Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

Spare me the ass kissing please guys.

It's actually quite pathetic and my request for a response was reasonable considering he is the one who authored the thread.

and for those of us that have seen plenty of ufo's this is just vindication that they do exist,... there is nowhere better online for a fake photo to get ripped apart by doubting disbelievers...and with all the presented evidence there are STILL disbelievers. LOL! the photo is a goodun, and shows the object in question quite clearly. so where are all the people on ats that say "show me a proper picture and i'll back down"?

it's quite evident, as it has been to a lot of us for years, that we aren't alone, we never were, and we probably never will be.

Of note is that the UO is not lopsided, but is comprised of an even dome top. Overlaying a symmetrical arc on the object shows the object does indeed have symmetry.

This statement is either incorrect or refers to something other than what I think, because it doesn't appear to be symettrical at all, the right side is more elongated, the central bulge being more to the left.

Could this simple claim be clarified please?

A couple things I notice, just to add my two cents...

The reflection of the sunlight off the object is in the correct location when compared to the shadows of the goats; furthermore, I do not see how such a reflection of the sunlight would be on the correct side of the object if the anomaly were a mirror image caused by some sort of reflection from inside the vehicle (although I do not claim it is impossible). For instance, the woman's right hand is clearly illuminated and her left is in shadow, when looking at her reflection in the mirror (remember: the mirror reverses what appears to be her left and right - note the ring is on her left hand, likely meaning she is NOT single, and she also appears to be focusing with her right eye, likely meaning she is right handed, but that is neither here nor there - it just emphasizes the original point).

The passenger side window of the vehicle appears to be down (if one zooms in the woman's hair appears to be exposed to wind), but I cannot say for certain (this could be caused by air conditioning).

The object appears to be approximately the size of the farthest goat's head, meaning if it is farther away it must be of considerable size. On the other hand, the object also appears to be approximately the same size as the woman's sunglass lens or her camera, meaning that if it is nearby it must also be rather large in terms of objects which are considered to be small (between 2"-3" in diameter).

The object is approximately the color of the sky and water, which would be expected if it were highly reflective (or glass-like in transparency) and in the position it appears to be in.

I first thought "bird", but I personally do not find the explanation satisfactory as I have never seen a "reflective" bird.

I then thought "mylar balloon", and that is probably the best down-to-earth explanation I can think of, but I find it hard to believe the woman would not have noticed the balloon since they are commonly sold at sizes approximately 12"-18" in diameter, meaning it would of had to of been at least as close (or near as close) as the farthest goat's head.

I have personally seen sunlight reflecting off of aircraft in the sky, and the object definitely reminds me of such ocassions.

It is clear from the shadows of the goats that the sun is somewhere directly between zenith and horizon (or a little closer to horizon), meaning that the time of the encounter can be approximated and further "possibilities" can be explored.

Also, it is not impossible to miss seeing something right in front of your face, especially if you are not looking for it. Heck, it is even possible to not see something right in front of your face when you ARE looking for it. Ever swear you just put your keys someplace only to look there and not find them, but a few minutes later find them right where you swear you were looking? I know this might support the balloon explanation, but my example is of stationary objects. I find that objects in motion tend to get one's attention. That said, I also find it hard to believe this object was moving, at least if it was visible the whole time, if this woman did not honestly notice it; that is, unless it was moving faster than the human brain can properly process the optical image.

That's just my two cents. I am certainly no expert, just an average Joe giving my opinion and providing my personal observations.

It almost reminds me of the famous Adamski photo, with the objects underneath, that seem similar to your photo.
The first photo at the top, once you click link:

Though in your photo the three objects are hazy, I immediately thought of this photo:
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Originally posted by Still Naive?
reply to post by McGinty

 

It's been stated several times that the window was down when the picture was taken.

My mistake, i should read before i speak. Thanks.

Originally posted by Popular
Spare me the ass kissing please guys.

It's actually quite pathetic and my request for a response was reasonable considering he is the one who authored the thread.

It's not ass kissing....i'd say the same to Springer if the roles were reversed. Sometimes people just miss things. It's no biggy and certainly not worth starting the day grouchy over.

Back on topic....i know people are comparing this sighting/pic to many others out there, but don't overlook the fact that have have a very very detailed analysis of it by someone who knows his stuff. That doesn't happen every time with unexplained pics, and whilst most ATS members do their best, it's not always enough.

Yes ok we are still a little in the dark as to what it is, but we know a heck of a lot about what it isn't.

CX.

Originally posted by ceetee
I'm at a loss here. An ATS exclusive UFO. I clicked with interest and excitement, saw that the site owner had written it.... OMG OMG... is this it!?

no. it's a bloody photo of a blurred object in the distance. No better than any other UFO picture we've seen and again, not seen by the photographer at the time of taking it. Now... when i take a photo, if something moves, i see it (generally it pisses me off as it buggers up the shot) Unless this camera is equipped with UFO detecting abilities, i'm more inclined to lean towards an anomaly picked up... whatever, we'll never know will we?

Exclusive? Oh dear, I'm all for the publication and discussion of the photo, but I'm really questioning the ATS EXCLUSIVE tagging of this with so little usable evidence (photos alone do not cut it these days). You've just moved ATS closer in the rankings to GLP and the other site we can't mention.. which isn't a good thing, you know?

edit on 1-10-2012 by ceetee because: (no reason given)

and....

yea.. like you would do the same thing if you own the site either and we're proud you were blessed enough to EVEN get a phone like this..

stop blowing smoke and get real ~!!

Originally posted by Springer
Jeff Ritzmann's Report pg.1:

See fig. EXIF_UO.jpg
which indicates that the image is un-tampered with by way of image editing programs. I see no obvious evidence that the EXIF data has been altered.

Is there somewhere we can find an upload of the unedited original online to verify this for ourselves please?

Also, can you clear something up.

Is "SHOOTER" the ATS member name for the person who took the photo? If so, why would they create an account on December 27, 2005 and not post a single thing, then send a photo to ATS via email from a holiday dated August 19th of this year?

I need some clarification to ease my suspicious mind.

I am also VERY suspicious of the extreme pixelation around the camera, woman and her hands in the reflection in the wing mirror. Look too hard for editing with the UFO and maybe miss the evidence elsewhere?

At last a truly interesting picture !!
I have no idea what it may be but it doesn't appear to fit the normal explanations in my view , maybe just maybe it is a .....

Here we are again going on the strength of one photo, containing a small, quite blurry silver blip.
Not really moving the subject on is it?
What is required is multiple sightings by reliable witnesses. This rules out goats. We also could do with radar records, hi-definition video and photographic recordings.
I was recently impressed with the content of the MINOT ufo incident website. The O.P account is hardly in this league.

There is no blur indicating movement so that would rule out birds,flying debris,balloons etc etc.

unfortunately due to the angle of the sun we can`t see a shadow of the object on the surface of the water.The shadow is either being blocked by the large rock or it is out of the frame of the picture. A shadow would prove that there is indeed a real object in the sky.

It looks like a blue plastic disposable shopping bag blowing in the wind. You can see a hand strap on the right side and a concave area on the left side caused by wind..

Perhaps a good line of investigation would be to go to the local shops and see what sort of shopping bags they use, ie colour/translucency/size of hand straps.

I don't believe it is an attempted hoax, just genuine mistaken identity.

Very interesting picture I must say. The closest thing I can thing of is the 2009 UFO Sighting in Lake Havasu City, AZ.



Screen from video:


The above footage was examined on Fact or Fake Paranormal Files and they concluded it was a large reflective silver balloon, if I remember correctly.

Sorry if any of the above has been mentioned already, I don't really have time today to read through a long thread.

Originally posted by Funk bunyip
It looks like a blue plastic disposable shopping bag blowing in the wind. You can see a hand strap on the right side and a concave area on the left side caused by wind..

Perhaps a good line of investigation would be to go to the local shops and see what sort of shopping bags they use, ie colour/translucency/size of hand straps.

I don't believe it is an attempted hoax, just genuine mistaken identity.

I would be more than happy to check out the plastic bags at the local shops, all I need is the money to fund this vital aspect of the investigation. Is Paypal o.k for everyone?

Originally posted by Komodo
yea.. like you would do the same thing if you own the site either and we're proud you were blessed enough to EVEN get a phone like this..

stop blowing smoke and get real ~!!

so, on a site where it's widely accepted that a photo no longer stands up alone (given the abilities of cgi, computers and photo manipulation) and investigations are always needing multi-witness photos from different angles & other corroborating evidence, the same site then claims an EXCLUSIVE (caps intended) and rolls out nothing more than other threads that are thrown out for lack of evidence, for the reasons i've cited above. You don't see the problem there?

I guess we could ask the goats?

Jamdan - Hell no! My idea, fund me!

I'll bring you back something nice.

I don't think it's a symetrical object and can't see why it was described as such.

Long shot but could the highlighted region account for the UO, or is it just a smudge on the mirror? How large and close to the lens would an insect or fragment need to be to produce the same results?

reply to post by Funk bunyip


heheh! O.K then!