UFO in Sydney Australia, page 3

reply to post by kleverone

---

Yes, I changed my mind about one part of what I thought the pictures show. I do that when I have evidence.

I do find it interesting that in one interview she mentions a car (specifically), and in another makes no mention of a car and in fact tells quite a different story which would direct people away from thinking about a car. That does raise my suspicions.

I'm also wondering about the streaking seen in the lower image. Some of it could be glare on the lens but it could also be produced by the windscreen.

[edit on 3/23/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by kleverone

---

I do find it interesting that in one interview she mentions a car (specifically), and in another makes no mention of a car and in fact tells quite a different story which would direct people away from thinking about a car. That does raise my suspicions.


[edit on 3/23/2010 by Phage]

The first "interview" was reporting done by a newspaper. Misquoting and misunderstandings happen in interviews all the time, resulting in published material that has discrepancies. If she had been quoted saying this in the article, I would tend to agree, but as it is the opinion of the author it is not evidence of her story changing. It is a point to remember, but not damning for her case by any means.

Also, Phage, you mentioned earlier in this thread and the other thread (that was closed), that you observed the trees in focus and the "object" out of focus. You concluded with this statement that the object must have been between the camera and the trees. I wondered if it is at all possible that the "object" is blurry due to the speed at which it may have been traveling, rather than it's proximity to the camera? An object moving at speed may not appear as clear as the surrounding terrain does, giving it motion blur?

reply to post by Phage

---

Without a doubt both photos were taken inside of her car.

reply to post by kleverone

---

I used this account of the interview.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

My conclusion is based on more than one thing. It is based on a collection of things and they are not preconceived ideas, they apply to the evidence we have...these two photographs.

"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 trees, those on the left, do not appear to be 400m away, in fact they appear to be directly overhead in the "up" shot. I doubt they are 400m tall. The trees (and clouds) are in good focus. Motion blur produces "trails". The blob(s) do not display trails but instead the blur seen as a result of poor focus. This indicates that the blob(s) are closer to the camera than the trees.

Add this to the streaking in the lower image. Add this to the discrepancies in the witnesses stories. Add this to no other reports from the "busy street".

[edit on 3/23/2010 by Phage]

reply to post by Chadwickus

---

I see what your seeing there, but I think saying "without a doubt" might be a little strong. There are quite a few different lighting things happening in the pictures, and what you have circled does not prove to me that it was not glare from one of the light sources. Possible? Yes. "Without a doubt?" No.

I want to see the other three pictures.

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.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by kleverone

---

I used this account of the interview.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That is a second hand account of what someone heard on the radio. Hardly conclusive.

The trees, those on the left, do not appear to be 400m away, in fact they appear to be directly overhead in the "up" shot. I doubt they are 400m tall. The trees (and clouds) are in good focus. Motion blur produces "trails". The blob(s) do not display trails but instead the blur seen as a result of poor focus. This indicates that the blob(s) are closer to the camera than the trees.

I was under the impression that this lady was estimating the distance. Also, and I may be wrong here, but I don't think she was saying that this was the distance the object was when she took the photo, but when she noticed the object.

"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.

Add this to the streaking in the lower image.

Which to me resembles light coming from an illuminated obect much like when the sunlight shines through the clouds.

Add this to the discrepancies in the witnesses stories.

Which could have easily been misconstrued by the reporter.

Add this to no other reports from the "busy street".

That is was you call a busy street? I see one car, maybe two (possible tailights heading away). I suppose one persons defintion of busy differs from another.





[edit on 23-3-2010 by kleverone]

reply to post by nomadros

---

I was just going to say there was another orb by the tip of the tree.
files.abovetopsecret.com...
A goose no doubt.

reply to post by Phage

---

I've done umpteen interviews and what was said and what has been printed are often wholly different. The true question to ask is. Why didn't they quote on her that part of the story , when they did the rest?. The natural conclusion one arrives at, is that, the reporter made a mistake and didn't ask her or misheard her answer and the editor wanted some background so added their assumption, hence no quotation marks, so she has no comeback, if they are wrong.

As it stands at the moment, this would seem to be either, a genuine sighting, or a quite deliberate hoax. I don't think it's a misidentification. The details, about the objects distance, suggest, serious cognitive thought went into this. Therefore, it's either real or a total scam.

Armed drones now flying over the US
  Posted 12 days ago with 118 member flags

FBI Agent Fleeing Massive Manhunt Warns "They\'re all insane."
  Posted 10 days ago with 11 member flags

The USA has plenty of oil....we\'ve been saving it.
  Posted 7 days ago with 11 member flags

Alien Hologram Ring, 100% bonafide alien tech
  Posted 3 days ago with 4 member flags

Hey Guys Did You Know There\'s No Such Thing As Aids ?
  Posted 7 days ago with 3 member flags

App used to make ghostly apparitions in photo [HOAX]
  Posted 15 days ago with 2 member flags

Reptililan Shapeshifters: Are these videos genuine?
  Posted 7 days ago with 2 member flags

Ace Baker proves No Planes at WTC.
  Posted 5 days ago with 0 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: