It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UFO in Sydney Australia

page: 57
33
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


LOL. Forget about the "Earth is round" analogy. Not worth trying to re-explain. (Misunderstood...........again! Oh well).

I am the only one it seems (and perhaps you too if I am understanding your position) who is allowing for a middle ground.

Because those aboard the "lamp-post" wagon are also aboard the 'smudge-on-the-glass' wagon too.
So that's what I mean there's no middle ground and that's fine. To each his own.
It's just not what I believe to have happened.

This woman does not come off like an opportunists who saw 'flukes' on her film and catapulted this into a sensational UFO event.
I am NOT buying it.

I am/always have (for the most part) and still will, allow; Fiona to have seen what she originally saw (not a friggin smudge on her window) and in her excitement MAY HAVE HAD 'thought' a second one was occurring simultaneously but in actuality, was simply a lamp post and some birds flying (hard to imagine that being the case but........who knows).

I said this tongue and cheek-ish before but, maybe Ms Fiona got abducted, had her brain de-scrabbled and put back on another portion of the road too and that would explain her not seeing the lamp post from the get-go.

Who knows!?!?
Maybe the aliens were exhibiting their version of an April fools trick on Fiona (seeing we don't share the same time-line of course) *smile

But what I think I do know is, she doesn't appear to have the capabilities, characteristics nor motives to hoax this entire event.
Like Billy Meiers, she's very unassuming.

Call me a sympathetic sap! On second thought, don't call me anything because it detracts from this original threads' intent.




posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Hey CHRLZ, after reading your reply I'm not sure you're fully understanding what I wrote, which is probably my fault since I used a lot of jargon.


Originally posted by CHRLZ
Radiosity? As for me, I'm simply saying it looks far more like a reflection than anything else, including lens flare.


Basically object radiosity is simply diffuse lighting, a kind of subsurface scatter. Put another way a surface that refracts light can be seen as the "projector" and the surface that stops that light is the "collector."

Meaning if we accept the idea that the object is on the windshield, then for there to be a reflection on the pane, the light source has to be bright enough to back-scatter off the dash or the material has to have a high specularity to cause reflection (though in this case the ray will travel at the same angle reflected through the object's normal not backwards).

So if the shot was taken from inside the vehicle (which I can now show isn't the case) we're almost definitely seeing a reflection of the hood or backscatter (not simply specular reflection since all the lighting is in the foreground).


I've already pointed out an image showing the interior vents with what appear to be circular sections that would point outwards. Combine that the flat silverish edges on the side of those vents, and there you have a half-hexagon-like shape. Add the dashboard panel itself, and you have the straighter oblique lines. That possible explanation seems to explain more of the anomaly than lens flare..


That was a reasonable guess at the onset of this case. However there was never enough detail in the light-blob (it's too homogeneous) to say yay or a nay without additional reference shots from Ms. Hartigan showing-off the car's interior. Also it fails to account for witness testimony.

The word "pareidolia" comes to mind.



A number of people are failing to notice the orbs that Ms. Hartigan described coming from the light source are in fact illuminated at the correct angle from the light source if they had been up in the air. Meaning they're very likely spherical objects adjacent to the light (not backlit).


Those objects are approximately 4-10 pixels wide, and given the jpeg compression and builtin sharpning, ascertaining the shape is pretty much impossible (courtesy of Mr. Nyquist).


So the jpeg compression artifacts are good enough to allow you to see "the interior vents with what appear to be circular sections that would point outwards" and "flat silverish edges on the side of those vents" along with the "dashboard panel itself," but not a well defined object with an edge and lighted contours?



The only way humans determine 3D shape from a 2D image is due to lighting / illumination / shadows and what that suggests about an objects geometry. For instance, looking at the example below, can we say which is 2D and which is 3D?



You can't unless you make certain assumptions about the scene. This is usually eyeballed based on how a specific light interacts with many different objects in the picture. It requires at a minimum two shots from two different angles to say with any real authority what characteristics an object has for a given side.

As it stands looking at C_0 it could be a cylinder, an over-exposed shot of a ball with a filter, C_1 could be a 2D picture of a faux 3D sphere, & there are other possibilities. Given 2 pictures we could say definitively whether C_1 is a hemisphere, but without a 3rd rear shot we still wouldn't know if it's a full 3D sphere.

Now imagine for a moment C_1 is in front of C_0 and that it's right edge laid a shadow on C_0. That shadow would have encoded information about the rear of C_1. So from that, assuming we know the geometry of C_0, we could then determine the full shape of C_1 using a single shot.



The reason this was held up as the correct interpretation, rather than say a lens flare or volumetric lighting, was primarily the lack of curvature.

This is only relevant if we know what is being reflected. It could be straight, and curved by the reflective surface or it could be curved, and reflected off a flat surface. Or any other combination.


There are a number of possibilities. If we assume there's a glass-pane (which, again, can be ruled out as explained towards the end of this post) then object reference for reflection / scatter, the curvature of the windshield, combined with the intensity and the dimensions of the light (e.g. coming in through sun roof / window / from overhead light) would ultimately determine the shape.

My contention is three-fold.

  1. The PT-cruiser's windshield has noticeable curvature. Any light reflecting off the window to the camera should pick up those deformations. Yet we see a near perfectly straight edge.



    Here's an example of the type of outward curvature we could expect to see:



  2. The vehicle is a highly reflective silver. Meaning if we're seeing any reflections (rather than backscatter) it's likely specularity bouncing off the hood into the lens. This would be especially true if she was sitting or leaning against the vehicle ("[I] was out of the car with my bottom leaning in the midd[le] of the bo[nne]t..." (1))



    While I originally considered that the illumination might be from the hood reflecting onto the windshield, I've since been able to rule that possibility out.

  3. Since we know there are two lens flares (we can even see the rays), then it's much more likely that what we're looking at is one of the rings, bloom (i.e. the "hex"), joined with one of the incident rays from the middle lamp.



    Hence my reason for discussing how lights blend together in a fully rendered scene.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Can you explain the relevance/usefulness of this equation? Are you planning to plug in some figures to make it mean something? As an example, how on earth is the color model important?


There were several reasons for mentioning the equation. One, it allows people to see all the variables being factored in to the lighting model. I think you'll agree if you don't understand the components then how can you have any idea what's going on?

Otherwise we're just left guessing as to whether or not we're looking at the dashboard. Not particularly scientific, eh?

Second, as explained originally, I wanted to show that when two lights interact information is composited and may be potentially lost in the process. Knowing O_d and O_s (the objects diffuse / specular color) in conjunction with color temperature's from the light sources helps to determine if there's more than one light at work, as illustrated below ...



This creates potential "errors" for I_λ in that it can exceed the maximum displayable pixel value.

Yes, clipping could be important, but.. ahem.. you can SEE clipping, and the reflections are definitely not clipped.. Again, relevance?


Any time you see a 255R,255G,255B white splotch in an image that's when information has capped. It's at that point you either have to apply a filter or shift wavelength to get useful human-visible color information.

So now, knowing the formula, people reading this thread can perhaps understand that since the intensity of the center-lamp (I_p1) is greater towards the middle of the photo than the lamp in the right corner (I_p2), the middle-lamp is necessarily going to take precedence.

Since you're having a hard time understanding how this is relevant to the fact that we're seeing several different light sources interacting here's a real world example, which should also nicely address your question:


As an example, how on earth is the color model important?






Clearly the lower intensity red light is overwhelmed by the higher intensity white light.

You don't "SEE" the clipping you "infer" or (given a reference shot, like above) "deduce" it.

Which was my point in the original post and why I said, "Likewise at a certain point you simply lose data when too much light is flooding the CCD or two light sources interact."

Coloration can help in picking two distinct lights apart and by understanding how this blending occurs can account for strange light geometry (e.g. imagine the two lights above were the same color).


I understand that you are merely offering a rough simulation, but it's worth noting that you can't possibly duplicate a *real* lens flare without a full ray-tracing of the entire scene, inc. camera/lens/lens elements in question, all in 3D.


Didn't I say this myself in the original post?



Below are several images that show the sequence going from a simple black background with a lens flare composited with a semi-transparent overlay of IMG_0432.JPG animated till the original image is completely opaque.


(a higher quality version w/o warped dimensions can be found here, and the original src material here).

That said, it's a good try, except... the lens flare isn't aligned with the centre of the image,


Just to be clear I'm talking about the light in the upper right corner, not the sun. See the starburst coming out of it?


That is, they are normally found along a line drawn through the light source and the exact geometrical centre of the image.


Lens flares track along the angle of the incidental ray reflected about the object normal inside the lens / barrel. There's no magic reason for it to prefer the the "exact geometrical centre of the image." The only reason the effect is more pronounced when the light is ortho- to the lens' apex is because more light is entering the lens.

It can travel any path, whether on the corner / edge,


(top src)

Or at a steep inclination / declination, where it's near tangential to the lens, increasing the odds of the flare occuring perpendicular to the light-source causing vertical,



Or horizontal streaks,







...and the vast majority of lens flares of that type are symmetrical.


This must be a batch of a rejects then, eh?





and you have only vaguely explained about half of one part of the anomaly...


I vaguely explained about half of one part? By the sounds of your objections bringing the mathematics of coloration & lighting in to this was unnecessary and overcomplicating things.


Indeed, if you properly blow them up to view the actual pixels, if anything one looks vaguely triangular, the other..? If you are seeing circular shapes, then is it possible you are using software with an enlarging algorithm that 'guesses' at the shape? - such algorithms will indeed often round them off.


As you blow up an image you're staring at rectangular pixels. Meaning even if you're looking at a circle as you zoom-in it's eventually going to approximate on a triangle or a parallelogram. For example, here's a circle with a 6 pixel diameter created with Photoshop's elliptical marquee tool,



Note as we zoom, since pixels are square (not parametric - though there is technology exploring this), it inherently takes on triangular features.

Meaning to ascertain aspects of geometry, again, you need to look at the lighting. This means analyzing color diffusion between adjacent pixels.



This more or less rules out the possibility that these objects are on a "windshield" or are foreground objects.

No, it doesn't. They could even be stone chips in the glass, the edges of which refract/reflect the light.


Light, facing an object (0° < θ < 90°), coming in from right to left would reflect off the left lip of a concave surface not the reverse. If we're dealing with a convex object against a foreground plane, like a drop of water, the reflection of the light would curve outwards not in (towards the camera) and around.

Additionally if you notice as we shift from IMG_0432 to IMG_0433 the "orbs" are no longer in the second shot. So it's safe to conclude the two objects in the upper-right corner of the image aren't chips in the glass.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   


As a matter of fact we can even attempt to do a rough calculation on size if we can get an approximation of the length of the light-enclosure (assuming it's a street light).

On a 4-7 pixel object of indeterminate distance from the lens? That would be impressive.


Since most everyone believes the primary object is in a fixed position we can actually measure how much she would have had to move either forward or backwards based on scaling / rotation for it to be a "stationary" object.

Not without knowing how far away it is from the lens.


The only way to really approximate size is to use a known object, which acts as a ruler for a single plane of depth, then using focal length to determine the point of focus (in this case infinity).

For instance if we know your height (p_0), the amount of vertical pixels representing you in an image (x_0), and you're standing next to somebody else with a height of (p_1) & pixels (x_1). Then p_1 can be approximated by simply solving: (p_0 * x_1) / (x_0).

This can all be done independent of knowing how far the object is away from the lens.

If there's a single light and the other person is lit differently, meaning p_1 is either further back or forward, calculating based off linear scaling, focus (circle of confusion), and how much more or less light is received on the individual, we can then attempt to determine relative distance between planes (albeit providing a rougher estimate).



This then also strongly suggests the object is moving independently.

No, it does not. My animation clearly shows otherwise. The effects shown can be easily explained by the camera being moved in the X-Y plane, tilted up/down/sideways, or moved slightly back and forth in the Z-plane - all within a very small range indeed, as per my example above. Try it yourself.


I think you may have read this section a little too quickly and perhaps didn't understand what was being said when I stated,


Once we have the proportions mapped we can then check between the other images to make sure they translate and rotate in a consistent manner. To be more clear if we assume she's sitting in a vehicle we know her movements restricted in the depth/Z-axis at most to 2 or 3-feet. If the scaling exceeds that we know she's not in the car.

My point is if an object up-scales too much then the only way that could happen is if the object itself moved in the depth-axis by a fixed quantity (remember the iphone only has a digital zoom so proportions would remain the same).

Your animation shows the principles of how an object in the foreground can be mistaken as an object in the distance. It does nothing to show the relationship between up-scaling and down-scaling of objects in the background and foreground scene due to varying focal size or, in the case of the same focal-length, physical movement. Nor does it address object rotation and how that affects extreme foreground objects and their perspective distortion.

Put another way if there's even a single degree of rotation of an item several feet in the distance and we assume an extreme foreground object that means the foreground-object would have to deform significantly in the 2D projection for it to have stayed at the same world-space coordinates.



Put another way if it's an extreme foreground object then we should be able to say, "To place the blob over tree d would require an offset of a movement either Z units forward/backwards and/or X, Y units left/right/up/down (using Tait-Bryan angles).

Can you give an actual similar example of using T-B angle calculations in a photogrammetric sense, *given the information we have*?

...

What about the rest of it?


For example, here's a shot taken with my iPhone showing a sticky note on my windshield (the red-line, which is the closest object in the scene), the wipers (green line, second closest), a "bike rack" sign about 5 to 6' away from the glass (blue line, third nearest), and about 35' ± 3' away is a recessed a pipe against the far wall (fuscia, furthest).


(@1600x1200 & ZIP including PSD & ref imgs)

Note that since I simply translated the camera a small distance with about a quarter-degree rotation, everything in the scene is offset. The foreground items moved the most (as expected) and the background objects, as we approach focal-infinity, start to converge on a fixed translation distance and angle.

Since positive index of refraction of conventional lensing materials requires use of curved surfaces to focus light (often causing direct light to take the shape of the aperture blades which is why we get the hexs in the lens flare) there's going to be curvature especially on the edges of the image. This is one of the reasons why the object translation angles vary so dramatically as we get closer to the camera.

Meaning any time we see long translation distances, washed out objects, and large angle changes it's usually a safe guess that the object is close to the lens.

This is why so many people are assuming the blob is on the windshield.

So we can apply this same approach to Fiona's image,


(@1600x1200 & ZIP including PSD & ref imgs)

And here are the individual frames (0432 & 0433) 100% filled with the overlays for direct comparison,

0432 - 100% filled


0433 - 100% filled


In this image the order of object translation distance from most-to-least significant starts with the black ellipse (the red-line, this is why we assume it's close to the screen), the glare (green line), the foreground tree / road / lamp (as the blue line), & all objects past ~37 meters share the same translation distances (fuscia lines).

The reason we can say definitively that the black-ellipsoid isn't on the windshield is because the glare (the green line) is smaller in translation distance than the red line. Meaning the glare is *behind* the black object by a significant margin.

This tell us the translation distance is too large for the object to be on the windshield. This is made worse if the glare is on the camera optics itself.

If we assume the black object is still in the car that means she either has another sheet of glass between the lens & the window or the smudge is directly on the lens. However we know it can't be on the lens because the object rotates between shots.

Furthermore she can't easily be faking this by hand because there's a 3-4 second latency between shots on the iPhone (7 shots taken as quickly as possible demonstrating this). She has literally no error margin with the times recorded in the EXIF and, more so, if she was doing the movement with her finger she'd smudge the lens. Additionally we know it can't be something between the windshield and the lens because there's just not enough room without revealing the cars' hood.

Q.E.D., the shot was taken outside, the black object is moving independently (due to the disproportionate translation), the reflection is a combination of the lens flare, the middle lamp, and (very likely) reflection from off the hood.

Cheers!



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Mod-Note: Private Address and Phone Number Removed. Please do not post peoples private data. Thank you.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Skyfloating]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Meaning if we accept the idea that the object is on the windshield, then for there to be a reflection on the pane, the light source has to be bright enough to back-scatter off the dash or the material has to have a high specularity to cause reflection (though in this case the ray will travel at the same angle reflected through the object's normal not backwards).

So if the shot was taken from inside the vehicle (which I can now show isn't the case) we're almost definitely seeing a reflection of the hood or backscatter (not simply specular reflection since all the lighting is in the foreground).


Light sopurce (streetlight) is above and infront, there is also the drivers window to reflect light. (backscatter)


So the jpeg compression artifacts are good enough to allow you to see "the interior vents with what appear to be circular sections that would point outwards" and "flat silverish edges on the side of those vents" along with the "dashboard panel itself," but not a well defined object with an edge and lighted contours?


I think you are assuming that people are suggesting the 'orbs' and the 'blob' are reflections.
This is a mistake.


If we assume the black object is still in the car that means....


Lol nobody did. The blob is suggested to be on the outside of the windscreen.


Q.E.D., the shot was taken outside, the black object is moving independently (due to the disproportionate translation), the reflection is a combination of the lens flare, the middle lamp, and (very likely) reflection from off the hood.

Cheers!


Im sorry but you cant get reflection off the hood if your sitting on it and facing away from it. The lense is on the otherside of the camera from the hood and there is, in the photos, nothing infront of the lense thats reflective, if you beleive the witness testimony. Try again.


Originally posted by rusethorcain

[-snip-] MOD NOTE: Do Not Post People's Private Information.

Should I call him?


Sure! why not!


[edit on 1-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]

[edit on 1 Apr 10 by Gools]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


I am not understanding all but 20% of what you're saying but, THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK for giving 'my side' some scientific weight.

Because my approach was all emotional and (knowing this field of UFOlogy) very motive-driven (or lack thereof).

Again Thank you!



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   


So the jpeg compression artifacts are good enough to allow you to see "the interior vents with what appear to be circular sections that would point outwards" and "flat silverish edges on the side of those vents" along with the "dashboard panel itself," but not a well defined object with an edge and lighted contours?

I think you are assuming that people are suggesting the 'orbs' and the 'blob' are reflections.
This is a mistake.


The full quote that I'm addressing is this:



A number of people are failing to notice the orbs that Ms. Hartigan described coming from the light source are in fact illuminated at the correct angle from the light source if they had been up in the air. Meaning they're very likely spherical objects adjacent to the light (not backlit).

Those objects are approximately 4-10 pixels wide, and given the jpeg compression and builtin sharpning, ascertaining the shape is pretty much impossible (courtesy of Mr. Nyquist).

Indeed, if you properly blow them up to view the actual pixels, if anything one looks vaguely triangular, the other..? If you are seeing circular shapes, then is it possible you are using software with an enlarging algorithm that 'guesses' at the shape? - such algorithms will indeed often round them off.


This more or less rules out the possibility that these objects are on a "windshield" or are foreground objects.


No, it doesn't. They could even be stone chips in the glass, the edges of which refract/reflect the light.


Note the theory presented.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Xtraeme]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Ok that one person suggested that, most disagree.

see....


number of people are failing to notice the orbs that Ms. Hartigan described coming from the light source are in fact illuminated at the correct angle from the light source if they had been up in the air. Meaning they're very likely spherical objects adjacent to the light (not backlit).


Unless Im mistaken this appears to be a majority veiw. (birds/bats)



I am not understanding all but 20% of what you're saying but, THANK YOU

I dont think you have understood 20% of the entire thread TwoPhish.
Are you 'still' confused? Still not made any conclusion?
If you stare at those photos, ask yourself, 'what do I see'?

If I had presented you with those photographs before this case, and without claiming a 'sighting', just asked you what you thought, what would you have told me? Please be honest.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


This is not some Congressional vote where, the majority wins.
Your statement is nothing less than mob mentality and lemming behavior.

"Sure! They all say it. Must be true. Let's jump!!"

Sheesh!!!

I am so relieved to finally hear/read some scientific explanation. I totally lack that skill and I knew, there was an alternative theory somewhere!
Because if you believe in the subject/Fiona then, logic surely has to be hidden away somewhere (amongst the odds) and subject/Fiona, vindicated!

Let's wait to see what Novak says (for those who believe he is real!)

If she's telling the truth (which I believe she has been all along then) experts in the UFO community will be able to substantiate this latest thesis!

Kudos~



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Your statement is nothing less than mob mentality and lemming behavior.

"Sure! They all say it. Must be true. Let's jump!!"

Sheesh!!!


Its no good putting words in my mouth, anything ive written is there in black and white
for others to read.

I have made my conclusion, but You can't. The conclusions of others are also there to read. I made no such comment (above).

Why have you avoided my question?


If I had presented you with those photographs before this case, and without claiming a 'sighting', just asked you what you thought, what would you have told me? Please be honest.



[edit on 1-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

If we assume the black object is still in the car that means....

Lol nobody did. The blob is suggested to be on the outside of the windscreen.


Q.E.D., the shot was taken outside, the black object is moving independently (due to the disproportionate translation), the reflection is a combination of the lens flare, the middle lamp, and (very likely) reflection from off the hood.


Im sorry but you cant get reflection off the hood if your sitting on it and facing away from it. The lense is on the otherside of the camera from the hood and there is, in the photos, nothing infront of the lense thats reflective


I was proposing the notion if she was on the left side of the vehicle or even towards the front-middle (such that the hood was in foreground or even off to the right), then it could cause reflection. If she's sitting on the right side. Then you're absolutely correct there's literally no way it would be the hood.

At that point it would have to either be a combination of the blending of lights, as I spent ample time explaining above, mixed with other light sources that would be coming off camera from the right (e.g. car headlights, background lamps, etc).

The main point I make though, the reason we can say definitively that the object isn't on the windshield, is it moves at a greater offset than the glare.

Please read that section again or if I didn't word it well enough I'd be happy to try and rephrase it.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

If I had presented you with those photographs before this case, and without claiming a 'sighting', just asked you what you thought, what would you have told me? Please be honest.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]



I would've said it appears to be a dark UFO and two other orbs.

I would then, consider the photo taker and why he/she shot it in the first place.

I would then would, rip it apart and figure out if there's a motive (i.e. Hoaxing).

I would then (if I am having doubts of the characters intentions) I would hand it off to a photo-analysis expert.

I then, fall back on my common senses, feeling and render an opinion.

This is ONLY my opinion smart-arse!
For I wasn't there.
I am only working on photos, person (Fiona) and motives.

I don't act in a pack. If everyone said it was raining and I saw the Sun, they would never make me change my mind! I act, react and feel as an individual of sound-mind.

Fiona is telling the truth.
You will all see!!!!!



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

I was proposing the notion if she was on the left side of the vehicle or even towards the front-middle (such that the hood was in foreground or even off to the right), then it could cause reflection. If she's sitting on the right side. Then you're absolutely correct there's literally no way it would be the hood.


The witness claimed to be sitting/leaning on the middle of the hood with her back to it, however.


The main point I make though, the reason we can say definitively that the object isn't on the windshield, is it moves at a greater offset than the glare.



Exactly Which object are you here referring to?



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Well a few points . She claims these objects emerged from a bright yellow light that appeared first , then after the other objects flew away it also disappeared. Are you claiming the bright yellow light is not the streetlight? Also Maybe...maybe not proved the hood of the car would not show right here : www.abovetopsecret.com... .Also the center of the windshield is not as curved as the edges. I can also provide other pictures of the `orbs` taken by others that when zoomed reveal wings. Also why when all else is in focus is the black blob blurred?



[edit on 1-4-2010 by bluemooone2]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 

Thanks for the detailed explanation!


Now, based on your work, can you give us an approximate distance to the "large blob"? And knowing that, it's size?

Thanks in advance.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluemooone2
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


Well a few points . She claims these objects emerged from a bright yellow light that appeared first , then after the other objects flew away it also disappeared. Are you claiming the bright yellow light is not the streetlight? Also Maybe...maybe not proved the hood of the car would not show right here : www.abovetopsecret.com... .Also the center of the windshield is not as curved as the edges. I can also provide other pictures of the `orbs` taken by others that when zoomed reveal wings. Also why when all else is in focus is the black blob blurred?



[edit on 1-4-2010 by bluemooone2]


Why for the love of gawd, is it out of the realm of possibility that those second objects DID occur but.........she THOUGHT they emerged from the bright light (aka; lamppost) when in fact, that wasn't their birthplace after all?
You're the ones assuming they were birds (to fit your delusional/hoaxing/lying theory!)

One can have absolute clarity (seeing two orbs) and STILL have an oversight (lamp post) at the same time or does that conflict with some type of quantum mechanics?

The incident (of two flying orbs) is not obliterated just because she MIGHT'VE mistook their origin. That COULD happen you know.

Let's see:
Human delusion verses Opitcal illusion??

Hmmmm, I opt for the latter.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
A question to everyone: why do people refer to it as "black blob"?

It doesn't look black to me, and with the light coming from almost behind it it should look darker than it was.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
A question to everyone: why do people refer to it as "black blob"?

It doesn't look black to me, and with the light coming from almost behind it it should look darker than it was.



Oh ya silly Mod!

That's to precondition the readers that it was a 'smudge'.

Smudges are generally black and 'blobbish' in description.

That 'catch word' surfaced after they decided it was on the windshield.

(Mob mentality in epic proportion)



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Why for the love of gawd, is it out of the realm of possibility that those second objects DID occur but.........she THOUGHT they emerged from the bright light (aka; lamppost) when in fact, that wasn't their birthplace after all?


Its not TwoPhish. Its a simple mistake as I said all along, But I still think they are NOT ufo's (except technically) but birds or bats.
Why is so hard for you accept that fiona is human and may have made such a misidenfication?


One can have absolute clarity (seeing two orbs) and STILL have an oversight (lamp post) at the same time or does that conflict with some type of quantum mechanics?


Its not quantum mechanics, its plain simple confabulation.


con·fab·u·late (kn-fby-lt)
intr.v. con·fab·u·lat·ed, con·fab·u·lat·ing, con·fab·u·lates
1. To talk casually; chat.
2. Psychology To fill in gaps in one's memory with fabrications that one believes to be facts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The incident (of two flying orbs) is not obliterated just because she MIGHT'VE mistook their origin. That COULD happen you know.



No its not, but it STILL dosent make them flying spheres.


A question to everyone: why do people refer to it as "black blob"?

It doesn't look black to me, and with the light coming from almost behind it it should look darker than it was.



Black blob, Dark blob.....Who cares? Whats your point Armap?

Why should it look darker? There are other light sources from behind/sides that may add illumination. Aka other street lighting, cars headlights behind. Why assume the cars interior was not illuminated to some extent.
Why assume its solid? A coffee spill on your table leaves a blob but still may be seen through. Opacity.

I dont speculate what it may be, birdpoo, a blob of sauce from a hotdog she ate whilst leaning over the windscreen, squashed bug? Nobody knows
including the witness. The witness has made no comment about the state of the windscreen at the time.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]




top topics



 
33
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join