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'.
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?
Yes. If you feel you would like toinvestigate personally, how about trying to rule out the theory postulated, that the photos were taken from
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
does she look in the veiwfinder to find the balloon, as she claims for the blob in 3aw interveiw?
Post resulting photos.
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.
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.
The second is a wooden power pole with the light attached
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]