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: 31
33
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   
After triangulating data from 4 geosynchronous satellites and factoring in the input from the on call area 51 specialist and the folks from Sydney Observatory and consulting resident experts from the best photo annalists to phage.............. I believe It is still a squashed bug on a windscreen , with 2 birds in the background, yup .




posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Triangulum
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


If we throw out the GPS data from the first picture, what remains says that she was stationary when she took the photos. She was not moving forward in her car and the perspective of the photos should be roughly the same. What's left is to find out for certain if she was in her car or not. She adamantly claims she was not. If she was however, all bets are off and I'd go with the skeptics that this is a downright hoax. If she wasn't in her car then speculation on what the various objects are might mean something.

That's my .02 anyway...

T.


So that's a good thing, right?
If she was not moving forward in her car (for she said she stopped to snap photos of the Sun) then......this is to her credit, right? The car was parked! (didn't realize this was another point of discrepancy but....)

I thought the debunking team was set off to find out if this 'blob" triangulated (am I making up words?) with this alleged light source (UFO or...........lamp post)

I just can not keep up with all this debunking committee no more!



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   

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

It should be pointed out that the accuracy of GPS location data, and in particular elevation data, are highly dependent on the satellite geometry. A poor configuration will yield a range of variation well within the discrepancies you have found. I would not consider the data reliable without knowing what the geometry and signal quality was.


G'day Phage

Can you help with any data to problem-solve the possible variation aspect?

I am aware of the possible variation regarding the height data.

Is 60 meters distance within an accepted "range of variation"?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


ok thanks for that post but im still unsure if that answers my question. ill have to read through the gps data and google posts a few times to get a better understanding of whats going on. but thanks anyway.
rich



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
G'day Triangulum

Internos & I are not in agreement with your conclusions from the GPS data.

You state the iPhone was stationary between photo's 2-5.

We do not believe the iPhone was stationary between photo's 2-5.

We believe the iPhone was moving between photo 2 & photo 3 as per the distance (184.5 feet), time (11 secs) & height (29.52 feet) calcs in my post.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


We’re not using the same numbering. I excluded the photo that did not contain GPS data(0429) and labeled the rest 1(0430), 2(0431), 3(0432), and 4(0433). You are still calling 0429 the #1 photo. Since it contains the least amount of data I think it should be discarded as a location data point.

Showing my work:

Ok, the first thing I did was to compile the GPS 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

Next, since Google Earth only allows one notation type at a time for coordinate input; I converted the La and Lo from all the photos to use the same notation. That notation is in degrees and decimal minutes.

§ 0430 La=33° 54.938'S Lo=150° 57.188'E
§ 0431 La=33° 54.930S Lo=150° 57.230'E
§ 0432 La=33° 54.930S Lo=150° 57.230'E
§ 0433 La=33° 54.930S Lo=150° 57.230'E

Finally, I plotted out the coordinates in Google Earth and used the ruler function to measure between the two locations. Is it possible you are not accounting for the difference in notation? Is my conversion incorrect?

T.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


The iPhone uses A-GPS (Assisted GPS) but you guys knew that already right?



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Can you help with any data to problem-solve the possible variation aspect?

I am aware of the possible variation regarding the height data.

Is 60 meters distance within an accepted "range of variation"?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


I surmised, up thread, that the variation stems from the use of differing GPS methods. The first using tower triangulation and the remaining using GPS satellites. When she was in her car she had a poor GPS signal so her phone used triangulation. She got out of her car and her satellite signal strength increased. During the time her phone transitioned between the two methods she snapped two pictures. She snapped the remaining three after the phone switched over to satellite. If you look at the Exif timestamps for the four pictures; the first is displayed as "Date Time". The remaining snaps are displayed as "GPS Time Stamp"

T.

G'night Everyone



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


Hi TwoPhish,

you said "At this point, the best way to 'break the case' is to go into her personal history!" (I agree with you on that), well FB is a pretty good place to start.

These from FB sound freaky to me

"Fiona Hartigan Is freaking out just got in the bath and the tape turned it self on at the basin while I was laying in the bath I got out to turn it off and it stopes just as I was reaching for it f....en scared the crap out of me u no when u feel some one looking at u and u get goose bumps my little Jessy went crazy at the door so I ...let him in and he went crazy it's not often u hear me say I wish Sam and the girls"

"Fiona Hartigan Thanks both of u Im freacked out enough familys home n Eliza went for a bath went to open the door and io glid open easly she got half way in the door got cold chills and ran out of ther like lightning she came skreaking down stairs mummmm she freaked her self out now she's showering down stairs "



Whoa!
Not really sure what to inject here but (as a human observer of life) I have to say:
One) There's way too much theatrics in her life or
Two) she's in touch with another dimension that she hasn't welcomed or
3) She knows exactly what she's doing and looks forward to reaping in her rewards!
( I bet on number one)

Hey, I am no Dr Phil (thank gawd) but I bet I can run circles around him with my high school drop out know-how!

[edit on 26-3-2010 by TwoPhish]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Absolutely, we are aware that GPS could be inaccurate:
according to GPS data:

  • image #2 (IMG_0430.JPG) was taken on March 21, 2010 @ 7:18:52PM: GPS-encoded location: 33° 54' 56"S, 150° 57' 11"E
    GPS Altitude 0 m
    GPS Altitude Ref Above Sea Level

  • image # 3 (IMG_0431.JPG) was taken on March 21, 2010 @ 7:18:52PM
    GPS-encoded location: 33° 54' 56"S, 150° 57' 14"E
    GPS Altitude 9 m (=29.52 feet)
    GPS Altitude Ref Above Sea Level

    Now, the height difference in heigh between points A and B would be approx. 29 feet: from a top view it's hard to say: the relevant data are coordinates indicating a motion of 3" towards east.

    I've made a quick animation showing what would have happened according to GPS data from images #2 and #3:
    I've set the frame rate to one second, but the actual frame rate would be an interval of 11 seconds.



  • posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:35 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
     


    In this situation it's possible that the tall trees on either side of the road could interfere with the signal, that combined with a poor geometry could provide an inaccurate fix.

    With poor satellite geometry and/or signal quality a 60 meter error is possible but it is quite large. But even if the error is only half that there is no way to determine its direction, it could be north or south, east or west of the actual location. It is a low confidence datum.



    posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:39 PM
    link   

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

    The iPhone uses A-GPS (Assisted GPS) but you guys knew that already right?


    G'day cripmeister

    As does Nokia, etc...

    May I ask why you are pointing that out?

    Kind regards
    Maybe...maybe not



    posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:41 PM
    link   
    [edit on 26-3-2010 by Mark_Frost]



    posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:41 PM
    link   
    reply to post by internos
     

    Internos. What about the vertical angle between the top of the tree and the streetlight? It seems that a change in location of that extent would cause a large change. From the distant point the streetlight should be apparently lower than from the nearer point. We see only a very slight change (if any).

    Seeing your map another thing comes to mind. Assuming the GPS fixes are accurate, it may be possible that it had not updated to the location of the photograph. Again, I don't trust GPS to that kind of precision.

    [edit on 3/26/2010 by Phage]



    posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:42 PM
    link   
    Hmm I haven't been here for a few days and I did think this thread was going to wither away and die.

    I must say I was surprised to log on and find this thread still being discussed in this much detail.

    So from what I have read i still cant make up what the verdict is here?

    Are we all still calling this mud on a windshield or is the Jury still out on this one?



    posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:43 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by internos
    Absolutely, we are aware that GPS could be inaccurate:
    according to GPS data:

  • image #2 (IMG_0430.JPG) was taken on March 21, 2010 @ 7:18:52PM: GPS-encoded location: 33° 54' 56"S, 150° 57' 11"E
    GPS Altitude 0 m
    GPS Altitude Ref Above Sea Level

  • image # 3 (IMG_0431.JPG) was taken on March 21, 2010 @ 7:18:52PM
    GPS-encoded location: 33° 54' 56"S, 150° 57' 14"E
    GPS Altitude 9 m (=29.52 feet)
    GPS Altitude Ref Above Sea Level

    Now, the height difference in heigh between points A and B would be approx. 29 feet: from a top view it's hard to say: the relevant data are coordinates indicating a motion of 3" towards east.

    I've made a quick animation showing what would have happened according to GPS data from images #2 and #3:
    I've set the frame rate to one second, but the actual frame rate would be an interval of 11 seconds.



  • OMG! I am so impressed!
    But please (you computer-technical wizard) can you include a little "PS" at the end of your findings to inform us simpletons?
    I am beyond impressed! (just not sure what it reveals though) but, this deserves something. Can we have an ATS award ceremony? (smile)


    KUDOS~



    posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:49 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Mark_Frost
    Hmm I haven't been here for a few days and I did think this thread was going to wither away and die.

    I must say I was surprised to log on and find this thread still being discussed in this much detail.

    So from what I have read i still cant make up what the verdict is here?

    Are we all still calling this mud on a windshield or is the Jury still out on this one?





    Mark,

    25+ pages and we aren't any further along in this investigation than when you first brought this to our attention!
    Good going!!!!! You just, Post.............then, bail (smile)

    Great thread.
    Great debate.
    Great...................unknown!



    posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:51 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Phage
     


    hi phage, you could be very correct on that point, i have a nokia n95 that ive used the sat nav on quite a few times, and although ive never looked at exif data and especially exif gps data, i know that the sat nav does stick at times and takes a few seconds to update so it could very well be the same on the photo exif gps data. although obviously they are different phones i would imagine the same things can happen.

    rich



    posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:53 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Phage
    reply to post by internos
     

    Internos. What about the vertical angle between the top of the tree and the streetlight? It seems that a change in location of that extent would cause a large change. From the distant point the streetlight should be apparently lower than from the nearer point. We see only a very slight change (if any).


    G'day Phage

    I confirm very small changes in position "forward" or "backwards" along the road caused very significant changes in the angle of the streetlight from the camera.

    This was exaccerbated by the very wide field of view of the iPhone camera & the height of the streetlight.

    I pointed this out to the witness at length & ensured I lined up with the exact "black tree" that she stated she was aligned with when she took the photo.

    That put the streetlight in exactly the same position in frame on the iPhone camera, as per the "bright light" in the witness' photo.....exactly as in it was a 100% match.

    I'm struggling a little to describe this in words.....is that answering your question?

    Kind regards
    Maybe...maybe not

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



    posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:54 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Phage
    reply to post by internos
     

    Internos. What about the vertical angle between the top of the tree and the streetlight? It seems that a change in location of that extent would cause a large change. From the distant point the streetlight should be apparently lower than from the nearer point. We see only a very slight change (if any).

    Seeing your map another thing comes to mind. Assuming the GPS fixes are accurate, it may be possible that it had not updated to the location of the photograph. Again, I don't trust GPS to that kind of precision.

    I agree, the altitude really doens't look to be accurate: besides whenever we see some zero in the data, we should always take them with a grain of salt:
    now that I think about it, GPS data are missing in the first file, and altitude was set to zero in the second one: this leans me to think that it could have been on reset status, something like that: about coordinates, we'd need to know some exact margin of error, but I agree: GPS coordinates can be inaccurate: it coul be helpful to share them anyway.



    posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:56 PM
    link   
    reply to post by TwoPhish
     


    I've been property hunting

    Id rather catch a UFO than go to another Open House!!!!!

    I did bail, too much technical information that made me feel like I needed to re-enroll into University.

    I'm glad that all this research is still being carried out, I think we need a good old hard case like this to drive all of us UFO enthusiasts that this quest for evidence isn't futile.

    Some members contribution to this thread had been stunning!



    new topics

    top topics



     
    33
    << 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

    log in

    join