering the reflection shapes clearly is worthwhile to prove it one way or the other.

And as shown in my examples, the glass is at ~45 degrees, so there are no flashback issues, from that or the side windows. You only get problems if the glass is at 90 degrees or nearabouts, or there is some other reflective path.

The images speak for themselves - so maybe *you* should try it. In a car, not in front of a fish tank.

reply to post by CHRLZ


hi charles, i know in my own head what im thinking with that question but its extremely hard to explain and because i have no p.c available im unable to make and upload a diagram. but ill have a go at explaining, here goes nothing!. in england the light from streetlights comes out and down on an angle, so you can see a trangle of light in a dark a slightly foggy place, so what im thinking is the light from said lampost could be hitting the windscreen at an angle and only lighting up half or more of the windscreen making it lighter at the bottom than the top.
@\