It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The iphone focal length is 37mm (35mm equivalent). A 50mm lens is regarded as normal in 35mm terms. 37mm is normally regarded as wide angle.
Of, having, or being a camera lens with a relatively short focal length that permits an angle of view wider than approximately 70°.
Wide Angle lens will increase about 40% view range so you can take picture of large ranges,
such as group of people, buildings and landscape. With this marco lens, can be taken picture of a tiny
object clearly in the detail
Can you support that?
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?
Yes, it has automatic exposure. Even the cheapest camera phone does - it's 'de rigeur' these days. As for specs Apple is a bit coy, but try here:
Adolfo Issasi's post is the best, but he has the shutter speed wrong - it varies.
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.
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.
I haven't the opportunity to interview Fiona so I am only making my 'cognizant' impressions of her, via her audio/video clips. She seems sane.
[edit on 29-3-2010 by TwoPhish]
also something i have a question on something i think i can see in the pictures but im not certain. to me it looks like the light sources and things are stopping short of the lens and hitting another barrier first ie: a windscreen, does it look that way to you? and is there a way of showing it?
Originally posted by The Engi
I was on the outskirts of Broken Hill and took a nap at a nearby shack. Came evening time a 'shooting star' fell to the ground in the vicinity around 1km ahead, very close. The light trail dissappeared just before it hit the ground, if it even hit, and there exists a small airport some 5km down. About 5 minutes later a helicopter came to 'investigate', as it hovered above the 'crash' site a UFO suddenly appeared as a bright light, accelerated and dissappeared.
The helicopter then returned to the airport base.
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by keepureye2thesky
This isn't about twophish, MUFORN or anyone/thing else.
This is about Fiona and her sighting.
Speaking frankly here and this isn't directed at anyone in particular. This has been one of the most frustrating threads I've ever been involved in.
Don't get me wrong, there has been some great work here by ATS members, and we were blessed to have Fiona be so accommodating.
But apart from that, bloody hell has there been some crap!
Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by Mark_Frost
G'day Mark Frost
Jeff Ritzmann often takes quite a while to work through everything in detail.
I am of the impression Internos is leaning towards the "debris on the windscreen" option, but it's best to let him comment if he chooses to.
Please jump in here if I've misrepresented your comments in any way.
Originally posted by booda
Has the ideas of missfee to go back to the same spot and takes pictures been suggested...this way we can see if its a streetlamp ot not...
did what I had to, and yes: in my opinion the UFO is crap on the windscreen,
and please remember that the burden of proof is the obligation on a party to provide
sufficient warrant for their position: this did NOT happen in this case.
Fiona, dont assume because somebody plays hard ball with you to get the facts and try to give a more plausable explaination, that they nessesarily
assume your a lunatic or hoaxer, or that they (I) wouldnt conceed the unknown if it was shown to be such.
I beleive many sightings are genuinely inexplicable, but that this one, just isnt one of them.
Im not, as some are tring to paint me, 'A die hard skeptic debunker' at all cost, but neither am I willing to beleive without logic and evidence or atleast, as in this case, narrowing it down to a more likely and prosaic explaination first, before accepting its a genuine mystery.
Things do fly in our skies, but not all are mysterious.