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: 27
33
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 



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.


Dont they deserve the benefit of doubt as much as the witness?




posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Because sheer volume of text isn't going to help, I'll just deal with the critical issue...

Originally posted by FireMoon
If a person takes a series of photos from the same vantage point but moves the camera slightly. The trees, the road etc etc etc, will all stay in virtually the same place. If it's a smudge on the window, it therefore logically follows that, as it is also fixed object, it must move in a commensurate manner with the trees, road, street lamp, etc etc?

NO. WRONG. And this is so basic, I find it puzzling that you still don't get it.

Go out to your car. If you don't have a suitable bit of dirt on it, put something there, in the upper-middle of the screen, and park the car where there is a reasonably distant background scene.

Now bring your eye up close to it.

Move your eye up above the object. See how the object is now way DOWN in your field of view? YES. Has the distant background changed much? NO.

Now move your eye down below the object.
See how the object is now way UP in your field of view? YES. Has the distant background changed much? NO.

If you are still having a problem with this very basic concept, which I'll repeat below, try moving left and right as well... I invite everyone who doesn't get it (anyone else?) to do this, and do report back here, preferably with images, if you agree with Firemoon. I'll be posting mine a little later.

To reinforce the point, here's the basic concept, in 3 easy-to-digest parts:

1. Objects that are DISTANT, are largely unaffected by small changes in viewpoint.

2. Objects that are NEAR, are largely and easily affected by small changes in viewpoint.

3. It is easy to change the position of a nearby object SUBSTANTIALLY in relation to a distant background, with small changes in viewpoint.


If anyone else is having a problem with this, let me know.


...When people use erroneous thinking to prove an erroneous theory and then, accuse someone of being a liar...

Don't put words in my mouth. I just said you didn't understand, and you just proved it again, above. So now re-read your comment about erroneous thinking and see if you can work out who it applies to.

As for the rest of your post, I'm being very specific about which parts of the sighting are in question. Perhaps you should try that.

[edit on 26-3-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Triangulum

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


33 seconds, while travelling the distance between a few streetlights.
How fast can Fiona run along the side of the road, while snapping photos on her iphone?
Its not an olympic sport yet is it?

Internos Cam data shows those four pics were shot in a 33second series.
The images themselves show the veiwer is advancing down the road in the direction the shots are taken. How long does it take the phone to be ready for the next shot after you click it? I imagine its processed on the fly? and appears on the screen? With most phones theres a breif pause while it loads the image no?
Can anyone verify that?
Then she has to aim the camera, since shes following this 'object'. Does she use the screen veiwer to line the shot up first? Or just keep snapping?
Afterall she beleives she is seeing a ufo.
Theres 5 shots, over 33 seconds.

Did she stop the car on the shoulder and get out, to shoot all 5 pics?
Or did she slowly drive along the shoulder (jogging opace), and snap 5 photos from inside the car ?


Except for the GPS coordinates embedded in the Exif data.


  • 0430 La=33° 54.00' 56.27"S Lo=150° 57.00' 11.30"E
  • 0431 La=33° 54.93' 00.00"S Lo=150° 57.23' 00.00"E
  • 0432 La=33° 54.93' 00.00"S Lo=150° 57.23' 00.00"E
  • 0433 La=33° 54.93' 00.00"S Lo=150° 57.23' 00.00"E


The 1st coordinates seem to be off a bit but run in sequence she would be moving in the opposite direction of your claim.

T.




Im sorry its early am here, no coffee yet, can you explain that please?
Are you disagreeing with the appearance that the other car appears to be approaching or vice versa?

3 appear to be from the same spot, the other one not?
could she have stopped the car, got out and snapped those three?
Which three shots are they? Whats in the other shot? Which of the four has the reflection?



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TwoPhish


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~


G'day TwoPhish

OK.....if pushed......

My original comments as posted in my long "field report post" sum up my thoughts as to the most likely causes for that which is being shown in the photo.

I have reposted my photo with my brief summary commentary therein.



As I said, if the "streetlight" part of the story unwravels, then real problems arise.

I apologise again to the witness because I know she feels extremely strongly about all of this & I know she is extremely unhappy about my commentary.

Kind regards
Maybe...mabe not



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I would post this earlier but wanted to wait until the result of this field research. I just want to say how amazed I am with this procedure. Fortunately we have an ATS member from the same place the event happened, who took his time to investigate this history more deeply. In my opinion this is the best thread on Aliens and UFOs nowadays and may be the best of 2010 when the year ends.

Maybe...maybe not, I would applause you if I could, anyway I give you a shiny big blue star.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


G'day FireMoon

If I am interpreting your posts correctly, then I think you are incorrect regarding the "blob on the windscreen" geometry.

Extremely small movements of the camera in relation to the "blob" produce very big visual results.

Unfortunately I "lost" my demo pic's that showed that, but Chadwickus' early demo pic's showed that point very clearly.

If my commentary is wide of the mark, I aplogise.....I am having trouble interpreting your explanation.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz

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.
[edit on 26-3-2010 by zazzafrazz]


I do NOT want to start another side-tracking argument but......every single person I know...especially who are high profiled in the field of UFOs.... are PAID money for their public assertions. Fiona clearly stated she was not paid money for her photos. She did not assert she was not paid money for her interviews!

If you're gonna tell me, Fiona, in her leisure time and true devotion to the cause, is making the circuit on MSM and not making a cent then, you know what? I give up! I don't know squat anymore.
But.....I am opened to changing!



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


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.


Dont they deserve the benefit of doubt as much as the witness?


A reporter is an intermediary. If I actually care about a case I go to the source. If I find conflict, then I contact the reporter and try to get resolution.

Anything less is simply expecting someone else to feed you accurate information. This is naive. Hell almost every authoritative text has errors. I can point to literally dozens of books that suffer from major mistakes that eventually require the publisher to serve up an errata sheet. Note usually the material in the errata is the work of other people not the authors (e.g. C# in a Nutshell).

I say trust no one. Do your own calculations and leg work, then you can say with real confidence which way is actually up.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


I know all the media management guys here, and she is not on the books, so yes the TV /radio stations are very lucky to get front pager for next nicks, I can find out easy enough if she has been paid, but I don't see the pattern for media payment here. if she has been paid, I cant see how she would have negotiated a good amount without representation, and now it may be to late to be represented, as the interviews are all out. Anyway, she was completely approachable, and no middle man was between us, she said she hasn't been paid, the stations etc must comply and tell you if she was so there would be no point to lying.

Edit to add...Can we just stick to reviewing the raw data at this stage
and lets acknowledge she handed it over willingly for global dissection on ATS




[edit on 26-3-2010 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

Originally posted by Triangulum

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


33 seconds, while travelling the distance between a few streetlights.
How fast can Fiona run along the side of the road, while snapping photos on her iphone?
Its not an olympic sport yet is it?

Internos Cam data shows those four pics were shot in a 33second series...
The images themselves show the veiwer is advancing down the road in the direction the shots are taken.....


Except for the GPS coordinates embedded in the Exif data.


  • 0430 La=33° 54.00' 56.27"S Lo=150° 57.00' 11.30"E
  • 0431 La=33° 54.93' 00.00"S Lo=150° 57.23' 00.00"E
  • 0432 La=33° 54.93' 00.00"S Lo=150° 57.23' 00.00"E
  • 0433 La=33° 54.93' 00.00"S Lo=150° 57.23' 00.00"E


The 1st coordinates seem to be off a bit but run in sequence she would be moving in the opposite direction of your claim.
T.


Im sorry its early am here, no coffee yet, can you explain that please?
Are you disagreeing with the appearance that the other car appears to be approaching or vice versa?

3 appear to be from the same spot, the other one not?
could she have stopped the car, got out and snapped those three?
Which three shots are they? Whats in the other shot? Which of the four has the reflection?


Mobile phones are notorious for inaccurate GPS data - they *can* use proper GPS satellite tracking, but may also use the much lower accuracy method of triangulating from phone transmitter towers. Those figures would be *very* suspect, given the fact that there are only two different gps positions given, and the 3 duplicates have zero's everywhere. Given those latter ones use a different numeric display (the first is in seconds, but the other 3 are in decimals of a minute), I'd w-a-guess the later ones are triangulations, and therefore inaccurate.

I'd go by the images themselves, in regard to position changes.

BTW, I think I can see the pale reflection in at least 3, if not 4 of the images - in fact your animation (with the posterisation caused by GIF conversion) actually helps to reveal the effect.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


I know all the media management guys here, and she is not on the books, so yes the TV /radio stations are very lucky to get front pager for next nicks, I can find out easy enough if she has been paid, but I don't see the pattern for media payment here. if she has been paid, I cant see how she would have negotiated a good amount without representation, and now it may be to late to be represented, as the interviews are all out. Anyway, she was completely approachable, and no middle man was between us, she said she hasn't been paid, the stations etc must comply and tell you if she was so there would be no point to lying.


It doesn't much matter except......with regards of her honesty.

I can't imagine anyone WANTING and WILLINGLY wanting to go on record, via MSM and not be compensated.

If it turns out she is being paid (and she is saying otherwise then.....) that sheds a light on a whole other aspect of this now doesn't it?
She came on ATS and said, she was not paid for her photos. I haven't heard she wasn't paid, for anything else!

I didn't mean to open another can of worms because frankly, there's way too much to discern so far. But if you're saying one thing while.........I am totally believing another aspect (of reality) then...........I almost want to give up on this entire debate.
It's taking on too many branches that I personally, can't climb!

All I wanted to know was: did this person in Australia capture a photo of something other than a conventional aircraft? But yet, it's taken on more than I can absorb!

Fiona? Please..............state your case.

[edit on 26-3-2010 by TwoPhish]

[edit on 26-3-2010 by TwoPhish]

[edit on 26-3-2010 by TwoPhish]

[edit on 26-3-2010 by TwoPhish]

[edit on 26-3-2010 by TwoPhish]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Very interesting thread here. Im not sure what we have here yet , but am I the only one who sees a refection of a car or truck in this photo?



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


It's possible that I misinterpreted your post. I read that you believe she was moving in the direction of the the photographed scene. ... whether on foot or in her car. The GPS data shows otherwise. In my earlier post the numbers preceding the GPS coordinates correspond to the files names of the unprocessed photos. They all appear to be shot from the same spot but the GPS data appears to be off in photo 0430. The GPS data from 0430 puts her up the road and to the left of the other frames. From that location the perspective would be totally different. Then she would have to have walked all the way back to her car to take the remaining pictures in the span of 33 seconds.

T.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Why are MOST UFO photographs so blurry or vague? Hmm?



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
CHRLZ,

You are correct on both counts and I had a bit of a head scratcher on the different coordinate systems myself. However inaccuracy's would most likely manifest as fluctuating coordinates as we see between the first and second set. The remaining sets are exactly the same. Since triangulation is the less accurate of the two methods I'd say the first set used triangulation and the remaining use GPS satellites. As she was in her car she had a poor a GPS signal which resulted in triangulation being used. Once she got out of her car the system switched over to satellite. It took the length of time between the first two and third shots to complete the switch.

T.


ON EDIT: I've looked a little closer and now I'm almost 100% sure that's what happened. The final three photos also have an entry in the Exif data called "GPS Time". The first one only includes "Date Time".


[edit on 26-3-2010 by Triangulum]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


No you're not the only one, I see a tennis ball
But that doesn't mean it's a tennis ball though.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
G'day

Once again I thank the witness for her kind & courteous attention, during our meeting at the site.

The witness has now stated 2 things in media interviews that she also discussed with me.

In the interest of sharing all info, please note the following:


REGARDING BILL CHALKER'S RESPONSE TO THE CASE:

The witness stated in 1 of the media interviews that "Australia's top UFO expert said this is real".....this is my paraphrasing, not a direct quote.

I will assume we are referring to Bill Chalker because there was a great deal of reference to his site visit.

When I asked the witness if Bill Chalker thought the "bright light" was a streetlight, the witness stated Bill's response was that he didn't know.

The witness also confirmed several times that Bill directed her to ATS because of the "problem solving ability" (my paraphrasing again) of ATS.


REGARDING THE VISIT ON MONDAY BY THE EXPERT FROM AMERICA:

I spoke with the witness about that.

The witness stated the American expert had called her & stated he was from an area in the USA the witness related to "Area 51".

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

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



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   

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


I know this is a right pain, but can you ask MS Hartigan to t ake a picture through her car window using her iphone from both the passenger and driver's seat?

Ta muchly...


G'day FireMoon

I have uploaded the pic's the witness took from inside her car onto rapidshare.

I am having trouble with the download link.

I will be grateful if you can see if you can access these new photos from the links provided by Internos a couple of pages ago.

Otherwise, please U2U me & I'll see if I can sort something else out for you.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

The witness also confirmed several times that Bill directed her to ATS because of the "problem solving ability" (my paraphrasing again) of ATS.


Of course, what other place is there



The witness stated the American expert had called her & stated he was from an area in the USA the witness related to "Area 51".


Hmmm, related to Area 51. In one of misslees posts she said that someone from the american government was coming to investigate. Maybe someone is playing a trick on her.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemooone2
Very interesting thread here. Im not sure what we have here yet , but am I the only one who sees a refection of a car or truck in this photo?



No. I see it too. We're just trying to determine if this reflection (car? vent? neck rest?) is possible to capture, outside Fiona's car.
This is the crux of discrepancy!


Many dispute it. Few wanna hang on to belief!
I am among the few rooting for the underdog = integrity!



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join