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: 43
33
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

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?



Originally posted by TwoPhish
This entire thread has been reduce to science!!!!!




twophish

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!



No, it's a crucial issue Because she claimed she took all five shots from outside the car.

[edit on 28-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]




posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
At the end of the day factual evidence trumps over witness testimony. Period.
In this case factual evidence shows that the witness is just wrong. Either by lying, purposely hoaxing or a confused individual.

After all this evidence has been presented, her testimony just does not matter. I don't care how nice people say she is. Ever watch the news? Ever see interviews of people who were friends and neighbors to a murderer? They always say, "but he was such a nice guy, I cant believe he would do such a thing".

Point is. Evidence first, testimony last. Must look past the persona and look at the hard cold facts. If the testimony does not fit evidence, the testimony is flat out wrong. Go ask any trial lawyer this. And they will agree.

My opinion (which wont matter at all Im sure), the witness looked at pictures and believes she caught something. She made a story to go try and fit the pictures. Remember, 'If it doesn't fit, must acquit"

Pictures have been perfectly debunked and she refuses to admit she is flat out wrong. Probably due to embarrassment. After all she received her 15+ minutes of fame on TV and on ATS. I'm not even sure why this thread continues. Its debunked. Its a dead issue now.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I gotta step back and find the humor in this because this is insane!

It's reminiscent of the old:

If a train was traveling east at 125 mph from California and a car was traveling west at 60 mph from Washington DC and they met in the middle........what was the train conductor wearing!!!




It's irrelevant.


The windshiled (according to Fiona) was merely a means of transportation.
It doesn't matter!!!



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TwoPhish
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?????????



Please try to calm down a bit. This is a discussion forum, not a battle zone, there is nothing personal involved here. We are talking about a couple of photos with some blobs in them, that is all. And nobody is changing facts (apart from Fiona herself who has changed her story a bit), and nobody is trying to "change her reality", as you say.

If the facts themselves interfere with Fiona's sense of reality, there is really nothing to be done about that. I am sorry if this upsets her or you, but so be it. People won't simply accept claims if they are contradicted by the facts themselves. You will just have to deal with that, at least if you are going to be a part of discussions here at ATS.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

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


It is an incident in one of the photos. Therefore it is part of THE incident.


Originally posted by TwoPhish
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.


Well lucky for her she is not in a court of law.


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


You already have.


Originally posted by TwoPhish
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.


Your right. The reflection can be explained. It's light "reflecting" off another object that appears to be transparent. It's called glass. How else could it be deemed a "reflection". Are you listening to yourself? Was there a large pane of glass in the road she was oblivious too as well?!


Originally posted by TwoPhish
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.


Photo analysis is the only hope. Fee is in too deep now.


Originally posted by TwoPhish
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!


She "claims" to have taken the photos outside of her car. You do not know
that for a fact. The reflection to which you simply have no understanding of
dictates otherwise.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


Once again dear people................she's not looking for science. Not the way you're breaking it down.

She's not asking for you to figure out what, how, where, when and why these 'things' ended up on her film.

She simply wanted to know what she saw OUTSIDE in the SKY.

This has become insanely humorous!



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Here is one more Cruiser reflection example from You-tube video. Those two lines looks almost same.

www.youtube.com...

Time: 4:05






[edit on 28-3-2010 by hande]

[edit on 28-3-2010 by hande]

[edit on 28-3-2010 by hande]

[edit on 28-3-2010 by hande]

[edit on 28-3-2010 by hande]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TwoPhish
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


Once again dear people................she's not looking for science. Not the way you're breaking it down.

She's not asking for you to figure out what, how, where, when and why these 'things' ended up on her film.

She simply wanted to know what she saw OUTSIDE in the SKY.

This has become insanely humorous!


It really does not matter what she is looking for or what she claims. What matters is the evidence presented before us.

Again, facts triumph over testimony. Her testimony does not match up with facts; therefore, her testimony is wrong.

And again, at the end of the day if testimony does not match facts, testimony is wrong.

Period.

You can spin it all you want. But facts matter over testimony.


[edit on 3/28/2010 by inked up]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 


Fair enough.

I guess I like to believe and give the benefit of doubt to others.
Call me a sucker.

Your post was very poignant. Thank you

(exhale)



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by hande
 

Here you have it.





posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   

The windshiled (according to Fiona) was merely a means of transportation.
It doesn't matter!!!


Say What?


Once again dear people................she's not looking for science.


Indeed! and neither I suspect, are you.



She simply wanted to know what she saw OUTSIDE in the SKY.


We told her, a street lamp and a couple of bats or birds.

In the 2gb interveiw she says..

"Two other, metaliic looking objects came out of that big orange light, at the top right hand corner of the photographs that are being shown".




"The large object went close to the light, these two other, metallic looking objects ,came out of that light, and these two metallic objects actually took off to the Right as fast as the eye could see across to the right of the screen "




In her own words (audio) you decide for yourself twoPhish

3AW interview with Fiona H. about UFOs over Sydney...

www.dailymotion.com...

2GB radio interveiw....

Chris Smith talks to Fiona Hartigan regarding her UFO sighting in Chipping Norton.

www.2gb.com...

Fun Thread!






[edit on 28-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
why have I not heard of this one before?



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by hande
 


I think you caught it neighbour, the reflection is from the top of the hood where the wipers rest right? This is so far the best evidence in the inside/outside debate good job


Ok, so 'the witness' has changed her mind about the streetlight. She now says that it is a streetlight and not 'the orange orb'.

What she hasn't addressed is her obviously false claim about the Sydney Observatory she made in her 2GB radio interview with Chris Smith.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rolci
why have I not heard of this one before?


Page 36 4th post down.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
One thing I don't remember anyone addressing and for which I would like your opinions is this: as I do not know the IPhone (haven't even seen one in my life), is it normal for the photos taken with the IPhone (at least in those conditions) to have that blue area at the top of the screen, at least in some photos?

Thanks in advance.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
is it normal for the photos taken with the IPhone (at least in those conditions) to have that blue area at the top of the screen, at least in some photos?

Thanks in advance.


Not sure I am following you. The only blue up top seems to be the sky.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Mark_Frost
 

The difference in lighting and perspective on the trees on the right indicates that the photos were taken from different locations.

It doesn't have to be the same spot of dirt (or squashed bug).




Phage, I hate to be the one to do this to you but...

It is the exact same location. She did not move. All she did was raise the camera a bit as she would if something were rapidly moving up.




posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 



One thing I don't remember anyone addressing and for which I would like your opinions is this: as I do not know the IPhone (haven't even seen one in my life), is it normal for the photos taken with the IPhone (at least in those conditions) to have that blue area at the top of the screen, at least in some photos?

Thanks in advance.


It's cloudy and on dusk, so it's difficult to determin if the sky should be that color or not. Are you speculating its a custom tint on the top of the windscreen? Sun visor tint?

like this...

ecx.images-amazon.com...



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Blue area as in tinted sun visor? Maybe the collective effort of ATS in solving this is finally paying off


edit: could the prism like effect in the glare from the streetlight be connected to this?



[edit on 28-3-2010 by cripmeister]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
The streetlights glare seems filtered in this shot, but I cant say for sure.



resources0.news.com.au...





[edit on 28-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]




top topics



 
33
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join