Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UFO in Sydney Australia

page: 6
33
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a slow moving vehicle. you can't use the street light as a reference to the object.
the camera also moves inside the car...




posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Chadwickus
 

I think there are two different (large blobs, at least) on the _


On the radio interview i heard, the women claims she got out of the car to take the photos of the sun set, then she caught the UFO too. So there should not be any glare from the windscreen.

Also I have an iPhone and some shots do cause glare when you have a bright light source.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   

She also said she had sent the images to Bureau of Meteorology and Sydney Observatory and they both confirmed there has been no tampering with the photos.


Are The Bureau of Meteorology and Sydney Observatory, photographic experts?


That, and the fact that an iPhone doesn't have a flash.
www.apple.com...

[edit on 3/23/2010 by Phage]



I love it, guy does his homework, With a certain zeal


confirmed


Featured: Sign the Petition for an Open App Store on iPhone [Video]
5 Features Apple Should Add to iPhone 2.0

4. iPhone camera flash

I don’t know how Apple could include a camera flash without draining the phone battery, but let’s leave that up to their tech guys. T-Mobile’s Sidekick sports a camera flash so why can’t the iPhone?

www.appleiphonereview.com...


I notice that the image in the video is slightly different to the ones from the OP.


Maybe thats the birds the pooped on the windscreen, on the other hand.......(Two orbs makes it more interesting, Granted)




FWIW I think I found the location of where she took the photo too.

Can be found HERE



Good word Chad, looks like the place to me!



Hell it's probably a booger she tried to flick out the window a few times...


LOl Please, I eat while I read!




On the radio interview i heard, the women claims she got out of the car to take the photos of the sun set, then she caught the UFO too. So there should not be any glare from the windscreen.


True but ask yourself why would she stop her car on the road to take a photo of the sunset with her iphone anyway? Seems unlikely, but then she might be the Impulsive type?
Her iphone dosent have a prescription lol I wonder if she infact has perscription eyeglasses?



Also I have an iPhone and some shots do cause glare when you have a bright light source.


But it IS sunset mate, compare the light level in the dayshot above.







[edit on 24-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Chadwickus
 

Here's another


At least it makes it clear that it is a streetlight. It illuminates the trees.

[edit on 3/24/2010 by Phage]


Nope our street lamps aren't higher than a gum tree


I can see a streak on glass on the right hand side, but as I don't have a I phone I don't know if that's how they take photos. But it does look reflective.

The woman has offered her phone for people to look at.
Shall I put a call in? Surely the Greet Internos can help the minions



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by wayaboveitall




She also said she had sent the images to Bureau of Meteorology and Sydney Observatory and they both confirmed there has been no tampering with the photos.


Are The Bureau of Meteorology and Sydney Observatory, photographic experts?


she claimed they ran it through some test. Whether they have the facilities to test it them selves or professionals do, i don't know



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


My cell phone has a flash, so do virtually all other cam phones. The Iphone, the bit they don;t tell you about on the ads, is actually a bit of a disaster. oh yes it does all things they claim it does, but it eats its' batter doing it, hence probably why no flash...

I'm still waiting for phage to answer the question about the *height * of the pictures and how, given their scope they don't show any bonnet (hood) or other parts of the car's interior.

It does make me chuckle how desperate so many on here are, for everything to be a *fake* as there are those who are desperate to believe every strange light is an Alien craft.

So far, i don't see a shred of dependable evidence that these pics were taken behind glass. There might be some, but no-one here has made anything more than a derisory and frankly, laughable, attempt a *debunking* it. Really, some of the posts on here stating, I am sure, I am definite are truly risible.

As for the object? Alien craft... err nope, don't see anything to suggest it is, past the witness's own testimony. However, if the story is true, at least the witness has some permanent record of it to show people.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz

Originally posted by Phage

Nope our street lamps aren't higher than a gum tree


Gum grows on trees?

If you're where the black car is, they can appear to be.
Streetlight

[edit on 3/24/2010 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by wycky
 


Astronomical observatories, by and large, do about zero, looking through an actual telescope's eyepiece. They are wholly camera based, as such, they often have some of the most cutting edge software going, in order to study the universe.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Nope our street lamps aren't higher than a gum tree


LMAO, Are they just? Exactly how high is a gum tree mate? How long is a peice of string?


i42.tinypic.com...


So far, i don't see a shred of dependable evidence that these pics were taken behind glass. There might be some, but no-one here has made anything more than a derisory and frankly, laughable, attempt a *debunking* it. Really, some of the posts on here stating, I am sure, I am definite are truly risible.


Chadwickus posted evidence of it having been taken through the windscreen, the photo shows the reflection of another car going the opposit direction and behind the POV. Maybe a light colored hatchback.



Without a doubt both photos were taken inside of her car.


Reflection is pretty clear, good work Chad.



Gum grows on trees?


Hey dont knock it mate, I've got a 'hubba bubba' tree outback! Keeps the kids busy!






[edit on 24-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 

As I said before, I can't see the hood of my car from the driver's seat and a camera has a narrower field of view than I do.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FireMoon
 

As I said before, I can't see the hood of my car from the driver's seat and a camera has a narrower field of view than I do.


Sorry Phage i didn't realsie she was driving your car, you neglected to mention that to us all..

Care to explain quite why the street lamp blur isn't curved then, to match the car window screen, or is your car's front window totally flat?



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   

As I said before, I can't see the hood of my car from the driver's seat and a camera has a narrower field of view than I do.



Yeah but you probly drive a Hummer.


[edit on 24-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Just went and did some experimentations.

First pair of images is from inside my car focusing on a stone chip.

Looking at the two images it would seem as if the chip has moved and changed shape slightly yet the camera has remained mostly stationary.

I in fact moved it less than 2 inches across.



 


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



So as Phage described it doesn't take a whole lot of movement of the camera for an object really close to move a long way.


Originally posted by FireMoon
I'm still waiting for phage to answer the question about the *height * of the pictures and how, given their scope they don't show any bonnet (hood) or other parts of the car's interior.


Have a look at my first pair of images, I've left a bit of the car in the first as a perspective, the second pair is still from my car yet there is no sign of my bonnet or any other part of the car.

Have a look too at how the sultana has changed shape, I assure you I did not touch it in between shots.

Good enough explanation for you?





[edit on 24/3/10 by Chadwickus]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 

Ok. You tell me what kind of car she drives. If it's a Jaguar, you've probably got me. If it's a Focus, I win. If it's something else, we'll have to figure something out.

I just checked my car. The windshield isn't flat (it is kind of dirty though) but the "flares" from a streetlight are straight, not curved.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


No it doesn't it looks like its moved, solely in a horizontal plane and not changed shape at all..



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by zazzafrazz

Originally posted by Phage

Nope our street lamps aren't higher than a gum tree


Gum grows on trees?

If you're where the black car is, they can appear to be.
Streetlight

[edit on 3/24/2010 by Phage]


Phage bot , I know my lights and my trees, this is my home town, those lights come out over the street, not higher and behind the tress.
And yes we call eucalypts, gum tress

Up your nose with a rubber hose phage


Zazzbot



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


Now who's explanations are laughable?

I'm not going to be able to replicate the exact opacity of the object on the windscreen, a sultana is all I had to show an object on my windscreen.




and not changed shape at all..


Really?

I beg to differ:




posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Chad IM gonna call this chick, see if I can get her on ats.

[edit on Mar 24th 2010 by Djarums]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FireMoon
 

Ok. You tell me what kind of car she drives. If it's a Jaguar, you've probably got me. If it's a Focus, I win. If it's something else, we'll have to figure something out.

I just checked my car. The windshield isn't flat (it is kind of dirty though) but the "flares" from a streetlight are straight, not curved.


Actually, virtually all modern cars have deep set curved window screens for reasons of both fuel economy and safety. The drivers position is, even with the seat pulled fully forward, quite deeply set back inside the car's interior. Even the SUVs, with short bonnets, have incredibly deep and curved windows.

To actually avoid getting some part of the interior into the pic, given the width and depth of filed of the first photo would mean you, pretty much being crammed up against the screen hanging over the steering wheel between the two seats. That's not to say she didn't do just that, she might well have, but so far none of the debunk on sight merchants have even mentioned that proviso.

Cahdwickes pics do nothing to help as they fail to address, totally the lateral moment of the object and they are nothing like the same sort of depth and width of field. or focus of the original picture. Anyone who falls for that explanation, straight off the bat, is merely fooling themselves.

It's akin to getting the answer to a maths problem accidentally right, if she did hoax it through glass, by getting all your working out totally wrong.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


try basic maths and perspective...





new topics




 
33
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join