UFO in Sydney Australia

Originally posted by rusethorcain

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.

It doesn't work that way. It's hard to discern the difference between news and tabloids anymore. These days it's all about sensationalism and sound bytes. If the UFO theory was dispelled before it was aired, there would not be a story... no filler on a slow news night.

If in doubt you can always refer to that good old saying. "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story".

IRM

Originally posted by CHRLZ

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...

"Nuance"

Not a freudian slip. A spell-check slip

Ya done now?

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by rusethorcain

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.

It doesn't work that way. It's hard to discern the difference between news and tabloids anymore. These days it's all about sensationalism and sound bytes. If the UFO theory was dispelled before it was aired, there would not be a story... no filler on a slow news night.

If in doubt you can always refer to that good old saying. "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story".

IRM

And by this criteria nothing is true.

reply to post by rusethorcain


All I'm saying is hard hitting reporting and research is dead. News is quickly turning into entertainment.

IRM

rusethorcain

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.

You have to be kidding me! Jounalism is renowned for sensationalism. Why would they ruin a great story.

Originally posted by Light soul
reply to post by pwrthtbe


Looks like dust on the lens...

The witness stated the camera lense was clean, specifically.

Easy to prove since the chunk of dirt should be on every photo she took that day. Hello?

No, not nessesarily. Unless the 'chunk of dirt' was on the lense, or it was on the windscreen as suggested
and every photo taken that day happened to be from inside the car.

Not to mention this isnt supposing she dropped the phone when she got out of the car as she claimed, she was on the soft shoulder.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

reply to post by wayaboveitall


Yes, but none of this is true. They didn't sensationalize it, they down played it, the lens was clean and every picture she took was not only inside the car but outside the car, and not through the same spot that might have been dirty in the windshield.

Sometimes a flying saucer is just a flying saucer.



[edit on 30-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by wayaboveitall

 

Yes, but none of this is true. They didn't sensationalize it, they down played it, the lens was clean and every picture she took was not only inside the car but outside the car, and not through the same spot that might have been dirty in the windshield.

Sometimes a flying saucer is just a flying saucer.



[edit on 30-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

Other than a photo of her child she mentions and the 5 ufo shots you dont know what pictures she might have taken that day or what they were like.
If you think the 'blob' was in the sky, you need to be able to show that was case.
Unless an optical expert can scientifically demonstrate its at a certain distance from the camera, proximity blur remains a valid suggestion.

reply to post by wayaboveitall


Seems to be a rash of "blobs" caught on film over the same area over the years. Hard to brush them all away with the same pen stroke or pat explanation, (which was what again? dirt you say?) when one instance seems to actually substantiate and lend credence to the others.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by wayaboveitall

 

Seems to be a rash of "blobs" caught on film over the same area over the years. Hard to brush them all away with the same pen stroke or pat explanation, (which was what again? dirt you say?) when one instance seems to actually substantiate and lend credence to the others.

We are not discussing 'a rash of "blobs" caught on film over the same area over the years', we are discussing this one.
In this one, it fits the evidence im afraid, I make no comment about your 'rash' of blobs, They are irrelevant unless they show the exact same thing.

one instance seems to actually substantiate and lend credence to the others.

How so?



[edit on 30-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

Going to point, is the oject a UFO or a damn rock?

reply to post by wayaboveitall


I guess you didn't watch the second (or either) video. Or googled UFO in Sydney and come across more than one prior account claiming a similar type "spherical" as opposed to flat, triangle or cigar shaped ship.

That's what I'm talking about.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by wayaboveitall

 

I guess you didn't watch the second (or either) video. Or googled UFO in Sydney and come across more than one prior account claiming a similar type "spherical" as opposed to flat, triangle or cigar shaped ship.

That's what I'm talking about.

I for one am not going to waste my bandwidth on lame, probably long debunked videos showing 'things' that don't actually look the same anyway. If you wish to contribute something useful to the thread, POST STILLS from those videos that show the corroborating evidence.

Folks here have gone out of their way to visit the location, take stills, demonstrate concepts, explain optical effects, research possibilities. Then you wander in at the end, handwaving and posting youtube links without supporting evidence.

(By the way, I see this happen a lot - is it just coincidence? Is it possible that the posters who do this simply wait until the momentum of the thread has died, and then post a series of reports knowing that they will be largely unchallenged? It's a conspiracy, I tells ya..)

If you do the hard yards and actually SHOW, using your own words, how there is a 'rash' of matching objects, then I'll humbly apologise.

By the way, while you are at it, do tell us how you determined that this object (and the others that allegedly match) was *spherical*, from 2d imagery?

Originally posted by missfee
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

Thanks for coming to ATS and for giving us all the evidence you had and participating in the tests made by Maybe...maybe not, nothing more can be asked from you.

Too bad you don't want to keep* contributing, but I hope you keep on reading.

(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

You have to remember that you have much more data about this than us, you were there and saw the whole scene, we are limited to the five photos you kindly provided, so we miss lots of data that you have, even if you don't think of that as data related to this.

I will put it that there is NO easy way out of the truth

That's right, the problem is that nobody can be certain of what the truth is.

Thanks for your presence, and good luck.

*Edited to change "stop" to "keep". Thanks to Arbitrageur for spotting my mistake.

[edit on 30/3/2010 by ArMaP]

this thread has moved into in-post bickering between certain members. We've gone on for approximately 50 or so pages and people have gone out of their way to explain the photographs.

I suggest that people go back and re-read everything if they have any doubts or positive evidence regarding the case. Any supporting documents to back up the explanation for the reflection in the photographs or their theory on the evidence given.
Then I'll gladly read it and reconsider my stance on the case but until then please please can people stop quoting others and getting into petty arguments.

Replying to that one individual and proving they've made a typing error doesn't help this case it just gives anyone new coming into it more pages to read through that are irrelevant.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by Superiorraw]

This should have been a great UFO thread, like others I have read in the past, and complimented. But now its just a mess with nothing but silly bickering, and ramblings about evidence that has been proven already by the few members here who have taken the time to investigate this incident correctly.
Its appalling to say the least. I vote that the admins finish up this thread once and for all.

thats a great photograph of someone throwing an aussie rules football across the street.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by wayaboveitall

 

I guess you didn't watch the second (or either) video. Or googled UFO in Sydney and come across more than one prior account claiming a similar type "spherical" as opposed to flat, triangle or cigar shaped ship.

That's what I'm talking about.

Yes I did a breif look , spheres might be relevant to the video, but what has been called 'orbs', the two shapes near the orange light, have been suggested to be birds or bats flying close by a streetlight.

The witness refers to the blob in the photo being the 'main ufo' , this has been suggested as being something close to the camera.

The 'bright orange light' the witness specifically refers to the photo, has been proven a streetlight.

Make of that, your own conclusion.

P.S people please allow the thread to continue if people will, provided it stays within forum regulations, nobody has used bad language or anything.
New posters are still reading and contributing, despite the early conclusions already made, because the thread interest them. They deserve to add their thoughts if they wish, again, within forum rules.
Unless there is indeed a limit on bandwidth per thread?

Its a good thread, I dont think anyone has been moderated for anything ,
and it must be considered an interesting thread with 50 plus pages and 1000 plus post. Its generating advertising and contributing for its bandwidth everytime somebody clicks on adverts, and the more people looking at a thread, the more chance of clicks. ( I think)

[edit on 30-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by wayaboveitall

 

I guess you didn't watch the second (or either) video. Or googled UFO in Sydney and come across more than one prior account claiming a similar type "spherical" as opposed to flat, triangle or cigar shaped ship.

That's what I'm talking about.

I for one am not going to waste my bandwidth on lame, probably long debunked videos showing 'things' that don't actually look the same anyway. If you wish to contribute something useful to the thread, POST STILLS from those videos that show the corroborating evidence.

Folks here have gone out of their way to visit the location, take stills, demonstrate concepts, explain optical effects, research possibilities. Then you wander in at the end, handwaving and posting youtube links without supporting evidence.

(By the way, I see this happen a lot - is it just coincidence? Is it possible that the posters who do this simply wait until the momentum of the thread has died, and then post a series of reports knowing that they will be largely unchallenged? It's a conspiracy, I tells ya..)

If you do the hard yards and actually SHOW, using your own words, how there is a 'rash' of matching objects, then I'll humbly apologise.

By the way, while you are at it, do tell us how you determined that this object (and the others that allegedly match) was *spherical*, from 2d imagery?

Well, well, well, if you are so tired of this thread why do you hang around here wasting bandwidth?

I have not been waiting for the momentum to go down - if there ever was momentum here I guess I missed it.
Too bad I missed it since I'm sure you were "bringing it"

And I certainly don't expect anything I say to remain unchallenged.

But then I don't expect you to be able to prove your position (whatever that is) no matter how many trips you take down to the field researching the possibilities or studying the optical effects.
Looking for this story I came across a few others dealing with spherical craft that were so similar I had to check the dates to see if I had the right story. Anyone curious enough can find the same things.
Your apology is tempting but I just finished work and really don't feel like appeasing one more whiner.
I post the other story because it is an extremely credible case, with many witnesses, involving a similar ship, in the same approximate location, years apart.
Sorry if this is an insult to your "research"

I wasn't offering it there for people who don't believe the credibility of this report.
I posted it for those who consider this report plausible enough to make a comparison between this and other similar shaped ships.

I only hope they know pictures are 2D and objects are 3D and can make the subsequent extrapolations accordingly.

Originally posted by rusethorcain
Well, well, well, if you are so tired of this thread why do you hang around here wasting bandwidth?

Because (as you might have noted if you had actually read the thread), I have been quite involved in discussions and analysis of various aspects - right now, I'm waiting (probably forlornly) to see if Zazz still got to meet with missfee to see if we can get further information about some unresolved aspects.

Too bad I missed it since I'm sure you were "bringing it"

If you click on the Thread button beneath one of my posts, you can go back and see what I 'brought' - judge for yourself. Is there anything specific you wish to sensibly discuss or dispute? Do you know the aperture shape of an iphone? Have you seen the dashboard reflections from inside a 2001 PT Cruiser? Anything, other than youtube links?

And I certainly don't expect anything I say to remain unchallenged.

That's commendable. If it's wrong or irrelevant, it will be.

But then I don't expect you to be able to prove your position (whatever that is) no matter how many trips you take down to the field researching the possibilities or studying the optical effects.

You're not from a scientific background? The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. One of the most important roles of science is to DISprove claims, identify flaws, etc. That way, only the real stuff manages to progress and become accepted.

In the vernacular, that process is called deBUNKing. Now some folks like BUNK, but others (like me) don't. I do love a good mystery, though.

Looking for this story I came across a few others dealing with spherical craft that were so similar I had to check the dates to see if I had the right story.

And that one you posted was the best example??? Am I looking at the wrong one? Is it not referring to shiny metallic spherical things with lights beneath? Isn't this thread about a brownish blurry thing, and perhaps an orangey streetlamp/ufo??

Sorry, I couldn't find a link to another brownish blurry object for this region - call me incompetent - so do post the links and references to the 'others' you referred to.

Your apology is tempting but I just finished work and really don't feel like appeasing one more whiner.

Yes, I FULLY understand. And the ad hominem is noted.

I post the other story because it is an extremely credible case, with many witnesses, involving a similar ship, in the same approximate location, years apart.

Credible?
- Not a single photo or video footage, from ~1995-6... nothing but word-of-mouth reports, many of which were collected *after* the initial report.
Similar?
- Metallic and shiny sphere, lights at the bottom vs brown, dull and blurry.
Same approximate location?
- homorously, the video comments state Melbourne, 2006, but the report is actually from near Gosford, which is well north of Sydney, and dates back to 1995-6.

Sorry if this is an insult to your "research"

No need to apologise, but in that spirit - Sorry if my research seems to contradict yours.

Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting story and I might look into it further. But frankly it appears to have very little in common with this thread, other than being a UFO from Australia. It's 15 years old, and despite (wild?) claims of hundreds if not thousands of witnesses - many of them claiming it was around for a while - there's not a single photo or video... Do you see why I might have some doubts?

I wasn't offering it there for people who don't believe the credibility of this report.

This is a public forum. So yes, you were.

I only hope they know pictures are 2D and objects are 3D and can make the subsequent extrapolations accordingly.

The fact that the 'main ufo' behaves just like a flat, 2D smudge was dealt with earlier in the thread - do you have some sort of rebuttal to that, or just a smiley face?

Originally posted by randomname
thats a great photograph of someone throwing an aussie rules football across the street.

While I agree that the colour, shape and size all look about right - there is a problem with the blur. A moving football would show significant motion blur - streaky and linear/directional. It actually shows out-of-focus blur - evenly distributed and non streaky. If you like, I can post a photoshopped version showing what I mean..

There is also the problem of multiple images taken on a camera that has slow shot-to-shot times. That means she would have had to wait for quite a few kicks.. , and the background would have changed more than it does.

Also, the iphone is very likely slow to respond to the shutter release, so catching it in the right position would be quite a challenge, even to someone used to the camera.