UFO in Sydney Australia

As I see it, some of you have already made up your minds. You've done your tests, show that this woman doesn't know 'inside' from 'outside' so I would think. you have closed the case.

May I ask then? Why do you still come back to this thread? You've made your point. You're standing your ground...so?


Listen, you cannot make every single person agree with you which it looks like you want. People still argue whether man went to the Moon or not despite the 'tests' and that's 40 years old now.

So please stop indirectly insulting those who do not agree with you and your 'tests'.
I am not confused so much as I am unsure of what was said.

This quote, to me, is huge!
You look at this in the nuts and bolts way.
I look at this more internally including but not limited to what this woman said.
Again, that quote is not a mere faux pas. It gives the impression this woman is loony and that.....is not fair. I don't care if it's a local nothing newspaper. If you're going to use quotes then, use them properly!

reply to post by One Moment


One Moment.....

I'm sorry to express this so directly, but.....

Now you're making no sense at all.

I think this is a reflection of your lack of knowledge & experience regarding this case specifically & the broader topic of UFO's more generally.

Regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by One Moment


Well, we all await YOUR investigation into this case.

All the data you need is in this thread.

Enjoy.

Science is a process backed by evidence therefore, we have reason to believe this evidence is unflawed which is a misnomer. Evidence is still inherently capable of errors and we're seeing that all the time.

Not here to argue. I am here to ask questions and hopefully receive answers and not get some test-report copied and pasted in its place.

I asked about what this woman was quoted as saying was true and instead, I get a bunch of you redirecting me back to your conclusions.

Those are your conclusions.

I for one still think JFK wasn't murdered by a lone gunman despite the tests.
The Earth isn't as young as 'tests' show.
We have no idea what 'time' really is even though tests say we do.
The WTC towers were demolished contrary to the 'tests'
and
The Great Pyramid is much older than all the scientific data seems to show.


So.....I march to my own drummer. I rely on no one. Not scientifically anyway.

reply to post by One Moment


so basically what you're saying is that you believe only what you want to believe no matter what and that you take no notice of any scientific evidence if it doesn't fit your beliefs!. ok glad we got that straight so i dont have to waste any more of my time!.

thanks

rich

Click here for more information.

reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND


Ah yes RICH scientific evidence ... you mean all the scientific evidence your buddy CHRLZ _talked_ about with photogrammetry, but never once used mathematically to demonstrate his incredible knowledge of the subject? Then when someone actually exposes the fault of the idea that if two objects are at a fixed distance and the camera changes angle or depth, that the only thing that's going to cause one to move disproportionally to the other is a scaling factor. Well jee if that's the case then the formula *gasp* is showing that even still the skepti-bunker argument doesn't work! Because we're measuring along ONE axis. However what does your buddy CHRLZ do when confronted with this and his contradictions? He throws a hissy fit and flees the thread.

Please go speak with actual experts, and stop using faux pas pseudo-science.

Originally posted by TheMalefactor
reply to post by RICH-ENGLAND

 

Ah yes RICH scientific evidence ... you mean all the scientific evidence your buddy CHRLZ _talked_ about with photogrammetry, but never once used mathematically to demonstrate his incredible knowledge of the subject? Then when someone actually exposes the fault of the idea that if two objects are at a fixed distance and the camera changes angle or depth, that the only thing that's going to cause one to move disproportionally to the other is a scaling factor. Well jee if that's the case then the formula *gasp* is showing that even still the skepti-bunker argument doesn't work! Because we're measuring along ONE axis. However what does your buddy CHRLZ do when confronted with this and his contradictions? He throws a hissy fit and flees the thread.

Please go speak with actual experts, and stop using faux pas pseudo-science.

I wouldn't waste too much time on these people. They've taken this mob-mentality approach. What one person says (like anyone looking for a leader to stand behind) is good enough for them.

Again.....science to me (especially people on this forum whose hobby is.....science) means nothing.

The best and most seasoned scientists have been proven wrong! Science ain't the 'end-all' when it comes to facts. In fact, it's science that starts a very narrow minded thinking society that sentences to death, innocent people!

I am not on here to debate the science. I am a third person removed from all of this.

I simply wanted to know (which is NOT science rather.......a basic FACT) whether this woman said she captured a photo of a craft from another planet (well, something to that nature).

That should be scrutinized more than your arm-chair, cyberspace, data extracting, photo-shop proving science, that's been provided so far.

Science is often wrong. In fact, science is usually always proven wrong in time. Just look back at the past 500 years.


Science is just a theory based on our own narrow minded, miscalculated and misunderstood reality. We're relying on science more than Human intuition. Just another crutch.

I don't think life (truth) is as hard or difficult as we seem to make it out to be.


Fiona? Are you a liar? Yes or no?




[edit on 12-6-2010 by One Moment]

reply to post by TheMalefactor


what are you talking about, i dont know chrlz from adam but at least he talks sense and science and doesn't spend his time trying to provoke everyone or insult everyone, your theory is faulty and was taken apart ages ago just like the rest of this story its just that you like all the rest of the blind believers choose to ignore anything that doesn't fit.

reply to post by TheMalefactor


oh, and by the way if that last sentence about experts was directed at me then to which experts do you refer?.

and in all honesty i wouldn't embarrass myself by presenting such a nothing picture to any sort of expert with my name attached! i mean basically we are looking at a picture of absolutely nothing but a bit of scenery and a road taken from inside a car with a dirty windscreen and no matter what science is applied or argued over is not going to change it into anything else let alone an alien spacecraft and i need nothing more than eyes a brain to tell me that.

thanks

rich

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

at least he talks sense and science

Lets see in all these posts he's exposed as contradicting himself or not knowing what he's talking about ...

1. Taken apart on 3 counts (jpeg artifacts / "properly blow[ing] up ... pixels" / and on lens flares being at the "exact geometrical centre of the image") www.abovetopsecret.com...

2. And here Charlz claims the screen is both curved and simultaneously not, he even goes on to say, "I'm sorry, but I absolutely stand by those comments - the point stands. It is CORRECT. " (I love paradoxes!) www.abovetopsecret.com...

So you see contradiction as sensical and being proven repeatedly wrong as scientific? LOL

...your theory is faulty and was taken apart ages ago...

You do realize it was Charlz who said that we had to account for the asymptotic behavior of the lens right? I accounted for that and applied it to the scaling, and guess what? It didn't scale as it mathematically should. When I asked for feedback, what did I get? A whole lot of BS about not accounting for "rotations." The point is rotations will _not_ cause such extreme parallax. Only _scaling_ will cause parallax. So the only relevant variable there is the z-axis.

Please copy and paste the exact part that takes this apart. I wait with baited breath for what I imagine will be an ultimately impotent reply.

reply to post by One Moment


One Moment…..

I simply wanted to know (which is NOT science rather.......a basic FACT) whether this woman said she captured a photo of a craft from another planet (well, something to that nature).

I already answered your question as follows.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

One Moment....

If you have not seen it, please see my summary report on P55:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I cannot recall the witness stating the objects were life forms from another planet, either when I met her in person & discussed all this at length, or in any written material.

I note I posted that article on the previous page.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

One Moment.....

In all due respect, I am not interested in your summary report.

On the one hand.....

It makes some level of sense to read my report & debate it, criticise it, etc....

On the other hand.....

It makes no sense at all to totally disregard & thereby ignore the information therein.

You should also realise that to spend time pursuing a possible misquote in an extremely minor local newspaper is a waste of time. I've dealt with the press regarding complex topics & they can get things wrong.....everybody knows that.

You also don't know if the witness has decided to further embellish her story by saying the objects represented life from another planet.

All in all..... from what I can see, your approach to this is inefficient & obtuse & will lead to your further confoundment.

If you want to know more, then as per Chadwickus…..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well, we all await YOUR investigation into this case.

All the data you need is in this thread.

Enjoy

That should be scrutinized more than your arm-chair, cyberspace, data extracting, photo-shop proving science, that's been provided so far.

Please revert to Chadwickus (above).

Science is just a theory based on our own narrow minded, miscalculated and misunderstood reality. We're relying on science more than Human intuition. Just another crutch.

As per my previous commentary to you:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think this is a reflection of your lack of knowledge & experience regarding this case specifically & the broader topic of UFO's more generally.

I don't think life (truth) is as hard or difficult as we seem to make it out to be.

So……do you think you can add to this case with your non-scientific, simplistic guessing?

Fiona? Are you a liar? Yes or no?

That question is simply inflammatory to the witness & is again indicative of your lack of experience in dealing with sensitive topics & ”your lack of knowledge & experience regarding this case specifically & the broader topic of UFO's more generally.”

Regards
Maybe…maybe not

reply to post by TheMalefactor

im seriously not digging through 70 pages of posts just because you cannot be bothered to read properly and because you choose to ignore everything that destroys what you want to believe, now you can call me skeptic or disinfo agent or whatever the hell you like but let me say that i would love to see proof of alien visits just as much as you, its just that where we differ is that i dont just believe any claim thats made, especially when its as bad as this.

like i already said, its been covered. but anyway phage pointed out there were more dirt blobs on the windscreen that stayed an exact distance to the main blob in every picture and that totally ruins your theory but you ignored it totally!. it has been reproduced as well as can be by a couple of members and shown how it can be done, it is absolutely impossible to recreate that scene perfectly and because of that and the fact that you will never know the exact camera position that you can never prove anything either way but the fact that the photo was taken from inside a car as proven by the reflection, another picture taken from inside another vehicle of the same model showed an almost identical reflection and that the witness states she was outside and also that she stated a lightpole was a u.f.o killed this stone dead and no arguing will change it.

one last point and after this im not wasting any more of my time, throughout this thread you have said that its too hard to take pictures from inside a car without catching the bonnet well it has already been shown to be easy and with an i phone it is god damn simple because of the size of the screen that acts as the viewfinder and the fact that those cars slope, and whos to say that there wasn't originally more pictures with the bonnet in them that got discarded because they didn't fit the hoax story?
.
now if you know that this is an alien spacecraft and can prove it then fair enough im al! ears and i will apologise but i know that ain't gonna happen.

thanks

rich

[edit on 12-6-2010 by RICH-ENGLAND]

[edit on 12-6-2010 by RICH-ENGLAND]

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by One Moment

 

One Moment…..

I simply wanted to know (which is NOT science rather.......a basic FACT) whether this woman said she captured a photo of a craft from another planet (well, something to that nature).

I already answered your question as follows.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

One Moment....

If you have not seen it, please see my summary report on P55:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I cannot recall the witness stating the objects were life forms from another planet, either when I met her in person & discussed all this at length, or in any written material.

I note I posted that article on the previous page.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

One Moment.....

In all due respect, I am not interested in your summary report.

On the one hand.....

It makes some level of sense to read my report & debate it, criticise it, etc....

On the other hand.....

It makes no sense at all to totally disregard & thereby ignore the information therein.

You should also realise that to spend time pursuing a possible misquote in an extremely minor local newspaper is a waste of time. I've dealt with the press regarding complex topics & they can get things wrong.....everybody knows that.

You also don't know if the witness has decided to further embellish her story by saying the objects represented life from another planet.

All in all..... from what I can see, your approach to this is inefficient & obtuse & will lead to your further confoundment.

If you want to know more, then as per Chadwickus…..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well, we all await YOUR investigation into this case.

All the data you need is in this thread.

Enjoy

That should be scrutinized more than your arm-chair, cyberspace, data extracting, photo-shop proving science, that's been provided so far.

Please revert to Chadwickus (above).

Science is just a theory based on our own narrow minded, miscalculated and misunderstood reality. We're relying on science more than Human intuition. Just another crutch.

As per my previous commentary to you:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think this is a reflection of your lack of knowledge & experience regarding this case specifically & the broader topic of UFO's more generally.

I don't think life (truth) is as hard or difficult as we seem to make it out to be.

So……do you think you can add to this case with your non-scientific, simplistic guessing?

Fiona? Are you a liar? Yes or no?

That question is simply inflammatory to the witness & is again indicative of your lack of experience in dealing with sensitive topics & ”your lack of knowledge & experience regarding this case specifically & the broader topic of UFO's more generally.”
Regards
Maybe…maybe not

Sorry mate but you are one egotistical ornery chap aren't you?
You are NOT the sole heir to this thread (despite your research and results)

Anyone else care to post? I know your intentions (probably mean well) but you're too, in-my-face.

I want someone else to ring in please.


[edit on 12-6-2010 by One Moment]

reply to post by One Moment


why dont you try reading..... .

maybe....maybe not is one of the nicest and most helpful people on this site and should be applauded not insulted by people like you just because you dont agree with his conclusions.

thanks

rich

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by One Moment

 

im seriously not digging through 70 pages of posts just because you cannot be bothered to read properly a

I'll take that as, "it doesn't exist, so I need a cop out."

i would love to see proof of alien visits just as much as you

I don't think this is "an alien." Hell it might be a bug flying around, but whatever the hell it is it sure isn't fixed to the windscreen.

but anyway phage pointed out there were more dirt blobs on the windscreen that stayed an exact distance to the main blob in every picture and that totally ruins your theory but you ignored it totally!.

Hah! You've heard the expression you can't compare apples to oranges right? Talking about the scale-dilation is wholly different from two things seemingly moving at a similar rate. Your argument is equivalent to saying "optical physics can be temporarily ignored because ... oh, look over there something else doesn't make sense!"

And I looked at Phages post here (yes I read the _whole_ thread),
www.abovetopsecret.com...

(he should be damn well commended I might add -- big hats off to you Phage!). If there's anything that makes me question these photos it's this. However! You have to understand you need to account for all anomalies, not just cherry pick which you like and which you don't. That's actual science.

why dont you try reading....

Why don't you try thinking? Or better yet _what_ should I be reading? Oh that's right you don't want to have to wade through 70 pages of text because well it would seem _you_ don't want to have to read either.

Lame

Malefactor seems to have got very 'vocal', once I said I wouldn't return. I don't appreciate being misrepresented, so here I am again...

Executive Summary:

1. It is a 3d scene, and the camera's position was unknown, both in x-y-z space, and in tilt, roll, yaw..

2. A couple of those can be roughly worked out, but you CANNOT model such a situation using a ridiculous 2-variable equation. Malefactor can't. Xtraeme can't. NEITHER CAN I, that's why I haven't been STUPID enough to try. I have taken significant time to explain that fact, but Malefactor keeps coming on back with a CLAIM that he CAN.

So, malefactor - DO IT. Prove your point. Show the diagrams, and the 3D representation, with all the dimensions marked. Don't pussyfoot around it and say that you are almost there, or that everyone is picking on you, as you offer little tidbits that skirt around the issues - DO IT. Finish your 'analysis' and post the whole thing. Prove you are right.

You demanded *I* do that, but I have told you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for various reasons, and also pointed out those reasons, eg:
- the camera tilt/position
- the relative movement of close objects
- the curvature of the windscreen

On that, why don't you simply answer the key questions:
1. Does the curvature have to be taken into account in regard to the reflection?
2. How are you going to do it - do you know what that curvature is?

=================
Now specifically as to the misrepresentations...

1. Taken apart on 3 counts (jpeg artifacts / "properly blow[ing] up ... pixels" / and on lens flares being at the "exact geometrical centre of the image")

Firstly, can you tell us exactly where I was 'taken apart'? Tell us what you see in the 'reflection' - does it look clear to you? Tell us how jpeg artefacting isn't an important factor in low contrast areas of an image.

Then, tell us WHERE in that post was I quoted as saying that all lens flares were at the "exact geometrical centre of the image"? Here's what I ACTUALLY said to Xtraeme, referring to a specific TYPE of reflection lens flare [edited - woops!]- note the bolded parts:

I understand that you are merely offering a rough simulation, but it's worth noting that you can't possibly duplicate a *real* lens flare without a full ray-tracing of the entire scene, inc. camera/lens/lens elements in question, all in 3D. That said, it's a good try, except... the lens flare isn't aligned with the centre of the image, and the vast majority of lens flares of that type are symmetrical. That is, they are normally found along a line drawn through the light source and the exact geometrical centre of the image. That is because they are caused by the symmetrical, round lens elements, aperture, lens barrel, etc - it's basic optics.

What is it about the words "majority" and "of that type" that you are having trouble with??? Do NOT misrepresent me!

If you dispute what I wrote in that, pick it apart YOURSELF, and be very specific. I STAND BY IT.

2. And here Charlz claims the screen is both curved and simultaneously not, he even goes on to say, "I'm sorry, but I absolutely stand by those comments - the point stands. It is CORRECT. " (I love paradoxes!)

Sigh. Here's what I have ACTUALLY SAID about the curvature:

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 middle of 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.

Xtraeme also referred to the curvature of the windscreen - a reflection off a curve will be altered both in shape and size. When you add that to the multiple possibilities in the angle, position and distance from the camera to the screen, there are simply too many variables/unknowns.

frankly, without knowing how curved the windscreen is, and without knowing how big, long or curved the dashboard/trim is, any wild guesses are exactly that..

Gee, it all seems pretty consistent.. The windscreen is probably curved, but we don't know by how much. That curvature is important if we are analysing a reflections size. Any questions? Which bit do you disagree with, malefactor?

So you see contradiction as sensical and being proven repeatedly wrong as scientific? LOL

Your laughter seems a little unwarranted. Which bits of the actual QUOTES above are wrong or contradictory? Or is just your interpretation?

And I note YOU still haven't admitted YOUR very basic error in regard to the left-right panning issue. Bit of hypocrisy there, or do you just keep 'accidentally' ignoring it?

...your theory is faulty and was taken apart ages ago...

Gee, you better correct the site admins for putting it into the Hoax category then. And why are YOU bringing it all back up, and deliberately misquoting, or quoting out of context?

You do realize it was Charlz who said that we had to account for the asymptotic behavior of the lens right? I accounted for that and applied it to the scaling

??? WHERE did you do this, exactly, and how did it take into account the REST of the issues I've pointed out? You cherry pick one item, don't show us where you used it, and ignore the rest? Highly scientific approach there.

It didn't scale as it mathematically should.

It didn't? - well, show us - simply quote what you did, and I'll explain why it didn't work. I'm always happy to help people learn where they are doing things wrong.

When I asked for feedback, what did I get? A whole lot of BS about not accounting for "rotations."

So, let's look it over again, if that will help you. Post the exact equation, along with diagrams showing how you are applying it. (Maybe you could save some time by thinking about them pesky "rotations" and how they *might* affect what you are trying to calculate - if you discover that the criticisms were right, you could then apologise for wasting our time...)

The point is rotations will _not_ cause such extreme parallax.

What extreme parallax? And why did you hedge your bet by using the word "extreme"? Do you agree that less than extreme parallax issues might be caused? How did you calculate the actual amount?

Only _scaling_ will cause parallax.... So the only relevant variable there is the z-axis.

I'm sorry, but that is SO wrong... How about lateral position? How about angle of camera (both tilt and yaw)? How about perspective of lens (wide angle vs tele)? (which also comes into play regarding the camera angle - the two are intertwined..) Seriously, such a blinkered approach is doomed. Or are you misusing the term 'parallax'? Like I said, requote your equation and attempt and I'll look at it again and spell it out for you.

Please copy and paste the exact part that takes this apart.

Sure - you just post the actual calculation and images that you were using.

But I'll re-iterate my point above - you CANNOT possibly use photogrammetry in this situation, without a LOT more information.

I wait with baited breath for what I imagine will be an ultimately impotent reply

You DO realise what this sort of comment makes you sound like? I guess not.


[edit on 12-6-2010 by CHRLZ]

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by One Moment

 

why dont you try reading..... .

maybe....maybe not is one of the nicest and most helpful people on this site and should be applauded not insulted by people like you just because you dont agree with his conclusions.

thanks

rich

((((((((((((((((((((((((YAWN)))))))))))))))))))))))))))

You can be his disciple all you want. Follow the Shepherd of pseudoscience!

Originally posted by TheMalefactor

Originally posted by RICH-ENGLAND
reply to post by One Moment

 

im seriously not digging through 70 pages of posts just because you cannot be bothered to read properly a

I'll take that as, "it doesn't exist, so I need a cop out."

i would love to see proof of alien visits just as much as you

I don't think this is "an alien." Hell it might be a bug flying around, but whatever the hell it is it sure isn't fixed to the windscreen.

but anyway phage pointed out there were more dirt blobs on the windscreen that stayed an exact distance to the main blob in every picture and that totally ruins your theory but you ignored it totally!.

Hah! You've heard the expression you can't compare apples to oranges right? Talking about the scale-dilation is wholly different from two things seemingly moving at a similar rate. Your argument is equivalent to saying "optical physics can be temporarily ignored because ... oh, look over there something else doesn't make sense!"

And I looked at Phages post here (yes I read the _whole_ thread),
www.abovetopsecret.com...

(he should be damn well commended I might add -- big hats off to you Phage!). If there's anything that makes me question these photos it's this. However! You have to understand you need to account for all anomalies, not just cherry pick which you like and which you don't. That's actual science.

why dont you try reading....

Why don't you try thinking? Or better yet _what_ should I be reading? Oh that's right you don't want to have to wade through 70 pages of text because well it would seem _you_ don't want to have to read either.

Lame

Listen....... Why/ WHY NOT/Maybe/Maybe Not (or whatever confused Being you are.....)

Please include the proper quotes. None of those were mine.

Why don't you move on to the next 'debunking' thread? Your presence here has been noted and accounted for. '

You are a stellar scientist here on ATS (oh my, what would we do without you?) so you have been flagged, starred and an academy award awaits you!

I've followed some of your replies to some other threads and let me tell you something (you,' Kind Regards, Maybe/Maybe Not" contributor.....)

You m'friend are way too full of yourself!

I don't want to hear from you. Please ,move along please. (peace?)

Fiona? Are you here?

Originally posted by One Moment
((((((((((((((((((((((((YAWN)))))))))))))))))))))))))))

You can be his disciple all you want. Follow the Shepherd of pseudoscience!

Your attitude is so poor. You should respect people on here and not show
such reactive behavior and comments. This is unintelligible bickering on beliefs
and not a critical overview of the evidence in this thread.

This is so off topic and childish right now.