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: 38
33
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

With the 'blob' UFO.....again, it's not like you're saying perhaps that was a satellite which, is a very good alternative explanation.
No! You people are saying it was a SMUDGE on her windshield.


A sattellite? it would have to be bigger than the international space station to be as large as it appears in the sky, or too low to remain in orbit.

How often do people on the ground report seeing the space station, or a satellite, unless they using a telescope?


Again, there is no allowance for Fiona misunderstanding man-made items that some of you are saying were, misidentified! She's not that stupid!!!! No one can be.


I didnt say or imply otherwise, but
What was it you said earlier?


Not saying this tale can't be spun but (no offense Fiona) she doesn't come off that sophisticated.
But if we find out that that is the case, she's one damn good creative actress then. Especially going on TV, radio and this forum to be put up against a bunch of scrunity and ridicule while dealing with cancer (if.....that is true too).



It's either a hoax or it's not.
There's no middle ground of misunderstanding here.




Will you PLEASE stop messin' with my head! Just when I think I am convinced this isn't a street light [[[[bam]]]]].....you do this.

Gotta admit guys, it does look like a friggin lamp post.



am 99.9% certain that is NOT Fiona. C'mon now. Do you really think she has the wherewithal to surf the net, stumble on ATS, find a thread about her and post a reply?

I dunno, maybe I'm too cynical but I'm pretty damn good with my intuitions though.




I just did and I may owe a BIG apology. There is a Fiona with that address on FaceBook with UFO photos.

I feel ashamed. Sorry!



Again m'friend unless I am not seeing this clearly, there are NO in-betweens.

She's either a hoaxer (is that a better word than a liar?)
or
She is genuine and captured photos of UFOs.



G'bye Fiona. Thank you for stopping in. Please report back when you can.

We really want to believe you. But of course, you can see why people are skeptical. It's not that we don't believe in UFOs. I think we all do. It's just so difficult to authenticate them via photos via an iPhone via the Internet.



Can you explain that glare (that appears to be from inside the windshield of your car, (according to some sleuths on here) please?


Your 'intuitions' appear to have changed .


She either SAW all these things that she's claiming to have seen with her own two eyes, in the sky or............she didn't.


I can beleive she sincerly beleives she did. She said...


the sun had already set at the bottom of the pic and the two objest came out of that orange object their not coming out of sun rays the flair of light coming from the two objests was as if they had been ejected from the lumonus light object sorry im a slow typer


correct it appeard when the large object appeard


any more Questions befor i have to go rember im just a mum who likes taking pics of the sun setting i dident ask these objects to ruin yes RUIN my sunset shots




Very odd photos indeed, could it be a shopping bag blowing in the wind ?

That's pretty much the closest thing I can relate it to.

[edit on 23-3-2010 by Eisbaer]



That is also a very reasonable explaination, that I could accept without problem.
A high flying grey plastic shopping bag as seen moving across the sky at dusk, judged against the backdrop of the setting sun
might look alot like an unknown object.




posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


what im stating/asking is that in some of your posts you are giving the evidence against her and really trying your hardest to get people to outright condemn her but then saying you believe her. now to me its coming across that you are frustrated with yourself and cant really decide and want everyone to do it for you so you can pick a side and feel that you've made the right decision. now again i could be wrong and im not trying to pick a fight or cause offence. you seem like a nice guy thats just a bit frustrated.

and again i hope my stance is clear, i cannot condemn fiona at this time because it may turn out that photo analysis by an expert shows that we got it wrong about the reflection and/or blob/ufo.

and i certainly dont want to end up with egg on my face and upsetting someone that may turn out to be genuine.

thanks

rich



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Yes, but once again, that's a question of personality, so each person reacts in their own way.

That's why I prefer "cold" data.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ArMaP
 

But when shown that there is a streetlight where she said there is not, shouldn't she reevaluate her position? It seems like a good time for her to rethink exactly what happened.



I ve have spoken to Fiona and she is happy to accept that the orange orb is street lamp. She stated "I saw a orange orb, but looks like in the photo I got the lamp, I wasn't really looking at the screen when taking the photo I was clicking and watching the event"


Im just relaying the witness is keen for any or all of it to be explained even if it debunks her.

The glass between the camera and horizon remains a key point on of contention I would imgaine



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   



Using the photo of the reflection above, i think that maybe the photos of the "ufo" may have been taken from the inside of the vehicle, if you take a look at the 7th photo to the right, from the Chrysler aus site.
From this pt cruiser shot...it might have even been taken from the back as the reflections look similar.......








[Mod Edit - removed nested quotes]

[edit on 27/3/2010 by Sauron]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


thanks for that update, she is coming across as quite sincere, but thats hard for me to judge when im on the other side of the world! lol. and yes the reflection still is a major sticking point but as armap pointed out its not out of the question for that to be a reflection inside of the lens, im doubtful of that but im not a photographic expert and im open to being proved wrong.

thanks

rich



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


what im stating/asking is that in some of your posts you are giving the evidence against her and really trying your hardest to get people to outright condemn her but then saying you believe her. now to me its coming across that you are frustrated with yourself and cant really decide and want everyone to do it for you so you can pick a side and feel that you've made the right decision. now again i could be wrong and im not trying to pick a fight or cause offence. you seem like a nice guy thats just a bit frustrated.

and again i hope my stance is clear, i cannot condemn fiona at this time because it may turn out that photo analysis by an expert shows that we got it wrong about the reflection and/or blob/ufo.

and i certainly dont want to end up with egg on my face and upsetting someone that may turn out to be genuine.

thanks

rich


I am not a guy (smile) and yes, you are completely wrong about me and with my stance but....it's okay. I don't care anymore.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


ah!!! ok. my sincere apologies for assuming you was a guy..... oops!! major fail on my part!

thanks

rich



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ArMaP
 

But when shown that there is a streetlight where she said there is not, shouldn't she reevaluate her position? It seems like a good time for her to rethink exactly what happened.



I ve have spoken to Fiona and she is happy to accept that the orange orb is street lamp. She stated "I saw a orange orb, but looks like in the photo I got the lamp, I wasn't really looking at the screen when taking the photo I was clicking and watching the event"


Im just relaying the witness is keen for any or all of it to be explained even if it debunks her.

The glass between the camera and horizon remains a key point on of contention I would imgaine



Is she saying there was an orange orb but she got the street lamp instead?
Where do the 2 orbs come in (if....she's saying it was a lamp post and not a second UFO)?

[edit on 27-3-2010 by TwoPhish]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


no, in one of the pictures there are two small round (orb) type objects right near the top of the street light, she saw them either enter or exit the light but thats probably because the glare just covered them up at some point.

thanks

rich



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


reread her statement to answer your question.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
I ve have spoken to Fiona and she is happy to accept that the orange orb is street lamp. She stated "I saw a orange orb, but looks like in the photo I got the lamp, I wasn't really looking at the screen when taking the photo I was clicking and watching the event"


If these two orbs were moving behind the street light the effect would look like they have came out of an "orange orb" with all the glare. Just a thought.


Zelong.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Zelong
 


possibly and likely, all we have is

A) testimony
B) photos

Photos must override testimony.


I know that Fiona is has stated she is undergoing radiation treatment, and I will not discuss it as I am no expert and am not sure if she would want it discussed in any more detail other than for us to take into consideration if perhaps after a treatment you can get muddled, or lights can affect you? I am not sure.
Just thought I would put that in also as condition of the witness that may have affected her recall or when she thought she saw with the orange orb...

And please other members lets not dissect her medical condition, and demand answers. Thank you.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
SYDNEY UFO SUMMARY PROGRESS REPORT


I’ve been asked to collate my info & my thoughts & express them succinctly……I will do that here.

With some of the real experts on here, I am doing my best to critically analyse what has occurred.

It's the best way of getting to the truth of it all, or at least end up at some odds as to "maybe it was this.....maybe it was that".

However in the end, the witness will be the only person who truly knows what happened.

____________________________________________________


SUMMARY GRAPHIC:

We need to exclude all prosaic explanations for these objects, before we can prove the objects are of an exotic nature.

The picture (below) sums up my thoughts as to the most likely prosaic causes for that which we are seeing in the observer’s pictures:



____________________________________________________


REGARDING THE BRIGHT ILLUMINATED “OBJECT”:

The witness described to me in detail that the bright light was not a streetlight & the 2 circular objects were flying towards & “went into” that bright light.

I spent a great deal of time matching up this photo with the landscape, with the witness standing beside me confirming her position when taking the photo.

The streetlight is an extremely strong “position” match with the bright light in the photo.

The illumination patterns on the trees & the ground & the extremely strong similarity with the “flare” patterns of the other streetlights are also a very strong “streetlight” match.



The “streetlight” argument is further validated by these daylight pictures I took through the windscreen of my car that shows the streetlight is clearly above the upper “tree line”:





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.


CURRENT CONCLUSION PENDING FURTHER EXPERT ANALYSIS:

The most likely prosaic cause for the “bright light” in the top right corner of the photo is the streetlight as indentified during my site visit with the witness.

____________________________________________________


REGARDING THE LARGE BROWN “OBJECT”:

This is an extremely close match for “dirt” on the windscreen of the car.

The object has a very organic, non-structured appearance, with “tentacle” like structures that indicate it could have been a soft object that impacted with the windscreen at speed & then spread out due to the force of the impact.

It appears to change in shape & size as it would if the witness had moved the camera closer to & further away from the windscreen, whilst the angle of the camera is also being changed relative to the windscreen.

I did a simulation using a round object stuck to the outside of my windscreen as per Chadwickus.

I confirmed that extremely small camera movements made very significant changes to the apparent shape, size & position of the “object”.

Unfortunately I appear to have over-written my simulated UFO, so I can’t post the pic’s.

Here is Chadwickus's original post including his pictures:



First pair of images is from inside my car focusing on a stone chip.

Looking at the two images it would seem as if the chip has moved and changed shape slightly yet the camera has remained mostly stationary.

I in fact moved it less than 2 inches across.



 


Second image is again from my car but this time focusing on a sultana.
I used the same principals as above.



So as Phage described it doesn't take a whole lot of movement of the camera for an object really close to move a long way.



CURRENT CONCLUSION PENDING FURTHER EXPERT ANALYSIS:

The most likely prosaic cause for the “large brown object” in the centre of the photo is dirt or debris on the windscreen of the witness’ car.

____________________________________________________


REGARDING THE SMALL BROWN “OBJECT”:

Please see the picture below.

This appears to be a small, amorphous “blob” that has no organised structure or technical appearance, thereby resembling debris on the windscreen.



CURRENT CONCLUSION PENDING FURTHER EXPERT ANALYSIS:

The most likely prosaic cause for the “small brown object” is dirt or debris on the windscreen of the witness’ car.

____________________________________________________


REGARDING THE 2 “ORBS”:

These are a strong match for birds in appearance & the 4 second time gap between the pictures allows enough time for the birds to enter & exit the field of view of the camera.

The “birds” are illuminated by the streetlight…..all the angles match up.


CURRENT CONCLUSION PENDING FURTHER EXPERT ANALYSIS:

The most likely prosaic cause for the “2 orbs” in the centre of the photo is a pair of birds.

____________________________________________________


REGARDING THE GPS DATA:

The accuracy of the GPS / A-GPS data has been noted as problematic & of questionable value.

We focused on the GPS position & altitude data.....the results are very interesting.

The witness stated to me that she took the photos whilst leaning against the front of her car facing forwards.....i.e. she was stationary & facing west.

The GPS data attached to photos 2 & 3 (remember that photo 1 did not include GPS data) indicated the following movement of the iPhone between photo's 2 & 3:

- There was movement to the east

- The distance traversed was 184.8 feet (56.33 meters)

- The time taken to traverse the 184.8 feet (56.33 meters) was 11 seconds

- The altitude increased by 29.5 feet (8.99 meters)

Internos constructed an animation showing what could have happened according to the GPS data from images #2 and #3.

He set the frame rate to one second, but the actual frame rate would be an interval of 11 seconds.




CURRENT CONCLUSION PENDING FURTHER EXPERT ANALYSIS:

The GPS data should not be taken as hard-validated evidence of the witness’ movements.

However it can be considered & discussed in light of all the other information & data that is available.

____________________________________________________


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".

That is not to say the witness stated the “visiting expert” is from “Area 51”.

____________________________________________________


REGARDING THE VALIDATION OF THE PHOTO’S BY THE SYDNEY OBSERVATORY:

I have been forwarded an e-mail sourced from the Sydney Observatory stating the claim they have "verified the photo as being genuine & not tampered with" is “not true”.

____________________________________________________


Please let me know if you have any further questions.

It will be extremely interesting to learn of the results of the more advanced analysis of the witness’ photo’s that is now taking place.

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

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



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   

I know that Fiona is has stated she is undergoing radiation treatment, and I will not discuss it as I am no expert and am not sure if she would want it discussed in any more detail other than for us to take into consideration if perhaps after a treatment you can get muddled, or lights can affect you? I am not sure.
Just thought I would put that in also as condition of the witness that may have affected her recall or when she thought she saw with the orange orb...

And please other members lets not dissect her medical condition, and demand answers. Thank you.


Indeed, let's not!



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


hi, you may well be right on that point but and i dont like saying this because im new, but maybe it would be best to delete/edit that post and leave that well alone, thats like a red rag to a bull on a forum!.

thanks

rich



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


a star for you mmn, and thanks for your time and effort and great work under difficult circumstances.

thanks

rich



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND
 


She added it as a statement on ATS already.
If anyone steps outa line. They will be alerted to staff. The condition of the witness stays.
Let leave it at that.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 

The street light position you have shown seems lower than the orange street light/orb in picture. Maybe...maybe not, those street lights are orange ones along Governor Macquarie Drive?





Great work you have done here Maybe...maybe not
, man you lot type fast every time I read to the last page there was another



Zelong.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Zelong
 


G'day Zelong

The positions of the "bright light" & the street light match up exactly.

I spent at least 20 minutes on the side of the road with my laptop displaying the witness' pictures, whilst oberving the field of view & all angles & perspective through my iPhone, which is the same as the witness' iPhone.

All that time, the witness was confirming I was in the same position as was she, when she took the photo's.

The treeline is deceiving in the photo's posted.....I checked that in great detail & it's also a match.

I believe it's an unequivocal conclusion.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

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




top topics



 
33
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join