I think you've forgotten the point of this - we are trying to clearly see what the reflections from her dashboard look like, what shape they are. I'm not suggesting Zazz try to match the initial conditions, but to get her to try to show up the reflection shapes as clearly as possible using any means available and acceptable to Fiona. IF we can show that the shape matches the one shown in the original images, then we can definitely state the images were taken inside the car. So surely ANYTHING we can do to increase the chances of rendering the reflection shapes clearly is worthwhile to prove it one way or the other.

Fair enough, this has been done. In earlier posts, dash photos were posted, theories put forward matchingthe contour of gauges to the reflections and so forth.
Some still said it looks like a hatchback or ute behind her heading in the opposit direction (I agree)

And as shown in my examples, the glass is at ~45 degrees, so there are no flashback issues, from that or the side windows. You only get problems if the glass is at 90 degrees or nearabouts, or there is some other reflective path.

But the glass dosent move, the camera does mate.

The images speak for themselves - so maybe *you* should try it. In a car, not in front of a fish tank.

I wouldnt want to steal YOUR idea.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by RICH-ENGLAND]

Atleast one person felt the reflection in question was a lense flare from the streetlight, and made a filtering video to show it. Eitherway ,still a reflection on glass, hence they were shot in the car.
Exactly what the reflection is of, is a moot point. There is nothing infront of the lense to reflect if you accept her story she was outside .

Unless, you can show the reflection in the photo is light hitting the lense from the oncoming car or the streetlight, or the sunset. ?

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
twoPhish

We haven't even concluded WHAT that reflection was of. I thought it was another vehicle. It might be, Who knows? But, yes, I totally believe she was outside her car.

What it was, is irrelevant. If she was out of her car, There is nothing infront of her lense to reflect anything.

[
[edit on 29-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

It's NOT irrelevant because you can't dismiss it. I am not an irrational person who closes my eyes (just because I can't prove it) and magically makes it irrelevant.
It's there and it can actually help prove she was outside the car.
It could be one of those (rare) ricocheting anomalies of light that photograph sometime (to our chagrin) produce.

What is irrelevant are: the type of car she was driving (because I don't place her IN the car) so, suffice it to say, all things pertinent to the vehicle; visor strip, color, sunroof, make, model or year!

twoPhish

It's NOT irrelevant because you can't dismiss it. I am not an irrational person who closes my eyes (just because I can't prove it) and magically makes it irrelevant.

Then what do suppose caused the reflection seen in the photo? How do you explain it, without irrational suppositions?

It's there and it can actually help prove she was outside the car.
It could be one of those (rare) ricocheting anomalies of light that photograph sometime (to our chagrin) produce.

Ok, can you show me an example to illustrate your theory?
Im not sure of heard of " ricocheting anomalies of light" before.
Can you explain how they work in relation to the photo's?

Let me throw out a hypothetical question.


Let's say, you saw an UFO (a metallic object soaring 10,000 feet above) and you had your camera/iPhone ready to take a photo.

And as SOON as you snapped the picture, a bird flew out in front and you (accidentally) captured its right wing, obstructing most of the UFO.

Does that mean, you didn't see the UFO? Because surely, from the evidence you produced, it clearly doesn't show just a UFO.

Then, you have people debunking it even further by saying "yeah, you know what? There's a birds nest in that tree so....you saw a flock of birds, flying at different altitudes! That's all. You were just confused!"

As seren-FRIGGIN-dipitous as that sounds, it can happen!

So what I am saying, there's still some room to give her the benefit of doubt in the scheme of things.

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

It's there and it can actually help prove she was outside the car.
It could be one of those (rare) ricocheting anomalies of light that photograph sometime (to our chagrin) produce.

Ok, can you show me an example to illustrate your theory?
Im not sure of heard of " ricocheting anomalies of light" before.
Can you explain how they work in relation to the photo's?

Neither have I. I've never yet seen a 'ricocheting anomaly' that I couldn't explain. Like wayabove, I'd also like to see your examples. I've got quite a few 'weird' ones in my personal collection, but I have an explanation for every one.

But I love a good challenge {wallace voice} and this is my speciality..{/wallace voice}

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
twoPhish

It's there and it can actually help prove she was outside the car.
It could be one of those (rare) ricocheting anomalies of light that photograph sometime (to our chagrin) produce.

Ok, can you show me an example to illustrate your theory?
Im not sure of heard of " ricocheting anomalies of light" before.
Can you explain how they work in relation to the photo's?

No I can't. That's why a professional UFO investigating team is compartmentalized. We would then, turn it over to the photo analysis department.

I can only speculated.
A professional can mostly, tear it apart and get down to the nitty-gritty ONLY conclusion.

Perhaps, that was a leftover photo from one of her previous photos on her iPhone. Again, I do NOT know. I am not an expert.

One has to remain totally impartial and always give the benefit of doubt until proven 100%, otherwise. However, some cases remain unresolved. Some are totally debunked. Some are 100% unexplained conventionally which are then filed under the UFO category.
This case is still open to...............every consideration at this point.

Fiona, to me, doesn't come off as a hoaxer from what I could ascertained via her audio/video interviews. So I've taken that into a tremendous amount of consideration.