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: 9
33
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   
No, the only trolls on here are people like you who blatantly refuse to actually abide by accepted practice and just spout what they want to believe without any recourse to proper scientific method.

You are, in effect from the anonymity of this forum, calling this witness a liar. It is for you to prove using proper methodology such a claim. That is the very definition of trolling, to many people, attacking those who, cannot personally reply, because they are not here, by posting opinion without showing a single fact to back it up.

if you had any true understanding of trigonometry you'd have applied yourself properly to proving your claims, not just made broad claims based wholly on your own personal prejudices.

it's simple repeat the experiment, as close as is feasibly possible, in your own circumstances, as i have done in the street outside my house and then you have, at least, the basis to start calling people a liar.

having done the experiment myself, on the balance of the evidence i found, i have a mind to believe the witness was standing/crouching, not sitting in a car. I might be wrong, as i have said umpteen times on this thread, something none of you and your kind have ever admitted until shown, demonstrably, to be incorrect in your opinions. In fact the moment your sort are shown to be wrong the thread dies on the vine as you go in search of new some poor sap, you can browbeat.




posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


as a great man once said, "I pity da fool!"
i never said this woman was a liar! except for now.... "that lieing hoochie!"

you have not provided any scientific anything...
you have done nothing but lay your personal beliefs and suggestions on the table.
you have... hang on this is food..................



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by spear.
reply to post by FireMoon
 


as a great man once said, "I pity da fool!"
i never said this woman was a liar! except for now.... "that lieing hoochie!"

you have not provided any scientific anything...
you have done nothing but lay your personal beliefs and suggestions on the table.
you have... hang on this is food..................


Look, if you want to get into smart arsed remarks, you will lose so badly your dog will pick you up and dump you in the refuse bin out of sheer disgust..

Go and do the proper science this calls for and then return and join in the thread. Till then, just live with the fact you will not get away with posting opinions and calling people liars without others taking issue with you.

You don;t know how to debate, only how to proselytise and when it fails you try to be a smart alec.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Look, if you want to get into smart arsed remarks, you will lose so badly your dog will pick you up and dump you in the refuse bin out of sheer disgust..



OMG111
Happy 9th Birthday for yesterday. Hope you get like an xbox or something.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Mark_Frost
 


It seems incredibly blurry and that is very strange. With modern cameras, even camera phones they would pick something up a little better than that. It seems to me as if the "object" is far closer to the camera than the background. As Phage said, dirt on the windscreen.


Originally posted by FireMoon
No, the only trolls on here are people like you who blatantly refuse to actually abide by accepted practice and just spout what they want to believe without any recourse to proper scientific method.

You are, in effect from the anonymity of this forum, calling this witness a liar. It is for you to prove using proper methodology such a claim. That is the very definition of trolling, to many people, attacking those who, cannot personally reply, because they are not here, by posting opinion without showing a single fact to back it up.


The scientific method is applied when someone formulates a hypothesis, based upon observation and tests it, resulting in a theory. A witness claiming they saw something and providing a blurry photo does not have a suitable theory or hypothesis that the scientific method can be applied to.

When videos and pictures are so easily faked it is very hard to accept them as evidence unless corroborated by other evidence. Further when we are dealing with a witness that has changed her story, whos photos are suspect and of poor quality and who is not a trained observer with experience of aerial phenomenon then we can safely brush this account away into the archives of UFO history as a minor case.

Look i'm not a complete non believer on this issue. There have been tons of far superior reports, from witnesses who are very credible. Airline pilots and military pilots, backed by radar and ground observation. These reports cannot be easily explained away. However this woman and her photos can be.

You need to calm down and sit back, apply a skeptical mind and not go into this with bias.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Nice. Very interesting shots. I believe they are originals. Things will be escelating this year. I'm in Oregon and have seen numerous ufos as well as actual non terrestrial craft. Bring on the end times



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Onasty
Nice. Very interesting shots. I believe they are originals. Things will be escelating this year. I'm in Oregon and have seen numerous ufos as well as actual non terrestrial craft. Bring on the end times



If you have seen numerous UFO's and some non terrestial craft then could you please start carrying a camera around and posting us some pictures.

Thanks.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
Look, if you want to get into smart arsed remarks, you will lose so badly your dog will pick you up and dump you in the refuse bin out of sheer disgust..

Go and do the proper science this calls for and then return and join in the thread. Till then, just live with the fact you will not get away with posting opinions and calling people liars without others taking issue with you.

You don;t know how to debate, only how to proselytise and when it fails you try to be a smart alec.


Um exactly where did you do what you preach, this "proper science"?


Also you call on his "smart arsed remark" and then you do the same? "you will lose so badly your dog will pick you up and dump you in the refuse bin out of sheer disgust.."

That my friend is the definition of trolling as you so quickly paint others as doing.

I also think you need to look up the word "proselytise" because you are clearly using it improperly and attempting to puff up your feathers with an expanded vernacular.





posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I agree with most of what you are saying here. But that doesn't excuse the rank bad manners and loutish behaviour of some people on here, who to someone wanting to post maybe THE picture that convinces some, looks like nothing more than, schoolyard bullying by people who don't have a clue how to conduct a proper discussion.

So far, in this thread alone, several posts have in effect said , definitely, without a doubt etc etc, that the witness is a liar. Not questioned, quite fairly, the provenance, of the pictures, but announced in strident tones and language, that they are lying.

However, when challenged to actually follow the proper method, of debating they have ended up, doing nothing more than, become personally insulting to anyone who challenges them.

You are right, it is not a brilliant case, they are far better examples. However that does not excuse the arrogant small minded and personal attacks made by some on this forum. Otherwise no-one is going to end posting anything of interest because it becomes drowned in a welter of asinine and badly thought out, critiques.

the truth is, suspect, is that. The more bellicose people on this thread made their minds up the moment they logged on, they didn't even look at the photos other than to find something to pick holes in. Fair enough, but if you are going to do that, at least have the honesty to do properly and cease this incessant, what amounts to trolling where, people with huge avatars, one can only guess at what that says about their personalities, make sweeping statements that, to an outside reading this look as if they are somehow *above the rest of us*.

I've no interest in some forum full of simpering, yes people, who see every light as *our beautiful space brethren*. That said, neither am i going to sit here and let rank bad methodology pass as *given fact* by some people who seem to think this board is their own personal little debunking playground.

I apologise if this post over steps some boundaries, but i feel i am only saying what many people are beginning to think. That the UFO forum has slipped into allowing certain people to dominate discussions, with at times, the same arrant pseudo science, backed up with smart arsed comments

the first thing i did, when i had time to . Was go out and try and emulate this witnesses pictures, from within a car in my won street. OK, I'm lucky it happens to almost dead straight, has lamps at regular intervals, etc etc. my own conclusion is that, on balance i think, her story has some credibility..

That is, started r from the very base of what is being claimed. That is, you can take these pictures outside a car, but not so easily from within one. No that doesn't make it impossible, just because i say so and maybe someone else can emulate these scenes and show conclusively it could be done from a car. That's the pint, a point which not one of the debunkers has addressed with a truly honest approach to it.

The truth is, so far, Chadwickes efforts actually prove exactly the opposite of what he claims. it's not my problem the person doesn't have the wherewithal to see where they are going wrong in their interpretation. That said, i am damned if i i going to sit here and let, sloppy work, pass as fact.

In the past few days, i have posted about the Welsh Spaceman, having been busted as a hoax. I could have just kept quiet and let it pass knowing anyone outside of Britain is probably never going to hear how and why. However, to my mind, that isn't what it's all about.
ATS is not some private, mostly American, forum for what amounts to, private chit chat between self congratulatory, but every bit as, at times, stupid and i have to use the word here, as it is appropriate debunkers. Whose analysis is based on, the same flakey grasp of reality, some of the most ardent believers exhibit.

You think the witness has lied fine. Go on show the world, some proper analysis of just how. Not barge in and just shout the odds, whilst, at the same time show a complete lack of understanding of what you have actually done.

The initial challenge to those who doubt the witness's veracity is this. Start off, by showing how a wide panoramic picture, of a two lane highway, from a car window parked tight to the left of it can be done. The picture has to include a good 6-08 feet of the left hand side of the nearby verge whatever and a street lamp just out of shot at the top right, would be cool as well. Then and only then, do you have a basis for calling the witness ion this report and challenging them as to where the picture was actually taken from.

if nothing else, it shows common courtesy, to the witness. However it would seem to many, sadly,common courtesy, is exactly what, a large rump of people who inhabit this forum, lack.

[edit on 24-3-2010 by FireMoon]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


There you go again, blah blah blah.

You seem to not understand the simple things that have been pointed out, such as the fact that the images have been cropped.

I tried to mention this to you but you just went on some rant about how I didn't understand maths and science.

It's not my fault if you want to ignore this possibility, it's also not my fault that you've continually failed to add anything of substance to this thread whilst I've managed to point out that there is a recurring reflection in the images (another fact you just ignore), shown that the images have been cropped, found the location of where the photos were shot and made an effort to recreate the effects seen in the photos.

What did you do again?

You say my efforts actually prove exactly the opposite of what I've claimed.

Can you clarify this point?

I believe I have shown how an object on a windscreen can appear to move while nothing in the background appears to have moved, I've even shown how the object changes shape, all from moving the camera a couple of inches.

I have to say that I find it hilarious that despite already contradicting yourself earlier, you are actually sticking round as if it never happened...

Let me remind you...


Originally posted by FireMoon
Excuse me, but please quit with the wholly patronising attitude. Let me make it plain for you. You don;t have a clue what you are talking about and your methodology is wholly flawed as it was based, not on seeking the truth, but seeking to show how smart you are.


Good to see you know exactly how I think, I hope you're reading my thoughts now, it'll make you even more angry




The truth is, if the it is a smudge, it is a fixed object on the screen . If you take a photo of a fixed object on sheet of glass, then as the lady did, simply take another picture by rotating the camera a couple of degrees right and upwards, the object will, in fact ALWAYS, seemingly though not actually, move slightly to the left of the frame.


This is what I was demonstrating with my experimentations!

Why are you repeating what I've demonstrated, and berating me for it?



With the greatest respect it is not my problem if you don't understand basic science and maths


Who's patronizing now?

I'll have you know I was a straight C maths student and a straight B science student. Nyer!




Your attitude is typical of so many on here who think they know it all and shout so loudly, when the truth is, you often, don't even understand the most basic scientific methodology.. That being, repeat the experiment, do not invent your own, in order to prove something that was never claimed, in the first place.


I based my experiment on how I believed it was photographed, namely 2 shots taken within at least a few minutes of each other, with the camera position changed slightly to give the impression that the only thing that moved between the two images was the object.

I repeated this theory and tried to make it as close to what we're seeing in the original two pictures, of course it's not exact, do you want me to fly to Sydney to simulate it perfectly? Do you want me to go buy an Iphone? Do you want me to calculate the exact angle of the object in each image and repeat that for you? Do you want me to go find the exact squashed bug and put it on the windscreen of the car I will have to buy to make sure the experiment is done to the exact parameters of what you want?



The truth is, whatever the object in the photo's is, it moved, it cannot by the laws of maths, be static. That doesn't make it an alien ship, it just saves wasting any more bandwidth on pointless and completely erroneous claims by people who, it would seem, enjoy the sound of their own typing , rather more than, the actual truth.


What the hell are you talking about?

You just said, at the start of your post, that if the object was on a pane of glass and the camera was moved slightly that the object will, in fact ALWAYS, seemingly though not actually, move slightly...

Now you are saying by the laws of maths it cannot be static!

WHICH ONE IS IT?

The truth is YOU are the one who doesn't know what the hell you're talking about.
The truth is YOU are the one who obviously loves the sound of their own typing.
The truth is YOU are the one who has done nothing in this thread but berate others for actually taking the time to investigate the story.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


So again, which is it?



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
The more bellicose people on this thread made their minds up the moment they logged on, they didn't even look at the photos other than to find something to pick holes in. Fair enough, but if you are going to do that, at least have the honesty to do properly and cease this incessant, what amounts to trolling where, people with huge avatars, one can only guess at what that says about their personalities, make sweeping statements that, to an outside reading this look as if they are somehow *above the rest of us*.


I get what you're saying we should poke holes in an intelligent manner. The more time I spend on ATS the more jaded I become to extraordinary claims. You can't take anything posted on ATS at face value. There is never any extraordinary evidence, never. It's easy to get frustrated and post what you refer to as trolling.

I my mind there's something wrong with this womans story. From examining the photos I am convinced that they were shot from inside the car. And yes I came to this conclusion before chadwickus pointed it out. Her story has holes in it and that makes me question the validity of her claims.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 




Fair enough, but if you are going to do that, at least have the honesty to do properly and cease this incessant, what amounts to trolling where, people with huge avatars, one can only guess at what that says about their personalities,


Huge avatars? I'll have you know my huge avatar has nothing to do with the size of my...personality.

I guess you're out of real arguments. Well, at least you didn't resort to the "d" word.

(disinfo)

[edit on 3/24/2010 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Coming from a person,, who equates them self with a fictional psychopathic character from a kids comic and a guy who chooses a pic of a person best known for being a *Self interested, but completely naive, know it all*.. I don't think i really need to say a lot more about what that says to people do I?

[edit on 24-3-2010 by FireMoon]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
Coming from a person,, who equates them self with a fictional psychopathic character from a kids comic and a guy who chooses a pic of a person best known for being a *Self interested, but completely naive, know it all*.. I don't think i really need to say a lot more about what that says to people do I?

[edit on 24-3-2010 by FireMoon]


Really?

This is all you have to say?

This is how you debate with people?



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Looks like more witness are comming forward regarding this UFO/MUD on Windscreen incident

Lets see if anything more comes from this other alleged witness.

Another Sydney Witness comes forward



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Found a sighting that looks similar - Here

I have to say it does look like this ladys pics were taken through a window - Just saying


[edit on 24-3-2010 by Beauty_HairyBeast]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
Coming from a person,, who equates them self with a fictional psychopathic character from a kids comic and a guy who chooses a pic of a person best known for being a *Self interested, but completely naive, know it all*.. I don't think i really need to say a lot more about what that says to people do I?

[edit on 24-3-2010 by FireMoon]


Sir/Madam you are resorting to nothing more than ad hom attacks. This is, geneally speaking only done when someone is struggling to defend their position. If you want people to respect your views then take a step back, think again about your position and present it in the best way you can. You have spoken about evidence and proof and the last few posts you have made have presented neither.

Acting like you are means that not only will people ignore you but they may very well see you as an example of those who believe in this sort of thing and choose to ignore othes in future.

Basically i'm saying, calm down.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Well I just wanted to get in this thread and contribute before the thread gets closed for people attacking one another.


Having read through the pages and looked at the evidence given. I'm going to conclude my opinion that it is a splatter of mud, or maybe even chewing gum on the window.

If you look at the position of the road, it is to the right of the picture. So they are parked in a mud-lay by. As for the argument of
why can't you see any of the car, maybe they took this from side on through the window? If you done this in most modern cars your not going to see the side panels of the vehicle or the hood for that matter.

For me the biggest give away is the reflection that chadwickus has pointed out. You can see in this picture here>



There appears to be a long dashboard or indoor side panel, I've marked this off with 2 yellow * Also there appears to be something, not sure what it might be a carton which i have marked between the yellow >



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Beauty_HairyBeast
 


Interesting Pics, they do look kind of similar?

Good find!



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
This thread has gone the way of the dodo bird with all this buckshot and smart remarks floating around.



Zelong.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join