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: 42
33
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by hande
There is picture in facebook. It is modern cruiser, not old car..



You can roll your eyes all you want, most people go on evidence presented, the OP wrote 1971 PT cruiser in her own post,
not all of us have the OP in our friends list on facebook, we go on what is given to us as evidence, so now I ask the question, was it the car she was actually in on the day?




posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 08:58 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, 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.



(No wonder I am confused)

I appreciate it if people wouldn't put words in her mouth (or interpret her albeit, difficult, words into something totally different than her original claim) So when I asked about this, I was told to 'reread Fiona's words to get the answer' Her words, to me, weren't saying there wasn't an orange orb RATHER..........she accidentally snapped a photo of the lamp post instead.

Her position has NOT changed!!!!!

She was NOT inside of her car!!!!

She saw an object to the LEFT in the SKY!!!

She also saw a bright light (to her right) in the SKY then, two other orbs!!!!


A person can NOT be that delusional so once again, there is NO middle ground. She's either a liar (whoops, sorry....."confused") or she's telling the truth.

I believe her. Every single minute detail she's told. You can NOT confuse 'objects' up in the sky with, affixed things here on the ground. Not the way she's telling it anyway. But you all want to change up HER story (she was in the car) to fit YOUR theories.

Again, I believe her!


(I think she's saying the model # was an 1971 not the year)

[edit on 28-3-2010 by TwoPhish]

[edit on 28-3-2010 by TwoPhish]

[edit on 28-3-2010 by TwoPhish]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


I for one applaud your 'in your face' approach. True, it might come off a tad bit intimidating but....it's a LOT better than this "she's confused" banter that is going on in order to remain politically polite.
You can't be confused if you ASSUME what she is stating (and HAS stated) all along.

She either saw a high flying object(s) or didn't.

If you were in the woods, saw an aerial soaring UFO however, in your attempt to capture this HIGH FLYING craft, you accidentally photographed a leaf at the top of a tree instead, that doesn't negate what you originally saw.
You can't confuse a LEAF to a high flying, in the air, above the horizon, UFO.
It can't be done (not the way it's being presented)

And THAT"S exactly.............what appears to have happened here!

A lamp post was inadvertently INCLUDED in her photograph!



So again, stop changing her story to fit your theory! She is not delusional. She is not a pill-popping idiot nor (do I believe) she was drunk!

Assume she is telling the PRECISE account of what happened and go from there.

Good gawd, no wonder she doesn't want to precipitated on this thread! Can you blame her?



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by munkey66

Originally posted by hande
There is picture in facebook. It is modern cruiser, not old car..



was it the car she was actually in on the day?



Yeah okay. Might as well throw THAT into her confusion too!

Yes folks.
She was in car, not a Cruiser.
She was inside the vehicle, not outside.
She saw a smudge, not a UFO.
She saw a lamp post, not a brightly lit object.
She saw a bat, birds, balloons, fleas or ticks instead of, two flying orbs
And she was most likely in Antarctica not, Australia.

Why don't we pass around the collection hat, chip in and offer to get her a lobotomy to put her out of her delusional misery, huh?

You people are something else!!!!



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Yeah okay. Might as well throw THAT into her confusion too!

Yes folks.
She was in car, not a Cruiser.


Thats not what she said TwoPhish. She told me it was car I posted, a modern cruiser with a sunroof.

Witness


yes that is me and that photo was taken 4 month ago i was not leaning on my car as in this picture my behind was sitting /leaning on my bonet with my back to the car



www.abovetopsecret.com...


the interior of my pt cruiser is dark gray and material not even leather i was out of the car i have asked this before could the reflection be a car coming towards me from behind could that make the reflection you are all talking about apear in the pic


www.abovetopsecret.com...


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


www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 28-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
hi all, after seeing the photos of the interior of that pt cruiser with a very similar reflection and reading a few more of the witnesses posts, i an now calling hoax.

i think she took a few pictures from inside her car, then got home and saw the anomalies and embroidered a story to fit.....

thanks

rich



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
1971 PT Cruiser?!
Ok, are we done now?!
Fiona (with all due respect) is not well informed about much that goes on
around her and is mildly delusional. Does that make her a bad person?
No, of course not. However, her story has too many holes and she has
inevitably lost her credibility with her latest claim.

Perhaps she really believes she owns a 1971 PT Cruiser. If this is the case,
then how could her account be taken seriously?!



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Just thought i would add my two cents worth.
IMO the pictures were took from behind the windscreen if you enlarge the picture and give it a bit of back light the reflection anomaly seems to be an oblong box or tin with a logo on it thats on the dashboard.





posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

Yeah okay. Might as well throw THAT into her confusion too!

Yes folks.
She was in car, not a Cruiser.


Thats not what she said TwoPhish. She told me it was car I posted, a modern cruiser with a sunroof.


[edit on 28-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]


I was being sarcastic. To me (of the female variety) a Cruiser is a car. Same thing. It was four wheels. It makes no difference anyway. It only does to suit YOUR theories (of her being inside this damn vehicle)

What's happening is, you people lost focus.

She did not come on here because she went home and found images in her photographs that she cannot explain. But you people have twisted this to be the case and scenario!

She knows what she saw.
She also knows what she drove which, in her case, from her prospective could be a damn go-cart because..........it doesn't matter. It only matters to you folks who insist on putting her inside this vehicle. It's irrelevant.


And you know what? I find it more insulting to her integrity to call her confused than a liar.
At least if she lied, she did it with intent and with her faculties in check.

But what you're insinuating is, this poor woman, lost her reality for 5 minutes while photographing the Sun.

Now, I ask you, which is more inviting to be? I rather be a liar.

So I suggest you stop playing arm-chair psychologist and super sleuth scientists and help her to figure out what she saw.

Again, whatever she saw, is the way she is saying it. If you want to rearrange the facts then, write your own Hollywood script and submit it to HBO.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by remymartin
 

Exactly.




I will say it now and I will say it proud.

Fiona Lied

She took at least one picture in her car. The proof is in the cruiser.

With that, the rest of her story crumbles and falls apart.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by keepureye2thesky
1971 PT Cruiser?!
Ok, are we done now?!
Fiona (with all due respect) is not well informed about much that goes on
around her and is mildly delusional. Does that make her a bad person?
No, of course not. However, her story has too many holes and she has
inevitably lost her credibility with her latest claim.

Perhaps she really believes she owns a 1971 PT Cruiser. If this is the case,
then how could her account be taken seriously?!



I am not going to try to persuade your feelings nor, duke it out with you.

You're by all means, entitled to how you feel but, if you go back and re-read her posts, I think she isn't that informed to many trival technical (nothing-to-do-with-her-overall-claim) items.

She is simply an ordinary woman who set out to snap some photos and is probably (like me) oblivious to her surroundings and car-model she's driving. Well, not that she doesn't know but, like I said, it's totally irrelevant in her case.
She could've rode up to that spot on a friggin' camel!
It doesn't matter. It was only a mode of transportation for her that day. Not a key element of the end results. But you're all making it such!

So............we're entitled to conclude what we conclude but in fairness, please TRY to see this through the eyes of a woman who may or may not be, the best communicator!

[edit on 28-3-2010 by TwoPhish]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


wow, nobody can win with you, and you're constantly pushing for an argument.

there is NO UFO in those pictures whatsoever simple as that.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


wow, nobody can win with you, and you're constantly pushing for an argument.

there is NO UFO in those pictures whatsoever simple as that.


Without you inserting a quote, I have no idea what you're talking about but allow me to say this:
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm no!

Not arguing! Just attempting to correct and reinstate my position.
This is a forum, right?



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by TwoPhishShe is simply an ordinary woman who set out to snap some photos and is probably (like me) oblivious to her surroundings and car-model she's driving. Well, not that she doesn't know but, like I said, it's totally irrelevant in her case.


Everything she says, does or presents to us is relevant. She is the only eye witness. Your logic concerns me.


Originally posted by TwoPhish
She could've rode up to that spot on a friggin' camel!
[edit on 28-3-2010 by TwoPhish]


Camels do not have windshields.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   

was being sarcastic. To me (of the female variety) a Cruiser is a car. Same thing. It was four wheels. It makes no difference anyway. It only does to suit YOUR theories (of her being inside this damn vehicle)


That is not soley ,my theory TwoPhish, others appear to share the beleif.
The reflection refutes the story, atleast for that photo.


And you know what? I find it more insulting to her integrity to call her confused than a liar.
At least if she lied, she did it with intent and with her faculties in check.

But what you're insinuating is, this poor woman, lost her reality for 5 minutes while photographing the Sun.


It wasn't me that insinuated anything about her, other than she made a very simple mistake.
The evidence tells its own story.
And that is a bit more polite than...


Fiona (with all due respect) is not well informed about much that goes on
around her and is mildly delusional.


I wouldnt have gone quite that far, nor discussed her medical condition as Zazz did.
Nor implied she 'wasn't that smart' ,like YOU did.



So I suggest you stop playing arm-chair psychologist and super sleuth scientists and help her to figure out what she saw.


We did, and she refuted it despite evidence. She is a grown woman and can beleive whatever she's happy to.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TwoPhish

So I suggest you stop playing arm-chair psychologist and super sleuth scientists and help her to figure out what she saw.


I haven't commented in this thread before, but I have followed it with interest, and my personal conclusion is that the woman took the photos inside of her car. Just for the record.


Anyway, I wonder about your statement which I have quoted above. If people can not use either psychology or science, how do you propose people should help her figure out what she "saw"? Should they stick to telepathy? Channeling? Pure guessing?


Your comment makes no sense at all. No offense.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by TwoPhish
And you know what? I find it more insulting to her integrity to call her confused than a liar.
What you think is irrelevant, Fiona is the target of these opinions, so her opinion is the only one that we should keep in mind.

Does she feel insulted by being called "confused", "delusional" or "liar"? If she does (and I think she does, at least with some of those words) she only has to tell us, in the same way she said she didn't wanted the Facebook photo posted on ATS.


At least if she lied, she did it with intent and with her faculties in check.
Making a confusion doesn't mean that we do not have our faculties in check, when you are fooled by an optical illusion, for example, that doesn't happen because you suddenly lost your faculties, it happens precisely because you haven't and try to use them in the way you usually do in a circumstance for which that method does not work as expected.


But what you're insinuating is, this poor woman, lost her reality for 5 minutes while photographing the Sun.

Now, I ask you, which is more inviting to be? I rather be a liar.
I rather be confused, forgetful or delusional, that would mean that I would still had my actions (for which I am responsible) were not fake, while being confused, forgetful or delusional is something we cannot control.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by keepureye2thesky


Everything she says, does or presents to us is relevant. She is the only eye witness. Your logic concerns me.


Originally posted by TwoPhish
She could've rode up to that spot on a friggin' camel!
[edit on 28-3-2010 by TwoPhish]


Camels do not have windshields.



And according to Fiona, the DAMN WINDSHIELD is not part of the incident only YOU'RE making it to be.

Remember, there have been people convicted of horrendous crimes due to circumstantial evidence (even though, the person is screaming that things did not go down that way). And bitter-sweetly, they get exonerated because OTHER people made the mistake.

I have no reason to make up my own paradigm that day and insert them into the scene so, to suit me.

This 'reflection' could be explained. Stranger things have happened. There are ALWAYS flukes thrown in to the equation when that the last thing you expected.

Unless or until a professional expert photo analysis states otherwise (or if Fiona confesses) I am totally giving her the benefit of doubt and NOT, changing her story to fit, extraordinary and irrelevant details.

To recap: The windshield is a non-iissue in the overall scheme (and facts?) of this particular situation.
Because she took the photos outside her vehicle!



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60


Anyway, I wonder about your statement which I have quoted above. If people can not use either psychology or science, how do you propose people should help her figure out what she "saw"? Should they stick to telepathy? Channeling? Pure guessing?


Your comment makes no sense at all. No offense.




Because.............you're NOT approaching this the way she set it up.

You're all changing the facts.

You're placing her somewhere where she claims is NOT the case (inside her car)

Do you really think it behooves her in your attempt to 'figure things out' if you're gonna change her reality?????????



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by TwoPhish
And you know what? I find it more insulting to her integrity to call her confused than a liar.
What you think is irrelevant, Fiona is the target of these opinions, so her opinion is the only one that we should keep in mind.

Does she feel insulted by being called "confused", "delusional" or "liar"? If she does (and I think she does, at least with some of those words) she only has to tell us, in the same way she said she didn't wanted the Facebook photo posted on ATS.


At least if she lied, she did it with intent and with her faculties in check.
Making a confusion doesn't mean that we do not have our faculties in check, when you are fooled by an optical illusion, for example, that doesn't happen because you suddenly lost your faculties, it happens precisely because you haven't and try to use them in the way you usually do in a circumstance for which that method does not work as expected.


But what you're insinuating is, this poor woman, lost her reality for 5 minutes while photographing the Sun.

Now, I ask you, which is more inviting to be? I rather be a liar.
I rather be confused, forgetful or delusional, that would mean that I would still had my actions (for which I am responsible) were not fake, while being confused, forgetful or delusional is something we cannot control.



Placing her INSIDE the car when she is stating over and over and over and over again that that was NOT the situation is not merely calling her confused.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join