UFO in Sydney Australia

page: 4
33
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 

It could also be one of those cases where someone takes a picture of a sunset then, after the fact, notices "something" in the image.

If these are images of the inside of a car window the woman made up a story to go along with them. The images aren't a "hoax" but the story is.

Don't ask me why people do it. They do. We've seen it before. With exactly this situation.




posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by treemanx
 


It is without a doubt. If it was just the one picture, the first picture I could agree it might be some sort of lens artifact from the streetlight. But we have a second image from a different angle, where there is no light to create a lens artifact, couple this with the almost identical curved shape and angle. All this tells me, without a doubt, that it is a reflection.

[edit on 23/3/10 by Chadwickus]



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Oh. My. God.

This takes ATS to a whole new level of DUMB.... for crying out loud to the lord almighty it is a spot of bird poo stuck to the outside of her windscreen!!!!!!!!

How can you people not see this? C'mon ATS.... Get with it. Your losing it.



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 08:43 PM
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.


The photos were clearly taken from inside the car, as established by chadwickus. But why would she get inside of her car to take photos of the object. This doesn't make sense



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Or, it could be a mark left by cleaning the lens of the phone cam. These things are kept in pockets, handled daily, it could even be, a touch screen model.

BTW why hasn't anyone pointed out that. in the original article, the lady involved, is obviously standing, almost, exactly on the spot, where she claims she took the pictures, for the photo for the article? Check the tree line behind her head.

Surely since both pics are taken using a slightly different focus point, if's a mark on a car window, the mark should be different sizes. They look the same size, to me, might be wrong. if they are, it suggests it's a mark on the camera lens, doesn't it?



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 
Chad, my aussie friend, may I ask how the artifact, which is of a definite oval shape, has seemed to rotate itself approximately 90 degrees in the 2 photos? Or so it appears to have, to my view of this; if it was a speck on the camera lense it seems to me that it would be exactly the same shape and orientation in both shots and that is not what I am seeing...


seeker



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by the seeker_713g
 


No idea.

Different spot on the windscreen?

All I'm doing is pointing out that the photos were taken inside the car, which contradicts her story.



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Claims: It happened "within a few seconds". She was out of the car.

The two photos are taken from two different locations as can be seen by the bright sunlight shining through the clouds. Notice in the "far" shot, the bright spot is in the middle of the large tree. In the "near" shot it is to the upper left of the tree. The near shot is taken further up the road than the far shot. She seems to have covered a pretty good distance in a "few seconds", on foot.

It's dirt on the windscreen.
Whatever....maybe its your avatar stuck on her _

You weren't there were you, why can't you just take someones word ?

Good find OP . I notice that there is a little blur around the craft which is normal for magnetic field propulsion . I vote UFO.



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Then she has changed her story.

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.

www.news.com.au...

Hmmm.
If she can change it from "just got out of her car" to "walking down from a friends" she could have just as easily left out the part about being in a car.


fairness phage, if you read the same story in 3 different papers you'll often get 3 different versions, thats the media for you. Is it more likely the woman changed the story or the journo's ?

Chinese whispers mate.



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by the seeker_713g
 


Thanks for that, I'm interested to see what he finds.


I've got my fingers still crossed on this one!



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 

Smudges on the lens would appear in the same position in the frame. These don't. Smudges or reflections on the windscreen would move (in the frame) depending on where the camera was pointed. These do. In the upper image the smudge starts above the lower right corner. In the lower image it starts below the corner.




[edit on 3/23/2010 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 

I admitted the possibility. But I also think a "detail" like whether she had just gotten out of the car or had walked down the road from a friend's house would be unlikely to have been fabricated in the article.

I could be wrong but the the images seem to indicate both versions are incorrect.


[edit on 3/23/2010 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage,

Any explanation as in to why there is something in the bottom right hand corner of the photo between the trees but no where to be seen in the other photo?

If this was dirt on the windshield should that still be visible in both photos?



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Looking at it I've a mind that the mark is actually nothing more than a reflection caused by the camera's flash and the nearby street light on the right of the photographer's position. I'm guessing, if it's a phone cam, the flash was automatic and given the relative low level of light, it triggered automatically.

Looking at the picture of the woman, standing where she took the picture, I'm also of a mind that, the height of the picture, from the ground, is commensurate with someone standing, rather than, seated in a car. Might be wrong, but so far, I'd say her story holds up. As to the actual object, that's a wholly different kettle of fish.



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by pwrthtbe
I embedded the pictures of the UFO for you.






Hmmm. It's something stuck to the windshield of a car - either an unnoticed bug splatter, or an intentional hoax.

Ya, the shape changes in the second shot. But the change in shape is perfectly consistent with the second shot just being take from a lower, more "head on" angle to the windshield - rather than from straight back.

Not CG. Not an alien. Just some crud on the glass.

IMO...



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mark_Frost
reply to post by Phage
 



If this was dirt on the windshield should that still be visible in both photos?


Not if it were taken through a different part of the _



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mark_Frost
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage,

Any explanation as in to why there is something in the bottom right hand corner of the photo between the trees but no where to be seen in the other photo?

If this was dirt on the windshield should that still be visible in both photos?


the little spec to the bottom right in the first photo is a camera artifact. Not even worth considering.



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Fair enough explanation, I'm by no means an expert of any kind.

In your opinion was it taken from a different part of the windscreen?



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Story just does not add up from her lying and being inside the car to the placement of the pictures i have seen much more compelling than that. I guess she could of been scared at jumped in the car than took the pictures but because of the testimony im gonna have to let this one go into the hoax category.



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   








If this was indeed taken from inside the car, wouldn't there be some kind of reflection on the camera lense from that lovely bright sunrise ? and wouldn't that then reflect back onto the windscreen ?

Also, just how big do you people think this womans windscreen is ? that tree on the left is almost 90 percent visible, and there's no indication of a roof or bonnet.





new topics
top topics
 
33
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join