UFO in Sydney Australia

Wow - nice tag team effort there guys!

Maybe... and Arbitrageur, your comments about the 'exponential' effects caused by the nearness of the camera, along with its tilt and vertical/horizontal position, perfectly cover the 'other issues' I was referring to above.

Thanks!


I'm afraid that Xtreme's 'analysis' fell well short of the mark.

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Upon reviewing that again, the fact the "object" moves more still indicates to me it is closer to the camera, thereby being consistent with my conclusion it is debris on the windscreen of the wtiness' car.

Or that the object was moving.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Upon reviewing that again, the fact the "object" moves more still indicates to me it is closer to the camera, thereby being consistent with my conclusion it is debris on the windscreen of the wtiness' car.

Or that the object was moving.

Yeah, there is that possibility... you spoilsport!

(2nd line)
Notice how *moderators* get away with one line posts? Harumph.

This thread got a good deal longer as I was reading it, by a good deal.
I think I've learned a bit from it about analyzing photos, even took notes.

One question i was wondering way back at the beginning, and didn't see it addressed, though I may have skipped it -
If the object in the picture had some height to it, wouldn't one side of it have been lighter?
The sun is on the horizon, but the object is lit equally around, not particularly bright spot.

Yes, I know it's already debunked, but I was wondering if maybe someone could clear that up for me?

reply to post by Phage


It is rare that I agree with your "snap" judgment.. But this time I agree with that theory 100%. She looked over the photos saw the "uws" (Unidentified window sh!t) then formulated her story. Case closed. Before you jump on me guys.. case closed in my mind.. You are free to waste your time with this bird sh!t.

Yo Arb, appreciate the effort to help make sense of the details. Could you check my understanding of what you wrote below? Want to make sure I'm following you.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Whether we see the hood or not is dependent on the angle the phone camera is aimed at. If it's aimed up enough so that the bottom edge of the frame is above the hood you won't see the hood. Depending on the slope of the hood this will vary by the model of car too.

Makes sense, but even a profile shot of a car would allow someone to figure out the max low angle and max high angle right? So from that there's a narrow margin where the camera could see through the windshield without snapping the hood. And the further back the person goes the more likely we'd see the interior and the hood.

Here's a schematic shot



And the real deal



So that narrows down considerably where the camera can be, right?

The difference in depth could be a lot more than 6 inches and can make a big difference. I don't know the actual distances, but just to make a comparison, let's say when you lean back (normally ) in the seat you're 2 feet from the postit note, and if you lean forward just one foot, that will nearly double the apparent relative movement of the postit note.

Sounds like you're saying we're dealing with some sort of function like (y+x) / x? Then when x > 1 it will behave like a linear-line graph and when it's < 1 exponentially. So you're saying the graph below is due to x < 1?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/29bdddea99d5.png[/atsimg]

That's because the ratio has gone from 6/2 which is a ratio of 3, to 5/1 so it's a 166% increase.

So I understand your ratios, a little bit further down you mention

Bingo. If you lean forward from 2' to 0.5' instead, then the ratio of the object that was 6' away goes from 6/2 which is a ratio of 3, to 4.5/0.5 which is 9, and the relative movement increases by 300%.

Move forward another 3 inches, and the ratio goes to 4.25/0.25 which is 17, now 566% of the original relative movement.

So you're saying if the person is sitting back by 2 feet and the reflection is 6 feet in front of them. You're comparing things like so:

me............reflection

wow! i can't believe this is still going!. haha but props to all the very knowledgable posters in this thread, i have also learnt a great deal about photo analysis amongst other things from this thread.

this thread should probably be made to be a mandatory read for all A.T.S newcomers as it would probably show a few people how to spot a fake /hoax and may teach some great investigation techniques to anybody thats interested.

great work and props and thanks to maybe...maybe not, phage, internos, chrlz, wayabovitall, chadwickus and all the others that made big contributions.

thanks

rich

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Ok. Thanks for that.

Good work! Your conclusion is pretty convincing.

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
Yo Arb, appreciate the effort to help make sense of the details. Could you check my understanding of what you wrote below? Want to make sure I'm following you.....

So that narrows down considerably where the camera can be, right?

You're welcome.

It narrows it down to some extent. A person sitting in the back seat would get the car's interior. But I don't think it narrows down the front seat too much from my experience taking pictures. I can sit in a seat normally and not get the hood in the shot. And I can lean forward and not get the hood in the shot. And in my car the amount I can lean forward is probably about 2 feet. More if I don't hold the camera to my face and use an external viewfinder.

Sounds like you're saying we're dealing with some sort of function like (y+x) / x? Then when x > 1 it will behave like a linear-line graph and when it's < 1 exponentially. So you're saying the graph below is due to x < 1?

If you just compare the postit note on the windshield (which might be 2 feet away) to an object that has a direct or reflected distance of 6 feet, then really the formula would be something like that but the y would actually be a constant of 4 feet. And the exponential increase occurs as X approaches zero. But I don't know how you can say less than 1, less than 1 what? foot? meter? centimeter? The units don't matter so the value of 1 is irrelevant, forget about less than 1. It's as the distance to the windshield x approaches zero, that the ratio becomes infinite, and that happens regardless of the units.

So if we're to take this type of formula and we're assuming it's going exponential then that also means the size of the postit should get bigger and bigger in the camera viewfinder, right?

We are apparently making different comparisons.

I was comparing Xtraeme's example with the postit note on the windshield to the OP photos of dirt on the windshield. And I was suggesting that Xtraeme was further from the windshield in ALL shots he took relative to the Missfee photos.

So I wasn't comparing one postit note shot to another postit note shot expecting to see a size difference in the postit notes. If the size of the postit notes changed between shots, certainly the distance of the camera to the postit note would be one of the first things I'd look for to account for the change in size, but I never said there was any change in size of the postit note, if that's what you were thinking.

reply to post by Mark_Frost


What is it with Sydney? This is recent footage. Perhaps it is a balloon?

Clear and in-focus or it didn't happen.

reply to post by Phage


How do you explain the apparent 'change of shape' if it is dirt on the windshield? A 3d moving object will ' change shape ' in 2d photos due to parallax and rotation... a blob of dirt would not.

reply to post by FileZero


Keep reading. You've got a ways to go.

[edit on 5/20/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by Mark_Frost

 

What is it with Sydney? This is recent footage. Perhaps it is a balloon?

Rusethorcain.....

Thanks.....I needed that!

Did you hear those guys?.......the "Dumb & Dumber" UFO video! Priceless!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/98b7cbd0c216.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/98acf5c0032f.jpg[/atsimg]

Cheers mate
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 20-5-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Originally posted by FileZero
reply to post by Phage

 

How do you explain the apparent 'change of shape' if it is dirt on the windshield? A 3d moving object will ' change shape ' in 2d photos due to parallax and rotation... a blob of dirt would not.

FileZero.....

Phage is right......it's a BIG thread!

In case it's of use, here's my summary report from p55:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by kleverone


Phage did change that opinion when shown clear evidence.
Since when are we required to stick with a viewpoint just because we once held it?

reply to post by Chadwickus


Perhaps you might do more than make a bold statement and then reshow the pics?? What have you circled??

reply to post by Phage


Could the streaking you mention be a result of the camera itself, and not the windscreen?

Just before dark, something was on my lawn then flew off. I couldn't see what it was for certain as it happened too fast.
But as it's was unidentified, it flew and it was a black elongated object we'll just call it a UFO shall we?

Originally posted by FileZero
reply to post by Phage

 

Could the streaking you mention be a result of the camera itself, and not the windscreen?

FileZero.....

Have a look at my summary report on P55:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You'll see info pertaining to the "streaks on the windscreen".

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not