Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

reply to post by davidbiedny


David,

Glad you chimed in here with your long-time expertise in photo analysis.

Based on personal experience of many years at the seashore I think we are looking at a shorebird or gull gliding along the updraft created by the cliff. The angle of the bird indicates it is 'crabbing' a little into the wind. The photo shows a profile view of the gull with cupped wings to catch the updraft. I have seen other photos similar to this one.

Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by davidbiedny
A single image, no corroborating sightings at the time, no intent on the part of the photographer to capture anything anomalous at the moment that the picture was taken (action of taking photo was not in response to seeing something odd and reacting), so all one ultimately has is a single image.

I personally feel there is little of interest or importance here. The term "grasping at straws" comes to mind.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but I wouldn't describe this as a "UFO", without some sort of witness observation to back it up. Since the photographer didn't see any anomaly when taking the photograph, I would classify this as a "photographic anomaly".

It is still interesting to analyze but is essentially useless if you are "searching for evidence" of real UFO anomalies.

Ask yourself, can we prove that it IS NOT a hoax? (placed in the photo using an editing program)

Originally posted by Unity_99
She is reflected perfectly in the mirror with her ring, so that is quite a strong likelihood. On my list of possibilities/probabilities, diamond ring #1.

What the...? Who abducted Unity_99 and put this imposter in his place?

reply to post by jessejamesxx


Explanation: St*rred!

Yes I am saying that BOTH the picture itself and the exif data both corroberate and prove a sub 60cm focus range ...

The object is within 60cm of the camera [as stated by Phage on pg1] due to the following data that tends to prove that ...

The EXIF data [as shown by elevenaugust on pg12 of this thread] details ...



With an aperture of 3.2 she needed a high shutterspeed otherwise the pic would be overexposed.

That lead to a very fast shutter speed of 1/1244.

Also it was set on face recognition [ie face detect], thus the focus point was in the mirror, to capture the self portrait.

Now this means although the focus range was set at auto it chose a very close point to focus onto and further proof of this is ...

The rocks just beyond the car to the left hand side are out of focus and yet everything closer than that is in focus.

The object itself is in focus due to being very sharply defined even when zoomed in and sceengrabed and saved as a jpg...

Therefor the object is most likely within 60cm of the camera.

And to compare the rocks and the object zoomed in and saved as a jpg [by OL] ... Please click on thumb to open larger version ok.



Note how the Rocks to the left hand side are blurry when compared with the object [Jellyfish! ] which IS sharp and welldefined even when zoomed in and is comparable to the crisp sharp detail of the rearveiw mirror visible at bottom of my zoomed screengrab [I use fax viewer to preview the picture and zoom in with].

This means since the object [Jellyfish! ] is within FOCUS it is within the distance between the camera and what the camera autofocused on and thats the rearveiw mirror which is sub 60cm away.

Personal Disclosure: Jellyfish or not ... whatever it is? It is damned close to the camera.

On the subject of the photographer not seeing what was in front of her in the sky.....

She is taking an impromptu picture of some goats, seeing as they rarely stop and pose for pics, and as her car is right behind them, i doubt they are standing still for a decent pic. You can see they are moving away up the road.

So she grabs her camera, aims and shoots. She will be looking through the rear screen of her camera to get them in, so i'm sure she didn't have a clue what was around her elsewhere, even if it was right in front of her.

I see it all the time here in my village. I live in a little village in The New Forest where ponies, donkeys, cows and pigs roam free, including through the village. In fact they have right of way here, so whilst we don't bat an eyelid, to the average tourist it is fascinating to see them trying to get into the same shop as you are about to go in.

The tourists just stop in the middle of the road, take their pic whilst they have the chance, but i bet they haven't a clue what is up in the sky at the precise moment in time.

All that matters is that pic of the pig!







So i think we can understand how this could happen to the lady in question.

CX.

Might be a good spot to post a brief recap from Page 3 of the report (Page 1 of this thread):

Examples of assumed natural or misidentification explanations for the UO and reasons for dismissal:

1) Water or other debris on the lens / lens chip or fracture
- photo taken just seconds before shows no debris of any kind, nor do any of the subsequent photos after
-water droplet would not show correct alignment of the sun's highlight per a 3 dimensional external object
-object is in consistent focus w/ the rest of the shot

2) Camera defect
-No defects in any other photos, no evidence of aberrations in the image caused by bad write to chip or typical known glitch.

3) Physical object blowing in wind
-Object would have to be of extremely significant size
-Object displays symmetry, and structure not consistent with random blowing debris
-Witness relayed that this was an amazingly remote area, which involved lengthy drive on non-paved roads. Populace ratio to trash seems unlikely.
-absolutely no discernible movement blur whatsoever.

4) Weather Phenomena
-Object in photo is not attributable to any known weather anomaly.

5) Planetary body
-Daylight photo

6) Thrown object (hoax)
-Object again shows symmetry, and clarity which would be unlikely with a small thrown object
-Object displays distance hazing inconsistent with a small object in close proximity.
-Focus of object not consistent with small thrown object

7) Digital Composite (hoax)
-Object shows channel specific data not visible in the combined channel, or "normal" viewing mode. Such data is more visible in LAB color mode in the A channel with simple "auto level adjust" operation in photoshop.
-No evidence of composite edge, or poor alpha channel mask.
-Pixels of image seem consistent throughout.

8) Aviary Explanation
-Object does not resemble a bird in any way whatsoever
-While birds can appear to have highlights, they do not reflect the light per this object, nor have reflective properties

I cannot identify or explain the UO in the photo. Of importance to mention is that I am not familiar with every sort of high level and undoubtedly secretive aerial projects employed by any government, military, or private contractor and therefore cannot rule this out. I do find it unlikely, for the horizon alignment issue alone.

IMO not a bird.
And yes im aware of what birds can look like when in flight
They are not blue and reflect sunlight









And not her ring
no light cast on that side of her the ring is not in sunlight.

If was it would reflect on the mirror not in the sky *her windows is obviously down*
And if was ring reflection off camera lense you would probably not even see her ring just a bright light on her hand from the refection

Originally posted by Astyanax
>SNIP<

Wasn't very effective

It's not a window artifact, it is clear that the window is open, so not a stone chip or water bead. We don't know what the direction of travel is either. There is no motion blur, that is more likely in a passing bird shot, although it could still be a bird. Some modern two man enclosed gyros have a similar profile, if you think this is something passing right to left, and the rotor has a negligible turret and minimal tailplanes, but you would also expect to see the rotor too. On the other hand it could be a small airplane, if you think it is something coming indirectly towards you, and that the reflective bit is the nose.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


These kinds are to be expected. Based on prior behavior, and current uninformed contentions - seems more a personal issue, which I've no time for.

Funny, I believe i have followed ATS for a decade or more and I do believe this is my very first post. I just wanted to get this in because I see a very interesting topic starting to get bogged down with silliness. I don't profess to know what this is, I have no idea if it is real, however, one thing is for certain........Springer stated he receives hundreds of these photos, probably thousands and this is one of the very few he took the time to have analyzed in depth. The gentleman that did the analysis did an icredible job looking at it from every possible angle. He made no commitment as too what it was but focused on what it is definitely not. With that being said, please take the time to read the analysis before putting up some random post........it's an ultralight aircraft it this it's that.....please, I am actually interested in this one, although I found John Tutor saga very entertaining, I am really interested in this one and do not want to comb thru 15 pages of people that obviously have nothing to contribute before I get to something intelligent. Just a request from a loyal but quiet member.

Ok, Only just seen this Thread And I did some thinking & digging....& found somthing REALLY INTERESTING!!!!

My first thought was a flying car....don't laugh!
there is no model that resembles this so thats out,

then I decided it was a Mylar balloon.
So I dived in & found out what time the two pics were taken
the pic where shes down the road with all the goats infront & the Ufo pic further up.

19/08/2012 09:13:15
&
19/08/2012 09:13:45

Thats only 30 seconds between shots.
where in the first pic the object is nowhere to be seen.

This rules out compleatly any balloon or object blowing in the wind & must have arrived in the shot vary fast indeed!!

my 3 cents

Originally posted by 3xil3
IMO not a bird.
And yes im aware of what birds can look like when in flight
They are not blue and reflect sunlight

And not her ring
no light cast on that side of her the ring is not in sunlight.

If was it would reflect on the mirror not in the sky *her windows is obviously down*
And if was ring reflection off camera lense you would probably not even see her ring just a bright light on her hand from the refection

edit on 1-10-2012 by 3xil3 because: (no reason given)

Wow, except for the color and translucency..., and possible (flipped upside-down) your bird image and this "UO" are VERY similiar in shape. You can even see in the picture of the bird, a sphere like darkspot in the center.

You've convinced me, I'm gonna go with bird.

Originally posted by Still Naive?
reply to post by LastProphet527

 

I believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong, that the video you linked here has been debunked. I'm not sure if I believe the official "debunk" of the video but I took it as plausible.

lol, my point exactly.

reply to post by TrentReznor


Not sure where those times are coming from, however my EXIF data on the original shots direct from camera are:

IMG3136 (shot just prior to the UO appearance) taken at 9:13:40
IMG3137 (with UO in frame) taken at 9:13:45
IMG3138 (at different location, no UO of course) taken at 9:24:00

So, I'm seeing 5 seconds before there was nothing, and 5 seconds later, the UO is there in frame.

Just for your FYI.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
People put much to much faith in EXIF image data. I know several programs that can edit EXIF data. So saying that this is not photoshopped because there is nothing in the EXIF data that suggests it means nothing.

Im still undecided on what the object is or how it got there. But it looks to clear and bright to be very far away if it was a real object.

Its certainly not proof off anything at the moment.

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

I haven't read all the post's on this thread yet...but I have to agree with PhoenixOD on this UO, because "it looks to clear and bright to be very far away." The UO does not have a haze that is commensurate with the ocean haze and far land mass; thus the object if very small and close-by.

I have refined my guess to a blue/ semitransparent grocery bag, that the photographer missed as she was lining up the shot.

The bottom right portion of the object seems like a bag handle and the middle portion could easily be the folds of the bag reflecting the sun light. The symmetry mentioned could just be due to coincidence.

As quickly as the wind blew the bag into frame, once the picture was taken, it expediently blew it away.

I am not saying it could not be something more, just throwing ideas out there to spur our debate.

it was but focused on what it is definitely not. With that being said, please take the time to read the analysis before putting up some random post........it's an ultralight aircraft it this it's that.....

People have opinions...not so sure certain things can just be 'definitely' ruled out.

Originally posted by Nola213

You've convinced me, I'm gonna go with bird.

What species of bird has a polished metallic sheen that reflects sunlight and which flies so fast that it was not spotted with the naked eye, yet does not have a blurred image when photographed? I think she should report her rare sighting to her local ornithological society.