UFO in Sydney Australia

Assuming I got all of that right then the reason it couldn't be debris outside of the glass then is because there's a 4, 11, and 13 second delay (courtesy Maybe-dude!). Which would tell us then that the debris would have had to lazily wafted around for 4 seconds, 11 seconds, and 13 seconds of delay while still remaining in the very narrow portion of the windshield so she wouldn't get the hood.

Not if it was a decaying leaf (its Autumn here) that blew onto the outside of the windscreen with a slight gust while the witness was parked there, and subsequently blown some more throughout the photos, as I sufggested very early on.

Do YOU think the blob is way up in the sky
or closer?

Despite Xtremes post, I dont think measurement of the reflection is correct (Its difficult to measure the distance from something that has no physical attribute) , just from the photo (2D).

Only the witness knows for sure if there was dirt or debris, or bird poo on the windscreen. Maybe reported it was clean at the time of his meeting with the witness unless im mistaken.

reply to post by TheMalefactor


TheMaleFactor.....

As per my reply to wayaboveitall, above.....

The witness' comments in those interviews further reinforce my opinion of the time delay being incongruous with the witness' description of the "event".

May I ask.....why are you focusing on this 1 issue to such an extent?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
Only the witness knows for sure if there was dirt or debris, or bird poo on the windscreen. Maybe reported it was clean at the time of his meeting with the witness unless im mistaken.

wayaboveitall.....

That's correct.....the windscreen of the witness' car appeared to be quite clean, as viewed from inside the vehicle.

That is consistent with the pictures I posted, as taken by the witness with my iPhone, through the windscreen of her car from inside her car.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
Lets say I take a picture of what I'm calling a big rat. That big rat is near a sewer opening. However it's off in the distance by a good couple 100 feet. So it's hard to get all the details. Lets also say there's a big brick near the shot.

I know how hard it is to read this whole thread, because I read over 50 pages before making my first reply, and I mean every post. Now it's over 60 pages.

But some of this ground has been covered before so if you haven't read the whole thread, it might be worthwhile to avoid covering the same ground. The dark blob doesn't show motion blur, which would suggest it's either not moving, moving very slowly, or the camera has a very high shutter speed, and I don't think it's the latter so one of the two former would seem likely.

So we're on the same page I was talking about the lighting in the upper right. That text you quoted was in reply to this:

____
Originally posted by wayaboveitall
She manages to perfectly frame this ufo in all 5 photos, carefully focusing, yet she dosent manage to capture 'the bright orange light' she claims seeing dispense the orbs (she denies it was the streetlight),
www.abovetopsecret.com...
____

I wasn't discussing the black object at this point.

Also it's apparently not in focus. Given what IS in focus, this would tend to suggest that it's not anything a couple hundred feet away as your rat example suggests.

Let me get this straight if something is moving and it's a couple hundred feet of way we should expect it to be _in_ focus? The whole scene is blurry, but that's a crappy camera phone for you.

Also what if the object is moving radially? I'd be really curious what a ball of plasma looks like as it zings around.

Rather the focus suggests the object might be relatively close to the camera, and I would suggest that this would likely be the case whether Xtraeme or Phage is right about the reflections, I tend to think Phage is but I got the original photos to look at Xtraeme's arguments more closely and am still looking at them. But even if Xtraeme is right, even he agrees we're not looking at a blob several hundred feet away, right?

I'm not going to speak for other people, but I get the impression if the line graph is correct it basically means the object has to be a far distant object.

So I'm clear Xtreme notes this first shot with measurements:

____
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8753b31e85b0.png[/atsimg]

... here's a shot taken with my iPhone showing a sticky note on my windshield (the red-line, which is the closest object in the scene), the wipers (green line, second closest), a "bike rack" sign about 5 to 6' away from the glass (blue line, third nearest), and about 35' ± 3' away is a recessed a pipe against the far wall (fuscia, furthest).
www.abovetopsecret.com...
____


Then he shows the shots from the sighting:

____

www.abovetopsecret.com...
____

What I gathered from this (though I could be wrong) is that he's saying there's linear progression. So if the light reflected is glare from the dash, even if it's being cast in to the distance, it would only be about 4 or 5 feet from the windshield. So the "black object" should measure out to have the same ratios of distance to the "glare" as the "bike rack" sign distance is proportioned to the "sticky note" distance.

Am I making sense?

edit: clearing up some unclear sentences (hopefully).

[edit on 2-4-2010 by TheMalefactor]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Arbitrageur.....

It's great to see you in the thread

I continue to give this case some thought because:

- The discussion is very interesting

- I may have to discuss this in more detail with some local experts

With that said, I don't see anything that leads me to change my conclusions as per my summary report on P55.

I am aware of the counter-arguments & I will point those out & work through them if I become involved in such local discussions, but my own conclusions stand until further meaningful information / evidence arises.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 2-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

TheMaleFactor.....

As per my reply to wayaboveitall, above.....

The witness' comments in those interviews further reinforce my opinion of the time delay being incongruous with the witness' description of the "event".

May I ask.....why are you focusing on this 1 issue to such an extent?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

I was interested in the timings because you claimed your summary was objective. So I figured if I was going to rule things out I should go down your list one by one seeing if I could reach the same conclusions.

Since I had a hard time following your logic I figured I should to try to make it objective at the very least by your standards. In science there's a thing called error margin. You didn't include those. I was trying to figure them out.

edit: my spelling sucks today.

[edit on 2-4-2010 by TheMalefactor]

Originally posted by TheMalefactor

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

TheMaleFactor.....
As per my reply to wayaboveitall, above.....
The witness' comments in those interviews further reinforce my opinion of the time delay being incongruous with the witness' description of the "event".
May I ask.....why are you focusing on this 1 issue to such an extent?

I was interested in the timings because you claimed your summary was objective. So I figured if I was going to rule things out I should go down your list one by one seeing if I could reach the same conclusions.

Since I had a hard time following your logic I figured I should to try to make it objective at the very least by your standards. In science there's a thing called error margin. You didn't include those. I was trying to figure them out.

TheMalefactor

OK.....thanks for explaining that.....I was reading something else into your responses.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

The dark blob doesn't show motion blur, which would suggest it's either not moving, moving very slowly, or the camera has a very high shutter speed, and I don't think it's the latter so one of the two former would seem likely.

Relative data for your examination.

ideenecke.blogspot.com...

To stop motion, you need to shoot with a minimum of 1/60 of a second. With fast moving objects such as birds or sports figures, a much faster shutter speed is necessary.

I would expect the phones shutter speed to be much slower in low light conditions such as shown in the photos. Hence its more likely the blob was not moving, but infact the camera.
I think phage pointed this out, or perhaps chadwickus, very early on.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
...Despite Xtremes post, I dont think measurement of the reflection is correct (Its difficult to measure the distance from something that has no physical attribute) , just from the photo (2D).

This is a vitally important point. You cannot possibly make valid assumptions about such an ill-defined pattern from the information we have. Indeed, Xtraeme also referred to the curvature of the windscreen - a reflection off a curve will be altered both in shape and size. When you add that to the multiple possibilities in the angle, position and distance from the camera to the screen, there are simply too many variables/unknowns.

I'm keeping a lookout for a Cruiser with an amenable owner, to see if I can test the reflection theory on the real thing...

You know, one thing that bothers me, and which nobody seems to have mentioned (unless I missed it) is that the witness iphone is video capable.
Having spotted this anomalie 'ruining' your sunset photo, and having alledgedly seen it in the sky, and assumed 'ufo', why would you not try to capture video of it, already having one still shot?
Just something that occurs to me. *shrugs



Edit to fix typo.

[edit on 2-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

The dark blob doesn't show motion blur, which would suggest it's either not moving, moving very slowly, or the camera has a very high shutter speed, and I don't think it's the latter so one of the two former would seem likely.

Relative data for your examination.
ideenecke.blogspot.com...

To stop motion, you need to shoot with a minimum of 1/60 of a second. With fast moving objects such as birds or sports figures, a much faster shutter speed is necessary.

I would expect the phones shutter speed to be much slower in low light conditions such as shown in the photos. Hence its more likely the blob was not moving, but infact the camera.
I think phage pointed this out, or perhaps chadwickus, very early on.

A couple of clarifications:
The rule of thumb is to use the reciprocal of the focal length (in 35mm terms) to get a reasonably sharp image of a stationary or slow moving scene. So for the iphone, at 37mm, ~1/40 second would be recommended. Fast objects require faster speeds.

Second, motion blur is quite different in appearance to out-of-focus blur. It tends to be streaky and directional, ie the blur is most in the plane of movement.

Third, you can use the background to determine if the camera is relatively steady. None of the images show significant motion blur, although the one where the object is closest to the sunset, appears to show a bit.

In regard to 'autofocus', I believe the iphone 3G used for these images does *not* have AF (happy to be corrected..), so delays will be caused by its autoexposure/shutter lag/general processing/saving time. According to way's link and other references it is a fixed focus lens, everything from about 1.5m to infinity should be in focus.

The 3GS does have AF, but the exif on the images suggests it was a 3G...?

Added - I don't think the original 3G did video...!

[edit on 2-4-2010 by CHRLZ]

[edit on 2-4-2010 by CHRLZ]

Second, motion blur is quite different in appearance to out-of-focus blur. It tends to be streaky and directional, ie the blur is most in the plane of movement.

Third, you can use the background to determine if the camera is relatively steady. None of the images show significant motion blur, although the one where the object is closest to the sunset, appears to show a bit.

Agreed. So the camera was relatively steady when the shot/s were taken, but this is not what I refered to when I said Its likely the camera was moving, not the object. I was referring to the position of the blob in the photos, not its lack of focus.
Given the rest of the scene is relatively focused, but the blob not so, its a reasonable conclusion that the lack of focus is the result of proximity to the lense.

Added - I don't think the original 3G did video...!

You are correct! My mistake. 3Gs does, 3G dosent. see below

www.gsmarena.com...

The witness phone is definately 3G ?

regards Auto focus..3G does not have it.
cheers

www.apple.com...

In regard to 'autofocus', I believe the iphone 3G used for these images does *not* have AF (happy to be corrected..), so delays will be caused by its autoexposure/shutter lag/general processing/saving time. According to way's link and other references it is a fixed focus lens, everything from about 1.5m to infinity should be in focus.

Excellent point that illustrates nicely that the blob must be closer than 1.5m.



[edit on 2-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
The witness phone is definately 3G ?

Wayaboveitall.....

The witness phone is "3G" as per this previously posted EXIF data:

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)

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Sorry
but i am just wondering WHO makes the decision to put this topic/ thread into the HOAX catagory the members or the mods as i am seeing it has not been 100% dertimand yet as it is still continuing,
its just that to all that post on this thread see its in this catagory and naturaly assume it has been proven to be a HOAX wen it in indeed still in a debate to wehter it is or isnt
that said how many people now just asume it is a due to its catorgy
i dont find this fair

Originally posted by missfee
Sorry
but i am just wondering WHO makes the decision to put this topic/ thread into the HOAX catagory the members or the mods as i am seeing it has not been 100% dertimand yet as it is still continuing,
its just that to all that post on this thread see its in this catagory and naturaly assume it has been proven to be a HOAX wen it in indeed still in a debate to wehter it is or isnt
that said how many people now just asume it is a due to its catorgy
i dont find this fair

Hello Fiona

The owners of ATS make that decision.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by missfee

Don't worry about that, it can be moved back.

Seeing that you are back on this thread, could you please tell us why you called it a "large black object" but we see it as brownish or orange in the photo?

Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by missfee

 

Don't worry about that, it can be moved back.

Seeing that you are back on this thread, could you please tell us why you called it a "large black object" but we see it as brownish or orange in the photo?

Thanks in advance.

Maybe it appeared darker to the naked eye, backlit by the setting sun, than it does in the photo.

One of the things I also find curious is that no pictures were centered on the orange orb that was dispensing the smaller silver orbs (if they were what the witness claims). Though I'm no expert on human nature, it seems fair to assume that most people would do this with at least one of the photos.

I can't remember it this was discussed in the thread already. Was there an answer for this?

IRM

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
One of the things I also find curious is that no pictures were centered on the orange orb that was dispensing the smaller silver orbs (if they were what the witness claims). Though I'm no expert on human nature, it seems fair to assume that most people would do this with at least one of the photos.

I can't remember it this was discussed in the thread already. Was there an answer for this?

IRM

Yes, it is odd. I think that was fabricated to further embroider the story later. I dont think she noticed either the streetlight or the 'orbs' when she took the photo. She was clearly very focused on the blob. It was dark inside the car, bright setting sun, not to mention car headlights ahead, I dont think she actually saw the blob, atleast not initially, then looked at the pic just taken on the veiwfinder, see's it, snaps a few more.
(NOTE: There is nothing in exif data to suggest there might have been
pics deleted between the shots we see. (note the delays) such is digital) I think by the 5th shot she might've known it was on the windscreen, but moved the camera to give the appearance of movement across the sky.
I think when the photos were uploaded, the intresting looking 'orbs' were a bonus, and the streetlight added into the event at that point.

In the 2gb interveiw she says..

"Two other, metaliic looking objects came out of that big orange light, at the top right hand corner of the photographs that are being shown".


"The large object went close to the light, these two other, metallic looking objects ,came out of that light, and these two metallic objects actually took off to the Right as fast as the eye could see across to the right of the screen "

link to that quote

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Link to the interveiw

www.2gb.com...

reply to post by missfee



Feel free to use the ATS Complaint / Suggestion form to address your concerns, which is viewable by all staff. But we do not discuss actions by staff on the threads.

Thank you.


[edit on April 2nd 2010 by greeneyedleo]