UFO in Sydney Australia

reply to post by TheMalefactor


wow. you really are bordeline insane! i have not reversed anything whatsoever! the two situations are totally different and you obviously do not understand any of it yet your trying to add mathematical equations when you cant even get basic stuff!. you are the one that keeps contradicting yourself!. TRY READING PEOPLES POSTS PROPERLY, you said you cant compare apples to oranges yet you compare 3 blobs of stationary fixed mud to birds and the blue angels! haha, the three situations are totally different and ive explained why,three intelligently controlled and related craft as in blue angels with a practiced and pre determined flight path can obviously stay in formation, birds can also stay in formation, although its a bit more random, three totally unrelated blobs two of which are definitely mud spots on a windscreen and not under intelligent control are showing that the other blob is also not moving because they stay where they are relative to each other showing that they must all be stationary ! NOW HOW IS THAT A CONTRADICTION!! HAHA. a ive spelled it out about 4 times and you still cannot understand a very very very simple stetement yet youre trying to make out your intelligent!!!.

YOU KEEP SPOUTING ABOUT FORMATIONS, BLUE ANGELS AND BIRDS SO TAKE UP MY CHALLENGE AND PROVE ME WRONG, TAKE A SERIES OF THREE PICTURES OF 3 BIRDS OR FORMATION AEROPLANES, TAKE THE PICTURES WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME BETWEEN THEM AS FIONAS PICTURES AND KEEP THEM ALL IN SHOT, WITH THE SAME RELATIVE DISTANCE AND FORMATION AND WITH THE BACKGROUND STAYING THE SAME IN EACH PICTURE AND HAVE THEM AT A CLOSE DISTANCE FROM THE CAMERA LIKE THE BLOBS IN THESE PICTURES

earlier you said you didn't believe it was alien but now your making out it is! thats two major contradictions youve made on yourself but hey im sure in your world its everybody else! and how did aliens get brought into it? i didn't even mention them and im quite sure they could stay in formation if intelligent space fairing aliens exist, but i dont see what they have to do with these photos, birds or blue angels, i think your freudian slip has given away your blind believer quest so now i know what your motivation is!.

and seriously now, this is it, im definitely not going to answer you again, its a pointless and futile quest trying to argue with someone whos in an alternative reality and who keeps making it up as they go along, in fact i think you might just be on a wind up because you seriously cant believe half the senseless factless garbage you have spouted in the last few posts.

goodbye and enjoy your reality.

rich

ps, i see that you tried to deal with me in the same way as you did chrlz by misquoting, misunderstanding, misrepresenting and totally twisting what i said!. oh well i suppose desperate times need desperate measures!


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

reply to post by Archirvion


Archirvion.....

If we had the original photo or the cell phone it would be easier to scan into a analyzer.

I repeat:

If you are serious about that, I have all the original files as downloaded straight from the witness iPhone to my laptop inclusive of all advanced EXIF data (GPS, etc...)

If you U2U me with your e-mail address, I will e-mail the files to you.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by azzllin


Azzllin…..

Thank you for your thorough & well expressed reply!

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

The use of the word ”speculative” is a matter of opinion & open to ”speculation”!

again because it can be done, does not mean it was.

…..as is always the case with such things.

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.

It is important that all information is considered, including any previous extraordinary claims by a witness.

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.

I agree….& for the record, I did not know about the witness' previous extraordinary claims when I made my initial conclusions.

How many times have we seen a member comment they would love to see something for themselves?

We have seen that on myriad occasions.

some of us are lucky enough to have been in such a position, being into a subject and living it are totally different

2 questions arise from this:

What are you assuming about my own beliefs & experiences?

What do you mean when you say ”living it”?

for instance in one of your comparison pictures you can clearly see the front of the car

I took that from my own car, whilst with the witness, with an iPhone of exactly the same model & spec as the iPhone used by the witness to take her photos.

I intentionally ensured I included part of my own car in the picture, for context.

if the camera moved up I guess you would see the interior roof of the car

If the camera was moved or tilted enough in the right direction(s), ”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

I spent time looking at that aspect, whilst sitting inside the witness’ car, with the witness, viewing through both our iPhones. The witness & I could clearly see it was easy to take photos through the windscreen whilst not showing any part of the car. The very wide field of view of the iPhone confounds the “expected” geometry somewhat until you get used to it, as per the original witness’ images & the witness’ initial consternation of the inclusion of the streetlight in the top right-hand corner of the image.

from some lighting anomalies, which cant be explained away with 100% certainty.

There were many ”lighting anomalies”. Can you please clarify this comment? (many thanks)

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

Thank you for your kind & positive words!

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 think about that a lot…..

My position has always been that ”there still a % that she could be right and did as she has said”.

However, I think that % chance is so small that I came to the conclusions I did.

I should also point out that I know that area very well. I have travelled that road many, many times myself. It is an extremely busy road, in an extremely busy area, inclusive of an extremely busy & well utilized airport that is VERY close by. I think it is extremely unlikely that something as dramatic as this could have occurred & yet there were no other witnesses to the “event”.

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 don’t think that happened, in this instance.

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.

The difference is, this witness is basically claiming to have proof of extraterrestrial visitation to Earth. That is THE biggest story in human history…..bar none.

When something like this is claimed, all possible analysis & scrutiny should be applied.

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

I agree…..this is an extremely vexatious topic.

However, I hope you “come back!”

Kudos for your work

Thank you again!

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

[edit on 13-6-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Originally posted by keepureye2thesky

Originally posted by One Moment
((((((((((((((((((((((((YAWN)))))))))))))))))))))))))))

You can be his disciple all you want. Follow the Shepherd of pseudoscience!

Your attitude is so poor. You should respect people on here and not show
such reactive behavior and comments. This is unintelligible bickering on beliefs
and not a critical overview of the evidence in this thread.

This is so off topic and childish right now.

First off, don't tell me who I should respect. You don't know me but just for clarification, I respect everyone at first even if I don't often agree with most but, respect is always given until......it gets reduced to something else. Respect is earned!

I am posting to people in general and the same 3 people keep popping in. To me.....it looks like they found their truth by this Maybe Not guy which to me, makes them his disciples. What's wrong with that?

Moving on.........
I am also not childish, I am asking to hear from others. Not the same 3 people who keep telling me the same 3 things.
I've read most of this thread.

There wouldn't be any bickering if I didn't keep finding copied/pasted links appearing as a reply. Don't assume I didn't read them before (I don't like people shoving things in my face when I never asked for it. Call it a pet-peeve of mine)

There are 70 pages on here and you mean to tell me the same 3 people only respond? I just don't understand why others can't just discuss this without those same people chiming in with their redundancy.

I GET IT. YOU THINK THIS IS A HOAX BASED ON YOUR TESTS.
Wonderful! Great. That doesn't mean I have to subscribe to it.

Originally posted by One Moment

There are 70 pages on here and you mean to tell me the same 3 people only respond? I just don't understand why others can't just discuss this without those same people chiming in with their redundancy.

Dear One Moment,

Please go back a page - I responded to you about that quote that you were asking about.

- Hermit

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

wow. you really are bordeline insane!

I prefer crazy like a fox.

i have not reversed anything whatsoever!

ATS is all about plurality. I suggest conducting a poll.

you cant compare apples to oranges yet you compare 3 blobs of stationary fixed mud to birds and the blue angels!

Only 2 move relative to each other at the same rate. The 3rd moves at a different magnitude, traveling along a different movement vector.

With that out of the way ... do you understand that two blobs of mud will appear to move at a fixed distance relative to each other? Do you understand that two choreographed aircrafts moving equidistant from each other at the same speed and directional heading (especially perpendicular to a camera) will also appear to move relative to each other independent of the background? Do you now understand how a blurry scene can make it hard to determine which of the two is happening with just two shots to work from, especially when the camera moves?

three intelligently controlled and related craft as in blue angels with a practiced and pre determined flight path can obviously stay in formation ... three totally unrelated blobs two of which are definitely mud spots on a windscreen and not under intelligent control are showing that the other blob is also not moving because they stay where they are relative to each other showing that they must all be stationary!

Do you understand that the mud doesn't scale the way it should if we're seeing a yaw, y-axis movement? Please, elaborate on "stay where they are." You mean they move relative to each other? Jee, do birds and military planes move relative to each other? So what's your litmus test for determining which is which in a low quality image? From what I gather, it's "BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

ive spelled it out about 4 times and you still cannot understand a very very very simple stetement

What you've shown is a really tedious inability to grasp even 2D planar movement.

earlier you said you didn't believe it was alien but now your making out it is! thats two major contradictions youve made on yourself

I was pretty explicit. I have no idea what it is. All I'm willing to say in the declarative is that the damn thing's moving.

how did aliens get brought into it?

You mentioned that, "...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..."

Suggesting that this was somehow a difficult circumstance, that nothing, not birds, not anything can possibly mimic.

i didn't even mention them and im quite sure they could stay in formation if intelligent space fairing aliens exist,

I think this is the first thing we've ever agreed on, cause for celebration!

i think your freudian slip has given away your blind believer quest so now i know what your motivation is!

I think your grasping at straws reveals you as a pseudo-scientific skepti-bunker who doesn't know how to counter the parallax argument as related to the relative movement between the projected-reflection and the blob.

im definitely not going to answer you again,

There is a God!

goodbye and enjoy your reality.

Here's a quote I think you'll enjoy, "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

... PROVE ME WRONG, TAKE A SERIES OF THREE PICTURES OF 3 BIRDS OR FORMATION AEROPLANES, TAKE THE PICTURES WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME BETWEEN THEM AS FIONAS PICTURES AND KEEP THEM ALL IN SHOT, WITH THE SAME RELATIVE DISTANCE AND FORMATION AND WITH THE BACKGROUND STAYING THE SAME IN EACH PICTURE?

First off only 2 pictures show this behavior in Fiona's set (0432 and 0433). Second you realize the camera in Fiona's photographs change position between shots right? Causing the background to change, even if only ever so slightly. Third, further up you concede objects move in formation, "... three intelligently controlled and related craft as in blue angels with a practiced and pre determined flight path can obviously stay in formation ... " Now you're requiring a test to prove the point? Do you even think?

reply to post by TheMalefactor

i understand everything about the movement and all the other relative things, thats why i set the challenge to prove that you obviously dont.

you cant complete my challenge because you know its not possible to replicate those pictures with birds or planes because the birds would be in a totally different formation and position in each picture within the time taken between each shot and so would a "bug" and thats if you could actually keep them in frame over a series of shots from the same place with the same background without changing it. the planes would be out of shot before you got to the second picture and you would have to take the pictures at such a distance to keep them in the same background that you probably wouldn't even see them! your analogies were ridiculous and you know it. you cant complete this and you know it, your theory is destroyed and you know it!.

i love how you keep twisting everything i say, and i love how you pick and choose what to answer, i also love how you cut up everything i say to change its context.

reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND


I'd like to see you explain how this one was taken out of context,

im definitely not going to answer you again,

Hrm...

reply to post by TheMalefactor


it wasn't but almost everything else was, i changed my mind because of the way you keep twisting everything and cutting it to change its context just to suit your twisted reality, and yes you are correct about the mythbusters quote, i did like it as it suits what you are doing perfectly and is exactly what i would expect goes through your mind!.

anyway i love how once again you avoided the challenge and avoided answering it in any meaningful way and once again resorted to just trying and failing to be clever.

you cant do my challenge and you know it, it destroyed your theory and you know it

and also doing that challenge and taking a sequence of shots of three fast moving formation or non formation objects from inside a car like fionas pictures were taken while keeping them in the same scene but with multiple seconds elapsed between shots would be impossible but i wont push it that far because you wouldn't even manage the other bit, in fact the only way you would manage it would be by doing an instant multi shot sequence with almost no time elapsed between shots but even then there would be much more movement then what we are seeing.

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

once again showing your ignorance and twisting everything and misunderstanding, misrepresenting and misquoting to suit your flawed theory. are you doing this on purpose because its all you can do to make it look like you're proving something?.

anyway what do you mean i concede that things can move in formation! i never said that they couldn't ! what i actually said was that two stationary blobs on a car windscreen were staying at the same distance and formation with another blob over a series of pictures taken with time elapsed between each shot proving that that object must also be stationary and not moving as you claim!. if it was moving we would see a huge difference in its position relative to the others between shots with that much time elapsed .

once again ill repeat myself, its a totally different scenario for intelligent, controlled and co ordinated objects to move in formation compared to two totally unrelated, un controlled and stationary objects keeping formation and distance with a third object, only way is if the third object is stationary too.

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

reply to post by Phage

I think ppl are too serious about all of this, i didnt realize the thread was 72 pages already. But seriously if you actually look at the pictures you see she hasn't moved that much, she turned the camera up to the sky in the second photo. Is it really so important to disect this to the point of mutilation? Its like for many 'skeptics' the debate cannot be left until it has been proven hoax or natural phenomenon. Thats not real science. I am familiar with the photos she took because I have taken photos just like these.

I know many people would assume the pictures are dirt or something, but actually i believe they are UFO she captured, I have captured photos of the same nature many times.. These types of UFO are organic in nature, not metallic or even material sometimes. They also don't always appear to the naked eye. so IMO the reason it looks blurry isn't because it's close to the lens, however it may be possible to create such a story and use photos for attention, and maybe some headache from the media, lol.

[edit on 5-9-2010 by orazio]

There were other fuzzy Foos along with the sideways Foo.
Don't know why they are not metallic in the photos except
that the agitated air atoms are pounding on the ship hull
due to the lift of the sound waves in the ether.
Ether as defined by Tesla no less as he analyzed glowing bulbs
around Edison's time but with higher voltage and frequency.
The story goes he found rigid air or ether as it were and just
directed in the right direction will start to move.
But enough of that, Tesla found most of the radiation coming
off the agitated ether in the bulbs gave off more black light
radiation than normal light. So that might be the result of
black light emission to make fuzzy Foos and why we can't
see the ship.

GE had Langmuir investigate evacuated bulbs and found the
atomic hydrogen process used by Bill Lyne in his hydrogen
furnace. GE must have been careful not to Langmuir apply
voltage lest he find out too much. Tesla also invented high
voltage evacuation and gas separation techniques.

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!
im suprised this is still a topic i thought m &m debunked me a long time ago i still stand by what i seen & said its as if it happend yesterday and some one has comented on my history or past whats that all about

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 RICH-ENGLAND


hi rich its been a long time since iv even looked at this sight its been months and as for the ghostly happenings if your friend had of read my facebook corect he would have read that i was having plumbing troubles in my upstairs bath room and like i said if he had of kept reading the ghostly happening was a used washer in the tap thats why it was coming on then going off,, sonow you ca all make something of a used washer in a tap that should be an interisting topic in stead of bagging me out