It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

UFO in Sydney Australia

page: 26
33
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Triangulum

Originally posted by TwoPhish
Is it at all possible that this bone of contention; this 'glare, was caused by light reflecting back UPWARDS into the camera's lens (causing a prism-like anomoly) from the grounds surface???


It's also possible they are the street lights reflecting off the hood of her car. She did say she was leaning on the hood when she snapped the photos.

T.


Okay. Possible. But is it permissible under our basic laws/understanding of science/nature to produce this after effect that we're seeing?
(Man, I should've paid more attention in basic science back in high school and less, in daydreaming! On second thought.....nah. Then I wouldn't be on this site!)


[edit on 26-3-2010 by TwoPhish]

[edit on 26-3-2010 by TwoPhish]




posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Triangulum

Originally posted by TwoPhish
Is it at all possible that this bone of contention; this 'glare, was caused by light reflecting back UPWARDS into the camera's lens (causing a prism-like anomoly) from the grounds surface???


It's also possible they are the street lights reflecting off the hood of her car. She did say she was leaning on the hood when she snapped the photos.

T.


G'day Triangulum

As per my previous posts, the witness told me she was leaning on the front of the hood, with her back to the hood facing forward toward the "objects".

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


Reflection from something inside the car all the way for me.

It's present in all pictures, just gotta look hard enough.

Hopefully an analysis by Jeff Ritzman and/or internos will confirm this.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


Sure it is. Stray, reflected and diffracted light is the bane of astrophotographers. In low-light conditions even the slightest bit can ruin a photo.

en.wikipedia.org...

T.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


G'day internos

Do you know the expected GPS resolution of the iPhone in such a situation?

Can the iPhone GPS coordinates be used to correlate the witnesses position from 1 picture to another with any degree useful certainty?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


G'day MMN

That makes a bit more sense. Depending on where she was leaning you could very well get stray light. Was she right in the middle of the hood or off to the left/right. If she was off to the left she could capture diffracted or reflected light resembling the patterns indicated.

Nice field work by the way. You are a credit to this subject.

T.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not


G'day Triangulum

As per my previous posts, the witness told me she was leaning on the front of the hood, with her back to the hood facing forward toward the "objects".

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


If I am understanding and visualizing this correctly then, there was no source to be reflecting light on. (seeing her iPhone was facing AWAY from the hood) Correct?

And if that is the conclusion, can someone please answer my question whether the road was wet. Thanks~

[edit on 26-3-2010 by TwoPhish]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TwoPhish

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not


G'day Triangulum

As per my previous posts, the witness told me she was leaning on the front of the hood, with her back to the hood facing forward toward the "objects".

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


If I am understanding and visualizing this correctly then, there was no source to be reflecting light on. (seeing her iPhone was facing AWAY from the hood) Correct?


G'day TwoPhish

That is correct.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by TwoPhish

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not


G'day Triangulum

As per my previous posts, the witness told me she was leaning on the front of the hood, with her back to the hood facing forward toward the "objects".

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


If I am understanding and visualizing this correctly then, there was no source to be reflecting light on. (seeing her iPhone was facing AWAY from the hood) Correct?


G'day TwoPhish

That is correct.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


I just added and editted my previous post but MMN, was the road wet that day?



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Triangulum
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


G'day MMN

That makes a bit more sense. Depending on where she was leaning you could very well get stray light. Was she right in the middle of the hood or off to the left/right. If she was off to the left she could capture diffracted or reflected light resembling the patterns indicated.

Nice field work by the way. You are a credit to this subject.

T.


G'day Triangulum

Thank you for your kind & positive words.

The witness stated she was leaning on the centre of the front of the car.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Thanks for replies & going easy on me missfee & maybe. I had to ask as the analysis says things like "close match for “dirt” on the windscreen of the car" but she still says she was outside the car. Both seem like decent credible people who have generously donated their time & resource to resolve this.

Still not convinced either way as I don't doubt the integrity of the analysis & missfee has stuck her neck out a long way for someone who is ill (all this cannot be helping her with that) & not taking any money. It is because of this I believe whatever the true result of this case is she has acted honestly & has innocently ended up being in the spotlight for reporting something she genuinly believed she witnessed. I don't think she could have imagined where this would all lead. I can see why people who witness things like this never go public.

I find the person in the early stages of the thread who judged her honesty based on physical appearance rude & way out of line.

Wow just don't know!



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by internos
 

Two questions if I may internos?
What are your thoughts on the two small orbs?
Do you believe these were taken from behind glass?
If you are going to cover this in your analysis I can wait.
Oh and is it possible to share the 5th hires image with us?
(Yes I have a theory lol)


G'day Chadwickus

I've been looking for further evidence of the "orbs" in the other photos.

The closest "things" I can come up with is the following picture.

This is obviously a big stretch.....I'm not sure if it's useful.....in fact the more I look at the pic's below, the more I think they have nothing to do with the "orb" picture.

However I will post these for the purposes of discussion.

What I was looking for was some evidence of birds flying somewhere else either above or below the treeline.

When I was at the site I also noticed a number of light coloured birds flying through the viewing area, albeit they were not in the right position wherein they would have been illuminated by the streetlight.

I'm still think the "orbs" are a reasonable (i.e. not great) fit for "birds".





Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

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



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Thanks for replies & going easy on me missfee & maybe. I had to ask as the analysis says things like "close match for “dirt” on the windscreen of the car" but she still says she was outside the car. Both seem like decent credible people who have generously donated their time & resource to resolve this.

Still not convinced either way as I don't doubt the integrity of the analysis & missfee has stuck her neck out a long way for someone who is ill (all this cannot be helping her with that) & not taking any money. It is because of this I believe whatever the true result of this case is she has acted honestly & has innocently ended up being in the spotlight for reporting something she genuinly believed she witnessed. I don't think she could have imagined where this would all lead. I can see why people who witness things like this never go public.

I find the person in the early stages of the thread who judged her honesty based on physical appearance rude & way out of line.

Wow just don't know!


I would like to clear one thing up (then, go back to the topic at hand). Yes, she admits to not getting money for her photos. But she surely received money for her public appearances on TV, radio and for newspaper interviews.
That being said.....back to the main event.

Please.....was the ROAD WET THAT DAY?



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FireMoon
 

Right, it isn't a direct quote.
So the writer (or editor) invented the statement about getting out of her car to take pictures of the sunset? Possible of course, but likely? I don't think so.


How many times have you given interviews to the press? Almost every time I've spoken with a reporter it's been heavily edited and reworded (e.g. in this NY Times editorial I had to contact the office several times before they appended the correction). This has happened on several other occasions dealing with a numerous different news sources including the AP.

I usually agree with you Phage so don't take this the wrong way, but you're assuming reporters always fact check everything they report.

Do some leg work, talk to the person, don't base everything on editorials without first learning a bit about it from first-hand sources.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


G'day TwoPhish

Regarding your questions about the dryness / wetness of the road:

I will get met info for you.

I also note a dry road will show relections such as those in the pic's.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


They appear to be lens flare.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TwoPhish
May I ask something (which I would've thought be mentioned before but just the same.....) was the road wet? I ask because I can't help but notice the headlight reflection from the on-coming vehicle on the street:




Is it at all possible that this bone of contention; this 'glare, was caused by light reflecting back UPWARDS into the camera's lens (causing a prism-like anomoly) from the grounds surface???


Ok that seems rerasonable, The headlights reflect off the road surface, but can you show how it might be possible? How would you do that? take photos of oncoming cars at dusk, while standing on the road side (in rain/after rain) and see if your photos show a similar reflection?

[edit on 26-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


G'day TwoPhish

Regarding your questions about the dryness / wetness of the road:

I will get met info for you.

I also note a dry road will show relections such as those in the pic's.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



MMN,

I (we?) deeply appreciate your time on this matter. Some, like I......really want to get to the bottom of this.
It started off 'thinking' someone had a wonderful, rare glimpse of a UFO and was able to snap and memoralize it with a few photos.

This simple yet honored situation got so subjected to scrutiny and distortion that------ it's taken on a life of its own.

What is YOUR take of this situation?
I am sure you rather keep your personal beliefs out of publics way but, Fiona had no problem sharing her beliefs about you (and your investigation). So.........I am curious. What is your gut feeling on this event?

Thanks~



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


They appear to be lens flare.


G'day Chadwickus

Yep.....almost certainly.....clutching at straws a bit in that one


Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TwoPhish


I would like to clear one thing up (then, go back to the topic at hand). Yes, she admits to not getting money for her photos. But she surely received money for her public appearances on TV, radio and for newspaper interviews.
That being said.....back to the main event.

Please.....was the ROAD WET THAT DAY?

Ms Hartigan has stated emphatically that she has not made a cent off a single interview. She has no media management representation so I would say this statement is correct. And she has had over a dozen I think, her coverage has been enormous, all this at a time, when she is unwell physically, so I hope she takes care.

And no there was no rain on sunday, but there may have been out west, Ill have to ask her. When its really hot, the roads here get reflective and shiny, but that was sunset so I think its just the road.

Just off in the distance there is the ST Georges river, another point Fiona has raised that could have some thing to do with reflections, Im not sure, but its a pretty big river, so thank you to her for putting that condition in to evidence for review.

That sighting is the light aircraft main traffic path, though Im not sure we can consider the blob is a air craft, and the two orbs are too close together to be planes. Either way It would be odd for something of "intelligence' to appear in the direct main flight path at peak hour landing time. Just thought Id add those two in there....but then again we have CHicago O'hare


And I will say she is a lovely lady, who wants to find out what she saw. SO review of evidence without emotions and histrionics is all that is required of ATS, and what ever the evidence says, then well and good


I am interested in "A US government expert is coming out monday"


[edit on 26-3-2010 by zazzafrazz]



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join