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: 60
33
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Thankyou for the clarification Miss Fee.

Were you referring to this?

The Bureau, which did not respond to repeated requests for comment, has acknowledged the anomalies on its popular website.
It has since posted a disclaimer above the national loop feed putting the images down to "occasional interference to the radar data".

"The Bureau is currently investigating ways to reduce these interferences," the disclaimer said.


www.dailytelegraph.com.au...

It dosent mention blobs or orange lights, or even spheres. Are you now suggesting you saw such an anomalie? I dont see the relevance.


The Distance between Sydney Central Business District (New South Wales) and Broome (Western Australia) is :
3375.45 kilometers (km).
The approximate travel/road distance can be around 3881.77 km to 4219.31 km




The Distance between Sydney Central Business District (New South Wales) and Kalgoorlie (Western Australia) is :
2806.52 kilometers (km).
The approximate travel/road distance can be around 3227.5 km to 3508.15 km




The Distance between Sydney Central Business District (New South Wales) and Melbourne (Victoria) is :
713.57 kilometers (km).
The approximate travel/road distance can be around 820.61 km to 891.96 km



distancecalculator.globefeed.com...




[edit on 1-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]




posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by destiny-fate
 


Eloquently put. Thanks! You mentioned many theories and analogies (wrongfully incarcerated people i.e.) so, again I thank you for your compassion.

As a former investigator, my job was to rake in the facts. When that part was done I was to assess the over-all situation, the people involved and their surroundings.
I was not in the forensic nor photo-analysis end of it but let me tell you, my job, to assess the person-in-question was monumentally important for if I felt there was an underlying motive, or a screw loose or I happened to notice Hoaxing-for-Dummies up on shelf then, it didn't go too far afterwards.

I have not met Fiona but I've watched her interviews (her body language), heard her on the radio (her demeanor) and read the articles (learning a little of her background) and emailed her personally so it is my assessment (in less than perfect conditions) to deem her to be honest.

Be it as it may.


This little snippet was just brought to my attention a few moments ago.
Not sure if it has anything at all what occurred March 21 (24) but......who knows.


Bizarre theories circling weather bureau
Sydney, Australia
April 2nd




[sic] Conspiracy websites, however, have lit up with dozens of breathless theories behind the strange anomalies from alien involvement, secret military testing to government weather modification.



www.dailytelegraph.com.au...


I am not going to address anymore of these personal ambushes.
You don't like me?
Think I'm 'flip-flopping' (called, changing ones mind)
And offer nothing then....move along.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by TwoPhish]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by missfee
 


hello again fiona, i just had a look at one article about strange weather patterns on their radars but not sure if thats what you're talking about?. if so then thanks for your post, its a very bizzare and interesting story but probably should have a thread of its own.

not really enough information or evidence to make much of in that article but interesting nonetheless.

thanks

rich



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by missfee
 


What? Is this officially "Change your Avatar Day"???
I didn't get that memo!!!!

Fiona - while that weather radar anomaly is interesting and even curious - I don't think it has any bearing on your case.

It has been discussed here many times before. Maybe some kind member with more time on their hands than me can post a couple of links for you that explain it.

Thanks, good to see you're still lurking!

- Hermit



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


haha, has that weather pattern thing been around long? or is it an april fool?. but anyway those patterns look like what i used to create on my commodore amiga a500+ on amiga paint about 17 years ago!

thanks

rich



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   
im not lurking in the dark , i still have an intrest in this and the findings,
and other posibilities/explanations
i now the article has nothing to do with my story its just more strange activity in australia/ unexplaind activity
thanks



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Unbelievable.

Yes, there may be no connection but, there is an baffling event occurring over Sydney Australia that, scientists can't explain and we have Fiona, (well, of course, if you believe her) snapping photos of UFOs.

So.....of course there's absolutely no correlation what-so-ever.
Hogwash. Foolish. Rubbish. That's crazy-talk!

For we know exactly why UFO flaps happen. We even know their origin and....their names!
For we know everything due to our infinite ATS wisdom! You make me proud!



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


haha, has that weather pattern thing been around long? or is it an april fool?. but anyway those patterns look like what i used to create on my commodore amiga a500+ on amiga paint about 17 years ago!

thanks

rich


Its in todays paper online 2/4/10 not yesterdays 1/4/10 , not an april fools hoax, but not related to this case at all.


Yes, there may be no connection but, there is an baffling event occurring over Sydney Australia that, scientists can't explain and we have Fiona, (well, of course, if you believe her) snapping photos of UFOs.



For gods sake Twophish your exasperating! IT IS NOT HAPPENING OVER SYDNEY ok, it was over melbourne 800+ kilometers away, And broome/kalgoorlie 4000km away!

Melbourne is in the next southerly state and the other two cities are on the opposit side of the country! You embarress yourself.


So.....of course there's absolutely no correlation what-so-ever.
Hogwash. Foolish. Rubbish. That's crazy-talk!


No, there is no correlation, the first thing you have said in the whole thread that makes sense, even if it is just sarcasm.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


G'day wayaboveitall

That's just processing artifact.

It's been showing on there for years.

There is an explanation on the front page of the BOM, which has been there for a long time.

There have also been many, many threads about this on ATS.

It is absolutely nothing.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by destiny-fate
Well I like to give people the benefit of the doubt

Me too. Normally it takes a couple of hoaxes before I get nasty.



... 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

Remember that the reason it is a problem here, is that many of us are speculating that the brown thingy is on the windscreen. If a piece of glass is not in front of the camera, then the possibilities reduce somewhat.


HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD KNOW THAT ? HONESTLY ? AND THEN PLOT OR PLAN THEIR STORY ?

Ouch, you're hurting my ears!
I don't really want to speculate too much, so I'll just briefly say that I think missfee did take them from inside the car, then got out, maybe took some more (but maybe her phone had gone onto standby unnoticed..) but all she was left with was the first images. In the heat of the moment, she may have been a bit confused and forgotten where she was for the first ones. Then she goes home and examines the images, and lines them up with her recall of what she did. Presto - none taken inside the car!



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 ?

Oh, yes. You nailed it. Reporters want stories that will grab attention. They don't want to dig too deeply. If they do, and find out stuff that suddenly starts to explain the sighting, it loses its appeal. So those questions and answers will be chopped out (if they were asked at all). And UFO investigative organisations seem to do no better - if you dig around a little, you will see that they are often motivated to sell videos, books and dvds which almost entirely consist of what can only be described as 'cursorily' investigated cases.. (For example, look up Roger Marsh of MUFON, and then follow the rabbit hole to InCahoots.TV...)


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.

Don't get me wrong - I congratulate you on putting in some work! Even more kudos for listening and accepting that the link is maybe a little tenuous. It was still worth posting. I do believe in free speech, really I do!



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.

And me too...


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'....

But the point is you did assess this situation accurately.

Only afterwards, and only because of what transpired (or didn't). My main point was that your brain does 80% or more of the work. What the eye sees is just a small part of what is recorded/'memorised'.


Personally I think these objects can camouflage themselves I know no one is going to believe me lol

I believe you! As I said, there is always the slim possibility that their is some sort of stealth technology (be it alien or earthly), but you have then got to ask - does it only work sometimes? Do they need more dilithium crystals?



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... 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.

Interesting! I'd just suggest that you do a little research on what folks are doing with LED's on RC models, balloons and sky lanterns. I've seen some footage of quite extraordinary devices, that seem pretty much designed for hoaxing!


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...
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

Not me - I find your posts here refreshing and perceptive! The folks I find frustrating are those who simply refuse to be in error or to consider alternatives, are known hoaxers, or who come here with an agenda (eg getting youtube hits).


..each and everyone of us is entitled to present our own personal view or perspective regardless of others opinions - its called freedom of speech !!

Hear hear!

[edit on 1-4-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND
 


sorry i should have explained myself a bit better, what about the light source behind a person, because from the original photos her cars headlights seem to be on, and if so shouldnt a shadow be cast somewhere in front ?

i am using pwrthtbe top pic on page 1...


[edit on 1/4/10 by spender]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Thanks Maybe, Thats what I figured. I quoted the BOM as saying so (todays paper online) on the previous page, I think.
Cheers

I think this thread has hit the bottom of the barrel now, even the witness is now introducing unrelated material

Atleast the two ladies seem to have become solid freinds anyway, so I suppose thats something positive to come of it.
I dont forsee any major breakthroughs that might cause me to re-evalute at this point.

Pauline Hanson ROFL.....*whiney nasal voice*...."I don't like it!"


[edit on 1-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by spender
reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND
 


sorry i should have explained myself a bit better, what about the light source behind a person, because from the original photos her cars headlights seem to be on, and if so shouldnt a shadow be cast somewhere in front ?

i am using pwrthtbe top pic on page 1...


[edit on 1/4/10 by spender]


Ahh i see what your getting at. There dosent appear to be a fiona shaped shadow, Good catch!


Oh wait...on the otherhand none of the photos are angled down much, so might not include a perspective of her shadow.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by spender
reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND
 

sorry i should have explained myself a bit better, what about the light source behind a person, because from the original photos her cars headlights seem to be on, and if so shouldnt a shadow be cast somewhere in front ?


I don't see any evidence one way or the other about missfee's headlights. She says they were off and I find no reason to doubt that, but even if they were on I'm not sure it would show up at these angles.

So no, I don't see missing shadows.

Edit: Oops, I misread her post, thanks wayaboveitall, she did say the headlights were on.

But I'm still not seeing any clear pattern from the headlights, so I'm not sure about the missing shadow. And I'm not trying to imply that means the headlights were off, I just can't tell about any missing shadow.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   

She says they were off


Sorry mate, she says they were ON.


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


www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 1-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by spender
sorry i should have explained myself a bit better, what about the light source behind a person, because from the original photos her cars headlights seem to be on, and if so shouldnt a shadow be cast somewhere in front ?

i am using pwrthtbe top pic on page 1...


Try it with your own car - if you are near the centre of the car, and leaning against the front, then your shadow won't be noticeable as it heads off to the side.. Good idea though.



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Awesome thank-ya wayabove!

_____
Originally posted by wayaboveitall
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...
______


By the description, since she was off to the left a bit, and was sitting on the corner she means she was somewhere between the left front & middle-front? (crappy mock-up below)



Did she say how her car was oriented to the road?



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMalefactor
 


Hi TheMalefactor

It can be difficult to orientate to a large complex thread such as this one

It might help if you read my report on P55.

It collates a lot of information & is therefore a good starting point.

Kind regards

[edit on 2-4-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


MMN
I dont think many are interested in reading your report on p55 that was your report how about people make up there own minds/ report and post it
it's just you keep bringing it up i think the people have already read it conceriding there keeping up with this thread, and dont need it as a referance any more,
i just asuming debunk me if you want
just another question if you have now put this thread in the HOAX categery
why are you still interested
I mean if you have allready made up your mind that this is a HOAX, what other intrest could there be other than A REAL EXPLANATION



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join