UFO in Sydney Australia

reply to post by CHRLZ


hi chrlz, thanks for your reply on that question, i missed it earlier because the page had changed while i was reading/writing something. lateral thinking and spotting things is what im usually good at, i have a reasonable understanding of most things but im no expert in any of these fields so i just try to ask my ideas of the ones that know more of whatever field it is i have an idea on.

also something i have a question on something i think i can see in the pictures but im not certain. to me it looks like the light sources and things are stopping short of the lens and hitting another barrier first ie: a windscreen, does it look that way to you? and is there a way of showing it?

thanks

rich

chrlz

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.

(wīd'ăng'gəl)
adj.
Of, having, or being a camera lens with a relatively short focal length that permits an angle of view wider than approximately 70°.

www.answers.com...

For the iPhone - the CCD detector is a rectangular chip. So, the long axis (i.e. the 'width' if you hold the iPhone in landscape mode) has a ~53° viewing angle.
The short axis (i.e. the 'width if you hold the iPhone in portrait mode) has a viewing angle of ~37.5°. Can't speak for other camera phones.

Wide Angle lens will increase about 40% view range so you can take picture of large ranges,
such as group of people, buildings and landscape. With this marco lens, can be taken picture of a tiny
object clearly in the detail

www.usbfever.com...

Can you support that?

I did, one of two pictures shows a paler cloudy sky. This may equally have to do with angle of the setting sun as i supposed earlier.
I dont have photoshop so I can't reproduce your results. Eitherway you may be right, we wont know until its revealed weatheror not her car has tinting.
I said earlier

It's cloudy and on dusk, so it's difficult to determin if the sky should be that color or not. Are you speculating its a custom tint on the top of the windscreen? Sun visor tint?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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.

Fair enough.

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.

OK, but the 'orange light ' has been shown to be a streetlight, no ufo. The two 'orbs' cant be shown to be anything in particular, but they can be shown to be
small bird/bat sized objects adjacent to the streetlight and illuminated by it on the side closest to the light. Technically Ufo's.
Evidence points to the dark shape being on the windscreen and itself stationary, or being debris possibly blown up over the windscreen, close to the camera.
Its apparent proximity to the camera points it being more likely on or just outside the windscreen than actually in the sky. The object is blurred and you might expect a crisper image outside.
The reflection showing in the picture indicates a reflective surface between the camera lense and the subject.
Were she outside taking the photos, there is nothing infront of the lense that's reflective. A richochet of light, as you propose, still requires a reflective surface
off which to richochet in the first place.
Therefore the conclusion must be that at minimum, that particular photo was indeed taken from inside the car, the only reflective surface being the inside of the windscreen.
If you dont accept this, you must show how light from the available sources in the photo (A) sun (b) streetlight identified (c) The headlights of the oncoming car, may have directly shone into the lense of the camera
causing a reflection.

So we have one streetlight, two ufo's (technically) and one unknown blob.
To prove the blob a ufo, even on a technicality, you must prove it was actually in the sky (distance from camera) and moving.. This cant be done.
If we accept the witness testimony it was moving accross the sky, we then have to eliminate an optical illusion caused by light levels inside inside the car,
or actual debris blowing by outside, eitherway we first must show distance from the camera. Hopeful one of the member researchers can do this, then we will have something.

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.

? Please dont force us to go into the technical aspects digital storage chips and the process of storage and display.
By all means look into that yourself if you like.

I haven't the opportunity to interview Fiona so I am only making my 'cognizant' impressions of her, via her audio/video clips. She seems sane.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by TwoPhish]

We are not here to make "'cognizant' impressions" of the witness.
What anyone thinks of her is irrelevant to what the photo shows, this is what we're discusssing. The evidence, not the personal intentions or nature of the witness, just the facts.

please make your own conclusions. You keep stating you beleive the witness, over and over, and thats fantastic, but we get it already.
But dont be asking others to speculate on her honesty or lack, we just care about the facts, we're not judging the witness and shes not on the stand.

She's made claims, produced photos and given testimony, what more do you expect from her ?

We have eximined the photos, heard the testimony, and made conclusions based on science and logic without bias to the witnness.
You are trying to influince bias in favor of the witness to prove the incident true, by some proxy of empathy by exclaiming her 'consistancy' and so on.
regardless of the evidence.

We wont hold your hand while you take the plunge off the cliff of uncertainty.
Please think for youself and look at the evidence honestly.



[edit on 29-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

I'm quite surprised a UFO has been snapshotted in a suburb relatively close to the metropolitan area, with 22km of road to city centre. Chipping Point is near the suburb I live in called Strathfield. Broken Hill is near the NSW/SA border, quite remote.

reply to post by The Engi


hi there, just to be clear, was it you that witnessed those events?. and has that story hit the news?

thanks

rich

reply to post by wayaboveitall


hi wayabovitall, maybe you could chip in on the question i asked in the top post as you seem very knowledgeable on photography?

thanks

rich

also something i have a question on something i think i can see in the pictures but im not certain. to me it looks like the light sources and things are stopping short of the lens and hitting another barrier first ie: a windscreen, does it look that way to you? and is there a way of showing it?

thanks

rich

Yes I agree! This was posted by another member, seems to show a flare of light on a reflective surface from the streetlight.

www.youtube.com...

source Post 14 page 45
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Though to me it looks alot more the reflection of a car behind, going (or parked) in the opposit direction. Im on the fence, but the result is the same, there is definately a reflective surface, atleast in that image.
If the car was behind her, on the other side of the road, it would be lit by the streetlight above. The interior light , I presume was not on, so the car was relative dark inside.
A streetlit light colored car could conceivablely be reflected on the interior of the windscreen, its stretchy though
More likely a section of the dash and something on it lit up by the same streetllight on the inside of the windscreen. There is definately glass between the camera and the scene.

I cant yet come up with a plausable means to show it might light from the three sources hitting the lense if shes outside, it remains within the realms of possibility , but the odds are, there is glass.



[edit on 29-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

reply to post by wayaboveitall


hi, thanks for that, i must have missed it being discussed before or i misinterpreted them as talking about the reflection.

i wasn't sure if it was jurt the light being deceptive, but its not just the streetlight, also the sunlight red/orange glare in the middle of the picture looks as if its hitting a barrier/windscreen and stopping short.

as im no expert in photography im just stating how it looks and could be very wrong.

can you think of any way to show it, is there any test of the photo that could give an answer ?

thanks

rich

reply to post by wayaboveitall


ah yes. i wasn't talking about the reflection, i think thats a definite proven fact for me, i just mean the light from the streetlight and sun.

thanks

rich

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by The Engi

 

hi there, just to be clear, was it you that witnessed those events?. and has that story hit the news?

thanks

rich

Sorry, which events? I skimmed through this thread. If it was this event then no.

Originally posted by The Engi
I was on the outskirts of Broken Hill and took a nap at a nearby shack. Came evening time a 'shooting star' fell to the ground in the vicinity around 1km ahead, very close. The light trail dissappeared just before it hit the ground, if it even hit, and there exists a small airport some 5km down. About 5 minutes later a helicopter came to 'investigate', as it hovered above the 'crash' site a UFO suddenly appeared as a bright light, accelerated and dissappeared.

The helicopter then returned to the airport base.

that event that i just quoted that you posted on the last page?
thanks

rich

Yeah that helicopter just came and went BACK to the base with no discernable intention. The crash site of the UFO has absolutely nothing to do anything. The whole 5km radius is absolutely empty, with only a highway and a train track, one of each.

RICH-ENGLAND

analysing the light levels and reflectivity off the windscreen would require
going to the site at the same time of day and using light sensing equipment both outside the car (at the same distance from the sources) and from inside through the windscreen.
Measuring its intensity both ways and taking photos positioned in very close to the exact spot. (same phone to elimenate lense dirt (witness claimed lense was clean, saying a photo of her child had no anomalies)

This data would be needed for all three lightsources, so you'd need another car down the road with the same type of headlight, same battery strength pointing up towards you.

I did mention to somebody earlier that the light from the closest source (streetlight) seemed somehow muted/filtered.
Direct bright light into the camera lense causes glare and whiteout.
But the camera isnt pointing directly at the street light but more ahead toward the blob she shooting, so it s possible that reflection of that light (right to left) across the windscreen , rather directly into the camera lense had a muting effect on that part of the image. Outside standing across the road from it , with nothing in between it might be brighter.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/05fd66a4a988.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0769443c8a27.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2b3e8cb92979.png[/atsimg]

[edit on 29-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

[edit on 29-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

reply to post by wayaboveitall


ok, thanks again, i personally dont think it matters now, for me the lampost and reflection did all the damage.

i was just looking to see if it cast more doubt. but then again it doesn't really matter because this is always going to be an absolutely impossible subject to prove either way until we get an alien land or crash in a busy city centre for all to see.

even the "experts" can only ever give their opinion, and people will still believe/disbelieve no matter what evidence is offered !.

thanks

rich

Picture is obviously not clear enough to make any kind of observation. But leaves plenty of space for guessing.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by keepureye2thesky

 

Please.

This isn't about twophish, MUFORN or anyone/thing else.

This is about Fiona and her sighting.

 

Speaking frankly here and this isn't directed at anyone in particular. This has been one of the most frustrating threads I've ever been involved in.

Don't get me wrong, there has been some great work here by ATS members, and we were blessed to have Fiona be so accommodating.

But apart from that, bloody hell has there been some crap!

Agreed Chad!

I haven't played a part in this thread for my own reasons but I must say that there has been some amazing work carried out by ATS Members in this case. In addition, I think having Fiona here has added great depth and interest to the thread. It's just a shame some people have been so hostile to her given she has been so accommodating, which is rare. I personally hope she comes back and participates.

IRM

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
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

Thanks, Maybe...maybe not
Usually, here, we proceed as we have to compile the following checklist:

In case of photos:

Ask for the ORIGINAL photos, always (first step) done

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

Extract EXIF data:
we did it

Image #1:
Camera: Apple iPhone 3G
Exposure: Auto exposure, Program AE, f/2.8
Flash: No flash function
Date: March 21, 2010 7:18:37PM (timezone not specified)
(4 days, 10 hours, 59 minutes, 26 seconds ago, assuming an image timezone of US Pacific)

File: 1,200 × 1,600 JPEG (1.9 megapixels) 632,743 bytes (0.60 megabytes)

EXIF

Aperture Value 2.8
Color Space sRGB
Components Configuration Y, Cb, Cr, -
Compression JPEG (old-style)
Create Date 2010:03:21 19:18:37
4 days, 10 hours, 59 minutes, 26 seconds ago
Date/Time Original 2010:03:21 19:18:37
4 days, 10 hours, 59 minutes, 26 seconds ago
Exif Image Size 1,600 × 1,200
Exif Version 0221
Exposure Mode Auto
Exposure Program Program AE
F Number 2.8
Flash No flash function
Flashpix Version 0100
Image Unique ID f1a35aadc955b73053d8a33a87f2ba7a
Make Apple
Metering Mode Average
Camera Model Name iPhone 3G
Modify Date 2010:03:21 19:18:37
4 days, 10 hours, 59 minutes, 26 seconds ago
Orientation Horizontal (normal)
Resolution 72 pixels/inch
Sensing Method One-chip color area
Software Picasa 3.0
Thumbnail Length 7,556
White Balance Auto
Y Cb Cr Positioning Centered

File — basic information derived from the file.

Bits Per Sample 8
Color Components 3
Current IPTC Digest d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
Encoding Process Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Exif Byte Order Little-endian (Intel, II)
File Size 618 kB
File Type JPEG
Image Size 1,600 × 1,200
MIME Type image/jpeg
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling YCbCr4:2:0 (2 2)

Image #2:
Camera: Apple iPhone 3G
Exposure: Auto exposure, Program AE, f/2.8
Flash: No flash function
Date: March 21, 2010 7:18:41PM (timezone not specified)
(4 days, 11 hours, 12 minutes, 4 seconds ago, assuming an image timezone of US Pacific)

EXIF

Aperture Value 2.8
Color Space sRGB
Components Configuration Y, Cb, Cr, -
Compression JPEG (old-style)
Create Date 2010:03:21 19:18:41
4 days, 11 hours, 12 minutes, 4 seconds ago
Date/Time Original 2010:03:21 19:18:41
4 days, 11 hours, 12 minutes, 4 seconds ago
Exif Image Size 1,600 × 1,200
Exif Version 0221
Exposure Mode Auto
Exposure Program Program AE
F Number 2.8
Flash No flash function
Flashpix Version 0100
GPS Altitude 0 m
GPS Altitude Ref Above Sea Level
GPS Latitude 33.915630 degrees
GPS Latitude Ref South
GPS Longitude 150.953140 degrees
GPS Longitude Ref East
GPS Version ID 0.0.2.2
Image Unique ID 9067d16632503b6d540906d6277887c0
Make Apple
Metering Mode Average
Camera Model Name iPhone 3G
Modify Date 2010:03:21 19:18:41
4 days, 11 hours, 12 minutes, 4 seconds ago
Orientation Horizontal (normal)
Resolution 72 pixels/inch
Sensing Method One-chip color area
Software Picasa 3.0
Thumbnail Length 7,198
White Balance Auto
Y Cb Cr Positioning Centered

File — basic information derived from the file.

Bits Per Sample 8
Color Components 3
Current IPTC Digest d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
Encoding Process Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Exif Byte Order Little-endian (Intel, II)
File Size 611 kB
File Type JPEG
Image Size 1,600 × 1,200
MIME Type image/jpeg
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling YCbCr4:2:0 (2 2)


Image #3:
Camera: Apple iPhone 3G
Exposure: Auto exposure, Program AE, f/2.8
Flash: No flash function
Date: March 21, 2010 7:18:52PM (timezone not specified)
(4 days, 11 hours, 14 minutes, 16 seconds ago, assuming an image timezone of US Pacific)

EXIF

Aperture Value 2.8
Color Space sRGB
Components Configuration Y, Cb, Cr, -
Compression JPEG (old-style)
Create Date 2010:03:21 19:18:52
4 days, 11 hours, 14 minutes, 16 seconds ago
Date/Time Original 2010:03:21 19:18:52
4 days, 11 hours, 14 minutes, 16 seconds ago
Exif Image Size 1,600 × 1,200
Exif Version 0221
Exposure Mode Auto
Exposure Program Program AE
F Number 2.8
Flash No flash function
Flashpix Version 0100
GPS Altitude 9 m
GPS Altitude Ref Above Sea Level
GPS Dilution Of Precision 1
GPS Latitude 33.915500 degrees
GPS Latitude Ref South
GPS Longitude 150.953833 degrees
GPS Longitude Ref East
GPS Time Stamp 19:18:52.04
Make Apple
Metering Mode Average
Camera Model Name iPhone 3G
Modify Date 2010:03:21 19:18:52
4 days, 11 hours, 14 minutes, 16 seconds ago
Orientation Horizontal (normal)
Resolution 72 pixels/inch
Sensing Method One-chip color area
Software 3.1.2
Thumbnail Length 7,527
White Balance Auto
Y Cb Cr Positioning Centered

File — basic information derived from the file.

Bits Per Sample 8
Color Components 3
Encoding Process Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Exif Byte Order Big-endian (Motorola, MM)
File Size 626 kB
File Type JPEG
Image Size 1,600 × 1,200
MIME Type image/jpeg
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling YCbCr4:2:0 (2 2)



Image #4:
Camera: Apple iPhone 3G
Exposure: Auto exposure, Program AE, f/2.8
Flash: No flash function
Date: March 21, 2010 7:19:05PM (timezone not specified)
(4 days, 11 hours, 17 minutes, 44 seconds ago, assuming an image timezone of US Pacific)

EXIF

Aperture Value 2.8
Color Space sRGB
Components Configuration Y, Cb, Cr, -
Compression JPEG (old-style)
Create Date 2010:03:21 19:19:05
4 days, 11 hours, 17 minutes, 44 seconds ago
Date/Time Original 2010:03:21 19:19:05
4 days, 11 hours, 17 minutes, 44 seconds ago
Exif Image Size 1,600 × 1,200
Exif Version 0221
Exposure Mode Auto
Exposure Program Program AE
F Number 2.8
Flash No flash function
Flashpix Version 0100
GPS Altitude 8 m
GPS Altitude Ref Above Sea Level
GPS Dilution Of Precision 3
GPS Latitude 33.915500 degrees
GPS Latitude Ref South
GPS Longitude 150.953833 degrees
GPS Longitude Ref East
GPS Time Stamp 19:19:04.87
Make Apple
Metering Mode Average
Camera Model Name iPhone 3G
Modify Date 2010:03:21 19:19:05
4 days, 11 hours, 17 minutes, 44 seconds ago
Orientation Horizontal (normal)
Resolution 72 pixels/inch
Sensing Method One-chip color area
Software 3.1.2
Thumbnail Length 7,493
White Balance Auto
Y Cb Cr Positioning Centered

File — basic information derived from the file.

Bits Per Sample 8
Color Components 3
Encoding Process Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Exif Byte Order Big-endian (Motorola, MM)
File Size 669 kB
File Type JPEG
Image Size 1,600 × 1,200
MIME Type image/jpeg
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling YCbCr4:2:0 (2 2)


We have also tried to elaborate GPS data, but they seem to be unreliable.
Jeff Ritzmann IS a professional image analyst and our purpose was to allow him to find all the documentation he needs in order to start some analisys with no waste of time.
I did what I had to, and yes: in my opinion the UFO is crap on the windscreen, and please remember that the burden of proof is the obligation on a party to provide sufficient warrant for their position: this did NOT happen in this case. But the witness cooperated. That would be some mass sighting but all we have is a single person's claims, though. Media coverage are after-effect hence of no value.
There is nothing else I have to say about this.
To those who love to type the word expert within quotes:
Go , PAY some thousands of bucks, get a professional analisys, then come back here if you want: and share. Is it THAT the alternative that you are offering? It's welcome.
This is a forum, not NORAD: we do what we can, not what you DREAMS lean you to think we can do after you have been watching some CSI episodes. Wer are poor, but we are HONEST at least.


[edit on 29/3/2010 by internos]

Snake eyes or two Foo craft.
Hard to think that the two lights are on one craft that we can't see.
But that seems to be the case with so many twin lights in the air at times.
Individually the lights do not seem the size of a craft.
And neither does the dark object.
If we assume the twin lights are part of one craft then the dark
object might be an artifact from the craft.
My light bending theory surrounding the craft has been nixed but
I still like it for explanations of invisible craft. High powered electricity
can bend light better than gravity in my book any day.
ED: I recall only one orb in the sky way back between the trees when
the dark object was much farther back and the street light not so
obvious.

[edit on 3/29/2010 by TeslaandLyne]

Originally posted by booda

Has the ideas of missfee to go back to the same spot and takes pictures been suggested...this way we can see if its a streetlamp ot not...

G'day Booda

Please read my detailed report on P38 regarding my work at the site with the witness.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

did what I had to, and yes: in my opinion the UFO is crap on the windscreen,
and please remember that the burden of proof is the obligation on a party to provide
sufficient warrant for their position: this did NOT happen in this case.

Indeed.
Conviction is in the beleif of the observer, and therfore subjective.
You can lay down all the evidence based on logic and sound reasoning skills and basic science,
and make an unbiased conclusion. This is all you can do.
If they 'want to beleive' otherwise, contrary to that,then they will, regardless of evidence,
and this is their personal right. We are not asked to convince the witness that our version of events
are right, or more irrefutable, or undeniable than his/ her own beleif.
We were only asked to make our own conclusions so the witness could decide ("Get to the bottom of it.")
Whatever the witness has decided in this regard is entirely their perogative.
i personally hope Fiona is satisfied with her own conclusion/s, they were interesting photos.

Fiona, dont assume because somebody plays hard ball with you to get the facts and try to give a more plausable explaination, that they nessesarily
assume your a lunatic or hoaxer, or that they (I) wouldnt conceed the unknown if it was shown to be such.
I beleive many sightings are genuinely inexplicable, but that this one, just isnt one of them.

Im not, as some are tring to paint me, 'A die hard skeptic debunker' at all cost, but neither am I willing to beleive without logic and evidence or atleast, as in this case, narrowing it down to a more likely and prosaic explaination first, before accepting its a genuine mystery.
Things do fly in our skies, but not all are mysterious.

wayaboveitall