It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by daggyz
Just before dark, something was on my lawn then flew off. I couldn't see what it was for certain as it happened too fast.
But as it's was unidentified, it flew and it was a black elongated object we'll just call it a UFO shall we?
Originally posted by The Ghost Who Walks
reply to post by wayaboveitall
"reply posted on 27-3-2010 @ 09:08 AM by missfee
reply to post by wayaboveitall"
"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" - missfee
Fiona was not resting her arms on the bonnet/hood of the car.
Fiona was sitting on the bonnet/hood with her back to the vehicle when she took the photo. She clearly states this.
Why is everyone continuing to dispute this?
Either take her word for it or give it a rest.
Every so-called expert is giving an opinion and introducing their own "evidence" without dealing with the facts that are presented.
Fiona has seen something in the sky, now whether that is a UFO or not we can argue ad-infinitum. One thing for sure is it is definitely a UO, whether it is flying is another matter.
Some of the comments directed at her are just plain rude.
[edit on 28-5-2010 by The Ghost Who Walks]
Originally posted by missfee
thanks for beliving in me and what i sore that afternoon and yes i feel that most folk on this site have just gone out of there way too be rude to me thats why i stoped comenting on this site
Originally posted by missfee
thanks for beliving in me and what i sore that afternoon and yes i feel that most folk on this site have just gone out of there way too be rude to me thats why i stoped comenting on this site but at the end of the day it only an opinion and based on some person that went out of his way to go to the place i took the photos then because he said it was a hoax every one else (as we say in australia) just followed suit he keeps refering to his report and that seems to lead people to think that his report is right and i am a lyer but like i said just another opinion
at the end of the day it only an opinion and based on some person that went out of his way to go to the place i took the photos then because he said it was a hoax
It's regretful that you feel this way, but I don't think anyone meant to be intentionally rude to you.
I note that in the comments section under the Liverpool Leader story
Expert sees the light in UFO pics
you say that you have a copy of a report from a real sientific investagater [sic] and that you would be happy to show this REAL report.
I'm sure many here would love to see it. Would you be willing to share it here on ATS?
Originally posted by Netties Hermit
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
Yes, Maybe...maybe not - but if you look at Fiona's comments underneath the article she states that she has a another report from a real scientific investigator that is quite different to Mr Chalker's report, so I assumed that she has a different report (that is more to her liking).
I may have misread it though.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It narrows it down to some extent. A person sitting in the back seat would get the car's interior. But I don't think it narrows down the front seat too much from my experience taking pictures. I can sit in a seat normally and not get the hood in the shot.
And I can lean forward and not get the hood in the shot.
And in my car the amount I can lean forward is probably about 2 feet.
More if I don't hold the camera to my face and use an external viewfinder.
If you just compare the postit note on the windshield (which might be 2 feet away) to an object that has a direct or reflected distance of 6 feet, then really the formula would be something like that
Sounds like you're saying we're dealing with some sort of function like (y+x) / x? Then when x > 1 it will behave like a linear-line graph and when it's < 1 exponentially. So you're saying the graph below is due to x < 1?
but the y would actually be a constant of 4 feet.
And the exponential increase occurs as X approaches zero. But I don't know how you can say less than 1, less than 1 what? foot? meter? centimeter?
The units don't matter so the value of 1 is irrelevant, forget about less than 1. It's as the distance to the windshield x approaches zero, that the ratio becomes infinite, and that happens regardless of the units.
So if we're to take this type of formula and we're assuming it's going exponential then that also means the size of the postit should get bigger and bigger in the camera viewfinder, right?
We are apparently making different comparisons.
I was comparing Xtraeme's example with the postit note on the windshield to the OP photos of dirt on the windshield. And I was suggesting that Xtraeme was further from the windshield in ALL shots he took relative to the Missfee photos.
That's because the ratio has gone from 6/2 which is a ratio of 3, to 5/1 so it's a 166% increase. If you lean forward from 2' to 0.5' instead, then the ratio of the object that was 6' away goes from 6/2 which is a ratio of 3, to 4.5/0.5 which is 9, and the relative movement increases by 300%.
Originally posted by TheMalefactor
my point is there's a maximum-minimum distance in the z-axis that should be definable when no matter how hard you try you're going to get interior.
...Based on a quick eyeballing ...she would probably...... she probably would...
How tall are you?
What kind of vehicle do you drive?
..but as I mentioned before if you're taking a picture of something extremely close and you pan the camera to the left. The object in the immediate foreground _will go the right_ and the things in the distance _will go the left_ with the camera...
You seem to have carefully cherry-picked an image showing a highly curved windscreen, and yet images like this one:
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. "
And I ask again, if you are seriously trying to use this sort of calculation in relation to a reflected object - WHERE IS THE BIT THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE CURVE OF THE GLASS? What do you think happens to an object reflected in a non-flat surface? And should I really be having to ask that question again?
Originally posted by TheMalefactor
Charlz you yourself said, "... anything viewed THROUGH the windscreen only receives a very small refraction - that won't affect it's size in a significant way."
Using the previous numbers www.abovetopsecret.com..., where the blob in 0432 has 37 pixels in width and 0433 has 43 pixels we have a difference of 6 pixels (this is even being optimistic!). 43/37 = 1.16216. Indicating, at most, a 116% increase though it's likely closer to 41/37 = 1.10811.
Looking at the bar graph shows that we _should_ have 167/86 = 1.94186 a 194% increase, a 78% difference from 43/37.
unless optical physics temporarily stopped working
And if you're going to go on about the curvature of the glass as relative to the reflection, what of your comment here,
You seem to have carefully cherry-picked an image showing a highly curved windscreen.... 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. "
Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
wow, i cant believe anyone is still arguing in favour of this obvious hoax, i dont think it really takes any expertise whatsoever to see that there is no alien spacecraft or anything else of interest in those pictures! the picture posted by someone else showing an almost identical reflection in an almost identical windscreen killed this non story stone cold dead ages ago!. even though it probably didn't even need that!. nothing to see here.... next....