UFO in Sydney Australia

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.

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.

OBJECTION your Honor, this analysis is nothing more than inadmissible OPINION / SPECULATION on the part of Wayaboveitall. I must object to this totally speculative, wishful description of some fantasy Wayaboveitall has concocted to sway the opinion of ATS's. I move that the ASSUMPTIONS be respectfully stricken from the record.

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

InfaRedMan.....

That's a very good point regarding which I've not noticed much discussion apart from wayaboveitall's previous post.

There was ample time between photos to better organise the
"bright light" in frame, as per the EXIF data & commentary I've posted.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by destiny-fate

I dont think she noticed either the streetlight or the 'orbs' when she took the photo.

OBJECTION your Honor, this analysis is nothing more than inadmissible OPINION / SPECULATION on the part of Wayaboveitall. I must object to this totally speculative, wishful description of some fantasy Wayaboveitall has concocted to sway the opinion of ATS's. I move that the ASSUMPTIONS be respectfully stricken from the record.

Yes it is clearly speculative.. but curious.. no? I don't think wayaboveitall was declaring any type of fact, hence the term "I don't think".

All we are doing is throwing possible scenarios into the mix to account for what some may consider to not mesh with the 'official' story.

Personally I would like to hear the witness account for why a direct photo was not taken of something so extraordinary. Especially given I have witnessed an Orange Egg shaped object spawning silver orbs myself up quite close.


IRM

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
... I have witnessed an Orange Egg shaped object spawning silver orbs myself up quite close.

But you know the old saying - pictures or it didn't happen...!!

I have never said it was an orange egg shape
it was a bright light way up high and if it was a street light i would have said street light but it wasent
the street light was just behind me as i pointed out to MMN at the sight
it is his assumption that it is a street light
i have said i was lucky to take the photos and capture what i did as my eyes wernt even on the screen they were looking up in the sky by the third photo
i was just lucky to get the three objects as the bright light was way above the trees and at that time i think i still contenued to take photos but not even checking the screen
the two objects took off to the right and the bigger one took off down towards the sunset and disapeard as did the verry bright light at the same time it all seemed to happen in a very short
some one has asked why i say the "black object" i called it black because it seemed a lot darker then in the photos

Originally posted by missfee
it was a bright light way up high and if it was a street light i would have said street light but it wasent
the street light was just behind me as i pointed out to MMN at the sight
it is his assumption that it is a street light

Missfee.....

My clear recollection based on my careful positioning at the site as directed by you for my comparitive photos is that the streetlight was not behind you.

I recall clearly that you lined me up exactly with a particular "black" tree.

I recall clearly that we stood there looking at your original picture with my laptop, whilst I held it up in front of us & we observed how the streetlight in real life was an exact position match for the bright light in your photo.

I recall clearly that we checked the picture & field of view in my iPhone & that it matched up exactly with your picture, with the streetlight in the top right hand corner.

Based on that positioning, the streetlight was in fact, in front of you, high up to the right. It was not behind you.

My estimate based on the above is the streetlight was 10-20 meters in front of you, high up to the right.

My pictures as posted in my summary report on P55 are consistent with this.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 3-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

missfee

I have never said it was an orange egg shape
it was a bright light way up high and if it was a street light i would have said street light

You did say the orange light that you saw the orbs come from was shown at top right in the photos.
You told this to the 2GB radio bloke. word for word you said:

"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 "

listen to yourself say it on this link

www.2gb.com...

The Orange light at the top right hand corner of your photo, has been positively identified as a streetlight.
You told Maybe, that you accept that its a streetlight, but then you claim, the light you saw was above the streetlight, contrary to what you told the radio guy.


What did the area 51 guy from Nevada have to say Fiona?

Originally posted by missfee
I have never said it was an orange egg shape

No one is saying you did. I said that I saw orange egg shaped objects. The similarities between my encounter and your account are similar in that one of the objects spawned what was initially a silver orb.

IRM

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
... I have witnessed an Orange Egg shaped object spawning silver orbs myself up quite close.

But you know the old saying - pictures or it didn't happen...!!

LOL! Indeed I do!

IRM

Originally posted by missfee
I have never said it was an orange egg shape
it was a bright light way up high and if it was a street light i would have said street light but it wasent
the street light was just behind me as i pointed out to MMN at the sight
it is his assumption that it is a street light
i have said i was lucky to take the photos and capture what i did as my eyes wernt even on the screen they were looking up in the sky by the third photo
i was just lucky to get the three objects as the bright light was way above the trees and at that time i think i still contenued to take photos but not even checking the screen
the two objects took off to the right and the bigger one took off down towards the sunset and disapeard as did the verry bright light at the same time it all seemed to happen in a very short
some one has asked why i say the "black object" i called it black because it seemed a lot darker then in the photos

Fiona, you have already agreed that the top right bright light IS a streetlight. You will lose all your credibility if you keep flip-flopping.

If we assume for moment that the photos were not taken from inside the car what could the brown-black blob be? It cant be a spot on the lens because it moves . Its not a blowing paper bag or leave because thats what it would look like I think. The straightness of the `reflection` leads me to ask this. Anyone have any ideas? [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/942d49a8ec55.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f372f2b806b0.jpg[/atsimg] Notice even the shape is not the same.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by bluemooone2]

reply to post by bluemooone2


Bluemoone.....

The shape of the “object” (which is debris on the windscreen of the witness’ car) changes because of the change in camera angle & position as the debris is being photographed by the witness, from inside her car.

Very small changes in camera angle & position caused significant changes in the shape & position of the debris in the photos.

If you review my summary report of my site visit plus meeting with the witness on P55, you will see that Chadwickus & CHRLZ showed that very clearly.

I confirmed this myself with my own simulation at the site.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 3-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Here is an animation of different areas on 0432 and 0433.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/330088432314.gif[/atsimg]

Yo Phage, since you seem to have a bit more grounding in reality, in another post I wanted to see if someone could help correct my understanding of what Xtreme put together. Copy and pasted here for convenience.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

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 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?

bluemoon

Its not a blowing paper bag or leave because thats what it would look like I think.

Remember that its close to the camera, through glass, using a phone camera with a fixed focus lense, meaning anything very close to the camera will be blurred.
Have a look at these examples, and again at fiona's blob, and see if
you think they might look like Fiona's blob, if photographed the same way inthe same conditions.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ffd4bd5d987d.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8974ef032afc.jpg[/atsimg]

perfect bag example
thumb2.visualizeus.com...

example2
farm1.static.flickr.com...

example3
img3.photographersdirect.com...

bird poo perfect example
farm1.static.flickr.com...

example2
farm4.static.flickr.com...

example3
farm3.static.flickr.com...

perfect leaf example
farm1.static.flickr.com...

example 2
farm1.static.flickr.com...

example3
farm1.static.flickr.com...









[edit on 3-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]

[edit on 3-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


OK thanks . How do you explain the reflections straight edge? This is the only thing in your theory that bothers me . By the way , I accidentally turned the blob into modern art so I might as well share ) [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a99e021f931.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 3-4-2010 by bluemooone2]

And they say my posts are off topic.

Originally posted by Phage
Here is an animation of different areas on 0432 and 0433.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/330088432314.gif[/atsimg]

... so you stabilized the lens flare blotch, but not the moving black thing?

It's pretty obvious the lens flare moves in this overlay (sorry for the crappy cut & paste job in MS paint it's all I got):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5449ef15e90c.png[/atsimg]
ripped from this big image: files.abovetopsecret.com...

Not sure I understand. What are you trying to show by stabilizing one and fixing the other relative to the lens-flare?

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
...What I gathered from this (though I could be wrong) is 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?

I'm not Phage, but that makes sense to me. Except the analysis does not take into account 3 very important factors.

1. It assumes the camera is in a relatively fixed alignment. But by changing the camera's x/y/z location (up/down/left/right/back/forth) and its angle (yaw/pitch/roll), the relative positions of anything stuck (or reflected) on the screen will be affected *differently*. It's much more complex than shown.

2. The reflection is *not* fixed to the screen, and varies *further* in location as per point 1.

3. The windscreen is curved, which means for the reflection there is a (non-linear) magnification factor in there as well.


Phage, thanks for that animation - you spurred me on to investigate that area fully. The half 'hexagon' is not a flare nor reflection, it is simply the way the tree is lit up.

You can very clearly see it in this animation of the 5 images:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dd63b198c857.gif[/atsimg]
I've adjusted the levels of the images to show the effect more clearly, and simply aligned and cropped them. Despite being taken at different locations and angles (as you can see by the variations in other details) the 'hexagon' does not move a nanometre..

Just call me a 'lens hood'.... (That's a subtle photography joke...)

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
...What I gathered from this (though I could be wrong) is 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?

I'm not Phage, but that makes sense to me. Except the analysis does not take into account 3 very important factors.

1. It assumes the camera is in a relatively fixed alignment. But by changing the camera's x/y/z location (up/down/left/right/back/forth) and its angle (yaw/pitch/roll), the relative positions of anything stuck (or reflected) on the screen will be affected *differently*. It's much more complex than shown.

Thanks for the reply CHRLZ. But if it were more than a camera shift, rotations or such, then wouldn't we see some objects moving in opposite directions by a big margin? I only have a minimal knowledge of this stuff, but as I imagine it in my head if I have a thing on a window and stuff in the background and then I rotate down. The thing nearby would go up and everything else would go down. So it seems to me like everything in the image just shifts due to movement in a single axis.

2. The reflection is *not* fixed to the screen, and varies *further* in location as per point 1.

But the dashboard is fixed in place right? So if the light that's making the reflection stays in place, the dashboard stays put, and the window stays in place then it move consistently between shots?

3. The windscreen is curved, which means for the reflection there is a (non-linear) magnification factor in there as well.

I get this. So I saw that we're dealing with a camera with a 35 or 37 mm lens, right? That means to get the reflection to zoom out further it would have to change to what a 10 or 15 mm lens? How much curvature would that require for the window? Wouldn't that then also massively distort the dashboard? Like what Xtreme was talking about?