UFO in Sydney Australia

reply to post by FireMoon


So where is the lateral movement of the object in these two pics?




Identical opacity and depth, yet in a different position, exactly the same as in my pictures.

[edit on 24/3/10 by Chadwickus]

Chad IM gonna call this chick, ,

LOl Bogan Thats Kath N Kim's neighbour, leave her alone ya yuppy

Good work Chad! I think we can safely conclude it was an extra terrestrial raisin probe, from the planet Kellogs!
Solved!

I stand by my 'leaf' theory LOl

Edit to remove personal info in quote.

[edit on Mar 24th 2010 by Djarums]

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by FireMoon

 

So where is the lateral movement of the object in these two pics?

Identical opacity and depth, yet in a different position, exactly the same as in my pictures.

[edit on 24/3/10 by Chadwickus]

Right, so you cant see that ,not only has the object, apparently moved, moved from between the hanging frond and the level of the tree top on the right, but to above the tree top and to the right of it? That is, the object has not stayed, relative to the windscreen itself, in the same place, which if it were, merely an actual smudge on the window, it would have done. As did the mark on your window in your photos.

Try it for yourself and replicate the angle of the third picture with the street lamp at that angle without getting any of the car's superstructure into the frame and having the mark, on your window, in the same sort of place as in the third picture.

Maybe it was and then again maybe it wasn't a UFO. But I will give her the benefit of the doubt. You can take photo's through the windscreen of the car by just holding the camera near the windscreen without getting the dash board in the picture. The story was on a morning program in Sydney today and the sad part was the the male presenter was making a fool of himself by smirking and denying the UFO's exist. One thing I don't understand is how a lot of people could be so arrogant to think that in the whole universe, we are the only planet that supports life. How many billion galaxies are out there and each contains billions of planets. Anyway a UFO is only an unidentified flying object, so be it a plastic bag or a flying saucer it is still unidentified.

reply to post by FireMoon


Well I'm not going to waste more time appeasing you, I've shown that an object on the windscreen can appear to move without the rest of the background moving.

The point about not seeing any part of the car is really clutching at straws.

Firstly, as I've shown there is a clear, identical reflection in both images.

Secondly, the images have been cropped, perhaps the bits showing the car has also been cropped out? (since it would contradict her story)

Originally posted by Phage
It's dirt on the windscreen.

That's possible if she was in the car. Maybe a speck of mud?

The rest of the windscreen (if it is in the car) is very clean. With the glow ahead, any slight dust on it would have some glare.

But I work in a quarry, so I'm not sure what a clean windscreen looks like.

I think the two orbs (chads circled photo) are the only questionable objects in the photos.
We can eliminate raisins , but are they birds maybe?

The point about not seeing any part of the car is really clutching at straws.

Be kind Chad, let them 'clutch' , Disappointment is just so....disappointing!
Dont be a party pooper!

[edit on 24-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

This actually made it on the news this morning.

I don't know though, to me it looks like something on the windscreen, though Dr Karl seems to believe kids just filled up a garbage bag over a gas line and let it go.
Is she claiming she didn't see the UFO at the time of the photo? I find it a little odd she caught it both times.

reply to post by Australian


I hear ya...Man, I love all these pictures. Im sure this lady really believes in what she saw...no matter what it was it doesnt change the fact that this universe is just so damn big theres just no way we can say nothing else is out there.

Still, I wonder why every single UFO photo or video seems so blurry and hard to make out...you know? I mean EVERY single one of them nowadays.

Im really surprised that with all the cell phone cameras and the multitudes of self professed photographers out there all day ever day that the best we get is reflections on the window or some blurry blob...you know?

reply to post by Phage


She did state that the object moved silently and flew away after a few seconds so defiantly not something on her windscreen or anything she only noticed after the fact.

Not 100% convinced yet but defiantly got my attention when I saw the article this morning.

Originally posted by nomadros
I tried playing with the first pic. The contour shows the object best. FWIW, it definitely looks 3D and has shadowing. I like the contour because it shows an outer ring around the object.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/b3675f4c659ef9ec.jpg[/atsimg]

Can people with photoshop PLEASE stop pretending they KNOW WTF theyre talking about?

Please?

"Hey I made it look funky,. I am cool!!"

That image does NOTHING for a jpeg.. NOTHING.

jesus christ...

reply to post by noisemedia


Maybe UFO pictures are blurry because it's very difficult to hold a camera perfectly still when shooting towards the sky. I tried recording the moon with my video camera and on zoom and the result was it was all over the place like a mad woman's breakfast. Also when you spot what could be a UFO we tend to get a bit excited and hence the shake and blur of the shot. Also if you are trying to shoot a moving object it will be blurry. This is one explanation anyway.

Originally posted by Phage
Claims: It happened "within a few seconds". She was out of the car.

The two photos are taken from two different locations as can be seen by the bright sunlight shining through the clouds. Notice in the "far" shot, the bright spot is in the middle of the large tree. In the "near" shot it is to the upper left of the tree. The near shot is taken further up the road than the far shot. She seems to have covered a pretty good distance in a "few seconds", on foot.

It's dirt on the windscreen.

Good call Phage because on the first pic you see what looks like a reflection on the screen on the right side of the picture.

in fact if you look at the second picture you see the same white streaks dirt on the screen

[edit on 24-3-2010 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by wmd_2008


I was wrong about the different locations.

maybe the woman was only talking about the two orbs, and the journos latched onto the brown spot in the photo, and focused on that?
maybe thats why they cropped it?
Now I sound like a conspiracist LOL

"Daily telegraph covers up flying saucers, gov investigation underway!"

Maybe the publishing journo didnt see the orbs? Did you circle them chad or was that the source?

My take...

wasillaalaskaby300.squarespace.com...


check out this ufo...

www.gpsmagazine.com...



[edit on 24-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

Originally posted by Grayelf2009
You weren't there were you, why can't you just take someones word ?

Are you serious? Just take someones word, really?

This automatic jump to belief is killing ufology. How about some examples?

Should we "just take the word" of Billy Meier that this...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0bafb10878e2.jpg[/atsimg]

is an actual ray gun from a real alien? If so, maybe he is a prophet after all.

Should we "just take the word" of Bob Lazar, who tells the most fascinating tale about Area 51 and "S-4", yet cannot even prove his education and work history?

Should we "just take the word" of John Lear when he says there are malt shops and merry-go-rounds on the hollowed out moon?

Should we not question the laughable "Alien Autopsy" footage?

Blossom Goodchild? Drones? How about the ridiculous number of mylar balloons captured flying over Mexico?

What about Roswell? Who's word do we "just take" considering there are so many different stories?


No, in today's day and age it's more important than ever to not simply take someones word, but to apply a critical eye on things that seem suspect. Ufology has become watered down with way too many hoaxes and fakes over the last decade or more and to not be willing to rule the bunk evidence out is simply irresponsible.

reply to post by zazzafrazz

That would be great if you talk with Fiona Hartigan zazzafrazz. let us know if it happens. I live close by But won't contact her, a UFO nutter from the web I keep missing interviews with Fiona.


Zelong.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by FireMoon

 

Well I'm not going to waste more time appeasing you, I've shown that an object on the windscreen can appear to move without the rest of the background moving.

The point about not seeing any part of the car is really clutching at straws.

Firstly, as I've shown there is a clear, identical reflection in both images.

Secondly, the images have been cropped, perhaps the bits showing the car has also been cropped out? (since it would contradict her story)

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. 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.

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

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.

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.

mistaken post.

[edit on 24/3/10 by Zelong]

I realize this is a forum where people bandy about their opinions but it is very disconcerting to read how so many have concluded their results based on one article, two photos and a second party interview.

How can you sit there, in the front of your computer and toss out words like; "definitely"...."absolutely"......and "positively"??? Whatever happened to the old 'benefit of doubt" attitude?

You're just a little too high on your arrogance-ladder and ought to step down a rung or two for now and just say: "it appears to be" and/or "in my opinion...".

All I know is I would hate to have you sit on the jury while I am defending my innocence!

As far as this story goes......I for one will assume she's telling the truth until my skills at clairvoyancy, telepathy and time-travel kick in.