Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UFO in Sydney Australia

page: 39
33
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Zelong
 


hi, at looks lower in that photo because its further back and at a shallower angle.
thanks

rich




posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
OK I was about ready to consider this solved as per Maybe maybe nots posts , and I decided to look at the full rez photos again . We have something really interesting here . There is NO light pole anywhere to be seen . Look:



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


hi mmn, can i ask you to give me a bit of info on who is examining the photos and what sort of expertise and experience they have?
im not doubting or questioning btw, its just because im new and finding my feet.

much appreciated

rich



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


G'day bluemooone2

I've looked at that many times & at great length.

I conclude it is a camera effect from the glare......but I'm not 100% confident of that.

Therefore, I go back to the position matching.....to me, it's a 100% position match as per my work at the site.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 

That's because they don't put lightpoles in the middle of the road.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The nearly horizontal arm is visible at the right of the image, though almost lost in the glare.


[edit on 3/27/2010 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


hi bluemoon, thats already been explained, the lamp post upright is much further back with an extended bar that holds the actual light, but the glare and trees are covering it.

thanks

rich



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 

hi mmn, can i ask you to give me a bit of info on who is examining the photos and what sort of expertise and experience they have?
im not doubting or questioning btw, its just because im new and finding my feet.
much appreciated
rich


G'day RICH-ENGLAND

The reviewers include but are not limited to such people as the Great Internos & the Legendary Jeff Rittzman.

Springer (ATS owner) is looking after all this.

I also discussed this at length with Internos, yesterday.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

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



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bluemooone2
 

That's because they don't put lightpoles in the middle of the road.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
The nearly horizontal arm is visible at the right of the image, though almost lost in the glare.


G'day Phage

Could I ask a favour.....?

Can you point where you can see the pole/arm of the streetlight in that photo?

I just can't see it.....if I could it would "solve" that detail for me.

Many thanks if you can


Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


thanks. are these guys professional photographers/analysts?

thanks
rich



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
RE: Movement of 'smudges' on a windscreen

I'm sorta embarrassed to post this - maybe I'll redo it later - but here's a rather crude preliminary look at the behaviour of objects stuck on a windscreen...


A few notes..
The main things you are looking at here are small but deep stone chips on the windscreen.
Why? Well, I had guessed that the 'smudge' might have been in the order of 1" in diameter, so I took along a round piece of orangish paper and some sticky tape (3/4", 19mm). However, when I tried it, it was way too big (I had to bring the camera too far back, and the object was too well-focused). I roughly ripped it way down in size, and then I stuck it (a bit low) on the windscreen. While moving the camera round, I noticed that the stone chips were working admirably, so i thought what the heck, and just went with them instead. If you look carefully you will see that sticky-taped bit of paper low down in some of the images.

The camera was an (old) Sony DSC-P73 5mp camera, lens set to widest (approx 39mm equiv - iphone is about 37mm equiv), and manually set to f2.8 (same as iphone). I chose that camera as it was my nearest match to the iphone. The sensor is likely larger, meaning that the objects in my image would be little more out-of-focus than on the iphone.. maybe - I'd have to research that further. Camera was handheld about 1-2" (25-50mm) or so from glass, and was moved over a range of less than 3" (~75mm).

The images were taken at full resolution (and are available if anyone wants them, but I'd suggest that if you really want that, let me re-do it a little more professionally!). The ONLY alterations to them were to align the backgrounds as closely as possible, and resize down to make the gif. There was NO other resizing or angling or distortion of the original images to get them to match. In fact you can see very slight mismatches due to the camera being handheld, which meant that its angle varied slightly between each shot. In hindsight, I probably should have labelled each mark so you can tell which is which, but I think you'll work it out.

It is VERY clear that the background scene is almost completely unchanged, yet by very small movements of the camera I could place the stone chips and sticky-taped paper all over the place, wherever I wanted.

It is also very clear the blurring effect of the objects looks rather similar (but exaggerated by the larger sensor size on my camera) to the images being discussed. If I had used a small round object as I first intended, the match would be much closer.

Finally, I would re-iterate that the blurring of the object/s in the original pics is evenly distributed around the object. It is NOT motion blur. Motion blur looks quite different. Therefore, either the object looks like that
or it is close to the lens and out of focus. And you'll notice a few 'orbs' and streaks - the windscreen was pretty dirty and I decided to leave it like that.

Questions and criticisms welcome..

PS - where's firemoon?


[edit on 27-3-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I beleive the poles horizontal support can be seen here (arrows)

i41.tinypic.com...

Well done CHRLZ
, note that we also see reflections on the windscreen.


Pity there were no visible powerlines in the witness photos that could indicate if it was on the windscreen or in the sky.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


good post and nothing to be embarrassed about, it clearly proves the points/concerns that have been raised about the object, and is very similar in appearance, and also shows it can easily be done.

thanks

rich



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


thanks. are these guys professional photographers/analysts?

thanks
rich


G'day RICH-ENGLAND

They are both experts who are well known to the site owners & members as being right at the top of this analysis.

They traverse both professional & passionate experience with this topic.

Here are links to their profile pages, wherein you can review posts & threads, thereby gaining an understanding of their huge knowledge, dedication & experience.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


ok thanks again mmn, you're help is greatly appreciated. im not in doubt of these people, im just interested in whos who and who does what so i know who to listen to and who not.

its just that there's plenty of proclaimed "experts" around so i like to know the one's that are trusted and to be believed.

thanks

rich



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
I beleive the poles horizontal support can be seen here (arrows)

i41.tinypic.com...

Well done CHRLZ
, note that we also see reflections on the windscreen.


Pity there were no visible powerlines in the witness photos that could indicate if it was on the windscreen or in the sky.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]
OK Its hiding really well , but I think your right .



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   
The GPS data can be ruled out too I think..

If you overlay all of the images as I did a few pages back the tree to the right farther down the road is in all of them.. This stays the same size throughout the image sequence.. Hence she did not move 150ft.. IMO.

Especially with the iphone having a fixed focus.



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I've read through all the posts and even though I respect the positions put forward by Chadwickus, Maybe Maybe not, Phage, and several others, I think something rather obvious has been overlooked.

  1. One of the first things attacked was the notion that the picture had to have been taken from inside the vehicle (phage, chad). The basic assertion was that we have what looks like rays of light hitting a surface creating what some have claimed is radiosity reflected from the interior of the vehicle on to the windshield.

    The reason this was held up as the correct interpretation, rather than say a lens flare or volumetric lighting, was primarily the lack of curvature. What a number of people are failing to factor in is we have multiple light sources.

    If there are m lights, then the terms for each light source are summed:

    I_λ = I_aλ * k_a * O_dλ + Σ_(1 ≤ i ≤ m) { f_atti * I_pλi [k_d * O_dλ *(N vector * L_i vector) + k_s * O_sλ (R_i vector * V vector)^n] }

    Where,

    λ indicates wave-length dependent variables (so as to not be restricted to a particular color model)
    I_a, intensity of the ambient light
    k_a, the ambient reflection coefficient
    O_d, an objects diffuse color
    f_att, the light source attenuation factor
    "N vector" indicates the surface normal
    "L vector," the direction to the light source (or simply a directional light source)
    I_p, the point light source's intensity
    k_d, the materials diffuse reflection coefficient (meaning 0 - 90 light source or self occluding)
    k_s, the material's specular reflection coefficient.
    O_s, is the object's specular color
    "R vector," the reflection of the "L vector" about the "N vector" (i.e. perfect mirror)
    "V vector," represents direction of viewpoint

    This creates potential "errors" for I_λ in that it can exceed the maximum displayable pixel value. This "overflow" is akin to hearing an audio square wave when the volume is cranked higher than the speaker is capable of outputting causing clipping. Likewise at a certain point you simply lose data when too much light is flooding the CCD or two light sources interact.

    Keeping that in mind if we wanted to simulate a lens flare, using a raytrace calculation, would require reflection and refraction algorithms for all of the optical elements of the lens. For realistic effects this means modeling chromatic aberrations, coating thin-film optics applied to the lens surfaces, et cetera. It would also require accounting for streaking due to the aperture blades where they touch each other, as the point of greatest reflection.

    A quick search reveals Ms. Hartigans iPhone basically has a 35mm equivalent of a 37 mm lens, giving a 49 degree view angle.

    That said we can use Photoshop to do a quick and dirty simulation of a single omni light source, using the 35 mm prime setting, producing a flare with an intensity of say about 150%.

    Interestingly this gives us a halo at roughly the location of the straight edge and would explain one of the anomalies (which a number of people have asked about, particularly Superiorraw) as one of the rings/hexagons from the starburst.

    Below are several images that show the sequence going from a simple black background with a lens flare composited with a semi-transparent overlay of IMG_0432.JPG animated till the original image is completely opaque.


    (a higher quality version w/o warped dimensions can be found here, and the original src material here).

    Basically since the straight line intersects the rays from the other light source (the street light in the middle of the frame) there's very likely curvature there that would have appeared due to normal attenuation from the original starburst, but is ultimately drowned out due to the background light.

  2. A number of people are failing to notice the orbs that Ms. Hartigan described coming from the light source are in fact illuminated at the correct angle from the light source if they had been up in the air. Meaning they're very likely spherical objects adjacent to the light (not backlit).



    This more or less rules out the possibility that these objects are on a "windshield" or are foreground objects. As a matter of fact we can even attempt to do a rough calculation on size if we can get an approximation of the length of the light-enclosure (assuming it's a street light).

    This might help to rule out birds, floating plastic bags, etc.

  3. Since most everyone believes the primary object is in a fixed position we can actually measure how much she would have had to move either forward or backwards based on scaling / rotation for it to be a "stationary" object.

    Put another way if it's an extreme foreground object then we should be able to say, "To place the blob over tree δ would require an offset of a movement either Z units forward/backwards and/or X, Y units left/right/up/down (using Tait-Bryan angles). To give an example the transition from IMG_0429.JPG to IMG_0430.JPG shows the camera shifting to the left (since we see more tree) and if the object was an extreme foreground object it should then shift significantly to the right.

    Did this occur? Indeed it did.

    Once we have the proportions mapped we can then check between the other images to make sure they translate and rotate in a consistent manner. To be more clear if we assume she's sitting in a vehicle we know her movements restricted in the depth/Z-axis at most to 2 or 3-feet. If the scaling exceeds that we know she's not in the car.

    This then also strongly suggests the object is moving independently.

There are a number of other elements from the scene that are compelling that corroborate Ms. Hartigan's story. I'd be interested to hear Chad, Phage or anyone else have a go at a counter argument.

While I'm not that interested in the primary black blob (there's too little detail), the smaller orbs are intriguing.

Which just leaves me questioning, "WTF is it?"

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Xtraeme]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Well we can see the light poles. The first one is a wooden power pole with the light attached opposite the 60km sign 33°54'55.64"S 150°57'10.39"E The second street light is wooden power pole with the light attached 33°54'55.64"S 150°57'8.31"E I just can't see how the angle makes the first light seem higher than normal the light head is shorter than the trees.

The first one is a wooden power pole with the light attached opposite the 60km sign


The second is a wooden power pole with the light attached



Zelong.

[edit on 27/3/10 by Zelong]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 

I first thought I could see the arm in the horizontal light flare to the right. I've tried to adjust levels to make it more apparent but haven't really managed it.

I think the arm isn't visible because the light from the lamp is projected downward and at an angle which misses it. It is lost against the dark foliage behind.

Or, there isn't a lamp post after all.
Except that we know there is.
But looking at the way that only the foliage below the light is illuminated makes it plain that the light source is below and in front of the upper branches. This is a good example.






[edit on 3/27/2010 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


G'day Phage

I agree with your assertions.

I also think Zelong & wayaboveitall have covered it OK.

I'm just reviewing Xtraeme's work.....

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

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





new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join