SYDNEY UFO - CONCLUSIONS
As per many requests, here are my conclusions, inclusive of additional information & commentary.
1. TIME DELAY BETWEEN PHOTO’S:
The time delays between the photos are problematic.
Across 5 photos, the time delays are as follows (from the EXIF data):
- Date: March 21, 2010 7:18:37PM
- Date: March 21, 2010 7:18:41PM (i.e. 4 sec delay)
- Date: March 21, 2010 7:18:52PM (i.e. 11 sec delay)
- Date: March 21, 2010 7:19:05PM (i.e. 13 sec delay)
- Total elapsed time = 28 sec
Take a photo…..then count slowly to 4…..then take another photo…..then count slowly to 11…..then take another photo…..then count slowly to
The time delays between the photos seem incongruous with the witness’ report stating that events occurred very quickly & therefore the photos were
taken very quickly
The delays between the photo’s are highly problematic in the context of the rapid occurrence of the event.
2. PT CRUISER WINDSCREEN REFLECTION COMPARISON PICTURES
As per the work posted by keepureye2thesky:
The comparative photos of reflections in the windscreen are of the witness’ PT Cruiser & an extremely similar (if not identical) PT Cruiser are an
almost perfect match.
I will say it now and I will say it proud.
She took at least one picture in her car. The proof is in the cruiser.
With that, the rest of her story crumbles and falls apart.
The witness’ photos have been taken through the windscreen, from inside the witness’ car.
3. THE BRIGHT ILLUMINATED “OBJECT”:
The witness described to me in detail that the bright light was not a streetlight & the 2 circular objects were flying towards & “went into” that
I spent a great deal of time matching up this photo with the landscape, with the witness standing beside me confirming her position when taking the
The streetlight is an extremely strong “position” match with the bright light in the photo.
The illumination patterns on the trees & the ground & the extremely strong similarity with the “flare” patterns of the other streetlights are also
a very strong “streetlight” match.
The “streetlight” argument is further validated by these daylight pictures I took through the windscreen of my car that shows the streetlight is
clearly above the upper “tree line”:
I confirm very small changes in position "forward" or "backwards" along the road caused very significant changes in the angle of the streetlight
from the camera.
This was exacerbated by the very wide field of view of the iPhone camera & the height of the streetlight.
I pointed this out to the witness at length & ensured I lined up with the exact "black tree" that she stated she was aligned with when she took the
That put the streetlight in exactly the same position in frame on the iPhone camera, as per the "bright light" in the witness' photo.....it is a
The “bright light” “seen” by the witness is the “bright light” in the top right corner of the photo, which is the streetlight as
indentified during my site visit with the witness.
4. THE LARGE BROWN “OBJECT”:
This is an extremely close match for “dirt” on the windscreen of the car.
The object appears not to be in focus, whilst the other objects further from the camera are clearly in focus, which is consistent with the object
being very close to the lens of the camera.
The object has a very organic, non-structured appearance, with “bud-like / protuberance-like” like structures that indicate it could have been a
soft object that impacted with the windscreen at speed & then spread out due to the force of the impact.
I did a simulation using a round object stuck to the outside of my windscreen as per Chadwickus.
I confirmed that extremely small camera movements made very significant changes to the apparent shape, size & position of the “object”.
Unfortunately I appear to have over-written my simulated UFO, so I can’t post the pic’s.
Here is Chadwickus's original post including his pictures:
First pair of images is from inside my car focusing on a stone chip.
Looking at the two images it would seem as if the chip has moved and changed shape slightly yet the camera has remained mostly stationary.
I in fact moved it less than 2 inches across.
Second image is again from my car but this time focusing on a sultana.
I used the same principals as above.
So as Phage described it doesn't take a whole lot of movement of the camera for an object really close to move a long way.
I also note the similar demonstration posted by CHRLZ:
Here's a rather crude preliminary look at the behaviour of objects stuck on a windscreen...
It is VERY clear that the background scene is almost completely unchanged, yet by very small movements of the camera I could place the stone chips and
sticky-taped paper all over the place, wherever I wanted.
It is also very clear the blurring effect of the objects looks rather similar (but exaggerated by the larger sensor size on my camera) to the images
being discussed. If I had used a small round object as I first intended, the match would be much closer.
Finally, I would re-iterate that the blurring of the object/s in the original pics is evenly distributed around the object. It is NOT motion blur.
Motion blur looks quite different. Therefore, either the object looks like that or it is close to the lens and out of focus. And you'll notice a
few 'orbs' and streaks - the windscreen was pretty dirty and I decided to leave it like that.
The “large brown object” in the centre of the photo is debris on the windscreen of the witness’ car.
5. THE SMALL BROWN “OBJECT”:
This appears to be a small, amorphous “blob” that has no organised structure or technical appearance, thereby resembling debris on the
The “small brown object” is debris on the windscreen of the witness’ car.
6. THE 2 “ORBS”:
These are a strong match for birds in appearance & the 4 second time gap between the pictures allows enough time for the birds to enter & exit the
field of view of the camera.
A pair of kookaburras could be the type of bird in question, in view of their size, shape, colouring & attraction to streetlight posts, as per the
post by wayaboveitall.
About 1 foot = 12 inches long.
kookaburra on one
The “birds” are illuminated by the streetlight…..all the angles match up.
The 2 “orbs” are a pair of birds.
7. GPS DATA:
The accuracy of the GPS / A-GPS data has been noted as problematic & of questionable value.
We focused on the GPS position & altitude data.....the results are very interesting.
The witness stated to me that she took the photos whilst leaning against the front of her car facing forwards.....i.e. she was stationary & facing
The GPS data attached to photos 2 & 3 (remember that photo 1 did not include GPS data) indicated the following movement of the iPhone between photo's
2 & 3:
- There was movement to the east
- The distance traversed was 184.8 feet (56.33 meters)
- The time taken to traverse the 184.8 feet (56.33 meters) was 11 seconds
- The altitude increased by 29.5 feet (8.99 meters)
Internos constructed an animation showing what could have happened according to the GPS data from images #2 and #3.
He set the frame rate to one second, but the actual frame rate would be an interval of 11 seconds.
The GPS data is problematic & should not be taken as hard-validated evidence of the witness’ movements.
However it can be considered & discussed in light of all the other information & data that is available.
8. THE VALIDATION OF THE PHOTO’S BY THE SYDNEY OBSERVATORY:
I have been forwarded an e-mail sourced from the Sydney Observatory stating the claim they have "verified the photo as being genuine & not tampered
with" is “not true”:
Extract from e-mail from Sydney Observatory:
The claim that I or Sydney Observatory "verified the photo as being genuine and not tampered with" is NOT true.
I have seen copies of the photos but I have neither the skills nor the equipment to determine whether or not they have been tampered with.
I can only consider the photos as I see them.
I can NOT confirm how the photo was taken. Fiona Hartigan told me she was sitting on the car when the photos were taken.
The photos taken by the witness have not been validated by the Sydney Observatory..
9. BILL CHALKER'S RESPONSE TO THE CASE:
The witness stated in 1 of the media interviews that "Australia's top UFO expert said this is real".....this is my paraphrasing, not a direct
I will assume we are referring to Bill Chalker because there was a great deal of reference to his site visit.
When I asked the witness if Bill Chalker thought the "bright light" was a streetlight, the witness stated Bill's response was that he didn't know.
The witness also confirmed several times that Bill directed her to ATS because of the "problem solving ability" (my paraphrasing again) of ATS.
10. THE VISIT ON MONDAY 29 MAR 2010 BY THE EXPERT FROM AMERICA:
I spoke with the witness about that.
The witness stated the American expert had called her & stated he was from an area in the USA the witness related to "Area 51".
That is not to say the witness stated the “visiting expert” is from “Area 51”.
As of writing on Wednesday evening 31 Mar 2010, no report has been forthcoming regarding the abovementioned visit.
The picture (below) sums up my conclusions as to the causes for that which we are seeing in the observer’s pictures:
[edit on 4-24-2010 by Springer]