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: 41
33
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   

TwoPhish
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.




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




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



missfee
iv never used drugs nor do i drink



Why dont you answer direct questions Fiona? You seem to be deliberately evasive, which tends to bring the validity of your claim and your integrity into question. You have avoided most direct questions put to you for 40 pages now.

Did you, or did you not, take any of the pictures from inside your car?

How do you account for the reflection?

Do you or do you not accept that the bright orange light you photographed was a streetlight?

Do you , or do you not, admit you saw something, make an assumption, and later including the streetlight to bolster your claim ?

Having read 40 pages of folk pointing out the inconsistances and producing
a very reasonable explaination for your sighting, do you ,or do you not, still maintain you saw something unusual?


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


So you deny the bright orange light that you explicitly claimed was a ufo, was infact shown to be, without a doubt, a streetlight? Dont you think it's a possibility that it 'dissappeared' because you drove past it with your car?
The bright orange light in the photo, IS EXACTLY what your talking about, You said so earlier. Moreover, it has been shown that infact, it is NOT, high in the sky above the trees ,but on the end of a streetlight pole.
Now your claiming its not the same 'bright orange light'?

The more you change the key points of your story, the less credible you are im afraid. I beleive, You have chosen to beleive your story, afterall, its pretty embarressing and hard to back down after the media circus isn't it?

Do you ,or do you not deny, that you went out of your way to do, not one, but two radio interveiws, go on the today show on channel 9, and send photos to the newspaper and talk to bill chalker, and put the images on facebook, and join Ats if not other ufo websites about it?


[edit on 28-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]




posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


wayaboveitall

I think your questioning of the witness is bordering on being intrusive, perhaps even "bullying" in nature.

Nobody on here has any right to try to push the witness around.

I respectfully request you consider significantly toning down your questioning of the witness.

Sincerely
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


i have told the truth from the start i went to that spot to take pics of the sunset i got out of my pt cruiser 1971 lodel, silver in colour, interior grey in colour, walked to the frount of my car sat/ lent my behind on the bonen as th bonet kinda comes to a point i was not centered i was off to the left a bit yes i seen the light post but it was no in my veiw of the sunset i was focusing my iphone at first in an up right posion, my daughter has told me its called land-scape. Then turned it to the side, which he asures me that its called porarit position. so i focused again on the sunset then noticed the big object so i took a shot and then another by that stage i was focusing on the objects with my eyes the third shot it seemed to move closer to this light you are all calling a street light it was muche higher then the street light it,as the street gight was just behind me the forth shot and the fifth shot were just luck i wasent even watching the screet i was looking up at what was happining but with my eyes i seen the objects you are calling orbs scoot of to the right under the light in the sky not the street light just behind me then the large objest and the bright light disapeard at the exact time look you guys there is nothing i havent told you, i have held nothung back .. & the reason i produced the pics to the daily telegraph in the first place, was to get some answers .. which seems to be getting no where. With over 40+ pages, 3 days of my time wasted .. thank you for you attemps, now i realise why others keep this kind of thing to themselfs, until the point in time when some body may come to some kind of conclusion. Zazz has my email adress.
Thank you all for your time, regardes Fiona.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by missfee
 


thanks Fiona for your time. But you said that you gave the pics to the Telegraph to get answers and there is no way that any journalist is going to spend as much time as the posters in this thread in trying to find you answers.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Fiona, may I simply say thank you for your participation. Just to actually appear here, is a distinct change from the usual sort of report that turns up at sites like this.

I'm sorry that you have had enough, but fully understand why, after reading some of the recent posts that have led to this point. You were of course, volunteering your time here, and were under no obligation to answer anything, let alone be subjected to pseudo-courtroom interrogations.

If I in any way contributed to your departure, I apologise. I do have doubts about some parts of your account and think you may have made a couple of misinterpretations, but I also understand - only too well - how that can happen. Disagreements don't have to be angry and accusatory.

I'd have to say I might feel a little differently if I saw you attempting to make a dollar from all this, but I see no evidence of that.

So I just hope the rest of your experience from this event improves, and you find your answers. If I was you, I would try to just let it go, and not agonise over what will be an ongoing debate that probably will not be resolved either way.

All the best...



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
I have keeping up on this post and specially signed in to make a reply.

As mother and just a curious person too, i wanna thank Fiona for telling her story here.


With all the comments on your story, i can imagine you getting a very negative feeling about this, but you know what you did see, don't make this all get to deep on you, and keep a bad feeling out of it.

If unbelievers debunk every picture, film or story how can we, ever come, to some revelation. If we believers also debunk someone, who witness and believe, she did see something so unusual.
That's why the story behind a picture or film is so important.

I only read and never join discussions, so for a first time, i want to say, i believe you.

With warm greetings to all

And excuses for grammar, English isn't my first language



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Fiona, how is it, that you took a photo of the 'orbs' that you claim ,emerged from the orange light, the only orange light in the photo anywhere near the 'orbs' is a street light, yet you didnt manage to capture a photo of the orange light you claim?

I think you simply made a mistake and are now too embarressed to admit as much.

And 'Maybe not', Im trying to get to the facts, dont tell me what I can or cannot ask thankyou. Hard questions might offend somebody with something to hide, but not an honest person. We Are assuming "The Witness" is honest, no?
Again, your not a mod, keep your thoughts to yourself mate.
Your own reluctance to ask direct hard questions is your problem.

Your concluding the same as me, which happens to go against her testimony, so in effect, you too are saying either shes mistaken or lying,
so dont get all sanctimonious. Its only because you've been sacharine sweet and pandering to her with faux politness that she dosent realise your conclusions are the same as mine.

Maybe

The second thing I would like to do is apologise to the observer for any offence I might cause as I explain my thoughts, some of which may appear contrary to those of the observer.



www.abovetopsecret.com...


As I said, if the "streetlight" part of the story unwravels, then real problems arise.

I apologise again to the witness because I know she feels extremely strongly about all of this & I know she is extremely unhappy about my commentary.

Kind regards
Maybe...mabe not


www.abovetopsecret.com...


Fiona, dont assume because somebody plays hard ball with you to get the facts and try to give a more plausable explaination, that they nessesarily
assume your a lunatic or hoaxer, or that they (I) wouldnt conceed the unknown if it was shown to be such.
I beleive many sightings are genuinely inexplicable, but that this one, just isnt one of them.

Im not, as some are tring to paint me, 'A die hard skeptic debunker' at all cost, but neither am I willing to beleive without logic and evidence or atleast, as in this case, narrowing it down to a more likely and prosaic explaination first, before accepting its a genuine mystery.
Things do fly in our skies, but not all are mysterious.



[edit on 28-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 

From what I understand of what she said, both here and in the interviews, the "orange light" was not to the right, it was in the middle of scene, and it was not captured in the photos.

Edited to add the not, sorry for my mistake.


[edit on 28/3/2010 by ArMaP]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 

From what I understand of what she said, both here and in the interviews, the "orange light" was not to the right, it was in the middle of scene, and it was captured in the photos.


I beleive you will find that the only other plausable source of orange light
visible in the photos, is the sunset the witness was taking photos of. What has been described as a streetlight, clearly is so. This is to the veiwers (witness) right and above. The setting sun was directly ahead and the sole purpous of the photo's as claimed by the witness.
The only other sources of light are from what the witness herself acknowledges as being streetlights, and from the headlights of the approaching car.



[edit on 28-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


I meant to say that from my understanding, she said that the light she saw does not (I forgot the "not" on my previous post, added it now) appear in the photo, but I may be wrong in my understanding, that happens a lot.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Witness (page 41) Third post

www.abovetopsecret.com...


so i focused again on the sunset then noticed the big object so i took a shot and then another by that stage i was focusing on the objects with my eyes the third shot it seemed to move closer to this light you are all calling a street light it was muche higher then the street light it,as the street gight was just behind me the forth shot and the fifth shot were just luck i wasent even watching the screet i was looking up at what was happining but with my eyes i seen the objects you are calling orbs scoot of to the right under the light in the sky not the street light just behind me then the large objest and the bright light disapeard at the exact time look you guys there is nothing i havent told you, i have held nothung back



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"


But then with most phone cameras, you must watch for the indicator that it's ready to shoot, which may or may not be on or above the screen. Then you aim in the general direction, shoot, theres a seconds pause and the image loads on the screen, then it must ready itself.
The witness says shot 5 photos one after the other in 8 seconds, the time data on the four with exif data makes it 33sec, even at 5 shots in 33 seconds thats rough 6 seconds per photo, which is quite acceptable.


The black shape and the bright orange light, were according to the witness, present at the same time in that stretch of sky. she managed to capture the shape but not the light?, given the witness claims 'both dissappeared at that same instant.
In earlier testimony, the shape is seen dissappearing to the left, the orbs to the right, away from the streetlight in contention, (or no longer in contention). Witness says the orbs came out of it and it does look high in the sky in this shot. Notice the setting sun directly ahead, the streetlight to right and above, car headlights on the road, and the other streetlights, being the bright light sources apparent in 5 shots.



I suggest that contrary to the witness perception, the orange light, was the streetlight.


Witness

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



[edit on 28-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   
G'Day from Finland. One stupid question: if you take pictures while standing up or sitting low in car, is there diffrence how image/enviroment look. I hope you understand what I mean.


I tried to find Crysler pt. interior pictures because that reflection is interesting. I found already one picture:



Here is another pt. cruiser reflection (edited picture: right side driver position..)



www.youtube.com...


[edit on 28-3-2010 by hande]

[edit on 28-3-2010 by hande]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Excellent work Hande, That looks much like what we're seeing in the photos, same type and angle, something on the dashboard reflected on the inner windscreen on the drivers side.

Possibly the contour of the central gauge, leftmost through the steering wheel.
Though the witness camera must have been closer to the windscreen since none of the dash is apparent in the photos, or pointing up.

But this is assuming you beleive she took the photos from inside the car, which refutes her testimony.
Apparently it's considered rude to do that, even if its evident.
Be sure to refer to 'The Witness' , your not permitted to use a first name, it might be considered offensive.
Dont ask direct difficult questions.

P.S if you do refer to 'The Witness' ,you will then be accused of courtroom drama. 'Mrs Hartigan', may or may not be acceptable.



[edit on 28-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


I am no car expert, but the OP says she has a 1971 PT cruiser, Did they make PT cruisers back then?



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


71? Hell no

They were first released in 1999

Should also note that the exterior has not changed much but interior has changed considerably between 99 and present models.




[edit on 28/3/10 by Chadwickus]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Is there any chance of getting a small round up done on what people think here? Might be interesting to find out the figures. I've added mine to the poll.

POLL:
Do you think this is a UFO ( as in not of this world?)
YES
NO 1



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by munkey66
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


I am no car expert, but the OP says she has a 1971 PT cruiser, Did they make PT cruisers back then?


Whats the source of that Munkey (link/quote)
The witness has a modern car with a sunroof, I posted a photo and later was asked to remove it.

Something similar to this

www.webastoshowroom.com...



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by missfee
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


i have told the truth from the start i went to that spot to take pics of the sunset i got out of my pt cruiser 1971 lodel, silver in colour, interior grey in colour, walked to the frount of my car sat/ lent my behind on the bonen as th bonet kinda comes to a point i was not centered i was off to the left a bit yes i seen the light post but it was no in my veiw of the sunset i was focusing my iphone at first in an up right posion,

This is from the original post,
I thought it was strange myself



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
There is picture in facebook. It is modern cruiser, not old car..




posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Not surprising the witness asked me to remove the image Of her leaning on her none too archaic model with a sunroof in a garage (petrol station).

Right after 'Maybe' suggested that might be her reaction.
You decide.

A google Image search On the Witness Name reveals the facebook image in question.

[edit on 28-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join