UFO in Sydney Australia

This is the most screwed up thread I have been involved with.
For all those posters still posting crap "The Witness(Fiona) has been and gone" .

So there was a sighting with pictures and the witness joined ATS to give her story great, from her first post members wouldn't stop their own bickering post after post were over the top and spoke of the witness like she wasn't even here- a third person, because a few had made their minds up, couldn't sit back and let Fiona post, just filled up page after page were any question to Fiona was lost in pages.
Did anyone notice Fiona was even here


Zelong.

Yes I noticed. I noticed her leave, I noticed her return and welcomed her back, and I've noticed she hasn't said anymore so I assume she has reached her own conclusion/s.



[edit on 29-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Here are the very rough figures for the five images (RGB averaged, green weighted) for a reading near the top (40 pixels down), and towards the centre (300 pixels down). I used the smaller (uncropped) images posted fairly early in the thread. Lower numbers mean darker.
..4337 (Top- 125, centre - 140)
..7655 (Top- 100, centre - 130)
..5913 (Top- 110, centre - 135)
..2362 (Top- 100, centre - 180)
..5755 (Top- 135, centre - 163)

Were those measurements made at the middle of the length (I hope you understand what I mean, I cannot remember the right words now) of the photo or to one (or both) side(s)?

So they ALL show darkening towards the top.

Yes, they do, but it's not just darkening, its a blueish darkening, even on the trees, (more noticeable on the trees on the left), the trees also look bluish at the top in some photos.

Also, if it's a sunset photo, it will obviously look darker at the top, right?

PS: after looking at the three colour channels for each photo, it looks more like a reduced red than a stronger blue or green.

Originally posted by TwoPhish
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.

You jumped one step, the presenting of the photo as evidence. If the photo was not representative of what I had seen why should I present it?

Unless I could not be sure of what I had seen and could mix a metallic object at 10,000 feet with a wing of a bird, and in that case the debunking would show that the photo I had presented could not be considered evidence of the sighting, but it wouldn't mean that I had not had the sighting, they are different things.

Discussing what other people say they saw leads to nothing, there's no way of really knowing what it was, but in this case we have the photos, so we discuss them.

If they show what the witness saw or not only the witness can say.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by TwoPhish
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.

You jumped one step, the presenting of the photo as evidence. If the photo was not representative of what I had seen why should I present it?

Unless I could not be sure of what I had seen and could mix a metallic object at 10,000 feet with a wing of a bird, and in that case the debunking would show that the photo I had presented could not be considered evidence of the sighting, but it wouldn't mean that I had not had the sighting, they are different things.

Discussing what other people say they saw leads to nothing, there's no way of really knowing what it was, but in this case we have the photos, so we discuss them.

If they show what the witness saw or not only the witness can say.

You'd be correct but I carefully said "obstructing most of the UFO" hence allowing the UFO to still be there. And with the help of perhaps, a photo expert, maybe..... he could help abstract the UFO while reducing the noise (bird).

That's what I am waiting for with Fiona's photos.

I am done with my analogies and opinions.
I just wanted to answer your post.

Smile~

reply to post by TwoPhish

You're right, I didn't noticed the "most".

Thinking about that (and thinking that the wing would probably have some motion blur and the UFO would not, considering it was the target of the photo), do you have any explanation for the fact that the object does not have well defined edges, like if it was out of focus?

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Here are the very rough figures for the five images (RGB averaged, green weighted) for a reading near the top (40 pixels down), and towards the centre (300 pixels down). I used the smaller (uncropped) images posted fairly early in the thread. Lower numbers mean darker.
..4337 (Top- 125, centre - 140)
..7655 (Top- 100, centre - 130)
..5913 (Top- 110, centre - 135)
..2362 (Top- 100, centre - 180)
..5755 (Top- 135, centre - 163)

Were those measurements made at the middle of the length (I hope you understand what I mean, I cannot remember the right words now) of the photo or to one (or both) side(s)?

So they ALL show darkening towards the top.

Yes, they do, but it's not just darkening, its a blueish darkening, even on the trees, (more noticeable on the trees on the left), the trees also look bluish at the top in some photos.

Also, if it's a sunset photo, it will obviously look darker at the top, right?

PS: after looking at the three colour channels for each photo, it looks more like a reduced red than a stronger blue or green.

Hi, armap - glad you're still watching this..

As I hinted, my method was highly unscientific and was a quick response to the claim that some of them did not show the darkening. I simply expanded the eyedropper to 5x5, and then ran it slowly across the sky area near the top, and then near the centre, while noting several typical examples of the RGB values. I then averaged and rounded them. It was not intended as a proper mathematical analyis but it quickly verified my strong impression, which you seem to share. And anyone can try the same thing and see what they get.

I do agree that a couple of them show a moderate blue bias (esp. ..2362 / 0432). And that *could* indeed mean that there was a blue tint, and that it was coming into play.

But the fact is that it *could* also just be in the scene - a sunset scene at dusk will also tend towards dark blue/violet/cyan as you go overhead and the red values decrease as you get further away from the sunset area.

Plus, having now held a camera in that region of the interior of a car and taken several shots, I think it unlikely that the camera would have been angled in such a way as to show the tint strip - but maybe Zazz will clarify this. Maybe the tint strip is wider than I'm guessing, maybe the camera was held further back.

When I add it all up, and because there is that doubt that it could simply be the scene it just seems a less useful bit of evidence than the reflections, which I don't think are in dispute - they are clearly not part of the background scene.


Just a minor side issue - one thing I haven't been able to find out, is what is the aperture shape (if it has one?) on an iphone? Anyone know? I'd like to determine if the strange 6-way starburst (diffraction spikes?) is coming from the camera (which I think is most likely) or the windscreen. So what does a small bright light look like, thru an iphone?

Thru a windscreen, normally such 'spikes' will be at 90 degrees to the wiper pattern (caused by the micro scratches and streaks created by the wiping action). That means there will be just 2 spikes (or 4 where the blades overlap)... (Added -) I should have also noted here, that these spikes can also be created by 'greasy' streaks on the glass, eg wiped one way on the outside, another on the inside..

It's worth noting that the little bright spots up close to the streetlight appear to be similarly de-focused to the 'blob', and are therefore probably at a similar distance. Has anyone taken a shot with some small specks actually ON the iphone's lens, so we can see how far out-of-focus they are rendered? I'm presuming it has a flat 'coverglass' that would ensure such spots are only a few mm in front of the lens.

So many questions...



[edit on 29-3-2010 by CHRLZ]

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

hi chrlz, thanks for your reply on that question, i missed it earlier because the page had changed while i was reading/writing something. lateral thinking and spotting things is what im usually good at, i have a reasonable understanding of most things but im no expert in any of these fields so i just try to ask my ideas of the ones that know more of whatever field it is i have an idea on.

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?

thanks

rich

Yes, same here. The clues are those things we are already examining - whether there are any proven reflections, whether there are any obvious debris, scratches or other stuff showing on the glass, and as I just outlined above, whether any of the 'starburst' effects are coming from the glass.

Given that some of these effects can be found from within the camera alone - and most camera phones have a coverglass - the hard part is proving that the glass in question is in fact the windscreen.

Hi
i am just letting every one know that i will not be contributing to the this forum anymore
i have been told its best to stay away from these kind of forums.
i have given all the evidence you required
i have in no way been confused through my experiance,asi still remain level headed and at no time did i fabrecate any lies.
i will not be submitting any more evidence as there is none
if it has come down to the tint on my cars windows wats next ????
(little green men) BY THE WAY MY CAR HAS NO TINT NOR DOES IT HAVE A TINT STRIP.
I would like to thank you all for your time although to me a lot of the time was wasted on things like wind screens and street lights and now window tint
To the the many people that took time out to U2U me i apreciate what you have said it was GOOD ADVICE once again thanks and fair well.
PS to those of you who are thinking im takeing the easy way out ??? I will put it that there is NO easy way out of the truth

reply to post by missfee


Thank you MissFee.
It was really good to have you here - very exciting.
I wish you luck for the future and hope that you pop in again soon.
Please take care.

- Hermit

Edited to add: Sorry to see you go.

[edit on 30/3/2010 by Netties Hermit]

It takes alot for me to post on ATS but at times this thread has really annoyed and upset me !! I do understand peoples quest to unravel the mystery behind Fiona's experience and am quite sympathetic to the fact this can only be accomplished through careful and logical analysis of all the relevant data and information but regardless of all our postulations THE FACT IS we will never TRULY know what Fiona saw - and to those that maintain the orbs were birds ? have any of you ever confused a bird for a plane before ? Because I never have !! I think for the most part people are more than capable of deciphering the difference between the shape and flying abilities of a bird with lets say that of a plane / ufo ?? Unless the distances are too vast in which case you just wouldn't bother speculating anyway ! Subconsciously we do learn to READ our environment at a very early age these abilities come in the form of instincts - if there is danger nearby or something appears out of place our instincts kick in and alert us to the fact something is wrong - it is a survival mechanism - something obviously caught Fiona's eye - something she deemed out of the ordinary ! I am sympathetic to the fact variations in light and perspective can ultimately influence or distort our perception but at the end of the day surely Fiona's analysis is really the only one that counts. And to all those that have speculated Fiona is just after 2 mins of fame lol I don't think there would be many people out there aspiring to become the next world renowned Billy Meier now - do you ?

TwoPhish

I just don't think someone could be THAT caught up and not see a 3-dimensional lamp post at some point.

I am only using the above as an example because I know your stance changed somewhat at a later stage

Don't judge others and do not speculate on how individuals should act /react !! I saw an unidentified flying object years ago - the incident was over in a few minutes I drove away and never returned to the scene again - why would I ?? These experiences happen so quickly you don't have time to analyse where all the street lights are in relation to the object / objects you are viewing - you are too busy trying to work out what the hell you are WITNESSING - even within the first few seconds it is quite amazing how much information you are trying to assimilate - trying to establish the distance and size of the object - trying to establish if it is man made or some kind of optical illusion - you want to pinch yourself to check if you are dreaming but the debate in your own mind does not end there it will continue day in and day out for the rest of your life - but I can tell you right now what I saw was not a small silvery speck way off in the distance - I saw right up into the guts of this thing and in my opinion it was not man made - no way - no how.

Bill Chalker, who has spent 35 years investigating alien abductions, believes the sighting of a UFO above Sydney by mother Fiona Hartigan is almost certainly genuine. He's not the only one.

Scores of Australians contacted the Daily Telegraph yesterday with reports of multiple sightings in the Blue Mountains or strange lights hovering over rural NSW.

Mother-of-two Anne Hamnett said she witnessed a bizarre incident at her isolated property near Gloucester on Sunday night.

She and her children were out the front of the house just hours after Ms Hartigan's sighting when two brightly lit objects appeared.

They stayed in the area for about 30 minutes before disappearing.

"I've never believed UFO stuff before but I haven't ever seen anything like this," she said.

"They were orange-red in colour and perfectly in line with each other - I just can't explain it."

A note to everyone on ATS questioning Fiona's legitimacy : Before you go accusing someone of being a liar its important to understand how complex memory recall can be :

After two decades of exploring the power of misinformation, researchers have learned a great deal about the conditions that make people susceptible to memory modification. Research is beginning to give us an understanding of how false memories of complete, emotional and self-participatory experiences can be created . First, there are social demands on individuals to remember; for instance, researchers exert some pressure on participants to come up with memories. Second, memory construction by imagining events can be explicitly encouraged when people are having trouble remembering. And, finally, individuals can be encouraged not to think about whether their constructions are real or not.

Personally I would like to give Fiona the benefit of the doubt - I don't understand how the reflection got on the photograph's but perhaps it was just a one off anomaly ? We will never know

[edit on 29-3-2010 by destiny-fate]

Ask yourself: What did she have to gain by all of this just now? I mean really? How did she benefit this past week?

She's not writing a book. We ruled out iPhone publicity. I really don't believe Oprah is interested so........what did she gain just now?

Normal people don't put themselves out on the butcher-block purposefully unless, they are telling the truth and want answers. Circumstantial bullchit CAN get in the way of someones innocence. Just ask some prisoners!

So again, what was her purpose other than she was telling the truth?
Public ridicule is something nobody wants and..... being called a liar is characteristic trait no one wants on their resume either!

One always has to consider every single nuisance of evidence in UFOlogy. Including but not limited to the situation, subject matter and their motives.
Their motives (and psyche) become an integral part of this consideration because, believe it or not, science can impede truth at times too.

UFO/paranormal are sticky subjects. Easy to hoax and harder to prove. Tough situation to be in that's why.......innocent sane people (with no motives) rather not unless, they're being truthful


Like Fiona, I too am outta here and off this thread.

Good luck~

reply to post by missfee

Thanks missfee for taking the time to share your pictures and your observations with us.

It sounds like you got some good advice and should focus on restoring your health and I wish you all the best for that, you don't need extra stress at this time in your life.

I'm reminded of how reporting UFOs has affected other people, for example, Frank in this 1966 video talks for a little over a minute starting at 3:45 about what he saw:

www.cbsnews.com...

Then at 9:40 he comes back and said he's mad about the way people are treating him, not because what he said isn't true, but because some people didn't treat him respectfully. And he said if the thing came back and landed right on his front lawn he wouldn't tell anybody about it. And if someone got out, walked up to him and started talking to him he'd never mention that either.

The same year of that video, in 1966, some police officers in Portage County saw a UFO and reported it, and it was even more stressful for them and I don't have any reason to doubt that they were telling the truth about what they saw.

I don't think it's been a waste of time for everyone though, I've certainly learned some things after reading all 52 pages of this thread and a lot of ATS members have spent a lot of time analyzing this, I'm especially thankful to all you folks for the time you spent on this to help me understand the situation, especially MMN for taking the time to meet and gather evidence in person and for doing such an outstanding analysis.

I think CHRLZ made some good points that the issue of witness perception is not as black and white as some people want to paint it, and that it's possible for someone to be simply mistaken and not lying or hoaxing. I have spent a fair amount of time researching this topic and I must say my research has led me to agree with the views he has expressed in this thread on that topic.

I'm still looking forward to seeing what Jeff Ritzmann has to say after reviewing the photos.

I also agree there has been a lot of off-topic banter in this thread about interpersonal barbs and accusations, I could have lived without all those quite frankly, but many of you avoided engaging in that behavior, and I thank you for that.

Other than the off-topic stuff, the only part of the analysis that didn't seem to contribute too much to me was the GPS data but I think this was eventually acknowledged that the accuracy, frequency of updates, etc made the information of very limited value. But almost all the other analysis I thought was meaningful and contributed to giving us a better understanding of the circumstances in the sighting, so great work and thanks to everyone who contributed to that.

Thanks again everyone, this has been a most interesting thread to read.

Missfee I wish you the very best in good health, take care of yourself.

[edit on 29-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Looking for this
I found this

Originally posted by TwoPhish
One always has to consider every single nuisance of evidence in UFOlogy.

I snipped all the additional fruitless speculation about motives, and merely left the superb parting Freudian slip...

Yes, that 'evidence' stuff is such a nuisance, when it gets in the way...

reply to post by pwrthtbe


Looks like dust on the lens...

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Seriously, has no-one here misremembered? Has no-one ever gone back through the images on their camera or phone, been puzzled at the timeline, tried to line them up with what you *thought* happened? Did the images help you to 'remember'? But are you *sure* you were remembering, or is your brain just telling you that... The human brain is brilliant at correlating, tying up loose ends, making things match up. It's how it works, how it files stuff away.

Making an error, or having a false memory, doesn't mean you are a liar, or an untrustworthy witness. If anyone here thinks that *they* don't have false memories - you're kidding yourself.

Good point. Scientific research backs this up...we are all apparently capable of "confabulating"...

Confabulation:

A confabulation is a fantasy that has unconsciously emerged as a factual account in memory. A confabulation may be based partly on fact or be a complete construction of the imagination. it seems that all of us confabulate at times...

perfectly healthy individuals make up stories at the slightest suggestion that they do so. An experiment at Lund University exemplifies this point:

People were shown pairs of cards with pictures of faces on them and asked to choose the most attractive. Unbeknown to the subject, the person showing the cards was a magician and routinely swapped the chosen card for the rejected one. The subject was then asked why they picked this face. Often the swap went completely unnoticed, and the subjects came up with elaborate explanations about hair colour, the look of the eyes or the assumed personality of the substituted face. Clearly people routinely confabulate under conditions where they cannot know why they made a particular choice. (Phillips 2006)

In other words, as William Hirstein says, confabulation is not just a deficit of memory. It is something anybody might do, even people with perfectly fine memories and healthy brains. We know that children and many adults confabulate when encouraged to talk about things of which they have no knowledge. We know that eyewitnesses can be influenced by suggestive inquiries to confabulate.

If we find evidence like a photograph that contradicts what a witness is telling us as we apparently have in this case with a reflection in the photo that appears to contradict witness testimony, while lying or hoaxing could be one possible explanation, there are other possible explanations that should not be overlooked.

We are all capable of confabulating memories which SEEM TRUE TO US, "even people with perfectly fine memories and healthy brains."

I make this point for two reasons.

First, it seems that some people in this thread do not seem to be aware of the confabulation capability we ALL have. If we aren't in perfect health, our capacity for doing this may increase, however even if we are in perfect health, we are all still capable of it.

Second, it's important to be aware of human factors when weighing evidence like photographs versus eyewitness testimony on ANY case, including this one. And as several people have said, the photographic evidence ALWAYS trumps witness testimony.

But please don't automatically assume the witness is lying when this happens, as that is certainly not always the case. The witness may be relating what they believe to be a true memory to the best of their ability, and this doesn't mean anything is wrong with the witness since perfectly healthy people can have false memories as the Lund University study demonstrates.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Seriously, has no-one here misremembered? Has no-one ever gone back through the images on their camera or phone, been puzzled at the timeline, tried to line them up with what you *thought* happened? Did the images help you to 'remember'? But are you *sure* you were remembering, or is your brain just telling you that... The human brain is brilliant at correlating, tying up loose ends, making things match up. It's how it works, how it files stuff away.

Making an error, or having a false memory, doesn't mean you are a liar, or an untrustworthy witness. If anyone here thinks that *they* don't have false memories - you're kidding yourself.

Good point. Scientific research backs this up...we are all apparently capable of "confabulating"...

Confabulation:

A confabulation is a fantasy that has unconsciously emerged as a factual account in memory. A confabulation may be based partly on fact or be a complete construction of the imagination. it seems that all of us confabulate at times...

perfectly healthy individuals make up stories at the slightest suggestion that they do so. An experiment at Lund University exemplifies this point:

People were shown pairs of cards with pictures of faces on them and asked to choose the most attractive. Unbeknown to the subject, the person showing the cards was a magician and routinely swapped the chosen card for the rejected one. The subject was then asked why they picked this face. Often the swap went completely unnoticed, and the subjects came up with elaborate explanations about hair colour, the look of the eyes or the assumed personality of the substituted face. Clearly people routinely confabulate under conditions where they cannot know why they made a particular choice. (Phillips 2006)

In other words, as William Hirstein says, confabulation is not just a deficit of memory. It is something anybody might do, even people with perfectly fine memories and healthy brains. We know that children and many adults confabulate when encouraged to talk about things of which they have no knowledge. We know that eyewitnesses can be influenced by suggestive inquiries to confabulate.

If we find evidence like a photograph that contradicts what a witness is telling us as we apparently have in this case with a reflection in the photo that appears to contradict witness testimony, while lying or hoaxing could be one possible explanation, there are other possible explanations that should not be overlooked.

We are all capable of confabulating memories which SEEM TRUE TO US, "even people with perfectly fine memories and healthy brains."

I make this point for two reasons.

First, it seems that some people in this thread do not seem to be aware of the confabulation capability we ALL have. If we aren't in perfect health, our capacity for doing this may increase, however even if we are in perfect health, we are all still capable of it.

Second, it's important to be aware of human factors when weighing evidence like photographs versus eyewitness testimony on ANY case, including this one. And as several people have said, the photographic evidence ALWAYS trumps witness testimony.

But please don't automatically assume the witness is lying when this happens, as that is certainly not always the case. The witness may be relating what they believe to be a true memory to the best of their ability, and this doesn't mean anything is wrong with the witness since perfectly healthy people can have false memories as the Lund University study demonstrates.

Thanks, Arbitrageur. Forgive me for repeating you (and requoting myself!), but I think this is a VERY important topic that rarely gets discussed here. I find it quite remarkable that people can blandly say they never get stuff wrong or misremember, and that if you do, you are either a liar or hoaxer.

I can attest to at least a half a dozen occasions when I've misidentified something initially, or have a memory of something that doesn't exist or events that are obviously out of sequence. And those are just the ones that I can identify... I'm sure there are plenty more.

Forgive me repeating this lame example, but as I've said before I recently glimpsed an 'aircraft' for a couple of seconds through a clear patch between trees as I was driving along, and then was astonished several seconds later when the view became clear - and it had vanished.

For a few moments I was panicked and seriously looking for the crash landing/debris... until I saw the bird (a light colored crane or something, I'm no ornithologist..!) that was on a path that meant I had obviously seen IT, not the 737 that my brain had taken in. Same color-ish, must have had roughly the same profile for those 2 seconds, and I had looked right at it and absolutely positively identified it as an aircraft at a few kilometres distance, rather than a gliding bird at about 150m.

It was a bright sunny day, I looked straight at it in a clear sky, I live near to a couple of airports, and regard myself as VERY observant - it's a hobby of mine to quickly identify aircraft flying by. And in this case my eyes didn't screw up - but my BRAIN sure did.

Is the difference between me, and those who say this sort of thing never happens to them, that I am a much poorer observer? Or could there be a different explanation?

Seriously, if you think everything in your head is real and accurate, then... you are delusional.

And yes, the humor/contradiction/circular argument in that last sentence was quite deliberate!

Originally posted by Light soul
reply to post by pwrthtbe

 

Looks like dust on the lens...

I would think that the local news reporting the story would have examined both her cell phone and that possibility very closely before bringing the woman's story to the public. Easy to prove since the chunk of dirt should be on every photo she took that day. Hello?

Clearly you did not see the second clip of a similar ship sighted in the vicinity years earlier.
It is taking some of you a while to catch up but I am thinking there is some item or place of interest in the Sydney area for these particular spherical shaped craft to be tied to or have a vested interest in. I am guessing they (yes the aliens piloting the craft) either want something from that area, they live in the area themselves or know others that do.

If you turn the globe over, there is a southern region Antarctica and the surrounding water that sees very little in the way of human in habitation.
I am curious... if we took the bottom quarter of the planet what the population will be for these most remotest areas of the globe. A few thousand people?

This is a lot of space for otherworldly beings in climate controlled environments or "pods" to inhabit under the ocean, in and around Antarctica and go completely unnoticed...except for the comings and goings.