UFO in Sydney Australia

Originally posted by One Moment

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
....
Lame

Listen....... Why/ WHY NOT/Maybe/Maybe Not (or whatever confused Being you are.....)

Please include the proper quotes. None of those were mine.

...

You m'friend are way too full of yourself!

I don't want to hear from you. Please ,move along please. (peace?)

Fiona? Are you here?

Oh, that's a CLASSIC!!!

One Moment, you replied to a post by MALEFACTOR, not Maybe...

It's even more funny, when you say "Please include the proper quotes..", and refer to "confused beings".. How positively apt.

reply to post by TheMalefactor


yeah whatever, once again you just ignored everything as usual and resort to trying insults and so forth, THE BLOBS THAT PHAGE POINTED OUT STAY THE SAME DISTANCE FROM THE MAIN BLOB ON EVERY PICTURE BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL BLOBS OF PROBABLY MUD FIXED TO THE WINDSCREEN!! IF THE MAIN BLOB WAS SOMETHING FLYING OR MOVING IN ANY WAY THEN IT WOULD NOT POSSIBLY STAY AT THE SAME DISTANCE AND ANGLE FROM THE OTHER BLOBS, BUT IT DOES SO THAT MEANS THEY MUST ALL BE FIXED TO SOMETHING AND STAYING THERE WHILE THE CAMERA IS MOVED, THEREFORE YOUR THEORY IS DESTROYED.....

IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU????.


and another thing, if you don't believe that its alien or something like a secret plane then why the hell are you wasting your and everyone else time just arguing over nothing, i mean seriously if you think its a bug then it has to be a hoax therefore you are just arguing for the sake of it. so then what is your motivation? attention seeking? trying to make yourself feel or look intelligent ? because if thats the case then you are going the wrong way about it.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by RICH-ENGLAND]

[edit on 12-6-2010 by RICH-ENGLAND]

Originally posted by One Moment

Originally posted by TheMalefactor

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by One Moment

 

im seriously not digging through 70 pages of posts just because you cannot be bothered to read properly a

I'll take that as, "it doesn't exist, so I need a cop out."

i would love to see proof of alien visits just as much as you

I don't think this is "an alien." Hell it might be a bug flying around, but whatever the hell it is it sure isn't fixed to the windscreen.

but anyway phage pointed out there were more dirt blobs on the windscreen that stayed an exact distance to the main blob in every picture and that totally ruins your theory but you ignored it totally!.

Hah! You've heard the expression you can't compare apples to oranges right? Talking about the scale-dilation is wholly different from two things seemingly moving at a similar rate. Your argument is equivalent to saying "optical physics can be temporarily ignored because ... oh, look over there something else doesn't make sense!"
And I looked at Phages post here (yes I read the _whole_ thread),
www.abovetopsecret.com...
(he should be damn well commended I might add -- big hats off to you Phage!). If there's anything that makes me question these photos it's this. However! You have to understand you need to account for all anomalies, not just cherry pick which you like and which you don't. That's actual science.

why dont you try reading....

Why don't you try thinking? Or better yet _what_ should I be reading? Oh that's right you don't want to have to wade through 70 pages of text because well it would seem _you_ don't want to have to read either.
Lame

Listen....... Why/ WHY NOT/Maybe/Maybe Not (or whatever confused Being you are.....)
Please include the proper quotes. None of those were mine.
Why don't you move on to the next 'debunking' thread? Your presence here has been noted and accounted for. '
You are a stellar scientist here on ATS (oh my, what would we do without you?) so you have been flagged, starred and an academy award awaits you!
I've followed some of your replies to some other threads and let me tell you something (you,' Kind Regards, Maybe/Maybe Not" contributor.....)
You m'friend are way too full of yourself!
I don't want to hear from you. Please ,move along please. (peace?)
Fiona? Are you here?

One Moment.....

I'm a little confused.

Are you replying to me?

Regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by One Moment

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
Lame

Listen....... Why/ WHY NOT/Maybe/Maybe Not (or whatever confused Being you are.....)
Please include the proper quotes. None of those were mine.
You m'friend are way too full of yourself!
I don't want to hear from you. Please ,move along please. (peace?)
Fiona? Are you here?

Oh, that's a CLASSIC!!!
One Moment, you replied to a post by MALEFACTOR, not Maybe...
It's even more funny, when you say "Please include the proper quotes..", and refer to "confused beings".. How positively apt.

CHRLZ.....

OK.....hang on a bit.....

"Maybe...maybe not bangs his head on the desk a few times to clear things up a little :bnghd: "

Right.....

I think he's talking to me!

reply to post by One Moment


One Moment.....

Listen.......

I'm listening!

Why/ WHY NOT/Maybe/Maybe Not (or whatever confused Being you are.....)

I confirm I am "Maybe...maybe not"

Please include the proper quotes. None of those were mine.

I am uncertain as to the "proper quotes" to which you refer.

Could you please direct me to the "proper quotes"? (many thanks)

Why don't you move on to the next 'debunking' thread?

If you mean that you would like me stop posting in this thread, then I note I basically had arrived at that point prior to your commentary in this thread.

Your presence here has been noted and accounted for.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Could you please clarify your comment? (many thanks)

You are a stellar scientist here on ATS

Well.....whilst I think I might be making some level of interesting & useful contribution to ATS, I wouldn't presume to suggest I am a "stellar scientist here on ATS"

oh my, what would we do without you?

LOL.....you'd be A-OK without me.....you'd work something out!

so you have been flagged, starred and an academy award awaits you!

Well, Springer once said I can have an ATS cap!

I've followed some of your replies to some other threads

I hope you found my replies interesting & useful.

let me tell you something (you,' Kind Regards, Maybe/Maybe Not" contributor.....) You m'friend are way too full of yourself!

Oh.....

I don't want to hear from you.

Oh.....oh dear.....

Please ,move along please.

Ummmm.....to where?

peace?

Oh One Moment..... now you're really losing me.....

"Peace?".....?

Regards
Maybe...maybe not

Just a quick request, MMN, can you PLEASE change that avatar. Inexplicably, it makes me feel like vomiting..

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
"Maybe...maybe not bangs his head on the desk a few times to clear things up a little :bnghd: "

MMN, while you may not be a 'stellar' scientist, you do pretty well. After all, science is really just a common sense approach to.. stuff. However, in the spirit of this thread, I need to draw your attention to a small 'geometric' problem you have. Your 'desk' against which you are head-banging appears to be vertical in the picture...

I am intrigued on how you keep your gear from sliding off - velcro?

Originally posted by One Moment

So I am just trying to determine whether Fiona had a preconceive notion about this 'thing being from another planet'....before going public.

I have a feeling she did not say that rather, it's another attempt to drive in the 'hoax' nail into this story.

If you are implying that Mr Chalker said this as a deliberate attempt to "drive the hoax nail in" then please read the article again, One Moment. I think that is unfounded.

I believe this statement was written by the REPORTER, as it was also mentioned here back in March:
Liverpool Leader March 25
She said she believed the objects were life forms from another planet.
“I believe in other life forms, put it that way,” she said.

If you have issues with this quote being used, then the issue is with the newspaper, not anyone on this thread and certainly not Mr Chalker.

and just to add to what nettie said, somewhere in this thrread a poster pointed out that fiona had been claiming ghostly goings on at her home on facebook which leads me to believe that she was already into this "stuff" before hand and also makes me think she either is a bit of an attention seeker because seriously, whats the chances of someone witnessing u.f.o s and ghosts in a short time, sorry to say it but that might impress some people but to me it just adds more suspicion. so either shes a gullible believer that sees mundane things as proof of what she wants to believe and will embellish it a bit or shes just an outright attention seeking hoaxer.... just my opinion...

thanks

rich

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
and just to add to what nettie said, somewhere in this thrread a poster pointed out that fiona had been claiming ghostly goings on at her home on facebook which leads me to believe that she was already into this "stuff" before hand and also makes me think she either is a bit of an attention seeker because seriously, whats the chances of someone witnessing u.f.o s and ghosts in a short time, sorry to say it but that might impress some people but to me it just adds more suspicion. so either shes a gullible believer that sees mundane things as proof of what she wants to believe and will embellish it a bit or shes just an outright attention seeking hoaxer.... just my opinion...
thanks
rich

RICH-ENGLAND.....

You are correct.

Haunted bathrooms, etc... were discussed.

I think there was also a mention of previous UFO "experiences", but I am not certain about that & I need to check that.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Chadwickus


The crack and Sultana do not tilt nearly 90 degrees in your pictures, there is no tilt at all in any of your pictures, how do you explain the tilt? it obviously isn't the camera tilting because the trees stay the same.

The problem with reconstruction is, the reconstruction can be manipulated to support your argument, or anyone's argument if you have the will to do so.

All I have seen is this woman being called a liar and a hoaxer, you asked why the later picture you posted was cropped? how do you know it was cropped? couldn't it be one of the three other pictures supposed to have been taken?

Remember just because it can be done, does not mean it was, as far as I can see this lady has done nothing to arouse any suspicion of her deliberately trying to hoax anyone.

I'm sorry but because both you and Phage cant accept the possibility that for once someone is telling it as it was, does not mean the woman is not being honest.

Reflection this and angles that, you have not proven at all that these pictures where taken inside the car, not at all, for one why not try and do your reconstruction again, but this time do it with the sun set in front of you instead of a blue sky, also why did you crop your first photo of the Sultana? (see top left hand corner of pic) could it be the rear view mirror got in the way a little? or another part of your car?

The Woman has offered up her phone for examination if I read right? which means the pictures will be as they where taken without any cropping, with time and date which will show how much time was between each picture.

I see nothing in the pictures which prove that they were taken inside a car, we just have the usual opinion and explanation which fly around when people are not sure.

As for the why didn't anyone else see this object along a busy road? just how many other people were taking pictures of the sunset at that time on that road?

Kudos for going out and trying to recreate the pictures, but they are worthless unless the conditions are the same, and as I already said, and several others, the object whatever it may be has tilted from one picture to the next, something I challenge you to recreate, make your crack tilt 90 degrees and I will agree, not the Sultana because that can be manipulated, until then, this looks genuine enough for me, but then again I don't need convincing, I like many millions of other people already know something is flying in our skies.

reply to post by azzllin


Azzlin.....

The Woman has offered up her phone for examination if I read right? which means the pictures will be as they where taken without any cropping, with time and date which will show how much time was between each picture.

I downloaded those original photos directly from the witness' phone to my laptop, during my extensive on-site meeting with the witness.

I used the original photos in my summary report on P55, including all available EXIF / GPS data.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by azzllin

oh dear! here we go again, someone else that just wants to ignore everything that doesn't fit their beliefs.

you are absolutely correct, millions of people do know that something is flying in our skies, for example there are birds, insects, aeroplanes, helicopter's and many other mundane objects but just because somebody has taken a photo of basically nothing, you want to take a leap of faith and ignore logic and reason to accept its an alien craft?. even if it wasn't a hoaxed picture which i believe it is, it still would offer nothing at all except it would be a photo of something but does that mean its alien because it could not be identified in a fuzzy photo?. no of course it doesn't and its just ridiculous to assume so!. and just because a photo is proven a hoax does that mean that aliens don't exist or have not visited? no and that would also be a ridiculous assumption!....

thanks

rich

[edit on 13-6-2010 by RICH-ENGLAND]

reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND


I don't ignore anything to fit my belief, what I believe is irrelevant and does not in any way have anything to do with this story, the point of my post was to show, that going out sitting in your car and taking a picture of a crack or a Sultana then offering it up as proof of wrong doing is not evidence of anything.

Any reconstruction should be done under similar if not exact circumstances, nobody has yet explained the tilt have they?

I take evidence as what it is, I've been doing it long enough to understand to find the answer is to be honest with yourself first, to do otherwise is just kidding yourself.

And by using the word yourself, I am not referring directly to you but everyone in general.

I notice that the thread is now in the Hoax forum, like so many others, I believe it is way to early to make a determination like that, I find that sad, especially on a site like this and what it is supposed to be all about, it seems to have gone from deny ignorance to lets get into the minds of our members, for what reason, anyone's guess is as good as mine.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


I read your post on p55 with interest, and to be totally honest, and without trying to be a dick, I find your conclusions to be at best speculative, again because it can be done, does not mean it was.

I find it upsetting that instead of using the alleged sighting and that incident alone, that every aspect it seems of this woman's history is being used to debunk one event, there are many members on here who are interested and follow different phenomena with interest, more than casual interest in some cases.

The claims made by the woman while being a little over the top it seems should not allow any investigation be soured into being called a hoax without definitive proof of it being so.

How many times have we seen a member comment they would love to see something for themselves? some of us are lucky enough to have been in such a position, being into a subject and living it are totally different, for instance in one of your comparison pictures you can clearly see the front of the car, if the camera moved up I guess you would see the interior roof of the car, that is not seen in her images, no wipers nothing to show it was inside a car apart from some lighting anomalies, which cant be explained away with 100% certainty.

I have total respect for the lengths you have gone in this case, you have done what many others should do before offering up some of the crazy explanations they do, you have offered some very good results for the work you have carried out, but I have to ask, is any of it 100% conclusive, or is there still a % that she could be right and did as she has said?

I have found in the past that some witnesses have changed their stories, not however to cover something up, but because at the time they felt they needed to give an explanation of how they reacted and what they did, so changed some of the story so as not to look foolish, but by doing so have cast doubt over their story, yet when an investigation was carried out, the only part of the story that did not fit was the change of their version of events, then other witnesses where found and interviewed, and that is all it was, a version of events which had them worried if they spoke up would make them seem crazy, so they changed some details.

I doubt there is a single person on this site who has something in their closet they would not want it going into the public domain, things which to the rest of us are nothing, its just a shame that changing a story over rules the evidence presented, which IMO seems to be what has happened here, wanting to witness something, then seeing something, you can never prepare for that moment ever.

I so need a break from ATS, its making me feel like Im going insane, as well as recent anger issues.

Kudos for your work

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

IF THE MAIN BLOB WAS SOMETHING FLYING OR MOVING IN ANY WAY THEN IT WOULD NOT POSSIBLY STAY AT THE SAME DISTANCE AND ANGLE FROM THE OTHER BLOBS ... THEREFORE YOUR THEORY IS DESTROYED.

Let me guess the first time you saw two pictures of two birds moving equidistant from each other at the same rate of speed you thought they were the same creature mounted atop a giant piece of glass hovering in the sky. Your argument is not only fallacious, it's moronic.

IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU????

So simple as to be worthy of a special olympic trophy.

...if you don't believe that its alien or something like a secret plane then why the hell are you wasting your and everyone else time just arguing over nothing, i mean seriously if you think its a bug then it has to be a hoax therefore you are just arguing for the sake of it.

Let me put this simply for _you_. I don't know _what_ it is. I only know that there are some very strange optical properties that make me want someone who knows a bit more about 3D imaging and math to provide an explanation (Phage? Arbitrageur?). Not self-aggrandizing photographers who think knowing how a photo is usually composited qualifies them to comment on math they never have and never will understand.

edit: to add Arbitrageur

[edit on 13-6-2010 by TheMalefactor]

reply to post by TheMalefactor


wow you are being ridiculous just for the sake of argument, birds and mud spots are not even in the same ball park!.

im going to try and explain it one last time and then i just give up because i cant be bothered to argue with someone that just argues for the sake of it while ignoring reason, logic and everything else.

THERE ARE THREE MAIN SPOTS IN THE PHOTOS, ONE MAIN LARGE ONE AND TWO SMALLER ONES, THE LARGER ONE BEING THE CLAIMED U.F.O, THESE THREE SPOTS ARE IN A TRIANGLE IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER, THEY STAY IN THIS TRIANGLE AND AT THE EXACT SAME DISTANCE AND ANGLE TO EACH OTHER IN EVERY PHOTO, IF JUST ONE OF THESE SPOTS WAS FLYING OR MOVING THEN THE DISTANCE, ANGLE AND TRIANGLE WOULD CHANGE BUT IT DOESNT, NOW IF TWO OR THREE OF THREE WERE MOVING THEN THE ODDS OF THEM STAYING IN THAT EXACT FORMATIAN DISTANCE AND ANGLE IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER OVER ALL THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS WOULD BECOME BILLIONS TO ONE TO NIGH ON IMPOSSIBLE,, THEREFORE THE ONLY CONCLUSION IS THAT NONE OF THEM ARE MOVING AND THEY ARE FIXED TO SOMETHING LIKE A WINDSCREEN WHILE THE CAMERA IS MOVED THEREFORE YOUR THEORY IS DESTROYED!!!...

AND SERIOUSLY, I WOULD LOVE YOU TO CARRY OUT THAT TASK TO COMPARE JUST TO PROVE ME WRONG, TAKE A SERIES OF 5, 4 OR 3 PHOTOGRAPHS CONTAINING AT LEAST 3 FLYING BIRDS TAKEN WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME BETWEEN THEM AS WHAT FIONAS PICTURES WERE AND SHOW ME THAT THEY WILL STAY THE SAME DISTANCE, ANGLE AND FORMATION IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER IN EVERY PICTURE, AND ALSO KEEP THEM RELATIVELY IN THE SAME POSITION IN RELATION TO THE LANDSCAPE LIKE THESE PICTURES?. NOW DO YOU SEE HOW RIDICULOUS THAT IS?.

now add that to all the other problems with the photo like lightpoles and reflections and this is nothing but a hoax.

im really not going to bother answering again because you have proved how ignorant, argumentative and down right insulting you are. you've also proved that you are just reading and understanding things however the hell you like as in how you did with chrlz by misquoting, misrepresenting and misunderstanding everything he said. and i really cant be bothered to answer another ridiculous comparation like birds to mud!, especially when you keep choosing to only answer what suits you. chrlz Is still waiting for your analysis so he can put you straight but if i was him i wouldn't bother as it would be a waste of his time!

thanks

rich

[edit on 13-6-2010 by RICH-ENGLAND]

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

wow you are being ridiculous just for the sake of argument, birds and mud spots are not even in the same ball park!.

The "birds" were an abstract object conveying the concept of formation. And ... psst... not sure if you noticed but the iPhone optics aren't exactly the greatest.

...while ignoring reason, logic and everything else.

I agree, we should sign you up for remedial logic.

THESE THREE SPOTS ARE IN A TRIANGLE IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER, THEY STAY IN THIS TRIANGLE AND AT THE EXACT SAME DISTANCE AND ANGLE TO EACH OTHER IN EVERY PHOTO,

No... this is only true of 0432 and 0433. I'd ask you to prove me wrong, but based on our previous discussions any time I asked you to materialize something you can't "be bothered."

IF JUST ONE OF THESE SPOTS WAS FLYING OR MOVING THEN THE DISTANCE, ANGLE AND TRIANGLE WOULD CHANGE BUT IT DOESNT

So you're saying the Blue Angels shouldn't under any circumstances be able to keep formation and move together? I'm so glad you made that clear for us.

NOW IF TWO OR THREE OF THREE WERE MOVING THEN THE ODDS OF THEM STAYING IN THAT EXACT FORMATIAN DISTANCE AND ANGLE IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER OVER ALL THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS WOULD BECOME BILLIONS TO ONE TO NIGH ON IMPOSSIBLE

Damn I thought the Blue Angels were good before, but now I know they're downright brilliant.

now add that to all the other problems with the photo like lightpoles and reflections and this is nothing but a hoax.

I imagine every time you type "it's a hoax" you somehow imagine it makes it more true. If wishes were ponies...

im really not going to bother answering again because you have proved how ... argumentative and down right insulting you are.

I'll miss our wonderful conversations. Though I have to say you've been just as insulting to other members on the forum:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Consider me your karmic buddy .

...you've also proved that you are just reading and understanding things however the hell you like

I didn't realize discrete math had numerous interpretations.

as in how you did with chrlz by misquoting, misrepresenting and misunderstanding everything he said.

I think it's _you_ who's misunderstanding things however the "hell you like." Notice how charlz highlighted sections of his previous commentary to draw attention away from the parts that were _actually_ contradicting what he said? Jee that's not misdirection, no, not at all. LOL. Let me guess you're the kind of guy who eats up the political campaign ads as factual and true.

chrlz Is still waiting for your analysis so he can put you straight

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That says it all. I highly recommend you read up on parallax and how we determine Earth's distance to other objects way far out in the galaxy. Our imagery of distant cosmic objects comes back in 2D images at different angles, using scale-dilation we determine distance. Since we're assuming the objects in the pictures are at a near-enough fixed distance this method is then telling us about the distance between the "blob" and the reflection. So the scale has to match the offset.

What Charlz is failing to understand is that the reflection, as a projection, will _remain_ at a fixed distance even during angle changes. The optical distortions will be so minor as to be negligible error margin -- not 78% scaling errors!

edit: crossing some t's, dotting some i's.

[edit on 13-6-2010 by TheMalefactor]

reply to post by TheMalefactor


haha, that was even more ridiculous than the last post, i shot down your ridiculous bird theory so you introduce " the blue angels" as proof of formation,.... haha, the blue angels fly in a pre set and extremely practiced formation in multi million dollar equipment with radar, ground radar and all the best and most expensive positioning equipment going with altitude, yaw, pitch and roll readouts as well as many other things, but still it would be almost impossible to keep three of those in a series of shots with the background staying in the same place with a few seconds between a shot, and how does that even remotely compare to this situation where you are claiming one item is moving but staying in the same relative place as two others and hardly moving between pictures with seconds between each picture ! haha.

thats definitely it for me, i cant argue against this ridiculous garbage!. its futile,

bye

rich

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

haha, that was even more ridiculous than the last post, i shot down your ... bird theory so you introduce " the blue angels"

Lets see first we have,

"THE MAIN BLOB WAS SOMETHING FLYING OR MOVING IN ANY WAY THEN IT WOULD NOT POSSIBLY STAY AT THE SAME DISTANCE AND ANGLE FROM THE OTHER BLOBS"

Now you say,

"...the blue angels fly in a pre set and extremely practiced formation in multi million dollar equipment with radar, ground radar and all the best and most expensive positioning equipment going with altitude, yaw, pitch and roll readouts as well as many other things..."

Not only are you reversing your argument, your original geometrical conception of how things _can_ move relative to each other is totally back-asswards.

And obviously off-world intelligence capable of traveling numerous light-years to get here, wouldn't - no couldn't - stay in formation. It would be inconceivable that such advanced intelligence would be able to communicate position, altitude, pitch, yaw, and roll in realtime. Birds can do it, but off-world life - nope not hearing any of that rubbish! LOL

So how exactly have you shot down the argument, again? Oh, right, in bizarro-world contradiction validates an argument. Logic!

thats definitely it for me,

You keep saying you're leaving, but you keep coming back for more. Speaks volumes on your follow through doesn't it?

i cant argue against this ...

You're right, you can't.

bye

Kisses!

While you casually toss in comments about *others* not understanding the maths, how is it, malefactor, that YOU haven't been able to actually make a POINT?

You claim to know the maths and how to apply it, so DO IT. Make your proof, show us EXACTLY what it is you have determined, instead of all the handwaving.

MAKE YOUR POINT and PROVE IT WITH THE APPROPRIATE EQUATIONS.

While you are at it:

Tell us again how things move left when you pan left.

Tell us again how you would account for windscreen curvature when dealing with a reflection.

I notice that when I returned pointing out all your errors, misinformation, lack of understanding and quoting out of context, you haven't managed to address ANY of it.

I have no problem admitting that I cannot possibly model this situation with the given information - BECAUSE I fully understand how the MANY perspective issues come in to play and what is required.

YOU claim you can - SO DO IT. Use your cute little 2-variable equation to model 3d space, without knowing anything about the camera position, etc. Just state your assumptions - she'll be right mate!

Up until then, your comments about *others* 'pretending' will be seen for EXACTLY what they are.