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: 68
33
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   

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?


Daggyz.....

Ummm......

That's not exactly the best UFO report I've seen on here.....





posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Dirt.

But it was (Sorta) exciting at first glance. But sadly, nothing but dirt.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
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]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   

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]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   
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



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by missfee
 

You know what they say about opinions..
I admire your courage to step up and share your experience.
Just a shame nothing adds up.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by keepureye2thesky]

[edit on 10-6-2010 by keepureye2thesky]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

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


Hi missfee, thanks for stopping by again.

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 scientific investigator 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?

- Hermit

Edited to edit out my editors note - no disrespect intended.

[edit on 10/6/2010 by Netties Hermit]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   

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


Missfee.....



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 that "some person" here.

I still don't feel good about the fact I've called this a hoax.

However, I just couldn't arrive at any other conclusion other than your story was (at best case) strongly embellished.

I hope you are doing OK.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Netties Hermit
 


Netties Hermit.....



It's regretful that you feel this way, but I don't think anyone meant to be intentionally rude to you.


I appreciate your comment.

At all times, I tried extremely hard to be polite & respectful to the witness, missfee.

I note one misunderstanding seemed to occur wherein another member stated missfee was a "liar" & that was included in my summary report on p55. At no stage did I call missfee a liar.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Netties Hermit
 


Netties Hermit.....



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?


The report refered to is an article that was published in "Australian UFO Monthly", as written by Bill Chalker, with whom I discussed this case at length. Bill agrees with my conclusions. I have been intending to meet with Bill again, but my busy work & travel schedule has made that difficult to date.

I will call Bill with a view to meeting with him & getting a copy of the article during the next few weeks.

Here's the article from the local news site as linked to in your post:



Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
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.

- Hermit



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

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.

- Hermit


Nettie's Hermit.....

Bill Chalker is an acclaimed Australian UFO investigator of many years standing. Bill has written a number of highly acclaimed books (including "The Oz Files"), lectured all over the world, etc...

Bill is the "real deal"!


Here are some links pertaining to Bill Chalker.

theozfiles.blogspot.com...

www.theozfiles.com...

www.auforn.com...

www.auforn.com...

The article refered to is that which I mentioned in my post.

I posted that very minor news article only for the convenient viewing of members.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   

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.


No doubt a person could manage to avoid the hood if they wanted, but 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. Those boundary conditions would then determine how much room she had to work in. Based on a quick eyeballing, and based on Fiona's height, she probably would have had to gotten on her knees on the front seat to have gotten a high-enough angle to not include the hood.


And I can lean forward and not get the hood in the shot.


How tall are you?


And in my car the amount I can lean forward is probably about 2 feet.


What kind of vehicle do you drive?


More if I don't hold the camera to my face and use an external viewfinder.


Good point, that's definitely something that has to be factored in, 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 to the right_ and the things in the distance _will go to the left_ with the camera. We see in IMG_0432 and IMG_0433 that the things in the foreground and background both move in the same direction. So to get it all right Fiona would have to do all sorts of crazy tilting to get everything to mesh perfectly. Maybe Maybe dude & Xtreme both point out the times take 2-3 second between shots on the iPhone. So she didn't have a lot of time to line this up perfectly, panning the camera down and to the left and then tilting the camera just perfect to get the background to appear to move right with the blob.



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?
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


The growth of the function is asymptotic towards 0. So ((y + x) / x) correctly describes the limiting behavior of the function as x approaches a focal plane of x = 0 and x = infinity.


but the y would actually be a constant of 4 feet.


I accounted for that with this equation:

(6 - (2-2x)) / 2x

when x approaches 0, the numerator (6 - (2-2*0)) approaches 4.


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?


In the previous posts we were talking feet. Why would I change units?


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.


The equation shows that denominator is what determines when the function starts going exponential.

Here's the original equation:
(6 - (2-2x)) / 2x

www22.wolframalpha.com...

At an x of about .5 it starts skyrocketing.

Using this equation:

(6 - (2-2x)) / 1x

www22.wolframalpha.com...

At an x of about 1 the thing start going exponential. The units matter if we're being specific.

If I had to guess I'd say Xtreme was about 7 to 12" away from the windshield based on what I can see of the wiper blade. So that means 2x in the denominator is probably right (going asymptotic at .5')

Can someone with an iphone find out at what distance an object starts going exponential

[edit on 11-6-2010 by TheMalefactor]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   


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.


While that might be, my point is if it was going exponential, as you're claiming is the case.


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%.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


So if you're saying the reason we're seeing the exponential graph on the left:



is because of this behavior, my point is that then the black blob should also increase in scale in the x- and y-axis on the photographic plate by 166% pixels and 300% pixels respectively.

That _does not happen_.

So clearly this exponential graph _cannot_ be due to the camera getting closer to the windscreen between shots!!!

edit: spelling suckitude

[edit on 11-6-2010 by TheMalefactor]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:29 AM
link   
This was all covered earlier, so I hesitate to make it any worse.. But I have to re-iterate my point that you can throw complex and impressive sounding equations at the problem, but if they are not used correctly, and you don't consider everything you HAVE to consider, then that analysis can only be filed in one place...


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.

Yes, IF, IF, IF the camera was held on a perfectly straight line, and not tilted or moved in any other way. Even a slight tilt upwards would make a big difference (..the sort of tilt that people do subconciously when they see window frames and the like appearing in the edge of their photos..). The ONLY way to make such an analysis or calculation useful is to hold those things (eg camera tilt and height) unchanged (or measure them - and you can't do that without returning to the scene and duplicating the conditions).


You simply cannot apply photogrammetry like this!!!



...Based on a quick eyeballing ...she would probably...... she probably would...

The terms 'eyeballing' and 'probably' should not appear in an analysis...


How tall are you?
What kind of vehicle do you drive?

Even if you could account for the issues shown above, these are simply distractions - it is purely the camera position (in ALL respects, namely x,y,z and roll/tilt/yaw!) that is in question.


..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...

I'm sorry, but at this point my head began to spin.... What???? I'm guessing you mean they may move that way *relative to each other*. If you pan the camera to the left (holding roll, tilt and yaw unchanged), *everything* in the scene will go right, but at different rates. If you alter the angle of the camera (or move/crop the image) to make the background match, then you have added whole new aspects into the 'equation'.

Seriously, malefactor, you need to go plaster some spots on your windscreen and then go try it all out, before you start waving calculations around. While doing that, notice how many things you can do - not just panning but tilting, yawing, moving up/down/back/forward... - that all dramatically affect the result. And then think hard about how complex your calculations would have to be to take ALL of that into account. If you do want to throw maths at it, then you need to account for everything, and use the CORRECT maths *and* geometry. And if you make incorrect statements like "pan the camera to the left... things in the distance _will go the left_ with the camera", then I'm afraid it appears you haven't got your head around it at all.

How can an equation that contains just two variables possibly be applied in any useful way to this?

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?


There are so many factors being ignored here... Anyway, I pointed this out before, and shall now withdraw. Feel free to continue the 'analysis', but I would suggest you have a long hard think about what you would TRULY need to do, to 'model' this.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


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." www.abovetopsecret.com...

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. So if the the blob was on a windshield it would have scaled from 37 pixels in 0432 to (37 * 1.94) = 71.78 pixels in 0433, rounded up to 72 pixels.

A 29 pixel error margin... unless optical physics temporarily stopped working to allow Fiona to take this shot, the thing was moving.

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, and yet images like this one:
invimg.autofunds.com...
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. "
www.abovetopsecret.com...


So with respect to your question,


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?


Leads me back to what I asked a long while ago,

"So I saw that we're dealing with a camera with a 35 or 37 mm lens, right? That means to get the reflection to zoom out further it would have to change to what a 10 or 15 mm lens? How much curvature / focal length would that require for the window? Wouldn't that then also massively distort the dashboard[-esque reflection so it's not a straight line]? Like what Xtreme was talking about [here]? " www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit: wording

[edit on 11-6-2010 by TheMalefactor]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I guess I have to respond, but this really IS my last contribution here, because it simply isn't getting through...


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."

Yes, I did, and that was correct - do you dispute it? And in what way did anything I say, contradict that??? Stop adding distractions.


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.

So, you have a figure there that *could* be used ONLY if you can guarantee that the camera moved back or forth while perfectly aligned and not tilted (and that lens perspective distortions aren't relevant, but let's leave that one out for expediency..).


Looking at the bar graph shows that we _should_ have 167/86 = 1.94186 a 194% increase, a 78% difference from 43/37.

You have given absolutely NO justification for this step, other than to blindly accept XT's flawed assumptions. Where is the guarantee that the camera isn't now at a different angle? If you are going to try this sort of analysis, you MUST account for everything that would affect the ratio.

If you don't provide your assumptions and error ranges and justify your conclusion, then you have just provided completely useless figures.


unless optical physics temporarily stopped working

You need to understand not just 'optical physics', but 3D geometry. That's where you are falling over. I'm sorry, but you are clearly not well-informed enough to do this sort of analysis.


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. "


And again, why bring up a distraction - is this an attempt to make me look uninformed, or that I have contradicted myself?

I'm sorry, but I absolutely stand by those comments - the point stands. It is CORRECT. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CURVATURE WAS. So any guesses at the ratios when analysing a reflected object are worthless. You can't just ignore it - you don't even seem to accept that there would HAVE TO BE a factor in any equation that took that into account.

DO YOU ACCEPT THAT THE CURVATURE OF THE REFLECTING SURFACE MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN TRYING TO ANALYSE A REFLECTION?

DO YOU ACCEPT THAT THE TILT OF CAMERA AFFECTS WHAT WILL BE SEEN?

DO YOU ACCEPT BY CHANGING THE ANGLE/POSITION OF THE CAMERA, THE *RELATIVE* POSITIONS OF NEARBY OBJECTS WILL CHANGE, NOT ONLY TO THE BACKGROUND, BUT TO THE OTHER NEARBY OBJECTS?

DO YOU ACCEPT THAT YOU CANNOT MODEL SUCH A 3D SCENE, in which the camera position and angle are not precisely known, WITH A SIMPLISTIC 2-VARIABLE EQUATION?

DO YOU AGREE THAT IF THE CAMERA PANS LEFT, THEN EVERYTHING (stationary) IN THE CAPTURED SCENE WILL MOVE TO THE RIGHT (all other things being held equal), AND THAT YOUR PREVIOUS STATEMENT WAS WRONG?

I mean, you seem to be trying to discredit my comments, so how about accepting your own mistakes??? How is it that you carefully managed to ignore that bit?


I'm gone. This is a waste of time.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Let me guess you enacted your signature and let your brain fall out?

Thank god we won't have to deal with your perpetual string of contradictions and inability to do math whatsoever.

The only thing I accept is that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
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....

thanks

rich



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   

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....


What keen insight. I guess that's why Maybe Maybe Dude spent his time investigating the case with the witness. It was so obvious it begged his attention. And clearly Bill Chalker doesn't have better things to do. Not only that, but he's even willing to say, "It's not 100 per cent." But you knew all along the oh-so blatant truth that it was an "obvious hoax."

Do you have any other banal wisdom to share with us?



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join