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: 33
382
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miccey

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"

edit on 2012/10/2 by Miccey because: (no reason given)


So, you're going with the, "invisible UFO that can only be seen by cameras" theory, versus the "didn't notice something in the photo she took because she was momentarily distracted" one?

And to justify your invisible UFO theory you are appealing to my belief in the laws of physics?

Yes?




posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by CX
 


The more I looked the more I started seeing that too. It might just be pareidolia with me but that's definitely a perfect orb.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by magma
reply to post by old_god
 




the fact is so many people are still choosing to ignore the obvious and come out with a theory.


What is the obvious?

I think these facts and evidence are pretty good to suggest the photo actually has captured something not of this world. It is well documented and appears credible. I think it is important to look at all possibilites. By doing this alternate theories will come up.

Having had so many hoaxes in this field it is prudent to be cautious and to put the photo under as much scrutiny as possible.

At the end of the day, if it turns out to be legit, then the truth will stick.

What we need now is another similar photo with the same credibility and analysis done on it, we could then compare and make proper conclusions

finally after 20(30 something now) something pages we get a logical post.Thank you!

I have never read such nonsensical posts this has become worse than the 911 threads for making stuff up to fit.
I'm absolutely stunned at the mindset and imaginations of some of the opinions people have.this thread reads like Barney or sesame street fan club.did someone leave the playground gate unlocked?

Please read and re-read what Magma wrote if you don't know what the object is there is no way to come to any kind of conclusion...no one has solved this "anomely" no matter how many has said case closed.Unless you were there and saw the picture taken you don't know,no one knows not even the "shooter".
It's not the first mystery photo and won't be the last...get over yourselves
I may not know what it is but I sure know what it isn't and it isn't a bag,bird,ring reflection,smudge,kite,goat spittle,water droplet,cracked glass or aunt lucy's platter.

I can't believe this is the same website I joined a few years back,the quality of reply's are below 6 grade level

I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion but people please!!!

my apologies if I offended anyone but I'm completely exasperated
edit on 2-10-2012 by TWILITE22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:09 PM
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.


Oh, I apologize if I came off as saying anyone who didn't BELIEVE the analysis was posting bollocks. I totally respect the people who DID read the analysis and just didn't agree. But there are obviously a lot of posters who didn't even bother reading it. Which is what was making me lose it LOL



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 
maybe you can post some of your blurry bird photos for comparison so all the bird people can rule this out?
I said before I don't know what it is but I don't think it is a bird but your pics would be a great help.
Now does anyone have photos of reflective rings chipped glass,bags in the wind or goat drool?



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by Miccey

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"

edit on 2012/10/2 by Miccey because: (no reason given)


So, you're going with the, "invisible UFO that can only be seen by cameras" theory, versus the "didn't notice something in the photo she took because she was momentarily distracted" one?

And to justify your invisible UFO theory you are appealing to my belief in the laws of physics?

Yes?



Are you trying to read between my lines...
Id say, DONT...Theres nothing but empty
space there.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
While waiting for more work to come, especially about the ufo distance estimation using a sort of "haze scale", I would like to show you a cool result I obtained while trying to remove this haze effect.

It appears that there's a strong blue haze effect that is paticularly visible on the background mountains, so I choose a square with the ufo in its center and removed this blue haze.

It's often an undesirable effect in photography and there are some good ways to partially remove it with Photoshop, using this process.

OP's photo:



After the process is done:





Note the metallic aspect of the object, the removal of the haze has improved its sharpness as well.
edit on 2-10-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Nice work , looks super nice now if it is a true representation of the object,

curiouser and curiouser



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 

Nicely done

I'm still on the fence and open to the more rational possibilities...but this process you just shared is of great benefit to anyone with an interest in improving photos for whatever purpose. Thank you.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


But one can tamper with this single image with as many Adobe Photoshop™ filters as one wants, it does not move the topic on a jot.
Next thing you know, arianna wil be along to circle hundreds of tiny buildings surrounding the goat's hooves after "enhancing" the image.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Good work but im still not convinced that the object is real. You can simulate sky haze over an object quite easily if you know how.

Here's one i made with a random ufo with added correct 'haze'





I wonder what the process you just showed would look like on the pic i just made?


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



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


please don't be offended by this, but I have no idea how you can say the "object" has a "metallic aspect" with a straight face.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT

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.


Then all we would need to combat that technology is a crappy low mega-pixel digital camera? Nah!



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
This has been debunked.

It's a goat sweat droplet flying through the air.

The evidence of other droplets on the mirror corroborate the obvious.

It perfectly explains why the "shooter" never saw anything in the field of view.

The shutter speed of the camera here is way beyond the refresh rate the human eye can comprehend, in other words she didn't see it as it flung by her field of view but the camera captured it perfectly fine.

It perfectly explains why the photographed object in question appears fluid, because it is a fluid.

The anally retentive reviews continuing here are mere folly, carry on.



references,
Goat sweat post

Mirror splatter evidence post
edit on 2-10-2012 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-10-2012 by TinfoilTP because: references added for the lazy UFO faithful



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I will admit to not taking the time to read all the other replies to this post.

There is one thing which "bothers" me about the photo shown.

The camera which is shown in the side mirror on the car does not appear to be aimed in a manner which would allow it to take the picture shown in the posting.

If you imagine a line thru the center of the lens and out the rear of the camera, you will notice it is reversed from the angle it should be. I do not believe this is because the image in the mirror is reversed. If the camera were aimed out toward the object it would still be aimed out of the car, not inward.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TWILITE22

Originally posted by magma
reply to post by old_god
 




the fact is so many people are still choosing to ignore the obvious and come out with a theory.


What is the obvious?

I think these facts and evidence are pretty good to suggest the photo actually has captured something not of this world. It is well documented and appears credible. I think it is important to look at all possibilites. By doing this alternate theories will come up.

Having had so many hoaxes in this field it is prudent to be cautious and to put the photo under as much scrutiny as possible.

At the end of the day, if it turns out to be legit, then the truth will stick.

What we need now is another similar photo with the same credibility and analysis done on it, we could then compare and make proper conclusions

finally after 20(30 something now) something pages we get a logical post.Thank you!

I have never read such nonsensical posts this has become worse than the 911 threads for making stuff up to fit.
I'm absolutely stunned at the mindset and imaginations of some of the opinions people have.this thread reads like Barney or sesame street fan club.did someone leave the playground gate unlocked?

Please read and re-read what Magma wrote if you don't know what the object is there is no way to come to any kind of conclusion...no one has solved this "anomely" no matter how many has said case closed.Unless you were there and saw the picture taken you don't know,no one knows not even the "shooter".
It's not the first mystery photo and won't be the last...get over yourselves
I may not know what it is but I sure know what it isn't and it isn't a bag,bird,ring reflection,smudge,kite,goat spittle,water droplet,cracked glass or aunt lucy's platter.

I can't believe this is the same website I joined a few years back,the quality of reply's are below 6 grade level

I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion but people please!!!

my apologies if I offended anyone but I'm completely exasperated
edit on 2-10-2012 by TWILITE22 because: (no reason given)



It is a reflection of her ring! I don't care what you say.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
So, the case is closed?

This is just a flying piece of goat sweat?

Picture debunked?

End of story?

How about starting a new thread: Piece of Goat Sweat Debunks ATS Exclusive UO!



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   

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


I would say the opposite as she did see the bag just didnt really take notice, why would you its a plastic bag nothing earth shattering, so when recalling when the image was taken remembering a plastic bag flying in the distance is a detail that wont stay in you memory banks as it had no relevance to what the taker of the photo was focusing on. If she was asked to try recall as much of that day as possible she might remember seeing something flying in the wind at a distance and then maybe realize this is actually what see caught on camera and the simple fact that plastic bags are really not that interesting the mind would dismiss it as something not required for memory storage.

As soon as I viewed the image while reading the analysis I thought how many grey plastic grocery bags have I seen blowing in the winds at around a distance of about 8-15metres that look almost identical to the image taken.

I would say that with the strong wind and what looks like a decline on the side of the road that she captured a grey plastic grocery bag being blown in the wind which if strong enough can make the bag move extremely quick.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
been staring at it for hours on end and something just doesnt seem right(other than a ufo lol) it seems the colors are off or too bright on object, to right there is alot of haze/fog comming in and doesnt look as if it is even around the ship, was the camera shes holding the camera that took pick, because it looks like its facing stright out/down where as ufo would def. need camera pointing up from where she is, is this all they had was one pic , seems odd
i cant figure it out but i know it wasnt taken with that camera, just follow stright line out from where its pointing, it will be ground/lower edge of cliffside at angle its at in pics


If you look at her face in the mirror it looks like a self portrait like many social network people take of themselves in the mirror. If they are sitting still why so many hands and fingers on a camera? It's a novice move as many cameras have image stabilization. I have a close friend that's a pro photographer with exhibit showings etc. I've never seen him use a camera like this, only novice social network mirror shooters...either she's trying to get into the industry with an incredulous story of ufo, or some publicity if already established.


I don't see anything wrong with "Wow, goats. Let me pull over, snap a pic, and for good measure to prove I was the one taking the shot, I'll include myself through the side mirror". What does any of that have to do with the anomaly?

And for someone who's "trying to get into the industry" or trying to get publicity she sure has gone out of her way to keep herself anonymous.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
This has been debunked.


Ignorant beyond belief if you actually consider what we're looking at.

Droplets in air refract mor of an inverted view of the surroundings. The 'highlight' is still on the top in this image and points towards the source...the sun.

The 'droplets' on the mirror appear DRY and OLD.


It perfectly explains why the photographed object in question appears fluid, because it is a fluid.


Because you say so? lol.....I'll post something in a minute that may or may not make you think again (but I doubt you have the capacity to do so).
edit on 2/10/2012 by nerbot because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
382
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join