Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

reply to post by CigaretteMan


Thank you. While I acknowledge that my drawing skills weren't the greatest, it's good to know that it has convinced you, and that we're in agreement on the fact, that it was a bird.

reply to post by longlostbrother


The shooter did not see the object in real time. Only once the photos were viewed

I would have seen a floating. Plastic bag against that sky. Before and or after the shot.

Unlikely to be a bag

Or a parasail

reply to post by xistence05


looks like a dirty mirror to me

Originally posted by magma
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

The shooter did not see the object in real time. Only once the photos were viewed

I would have seen a floating. Plastic bag against that sky. Before and or after the shot.

Unlikely to be a bag

Or a parasail

Are you sure you would've? And are you sure she would've...? How can you be...?

Originally posted by Still Naive?
reply to post by Zcustosmorum

 

I feel her reasoning for not seeing it could fall under a few conditions:

1) The "UO" is not visible to the naked eye.

2) The "UO" is traveling at an incredible. I am not sure if this would prevent itself from being captured by the camera or just the human eye.

Sometimes we are so fixated on a specific object while taking a photo (either the goats or herself) that we do miss things like this. The original image shows the object as pretty small, relative to the other objects in the presented photo.

There is another possibility for the photographer not seeing the object and that is advanced cloaking technology.

reply to post by longlostbrother


Because a bag floating around would look very out of place and and artist uses their eyes to not only see but actually register things.

Also there was not just 2 eyes but the driver also has at least 1 good eye so that is at least 3 eyes to see it.

Originally posted by rayuki

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.

and

here

is
what the expert has said already .. but because you DID NOT read the OP.. here's a snippet.. (emphasis is mine)

I asked for direct from camera shots, both of the UO shot and the previous and preceding photos. "SHOOTER" was completely open and forthcoming with the full gambit of her camera's files, and never once delayed nor made excuses for not providing every requirement I asked for. Mark Allin put me in direct contact with "SHOOTER" through email on August 31st at 5pmET.

"SHOOTER" related that she was on a vacation trip with her husband, and they were driving in a remote area of Greece. 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.

"SHOOTER" did not see the object at the time of photographing the scene, and has related to me she noticed nothing whatsoever unusual during this time.

The weather was quite windy, spotted with clouds, yet relatively clear, with a temperature of approximately 86 degrees. The object appears in no other photo, including the one preceding it which was taken 5 seconds earlier than the UO shot. The next frame shot after the UO photo was some minutes later and obviously at another vantage point from the "goat series".

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.

and yes.. I think I've read enough .. thx you Springer.

I think once you get past the 20th page on a post like this, it's time to call it a day.

I applaud the plethora of theories: plastic bag, goat pee (?), parasail, reflection, hoax, etc.

But there doesn't seem to be any concensus here.

As always, we derive meaning from every picture or event or scene in our lives, and sometimes it's just up to the viewer to decide what the meaning is.

Some here will continue to chuckle and call it a hoax. Others will walk away, newly certain there is such a thing as UFO's. Other folks will continue to run the photo through their digital programs....

Every act is an act of self definition. Interesting how our reactions to this tell us who we really are.

Oh... That thing.... yea I was playiong with my Air Hog out there the other day...



haha just kidding. but seriously, all jokes aside; as much as it looks legit, i see alot of potential for photoshop, the "UFO" looks slightly more pixelated than the surrounding area. I also think its completly possible that this could be a Drone (new design maybe)... or its completly possible its a legit UFO...

Originally posted by magma
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Because a bag floating around would look very out of place and and artist uses their eyes to not only see but actually register things.

Also there was not just 2 eyes but the driver also has at least 1 good eye so that is at least 3 eyes to see it.

Actually no... IF you've ever seen a magic show you know that a room of a thousands people, all trying to spot a trick, can be easily distracted and miss something very obvious... all she needed to do was be looking that the goats, or anything, and simply miss it... there's literally thousands of photos taken where people don't notice something about the photos until after they have been developed, etc.

So, no.. that's not a good enough answer... that she woulda, because you know.. she just woulda...

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by magma
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Because a bag floating around would look very out of place and and artist uses their eyes to not only see but actually register things.

Also there was not just 2 eyes but the driver also has at least 1 good eye so that is at least 3 eyes to see it.

Actually no... IF you've ever seen a magic show you know that a room of a thousands people, all trying to spot a trick, can be easily distracted and miss something very obvious... all she needed to do was be looking that the goats, or anything, and simply miss it... there's literally thousands of photos taken where people don't notice something about the photos until after they have been developed, etc.

So, no.. that's not a good enough answer... that she woulda, because you know.. she just woulda...

Well to go back to the op. 5 seconds earlier it was not there.

She is a pro artist so her career is looking at things

It was not there 5 seconds earlier in the preceding photo

Trained pro magicians intentionally mislead,

She also stated she did not see it

What is reading the whole OP going to do, other than bore someone to death with circumstantial evidence and so called experts? That many experts on this forum can't? So you're saying trust these two random people out all by themselves somewhere in Greece at their word....How about I bring two 5 year olds in front of you that believe in Santa Claus? I guess their word just isn't gonna work is it...and this is coming from the most innocent beings on this planet: children.

Ok fine if this is "real" as you believe...let ATS people sniff it, and stop defending it so much. This sounds like the stupid Star Child skull run around to me...did you catch my trap?

I said she wasn't using a Canon and pointed to the EXIF data. There upon you leaped at the moment and said Yes it is a Canon, and then say the EXIF isn't the correct one. So now you are stuck because the EXIF data shows that IT IS the camera; you say she used and is the one visible in the photo...so which is it now?

EXIF data real or not real?

Now seeing how human's are; very apt and adept at lying, it is wise to toss out "witnesses" stories and look at the physical evidence in such a case. As far as the physical evidence? You have seen the basic demonstration of photo editing.

Fine, say it is a real photo....I could tie a fishing line to a blue plastic bag hide behind that rock and kite it out into the distance...especially under the wind conditions you mentioned...and so could every one else at ATS. So what does that leave? Zip...debunked...nothing, just a stranger...asking other strangers, to accept the word of yet other strangers...now which shell is the red ball under?

reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness

I said she wasn't using a Canon

What camera is seen in the photo? I can't see the name well enough to be certain.

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
What is reading the whole OP going to do, other than bore someone to death with circumstantial evidence and so called experts? That many experts on this forum can't? So you're saying trust these two random people out all by themselves somewhere in Greece at their word....How about I bring two 5 year olds in front of you that believe in Santa Claus? I guess their word just isn't gonna work is it...and this is coming from the most innocent beings on this planet: children.

Ok fine if this is "real" as you believe...let ATS people sniff it, and stop defending it so much. This sounds like the stupid Star Child skull run around to me...did you catch my trap?

I said she wasn't using a Canon and pointed to the EXIF data. There upon you leaped at the moment and said Yes it is a Canon, and then say the EXIF isn't the correct one. So now you are stuck because the EXIF data shows that IT IS the camera; you say she used and is the one visible in the photo...so which is it now?

EXIF data real or not real?

Now seeing how human's are; very apt and adept at lying, it is wise to toss out "witnesses" stories and look at the physical evidence in such a case. As far as the physical evidence? You have seen the basic demonstration of photo editing.

Fine, say it is a real photo....I could tie a fishing line to a blue plastic bag hide behind that rock and kite it out into the distance...especially under the wind conditions you mentioned...and so could every one else at ATS. So what does that leave? Zip...debunked...nothing, just a stranger...asking other strangers, to accept the word of yet other strangers...now which shell is the red ball under?

edit on 2-10-2012 by BigBrotherDarkness because: sp punct

I agree with what you are saying

People seem to think EXIF data is set in stone. Apparently there are several programs that can change the EXIF data and by doing so add another layer of fakery.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

It's a Canon don't forget things read backwards in a mirror.

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

It's a Canon don't forget things read backwards in a mirror.

Then why did you say she wasn't using a Canon?

Hmmm... I wonder which type of UFO the OP pic is....




(Mods... I have seen this pic posted on many FB pages and other places....)

Originally posted by magma

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by magma
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Because a bag floating around would look very out of place and and artist uses their eyes to not only see but actually register things.

Also there was not just 2 eyes but the driver also has at least 1 good eye so that is at least 3 eyes to see it.

Actually no... IF you've ever seen a magic show you know that a room of a thousands people, all trying to spot a trick, can be easily distracted and miss something very obvious... all she needed to do was be looking that the goats, or anything, and simply miss it... there's literally thousands of photos taken where people don't notice something about the photos until after they have been developed, etc.

So, no.. that's not a good enough answer... that she woulda, because you know.. she just woulda...

Well to go back to the op. 5 seconds earlier it was not there.

She is a pro artist so her career is looking at things

It was not there 5 seconds earlier in the preceding photo

Trained pro magicians intentionally mislead,

She also stated she did not see it

It doesn't matter though does it?

Are you saying it magically appeared on the film, and is invisible to the human eye?

Because guess what, if it showed up on the camera, it was in front of her and she didn't see it.

Pretty basic stuff.

I don't care if she's an artist, my wife was a professional painter for years in Boston, I'm a professional music, she's not perfect at seeing things, and I'm not perfect at hearing them. I know MANY professional musicians that don't hear basic things like pops in recordings, and artists completely oblivious to the world around them.

You're reading WAY to much into the (supposed) amazing ability of artist's eyes.

Originally posted by MRuss
I think once you get past the 20th page on a post like this, it's time to call it a day.

I applaud the plethora of theories: plastic bag, goat pee (?), parasail, reflection, hoax, etc.

But there doesn't seem to be any concensus here.

As always, we derive meaning from every picture or event or scene in our lives, and sometimes it's just up to the viewer to decide what the meaning is.

Some here will continue to chuckle and call it a hoax. Others will walk away, newly certain there is such a thing as UFO's. Other folks will continue to run the photo through their digital programs....

Every act is an act of self definition. Interesting how our reactions to this tell us who we really are.

Oh really? Please spare us your condescension. Why is this thread trotting round and round the mountain?
There is nothing except a single unsubstantiated image accompanied by it's best friend; hearsay.
There's no meat to this goat, nothing to study without going plastic bag-happy.
It's rubbish.

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by magma
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

The shooter did not see the object in real time. Only once the photos were viewed

I would have seen a floating. Plastic bag against that sky. Before and or after the shot.

Unlikely to be a bag

Or a parasail

Are you sure you would've? And are you sure she would've...? How can you be...?

I bet, as sure you probly are about
the "Laws of physics cant be broken"