Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UFO in Sydney Australia

page: 47
33
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
A crap photo, only 10 stars for the OP, but almost 1000 replies.
Jesus christ ATS not again -_-'




posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Just a quick question to all involved....
Has anybody (besides UFOIC) bothered to get in touch with UFO Research NSW and see what their take is on all of this.....or try these other Australian based organisations....

UFO INFO



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Zelong
 


G'day Zelong

None of the photo's we took from the witness' car at the site show a tinted strip.

However we cannot exclude such a strip based on those photo's.

I can't recall if there was such a strip.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

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



She claims it WAS part of her encounter. She says so specifically.


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



She claims it WAS part of her encounter. She says so specifically.


respectfully ask you go back and read her iterations.



I respectfully ask you to go back and listen to the 2GB radio interveiw.


www.2gb.com...

[edit on 28-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



I know she said that but my understanding of this is:

She saw this second (brightly lit) UFO and in her attempt to capture it, she inadvertently caught the lamp post instead. That's what I was saying about Murphy's Law. The last thing she expected was to get something (ie, this lamp post) involved to exacerbate and fuel....further debunking.

It is possible (although the odds are greatly stacked against her) that she saw a bright light (her second UFO which produced two orbs) AND............have this lamp post present at the same time. Again, the operative word is it COULD be possible. Lamp posts and UFOs have co-exists throughout many photos in the past. It's just unlucky (Murphy's Law) for her plight, that this ended up happening.

She said early on, the lamp post was not present in her field of vision during these excitable moments (paraphrasing this), She did NOT say, no lamp post ever exists. I think we (on the forum) mixed up her claim concerning that matter.

It is plausible (and again, very much against the odds) that her goal was to snap a photo of this second UFO but..................got the lamp post instead.

I know...it doesn't look good for her case but once again, it COULD be possible.

It's giving her EXTREME benefit of doubt but, until a specialist chimes in and tells me her photos were; A,B.C that equals; they were indeed taken from behind glass, I remain firm on my lone conviction in....believing her.

I've seen stranger things happen.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemooone2
Im going to suggest one possible scenario that covers what might have happened here. When these street lights are going bad they have a tendency to turn themselves off and on. Fiona gets ready to take some pictures of the sunset. the streetlight turns on , and two birds fly behind it illuminated by both the sunset and the lamp. The light blinks off. (ufo vanishes). I also believe however that the pictures were taken from within the auto , more because of the black spot than anything else.



That's very possible and I think she's even open to that possibility however, that doesn't eradicate her FIRST sighting moments earlier that......so many want to turn into a bug on her windshield.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Now we have night birds.
Bats would be more like it a sunset.
Most of the sunset is blocked by the high trees down
that narrow road.
The big problem in resolving photos is that some people do
not want the UFO to exist as a controlled vehicle and will
suggest any solution other than an aircraft.
So bat dodo on the lens or windshield, how about that.
White puffs and dark blobs are just about all the get in photos.
The best details of a strange aircraft were in Belgium, the
Hudson Vally and New Mexico and at a base by Walton.
Otherwise we see flashes of light like the old time Foo craft.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   

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


G'day Zelong

None of the photo's we took from the witness' car at the site show a tinted strip.

However we cannot exclude such a strip based on those photo's.

I can't recall if there was such a strip.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


I've been looking at all the Special Edition PT Cruiser's they all have a "Deep tint sunscreen glass" , the whole windscreen is tinted equally, you can exclude such a strip now


Special Edition PT front windscreens:
2002


2003


2009 the same.



Zelong.

[edit on 28/3/10 by Zelong]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Zelong
 


That's got a nice flat hood.
Is that where she took the ufo object photo.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by Zelong
 


That's got a nice flat hood.
Is that where she took the ufo object photo.


Hi TeslaandLyne, some people think there is a sun strip on top of the windscreen a few pages back stating the clouds near the top of picture looked a different shade; meaning the picture was taken inside the cruiser as you can see they have a "Deep tint sunscreen glass" no strip.

She said it was taken outside the cruiser. You might have to read to catch up.


Zelong.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   
ok dot point questions, any thesis or longwinded paragraphs will be ignored

i will meet the Witness look at her car, so i will check the tint.
I will get the raw image of iphone image 5 that had missing gifs from her ph and not her laptop.
anything else you want done?
or checked.
Zazz



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TwoPhish

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?


i seriously could not be bothered to quote everything but ill just state a few things, now all the way through this thread you have listed the faults with her story and insulted fiona yourself. you have constantly told everyone to stop being nice/polite and just state what they think, yet as soon as people did you jumped on them and made out we have twisted things to suit our theorys!!! wrong. the evidence is in the pictures!



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Zelong
 


You can't determine if it has a Shade band or not from the outside,

Nor is it useful using photos of the American version.

We need interior shots of an Australian model.

[edit on 29/3/10 by Chadwickus]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zelong
I've been looking at all the Special Edition PT Cruiser's they all have a "Deep tint sunscreen glass" , the whole windscreen is tinted equally, you can exclude such a strip now



G'day Zelong

What if the witness added an "aftermarket" tinted strip to the top of her windscreen?

I did that with my last car.....it went much faster after I did that.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
ok dot point questions, any thesis or longwinded paragraphs will be ignored

i will meet the Witness look at her car, so i will check the tint.
I will get the raw image of iphone image 5 that had missing gifs from her ph and not her laptop.
anything else you want done?
or checked.
Zazz


That sounds good
zazzafrazz get a picture from the exact location as Fiona was standing said she just in front of the telegraph/light pole pole on the other side.

The first one is a wooden power pole with the light attached opposite the 60km sign 33°54'55.64"S 150°57'10.39"E
This is where the pictures were taken I've worked out from the GPS data from Fiona's pictures.


The second is a wooden power pole with the light attached
33°54'55.64"S 150°57'8.31"E


Zelong.

[edit on 29/3/10 by Zelong]

[edit on 29/3/10 by Zelong]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Zelong
 


Yeah well I recall a statement that I read as she was outside on or
leaning on the hood.
Something about from the center of the hood.
I know about sun strips being seen from inside the car.
If the car was on or recently moved the hood might be too hot to
use for taking photos.
If thats not a problem then she was father away from the car perhaps.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


G'day TeslaandLyne

If you haven't already done so, look at my detailed field report on P38.

It covers a lot of info, so it's not a bad place to start


Let me know if you have any thoughts about the 2 orbs.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 29-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Edit to remove superfluous post

[edit on 29-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 

Your right, bugger
I didn't realize they were American .


Zelong.



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Zelong
 


G'day Zelong

Here's an extract from my report regarding the streetlight.....it's been identified & photographed with the close cooperation of the witness.

____________________________________________________

REGARDING THE BRIGHT ILLUMINATED “OBJECT”:

The witness described to me in detail that the bright light was not a streetlight & the 2 circular objects were flying towards & “went into” that bright light.

I spent a great deal of time matching up this photo with the landscape, with the witness standing beside me confirming her position when taking the photo.

The streetlight is an extremely strong “position” match with the bright light in the photo.

The illumination patterns on the trees & the ground & the extremely strong similarity with the “flare” patterns of the other streetlights are also a very strong “streetlight” match.



The “streetlight” argument is further validated by these daylight pictures I took through the windscreen of my car that shows the streetlight is clearly above the upper “tree line”:





I confirm very small changes in position "forward" or "backwards" along the road caused very significant changes in the angle of the streetlight from the camera.

This was exaccerbated by the very wide field of view of the iPhone camera & the height of the streetlight.

I pointed this out to the witness at length & ensured I lined up with the exact "black tree" that she stated she was aligned with when she took the photo.

That put the streetlight in exactly the same position in frame on the iPhone camera, as per the "bright light" in the witness' photo.....exactly as in it was a 100% match.


CURRENT CONCLUSION PENDING FURTHER EXPERT ANALYSIS:

The most likely prosaic cause for the “bright light” in the top right corner of the photo is the streetlight as indentified during my site visit with the witness.

____________________________________________________

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 29-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Mar, 29 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
TwoPhish


I know she said that but my understanding of this is:

She saw this second (brightly lit) UFO and in her attempt to capture it, she inadvertently caught the lamp post instead. That's what I was saying about Murphy's Law. The last thing she expected was to get something (ie, this lamp post) involved to exacerbate and fuel....further debunking.


Pure speculation on your part, again, not supported by the evidence.



She said early on, the lamp post was not present in her field of vision during these excitable moments (paraphrasing this),


Link please and specific quote?

If it wasn't present in her feild of vision, aka, she never saw it, then why does she explicitely claim the streetlight WAS the brightly lit ufo?
You said yourself, she would remember what she saw and that she either saw it in the sky or she did not.
Shall we speculate further? That going by your claim of what she said (not in her feild of vision at the time), that she didnt see it, therefore
photographed only the blob, and made the rest of the story up after revewing the images on her iphone veiwfinder, or uploading them.
No purpous is served by your speculating scenarios on her part, you do her injustice, just stick to evidence.


I know...it doesn't look good for her case but once again, it COULD be possible.



Yes It could be possible, but it's not supported by her testimony, she sticks to the story in both radio interveiws.
Further more, In the 3AW interveiw, she says she had to wait for the camera after each click, to focus it and aim.
Which would indicate she was deliberately trying to capture the 'ufos'. Note: she says also both the light and the blob vanished
at the same instant, yet she captured the blob, not once, but five times! At 2GB she specifically identifies the streetlight (top right hand corner) as being the ufo the orbs came from.
Further her 3AW testimony refutes the 2GB one, in which she says the five shots were "instant", 'click click click click click".
point and shoot.


until a specialist chimes in and tells me her photos were; A,B.C that equals; they were indeed taken from behind glass...


More than myself have firmly concluded so already. You are either indescisive to extreme as your post seem to imply, or simply

"You Want To Beleive'.


Zazz


ok dot point questions, any thesis or longwinded paragraphs will be ignored
i will meet the Witness look at her car, so i will check the tint.
I will get the raw image of iphone image 5 that had missing gifs from her ph and not her laptop.
anything else you want done?
or checked.
Zazz


Yes. If you feel you would like toinvestigate personally, how about trying to rule out the theory postulated, that the photos were taken from inside.
Also that that blob was stationary.
An experiment in which the witness sits inside her car with her phone, and attempts to photograph a ballon realeased into the sky by yourself.
Note the witness should have one hand on the wheel at all times, since its been suggested she was driving slowly along the shoulder at the time
(she need not actually drive, too dangerous) But note her posture as she aims, note if there is pause betyween each of five photos for the camera to load etc,
does she look in the veiwfinder to find the balloon, as she claims for the blob in 3aw interveiw?
Post resulting photos.

?

chad

We need interior shots of an Australian model.


We need interior shots in the witness OWN car, and showing the top of the windscreen against a pale sky or background.

maybe

What if the witness added an "aftermarket" tinted strip to the top of her windscreen?



Indeed this is also possible, so we cant exclude it till we get the data on the witness car.

zelong

The second is a wooden power pole with the light attached
33°54'55.64"S 150°57'8.31"E




And the witness would not see the support between the fixture and the treetop due to glare, so it would seem to be 'high in the sky'




[edit on 29-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]









 
33
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join