UFO in Sydney Australia

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.

I dont think the orbs' were in contention as far as being in the air rather than on the windscreen.

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]

I contend the 'orbs' are actually a couple of birds (or bats, its evening, and daylight saving) flying by, adjacent to the street light in that shot.
Proximity (as seen by the lit side of them) to the street light, seems to indicate they are small objects.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

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).

About 1 foot = 12 inches long.

kookaburra on one

farm1.static.flickr.com...

pelican on one

i.pbase.com...

www.lysaghtgroup.com...

www.abc.net.au...

www.eskimo.com...



[edit on 27-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

reply to post by Xtraeme


G'day Xtraeme

Thank you for your very interesting post.

I apologise.....I can't spend more time on this right now.

I may not be able to respond for a few hours.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

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

reply to post by Xtraeme


Re: your lens flare demonstration

It does look like the "shape" could be the result of lens flare.

Can lens flare account for the angled streaks we see from lower right, up toward the left? If lens flares, shouldn't they be aligned with the light source rather than perpendicular to it?

Can it account for the consistent shape of the streaks in images with differing fields of view?




[edit on 3/27/2010 by Phage]

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"

I read what she said but is she saying that the orange orb (on that evening) was indeed the lamp post after all or...............she 'accidentally' got a photo of the lamp post instead of what she saw? I am not understanding this.

And I will jump to my next question;
If I am understanding this correctly (that the entire orange-orb siting was just the lamp post) then where does her statement of: and then two other little round things appeared from this bright orange light above. come in?


It's one thing to think the light from a pole (that you didn't notice was there in the first place) might've been a bright craft but, how does that then produce two little round things?
Is it safe to assume there still were two little round things?

(I do apologize but I get lost in the logic and tend to get ahead of myself. So for that, I'm sorry)

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

Re: your lens flare demonstration

It does look like the "shape" could be the result of lens flare.

Can lens flare account for the angled streaks we see from lower right, up toward the left? If lens flares, shouldn't they be aligned with the light source rather than perpendicular to it?

Assuming light isn't coming in at a glancing angle, indeed, it should be scattered. However the fact that there does appear to be a "hex" flare suggests we have several light sources; which is obviously the case seeing as how the middle lamp post is creating a significant starburst itself.

This is why I'm thinking more "ticks and fleas" rather than a single source producing the result (i.e. radiosity off the dash).

I'm hoping one of my old coworkers pops online. He's been a graphics engineer for a couple decades now. If anyone's encountered a camera/viewport lighting artifact that causes oblique lighting streaks he'd know about it.

Can it account for the consistent shape of the streaks in images with differing fields of view?

If it's tangential to the lens, absolutely.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by Xtraeme]

It's one thing to think the light from a pole (that you didn't notice was there in the first place) might've been a bright craft but, how does that then produce two little round things?
Is it safe to assume there still were two little round things?

The little round things (birds or bats) fly past and were illuminated by the light. From darkness behind the light or behind the treeline, into the light of the streetlight might appear they emerged from it.
Obviously the streetlight didnt move. But from the veiwers perspective (getting closer to the street light, and hence under it) the street light, previously hidden behind the treetop from further back, appears to move forward and upward as you approach, no longer obscured.
Since you are looking directly at the light, its hard to see two small swiftly moving objects coming from behind, rather from 'IN' the light.



[edit on 27-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Xtraeme


Thx XT

so we are saying that your analysis can support (but not definitively) the photos were taken externally from the car?

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

Thx XT

so we are saying that your analysis can support (but not definitively) the photos were taken externally from the car?

It's hard to say. I can account for aspects of the light blob, but to really say definitively would require performing what I suggested in step 3.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

It's one thing to think the light from a pole (that you didn't notice was there in the first place) might've been a bright craft but, how does that then produce two little round things?
Is it safe to assume there still were two little round things?

The little round things (birds or bats) fly past and were illuminated by the light. From darkness behind the light or behind the treeline, into the light of the streetlight might appear they emerged from it.
Obviously the streetlight didnt move. But from the veiwers perspective (getting closer to the street light, and hence under it) the street light, previously hidden behind the treetop from further back, appears to move forward and upward as you approach, no longer obscured.
Since you are looking directly at the light, its hard to see two small swiftly moving objects coming from behind, rather from 'IN' the light.



[edit on 27-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

That can make sense. Maybe she got so caught up in the moment when seeing the UFO (not smudge) that there was just an excitement in the air and everything felt very surreal.
She mistook the lamp post as a beam of light and birds/bugs/balloons for a possible discharge from said-beam.

Hard to imagine but.....I'll buy (rent it) for now.
(because my whole feeling has shifted some)

But now my next question of concern is, why didn't she notice this lamp post after the initial excitement wore off?
I would think at some point, you'd want to look back to see if this paranormal 'thing' was still in the area.

I just don't think someone could be THAT caught up and not see a 3-dimensional lamp post at some point.

reply to post by TwoPhish


hi my arms wearnt straigh the were bent i hold it with both hands so the pics are not tilted 1 side or an other and click with my right thumb

reply to post by TwoPhish


im 5 foot 2 tall and my iphone was at my eye height if (some one wants to calculat that go ahead)? LOL

Xtraeme
...One of the first things attacked was the notion that the picture had to have been taken from inside the vehicle. 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.

Radiosity? As for me, I'm simply saying it looks far more like a reflection than anything else, including lens flare. I've already pointed out an image showing the interior vents with what appear to be circular sections that would point outwards. Combine that the flat silverish edges on the side of those vents, and there you have a half-hexagon-like shape. Add the dashboard panel itself, and you have the straighter oblique lines. That possible explanation seems to explain more of the anomaly than lens flare..

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.

This is only relevant if we know what is being reflected. It could be straight, and curved by the reflective surface or it could be curved, and reflected off a flat surface. Or any other combination.

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 (snipped)
...
λ indicates wave-length dependent variables (so as to not be restricted to a particular color model)
...

Can you explain the relevance/usefulness of this equation? Are you planning to plug in some figures to make it mean something? As an example, how on earth is the color model important?

This creates potential "errors" for I_λ in that it can exceed the maximum displayable pixel value.

Yes, clipping could be important, but.. ahem.. you can SEE clipping, and the reflections are definitely not clipped.. Again, relevance?

...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%...

I understand that you are merely offering a rough simulation, but it's worth noting that you can't possibly duplicate a *real* lens flare without a full ray-tracing of the entire scene, inc. camera/lens/lens elements in question, all in 3D. That said, it's a good try, except... the lens flare isn't aligned with the centre of the image, and the vast majority of lens flares of that type are symmetrical. That is, they are normally found along a line drawn through the light source and the exact geometrical centre of the image. That is because they are caused by the symmetrical, round lens elements, aperture, lens barrel, etc - it's basic optics.
toothwalker.org...
It's true they can appear offset but that is quite rare. So you have used a rare type of flare effect in order to get a fit, and you have only vaguely explained about half of one part of the anomaly... What about the rest of it? I'm staying with the reflection theory for the present.

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).

Those objects are approximately 4-10 pixels wide, and given the jpeg compression and builtin sharpning, ascertaining the shape is pretty much impossible (courtesy of Mr. Nyquist).

Indeed, if you properly blow them up to view the actual pixels, if anything one looks vaguely triangular, the other..? If you are seeing circular shapes, then is it possible you are using software with an enlarging algorithm that 'guesses' at the shape? - such algorithms will indeed often round them off.

This more or less rules out the possibility that these objects are on a "windshield" or are foreground objects.

No, it doesn't. They could even be stone chips in the glass, the edges of which refract/reflect the light.

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).

On a 4-7 pixel object of indeterminate distance from the lens? That would be impressive.

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.

Not without knowing how far away it is from the lens.

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).

Can you give an actual similar example of using T-B angle calculations in a photogrammetric sense, *given the information we have*?

...if we assume she's sitting in a vehicle we know her movements restricted in the depth/Z-axis at most to 2 to 3-feet. If the scaling exceeds that we know she's not in the car.

If the object is close, say an inch or two from the lens, the camera OBVIOUSLY need only be moved a tiny amount - inches - to completely shift the object from one side of the scene to the other.

This then also strongly suggests the object is moving independently.

No, it does not. My animation clearly shows otherwise. The effects shown can be easily explained by the camera being moved in the X-Y plane, tilted up/down/sideways, or moved slightly back and forth in the Z-plane - all within a very small range indeed, as per my example above. Try it yourself.

reply to post by missfee


Hi Fiona! Hope this finds you doing/feeling well.

Can you please answer me this? This is for my own understanding because I still want to believe you and, do for the most part but now that this lamp post is out of the way (as far as debunking) can you please tell me why you didn't notice it afterwards?

I mean..........after you got back into your car. Did you not look back upwards to see if that object was still there?


Thanks~

reply to post by TwoPhish


iv never used drugs nor do i drink

reply to post by Phage


i never said ther wasent a street light i said there was a street light but it was just behind me on the other side i also pointed it out to mmn at the place were i took the pics but the light im talking was high up in the sky above the trees i now what i saw i still am clear minded about it as a matter of fact yes FACTS not FICTION i seen it and the larger objects disapair at the same time i now what a street light looks like iv been back at the same time and the steet light is still there and much lower then the trees

I make those street lights 4 a living and that would be one of ours. The shape in one of the photos of the lamp being lit up is a dead giveaway. If you all wotld like ill take some photos of one on monday when i go to work.
Id also hazard a guess that its either metal halide globe or mercury vapor between 125w to 250w.
let me know if you would like some photos of a street light up close.

It looks to me as if the thing flew "up" an at the same time she tried to zoom in. Same perspective imho.

Hard to believe people were bickering on this thread about GPS data, which is lucky to be 30 meters accurate, even with assisted GPS, and in a phone which I would certainly say does not have the best GPS receivers around.
I agree the GPS data should be discounted and only used as a rough judgment of the location the photos were taken. If you don't believe me, take your GPS or phone with GPS and set it up so you can see the readings of the coordinated form the satellites. Then place it down somewhere in the open and watch the readings vary.

Fiona can you remember if there was a wind blowing at all that evening.
I have a witness who says he saw some large orange balloons tied down with weights so they travel at low altitude near Hammondville on the M5, at about 10 to 7pm that evening, which maybe what you saw.

reply to post by Xtraeme


wow after reading this whole thread..that has got to be the best explaination i have come across so far...awesome job my friend!! btw,,i appreciate the time and effort from MBMN and all the others too...great thread.