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: 59
33
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
The lens flair really is to straight to be a reflection . I redid the line thing with my hi-tec paint (the one that comes with windows hehe) . These very well may have been taken outside the car.
I dont think u can say the bottom one is lens flare and the top one is a reflection , that makes no sense.




posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

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.




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.


So call her a liar if it please you, thats your perogative. I will refrain from doing so, despite my theory. Im too polite.

Even the orange glow of the sun can be seen on the windscreen,
hanging in the air at about the same distance from the camera as the blob coincidently.
Make of that what you will, but for god's sake, Either say 'I beleive her' and be done with it, or
'shes a liar' and be done with it, but you stopped any meaningful non emotional
contribution to the thread long ago.
You havent contributed anything to show she's telling the truth except your beleif.


I dont think u can say the bottom one is lens flare and the top one is a reflection , that makes no sense.


I think both are part of the same reflection.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TwoPhish
Oh ya silly Mod!

That's to precondition the readers that it was a 'smudge'.
Then why did Fiona herself called it a "large black object" in the 3AW interview.?

PS: being a Mod is just a side-effect of being an ATS member, so I think "silly ATS member" or "silly person" would be more correct.


[edit on 1/4/2010 by ArMaP]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   
SHE HAS NO MOTIVE.

THAT IS NOT MY EMOTIONAL INPUT, THAT IS FACT.


I will not go toe-to-toe with the science aspect of it all.
Someone came up with an alternative theory to the reflecting light so so far, you all still can be wrong!

You're wanting to bogart this thread with pure science and want no other noise. Well....that's not how this works.

If I am over the line, skip over me or call it to the Mods attention.


I have contributed my take on this. UFO investigations encumbers many different layers!
Some of them are science and motive.
Science does NOT equal truth in fact, science is written in pencil.

20 of you are covering the science.
I am here to explore her motive and, give alternative reasoning to the events at hand (without backing it up with calculations, numbers, angles or lighting) Can't do that but that doesn't mean I don't have a right to my opinion and input!



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
oh dear god help us (if he exists). 15 minutes of fame is enough to motiavate quite a lot of people in this world. as shown many many many many times by all kinds of people, not that im saying thats what this is, but does that make them bad people? not necessarily !.

sometimes people do hoaxes just for a joke and sit laughing at all the uproar,sometimes its to earn money, sometimes it starts as a joke but then they get caught up in it and find it hard to admit.

but NOBODY on here knows fiona one little bit so absolutely can not say if she has a motive or not.
as i stated earlier, you only have to look at stephen pratts painted on glass ufo pics or the cottingley fairys pics to see that normal and very nice and otherwise trustworthy people can and do hoax the public for no apparent reason and keep it going for years on end.

now another reason i called hoax is the info that someone took from fionas facebook entries claiming ghostly or paranormal happenings before she had this supposed ufo sighting,



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Hi guys, just a quick question....if somebody was standing outside the vehicle and looking at the pic with the "blob" on it and the oncoming car which is at a lower point would there be some shadow cast somewhere in front of the subject ? as the headlights are on from what i can see....



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
CHRLZ

"I still have a few doubts but I think overall, MMN's summary is excellent and probably 90-100% correct."


Well I like to give people the benefit of the doubt - there have been one or two occasions in my life when I was framed by circumstance and falsely accused of something I did not do - so because of that I am a lot less judgemental these days and often find myself sympathising with those that plead their innocence or claim they are being honest. Now I am going to admit how thick I am lol because in all honesty I would never in a million years of known taking a photo of a UFO through a car window or through any other reflective surface could throw doubt on my credibility as opposed to being outside the vehicle and taking a clear shot of the object in question so based on this analysis - I asked myself the question - HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD KNOW THAT ? HONESTLY ? AND THEN PLOT OR PLAN THEIR STORY ? I came to the conclusion there would not be many ? but maybe I am just in the minority - very naive and a lot thicker than most ? And don't answer that - thanks



Of course you never see such questions asked by a reporter, and very rarely even by people who claim to be UFO investigators... Can you think why? I can - ooh ooh, pick me!!


I starred you for your humour. Did I detect sarcasm ? No seriously - I was not sure ?

And okay I do get your point on the poor quality of my finds but I just want it noted I spent a lot of time trying to locate that info.

The truth is on inception of this thread no one knew about Fiona's health
problems - I was concerned for her !! ATS can be daunting even for the most hardened forum dwellers never mind a newbie like Fiona . I mean I am sure she is still shell shocked - lets face it at times the questioning got pretty personal and aggressive - well at least that was the way it came across to me .

With regards to one of your earlier posts:


Forgive me repeating this lame example, but as I've said before I recently glimpsed an 'aircraft' for a couple of seconds through a clear patch between trees as I was driving along, and then was astonished several seconds later when the view became clear - and it had vanished.

For a few moments I was panicked and seriously looking for the crash landing/debris... until I saw the bird (a light colored crane or something, I'm no ornithologist..!) that was on a path that meant I had obviously seen IT, not the 737 that my brain had taken in. Same color-ish, must have had roughly the same profile for those 2 seconds, and I had looked right at it and absolutely positively identified it as an aircraft at a few kilometres distance, rather than a gliding bird at about 150m.


But the point is you did assess this situation accurately. I believe in the majority of cases most people will come to the right conclusion - because the plane did not crash your mind automatically sought further clarification .


It makes me wonder how such objects could cover all those km over a couple of hours and not be seen or recorded by anyone else... I also note that his observation is strangely incomplete.


Personally I think these objects can camouflage themselves I know no one is going to believe me lol and I mean I do find it hilarious that I am posting it on this thread but I saw something years ago - I was sitting at a reasonably busy intersection in the middle of the day waiting for the traffic lights to change - I looked up at the sky and saw this object ( thing ) above my car. Now what really caught my eye was these tiny little lights - there appeared to be hundreds but to be honest the number could of been in the thousands - all I know is there were alot. I was straining my eyes in an attempt to identify what I was looking at - because it appeared to be camouflaged and seemed to blend in with the sky and clouds around it - it made absolutely no sound and no one in the immediate area was aware of it - well at least not to my knowledge anyway - At first I thought the object was really quite low down but on closer inspection came to the conclusion it was actually much further away and that what I was looking at was in fact a lot bigger than I first perceived - in fact if my estimations were right it was massive but it was really difficult getting the perspective right and to this day I am not sure - now in all fairness it could of been an optical illusion ? But I don't honestly think so. I had never witnessed anything like it prior to the event and I have never witnessed anything like it since.

OMG I'm devastated did you say the Cottingley fairy pics were fake ??? I DEMAND THE PROOF

Just want to apologise publicly to TwoPhish I had absolutely no right to include your statement in my debate because the truth is it was not necessary - so SORRY

Wayaboveitall

Yes, I think its possible I saw a floating/blowing supermarket bag
.

But in all honesty if you could not clearly identify the object in question - what conclusion would you of drawn ?

Xtraeme thank you so much for your contribution
I think it is wonderful we now have someone with the technical expertise to argue for instead of against.

I just want to finish by adding something I feel is very very pertinent. The world is made up of many many different types of people and we can see examples of this throughout the thread. We can break intelligence down into at least eight different components: logical, linguistic, spatial, musical, kinesthetic, naturalist, intrapersonal and then there are the interpersonal intelligences. It is important to remember we do not all formulate our ideas in the same way so I do apologise to those that just like to work with cold hard facts - you must find people like myself extremely frustrating - but it is important to acknowledge the fact that we are all different and that people on a whole will use a host of different strategies to draw their own conclusions - and each and everyone of us is entitled to present our own personal view or perspective regardless of others opinions - its called freedom of speech !! Something ATS is meant to aspire too. And whilst I am on the subject of cold hard facts how many people sit languishing in jails for years that were totally innocent - the evidence was all stacked against them - they appeared guilty because of a cruel twist in fate - they were victims of circumstance.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by destiny-fate
 


im assuming that you were being sarcastic about the cottingley fairys pics !.
but if you're not then i really need to get off this website and back to sanity!
haha
thanks

rich



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by destiny-fate
 


oh, and by the way, are you sure you was in your car and not out of it? haha

thanks

rich



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by spender
 


the shadow would go behind the subject if a light source was in front of them and would not be caught on the picture if thats what you meant?

thanks

rich



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   


I think the 'straight' reflection is of the top of the door on the drivers side (bottom of the window) Yellow Arrow
And the other a car that has just passed in the opposit direction.

Or they are both reflections of different areas of the dashboard (red arrows)




Similar shot through windscreen, note the streetlight

farm5.static.flickr.com...

bottom line might be wiper marks too

farm1.static.flickr.com...

another

farm1.static.flickr.com...


dash reflection

freepages.misc.rootsweb.ancestry.com...


Wayaboveitall

Yes, I think its possible I saw a floating/blowing supermarket bag
.

But in all honesty if you could not clearly identify the object in question - what conclusion would you of drawn ?


Probably none at all, why should I? A conclusion is not nessesary for my emotional wellbeing. Alot of things are unidentifiable.
If I see something run under my garden shed, its probably a lizard, I dont assume its anything out of the ordinary just because I can't identify it.
Just because its in the sky and unidentified dosent equate to anything out of the ordinary either.


the shadow would go behind the subject if a light source was in front of them and would not be caught on the picture if thats what you meant?

thanks



I assume he means if it was backlit, by the approaching car (or sun) and its solid and in the air as claimed, It should throw a shadow forward of itself, toward the veiwer.



[edit on 1-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
New to this thread, trying to get my bearings with the ridiculous number of pages on this thing. LOL

I'm starting from back to front. Figure since the last posts have more up to date info it'll save me from having to wade through all the initial ejecta. But kinda leaves me wondering ..

______

Originally posted by CHRLZ
3. The claim is that missfee was in front of the car, leaning backwards against the bonnet/hood. ...

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.
______


There an easy way to find where missfee (BTW what's her real name?) said she was facing away from the hood? Is there an easy way to get quotes from people? Could someone just give me the exact src where she said she was facing away from the cruiser or where she said it was behind her?

Figure might as well get some facts before adding my customary loud opinion. LOL



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMalefactor
 

fiona has stated many times in this thread that she was sat or leant on the front of her bonnet/hood facing away from the car, sorry but there's too much to search to find and quote it! lol

thanks

rich



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMalefactor
 


G'day TheMalefactor

You might find it useful to see my summary report of my site visit & meeting with the witness on P55.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   

There an easy way to find where missfee (BTW what's her real name?) said she was facing away from the hood? Is there an easy way to get quotes from people? Could someone just give me the exact src where she said she was facing away from the cruiser or where she said it was behind her?

Figure might as well get some facts before adding my customary loud opinion. LOL


Missfee


i have told the truth from the start i went to that spot to take pics of the sunset i got out of my pt cruiser 1971 lodel, silver in colour, interior grey in colour, walked to the frount of my car sat/ lent my behind on the bonen as th bonet kinda comes to a point i was not centered i was off to the left a bit


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Missfee


i was out leaning onthe hood not centerd a bit to the left, look i never took the pics from in side and not through the sun roof i have asked before the could the reflection be a car comeing from behind me


www.abovetopsecret.com...


yes that is me and that photo was taken 4 month ago i was not leaning on my car as in this picture my behind was sitting /leaning on my bonet with my back to the car


www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 1-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


ah ok, i didn't quite understand what he meant, i thought he meant the shadow of the person sat on the bonnet illuminated by the oncoming car!!! sorry, i got a little confused by what he had written but ive just had a thought, does anyone know if fionas headlights were on or off?. im assuming off but just wondering.

thanks

rich



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I know i said i was not going to add to this anymore but just one more thing,
have you all read todays sydney daily telegraph in regards to what the beuro of metorology have stated over night .
thats all thanks



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
She hasn't said if the headlights were on or off, but given she claims she just got out to snap a few shots of the sunset, facing oncoming traffic, I think its fair to assume she might have turned them out of curtesy to oncoming traffic, just leaving hazzard lights on since its dusk.
Its speculation only though.
I dont see how its relevant though since if we suspect the black shape is a shadow itself, we see nothing in the photo to account for it.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


my head lights were on not my hazards and i was leaning to the left of the car not exactly centered like i said a longtime ago



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TwoPhish

I have contributed my take on this.


What was your 'take' TwoPhish? It's hard to tell because you have flip-flopped from the left to the right and everything in between. It appears you have used your own confusion, and non scientific emotion as a means of attacking others who are more focused on the evidence than yourself. In fact, that is all you have contributed to this thread. Chaff!

Also, I found many of your posts to be the most offensive toward Fiona.



I am here to explore her motive and, give alternative reasoning to the events at hand (without backing it up with calculations, numbers, angles or lighting)


That kind of translates into 'ignorant ramblings' don't you think?

IRM


[edit on 1/4/10 by InfaRedMan]



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join