UFO in Sydney Australia

reply to post by Zelong


Interesting point which throws up another phenomenon, which does not actually cast any doubt on her claim. Those who see one UFO, or think they have, have tendency, like all humans, to seek verification of what they think they saw. Ergo the pay more attention to sky in the wake of seeing something they believe to be anomalous, than, probably they did before.

The truth seems to be that, particularly in urban environments, people simply do not take the slightest heed of the sky , past a cursory glance to check the weather. They have no need to as their livelihoods,mostly, simply don't depend on it. Simple experiment anyone can do. next time you walk through a crowded area, look at how many people are looking up at the sky, then imagine something silent flying over and you work out how many would have even noticed it?

Another experiment is to ask people what phase of the moon it is currently and see how many, actually know, from simply looking at the moon.

Do it and i can almost guarantee, you will begin to understand why weird stuff can happen over the skies of our cities and go, virtually unnoticed.

Originally posted by FireMoon
Excuse me, but please quit with the wholly patronising attitude. Let me make it plain for you. You don;t have a clue what you are talking about and your methodology is wholly flawed as it was based, not on seeking the truth, but seeking to show how smart you are.

Good to see you know exactly how I think, I hope you're reading my thoughts now, it'll make you even more angry

The truth is, if the it is a smudge, it is a fixed object on the screen . If you take a photo of a fixed object on sheet of glass, then as the lady did, simply take another picture by rotating the camera a couple of degrees right and upwards, the object will, in fact ALWAYS, seemingly though not actually, move slightly to the left of the frame.

This is what I was demonstrating with my experimentations!

Why are you repeating what I've demonstrated, and berating me for it?

With the greatest respect it is not my problem if you don't understand basic science and maths

Who's patronizing now?

I'll have you know I was a straight C maths student and a straight B science student. Nyer!

Your attitude is typical of so many on here who think they know it all and shout so loudly, when the truth is, you often, don't even understand the most basic scientific methodology.. That being, repeat the experiment, do not invent your own, in order to prove something that was never claimed, in the first place.

I based my experiment on how I believed it was photographed, namely 2 shots taken within at least a few minutes of each other, with the camera position changed slightly to give the impression that the only thing that moved between the two images was the object.

I repeated this theory and tried to make it as close to what we're seeing in the original two pictures, of course it's not exact, do you want me to fly to Sydney to simulate it perfectly? Do you want me to go buy an Iphone? Do you want me to calculate the exact angle of the object in each image and repeat that for you? Do you want me to go find the exact squashed bug and put it on the windscreen of the car I will have to buy to make sure the experiment is done to the exact parameters of what you want?

The truth is, whatever the object in the photo's is, it moved, it cannot by the laws of maths, be static. That doesn't make it an alien ship, it just saves wasting any more bandwidth on pointless and completely erroneous claims by people who, it would seem, enjoy the sound of their own typing , rather more than, the actual truth.

What the hell are you talking about?

You just said, at the start of your post, that if the object was on a pane of glass and the camera was moved slightly that the object will, in fact ALWAYS, seemingly though not actually, move slightly...

Now you are saying by the laws of maths it cannot be static!

WHICH ONE IS IT?

The truth is YOU are the one who doesn't know what the hell you're talking about.
The truth is YOU are the one who obviously loves the sound of their own typing.
The truth is YOU are the one who has done nothing in this thread but berate others for actually taking the time to investigate the story.




[edit on 24/3/10 by Chadwickus]

reply to post by Chadwickus


in reference to an earlier post
muahaha now using google street cam i have traced the location of your residents and am currently on route to detain you for uncontrolled and unsupervised experiments!!! muahahaha!

not really... but good work though! these photos are a sham and i haven't really seen anyone claim them true.
only people debating what facts make it false!

edit to correct spelling of root
edit again to make note of the awesomeness of JB Black
[edit on 24/3/10 by spearhead]

[edit on 24/3/10 by spearhead]

reply to post by Chadwickus


Come back when you have learned the very basics of scientific methodology , because by continuing to post as you are, all you are doing is showing the world how little you actually understand.

reply to post by FireMoon


i agree with the chad... you people make something of nothing because in having nothing your need for something drives you to make something of nothing!
this is sham... sham sham sham... a dirty, dirty sham... on the windscreen

reply to post by FireMoon


Is that all you have to say?

You've flipped flopped from one theory to another in one post for crying out loud and I am the one who needs to learn basic scientific methodology?

Bwahaha!!

Hilarious.

Now go away before I taunt you another time!

[edit on 24/3/10 by Chadwickus]

can people not see the reflections of what appears to be the interior of a car in the original photos?
are people so starved for some inconcievable event that they will feed on the false blood the media should pour from its goblet of untruths?

disinfo! i cry!

they will test your effectiveness to deciefer from that which is true and false that which is clear and murkey! feed you sheeple feed!

I my honest opinion, should you have been able to create the perfect environment the original images were taken even you, Chadwickus would havbe been surprised at what you captured.

And as for you Firewothaveu! Use your brain. Simplicity first! If that can't give you answers then maybe you would have an argument... but not likely...

Originally posted by noisemedia
reply to post by Australian

 

Still, I wonder why every single UFO photo or video seems so blurry and hard to make out...you know? I mean EVERY single one of them nowadays.

There's just no pleasing the audience m'friend because the irony is; when a clear photo/video of an alledged UFO does surface, they're even MORE debunked.

you people make something of nothing because in having nothing your need for something drives you to make something of nothing!

lol can you say that three times, really fast?

lol @ 3rd pic down, is that the bell-shaped delusion of the great George Adamski Himself ? I beleive it is, The Holy Grail of the "I Want To Beleive"
Clan.

Impressive

Shortly afterwards, according to Adamski's accounts, a scout ship made of a type of translucent metal landed close to him, and its pilot, a Venusian called Orthon[1][6], disembarked and sought him out.[7]

......Im sorry!..........No,.....wait.........Theres More!

During their conversation, Orthon is said to have warned of the dangers of nuclear war and to have arranged for Adamski to be taken on a trip to see the solar system including the planet Venus, the location where Mrs. Adamski had been reincarnated.[3][7] Adamski said that Orthon had refused to allow himself to be photographed,

I beleive him, after all, a certain giant hedgehog named Spiny Norman refuses to have his photo taken aswell. (©Monty Python)

[edit on 24-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

its simple really, but obviously simple is a little too much for some to cope with...

The lady took a picture of an object and you and others immediately only focused on the object. Now go back and look at the original photo and then repeat the experiment.

That is, fins a pretty straight stretch of road, we will accept that 2 lane roads, are pretty much a similar size the world over in terms of their width. Take a photo through your car window that shows both sides of the road with the road leading off into the distance. better still find such a piece of road with street lamps on it and take you photo with the street lamp just on the very top right edge of the picture and make sure you have included a decent amount of the left hand, pavement, bushes whatever. Then and only then have you replicated what this lady took. it's called basic good scientific practice. My own personal suspicion is that, it is not easy to take such a wide panoramic, picture without including some blatantly obvious clue to it being taken through a car window, but I'm happy to proven wrong. Ignore the object for the time being, just replicate the scene in the picture she took, don't ignore the actual facts for the sake of desperation for proving a point.

That you haven't already sought to have done this , can only lead people, who actually think about these things seriously, that you don;t have a clue about proper procedures.

You don;t prove sharks eat bass by showing people a photo of a dolphin eating tuna...

reply to post by spearhead


Even with the images I took I was suprised that the sultana changed shape so noticeably.

That was the one sicking point of my theory (before I did it) that's why I originally stated that I thought she either took a pic of two different objects or messed around with whatever was on the screen to make it change shape.

So even a slight perspective change will alter the appearance of the object.

reply to post by Chadwickus


All you proved so far is what i said about fixed objects, what you have proved in your own head, is anyone's guess.

reply to post by Chadwickus


my theory from the beginning! and the exact reason the photo was cropped!

the other two anomolies to the side of the photo would have given reference to the primary anomoly as opposed to the street light as a reference giving the appearance of movement!

my belief is the car moved closer to the street light, the camera moved closer to the windscreen and the object didn't move at all!
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7239c1d54e22.jpg[/atsimg]
everything about this image says it was taken through angled glass!
By george we've cracked it!

[edit on 24/3/10 by spearhead]

[edit on 24/3/10 by spearhead]

Originally posted by spearhead
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

my theory from the beginning! and the exact reason the photo was cropped!
the other two anomolies to the side of the photo would have given reference to the primary anomoly as opposed to the street light giving the appearance of movement!

my belief is the car moved closer to the street light, the camera moved closer to the windscreen and the object didn't move at all!

By george we've cracked it!

[edit on 24/3/10 by spearhead]

if thats the case, how do you explain that the 3rd picture fits, almost perfectly over the first one, the only apparent movement, in the filed of view, being from the object? The sunset, the clouds, are all virtually identical to the first picture.

reply to post by TheWretched


hey mate i live in sydney and i noticed this aswell, alot of black hawk or army choppers at night and iv seen alot of army personal around the city lately, reminds me something out of the movies during war time lol also noticed alot of army trucks driving around, gives it a pre war time feeling. Wonder what this all means

reply to post by FireMoon


if you understood the magic behind navigation, triangulation and trigonometry. You would know that even a 1 degree error in calculation will accumulate to a larger error at the final destination! this is relative to scale.
the human hand is not steady enough to maintain the steadfast of a stationary tripod.

the car was rolling... slowly. she took the photos of what appeared to be a beautiful red sky. a natural occurence... your natural reaction.

the phenomenon is known as parallax, or disambiguation...
parallax



[edit on 24/3/10 by spearhead]

reply to post by spearhead


Oh, of course silly me,, was it being pushed by fairies? I'd quit floundering and just drown peacefully in the morass you are creating for yourself.

reply to post by FireMoon


what you are doing is known as trolling. you have no argument and nothing to back up that... non-argument.
i have no more fish food for you FireMoon, i will not feed those not interested in logic...

from what i gather from your profile YOU are more interested in what you have to say than anyone else is... posts - 459, replies 187...

perhaps you should reconsider your stance on ignorance!

[edit on 24/3/10 by spearhead]

reply to post by TwoPhish


Nice Post.

Sigh...Unfortunately gone are the days when an event could take place and people could discuss it in a respectable manner.


Like you said what ever happened to giving someone the benefit of the doubt?

This lady just saw something odd in the sky and took a snap at it, I doubt she was driving along and decided "Hey this bit of mud on my windscreen would make a great UFO Hoax story. Quick call the Press!

Next people will be trying to obtain her medical records to see if she is on any kind of medication to try and discredit her.