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: 28
33
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Triangulum
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.



What does that mean? Please. Break it down so the common person can understand what you're getting at.

Ugh!!!!!!!!




posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


Yes. Im not totally sure its a reflection . It could be light flare also. The wide angle of this photo with no visible hood of car leads me to believe it was taken outside.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


G'day TwoPhish

I uploaded the photos the witness took from inside her car, with my iPhone.

I am having trouble with the download link.

If you can't access the pic's from the link Internos posted for me a couple of pages back, U2U me & we can sort something out.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemooone2
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


Yes. Im not totally sure its a reflection . It could be light flare also. The wide angle of this photo with no visible hood of car leads me to believe it was taken outside.


G'day bluemoone

I confirm it is possible to take such a wide-angle shot from inside the witness's car, without showing parts of the car.

The witness did that yesterday with my iPhone, which is identical to the one with which she took the photo's.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
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]



First off....WTF and secondly, who the f*$%% is this American expert???


You know what? This sounds like a governmental psy-op experiment the more I delve into it.

What the HELL is with all this mystery????


It's case like these that made me back off MUFON and seek out my own truth.
Something doesn't smell, feel or look right with this whole entire situation!


Whether this is some psy-op experiment on how we'll embrace "ET" or mainstream media gone wild, I don't know. But SOMETHING reeks of wrongness here.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemooone2
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


Yes. Im not totally sure its a reflection . It could be light flare also. The wide angle of this photo with no visible hood of car leads me to believe it was taken outside.


G'day bluemooone

Here is 1 of the pic's I have downsized, that shows a wide angle field of view can be taken from inside the witness' car.

The witness took this with my iPhone, which is identical to her own iPhone, with which she took the "UFO" photos.



Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by pwrthtbe
 


looks like there's two of them..

there is definitely an object between the v made by the trees.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   

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.


How does the reflection of a car behing her, get caught in photo if shes resting on the bonnet? there is no bonnet apparent infront of the lense.
I dont think the reflection is on the lense of the iphone, or its screen. There is nothing else reflective between the camera and the object, if shes outside the car.
Reflections, even off the street surface dont hover in the air.

Light from the street light she was pointing the camera at reflecting a car (Behind her) on the camera lense (in front of her)? Light from the sunset?



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.


If she was moving I dont think she moved forward anymore thanthe distance between two streetlights say. THe image does show a car moving toward her on the other side. If its not a blob, how can we measure or estimate the distance of it infront of the camera? The whole scene shows maybe a few hundered meters of roadway no? Given the angle of the shots, can we estimate its height/size ratio?
from the horizontal plane
This is what bothers me. Were any of them taken inside the car, even if the car was stationary. It appears atleast the first one or possibly two photos were.
So she drove a bit further along, got out and shot the rest?
This is crucial, since if she did shoot the last few standing infront of her car, it raises questions about the legitamacy of the 'blob' on the windscreen theory.
Both cannot be correct.
Im not unwilling to re-evaluate my conclusion, if it can be shown to be so.
Then i am simply forced to come up with a more plausable explaination for the blob.

If its a windblown leaf just outside the woindscreen, its very unlikely to be visible in shots taken standing with her back to it.


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".



Ok reasonable enough. How do we account for the blob then? She says the camera lense was spotless, she took a perfect image of her daughter (i think), so no blob there to account for it (?) Not likely a shadow on the camera lense
at that time of day. High floating garbage bag or lost kids balloon? Kite (was it windy) bat, bird?



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapunzel222
reply to post by pwrthtbe
 

looks like there's two of them..
there is definitely an object between the v made by the trees.


G'day rapunzel222

Did you read my post regarding my site visit & my meeting with the witness?

In that post, it shows that is almost certainly a peice of debris.....not any sort of structured object.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 





his "Maybe or Maybe not" feels even more suspicious.
His (her?) replies are liken to Judy Jetson's computerized maid. Very robotic. Not too nurturing. Not too forthcoming. Very scripted.


I have spoken to both of them...maybe i am a bot too ?
You're outa line there regarding Maybe, I suggest you pull your head in. He went out of his way to get this research done for you guys, and he is trying to not upset people and keep it clinical, sorry if it doesn't adhere to hysteronics you are looking for.. I think you owe him an aplogy

[edit on 26-3-2010 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


Oh great.....

I try to be polite & I'm a robot!

Jeez........

I've heard it all.....



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by TwoPhish
 





his "Maybe or Maybe not" feels even more suspicious.
His (her?) replies are liken to Judy Jetson's computerized maid. Very robotic. Not too nurturing. Not too forthcoming. Very scripted.


I have spoken to both of them...maybe i am a bot too ?
You're outa line there regarding Maybe, I suggest you pull your head in. He went out of his way to get this research done for you guys, and he is trying to not upset people and keep it clinical, sorry if it doesn't adhere to hysteronics you are looking for.. I think you owe him an aplogy

[edit on 26-3-2010 by zazzafrazz]


I am being real to my feelings right now. I will consider what you are saying but perhaps my DNA doesn't resonate too well with 'clinical'.

Again, something feels amiss here. Please allow me to feel it, express and I do apologize if I taint other's interpretations. That is NOT my MO or goal. I am just being honest. That's all.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


MAybe you have done the right thing, you have taken phptos, you got the raw data, you have sent it to overseas experts to be analysed, stay away from the personal attacks and don't worry



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

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


MAybe you have done the right thing, you have taken phptos, you got the raw data, you have sent it to overseas experts to be analysed, stay away from the personal attacks and don't worry


G'day zazzafrazz

No problem.....


I'm just a polite sorta guy


Cheers again
Daisy the Robot



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


No you are being over emotional and personally attacking someone who has taken hours of his own time.
You can give opinions on the evidence on the raw data, or if you know nothing about it, I suggest you leave Maybe alone. I don't care particularly for "feelings" yours or anyones, I just want the data reviewed, and processed which maybe maybe not has put into play by sending it to INternos for analysis, and just as well not you so we have to hear your feelings on the matter as opposed to scientific opinion. And again I thank the member for taking the time to get it, otherwise you'd be flip flopping in your opinions for a another week. Stick to the evidence, and leave the emotions out of it, especially when they are so outa of order.


[edit on 26-3-2010 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
I shot this to Jeff Ritzmann. I am also looking forward to what Internos comes up with.


I'll update this thread when I hear from Jeff.

Springer...


Thank you Springer! This is definately worthy some Look from Jeff.

I'll post some GPS data, what I've been able to extract so far:

Photo #1:
a heck of a nothing

Photo #2
GPS-encoded location: 33° 54' 56"S, 150° 57' 11"E

GPS Altitude 0 m
GPS Altitude Ref Above Sea Level
GPS Latitude 33.915630 degrees
GPS Longitude 150.953140 degrees


Photo #3

GPS-encoded location: 33° 54' 56"S, 150° 57' 14"E

GPS Altitude 9 m
GPS Altitude Ref Above Sea Level
GPS Latitude 33.915500 degrees
GPS Longitude 150.953833 degrees

Photo #4

GPS-encoded location: 33° 54' 56"S, 150° 57' 14"E
GPS Altitude 8 m
GPS Altitude Ref Above Sea Level
GPS Latitude 33.915500 degrees
GPS Longitude 150.953833 degrees



Basically, photo 3 and photo 4 were taken from the same place, at a difference in altitude of one meter one from the other (= 3,2 feet).
Photo #2 was taken in the immediate closeness towards east, and at 0 meters of altitude.

Trying again with photo #1, but i'm pessimistic about retrieving GPS data there.





[edit on 26/3/2010 by internos]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


THx INternos Bello, mon amico!

for providing an analysis of the raw data provided by the witness to the ATS member.
SO other than altitude and sea level what does does it tell us



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join