UFO in Sydney Australia

I think the focus on whether it is a 'truthful' account has just got plain silly, is largely irrelevant, and is certainly counter productive.

Seriously, has no-one here misremembered? Has no-one ever gone back through the images on their camera or phone, been puzzled at the timeline, tried to line them up with what you *thought* happened? Did the images help you to 'remember'? But are you *sure* you were remembering, or is your brain just telling you that... The human brain is brilliant at correlating, tying up loose ends, making things match up. It's how it works, how it files stuff away.

Making an error, or having a false memory, doesn't mean you are a liar, or an untrustworthy witness. If anyone here thinks that *they* don't have false memories - you're kidding yourself.

And as for the extent of the 'errors', I don't see them as particularly important. At the end of the day, we have a single testimony, and a few pictures. I never fully trust 'testimony', not even my own. So how's about sticking to the image content, and letting the cards fall as they may.

If there is compelling evidence one way or another, then so be it. I'm betting that some of this will not ever be fully resolved, but some of it will... (Like I'd call the streetlamp issue pretty much over, but I'm still happy to entertain contrary views...)

BTW, I've just taken a series of pics to test the blob-moving-around-the-scene issue. One thing I did notice.. (although it's hard to compare the images directly, as this was not a comparable sized sensor).. I think the blob would have to be a bit smaller than I had guessed. Anyway, I haven't got them off my camera yet, and I probably won't have time tonight, sorry.

But suffice to say that the blob/s can indeed be moved anywhere you like in the scene (or out of it) with the background remaining unchanged, just by a small relocation of the camera (or iphone)..

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by TwoPhish

 

I think you have misunderstood why Maybe...maybe not is being, as you put it evasive.

Without sounding disrespectful towards Maybe...maybe not, his impartiality in this case has been compromised.

Which to me is understandable since he has met with the witness and created a bond (for want of a better word) and does not want to offend.

Hope I'm on the right track here and please correct me if I'm wrong maybe...maybe not.

G'day Chadwickus

Thank you.....you have summed it up very well.

I have tried to state opinions & information in the kindest possible way for the witness.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

I'm not speaking with authority (so help!), but I would be VERY VERY surprised if the iphone was constantly using satellites to calculate gps position if you weren't actually using a gps application. It requires antenna usage and calculating grunt to do that, and would drain the battery and cpu power for no good reason..

Phones are already grabbing a rough fix from the cell towers for their normal operation, and that would be sufficient to get a 'head start' when the real gps was called up.

For a 'normal' gps to grab a set of satellite data only takes 15-30 seconds or so, providing the gps is located near where it left off. However, that assumes an absolutely clear sky. I have a friend with an iPhone and on the two occasions he was showing me the GPS function it didn't exactly shine - on one occasion it took over 3 minutes in a fairly open area... Trees and any other stuff in the way can cause significant delay. When it isn't getting a satellite fix for whatever reason the phone would, presumably, just use the cell tower triangulation data (very inaccurate) and/or the last position fix it had, and then wait.

Seriously, 34 pages about two pics of some dirt on the windshield?

The dirtblob aka UFO changes shape because the photographer has changed position and moved to the left for the second photo.

It's out of focus as the focus has been put on the trees/sky which means that the dirtblob is close, so close it has to be circa 30cm infront of the photographer, which is on the windshield.

I don't care about the witness, she could be anyone looking for attention. I go after the evidence presented before me which screams Fail.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Sambell]

I don't know about you Aussie, but us New Yorkers call it like it is!

TwoPhish I respect your input on this thread, honestly I really do, but don't go down that path, its not only disrespectful to you ( you are better then that) but other Australians, maybe why we tar you with the brush of sepos, ( find a aussie dictionary and you may find the answer) and i went down that path

anyway I love your input like many others on this thread ( big deep breath everyone), great read, thank you all, I have seen strange things in West Oz myself , why would I bring it up here ? to be shot down, nah, I know what I have seen, with friends and family, Fiona I suggest you do the same, and then sites like this will have no content,


And by the way, this hasn't even had a dot in MSM in West Oz , does that say something to everybody reading this

again thanks all

Wally

reply to post by CHRLZ


agreed. at the end of the day i dont think there is any other way to explain the reflection other then at least two of the pictures were taken inside of the car and if so then everything else falls apart right there!.

but just on another point, as i stated earlier, the exif data shows that the event lasted at least 33 seconds so imo that rules out any plane as it would be out of the scene in that time, or would crash due to lack of airspeed to have enough lift to keep it airborne.

also helicopter is ruled out due to the fact that it should be quite loud at that distance and would be heard by the witness and would probably be recognisable at that distance.

i think phage has been correct on this right from the start....

thanks

rich

reply to post by CHRLZ


correct again on the gps, i was wondering about this myself earlier until maybe...maybe not very kindly pointed me in the direction of some good info.

from what i have read earlier it seems that the phones only use the gps fully when making an emergency call, using sat nav, or using another gps required application.

although i couldn't find a definitive answer on the iphone im led to believe that the gps on those phones is not as good as on a nokia n95.

and from experience of owning an n95 i know for certain it can really struggle at times and in certain conditions to get gps connection.

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
on the subject of the reflection, is this a possibility that its a kind of double reflection from the right side window and onto the windscreen? and we are seeing the side and/or back of a car just passing?. im sure ive seen that sort of reflection happen in my own cars in the past.

I'm struggling to think of a reflection path that could do that. The side windows are reasonably vertical, so they would not give the necessary upward reflection that would be required to show the car in the ~45 degree angled windscreen. Same problem with a side mirror. The light's just not coming from the right angle..

I think the only way to resolve this is to find a PT cruiser with the same dashboard design (that may be tricky!) and then take some shots from inside...

If anyone can do that - HINT - try to have a darkish background, and turn the flash on!!! That will help illuminate the dashboard so we can identify the shape that reflects back.

I'll keep an eye out at motor dealers, but I don't see very many pt's around here..

Originally posted by CHRLZ
I think the focus on whether it is a 'truthful' account has just got plain silly, is largely irrelevant, and is certainly counter productive.

Seriously, has no-one here misremembered? Has no-one ever gone back through the images on their camera or phone, been puzzled at the timeline, tried to line them up with what you *thought* happened? Did the images help you to 'remember'? But are you *sure* you were remembering, or is your brain just telling you that... The human brain is brilliant at correlating, tying up loose ends, making things match up. It's how it works, how it files stuff away.

Making an error, or having a false memory, doesn't mean you are a liar, or an untrustworthy witness. If anyone here thinks that *they* don't have false memories - you're kidding yourself.

And as for the extent of the 'errors', I don't see them as particularly important. At the end of the day, we have a single testimony, and a few pictures. I never fully trust 'testimony', not even my own. So how's about sticking to the image content, and letting the cards fall as they may.

If there is compelling evidence one way or another, then so be it. I'm betting that some of this will not ever be fully resolved, but some of it will... (Like I'd call the streetlamp issue pretty much over, but I'm still happy to entertain contrary views...)

BTW, I've just taken a series of pics to test the blob-moving-around-the-scene issue. One thing I did notice.. (although it's hard to compare the images directly, as this was not a comparable sized sensor).. I think the blob would have to be a bit smaller than I had guessed. Anyway, I haven't got them off my camera yet, and I probably won't have time tonight, sorry.

But suffice to say that the blob/s can indeed be moved anywhere you like in the scene (or out of it) with the background remaining unchanged, just by a small relocation of the camera (or iphone)..

Please! Tell me I didn't just read that! It's not an 'error' nor.....is what's in question a matter of a timeline. Sheesh!
We're talking about whether or not these photos were taken from within her PT Cruiser or..........not!
Where have you been?????????

It's as simple as this:

If this woman took the photos from within her car then.........she's a liar (because she made this 'smudge' into international headlines) and fabricated the WHOLE story!

If she took them from outside her car then, we have a great encounter captured on............film!

It's not like we're asking her what color socks she was wearing (which then THAT, would be incidental and counterproductive to the story)

Her being in the vehicle has EVERYTHING to do with the story. Because you're all incorporating this 'smudge' into the baseline of this said-story. And...............you're saying (claiming, whatever) this 'bright light' was in fact a street light.

Why are you walking on egg shells? I don't get it!
Maybe I have more moxie than you do! I dunno. Perhaps you are trying to PLEASE the audience and not come off like the bad guy?

You're pussy-footing around, hiding behind all your techno-crap talk and yet.............not saying what you're truly thinking!

Your politeness doesn't out shine your honesty men! You lack integrity. It's not washing well at the end! We don't want niceness. We want truth!

I KNOW and respect the fact that MMN did some field research on his own. Kudos and thank you. We all very much appreciate it.
However, what he's failing to do is assert his findings into some cohesive conclusion!
All good researchers have an 'end'. It's their theory.

You MMN, are NOT ending your theory. Instead you want to appear like this nice guy (that you are, I don't begrudge that) and NOT tell Fiona/us what you feel.


This women either had an event, like she stated or.....she didn't. There is no misunderstanding, memory-blackout or forgetfulness.

Being INSIDE the car, would be the crux to a tale.
Being OUTSIDE the car, would give Fiona credibility!

Once again, you guys are tip-toeing around so not to dishonor this lovely woman (who, ingratiate MMN with a reenactment) but, you're doing a disservice in regards to your intention!

reply to post by CHRLZ


G'day CHRLZ

As per my many posts..........

.....the witness took pictures from the inside of her car with my iPhone.

I uploaded them on Rapidshare.

Internos provided the download link from Rapidshare because I was having trouble with it.

If you can't download them, U2U me & we can sort something out.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by TwoPhish


hi twophish, i mean no offence and also im new so i dont want to come on and upset anyone or get into any arguments.

but you seem like your trying to push everyone into making your mind up for you or just want them to be downright blunt.

i think its already quite obvious what the majority have decided on this by what they have already said.

cant you just look at everything and make your decision?

mine was made very early in the thread.

thanks

rich

Originally posted by auswally

I don't know about you Aussie, but us New Yorkers call it like it is!

TwoPhish I respect your input on this thread, honestly I really do, but don't go down that path, its not only disrespectful to you ( you are better then that) but other Australians, maybe why we tar you with the brush of sepos, ( find a aussie dictionary and you may find the answer) and i went down that path

anyway I love your input like many others on this thread ( big deep breath everyone), great read, thank you all, I have seen strange things in West Oz myself , why would I bring it up here ? to be shot down, nah, I know what I have seen, with friends and family, Fiona I suggest you do the same, and then sites like this will have no content,


And by the way, this hasn't even had a dot in MSM in West Oz , does that say something to everybody reading this

again thanks all

Wally

Sorry. I didn't mean to lump-sum you all. I was trying to ascertain whether Aussie men are a little more, how do you say?.....careful, polite, than perhaps I would be under these circumstances.

Again, I apologize. I love Australia. It's a magical piece of real estate.


And in the end, you're right. You own your own truth regardless of what others say.
I for one, believe Fiona because honestly, I don't think she had that much to gain (although I did indicate I thought she was making money via her MSM rounds which...........is fine. I would too)

Fiona? I believe you sweetie.

reply to post by TwoPhish

I KNOW and respect the fact that MMN did some field research on his own. Kudos and thank you. We all very much appreciate it.
However, what he's failing to do is assert his findings into some cohesive conclusion!
All good researchers have an 'end'. It's their theory.

You MMN, are NOT ending your theory. Instead you want to appear like this nice guy (that you are, I don't begrudge that) and NOT tell Fiona/us what you feel.

Ok let me explain this basically to you.

MMN is not here to produce the results, he collated the data and passed it to others like Internos to review, then process and they have not yet concluded their findings. Reitzer is also looking at it, and he will hopefully definitively respond whether it was taken through glass or not. PLs give them time to research, thats what proper researchers do.

MMN he has never claimed to be the "results" expert.

Can we stay on topic. The sideshow is getting tiresome.


[edit on 27-3-2010 by zazzafrazz]

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by bluemooone2

 

That sure looks like a VW Bus perhaps.
What is the reflection doing over there and so small.
Assuming there was an enlargement.
I think there was a vehicle in one of the photos.
The iPhone might have a glass cover for the lens.

Yet there is no car infront of her except the oncoming one, which if anything might have runed the shot (whiteout) with its headlights as it neared her, if the reflection is in the phone screen.

reply to post by CHRLZ


i know that does sound a little strange and hard to get that reflection but im pretty sure its happened to me at some time while in a car, maybe it would depend on if the car was level or something, maybe some sort of strange prism type, i can sort of think of a way of it happening but its very hard to explain.

thanks

rich

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by TwoPhish

 

hi twophish, i mean no offence and also im new so i dont want to come on and upset anyone or get into any arguments.

but you seem like your trying to push everyone into making your mind up for you or just want them to be downright blunt.

i think its already quite obvious what the majority have decided on this by what they have already said.

cant you just look at everything and make your decision?

mine was made very early in the thread.

thanks

rich

Well, I did that but I got attacked.

I claimed, I was the only one, at this juncture (about 4 pages ago) that believed in Fiona.

That didn't go over too well.

What I am NOT understanding is.........how can some people say these photos in question, were taken inside her car and yet, not call her a liar???

I just don't get that logic.

One can NOT forget where they took the photo from especially in this case because, like I typed out a thousand times, taking the photos from within the car, brings this entire story to a whole other level.

I feel like a monster by banging out all these comments. I really am a nice trustful soul. I just want the truth and.............I want people to be CLEAR about what they're saying.
There is no riding the proverbial fence here.
She is genuine or..................she's a liar.

Onto the reflection thingy..

Originally posted by TwoPhish

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? [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/161e4fb32d02.jpg[/atsimg]

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!

to me its looks like a hilux work ute you can see the tray at the back??

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by TwoPhish

 

I KNOW and respect the fact that MMN did some field research on his own. Kudos and thank you. We all very much appreciate it.
However, what he's failing to do is assert his findings into some cohesive conclusion!
All good researchers have an 'end'. It's their theory.

You MMN, are NOT ending your theory. Instead you want to appear like this nice guy (that you are, I don't begrudge that) and NOT tell Fiona/us what you feel.

Ok let me explain this basically to you.

MMN is not here to produce the results, he collated the data and passed it to others like Internos to review, then process and they have not yet concluded their findings. Reitzer is also looking at it, and he will hopefully definitively respond whether it was taken through glass or not.
Not MMMN he has never claimed to be the "results" expert.

Can we stay on topic. The sideshow is getting tiresome.
Yawn...so bored now.


[edit on 27-3-2010 by zazzafrazz]

You seem to pop up in his defense all the time but as his fan, please let me tell you that I have absolutely no problem with MMN.

He chimed in when I posted a comment and it's there, that things fell apart.

If he wants to be an unbiased investigator (with no theory) then I suggest he bud out of my comments.


And..........if you're bored with me, then tell a MOD and maybe they'll wipe out my comments for you. Because the last thing I want to do is make someone yawn.

I think what I am adding (along with my many photos I've contributed contrary to what MMN said......) is important to this thread.

You seem to think otherwise.

I don't begrudge that but just let me be and just skip over my input from now on.
Case resolved!

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Excellent work, so photo labelled #3 was taken 184ft behind #photo2 and elevated. Unless the sequence is reversed ofcourse, it seems she took photo#2 then reversed the 184ft to take shot#3.

I think we can assume #3 came BEFORE #2 or did I miss time data in that?

reply to post by TwoPhish


well i have to disagree about what people remember doing, sometimes they can get caught up in a moment and forget/confuse details of an event, for example: i watched a ufo documentary a few years ago and they did an experiment to show how witnesses can get easily confused. they took a group of unsuspecting people out into a forest on a hiking trip, but they had set up a fake ufo crash site surrounded by military, they then interviewed all the witnesses separately and they all gave different accounts of what happened.

they also interviewed them again at later dates and almost all of them got their storys different to the first interview....

now back on the subject at hand, the reflection says to me that at least two photos were taken from inside the car, now i dont know for certain if shes just outright hoaxed or if shes seen something that shes unsure of and got confused.