It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# UFO in Sydney Australia

page: 23
33
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:25 AM

well it proves that she was not in main traffic and driving, so one obsticle is down.

Now the hard bit is to prove she was out of the car when she took the pictures

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:37 AM

well it proves that she was not in main traffic and driving, so one obsticle is down.

It dosent prove she wasnt in the car when she took the photos. She says she was leaning on the bonnet, but the first two pics show reflections in the windscreen. "Busted!" Further The third pic also has a vantage point, relatively low to the road (aka sitting) unless shes really short, which judging from her photo, she's not. Even sitting on the bonnet would give an elevated vantage point, above that which apparent.
The final three pics were taken pointing up, no reflections, so its possible she got out after the first 3 pics, but Im on the fence. The 'blob' still looks close to the camera (relatively) in all 5 pics.

Munkey...
Now the hard bit is to prove she was out of the car when she took the pictures

I beleive you might find that a really high mountain to climb. The first three shots , first two definately, were from inside the car. Maybe she stopped to snap the last two?

I want to know exactly how long it was from the first to the last photo.

Can't have been too long , whats the speed limit on that road, calculate the distance of the approaching car, estimate a speed , then see if it matches. Two photos, how far does the car travel; toward the veiwer?

Go ahead, Lets see some science

[edit on 26-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:38 AM

The reflections do that.

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:40 AM

Originally posted by Phage

Which is why I asked her:

It looks like that streetlight is almost directly across the road from your location and the perspective would make it look higher than the trees. Could it be possible that that you mistook the streetlight for a "big bright orange light"?

This happened on the 21st. She's had a few days to "assimilate" her story.

[edit on 3/26/2010 by Phage]

Yiou really don;t have a clue do you? I've had people tell me stuff 30 years after the event.

last ear .. received a report from an acquaintance who discovered i am into all this. Happened in 1980. Driving through a suburb of Birmingham the West Midlands England, he and 3 friends were confronted by a strange craft parked in a filed by the road side. It was glowing and giving off several different colours of light. They stopped looked and then the driver put his foot down and sped off. The 4 friends, didn't discuss the incident on the d drive home and have never mentioned to each other once in the intervening years. in short, 3 of the four obviously didn't want to even acknowledge what they saw as even being possibly a real event.

if they, after 3 decades, can;t even cope with discussing it, i think Ms Hartigan might need a *debriefing*, to allow her to assimilate the experience.

Ms Hartigan's actions, so far, seem to suggest see did see w something out of the normal. I'd like to find out if it really was. You don;t usually make any headway by saying stuff like, * You're a hoaxer your fifteen minutes is up*... and woot woot

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:43 AM

For crying out loud. She says she saw a "big orange light". It was a streetlight. How hard is that to figure out. She wasn't traumatized.

You're a hell of a researcher. Tell me, do you use hypnotic regression too?

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:49 AM

Originally posted by Phage

For crying out loud. She says she saw a "big orange light". It was a streetlight. How hard is that to figure out. She wasn't traumatized.

You're a hell of a researcher. Tell me, do you use hypnotic regression too?

phage do us all a favour just can it. You obviously don't have a clue about what happens to people in these situations , or how long the after effects are.
You behaviour towards her, has been both childish and extremely bad mannered, There isn't a hope in hell', given your attitude to this whole subject you often exhibit on this forum, you'd ever be accepted to interview witnesses by any reputable organisation.

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:53 AM

ok

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:56 AM
[edit on 26-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 02:40 AM

Originally posted by FireMoon
Answer me this? Why is it if you jump up whilst travelling on a train moving at 100mph you aren't splattered across the back wall of the coach?

That would be to do with inertia and frames of reference, but why do you ask, two dogs?
What exactly does this have to do with your misunderstanding of perspective? (Yes, two can use tinfoilhat tactics...)

So let's get back on topic, and down to specifics. You have claimed that there is an impossible perspective issue with the images, whereby the possible explanations of a blob on the windscreen are rendered invalid.

OK, then here's your challenge. Please post the specific images you are referring to, and point out with appropriate arrows and markers, exactly what could not be explained by moving the vehicle and/or the camera.

So we are meant to suspend the laws of perspective because it suits argument are we?

No. Why do you keep making these silly sarcastic comments? To avoid actually being specific?

if it it is a smudge it is a fixed point right?

To a fixed point on the windshield, yes. To the camera, NO. As no-one is seeing the smudge from the reference frame of the windshield, then it is irrelevant.

...in those pictures all the fixed points, bar the smudge, obey the laws of perspective

Actually, as I don't think anyone is stating that the pictures contain CGI, I think we all agree that *everything* in the images must be obeying perspective laws within a single image. (An object or two *may* be in motion, but a rigorous analysis of the images should be able to determine the likelihood of that - which is what we are trying to do.)

I am questioning whether you know what those laws actually are, and how to properly apply them, in terms of photogrammetry. You have already said that:
"...The trees and the street lamp are your fixed objects..." (that's ok..)
"...If the object she is claiming is actually a mark on the screen and nothing more, it will move in a commensurate manner with all the other fixed objects?..."
I'm so glad you put the question mark there. Because of course it WON'T. By simply changing the location of the camera behind the nearby mark on the windscreen, you can easily put that object above, below, left or right of any of those other 'fixed objects' like the streetlamp or a particular tree. The tree and streetlamp are sufficiently distant to not change their positions substantially, unless the photographer were to move more than a few feet. By understanding this, you will start to see what perspective is, and more importantly ISN'T. As soon as you move the camera significantly, relative to an object, then the perspective changes - the distance and angle between the objects changes. For close objects, a very small movement is sufficient to make the object move a substantial distance. For distant objects, the movement required is "commensurately" greater. Perspective is complex.

FTR I know the topic VERY well, because as I have mentioned here before, one of my hobbies is creating panoramas by stitching together a series of images, eg:
image76.webshots.com...
That's one of my rejects, shows a view angle of about 200°, and is about a tenth of the size of the real thing which consists of 8 stitched images (see if you can spot the joins..!). When such a panorama involves nearby objects like the railing and brick fence/stairs in that example, the stitching process can become very difficult and complex because of the perspective issues where objects do not, I repeat NOT, occupy fixed positions relative to each other due to their proximity to the camera.

Maybe it's just your flowery explanations, but your comments indicate you really don't get perspective at all. Or maybe I don't understand your use of 'commensurate'? Do explain.

So I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I've possibly misinterpreted your point, so, please clarify your words above by pointing out, in the images, exactly where you see the problem.

If you can do so, and I am wrong, you will have the pleasure of an apology from me.

Please do NOT presume to speak for "us all" on a public forum. You are but one voice.

[edit on 26-3-2010 by CHRLZ]

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:10 AM
G'day

I spent approx 1 1/2 hours on the site.

I will post pictures for you (including my simulated UFO) later on, with my thoughts.

I also copied the pic's from Fiona's laptop onto a USB for further analysis.

Fiona is a lovely lady who is going through a tough time.

I really do hope all of you will be EXTREMELY nice to Fiona on this thread.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:42 AM
Just to throw a spanner in the works, friend of mine pointed me to a radio scanning forum, where a this UFO sighting was discussed.
One member who was in the area on Sunday night said this
"Yawn. I was driving up the M5 on Sunday and some turkey had some big orange weather balloons with weights holding them at low altitude.
"

www.scansydney.com...

Maybe thats what was seen. The M5 is not far from where the sighting was. Sounds possible, as the wind was getting up a bit Sunday evening.

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:54 AM

Not trying to intentionally suck up. But I do believe in giving credit where its due. I applaud this post as the user has a sound fundamental grasp of photography and perspective.

It's pretty much what I have said in my other posts. The reason those objects have changed is in relation to the position of the camera. I dont think you have to be a scientific whizz to work out these points.

Infact going back to what has been claimed on this thread previously. I suggest anyone doubting this to go outside with their own camera and do their own scientific study by taking pictures themselves.

I do hope that we can clear up and wrap this thread up, theres far greater evidence and cases that deserve 20+ pages of attention than this.

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:57 AM
Wow, not very often we get the actual person to post in these kind of threads.
Thanks Fiona.

I'm still on the fence but the work put into the thread is top drawer.

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:11 AM
G’day

The first thing I would like to do is thank the observer for her kindness & courtesy, during our discussions at the viewing site.

The second thing I would like to do is apologise to the observer for any offence I might cause as I explain my thoughts, some of which may appear contrary to those of the observer.

____________________________________________________

We need to exclude all prosaic explanations for these objects, before we can prove the objects are of an exotic nature.

The picture (below) sums up my thoughts as to the most likely prosaic causes for that which we are seeing in the observer’s pictures:

REGARDING THE BRIGHT ILLUMINATED “OBJECT”:

The observer described to me in detail that the bright light was not a streetlight & the 2 circular objects were flying towards & “went into” that bright light.

I spent a great deal of time matching up this photo with the landscape, with the observer standing beside me confirming her position when taking the photo.

The streetlight is an extremely strong “position” match with the bright light in the photo.

The illumination patterns on the trees & the ground & the extremely strong similarity with the “flare” patterns of the other streetlights are also a very strong “streetlight” match.

The “streetlight” argument is further validated by this daylight pictures I took through the windscreen of my car that shows the streetlight is clearly above the upper “tree line”:

REGARDING THE LARGE BROWN “OBJECT”:

This is an extremely close match for “dirt” on the windscreen of the car.

The object has a very organic, non-structured appearance, with “tentacle” like structures that indicate it could have been a soft object that impacted with the windscreen at speed & then spread out due to the force of the impact.

It appears to change in shape & size as it would if the observer had moved the camera closer to & further away from the windscreen, whilst the angle of the camera is also being changed relative to the windscreen.

I did a simulation using a round object stuck to the outside of my windscreen as per Chadwickus.

I confirmed that extremely small camera movements made very significant changes to the apparent shape, size & position of the “object”.

Unfortunately I appear to have over-written my simulated UFO, so I can’t post the pic’s.

REGARDING THE 2 “ORBS”:

These are a strong match for birds in appearance & the 4 second gap between the pictures allows enough time for the birds to enter & exit the field of view of the camera.

The “birds” are illuminated by the streetlight…..all the angles match up.

REGARDING THE SMALL BROWN OBJECT:

This appears to be a small, amorphous “blob” that has no organised structure or technical appearance, thereby resembling debris on the windscreen.

REGARDING THE BANKSTOWN AIRPORT FLIGHT PATH:

The flight path is in direct alignment with the field of view between the 2 groups of trees on the right hand side of the road.

I watched 2 planes traverse the flight path whilst I was at the site.

Unfortunately I did not take any comparative pictures of these planes.

____________________________________________________

The observer was extremely kind & allowed me to take copies of the pictures on a USB memory stick.

A photo expert such as Internos might be able to offer further assistance by examining these photos.

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

[edit on 26-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:43 AM
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

Awesome work MMN.

This is the first time I have done this, I have brought your post to the attention of the Mods and FSME's recommending you for (hopefully numerous) applause.

You deserve it.

Good work.

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:48 AM

Originally posted by Superiorraw
Not trying to intentionally suck up. But I do believe in giving credit where its due. I applaud this post as the user has a sound fundamental grasp of photography and perspective.

It's pretty much what I have said in my other posts. The reason those objects have changed is in relation to the position of the camera. I dont think you have to be a scientific whizz to work out these points.

Infact going back to what has been claimed on this thread previously. I suggest anyone doubting this to go outside with their own camera and do their own scientific study by taking pictures themselves.

I do hope that we can clear up and wrap this thread up, theres far greater evidence and cases that deserve 20+ pages of attention than this.

Thanks, much appreciated.

I agree that much time gets wasted on these. But hopefully there are those who are learning stuff that will be useful later if/when we get the 'big one'..

Now I won't make any promises that it will be quick.. but I will mention that I have downloaded and printed all of the images with a view to going for a drive to find a vaguely similar location near me, where I can have a shot at duplicating the effects with a blob on my windscreen. No, I don't have a PT.. but it will be near enough as a 'proof of concept', I think.

And I'll happily admit if I can't do it. Either way, I'll post the images.

By the way, does anyone know the effective (ie 35mm equivalent) focal length used? I'm guessing it will be about 35-40mm-ish?

The images do not appear to have been digitally zoomed (again, I haven't checked this carefully, that's just by eyeballing them..) so that will make it reasonably straight forward. I will look it up later to verify, but just in case anyone knows right off the bat..?

(neatly segues into..)

By the way, I also have a (slightly tongue in cheek) theory about what the source of the smudge might be, if it is in fact something on the windscreen.. Hereabouts we have fruitbats, and their droppings are usually about 1" or so in diameter, and deep orangey brown (and very acidic on paintwork). I guess that is dependent on diet, but what's the go down in Sydney - do you folks have the same problem?

Stop Press:
I've just read Maybe's contribution - nice work! I'm sorta glad you lost a few images, or you'd leave me nothing to do..! I'll try to get some images over the weekend of the windscreen blob possibilities. I'm not driving down to Sydney, but I'll find something vaguely like it, hopefully...

[edit on 26-3-2010 by CHRLZ]

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:52 AM

Thank you for your kind & positive words.

I tried extremely hard to exclude that streetlight as the source of the "brightly illuminated object".

I stood out there for ages with my laptop & iPhone lining everything up.

Unfortunately I think it's a match.

To my mind, because that's a match, things unwravel quite significantly, which is not what I wanted.

My simulated "UFO" as per your "sultana" was a great surpise to me....even the smallest movements produced very significant changes in perceived appearance, shape & position. It's a pity I over-wrote the photos.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 26-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:59 AM
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

THIS is exactly the type of research that we need: BRAVO.
Thanks to you and to Zazz: I'll be more than happy to take some careful look and, then, to express my humble opinion.

[edit on 26/3/2010 by internos]

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:04 AM
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

To MMN.
Thank you very much for taking the time out to visit this location and speak to the witness. I'd also like to thank you for taking the pictures and going to that depth to recreate a similarity to the event as well.

Actually being in the same location and having the similar apparatus at hand enables you to get a great perspective on this.

I did click the star at the top of your contribution.

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:09 AM

G'day Internos

Thank you also for your very kind & positive words.

I will U2U shortly regarding the photos.

I hope what I have is suitable for you to analyse.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

top topics

33