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: 35
33
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
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.



Oh my gawd!!!

This 'detail' (that people want to minimalize) is the crux to this entire story.

(I just don't get it anymore)




posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


well i can give you 3 possible scenarios and its very difficult or almost impossible for me to prove or disprove any of them but here goes.
1 she just outright hoaxed the thing from the start.
2 she pulled up and started taking pictures of the sunset and something caught her eye and she jumped out and took more pictures but got confused and caught up in the moment, then the anomalies in the photos just made the situation worse.
3 she took photos and went home saw them then decided to make up a story to fit the anomalies in the photos.
now she comes across as a very nice lady and im going to give her the benefit of the doubt and say that number 2 is my scenario until proven otherwise... now what is your take???
thanks
rich



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND
 


RICH
explaining thanks for not much has affended me thats been saidi just want to get to the bottom of this just like every one else does i just wish some one can come to a conclusion soon and perhaps i can sleep a bit better then nowing i put my self out there for this i just want so closure to this



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by missfee
 


hi fiona, im new here myself although i have been reading this site for a couple of years. i only signed up last night because of this very thread and you photos.

from what i can gather your photos have been passed on to a couple of people with more expertise of certain things like photography and so forth.

so i think its just a waiting game now for those guys to do a full analysis and then post their findings.

i have no idea how long this will take as i dont know who the people are or when they will have the time, im sure someone in the know will keep us updated.

thanks

rich



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Fiona, were any of the photos taken through or by sticking the phone out the sunroof?

From your facebook page.

IMAGE EDITED AS REQUESTED


missfee

the road wasent wet and i was a bit to the left of the bonet not centered if i rember right


So the pic above accurately illustrates your position while taking all five photos?

[edit on 27-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

[edit on 27-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


G'day wayaboveitall

I'm not certain it's appropriate to post pictures from the witness's Facebook page.

Under the circumstances, I think the witness might find it intrusive.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

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



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Im not sure why she might find it so "maybe', given she has freely provided link to it, if not to me directly. The image is relavent to the question of the sunroof. Perhaps she can confirm or deny the image is her and her car?

Im wondering if the two images you labelled #2 and #3 were shot by reaching through it.
Im happy to remove the image if she wishes.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


G'day wayaboveitall

I think the picture has been posted for no good reason other than to be mischevious.....it adds nothing to the discussion of the facts.

I still don't think the witness will like it.

Do you know why I call Fiona "the witness"?

It's because I'm trying to be respectful to her by not sounding too familiar with her.

By posting the picture, I believe you are being too familiar with her which means you are not being respectful of her.

The mods will make a decision regarding the picture.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   

I think the picture has been posted for no good reason other than to be mischevious.....it adds nothing to the discussion of the facts.


You are welcome to your opinions. I beg the differ. If the two shots were taken via (out) the sunroof, it ellimenates the blob on the windscreen theory, on which the entire question of weather its an arial object, hangs.
The point of which, is that if she took the last two out the sunroof (no reflections) this accounts for getting from a-b in however many seconds it was. If she shot two, saw the black shape, then drove a little further and shot more out the sunroof, dosent dimish her case, but infact adds to it, since we can then establish the black shape was not on the windscreen. OK


Please go back to your long running flamewar with TwoPhish and leave me out of it.
Just as many of your latest posts have 'added nothing to the discission of facts' either mate!


[edit on 27-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Ms Hartigan yesterday said she had just got out of her car on Sunday evening to snap a few sunset photos when the amazing events began.

"As I was about to take the picture this black object appeared and then it started to move," she said.

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.
There was no noise. It was calm and peaceful but it was very weird."
Ms Hartigan said the main UFO then shot off above Governor Macquarie Drive at Chipping Norton, with the smaller UFOs zipping away in the opposite direction.

"I don't know how to explain it - I'm still totally bewildered," she said.



Thats All Ms Hartigan said "According to the newspaper"
www.news.com.au...

Anything else said, is the quoted responses of UFO Research NSW spokesman Doug Moffett and the journo relating the story, not Ms Hartigan directly.

So. Which is 'The Main ufo' please ? Is It this one?.....



Do you still think the 'bright orange light' you described above was anything other than the streetlight?
If not, we are left with 3 'ufo's', that being the black shape indicated above and the two 'orbs'.
Is this correct?
Until we establish this, we cant start working on what the black shape might be.
The black shape has two issues. You said you saw this black shape move accross the sky.
Ok fair enough. So we have to establish from the photos, what the shape is before we can conclude
that it was actually moving across the sky, or the movement is caused by the camera , and the shape is stationary,
ie, on the windscreen. Determining exactly where and how you shot these pics, will allow us to determine
If the object did move across the sky or not, and therefore it is not on the windscreen. Then we can work on the 'orbs'. Do you think there could be any normal explaination for the 'orbs'?

The ufos (3) are the whole point yes? So we have the black shape above, and the two orbs, unless
you stand by your conviction the 'bright orange light' was NOT the streetlight. And if not, and you were witnessing this,
Where did the bright orange light go? Did the journo not ask you? Why have you not mentioned that?

Id just like to hear (read) your words about what you remember, without the influence of any experts or newspaper journos.
Leaving nothing out.
My own personal thoughts about what they might be, are neither here or there, Im trying to be direct honest and unbiased,
in investigating your story for my own curiosity, I too live in sydney.




[edit on 27-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   


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


Now ya talking, I would of sent this through a personal message but I cant, thanks a heap. and sorry about the sepo comment

as for this thread, I think there is a real need for everyone to take a step back.

I will ask this one question, is there ever going to be any real proof, I know there is, I have seen it, but seriously, on a public / global forum, nah ya friggn kidding ya selves. why we do this is amazing. Some actually sound like a cover up. government conspiracy, funny as, we are on the right forum yeah, or have I missed something


Wally



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


it depends what server your with mine is3G and it states it next to your servise bars at the top of the phone mine is constantly on iv never lost reception in my area, all though going through the blue mountians there is no reception



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


i still dont understand ?? what MSN rounds are you talking about how do i get to that what web sight do i go to



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


i was out leaning onthe hood not centerd a bit to the left, look i never took the pics from in side and not through the sun roof i have asked before the could the reflection be a car comeing from behind me



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


yes that is me and that photo was taken 4 month ago i was not leaning on my car as in this picture my behind was sitting /leaning on my bonet with my back to the car



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


i have given this site permission to analize the photos and me but you had no permision to up loade a photo of my self on this site i want it removed



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


thats not fair y has it come down to this mmn has mad the most foot work so his opinion is the most importiant to me



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by missfee
 



i was out leaning onthe hood not centerd a bit to the left, look i never took the pics from in side and not through the sun roof i have asked before the could the reflection be a car comeing from behind me



All five shots were taken from left front of the bonnet? If thats so, it cant be a reflection of a car approaching you from behind (despite it looking like the back of a car (ute or hatchback im not sure), Because there is nothing infront of your camera lense to reflect a car.

Can you please clarify, if the screen on your phone (that shows you what the camera sees) is on the opposit side of the camera from the lense (the side you point at what you want to snap) ?

I think the small round lense is unlikely to 'mirror' a car behind you, because its on the side of the camera facing away from you.

farm4.static.flickr.com...

You said earlier that you beleive the lense was clean because photos of your child came out without the black shape. The reflection is not from the veiwing screen of your camera since the lense appeture is on the other side.

If you take a photo with it, of anything, not through glass, you dont get reflections unless you are photographing glass (like a shop window) (or some other reflective surface) in which case the reflective surface of the window glass, will bounce back a reflection of you and your camera and anyone else passing by, and whatevers behind you, But not without a reflective surface infront of the lense.
See this pic.



If your right at the front of the car, the bonnet is behind you entirely, and not within an angle possible for reflection on the lense from the bonnet surface.
No bonnet is apparent in any of the photos.


yes that is me and that photo was taken 4 month ago i was not leaning on my car as in this picture my behind was sitting /leaning on my bonet with my back to the car


Then this rules out any reflective surface between your camera lense and the object, YET, there IS a reflection and you have just commented on it yourself. What explaination for the reflection do you suggest?
You said the road wasn't wet, there are no reflective surfaces along the roadway in the photo, such as those glass bus stops for example.
Your are standing leaning on the bonnet of your car, with your back to it
(ruling out any part of your car as responsible for the reflection) pointing your camera down the road to get the sunset on the horizon.

"IF" you had stuck your arm out the sunroof or window of the car to take the pics, then there is more chance the reflection is off bonnet/side of your car (via window) or off your windscreen (via the sunroof).



i have given this site permission to analize the photos and me but you had no permision to up loade a photo of my self on this site i want it removed




Removed as requested.



thats not fair y has it come down to this mmn has mad the most foot work so his opinion is the most importiant to me


??? Did you think I was rude because I dont refer to you as "The Witness" ? Its not a courtroom, its the internet.


'Maybe' Has done some smashing investigative work, I agree, but he ruins it with emotional and irrational speculations about my manners and intentions. (out of the blue) Right after a flamewar with TwoPhish at that. Dont get personal , Leave me out of the bickering please.





[edit on 27-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

[edit on 27-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TwoPhish
This entire thread has been reduce to science!!!!!

Reduced? Science?
Hahahahaa, ohh gosh geee wiz, not scientific data
Would you rather discuss cake recipes or hard scientific data?
Don't understand any of it? Google it. Research and learn.

I have not interjected here cause there is no reason to until now.
However, I need to point out how ridiculous your comment is and to let Maybe..Maybe not what a superb job he has done and one worthy of recognition. Keep up the good work. You can't let your heart get in the way
of scientific data. There's a conflict of interest.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Good morning,

First of all, my intention wasn't to pick on Internos and your investigation - I applaud it. I just wanted to point out that the iPhones GPS is flawed, maybe her iPhone relied on cell towers when she took the photos - we can't be sure. Also, there seems to problems with geotagging. I read on macrumors.com that sometimes the phone doesn't update tags for the first couple of shots i.e 1. take a photo - move - 2. take another photo and you get tag from photo 1 on photo 2 too.

Source

To me, the geotags should be discarded or maybe left as a footnote in this case only.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join