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: 61
33
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by missfee
 


Hi Fiona

I direct people to my report because I think it is a helpful summary & therefore a good place from which to start.

I don't do it from "ego".....rather, I do it because I know how hard it can be to orientate to a long, complex thread such as this one.

If somebody else had collated & posted a good report, I would have directed people to it, as I've done in other threads.

I remain interested in the thread because I enjoy the technical discussions pertaining to this case.

Kind regards




posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Howdy Maybe!


Originally posted by Maybe...maybe notIt might help if you read my report on P55

Kind regards & a hunk a hunk a burnin' love


Ha! Love the flare =)

Read your post! Some interesting info there, but didn't find an answer to my question so it still stands:


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)



From the picture I assume her car was oriented parallel to the road?

Next reading over your summary I've got some questions I'm trying to work through.

First thing you go over is how long it take to do all the shots and that you felt it ran counter to her report that it all happened quickly:



- Date: March 21, 2010 7:18:37PM

- Date: March 21, 2010 7:18:41PM (i.e. 4 sec delay)

- Date: March 21, 2010 7:18:52PM (i.e. 11 sec delay)

- Date: March 21, 2010 7:19:05PM (i.e. 13 sec delay)

- Total elapsed time = 28 sec


Another guy mentioned:


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,
www.abovetopsecret.com...


I downloaded the image pack and there does seem to be a 3 to 4 second gap between the pics. So I guess I'm wondering how could she have done this any faster?

There are five shots total, right? I only see four mentioned above though.

So if we're being absolute a-holes demanding she have lightning reflexes pounding on the button exactly when it allows another shot to be taken it should have taken 4 * 3 = 12 seconds, right? If we're more reasonable about 4 * 4 = 16 seconds. So she basically spent 12 seconds between 4 shots lining them up or 3 to 4 seconds of time per shot getting a good stable picture.

That's pretty fast really.

What are your thoughts on this?

[edit on 2-4-2010 by TheMalefactor]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
Howdy Maybe!
Read your post! Some interesting info there, but didn't find an answer to my question so it still stands:


The Male Factor.....



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)




That is what the witness described to me.



From the picture I assume her car was oriented parallel to the road?


I believe that is the case, but I cannot recall my exact conversation with the witness pertaining to this issue.

The photo's are consistent with the car being parked "parallel" to the road.



Next reading over your summary I've got some questions I'm trying to work through.




First thing you go over is how long it take to do all the shots and that you felt it ran counter to her report that it all happened quickly:

- Date: March 21, 2010 7:18:37PM

- Date: March 21, 2010 7:18:41PM (i.e. 4 sec delay)

- Date: March 21, 2010 7:18:52PM (i.e. 11 sec delay)

- Date: March 21, 2010 7:19:05PM (i.e. 13 sec delay)

- Total elapsed time = 28 sec



I confirm that is the correct timing as per the EXIF data, as checked by Internos & me.



Another guy mentioned:

“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,
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I downloaded the image pack and there does seem to be a 3 to 4 second gap between the pics. So I guess I'm wondering how could she have done this any faster?


I just tested my own phone & 3 times in a row, took 5 pic’s (as in shoot-store, shoot-store, etc…) & it took between 10-11 sec’s each time to complete the 5 pic’s.

Therefore I still find the 4 sec…..then 11 sec…..then 13 sec…..total elapsed time 28 sec…..to be incongruous with the report.



There are five shots total, right? I only see four mentioned above though.


The 1st pic did not have EXIF data so we excluded it from our calc’s.



So if we're being absolute a-holes demanding she have lightning reflexes pounding on the button exactly when it allows another shot to be taken it should have taken 4 * 3 = 12 seconds, right? If we're more reasonable about 4 * 4 = 16 seconds. So she basically spent 12 seconds between 4 shots lining them up or 3 to 4 seconds of time per shot getting a good stable picture.

That's pretty fast really.

What are your thoughts on this?


My thoughts are still as stated in my report.

The time delays between the photos seem incongruous with the witness’ report stating that events occurred very quickly.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

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



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
I just tested my own phone & 3 times in a row, took 5 pic’s (as in shoot-store, shoot-store, etc…) & it took between 10-11 sec’s each time to complete the 5 pic’s.


Hrm, so you're basically saying 2-3 seconds between shots rather than 3-4 seconds? Maybe the 3G or 3GS models are slightly quicker than the original model?

Could you upload the shots for comparison? I'd like to see how in focus your shots are in comparison to the others.


Therefore I still find the 4 sec…..then 11 sec…..then 13 sec…..total elapsed time 28 sec…..to be incongruous with the report.


The head-scratcher for me is it takes time for the light sensors (or however it works) on the iPhone to autofocus right? The few times I've played with an iPhone I've noticed that over time the picture becomes clearer in the viewfinder. So my question is what's the average amount of time it takes to move the camera and then let it refocus?

To be fair it would seem we should basically say:
* 2-4 seconds minimum time between each shot (shoot-store because if moved between this time it would cause distortion?)
* the time it takes to move the camera in to a new position (which __can't__ happen during those 2-4 seconds without damaging the image during the save)
* time it takes to refocus.

So really (2-4 second minimum) + (move time) + (time to refocus).




So if we're being absolute a-holes demanding she have lightning reflexes pounding on the button exactly when it allows another shot to be taken it should have taken 4 * 3 = 12 seconds, right? If we're more reasonable about 4 * 4 = 16 seconds. So she basically spent 12 seconds between 4 shots lining them up or 3 to 4 seconds of time per shot getting a good stable picture.

That's pretty fast really.

What are your thoughts on this?


My thoughts are still as stated in my report.

The time delays between the photos seem incongruous with the witness’ report stating that events occurred very quickly & therefore the photos were taken very quickly


I guess my question would be is your complaint with the delay between the pictures or the total amount of time taking pictures?

If it's the first then could this be tested taking a picture of a plane as it moves through the sky?

If it's the second I suppose you find 28 seconds inherently not fast?


As a sort of test, to capture how time elapsed when a person is confused / shocked / distracted I suppose you could set a timer (go watch some TV program you enjoy for a minute or two - if it's a show you don't like it'd probably go slower), then tell a third-party how long you thought you were watching, and if it took longer or shorter you have a good idea of what's acceptable error margin?

edit: changed "bird" to "plane"
edit: realized moving while it's trying to save would probably damage the image, changing the time formula!

[edit on 2-4-2010 by TheMalefactor]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Therefore I still find the 4 sec…..then 11 sec…..then 13 sec…..total elapsed time 28 sec…..to be incongruous with the report.


Incongruous? I invoke your moniker...Maybe, maybe not. It's not unusual to underestimate or overestimate time intervals when recalling them.

THE ACCURACY OF TESTIMONY RELATIVE TO TIME INTERVALS


Other studies indicate recall estimates from four seconds to five minutes for a 20 second interval, and from one second to 60 seconds for a four second interval.


So what does that tell us? Yes there is a discrepancy but I wouldn't say it falls that far outside the range of discrepancies observed in studies like the person who recalled 20 seconds as 5 minutes. These studies merely show that human beings are not accurate data recorders, that's why scientists apply so many filters to any witness testimony and usually don't take what a witness says at face value, apparently with good reason when it comes to time interval estimates.

However there are cases where a discrepancy can exceed the range of possibilities which could be attributed to normal human error, such as this one:

Rendlesham Forest incident


Jim Penniston and John Burroughs went to investigate the craft together. However, there is a major inconsistency in separate interviews of Jim Penniston and John Burroughs. In an interview with Larry King on November 9, 2007, Jim Penniston claimed that he did a 45 minutes full investigation of the craft on the ground, touched the craft and took photos of the craft. However, in a separate interview in Robert Stack's Unsolved Mysteries, John Burroughs described that after suddenly encountering the craft on the ground, "we all hit the ground, and it went up into the trees".


I haven't been able to find any science that says one guy can recall 0 seconds while another guy recalls 45 minutes of the same incident, so one of those stories is fabricated. But the discrepancy in missfee's account of how long it took to take the photos, versus the EXIF data isn't too far outside the range found during studies on the subject.

Also note that apparent passage of time can be distorted by how excited we are:

Does Time Really Slow Down during a Frightening Event?


participants retrospectively estimated their own fall to last 36% longer than others' falls



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
If it's the second I suppose you find 28 seconds inherently not fast?



We found reason to question the EXIF data accuracy on GPS coordinates, but I'm not sure if we have reason to question the EXIF data on the time information? it looks like MMN might have reason to doubt the 2 second interval between 2 of the photos as faster than the iphone's capability?

It wouldn't be too hard for an iphone owner to take 5 photos while using a stopwatch, and compare how well the elapsed time on the exif data compares to the stopwatch intervals, just to get a feel for how accurate the EXIF data on time might be for the iphone. But I'm not sure it's that important. About half a minute or 28 seconds sounds reasonable for taking 5 photos with a phone cam, and recalling a significantly shorter time doesn't seem unreasonable given that we aren't very good time estimators.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by TheMalefactor
 


reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


TheMaleFactor & Arbitrageur

The basic point you appear to be making regarding the “timing" is that perceptions & opinions of timing can vary......I agree with you.

My perception & hence my opinion is the “it all happened in seconds” type of response from the witness made me feel as if the witness was describing the "event" as happening more quickly than the timing shown in the EXIF data.

That’s still my opinion & now we have “your opinion” of “my opinion” of the “witness’ opinion”…..

Kind regards
Maybe…maybe not

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



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Straight-forward and to the point.


Even though you're just giving us your opinion we can still measure objectively what's fast or slow for you.

So the questions above still stand.

____

I guess my question would be is your complaint with the delay between the pictures or the total amount of time taking pictures?

If it's the first then could this be tested taking a picture of a plane as it moves through the sky?

If it's the second then I suppose you find 28 seconds inherently not fast?

As a sort of test, to capture how time elapsed when a person is confused / shocked / distracted I suppose you could set a timer (go watch some TV program you enjoy for a minute or two - if it's a show you don't like it'd probably go slower), then tell a third-party what happened during the episode (so we know you're not counting in your head), whether you thought it went quickly, and how long you thought you were watching the program. Errors in either direction should give a good feeling of what's acceptable error margin.

For example:
actual: 3:30
opinion: 3:00, quickly
Person objectively was running quicker by a margin of 30 seconds.

actual: 2:00
opinion: 3:00, quickly
Person objectively was running slower by a margin of a minute.

Average them out and whatever the number is should give you a good sense of what's objective error margin for you personally. Following this sort of test we could see if you're doling out your judgment consistent with your personal results.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   

So she basically spent 12 seconds between 4 shots lining them up or 3 to 4 seconds of time per shot getting a good stable picture.

That's pretty fast really.

What are your thoughts on this?

[edit on 2-4-2010 by TheMalefactor]




My thoughts are it is inconsistant with the witness own testimony in relation to timeing of photos.
In the 2GB radio interveiw she says

witness

I just snapped a few shots of objects in the sky
The two metallic objects actually took off as fast as the eye could see across to the right of the screen


Host

Hang on, were they going at a regular pace or did they accellerate?


witness

Well darling I can put it to you like this,The photos were taken on an Iphone, the iphone everytime you click is an instant photo, so
I can click clixck click click, a photo every shot, theres no hesitation between shots.


witness

They were going very fast, What you see in the photos is in a matter of 5 shots,they came, i took 5 shots instantaineously,and then they dissappeared


www.2gb.com...


In the 3AW interveiw, listen to what she says at 0:47 onward and from 2:28

www.dailymotion.com...


Originally posted by missfee
reply to post by TwoPhish

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


hi my arms wearnt straigh the were bent i hold it with both hands so the pics are not tilted 1 side or an other and click with my right thumb



Seems to indicate a little care in aiming at what she thought she was seeing, rather than, 'oh look a mysterious ufo' snap snap snap


Originally posted by missfee
reply to post by wayaboveitall

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


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 yes i seen the light post but it was no in my veiw of the sunset i was focusing my iphone at first in an up right posion, my daughter has told me its called land-scape



She manages to perfectly frame this ufo in all 5 photos, carefully focusing, yet she dosent manage to capture 'the bright orange light' she claims seeing dispense the orbs (she denies it was the streetlight), though she says both the 'orange light' and the 'black blob', dissappeared instantly at the same time. She says the blob came near the orange light, and indeed the streetlight can be seen to the right of it in one shot, yet no other orange light excepting the sun and other streetlights, are seen in the photo.

If you see multiple ufos all in the same feild of veiw, and you are taking the time to aim and focus on them, wouldnt you try to capture all of them?
Which would be the most spectacular? a black blob, or a bright orange light giving birth to two shiny spheres?

You decide. It might be interesting to know who else the witness has contacted with her story, apart from ch9 tv today show, 2 radio stations and newspapers, various forums, youtube etc.
Ill be watching for the story in popular womens magazines (who pay for stories) aka '©That's life' & '©Take 5' etc via my wife.
Im tending more and more toward beleiving the entire story was fabricated deliberately.

Untill it can be proven the blob was in the sky & that the photos were taken outside the car as claimed. The evidence shows otherwise
and the claim is tenuous at best right there.

[edit on 2-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Any guy with a Terry Pratchett picture's gotta be alright ...


Originally posted by wayaboveitall
d like to point you guys to the incongrueties in the witness own testimony in relation to timeing of photos.
In the 2GB radio interveiw she says


The two metallic objects actually took off as fast as the eye could see across to the right of the screen


From the IMG_0432 to the IMG_0433 shot didn't the camera move left and the object moved up and to the right? The guy in the link below seems to describe all the movements pretty well ...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Well darling I can put it to you like this,The photos were taken on an Iphone, the iphone everytime you click is an instant photo, so
I can click clixck click click, a photo every shot, theres no hesitation between shots



They were going very fast, What you see in the photos is in a matter of 5 shots,they came, i took 5 shots instantaineously,and then they dissappeared


www.2gb.com...

In the 3AW interveiw, listen to what she says at 0:47 onward and from 2:28

www.dailymotion.com...

Seems to indicate a little care in aiming at what she thought she was seeing, rather than, 'oh look a mysterious ufo' snap snap snap


I think she's being cavalier about the whole thing during the 3AW interview so she doesn't come across as bat-s##t nuts like the woman in the video below does discussing her UFO sighting to CNN,



As for the rest of the quotes, she's saying she hammered out some pictures uber fast. "I can click clixck click click, a photo every shot, theres no hesitation between shots." What I was trying to work out with the Maybe-dude up above is it takes 2-4 seconds to take a shot + time to move to new position + time to refocus, rinse, repeat.

Really she took the photos about as fast as she could. We can test this too. Someone just needs to go outside find a plane or heli not too far off in the distance, probably something like 4000 to 5000 feet away, and see how long it takes to get the shots.

edit: fixed a link (damn I suck at this)

[edit on 2-4-2010 by TheMalefactor]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
FromYour link to the post by Xtreme

www.abovetopsecret.com...


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.




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!


So they WERE taken through the windscreen. If Xtremes calculations are correct, then the 'blob' must be windblown debris just outside the windscreen.
proximity blur is still apparent. Xtremes post says its moving, but not the distance from the lense. Only that its still very close though it has a greater translation distance
than the glare on the windscreen.



As for the rest of the quotes, she's saying she hammered out some pictures uber fast. "I can click clixck click click, a photo every shot, theres no hesitation between shots." What I was trying to work out with the Maybe-dude up above is it takes 2-4 seconds to take a shot + time to move to new position + time to refocus, rinse, repeat.

Really she took the photos about as fast as she could. We can test this too. Someone just needs to go outside find a plane or heli not too far off in the distance, probably something like 4000 to 5000 feet away, and see how long it takes to get the shots.

edit: fixed a link (damn I suck at this)

[edit on 2-4-2010 by TheMalefactor]


Yes I said that very early on. I think shooting 5 well framed shots of something moving and at the distance of a plane or helicopter would be much harder with an iphone and a 4" veiwfinder screen
than of something much much closer.
I tried this yesterday with a quantas jet in my backyard, with a hand held standard digital cam, not looking through the veiwer, just trying to frame the plane on the cameras screen.
I took just 3 shots before it out of range, and only one captured the tail of it.
The same issues with the camera getting ready (processing the last shot) loading it onthe screen, the screen clearing and ready to aim and focus the next shot.
Damn near impossible, unless the object was much closer, and slower.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Looks like you keep adding to that post up above so I'll make some new comments for your edits.


Originally posted by wayaboveitall
She manages to perfectly frame this ufo in all 5 photos, carefully focusing, yet she dosent manage to capture 'the bright orange light' she claims seeing dispense the orbs (she denies it was the streetlight),


Damn you're demanding. LOL. Three weird things supposedly up in the sky and she only gets 2 outta 3 and you're hammering her for that?


though she says both the 'orange light' and the 'black blob', dissappeared instantly at the same time. She says the blob came near the orange light, and indeed the streetlight can be seen to the right of it in one shot, yet no other orange light excepting the sun and other streetlights, are seen in the photo.


Lets say I take a picture of what I'm calling a big rat. That big rat is near a sewer opening. However it's off in the distance by a good couple 100 feet. So it's hard to get all the details. Lets also say there's a big brick near the shot.

If I take shots from left (more of the left-hand scene in frame) to right (more from the right) and say I get the rat, but it looks like an amorphous blob in one image and then in the next as I physically move or rotate the camera to the left to capture more of the right scene I see just the brick (which also looks like an amorphous blob) does that mean I'm lying or that two things just looked the same?

Or imagine I'm trying to get the rat but all I get is the brick, but I'm not sure which is which because they both look similar.

There are a lot of possibilities here.


If you see multiple ufos all in the same feild of veiw, and you are taking the time to aim and focus on them, wouldnt you try to capture all of them?


I'm not saying she's spending hours setting up her shots dude. Hell the times in the photos don't allow for that. I'm saying the iPhone has a auto-light sensor and it needs a second or two to make those adjustments. If you don't the shot'll be black or washed out.

On the iphone you snap, wait for the save, go to your new shot, then wait a second and it auto-focuses, then snap again. There's a big difference between going through that simple process so the shots basically viewable versus lining-up for hours to find the best moment.


Which would be the most spectacular? a black blob, or a bright orange light giving birth to two shiny spheres?


Don't people usually take pictures of what they see first? I seem to remember somewhere she said she saw the black-thing first.


You decide.


I don't know either way at the moment. Though I'm tending to the think the people in this thread aren't entirely rational with their judgments.


It might be interesting to know who else the witness has contacted with her story, apart from ch9 tv today show, 2 radio stations and newspapers, various forums, youtube etc.
Ill be watching for the story in popular womens magazines (who pay for stories) aka '©That's life' & '©Take 5' etc via my wife.


If you find anything report back!

Though really after reading everything here and how everyone's treating her I wouldn't blame her if she tried to make a buck off it. Better to get it out there and then laugh at all the a##holes giving her lip saying she's a liar.

That's what I'd do, but I am an ass.

Hell I'd even come back to the site and post a video of me with all the money for neener's. LOL


Im tending more and more toward beleiving the entire story was fabricated deliberately.


Wish I could see how you arrived at your judgment.

Cheerio Mr. Pratchett!



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Looks like you keep adding to that post up above so I'll make some new comments for your edits.


I wasnt finished.


Though really after reading everything here and how everyone's treating her I wouldn't blame her if she tried to make a buck off it. Better to get it out there and then laugh at all the a##holes giving her lip saying she's a liar.



Are you calling me (and anyone else who has shown the photos were taken in the car) an asshole? Note the underlined below. Aka 'You decide!'


In the 2GB radio interveiw she says

witness

I just snapped a few shots of objects in the sky
The two metallic objects actually took off as fast as the eye could see across to the right of the screen




Wish I could see how you arrived at your judgment.


I arrived at it by weighing the evidence against the testimony.





[edit on 2-4-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
I wasnt finished.


Never said that wasn't OK.



Though really after reading everything here and how everyone's treating her I wouldn't blame her if she tried to make a buck off it. Better to get it out there and then laugh at all the a##holes giving her lip saying she's a liar.

Are you calling me (and anyone else who has shown the photos were taken in the car) an asshole?


This perfectly illustrates how text conveys what the person wants to read. I'm saying if someone called me a liar I'd have the attitude towards them that they were an a##hole.

So for instance if you called me a liar I'd then think in my head, "that a##hole!"

Get it?

Likewise if I called you "an a##shole!" You'd probably think in _your_ head "that motherfu##en a##shole!"



Wish I could see how you arrived at your judgment.


I arrived at it by weighing the evidence against the testimony.


I think you may have an embedded position, like a lot of other people in this thread. You put your cards in for a particular side. Not saying that's bad or somehow a failing. It's just what people do. Who likes to be shown they might have been wrong?

Not me, that's for sure.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   

This perfectly illustrates how text conveys what the person wants to read. I'm saying if someone called me a liar I'd have the attitude towards them that they were an a##hole.


Fair enough. I agree. Thats unfortunate but its her perogative.


I think you may have an embedded position, like a lot of other people in this thread. You put your cards in for a particular side. Not saying that's bad or somehow a failing. It's just what people do. Who likes to be shown they might have been wrong?

Not me, that's for sure.


If you could be bothered, read through the thread again and you will see places i have defended against ideas put forth, in favor of the witness testimony,
conceed where my own ideas have been shown false, an been unbiased with information relating to other ideas, always showing the witness testimony
and or evidence to date, rather than assuming something to be so.
My conclusion has been strengthened over the course of the thread. I beleived the blob to very close to the camera to begin with when I read the story in my paper, and I beleived the photos to be taken through the windscreen
due to the obvious reflection when I saw the photos online, despite the witness testimony.
This thread is 60 odd pages and I think you have barely skimmed it yet. Had you followed the thread from the beginning through to this page without skipping, I beleive you might have come to the same conclusion.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
FromYour link to the post by Xtreme

www.abovetopsecret.com...


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.



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!


So they WERE taken through the windscreen. If Xtremes calculations are correct, then the 'blob' must be windblown debris just outside the windscreen.


I could be wrong here, but based on the conversation between Phage & Xtreme (please chime in if I'm misrepresenting you two hombres!) what I gathered was Phage was saying if it was the dash it would project out by about the distance equal from the interior of the vehicle to the window. Doubling the total distance as far as the camera is concerned.

Xtreme was saying this couldn't be the case for two reasons. The flare would occur at one of the glass panes and that it didn't fit the plots to be a linear progression. Telling us that the glare even if it was a projection would occur some _several feet_ away from the camera and that would have to have a distance that would have to still be very close in length to the "red line."

That's why Xtreme seems to have a rather good argument IMHO.

Assuming I got all of that right then the reason it couldn't be debris outside of the glass then is because there's a 4, 11, and 13 second delay (courtesy Maybe-dude!). Which would tell us then that the debris would have had to lazily wafted around for 4 seconds, 11 seconds, and 13 seconds of delay while still remaining in the very narrow portion of the windshield so she wouldn't get the hood.

edit: made the wording more clear!

[edit on 2-4-2010 by TheMalefactor]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Out of the car...really? Cause in the 1st pic toward the right I see what I believe to be her dashboard kind of reflected in the windshield, no?



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
Lets say I take a picture of what I'm calling a big rat. That big rat is near a sewer opening. However it's off in the distance by a good couple 100 feet. So it's hard to get all the details. Lets also say there's a big brick near the shot.


I know how hard it is to read this whole thread, because I read over 50 pages before making my first reply, and I mean every post. Now it's over 60 pages.

But some of this ground has been covered before so if you haven't read the whole thread, it might be worthwhile to avoid covering the same ground. The dark blob doesn't show motion blur, which would suggest it's either not moving, moving very slowly, or the camera has a very high shutter speed, and I don't think it's the latter so one of the two former would seem likely. Also it's apparently not in focus. Given what IS in focus, this would tend to suggest that it's not anything a couple hundred feet away as your rat example suggests.

Rather the focus suggests the object might be relatively close to the camera, and I would suggest that this would likely be the case whether Xtraeme or Phage is right about the reflections, I tend to think Phage is but I got the original photos to look at Xtraeme's arguments more closely and am still looking at them. But even if Xtraeme is right, even he agrees we're not looking at a blob several hundred feet away, right?



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


Wayaboveitall.....

Your transcripts of the witness' interview are very useful.

The witness' comments in those interviews further reinforce my opinion of the time delay being incongruous with the witness' description of the "event".

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join