UFO in Sydney Australia

page: 19
33
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
From the news article

"As I was about to take the picture this black object appeared and then it started to move," she said.

"It started off about 800m away but it came closer - to about 400m - and then two other little round things appeared from this bright orange light above."

Given that, I'm assuming the picture with the whole street lamp in it, is the first and the closer objects pictures the latter ones. Could be wrong though.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by FireMoon]




posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by downunderET

I have a friend who has spoken to the woman who took the photo's and it would appear that the good ol' MSM have NOT published ALL of the photo's.

Looks like the one of a "mother ship" was not included in the MSM article.

BTW, Sydney is alive with this story and it keeps on going, very unusual for the MSm to keep it "UP" for so long????



But then, Fiona failed to publish them (or mention it last night while on here) too because I got these off her FaceBook that, contains only five photos.

No doubt Australia is abuzz with UFO activity!
I don't doubt that one bit.
And I'd like to think that everyone who furnishes 'proof' are telling the truth too but, that's not the case. But in my research, I've found more hoaxers hoaxing their hoax with video 'proof' than with photo proof. Case in point; Ed Walters (Gulf Breeze).

Maybe she'll return on here tonight. I think she said she would and if I'm not mistaking, she came on rather late (USA eastern time) so.....we'll see.



[edit on 25-3-2010 by TwoPhish]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
From the news article

"As I was about to take the picture this black object appeared and then it started to move," she said.

"It started off about 800m away but it came closer - to about 400m - and then two other little round things appeared from this bright orange light above."


The two being the two she accidental caught in a photo.

Perhaps the two moved and created a light as she noticed them.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


This is what one can find checking the EXIF data in a photo taken with an iPhone.

Linki

edit: english is not my first language

[edit on 25-3-2010 by cripmeister]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Ok.
Having seen a couple of posts by the witness to this event.

Originally posted by missfee
i was out of the car with my bottom learning in the middel of the botot trying to focus in on sunset who takes photos of sunsets while in there car why even bother alot of people are saying that its a dirty lence i can acure the picture i took of my daughter came out beautifuly no smudgers just a clear shot


I'm hoping that is Ms Hartigan who has taken the time to register with ATS and posted up her comments. She has confirmed she was outside the car when she took her photographs of the beautiful sunset. Correct?

If thats the case can someone please re-read my previous post on page 9 of this thread?

And answer me what those reflections are of?

To anyone who actually thinks the photograph was taken outside the car please explain to me what the 2 reflections are? I admit, when you take pictures of stuff with the sunset you do get some feedback, but not reflections of objects like that. You only get those reflections of objects when stood infront of reflective material.

For your referral and to save time. I have reposted the said image with the 2 positions marked again on the photo



I want to know what that object in the reflection is marked with the > <
and I want to know what that object is in the reflection marked with * *

This alone runs contrary to what the photographer claims. She says she was outside the car when she took those photographs. I dont think she was.

Upon further analysis I'd also like to see the exif data. I'd also like to say that I am not openly stating that Ms Hartigan is a liar / hoaxer. I'm just not entirely convinced that she took the photographs outside because of the reflections.

Here is why, the reflections you see in the photos aren't from sunlight or streetlight reflections, with those 2 elements alone you get 'sunglare' and glare from artificial lighting, you dont get reflections of objects from sunlight.


[edit on 25-3-2010 by Superiorraw]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Zelong
 


Thanks For the tip mate, I tried [quote='username] , Works on some places but not here. Ill be sure to use this button in future.
Cheers and thanks for the welcome!


[edit on 25-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Superiorraw
 


The "reflection" you have marked with the stars, could be, the leaves filtering the street lamp, it seems to emanate from, causing a *beam effect*?

It's worth reading up on *collimated light*, as the *refections* do have some of its characteristics, though i wouldn't claim that is the definite answer.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Superiorraw
 


The "reflection" you have marked with the stars, could be, the leaves filtering the street lamp, it seems to emanate from, causing a *beam effect*?

It's worth reading up on *collimated light*, as the *refections* do have some of its characteristics, though i wouldn't claim that is the definite answer.


It's not so much the *beam* I'm looking at, if you look at the two stars i've marked. Theres a long white strip object that looks like a side panel or dashboard. Even if I was to accept the collimated light explanation for what is between the two *. It still doesn't give me an explanation for the object between the 2 > < I placed on the photo.

The one between the > < looks like a carton or something. I just dont think leaves and sunlight could cause the reflection like that of a physical object.

My main discrepancy now is focused on this because the witness claims to be outside the car and the photograph is running contrary to her claim.

Any guesses as to what that object is between the two arrows? > <



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   



Please take a look and give me your opinion if you can?

Guy films UFO over Sydney

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Mark_Frost]



Mark, Heres my bet mate. Lousy footage.
Ive seen the thing flying at night, when illuminated its effect
is pretty much whats in your vid link.





[edit on 25-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Superiorraw
 


The "reflection" you have marked with the stars, could be, the leaves filtering the street lamp, it seems to emanate from, causing a *beam effect*?


Sounds like a poor attempt at a reverse debunk, swamp gas anyone?



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by pwrthtbe
 


Its really hard to say what it is, I mean I believe in other life out there, but why is it no one can get a decent shot of these things in the sky, Which for now till there is proof, I will still lean towards man made crafts, until proven otherwise, Take care people



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Superiorraw
 

The reflection (which appears in other images) is of something inside the car.



Poor woman, what's that growing on her nose?

Probably not a cookie sheet. More likely something a bit more subtle like a change in contour or the edge of the dashboard itself.



[edit on 3/25/2010 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



No.

I don't think she planned it. She took sunset pictures, got home and looked at them. Saw the blob that "ruined" them. Thought "Hey! It looks like a UFO". This is when the plot began to thicken.

I have no idea why she would do it but people do it all time.



I thought she saw the 'orbs' when she got home, decided they were ufo's,
decide to contact the paper for her 15 minutes worth (why else?)
and somewhere in the process, the blobs, which fiona hadnt thought anything of, 'became' ufos , from which the 'orbs' were ejected, after a bit of persuation from journos and more from old Bill Chalker perhaps.

Some journo who was probably getting his a## kicked at poker in the mail room down at the daily telegraph, jumped on the story and the opportunity to get out of the office on a slow news day!



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


That's close. Here's an interior shot of a silver 2008 PT Cruiser. We don't know if her Cruiser has the same color interior of course.



Source

[edit on 25-3-2010 by cripmeister]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Superiorraw

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Superiorraw
 


The "reflection" you have marked with the stars, could be, the leaves filtering the street lamp, it seems to emanate from, causing a *beam effect*?

It's worth reading up on *collimated light*, as the *refections* do have some of its characteristics, though i wouldn't claim that is the definite answer.


It's not so much the *beam* I'm looking at, if you look at the two stars i've marked. Theres a long white strip object that looks like a side panel or dashboard. Even if I was to accept the collimated light explanation for what is between the two *. It still doesn't give me an explanation for the object between the 2 > < I placed on the photo.

The one between the > < looks like a carton or something. I just dont think leaves and sunlight could cause the reflection like that of a physical object.

My main discrepancy now is focused on this because the witness claims to be outside the car and the photograph is running contrary to her claim.

Any guesses as to what that object is between the two arrows? > <


Sorry but i've blown it up and what i see is this...a large frond from the tree pointing towards the camera, lit in a slightly strange way by the gaps in the tree line allowing light to fall across the front of it.

it could easily be a refection off the front of the protruding frond, from the street lamp that is high and to the left. One of the reasons i never went for the, *through the glass* explanation was simple. I've seen these sort of artifacts umpteen times on pictures taken where there are, multiple light sources, non of them being the dominant one.

As for a reverse debunking, nothing of the sort, hate to pee on your chips old bean, but the only people who thought they had debunked this were, those who, thought it was a hoax from the get go.

if others were swayed by the pseudo science offered up for some of the explanation, tis no fault of mine.

Like i said ages ago on this thread. Step by step, is the only way to deal with these pictures. You don;t start with the attitude it's a hoax and then corrupt the data to fit. That's no different to hoaxing is it?

it might well turn out to be a hoax/mis identification, however,so far, for me, the dark object and the viability Ms Hartigan photographed it, seems to be still a runner, as it were.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Superiorraw
 

The reflection (which appears in other images) is of something inside the car.



Poor woman, what's that growing on her nose?

Probably not a cookie sheet. More likely something a bit more subtle like a change in contour or the edge of the dashboard itself.



[edit on 3/25/2010 by Phage]


Well of course its in the both pictures that feature that area of the trees, cos the pictures were taken almost simultaneously and the light hadn't really changed.

hardly rocket science is it? That, if you take 2 photos from the same vantage point, within seconds of each other, the same light should be in both. in fact, if it wans't it would be suspicious


Oh, and given i have pretty much shown all the pictures were take from the same vantage point and shown the working out, would you care to explain why that light/reflection only appears in 2 of the 5 and both feature the lower fronds and street lamp?

by rights it should be in all 5 shouldn't it??

[edit on 25-3-2010 by FireMoon]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


Hmm. Seems to have relocated in this one.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon

Sorry but i've blown it up and what i see is this...a large frond from the tree pointing towards the camera, lit in a slightly strange way by the gaps in the tree line allowing light to fall across the front of it.

it could easily be a refection off the front of the protruding frond, from the street lamp that is high and to the left. One of the reasons i never went for the, *through the glass* explanation was simple. I've seen these sort of artifacts umpteen times on pictures taken where there are, multiple light sources, non of them being the dominant one.


Ok. I have no idea what a 'frond' is? But I wiki'ed it
en.wikipedia.org...

Your saying that the object that looks like a carton inbetween the arrows I marked on the picture is a large plant?



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


Only problem with your picture is that it is left hand drive, Australia has right hand drive cars.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister

Sounds like a poor attempt at a reverse debunk, swamp gas anyone?


Would the correct term for that be "bunking".





top topics
 
33
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join