UFO in Sydney Australia

reply to post by CHRLZ


G'day CHRLZ

That works well.

The flash technique will be helpful to Zazz.

I wish I'd been aware of more of this when the witness & I were in her car.

She was very helpful.....I'm sure she would have cooperated regarding more pictures, more info, etc.....

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

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.

Fair enough, this has been done. In earlier posts, dash photos were posted, theories put forward matchingthe contour of gauges to the reflections and so forth.
Some still said it looks like a hatchback or ute behind her heading in the opposit direction (I agree)

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.

But the glass dosent move, the camera does mate.

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

I wouldnt want to steal YOUR idea.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by RICH-ENGLAND]

Atleast one person felt the reflection in question was a lense flare from the streetlight, and made a filtering video to show it. Eitherway ,still a reflection on glass, hence they were shot in the car.
Exactly what the reflection is of, is a moot point. There is nothing infront of the lense to reflect if you accept her story she was outside .

Unless, you can show the reflection in the photo is light hitting the lense from the oncoming car or the streetlight, or the sunset. ?

reply to post by wayaboveitall


I'm amazed at the amount of responses that this thread has gained, and I am also very impressed with the amount of research and discussion that has also taken place.

I still think there may be more added to this thread in time, I just hope that it remains civil.

Going through the whole thread and starting with Phage's initial reply I agree that there is a lot of discrepancies with her story but I still can't put this down as debunked.

Oh well time will tell eh?

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
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.

[
[edit on 29-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

It's NOT irrelevant because you can't dismiss it. I am not an irrational person who closes my eyes (just because I can't prove it) and magically makes it irrelevant.
It's there and it can actually help prove she was outside the car.
It could be one of those (rare) ricocheting anomalies of light that photograph sometime (to our chagrin) produce.

What is irrelevant are: the type of car she was driving (because I don't place her IN the car) so, suffice it to say, all things pertinent to the vehicle; visor strip, color, sunroof, make, model or year!

reply to post by Mark_Frost


G'day Mark Frost

Yes.....you created a monster thread

There has been a lot of background noise, but I think the facts are cutting through.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

twoPhish

It's NOT irrelevant because you can't dismiss it. I am not an irrational person who closes my eyes (just because I can't prove it) and magically makes it irrelevant.

Then what do suppose caused the reflection seen in the photo? How do you explain it, without irrational suppositions?

It's there and it can actually help prove she was outside the car.
It could be one of those (rare) ricocheting anomalies of light that photograph sometime (to our chagrin) produce.

Ok, can you show me an example to illustrate your theory?
Im not sure of heard of " ricocheting anomalies of light" before.
Can you explain how they work in relation to the photo's?

wayaboveitall, are you arguing just for the heck of it?

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

The iphone focal length is 37mm (35mm equivalent). A 50mm lens is regarded as normal in 35mm terms. 37mm is normally regarded as wide angle.

Regarding all images being darker at the top..

They dont actually, they vary.

Can you support that? I just measured them. Here are the very rough figures for the five images (RGB averaged, green weighted) for a reading near the top (40 pixels down), and towards the centre (300 pixels down). I used the smaller (uncropped) images posted fairly early in the thread. Lower numbers mean darker.
..4337 (Top- 125, centre - 140)
..7655 (Top- 100, centre - 130)
..5913 (Top- 110, centre - 135)
..2362 (Top- 100, centre - 180)
..5755 (Top- 135, centre - 163)
So they ALL show darkening towards the top. Sure, my numbers are rough and come from an 'eyeballing' method (5x5 eyedropper in Photoshop slowly moved across the image). I could apply a more rigorous methodology, but I won't unless anyone else disputes this.

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 ?

Yes, it has automatic exposure. Even the cheapest camera phone does - it's 'de rigeur' these days. As for specs Apple is a bit coy, but try here:
www.flickr.com...
Adolfo Issasi's post is the best, but he has the shutter speed wrong - it varies.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


I appreciate your time and efforts with this one Maybe!

Seems you have spent a bit of time on this as well.

Evidence or no Evidence (Which I am sure will constantly be disputed each way) its an interesting case!

I wonder whats happening with the U.S and the analyzing of the photos? any updates?

reply to post by Mark_Frost


hi mark. i agree about the thread, its been excellent with great input and fantastic work from most and is the reason i finally decided to sign up, although i couldn't contribute much because most of the ideas/info had already been put up and i had to read up through it all and research some things for almost a full night before i could finally make a post! lol. personally i thought it was fake from the start but was willing to be open minded and give fiona the benifit of doubt but now for me enough has been proven to call hoax.

but even so, i will stay in the thread because i still think some people are offering some good ideas and discussion.
thanks

rich

reply to post by Mark_Frost


G'day Mark Frost

Jeff Ritzmann often takes quite a while to work through everything in detail.

I am of the impression Internos is leaning towards the "debris on the windscreen" option, but it's best to let him comment if he chooses to.

Internos:

Please jump in here if I've misrepresented your comments in any way.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by TwoPhish


may i ask who you was a "u.f.o investigator" for?. was this professional and for a renowned company/magazine/tv station?

or as an amateur/hobby ?

thanks

rich

Let me throw out a hypothetical question.


Let's say, you saw an UFO (a metallic object soaring 10,000 feet above) and you had your camera/iPhone ready to take a photo.

And as SOON as you snapped the picture, a bird flew out in front and you (accidentally) captured its right wing, obstructing most of the UFO.

Does that mean, you didn't see the UFO? Because surely, from the evidence you produced, it clearly doesn't show just a UFO.

Then, you have people debunking it even further by saying "yeah, you know what? There's a birds nest in that tree so....you saw a flock of birds, flying at different altitudes! That's all. You were just confused!"

As seren-FRIGGIN-dipitous as that sounds, it can happen!

So what I am saying, there's still some room to give her the benefit of doubt in the scheme of things.

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by TwoPhish

 

may i ask who you was a "u.f.o investigator" for?. was this professional and for a renowned company/magazine/tv station?

or as an amateur/hobby ?

thanks

rich

MUFON

reply to post by TwoPhish


and what are your scientific or any other relative credentials?

thanks

rich

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

It's there and it can actually help prove she was outside the car.
It could be one of those (rare) ricocheting anomalies of light that photograph sometime (to our chagrin) produce.

Ok, can you show me an example to illustrate your theory?
Im not sure of heard of " ricocheting anomalies of light" before.
Can you explain how they work in relation to the photo's?

Neither have I. I've never yet seen a 'ricocheting anomaly' that I couldn't explain. Like wayabove, I'd also like to see your examples. I've got quite a few 'weird' ones in my personal collection, but I have an explanation for every one.

But I love a good challenge [wallace voice] and this is my speciality..[/wallace voice]

reply to post by TwoPhish


not really because that could explain the lampost but not the reflection and or fuzzyness of the central "u.f.o /blob" in comparison to the in focus background.

thanks

rich

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
twoPhish

It's there and it can actually help prove she was outside the car.
It could be one of those (rare) ricocheting anomalies of light that photograph sometime (to our chagrin) produce.

Ok, can you show me an example to illustrate your theory?
Im not sure of heard of " ricocheting anomalies of light" before.
Can you explain how they work in relation to the photo's?

No I can't. That's why a professional UFO investigating team is compartmentalized. We would then, turn it over to the photo analysis department.

I can only speculated.
A professional can mostly, tear it apart and get down to the nitty-gritty ONLY conclusion.

Perhaps, that was a leftover photo from one of her previous photos on her iPhone. Again, I do NOT know. I am not an expert.

One has to remain totally impartial and always give the benefit of doubt until proven 100%, otherwise. However, some cases remain unresolved. Some are totally debunked. Some are 100% unexplained conventionally which are then filed under the UFO category.
This case is still open to...............every consideration at this point.

Fiona, to me, doesn't come off as a hoaxer from what I could ascertained via her audio/video interviews. So I've taken that into a tremendous amount of consideration.

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
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.
@\