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.

 

Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

page: 31
382
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   
I have been looking at this image on and off all day. Quite apart from the UFO there is something that seems a bit off about it. I think it is to do with the angle of the camera compared to just how wide an angle is included in the image. Not sure. Anyway, I did an image search, out of curiosity...

I will leave more expert folk than me to analyse but.. there is a version of this image, without the UFO on a Greek forum. It is in actually in thread relating to the image with the UFO. I have no idea if it has been photoshopped out - that would certainly be a first
Maybe he is just trying to confuse the issue for a laugh, I don't know. I can't read Greek and translate is not much help except to suggest that at least part of the post is is commenting on the attractiveness of the goats...

Here is the image :


source

This is the area containing the object from the image in the OP:


This is the same area in the image above:


I have bumped the levels mainly so as I could locate the right area using the graduation in the sky. So we have a with and without. Perhaps the post can tell us something if anyone can read Greek? One of them has been altered and, although I really can't see any cloning going on in 2nd image, I don't have the expertise to know definitively which. I will leave it with the better minds of ATS




posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by teamhair
 


Nice find!! they are discussing faking photos, there is an original larger size with no "ufo" and then an edited picture with the "ufo" in a smaller size. exifdata.com also shows it as a Canon PowerShot S100, but she isn't shooting with Canon PowerShot, it also says at exifdata that it was altered with Adobe CS5.

Cut this: wr5064bd18.jpg
and paste it at: exifdata.com...

Hit detailed for more indepth information...
edit on 2-10-2012 by BigBrotherDarkness because: extra



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   
It looks amazing .



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
exifdata.com also shows it as a Canon PowerShot S100, but she isn't shooting with Canon PowerShot,


Yes she is.


it also says at exifdata that it was altered with Adobe CS5.


That's because you are NOT using the original 'RAW' image with the original EXIF data, just a copy that has been edited for the site and for show.

The original image name is 'IMG 3137'.

PLEASE READ THE WHOLE THREAD.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


You missed the head of the foremost goat..
Busted you hoaxer..



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


you

have

NOT

read the OP .............go back and read it .. because the exfil data has already gone over by the expert sherlock~!

as I said again .................................................READ THE OP!



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


you

have

NOT

read the OP .............go back and read it .. because the exfil data has already gone over by the expert sherlock~!

as I said again .................................................READ THE OP!


Second that

Instead of acting the goat



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 


you

have

NOT

read the OP .............go back and read it .. because the exfil data has already gone over by the expert sherlock~!

as I said again .................................................READ THE OP!


yes because exif data can't be faked.... zzz

also the original image hasn't been posted. (RAW IMAGE FORMAT)

unless they got the image direct from the card from the camera, along with the other photos i wont believe this isn't a hoax. its just way to easy to do this sort of thing in Photoshop and the "SHOOTER" has very detailed Photoshop experience being a professional.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
S&F! This is an absolutely GREAT thread! The "evidence" in question isn't easily dismisable, the write up is phenomenal, and there's not quite as much flaming going on as usual. Reminds me of the ATS of the early 2000's! *nostalgia overload*



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
I wonder how many flags this thread would have gotten if an ATS staff member hadn't posted it.

ATS Exclusive......

So if a random person posts his UFO pic here on ATS it's just another pic, but because Springer posts it it is "an exclusive".



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Malynn
Thanks 90% of the members posting in this thread for not reading the analysis by the photo expert before posting. We finally get an interesting picture and I have to wade through 28 pages of total bollocks?

I've read the analysis, and I'm not convinced.

My experience -- I've used digital imaging software since before there was Photoshop (Color It!), and Photoshop extensively since the first version (I've recently shown Adobe's former chief product evangelist some things he didn't know about Photoshop) and have worked with high resolution LAB color space files directly off high-end drum scanners... and much more.

I just don't agree with a lot of it... to much resampling going on, which adds new information. I showed how I think it's a mylar balloon, losing helium, in this post. They now come in a wide range of sizes, and there were many family-centric events on Crete that day where balloons would likely be involved. Given the local and limited information, it's more plausible to conclude the mundane, rather than fantastic.


Another aspect I noticed about the original image is that the JPEG compression artifacts in the sky show strong evidence of progressive compression -- meaning areas of similar color received more aggressive compression than areas of high contrast. This is a very common technique for the compression in on-board cameras. This means that the blue "object" most-likey received a higher compression than the rocks or goats... further obfuscating the actual shape. And as a result, giving even more erroneous results when people attempt to upsample and smooth out the shape.


Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more photos that are plausibly fantastic objects. I just don't think this is one.


Maybe it is time for the HOAX section.

You have placed stuff in there that was way more solid.


edit on 2-10-2012 by ButtahFlyFX because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Even if it is something ET, it obviously didn't want to make any meaningful contact. So, erhm... what next?

Answer: Expunge religion.

For, until our species can demonstrate we're past worshipping superstition, what possible business could ET beings have here? As a comparatively super-intelligent species, would you visit a planet full of Neanderthals ready to commit hara kiri at the mere implication that their brand of fiction isn't the best?

edit on 2-10-2012 by Sablicious because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
my grandfather worked for nasa and helped create mufon, why are you humans not listening to me?

i KNOW we are not alone, never were


we are throughout this universe, life is everywhere


all is well, remember?





posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
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.

Jeff, can you please cite an example of these methods of analysis being used in a *verifiable* fashion? You have rolled out several assertions above, but they all use take-my-word-for-it comments like 'clearly', 'highly unlikely' and 'truly absurd'.. Where are the verifiable examples?

I too thought some of the ideas were a bit far-fetched initially, but given some of the very good examples posted here, I regard some of them as definite possibilities. And as a rather keen photographer myself, I know how mundane things can sometimes take on odd shapes/appearances, especially when you add on the vagaries of cameras and digital imaging..

I'm having a LOT of difficulty following the logic you just used.. There are numerous factors that determine colour/brightness/contrast, and you cannot, except in very specific circumstances, use them to determine distance.. Yes, you could say that an object cannot be FURTHER than a given distance, if that object shows highly contrasting areas that would be reduced by haze.. but here you seem to be saying that it must be beyond a certain distance simply because it is lighter/less contrasty? Are you seriously suggesting that you know the depth of the colours of the (alleged) object, or the depth of any shadows, if that is what they are? Why couldn't it be much closer and simply .. lighter/less contrasty?


On a different tangent (apologies if I've missed this) but was the model of the car identified (- and was it a hire car)? I gather it was a Fiat, but what model? And yes, I have a good reason for asking...



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reverend58
She was taking a self portrait purposely. Would it be so impossible for her to have turned the side mirror inward to get the shot? Come on people. Common sense.


From the earlier post:


While slowing down to photograph some goats, in one photo only out of multiples, she captured a single image of an unknown object in the sky.


Where does it say there that she was "taking a self portrait"? For that matter, why would she? She was taking pictures of the goats, not herself. Which I still say is the bit of the picture that is "off", because it's a terrible picture of the goats, but a splendid picture of all the things that the analyst says make this unique and therefore notable.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
it's a parasail

www.windowoncyprus.com...

if you do a google image search for: parachute boat

you'll immediately see a host of things that look a LOT like the image in the OP...

ACTUALLY, after looking at it for a few minutes, I think it's probably just a bag.

And the reasons it CAN'T be a bag:



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.


Are pretty debunkable

1. It wouldn't have to be bigger than it is... perspective is a funny thing, especially on camera... there's NO proof of how big/small close/far it is...

2. This is complete nonsense. It's not hugely symmetrical, to begin with, but even if it was there's certainly NO established "accepted amount of symmetry for blowing rubbish" - completely silly.

3. It doesn't matter how many people are around, rubbish can be blown any number of miles and if she's there in a car then it's obviously not too remote... and just how many humans do you think it takes to bring a single plastic bag to the wilderness?

4. There's no motion blur in any of the moving objects in the picture, like the goats... so... if the goats tale isn't blurry, and the bag was floating more than blowing by at a hundred miles an hour, no blur.

So yeah, it's a bag... you can pretty easily make out the shape...
edit on 2-10-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-10-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Shrike
reply to post by Springer
 


Here is what I find "disturbing" about the legality of the photo:
1. The person is including himself in the photo via the mirror.
2. If the photo had been only of the goats and landscape the photo would have been more "legit".
3. CGI or a UFO app have to be considered.
4. As taken, the photo smacks of poor composition and would not be of interest.
5. In light of the above the resultant photo looks like a setup as otherwise there is no reason for the photo.

I'm suspicious and you, Springer, should have higher standards.

edit on 30-9-2012 by The Shrike because: To add details.


Or it can just simply be an unknown flying object who happen to be right there in the moment the german lady snapped the shot. So we go to such trouble to dismiss everything we see at the point that it has turned into an obsession for us. As ironic and funny as it might sound, Occam Razor's somehow doesn't apply in everything. Is called DENIAL !!!
edit on 2-10-2012 by Telos because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



On a different tangent (apologies if I've missed this) but was the model of the car identified (- and was it a hire car)? I gather it was a Fiat, but what model? And yes, I have a good reason for asking...


Smurfy said it's a Fiat Panda/Multipla.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ButtahFlyFX
I wonder how many flags this thread would have gotten if an ATS staff member hadn't posted it.

ATS Exclusive......

So if a random person posts his UFO pic here on ATS it's just another pic, but because Springer posts it it is "an exclusive".




If a 'random' person added a thread with similar research and as much thought it would be recieved just as well I think.

Unfortunately most posters in the UFO forum are lazy and just want quick answers but give minimum imput themselves.



new topics

top topics



 
382
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join