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: 58
33
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Once you guys are faced with this wonderful demonstration (of what probably caused the 'glare') .....



.....you now reroute your attention back to the 'orbs'.

When reason of 'confusion' is explained to the lamp post conundrum, you zero back on the blob.

It's a perpetual cycle of damage control.


You're just looking for a neatly wrapped package of bogus when in fact, piece by piece, alternative explanations are being doled out but you won't have any of it.

So.....okay! It's a hoax for there's no budging most of you and....you win!
Now, we thank you for playing with us and be sure to pick up your lovely parting gifts!




posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


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.



What you are calling glare is presumed to be a reflection of the interior of the car on the windscreen. I had earlier noticed the discrepancy between the translation of the blob and the translation of the reflection and experimented with it myself. What I found is that the amount of translation of the reflection is dependent upon the distance of the reflected object from the windscreen and varies from that of an object on the windscreen. This is because the visual distance of the reflection from the camera is actually the distance between the reflected object and the windscreen added to the distance between the windscreen and the camera. So visually the reflection is beyond the windshield. In reality it is not.

I didn't upload the photos I took in my experiment but it is easy to duplicate. Here is what I did. I did not use a car window, I used a window in my home. To simulate the reflection I used a flashlight directed toward the inside of the window from about 18 inches away. I used a small sticker (don't tell my daughter, I stole it from her) to simulate the blob. By moving the camera slightly horizontally and vertically, I was able to both cause the sticker to change its position relative to the background (of course) and change its position relative to the reflection of the flashlight. The fact that the amount of translation was different for each does not preclude either the blob or the reflection being on the windscreen.

[edit on 4/1/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


You can not have that many fundalmental "misidentifications" without calling this a hoax or rendering Fiona a psychopathic delusional attention seeking Aussie!

You can NOT mistake all these pertinent elements (blob, windshield, inside/outside, bird, bat, lamp post) and still say she's mistaking.

I have more confidence in the Human species than that!



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
What he said! ^

second line here



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Once you guys are faced with this wonderful demonstration (of what probably caused the 'glare') .....


In full daylight under direct sun. Nowhere near the same conditions as the witness testimony.
I think there was too much daylight still avail to diffuse the suns rays, and further there is no glare from the
sun directly into the camera lense to account for it.
In the photo's the setting sun is largle very low to horizon and partly obscured by cloud,
this is called 'Sunset', and incredible TwoPhish, The witness did indeed claim to be taking photos of it!
In the shot where the streetlight is shown, raditing glare can be distinctly seen, (arms of light) from above and to the side, not directly as seen in the demo vid.


So.....okay! It's a hoax for there's no budging most of you and....you win!
Now, we thank you for playing with us and be sure to pick up your lovely parting gifts!


Ill send you a card and flowers!




posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Dear Fiona,

Please do not think for one moment we're calling you a hoaxer nor liar.

You simply are mistaking.

You weren't outside your PT Cruiser (that may have a visor strip). No Fiona, you were inside your vehicle but we here at ATS understand how easily that can be confused.

And m'dear, you didn't see a flying object (bless your sane soul) no, you saw a blob on your windshield. Again, understandable.

And for some reason, you decided to step out, from inside your 1971 vehicle and mistake the lamp post for yet another silly flying object (hey, it happens) and in the blinding light of the lamp post, you merely witnessed a couple of bird, bats or even flying bullet. Life is strange, ain't it?
But hey? These things happen honey, so don't worry too much.


But dear Fiona. It was all explainable so please don't think we're calling you a liar or delusional. You were simply mistaking. It happens to each and every sane person walking this fine Earth of ours.

And Novak? C'mon. He too is just a figment of your mistaking imagination as well. But....we love you!

Take care,
Thread Posters
(excluding TwoPhish)

PS This just in. It wasn't Dusk. It was high-noon. Tsk tsk. Once again.....totally 'get' your confusion Fiona!

[edit on 1-4-2010 by TwoPhish]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


wow! just wow!. i cant believe you're still on your confusing quest and still trying to wind people up with your contradicting posts. earlier you was adamant that there's no middle ground. then you say you're the only one giving fiona middle ground and then you say there's no middle ground again!.....

im sorry but people just do not take people's words for granted these days no matter how sincere they may sound. you have never met fiona so have absolutely no idea what type of person she is, what drives her or what motive she may or may not have.
you only have to look at stephen pratts painted on glass ufo and the fairys in the garden pictures to see how seemingly nice truthful people can fool/hoax/lie and keep it going for years on end!!!
earlier you said you worked for mufon, well ive totally lost any faith in mufon now and especially after they post hoaxed pictures on their websites.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

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



Then what have you been ranting about?


You can not have that many fundalmental "misidentifications" without calling this a hoax or rendering Fiona a psychopathic delusional attention seeking Aussie!


Why not?


You can NOT mistake all these pertinent elements (blob, windshield, inside/outside, bird, bat, lamp post) and still say she's mistaking.



And thats the point at which YOU make a fundamental error of judgement. You are judging the witness, making assumptions about her state of mind
as much as anyone else. At this point you Presume, she saw what she claims she saw, and you give no middle ground, its YOU calling her a liar or delusional.
You see things in black and white without shades of grey.
You are not open minded at all.
The witness may beleive she saw ufo's but that dosent make her a liar or delusional when its shown not to be, just mistaken.
You refuse to accept demonstated evidence of the reflection being in the windscreen, even despite the witness own testimony referring to 'The screen' (2gb radio interveiw) did anyone else catch that?

I tend to think she was referring to windscreen and didnt realise she said, maybe still dosen't, and it wasn't caught by the radio host.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
G'day

I think it's a great shame that all of the rational discussion in this thread has been & continues to be buried by so much irrational noise.

Without that, this thread could have risen to a level of notable very high quality.

My concern now is that we will see these photos plastered all over the place by people who simply want to attract viewers to TV shows, readers to magazines & websites, etc...

The headlines will pronounce "Proof of Alien Life!" & all that kind of thing.

This will do nothing for the credibility of this vexed topic of UFO's.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


totally agree mmn, i dont think the blind believers realize that its them doing the damage to real investigation and the ufo and paranormal subjects.

i for one would love to see proof of alien life/visitations but i want scientific evidence not just some dodgy photo with a story.
i truely believe there is life out there and we may have been visited a couple of times.

but it makes no logical sense to believe that there's thousands of ufos constantly flying about, or for us to just believe every report is an alien because we would have solid evidence by now if that was true.
I WANT TO BELIEVE....BUT I WANT PROOF.

thanks

rich

[edit on 1-4-2010 by RICH-ENGLAND]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


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.



What you are calling glare is presumed to be a reflection of the interior of the car on the windscreen. I had earlier noticed the discrepancy between the translation of the blob and the translation of the reflection and experimented with it myself. What I found is that the amount of translation of the reflection is dependent upon the distance of the reflected object from the windscreen and varies from that of an object on the windscreen. This is because the visual distance of the reflection from the camera is actually the distance between the reflected object and the windscreen added to the distance between the windscreen and the camera. So visually the reflection is beyond the windshield. In reality it is not.

I didn't upload the photos I took in my experiment but it is easy to duplicate. Here is what I did. I did not use a car window, I used a window in my home. To simulate the reflection I used a flashlight directed toward the inside of the window from about 18 inches away. I used a small sticker (don't tell my daughter, I stole it from her) to simulate the blob. By moving the camera slightly horizontally and vertically, I was able to both cause the sticker to change its position relative to the background (of course) and change its position relative to the reflection of the flashlight. The fact that the amount of translation was different for each does not preclude either the blob or the reflection being on the windscreen.


Great minds think alike. I went through the same steps, but to save space (since the last several posts were already fairly long-winded) cut out a number of little sub-tests that would have explained things in more detail.

Here's the problem with the idea of it being a projection from an object in the cars interior projected through the glass and then scaled to the appropriate lengths from the interior (causing the translation amounts to be smaller than at the glass).

The fact is we see a lens flare. The lens flare will occur at the glass / lens and it has the same translation distance as the other reflection.

Unless there's another light source inside the car causing a tertiary lens flare (not very likely or the bottom of the scene would have greater luminosity) then we know we're looking at translation distances, again, at the glass.

You keep me honest Phage.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Sorry us-noise don't live up to your style and standards. Didn't realize this was a version of Popular Mechanics!
It is a discussion, correct?

Not all can contribute fine-science like you did (and those who do, contrary to your findings are still 'noise') Shame on us.

Some people comment on feeling and impression and some, take away insight from it.
Sorry this is not up to your standards. Seems like you're the one wanting your 15-minutes of fame (or 15-pages)


England Rich (whatever your name is)

Middle ground in hoaxing verses truth (allowing for some mistake)

If most people think she didn't see ANY UFO rather, their explained version of them (blob, birds etc) then, there's no middle ground!

No one, besides one or two are saying......she did indeed see a UFO and was mistaking the lamp post (for a bright light) but did indeed see two additional UFOs.

So going on what I've read, that's why I am saying (with these particular posters) there is no middle ground.

I have more respect for those saying it's a hoax (that's their opinion) than people saying she was mistaking (and YET, still saw no UFO). To that, there is no middle ground.

Stop dissecting my words because you're failing miserbly!


As far as your MUFON dig? I'm sure they will continue on despite your disapproval of me. In fact, who cares what you think of either?
I am going to guess, you're what.....12-20 years old?



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


Right on!

Her state of mind, to me.....seems sane.
I am giving her the benefit of doubt that she is not a candidate to be Baker Act-ed!

She's delusional.
She's a hoaxer.
She's honest.

Pick one

It is of my impression she is honest.

My bad. This was not a scientific summary. Hope my 'noise' didn't shatter any glass!



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I have made an effort, Ive tried really hard to consider what the witness beleives she saw, Ive tried to imagine seeing it myself , and looking at the photo's, I just cannot see the big blob/shape actually traversing the sky.

When I do, I have to what question my own immeadiate assumptions might be, and Im not getting UFO.
What I am getting, is 'what was that?' where did it go?' followed by investigation, which would include me checking the windscreem and the camera as a matter of fact.

If Im standing outside as the witness claims and I see this blob/shape traverse my feild of veiw, I question my eyes first, and look for explainations because Im an incredibly curious person.
I would really want to know what it was, how it happened.

Only once Ive exhausted all logical propositions will I decide its a genuine mystery. Unlike those who beleive in ufo's already, It would not be my first assumption.

When I first heard the 'shopping bag' theory, I thought Ah yes, good possibility, Ive seen that happen, its reasonable, its within reality.
Around sydney, atleast my part, most shopping bags are blue or grey, very common. A loose bag does catch the breeze, inflate and become airborn sometimes.

Now I must theorise how I might've failed to identify it as such.
Lets look at the facts. Im standing on the road at dusk, directly facing the setting sun, taking photos (note the color of the sky)
The shape is well above the sun ,relative to the horizon, illuminated from behind and low light levels mean its outline might be hard to see immeadiately.
There is a car approaching me ahead, its headlights are distracting and brighter than what im looking at. There is a bright streetlight close to me.
Yes, I think its possible I saw a floating/blowing supermarket bag.

If you start out with the assumoption its a ufo (not intended as a technicality)
then you start off on the hind foot. If you begin without assumptions you have much possibility to work with.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


well you would be absolutely wrong then wouldn't you, and not for the first time. im 35 and have been an avid ufo/paranormal/conspiracy/space/military hobbyist most of my life and have every copy of ufo magazine from around 1996 up until poor graham birdsall died and the magazine stopped not long after. and why do you presume im young? just because i dont agree with you?. and my dig at mufon is for two very good reasons: 1, they post hoaxed pictures on their websites as proven by CHRLZ in the GREAT TRIANGLE PICS thread and number 2, your claim that you were an investigator for them after seeing your approach to the subject and your blind belief, wild speculation with no good theory and your total lack of understanding of any science at all. and the fact you choose to just ignore anything that doesn't fit your belief.
and you said you have respect for people that call hoax,......



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


Hello again TwoPhish

After 58 pages of this thread, this is my second reply to you & my last.

I have a request.....

Is there any possibility at all that you could just leave us alone to engage in rational, reasoned discussion without being hammered by you, post after post?

Is there?

It truly would make things much easier.

Regards
Maybe...maybe not

Attention Mods:

I am "betwixt & between" about posting the above.

However, I decided to post it in the interest of trying to improve the level of discussion about this complex topic.

If this post is considered out of line or in any way in contravention of the T&C's, please feel free to remove it.

MMN



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Thanks, Phage! I'm glad I'm not the only one to spot the major flaw.. For anyone getting bored with the to and fro, just read his post above, and ignore this one..

To Xtraeme... I'll try to keep this reasonably short, in the form of brief points and some direct questions.. (Weary readers will be pleased to note there's a summary at the end, and the key issue is point 11.)

1. As you said, radiosity is diffuse lighting, and therefore does NOT explain a quite defined shape.

2. You say you can "now show" that the shots were not taken inside the car. But your 'proofs' do not eliminate the possibility that the shape is a reflection, see below.

3. The claim is that missfee was in front of the car, leaning backwards against the bonnet/hood. Therefore the surfaces *you* say are somehow reflecting upwards and back, are *behind* the lens. Please tell us how such light gets around and into the lens, and show some examples of this behavior. (I see you have now conceded that is impossible.)

4. You say the windscreen reflection theory was a "reasonable guess", but that there was never enough detail. Yet I and others have given some very similar examples. Further, you say it contradicts witness testimony, but then you have contradicted her as well - she says she was in front of the bonnet/hood.

5. You seem to have carefully cherry-picked an image showing a highly curved windscreen, and yet images like this one:
invimg.autofunds.com...
seem to suggest otherwise. Towards the middleof the screen, the curve is not great at all. Besides which, the curve is irrelevant unless we can see what the object being reflected looks like.

6. You say "we know there are two lens flares", seemingly referring to the 'starburst' effect. Yet I would suggest these are actually 'diffraction spike' effects caused by the aperture opening or lens design of the iphone. These may be, but are not necessarily, related.

7. You STILL haven't given any reasonable explanation for that huge equation, nor have you used it in any meaningful way. OF COURSE a strong light source can overwhelm another. It does not require a lengthy equation unless you are going to plug some numbers in and make a point.

8. Clipping can take place WELL before 255's. And once it is there, NO "filter or shift wavelength" can recover any information from such area. I agree that you can apply these principles in *some* cases, but you have not done so here, which is why I questioned the 'verbosity'.

9. In your discussion about deducing shapes from small groups of pixels, where did you talk about in-camera sharpening? And how did you eliminate all the possible angles that light bouncing around in a stone chip can take, and the reflections and refractions that can be caused?

10. Take a careful look, AGAIN at the image that contains the 'two orbs'. Then look at the other images. Humour me for a moment - if they were stone chips, which of the other images would contain them? There is only one other, and if you check the size of the blob in that one, you will see it is larger. That would suggest the camera was held closer to the windscreen and thereby the objects could easily be out of frame. As I said, I only suggested that as a possibility, I don't think they are stone chips. But you seem to be much more eager to eliminate that without putting in the hard yards.

11. I'm sorry, but your images covered with many lines, angles and pretty colours seem to suffer from two VERY major problems. Firstly where precisely did you take into account ALL the differing perspectives due to "roll, pitch and yaw"
of the camera, along with movement towards the screen, and from side to side? And then, more importantly, how did you account for the different perspective caused by the fact that what most of us are referring to as a REFLECTION is indeed just that. It is NOT an object fixed to the windcsreen. We need to dwell on that for a moment.

You are trying to make measurements of things 'stuck' on the windcreen, relative to one another. But the reflection is NOT! - it changes position depending on the angle and position of the camera, in a DIFFERENT way to the 'stuck' objects. It would be trivially easy to hold the smudge in the same position, and move the reflection, by changing the angle and position of the camera.

So, in summary - two MAJOR problems.

1. missfee claims she was in front of the car, leaning back against the bonnet. It is simply NOT possible for there to be 'backscatter', flare, or anything else from her vehicle as you have described.

2. IF it is a reflection, it *can* be located at different positions relative to the objects on the windscreen depending on camera angle and proximity to the screen, and therefore the analyis shown is (fatally) flawed.


By the way, Armap - it was missfee who first referred to it as 'black', in the original reports.

(added)
PS - Later, if I get totally bored, I'll see if I can come up with a demonstration of this major point about the reflection, that shows a similar effect to the original images.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 

I tend to agree that the "hex" could be lens flare but I don't agree that it has the same translation as the windscreen reflection.

I don't have the means to animate the images (it makes it very, very apparent) but it is apparent that the flare and the reflection move differently. Actually, the flare does not appear to move at all, I wonder if it could just be a lighting effect on the tree. (I also notice a couple of other spots that seem to move with the same translation as the blob).




[edit on 4/1/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 



In all due respect, in your theory (and you are entitled to it) this places her inside her vehicle.
I don't know about you but I have never ever mistaken where I was (unless those partying nights back in college). Maybe not preciously where I was (like, which exact spot on the ground) but I am certain I remember being inside/outside my home when I heard something and inside/outside my car when I've seen something.

I've seen UFOs from all four prospectives. And I remember vividly in fact.
Shock can have an etching effect on ones mind. Confusing too (I know that's a contradiction but there are extenuating circumstances and meaning)
We all remember where we were when we heard about JFK assassination (assuming you're old enough). We might not recall what the weather was but we know where we were.
Same thing with 9-11. We ALL remember exactly where we were when we heard the news but....we may not recall what we were wearing.

Shock and disbelievement has that effect on most!
And when you add 'paranormal' to shock, you still know where you were even though everything around you feels so surreal.
Mistakes happen. (was it Tuesday or Wednesday-mistakes) but not where your body was.

If you've seen a UFO you KNOW where you were. You might not know the exact location (left of the tree, right of the boulder etc) and I am assuming Fiona is no different.
She can differentiate inside from outside.

RICH-ENGLAND:


You want proof? Cool. Shy from the Mothership landing in your yard perhaps if you open your eyes and your mind and close your insulting mouth, proof may present itself before you know it.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TwoPhish
 


i do open my eyes and mind thank you and im not the insulting one, i speak my mind and i back up my thoughts with scientific theory. i dont make wild speculation and ive based every post on knowledge. and seriously you should go back and read through every one of your posts and see what everyone is getting at, you have ruined this thread. and trying to insinuate that im 12 just because i dont agree with you and take issue with your attitude is showing your mentality. you demanded early in the thread that everyone stated their opinion and stop being polite, as soon as i called hoax you jumped on me.
im not lowering myself to your level again and i apologise to everyone in this thread for replying to you and helping derail it.
you are now on ignore. goodbye.

thanks

rich



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join