UFO in Sydney Australia

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 13…..

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


CONCLUSION:

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.

P42: keepureye2thesky

Exactly.




I will say it now and I will say it proud.

Fiona Lied

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.

CONCLUSION:

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 bright light.

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 photo.

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.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6d1eea5be336.jpg[/atsimg]

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”:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/202cc884e575.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/916ffdc48dc0.jpg[/atsimg]

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 photo.

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 100% match.


CONCLUSION:

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.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9d3e8389c6ad.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1a8057f7c3bd.jpg[/atsimg]

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:

P6: Chadwickus

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.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b59f671204c2.png[/atsimg]

 

Second image is again from my car but this time focusing on a sultana.
I used the same principals as above.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0d641964dfc0.png[/atsimg]

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:

P39: CHRLZ

Here's a rather crude preliminary look at the behaviour of objects stuck on a windscreen...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/090bfc1c3964.gif[/atsimg]

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.

CONCLUSION:

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 windscreen.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/352df8d68baf.jpg[/atsimg]


CONCLUSION:

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.

P40: wayaboveitall

About 1 foot = 12 inches long.

kookaburra on one

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aaea897d244c.jpg[/atsimg]

The “birds” are illuminated by the streetlight…..all the angles match up.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/61ef0fd47060.png[/atsimg]


CONCLUSION:

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 west.

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.


CONCLUSION:

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.

CONCLUSION:

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 quote.

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.

____________________________________________________

SUMMARY GRAPHIC:

The picture (below) sums up my conclusions as to the causes for that which we are seeing in the observer’s pictures:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6012d511ba08.jpg[/atsimg]

____________________________________________________


Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not


[edit on 4-24-2010 by Springer]

Super work Maybe...maybe not!

Thats all I wanted to say! (second line)

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Great Investigative Work MMN!

Though it pains me to say it... this UFO is well and truly

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/acb49b2dc99b.png[/atsimg]

It would have been great if this had turned out to be the real deal but the truth is more important than any of our wish lists.

Well done to all those members who took part in this investigation. It was truly awesome to watch evolve over the days. It makes me proud to be an ATS member.

Kudos All!

IRM

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not



Well, that about wraps it up then. I wanted to post again in this thread after the weekend but I found it bloated and much of what was good was buried in noise. The matching reflection pretty much ended the debate for me but thanks for the summary.

T.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


I would like to thank you, Chadwickus, Internos, CHRLZ, Phage and everyone else who contributed The collaborative work in this thread has been outstanding.

Yeah thanks for the summaries.
Thanks for the Memories ? It is all over?



What are you all trying to hide?

I wouldn't even ask but when there is this much instant defensive and concerned response to a few innocent additions I put here without giving it much intense thought, I have to wonder.
I was just trying to converse on the topic with others who - nutty as they may - be haven't closed the case yet.
You know, just to converse on the subject and now I find all manner of experts chiming in with their 2 cents and pulling out the drawing boards and refractors...Here are the black helicopters swooping down to close the case.
Do you want to shine a pen light into my eyes to complete this obvious attempt at brainwashing?

Like I said. If you were quiet I'd have moved on. I was only casually interested. Seeing some similarities in this and another event while searching for this event and finding this area has been a hot spot for UFO activity in the past was the only reason I posted at all.

Now I am certain you or someone here is trying very concertedly to hide something.

WHY?

I don't expect an answer.
I will wonder on my own.





[edit on 31-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

Do you want to shine a pen light into my eyes to complete this obvious attempt at brainwashing?

Now I am certain you or someone here is trying very concertedly to hide something.

WHY?

I don't expect an answer.
I will wonder on my own.
[edit on 31-3-2010 by rusethorcain]

I prefer the old 'dark room and a very bright lamp across the table' method myself,
I can't speak for the others though, every MIB his/her own teckniques.
But 'Ve Vill silence you!' You can be sure of this Ja!

'Wondering on your own' and/or making your own conclusion is the whole idea.

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

I would like to thank you, Chadwickus, Internos, CHRLZ, Phage and everyone else who contributed

The collaborative work in this thread has been outstanding.......

*voice from Off Camera* " Take your 'Oscar' and get off the stage already!............(but thank your parents 'who made it all possible' first! ...oh and your manager)

Maybe

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.

You crack me up mate

Best Thread Ive seen in a while, Great Post, nice work!







[edit on 31-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

Once again like countless many times my hat goes off to phage, whom basically solved this case on page 1...
well done mate....

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Well done my friend. You have done an amazing job and did a great service
to this website. I believe there is something out there somewhere, and the
search will continue daily.

Your analysis and breakdown of the report should a thread all it's own, where
others can learn how to properly investigate and breakdown the elements. and
to understand optics, flares, reflections and basic photo analysis.

Thanks to all that have contributed to this thread. You are the best!

Keep Your Eye To The Sky
~WEEN~

Originally posted by Phage
It's dirt on the windscreen.

G'day Phage

Quote from you on P1:

"It's dirt on the windscreen"

You nailed it right there!

I should have acknowledged you in my summary report.

However, I can't edit the post.....I lose a whole of text if I try to add even a few words.

So.....put out your hand & you can have a "koala stamp"!

.....that's what I used to get at school on those rare days when I was behaving myself!

.....on second thoughts in view of the subject matter, perhaps that should be a "kookaburra stamp"

Cheers mate
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Originally posted by spender
Once again like countless many times my hat goes off to phage, whom basically solved this case on page 1...
well done mate....

I also tip my hat to Phage who is right about 99.99% of the time. Unfortunately the example you cited on page 1 is the 0.01% where he was wrong, and he admitted it. Maybe...maybe not is the guy who wrote the excellent explanation a few posts up. I appreciate the contribution Phage and many others made to this thread but if you have to single out one person I would have thought it would be Maybe...maybe not.

Thanks again for the great detective work MMN!

Just to mix things up a bit, I would like to point that this (or any other) case is not close, they never are and they cannot be, unless more data becomes available.

What we have is only strong possibilities for explaining what the photos show.

Then, we still have the witness account, so we may think that the photos show what the witness saw or they show something else or not all of what the witness saw.

So, while we may think that the photos show some dirt on a windshield or one or more extraterrestrial crafts, or that Fiona told the truth or lied, those are just possibilities, the truth may be in one of those possibilities or it may be something else that nobody even thought about.

That's why I never think of any case as closed.

reply to post by ArMaP

I'm really stretching to think of any alternative explanation for the reflection in the photo and can't, so I'm pretty close to 100% certain about that. Maybe 99.99%?

But otherwise, I agree with you, the other objects I would call high probability but not 100% certain and not case closed.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Thx for all you effort MMN

Fun thread, even though at times it made me twitch..and I really appreciate fiona joining the thread, i just wish she wasn't attacked so much. She saw what she saw.

NO more strange photos in my home town pls, its distracting!

*reclines back on deck chair and goes back to her book.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by zazzafrazz]

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


I dont like to be called a LIER, MMN
to all of you who are to afraid to post you comments here and dont want to U2U me on this site, i thank you for your suport
i have recived all your emaile sent to my hotmail account
i understand now what most of you were talking about, I have had seven seperate members of ATS email me so TWOPICH dont think were on our own its just they dont want to put them selfs in the MMN or wayaboveital firing line
there are other members that are afraid if they debate with MMN and the conclusion he has made they will not be heard in future debates/forums as they have all stated in there emails
thus those no longer leaving coments
i would like the photos that i have given to this site handed back or distroyed as i now am obtaining a Copy Right on all five photos,
AND as for the so called Great field work done by MMN
I dont now any investagaters that goes to collect evidence at the site
and then leaves it in the witnesses car THATS a JOKE of an investagater if you ask me,LOL what and now he wants a pat on the back for work well done,
I have Given Natational Geographic (GIVEN not SOLD) the five photos to do with what they wont
AS for the Photos the dailey telegraph did indeed look over them befor publishing them (Brad Newman)
the conversation with MMN at the site in regards to the man from the USA
i will state once again that it was never said that he was from area 51 it was said QUOTE "that he was from Navarda" and in conversation I said isnt that were that area 51 is, as i have never been to america and simply ask a question,
and as for the "Blob you call it" it was moving in the sky,Not on my windshild as MMN states it was
The photos if they were all taken from inside my car y has only one shown reflection and not the rest, the reflection is what some of you say was the give away that MMN thas made hes conclusion on
(if only one was taken inside the car then were does that leave the "Blob"for the other four photos (YES STILL IN THE SKY WERE I SAID IT WAS)
I hade an interview yesterday with a man called James Novak a reporter from navarda ( I better state that he was not from area 51 in case people want to make something of it ) who flu to sydney to do a story (for free) i gave him all the evidence that i have given to ATS.
thats all i want to say thanks

reply to post by missfee


Good morning Miss Fee,

I just want to let you know that I think that Maybe...maybe not didn't call you a liar. That was a comment from keepureye2thesky on p42. I think that Maybe...maybe not is a pretty polite kind of guy, rare in this day and age.

I'm sorry you feel this way about what has transpired here in this forum. You must have known that your photos would be under scrutiny, yes?

- Hermit

Hello Miss Hartigan
I am hoping you are at least lurking on ATS, despite you saying that you and twophish were leaving you still have interest in this case (and quite rightly).

Having looked through this thread. I was wondering if you could answer me a couple of direct questions about your incident?

1. Why were the 5 photographs on your facebook cropped from the originals submitted to the media?
2. On the sydney today morning show (link available at youtube) why didnt the media ask you about the reflections?
3. You've mentioned the reflections only appearing in 1 of the 5 photographs, yet it obviously appears in more than 1 of the 5 submitted. Looking back on the posted images of page 12 Can't you see the reflections in the other photographs?
Page 12
I can see reflections in photographs 1,3,4 & 5.

I dont think it appears in photo #2 because it has been cropped or is too close to the 'circled blob' which has been identified.

If you would like I could download them and point the reflections out to you?

You will note that I haven't once referred to you as a liar or hoaxer, I'm simply asking direct questions about the photographs and event.

I think in this case given the evidence submitted, you've been mistaken for thinking you saw something, or even if you did see something in the sky, the evidence (5 photographs) dont show it. Again its not that I am calling you a liar, its that the 5 photographs might not be an accurate representation of what you experienced.

Please take your time to respond. (I'm hoping you will).
Kindest regards


[edit on 31-3-2010 by Superiorraw] - edited for spelling. Edited to add a link.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Superiorraw]

Originally posted by missfee
in regards to the man from the USA
i will state once again that it was never said that he was from area 51 it was said QUOTE "that he was from Navarda"

Hi missfee,

Thanks for dropping in to give us an update, that was nice of you to give them to NatGeo, I'll be curious to see what they do with them.

I'm just curious, do you have anything to share with us about the investigator from Nevada USA who visited you? For example, did he give you any feedback, or is he planning to write up any article, or maybe include your sighting in a book or something?

If he's going to write up an article or something, I'd be interested in reading it, is why I ask.

Thanks again.

Originally posted by missfee
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

I dont like to be called a LIER, MMN

Hello Fiona

I didn't call you a liar.

That was part of a quote from another member that was inserted in my report.

I've tried to edit it out.

However, I can't edit it out because when I try to, I lose half of the post.....I don't know why.

I suspect it might be because the post is so extensive.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Good thread all in all .Maybe...maybe not, Internos, CHRLZ, Phage and ArMaP Thanks for the good work and missfee Thank you for the for the entertainment for without you this thread would not exist. I agree with MMN In full on his conclusion.