Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

page: 21
377
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot

2. Why did "SHOOTER" open an account on December 27, 2005 and not post or respond to a single thing, then send a photo direct to ATS via email from a holiday dated August 19th of this year?


That's not the same person, Jeff chose to use the name "SHOOTER" because the photographer who sent me the image enjoys her privacy and asked that her name be kept out of the report.

The photographer of this image told me she was referred to ATS by a friend who apparently visits the site frequently, she was unaware of ATS prior to taking this image and showing it to her friend.

Springer...




posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
Had to check the whole of the thread, to make sure this wasn't posted, my eyes are bleeding now....


The thing that strikes me as odd, is the fact that neither the 'shooter' nor the driver saw this 'object' (yes this has been mentioned). This means, that either the object was there for a split second (maybe a second at most), or it simply wasn't there at all, and is an imaging artefact.


Now here is the bit I'd like to add on that nobody has mentioned yet:

Looking at the 'object', it is quite hard to discern the highlights and shadows, given it's colour and apparent reflective 'body'. However, there is a clear highlight/reflection on the top right. This highlight seems to be, pretty much, an intact circle, that I can only assume is the reflection of the sun. If you look at the rest of that part of the image, the reflection seems to be on part of the 'body', that appears to be itself circular or domed.

Ok, all good so far, and nothing out of the 'ordinary', until you look at the angle of sun, giving shadow to the goats. Is it just me, or does the circular reflection (assuming it is the Sun) on the 'object', appear to be off (if the object was actually there), compared to the angle of the sun, shown in the shadow of the goats? Shouldn't the reflection of the Sun on the object, be more semi circular, and the highlight/reflection encompassing the entirety of the right side of the object?
edit on 1-10-2012 by AmatuerSkyWatcher because: (no reason given)


Quoted myself as it seems to have been totally over looked. I also forgot to mention, that there is a 'band' around the outside of the circular reflection of the sun, if you look closely.

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



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erno86

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.


That is where I differ, I don't think it is clear at all. If it was all that clear you would have a much better idea of what it is. It does not have to be within the focus distance to be seen, just not seen clearly. That's how it looks to me. Springer I think, said it looked like a large object at a distance, that seems just as viable to my thinking.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Here's a screen shot of "something" I captured while shooting a sunset. It's shape morphed, but kind of fits in with the shape of the one on this thread. In a few frames, it appears to be casting a shadow on the cloud layer above it. So when it comes to strange shapes and what it mabe be, I'm open to about anything.
PS: I offered these up to Springer(25 original files)
farm9.staticflickr.com...

Larger: farm9.staticflickr.com...



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by OldPhotoGuy
 


A cloud? Congratulations?



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by MDDoxs
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.


As referenced in my above post, here are some images of flying plastic bags that through a similar analysis could yield similar results.

perhaps we should imploy some scientific method and use a "CONTROL". If someone had the time to submit the following images to the same analysis, would it yeild similar conclusions




With the right angle, sunlight, atmospheric conditions, i think a plastic bag could fool everyone. Well atleast me anyways.


but i still think a control to closely match the OP would be valuable.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by jessejamesxx
 




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



the rock on the left is actually sharper than the "ufo" ... the ufo is not sharp at all... The UFO/thing is behind the rock but not too far from it in my opinion... 60cm? no chance..



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Just to chime in for the atmospheric haze:


Attached is a snip of the UO shot grabbed from 2 locations: the main, large mound in the main body of the shot, and the UO (direct from original image - although I'm sure the ATS upload compresses, Mark? Yes?).

You can see in comparison of the darkest areas of the mound, where shadows are delineating the level of black, that the UO is much lighter in tone, within it's darkest levels. Clearly, the object is at the very least, past the large mound by a moderate to fair amount.

The focal quality as well, when examined dark area to sky (mound) and dark area to sky (UO) in giving you the starkest and most apparent focal comp, it's readily evident that the UO is further out of focus than the mound.

Therefore, further away than the mound (comp that to the very far other side of the water landmass if you like for drastic difference.) It's not as far away as that distant landmass by any stretch, but it's highly unlikely to me that this is anything close.

It's highly, highly doubtful to me to be a mylar balloon or blowing bag (for all the reasons I put in the original report should anyone avail themselves of that). The idea of a bird is truly absurd to me. I've not seen any symmetrical domed reflective birds around lately.

Everyone is well entitled to their own thoughts. As stated, I have no hard and fast answers here.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Haha! These kind of threads are what ATS does best! I love 'em.


Here we have a sequence of pictures showing what happens to a droplet of water as it falls, then pancakes out and finally explodes into smaller droplets...




Okay, so we add the UFO picture into the sequence (excuse the poor formatting)...













... and voila! We have a credible explanation for what this thing is.

In my opinion it's a water droplet (it certainly looks translucent and it's reflecting the colours around it) perhaps falling from the upper sill of the car window after the photographer wound down her window to take a snap of the goats.




posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
for what it's worth, here is the place at g.maps
link



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Silver Star
 


The problem there is your water droplets are not symmetrical, and do not exhibit consistent features. It was also, not raining. The witness made that very clear.

Anyway, last post today for me. I'll be watching when I can.

Thanks all



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher
 


I think this will help you with that.



You will notice that the highlights are in line exactly.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I've got to go with the bird explanation.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 

Too bad she is not looking upwards enough for us to see a nice sky reflection in her sunglasses. That would help to gain more information in the direction she's looking and perhaps see the object.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Erno86

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.


That is where I differ, I don't think it is clear at all. If it was all that clear you would have a much better idea of what it is. It does not have to be within the focus distance to be seen, just not seen clearly. That's how it looks to me. Springer I think, said it looked like a large object at a distance, that seems just as viable to my thinking.


I'm not a photo analytical expert...but I do not agree with Jeff Ritzmann's Report pg3, on one of Springer's post's: "Atmospheric distance haze consistent with the rest of the photo which indicates an object of some distance from the shooter."

Rather...I think the sun reflection off the object has a remarkable clarity, that is not conducive for the object being far away due to the hazy conditions in the photo. Otherwise...the closer you magnify the object --- the hazier, or less clarity looking it will get.
I'm splitting hairs, I know, but the UO --- without magnification --- looks too close to be "some distance from the shooter".
edit on 1-10-2012 by Erno86 because: added a word
edit on 1-10-2012 by Erno86 because: added a few more
edit on 1-10-2012 by Erno86 because: ditto



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by dethfromabuv
I've got to go with the bird explanation.




Nothing is definitive, its all just theories, possibilities/probabilities, but, there is more probability of the ring theory, with the woman's reflection in the mirror, since you're ignoring the perfect ring shape at the back.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Is the ring theory that the ray of light passed sideways through the ring onto the lens of the camera and caused the reflection; or that the light reflected off the ring, onto the side view mirror, and then back onto the lens of the camera dead center (since the side window was open)?



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Assuming this is an actual object in the air, is there a definitive method to "measure" the focus of this object and determine how far it is from the camera without opinion?

Could this object be in the photo because it's reflection is on the lens but the object itself is out of frame? Is that even possible?



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


The first question I would have asked is whether the side window was up or down when this shot was taken. Like others, I think the argument could be made that it IS in close proximity to the camera. I don't see any scientific evidence in support of the argument that the object is far away. "Haze" isn't an argument when trying to determine object size and location in relation to the horizon, camera, goats, etc.

My first thought would be window was up, crack in the _ Disprove that and take it from there.

I'm not saying it's not intriguing, that it's not what the OP says, but I didn't see some really basic theories fully debunked.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
reply to post by OldPhotoGuy
 


A cloud? Congratulations?


Not a cloud, but something for a pro to look at.





new topics
top topics
 
377
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join