One has to laugh.
Every day we hear calls that we want proof, someone takes a few pictures and posts them, straight away its, just mud or a street light, It's a hoax.

Some people just take pictures, they see something strange and they don't know what it is, they post it, we then get experts with google pointing out a small flaw with the whole story,
If you look at google earth I find my house is a different colour so obviously it does not exist now, I mean google earth does not lie

May I suggest that just part of the story may be an inacurate account and not the whole story itself.
I witnessed a UFO event that I could not explain and I found it hard to remember every aspect of the entire situation, I know what I saw, but I can't remeber where every street light was at the time.

even if it was a street light that suddenly turned on, how do we explain the rest of the anomilies?

To be honest. I'm not actually sure what Phage is on about. I can say almost 100% that. The pictures were taken from the right hand side of the picture Phage posted looking towards the camera. If you blow up the original photos the single white line and the hard shoulder run off are on the left, not the right and it would mean her car was parked in the middle of the traffic.

You do realise cars drive on the left in Australia don't you? if they didn't the oncoming traffic in her photo's are driving on the wrong side of the road

Wow. Just.. like.. wow. Entertaining thread!

1. If most of those pictures were NOT taken from behind a windshield, then I've never analysed a picture before. The pale reflections and the linear glare patterns from the streetlight are the type found on windshields, not so much in camera lenses (esp the reflections..)

2. The main object is very clearly out of focus. The blur is evenly spread around the object, so it CANNOT be motion blur, unless the object is coming right at the camera... The object is NEAR the camera. VERY near, as the camera clearly has much depth of field, just like any small-sensor cam.

3. Yes, the bright light is a streetlight. Anyone who doesn't recognise that, clearly hasn't been down that road... If Fiona claims otherwise, then I challenge her to get a perfectly MATCHING image (trees, foliage, road, etc) that *doesn't* show the light. I'd do it meself, but I'm a bit north of Sydney at the moment, and I think Phage has pretty adequately busted that one with Google Earth, anyway..
(Oh, and the light has blown out that area with flare, so of course you can't see the flaming post.. sheeesh!)

4. The changing shape of the object *on her windscreen* was caused by simply changing the angle of the camera, and moving it a little nearer/further away. Now, you're probably thinking that's a groundless claim, or wild-a$$ed guess, but look here:

(hope that works...)
I've cropped the object out of the *second image*, pasted the 'object' transparently into the first image, and then did a single linear 'transform' - the shape of the area shows you exactly what I did. Snap. And repeatable by anyone with a decent image editor (that's science at work, folks!).
Moving the camera will change the size of the object as well as distort it, usually in a linear fashion exactly as I have shown there. Notice that using a small and very simple linear distortion, the two shapes can be easily made to match. As the camera was close to the object, any small change in position involves a correspondingly larger change in angle (that's photogrammetry at work, folks!). And if the object was even slightly 3-dimensional - as, sadly, some squashed bugs/mud/birdcrap is - then it is even easier to get changing shapes (like the sultana example posted earlier).

Now, I'm not going to call deliberate hoax, as I know how the mind works. (I gave a recent example of my brain screwing up with a bird that I thought was a 737 for a few seconds... )

First up, I'll bet Fiona has not got an exact recollection of the exact sequence of images, perhaps some were out of the car, but the ones in question were definitely behind a windshield. Secondly, I've caught an object on the windshield in the corner of my eye before, so perhaps she did see 'something', snap some shots, and then maybe even saw more objects (birds, plane, helicopter, dunno). When she went back to the images, she may have confused which were which. The windshield ones showing the crud were the most interesting, so why not use them...

But in simple terms, the main object in those pics is CLOSE, very close, to the camera. If she saw something genuinely flying in the sky, those things are NOT it.

Sorry, but there it is. Only my opinion, of course - judge for yourselves if I know my stuff.

But do carry one, guys. It's been quite entertaining.

Edited to add..
PS - I should comment on the 'orbs', I s'pose... Frankly, they are too small and indistinct to make any real judgement - you can see that jpeg artefacting along with the horrible sharpening that cheap cameras do automatically, has rendered them pretty much unidentifiable. They do look like they 'may' be illuminated from the direction of the street lamp, but that could be just an effect caused by their shape and the sharpening/jpegging. When I first saw them, I immediately thought stone chips in the windscreen, but they could be birds, bats or even close flying bugs, or just more crud on that windscreen.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by CHRLZ]

G'day

I'm curious enough about this that I'll take a detour to the viewing site tomorrow & take some photos with my iPhone.

That will be about 15-16 hours from now.

I'll do what I can to duplicate the photos taken by Fiona from the point of view of viewing angles, identifying streetlights, etc...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

&

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
G'day

I'm curious enough about this that I'll take a detour to the viewing site tomorrow take some photos with my iPhone.

That will be about 15-16 hours from now.

I'll do what I can to duplicate the photos taken by Fiona from the point of view of viewing angles, identifying streetlights, etc...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

You remind me of me, Maybe.. - well done!! I love this sorta stuff.

The only minor problem would be matching the zoom angle (focal length) of the OP's camera - does the iphone have a zoom? (please tell me it doesn't just zoom digitally..!)

Then again, most of that type of camera have a similar default focal length anyway, so I think you could get close. Can't wait to see your shots. Maybe you could even try to shoot at about the same time, and from behind a windscreen, upon which is... well, please yourself..!


PS - I dare you to get a local kid to throw a frisbee...

This story made the 7pm Project on Channel 10 tonight.

They made the usual jokes about aliens/UFOs and they had Martin Plowman as a guest to discuss UFOs. Martin Plowman has a PhD from Melbourne Uni for studying UFOs in some kind of sociology degree.

Why does the MSM go silly over inconclusive pictures like this, when there's better evidence that never sees the light of day? Answer: They want the subject to remain kooky and easily dismissed.

I'm interested to read the other witness reports - I did read the article where others had said they saw something as well, over the Blue Mountains and rural New South Wales.

In a post a few pages back, there was a map of Australia with reference to Alice Springs ... what was that related to? I tried to read back the pages of posts but didn't find reference.

Im in the ball park that there is a good possibility this is not a hoax. Its not unusual to hear of unidentified craft in the Blue Mountains, and I have seen UFO's very close to Sydney central (as well) myself.

It will be interesting to follow this story to a conclusion after any investigations.



[edit on 25-3-2010 by Smiggle]