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: 34
382
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
[Mod Correction]
edit on 10/2/2012 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I see this has caused quite a lot of discussion, and some outright fighting - which isn't surprising.

Most, if not all of the infighting here has been because people did not read the original report. This is very clear to me above anything else.

I find the beetle interesting, but it's not fitting the whole picture - level to camera? Not really in detectable motion? Symmetry? (Don't forget close proximity for that size, movement would blur at such a close and speedy object.) If it were, I think due to constant wing motion in a specific area, we'd be seeing a darker arc, or slight smear of darker area there. I do not.

"Goat sweat" is a new one on me, and one I'll ignore for obvious reasons - it's silly all things considered.

I see some claiming a bag, or balloon. Ok. Please explain in no uncertain, or ambiguous terms, how a bag or balloon would have symmetry, on both sides and top if it is a randomly blowing object. Why would it of all things, be of a level native to the frame.

I can see from some of the ideas here, that few if any take into consideration the LAB color, channel specific data which shows this is NOT a lopsided blob - but an object displaying a symmetrical even dome on top. If you think this is a composite hoax via photoshop? Please explain how someone, or why someone, would go to such inane lengths to alter an image with details only available in channel specific areas - especially those only really accessible through the LAB color space. LAB color space contains all perceivable colors, and it's gamut exceeds the RGB and CMYK color models. It is also device independent - meaning colors are defined independent of how they were created or the device they are displayed upon.

It's absurd for me to think someone would create a fake, edit EXIF data that not even law enforcement software can detect, and edit channel specific data, that isn't even visible in the shot as it sets as a complete image.

As an aside, I see one poster has stated that LAB is too much resampling, when that same poster contends a balloon, blowing the photo up 500x using nearest neighbor, and claiming to see a string based upon scant pixels in a diagonal. As shown by another poster, those scant diagonals exist throughout the sky as part of the color banding - they are not indicative of a string to me, in any way.

And if said camera can capture a string at this distance, and moving? NSA needs to start employing those cameras in their work.

LAB will not add data to the extent that a dome is clearly contiguous, and not lopsided. That data is there. And a very simple auto level adjust on the "a" channel would not create it. These color modes do not have an imagination, and they are not artistically adept to create symmetry where none exists.

Again, explain the symmetry (of both the angled sides and domed top), the level in frame, and the idea that the shooter did not see this said "balloon" as it drifted by. I have seen mylar balloons in this sort of work for years. More than I care to admit. This one, does not fit that...bill. Why? Because if we could see the "string"? We'd see the sealed edge of the mylar, the stretch marks of even a half inflated one, and even more detail than that which would indicate a balloon, and we do not - based upon being able to see this non existent "string".

That's like claiming to see the girl in the building across the block undressing in her window, yet not being able to tell whether the building is classical or constructivist in design style. It's absurd on the face of it.

At some point you have to ask yourself how far someone is willing to go - and this exceeds that notion for someone who doesn't need a UFO sighting, doesn't desire money, nor professional fame (both of which the shooter has). This is someone with a substantially good thing going, not some random goof on the internet looking for his 15 minutes. You'll find if you've dealt with as many hoaxers as I have, that the vast majority of them have no personal or professional accomplishments. This field often attracts the dregs of people who cannot become of any note in any other venue or profession. In other words, "Shooter" is highly successful on her own, and has no need for this sort of attention.

I'm not one of the UFO mavens many people on this board seem to hold in such high regard. I've rejected that attribution, because most of the mavens try to claim far too much information - that they don't have, but would love to sell you anyway. I do not know what the UFO phenomenon represents. I do see interesting consistencies. But what is it. As I said in the report, it's not a productive question at this point in time for me.

I do not know what we're looking at here. That's all I can say. Will it's unknown label hold for me? Who knows what we can discover about this in years to come. Maybe we'll find out about a technology we never knew about 20 years from now, or maybe we'll never know.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Okay so is the window of the car up or down? That makes a difference and at least points towards the possibility that something is reflecting or something liquid is on the window but the placement is wrong.

Looking at the photo as it is, looks photoshopped to me - not saying this is, just that we have seen so many doctored images that it may be hard to tell the difference anymore.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
After further thought and comparing google searches as well as my own collection not to mention looking much closer I am sad to admit I was wrong. I wanted to believe it was more so badly but I can't ignore it anymore after looking very closely it is clear this is a bird, probably a gull (sorry SkepticOverlord I don't agree on the white Pelican).

After reading gguyx's reply to me he made a lot of sense so I looked closer.

On the left you can clearly see a beak and eye exactly where they should be. the arc is the lucky angle of the wings which you can clearly make out a left and right wing with the left wing being closest, you can even make out the individual feathers at the end of the left wing as well as the gap in the arc of the right wing behind it. On the right you can see the tail and make out the feet tucked under the tail.

A gull of grey and white WILL reflect like this in the sun.

I hate to admit it but we have a VERY interesting picture of a bird here.

This is NOT a HOAX from ATS or the shooter. This is a legitimate case of mistaken identity in my opinion and a very weird bird picture. It took me two days of staring and being amazed to sort this out and I have taken thousands of bird pictures and looked at many thousands more.

I see it clearly in the LAB pics and almost every levels sample now that my brain finally adjusted to see what is actually there. I feel bad for not seeing it and calling those who did wrong so I apologize.

If anyone can't see from my description I will try to do a sketch later today.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by seriousskeptic
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.


In my opinion, the camera angle is correct for the photo displayed on this thread.
I hope I'm wrong about the "UO" in question [not an extraterrestrial starship], but the photo looks a bit campy --- as being the photo of the century, with her self-portrait in it.

I do not believe...that an alien starship, that has the capacity to visit our planet ---and they [ET's] do --- would be so stupid, as to give off a sun reflection like that during a daytime OP; on a possibly hostile planet. Nighttime, or in total darkness, might be a different story, since the other-worlder's possibly need to create photons, as in fusion plasma surrounding the starship; to fuel the photon engine.

edit on 2-10-2012 by Erno86 because: deleted and added a word




edit on 2-10-2012 by Erno86 because: ditto

edit on 2-10-2012 by Erno86 because: spelling



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
Please explain in no uncertain, or ambiguous terms, how a bag or balloon would have symmetry, on both sides and top if it is a randomly blowing object. Why would it of all things, be of a level native to the frame.

When reviewing the original pixels of the file, it exhibits no symmetry:


And mylar balloons come in all shapes and sizes: balloonkits.com...



LAB color space contains all perceivable colors,

Indeed. LAB format was designed to mimic the colorspace of the human eye. However, when you convert a JPEG compressed RGB to LAB, you still end up with no more colors than were in the RGB JPEG.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


I see you are staying away from the reflected ring theory. That would explain the symmetry, the shine, as well as the fact that the object only appears when the camera is facing the mirror. This is the most solid explanation so far.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
What a load of crap again. Why only 1 picture, why no video? Today's cameras have excellent video capacities. If I saw something like this I would shoot 100 pics and record videos for as long as it stayed there.

Guys sorry to disappoint you but there are no aliens visiting the earth. Maybe they came thousands of years ago and they might come again in the future but for now... enjoy these crappy photos.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
After analysing with this image for ages, I tried some sharpening techniques I used to use in some of my photoshopping images that combined images from multiple sources into a final composition.

I know many here have suggested the plastic bag and droplet thoery, but when I looked at my results I just couldn't justify those opinions based on what I was looking at.

The object may have been close or far, with or without haze, or possibly existant as a photographic anomaly, but on revealing the following image it became apparent that it may have more structure than initially apparent.

I know Mr Ritzmann leaned towards a 'symetrical' object but I tend to dissagree somewhat and say the left side is more rounded than the right and a central sphere is sitting on a rounded base with an additional appendage to the left. (see 2nd pic)

Here is the image section containing the object at 100% resolution edited using the advanced 'smart sharpen' filter in photoshop CS4:



A larger copy with two of the main interesting features highlighted. They appear as dark domes with a round band at their base, a bit like a dark watch glass and surround. It may also be possible there are at least two more, less evident but on each side at the base:



So...a bit more than a plastic bag or spit from a goat perhaps? I scanned the image for signs of similarity that would point this anomaly to the reflection of something familiar but have found nothing yet.

Other things to note:

The car window IS DOWN. The end of the rubber seal that stops water ingress (near where mirror joins car) is the evidence as it is unflexed and 'at rest' so to speak.

The mirror shows signs of OLD water droplets that has dried, not fresh at all and with no refraction or reflection of their own.

The goats do not appear to be looking 'up' at an object. (Most animals move their head to view instead of their eyes). The only thing they might be looking at would be something straight ahead or on the ground (a 'take off' point?)

NOTE: A 'thrown' or 'launched' object would display signs of blur if moving, BUT if travelling in an upward trajectory and upon reaching its 'apex' , would appear stationary for a moment.

I asked for information about the setting of the date/time on the camera but have not recieved a reply yet. I wanted to verify the time of day against the angle of the sun in the sky, thus verifying the authenticity of the whole range of photos.

I need a break from all this squinting and hard thinking so I'm going to watch a movie.

NOT 'The Men Who Stare At Goats'

cheers.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
In image files.abovetopsecret.com... if you scroll right over to right hand side of this picture, zoom in and look in sky above and slightly to the right of tallest tuft of grass, it looks like the object is there in the distance.

Can anyone see see that?

And sorry if this is mentioned already I just don't have time to read through all the pages!



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 



but an object displaying a symmetrical even dome on top


I keep seeing people go on about symmetry, and every time I do, I wonder what they're seeing that I'm not. If you break the image into quadrants, it's not symmetrical at all -- the whole right side is missing, both on the top and the bottom (far worse on the top.) I'm not even talking about the colouring, which is off, as well, but the fact that a large part of the right side is missing.




posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by kavaron
What a load of crap again. Why only 1 picture, why no video? Today's cameras have excellent video capacities. If I saw something like this I would shoot 100 pics and record videos for as long as it stayed there.


READ, THINK, POST

But because you're lazy I'll explain like mummy would:

The taker of the photo saw nothing out of the ordinary when taking the shot so no video or other pics of 'it' were even considered at the time. It was ONLY noticed later when reviewing the shots. The photographer doesn't have a time machine either.

GET IT? Now brush your teeth and off to bed.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Nonsense. I showed the symmetry and consistencies in black and white (and color) marked images without much image processing whatsoever. The less you *have* to do, the better. I had to do very little to garner what I did.

So I can assume the rest of my previous questions regarding the alleged "string" will not be addressed point by point, so I'll move on. If you can see a string, you can see a hell of lot more - so where's your definition of clarity with the much larger object in question. It's not there.

In the end, LAB color modes will gain you access to subtleties of images that RGB and CMYK will not. I've employed it for a long time now - including O'Hare, which you didn't seem to have issue with at the time.

So, we'll have to agree to disagree - I've made my points and table it here.

--------------------------------------------

As really there's no more for me to say - (God knows I wrote enough on my own here in the report) But since I've been accused of "ignoring": - the "ring" theory makes about as much sense to me as the goat sweat. Reflection off what? In what focal range? To what clarity? In atmospheric density, a ring refraction with all solid edges? Sorry, no dice from me on that. And if you think it explains symmetry, then perhaps you can look at a diamond ring with facets and tell me when held in random fashion, how symmetrical it is from any angle. Level to frame? Any of the other points? Doesn't work for me. If it works for you? That's great.

Tear it up folks...I think whatever you will get from this image, you will. If anyone would bother to read the report, perhaps you'll understand that this thread has gone *exactly* according to the theory I talked about. This is about as textbook as it gets. I really enjoyed reading it, and participating. It's a fascinating thing all this.

~J



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
***ATTENTION***

Just a friendly reminder to discuss the subject and not one another. Manners and courtesy not only count, they are mandatory.

Thanks!

Hefficide
ATS Moderator
edit on 10/2/12 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dethfromabuv
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.
I think that CigaretteMan is onto something and that this IS a bird.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


I don't think it is a regular gull. It has silvery black wings. I suppose there could be gulls like that, just because there are none here doesn't mean they aren't elsewhere. If it was wet on the back, it could reflect light also because of the oil on the feathers. The camera could have accentuated the glare. Maybe it found someones tinfoil cap and carries it on it's back



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
are there really some of you out there who DON"T think its possible the military at least has UFO style DRONES at this point in 2012?



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Nonsense. I showed the symmetry and consistencies in black and white (and color) marked images without much image processing whatsoever. The less you *have* to do, the better. I had to do very little to garner what I did.

So I can assume the rest of my previous questions regarding the alleged "string" will not be addressed point by point, so I'll move on. If you can see a string, you can see a hell of lot more - so where's your definition of clarity with the much larger object in question. It's not there.

In the end, LAB color modes will gain you access to subtleties of images that RGB and CMYK will not. I've employed it for a long time now - including O'Hare, which you didn't seem to have issue with at the time.

So, we'll have to agree to disagree - I've made my points and table it here.

--------------------------------------------

As really there's no more for me to say - (God knows I wrote enough on my own here in the report) But since I've been accused of "ignoring": - the "ring" theory makes about as much sense to me as the goat sweat. Reflection off what? In what focal range? To what clarity? In atmospheric density, a ring refraction with all solid edges? Sorry, no dice from me on that. And if you think it explains symmetry, then perhaps you can look at a diamond ring with facets and tell me when held in random fashion, how symmetrical it is from any angle. Level to frame? Any of the other points? Doesn't work for me. If it works for you? That's great.

Tear it up folks...I think whatever you will get from this image, you will. If anyone would bother to read the report, perhaps you'll understand that this thread has gone *exactly* according to the theory I talked about. This is about as textbook as it gets. I really enjoyed reading it, and participating. It's a fascinating thing all this.

~J




You're analysis is superb and led me to finally believe it is a bird. The only assumption I have to disagree with is that a bird would not have that type of symmetry which when you put a soaring "crabbing" gull in a 2D image at the exact correct angle it will indeed by symmetrical exactly as your LAB files have shown. I actually looked at the LAB color files to make my final decision. The Beak and eye in not mistakable on the left and shows up in every color space presented.

I appreciate all your work and have nothing but respect I just see something different.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


I don't think it is a regular gull. It has silvery black wings. I suppose there could be gulls like that, just because there are none here doesn't mean they aren't elsewhere. If it was wet on the back, it could reflect light also because of the oil on the feathers. The camera could have accentuated the glare. Maybe it found someones tinfoil cap and carries it on it's back


Do a Google image search for "Seagulls" or "Seagulls in Flight" there are so many color variations and there is at least one variety on Crete that is silver and white.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


that's very cool analysis.



new topics

top topics



 
382
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join