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: 45
33
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
Shots taken at the same time of day might have been more revealing, as far as reflection goes, though I think I see one in the trees. Pity we cant confirm or deny a sunvisor strip though.
Windscreen looks relatively clean, had she been through a carwash or washed it since 'The event'?


G'day wayaboveitall

The exterior of the witness' car (including the windscreen) appeared relatively clean.

The full-size files show more detail on the windscreen, including a few white "blobs" & reflections.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not




posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


I don't agree with you on that one, it sure looks like a reflection to me.




posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


G'day cripmeister

OK.....I see what you mean.....maybe a little of each.....


Perhaps the "lower" lines are the sun.....perhaps the "higher" lines are reflections.....



Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 28-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


G'day wayaboveitall

As per my site visit, discussions with the witness, detailed report on P38 & my subsequent posts, I believe the streetlight is a 100% match with the "bright object".

I believe the witness is now confirming the "streetlight" is a "streetlight", however she is stating there was still a "bright object" in the sky "above" the streetlight.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


I don't agree with you on that one, it sure looks like a reflection to me.




G'day cripmeister

Just thinking again.....

Why aren't the lines parallel?

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I can't help but react out of compassion (instead of science)

I feel, this poor woman...went public, looking for help to try to identify what she saw that evening. I believe she was looking for help to support whether what she saw was, man-made or could it have possibly come from the star system of the Pleiades (for example).

Instead, she's getting ripped apart.

If someone went public, asking for help to locate and find their missing child, the last thing that person would want (or expect) is for the public to concentrate on why she was in cahoots of hiding her child!

This whole situation took on a life of its own and ...........it's rather sad

For I can't help but feel, her initial desire, got turned upside down, inside out and right now she's either laughing at us or crying to herself!

We're a very un-trusting society (and scandalous too) and, it's hard to be reminded of both.

I am sorry. But to me? This was not the help she was orginally seeking but, if it turns out she was hoaxing (and that is not out of the realm of possibility) then, so be it.
I tend to believe she is honest and the rest, are wrong.


Nuff said (for now)


[edit on 28-3-2010 by TwoPhish]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

I believe the witness is now confirming the "streetlight" is a "streetlight", however she is stating there was still a "bright object" in the sky "above" the streetlight.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



Yet no photo of it.
But in her 2GB interveiw she explicitly says, the two small objects came from that very light in the photo. She says top right hand corner specifically.


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 "



link to that quote

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Link to the interveiw

www.2gb.com...

This is word for word.

[edit on 28-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
This is how the forum goes. Photo/Video/testimony posted - people pick it apart, analyze ect. I'm not sure why this case should be any different.

If one is going to make big claims to the world and ATS, they should be able to hear what people have to say about it even if they don't like the differing opinions and/or analysis.

With that said, even in this forum ATS Terms & Conditions Of Use still apply. So does Courtesy Is Mandatory. If someone is going against either of these, simply hit the alert button.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


G'day wayaboveitall

Just to clarify:

I did not say I believe there was an additional "bright light" above the streetlight......the witness said that.

The witness' statement regarding her acceptance of the bright light in the photo being a streetlight was made yesterday with a contact who is known to me & ATS.

I am advised the witness was happy for this updated info to be posted in this manner.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not.

[edit on 28-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


Not sure if that was directed at me but you're right. All the same, I can't help but feel badly especially if she's telling the truth.

She came on here after she went public.

I think she was referred to ATS by someone who told her, we can help her. Not hurt her. But....I realize the universal dualities are applied.

You have to have thick skin especially in the limelight. No doubt.

But I can't keep thinking, she's telling the truth and I am right and you're all, wrong. Or as Jerry so eloquently put it: I ain't never been right as I ain't never been wrong.

Smile~



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


G'day wayaboveitall

Just to clarify:

I did not say I believe there was an additional "bright light" above the streetlight......the witness said that.

The witness' statement regarding her acceptance of the bright light in the photo being a streetlight was made yesterday with a contact who is known to me & ATS.

I am advised the witness was happy for this updated info to be posted in this manner.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not.

[edit on 28-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]


Yes I understand this.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TwoPhish
I can't help but react out of compassion (instead of science)
No problem, they are not incompatible.



I feel, this poor woman...went public, looking for help to try to identify what she saw that evening. I believe she was looking for help to support whether what she saw was, man-made or could it have possibly come from the star system of the Pleiades (for example).
The problem is that there isn't anything we can do to really identify that (or those) objects, the best we can do is use our own ways of thinking to present our own theories about it.


Instead, she's getting ripped apart.
That's the problem of being a public figure, the only difference is that radio, newspapers and TV are not interactive, so the person never gets to see/read/hear what other people think about it.

Also, the UFO area is full of people trying to fool other people, so things always start, as we say in Portugal, "with a foot behind", meaning that there is always some mistrust.

It's not the person's (in this case Fiona's) fault, it's the result of the many fakes that are always "mining" the Aliens & UFO field.

I don't like it either, but I understand why people react like that.


If someone went public, asking for help to locate and find their missing child, the last thing that person would want (or expect) is for the public to concentrate on why she was in cahoots of hiding her child!
It's obviously not the same thing, but the police always put that possibility on their list, it's a real possibility.


For I can't help but feel, her initial desire, got turned upside down, inside out and right now she's either laughing at us or crying to herself!
All things considered, I hope she is laughing or at least smiling, although we all used a lot of our time in this thread we weren't really negatively affected by it (I hope), so if nobody was hurt (and I hope nobody was) we only lost time, but we may have gained more knowledge in some areas in which our knowledge was not so good.


We're a very un-trusting society (and scandalous too) and, it's hard to be reminded of both.
Yes, but that's life.



I am sorry. But to me? This was not the help she was orginally seeking but, if it turns out she was hoaxing (and that is not out of the realm of possibility) then, so be it.
I tend to believe she is honest and the rest, are wrong.
I also think this is not the kind of help she was seeking, but with the information we have it's difficult to do more than this.

That's why I think people interested in UFOs should know what to do in the case they can take some photos of something strange. In this case, if she had taken more photos after the event, showing what the area looks like, it would have helped; we would see if the photos had been taken inside or outside her car, the position of the street-lights, possibly more reflections, etc.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 

I think the higher one is a reflection and the lower the Sun passing through the clouds, I also like to take photos of the sunset and of clouds and I have seen that many times.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I don't know how Fiona Hartigan could of kept up reading all these posts it moved so quick.
I've found some answer's to my question I asked earlier.
'Question: how did Bill Chalker get involved did you ring him or did the media bring him in?'

"Channel 10, Sydney asked my opinion of Fiona’s photos, Andrew Jacob's" said:

Sydney Observatory
On the evening of Tuesday 23 March I (Andrew Jacob) was contacted by Channel 10, Sydney to ask my opinion of Fiona’s photos. I needed more information. So I called Fiona to ask about what she had seen.
To guide me I asked the questions provided in Sydney Observatory’s Lights in the Sky blog.


"Channels 10 and 9 dropped in to the Observatory for interviews. Bill Chalker, from what he calls the “UFO Investigation Centre”, also called to discuss the event."

These are the questions Fiona Hartigan was asked by Andrew Jacobs.

Sydney Observatory
Where were you? Governor Macquarie Drive between the Georges River and the roundabout linking to Epsom Rd. Here.

What time was it? Sunset

Which direction were you looking? Westwards

How long did you see the object? The photos cover about two seconds at the most.

What direction was the object was moving? The large blob (AJ’s word) moved from the light in the top-right corner down the road then back towards the light. Two smaller blobs dropped out of the light, then moved back into it. The large blob moved back down the road.

Fiona also provided the following additional information: It made no noise; it was very calm (i.e. no wind); the light on the right hand side was not a street light; the photo was taken sitting on the car using an IPhone; there is a street light down the road (visible in front of a tree) and there was a street light behind her.

Fiona sounded coherent and seemed to me to be a credible witness and I had no reason to believe she was pulling our leg. I’d like to make it clear that, contrary to a radio report on Wednesday morning, I did not ask Fiona if she was on any medication.


Now the conclusion from Dr Nick Lomb and Andrew Jacob


Also, in the bottom right hand quarter of the photo above (and also in one other image) there are two faint, pale markings. These could be interpreted as a reflection off a glass surface. Now, Fiona says she was outside the car when the photos were taken. Nevertheless, we must analyse the photos objectively. What are these markings? If they are reflections then the blobs may simply be marks on the same glass. The position of the blob in the photos changes in a way consistent with this explanation.


Good work Maybe...maybe not, this was your process


Dr Nick made the very sound suggestion that the situation should be recreated for further investigation – same camera, same time & location – from outside and inside the car.


Still keeping an opened mind there is some great research done on this,
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 



And this video explaining the right hand side shadow anomaly:
reply to post by Xtraeme
 



I do like these members explanations


Zelong.

[edit on 28/3/10 by Zelong]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Just guessing here but the reflections might be coming from the dashboard, there are rounded fixtures there.




posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Not sure what you mean regarding the tinting? Looks like a perfectly normal sydney sunset to little ol me, the clouds or sky deepen in colour away from the sun and blushing clouds...well at least thats what I see daily off my balcony that faces west ?
Can you show the photo you mean? I may have looked at the wrong ones.

Cheers



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Zelong
 


If this second bright "object" that she witnessed that....became incorporated with this lamp post then, it could be one of those dreadful, serendipitous event (that we hate to defend)

Or a, coincidental conundrums (that we hate even more)

Or an accidental fluke (which is even harder to refute)

Or Murphy's Law at its finest (that, only karma can correct)

Just puttin' it out there. That's all.

[edit on 28-3-2010 by TwoPhish]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   

If this second bright "object" that she witnessed and became incorporated with this lamp post then, it could be one of those dreadful, serendipitous event (that we hate to defend)


But it didnt 'become incorporated', she never said anything like that, she said it was the streetlight, and indicated it specifically in the photos, the only other bright orange light source captured is the setting sun itself.
Unless she sincerely mistook the street light for a bright orange ufo,
and her own testimony live on the radio confirms this.

Did your listen to the broadcast TwoPhish? Is it not word for word what I quoted?
Now your making up scenarios to fit her version of events, scenarios that are not born out by evidence.



[edit on 28-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


G'day cripmeister

I will be grateful if you will read the U2U I sent you some time back.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

If this second bright "object" that she witnessed and became incorporated with this lamp post then, it could be one of those dreadful, serendipitous event (that we hate to defend)


But it didnt 'become incorporated', she never said anything like that, she said it was the streetlight, and indicated it specifically in the photos, the only other bright orange light source captured is the setting sun itself.
Unless she sincerely mistook the street light for a bright orange ufo,
and her own testimony live on the radio confirms this.

Did your listen to the broadcast TwoPhish? Is it not word for word what I quoted?
Now your making up scenarios to fit her version of events, scenarios that are not born out by evidence.


Ummmm no.

She concedes she (now realizes she) inadvertently CAPTURED the street light (in her photo) which was not part of her encounter though!

This is NOT to negate what she saw rather, it's just fueling the fires of controversy.

You can have both. A 3-dimensional misunderstanding and, actuality both, at the same time. It happens! It's called circumstantial bullchit!

This was an additional (accidental) bi-product that, she didn't realize was filmed! She now realizes, she did! (see: Murphys Law)


She did not say the lamp post was/is in lieu of what she witness.

I respectfully ask you go back and read her iterations.




top topics



 
33
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join