Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

page: 36
377
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
This is why I say to actually read the initial writeup. The object is not lopsided. The "dent" in the top right upper side you are seeing in the original image, is a product of glare/specular highlight, typical with an object reflecting it surroundings. (i.e. sky)


Oh, I read the initial writeup a few minutes after it was posted. And I think that you're wrong -- if the upper right corner was reflecting the sky, it would be reflecting the sky in front of it, not behind it, and yet the colour is consistent all the way from the area (apparently) beyond the scope of your dome right over to the white part. If there was a structure in there, that would not be the case, and the sky that you see that is beyond the "arch" would not be identical to the sky being reflected by whatever the "arch" is.

Your red lines are also approximations -- they are not consistent with the two angles that they are inferred from. They're close, but not accurate -- the right side is a slightly higher slope than the left.

I believe that this is a more accurate extension of those angles:





posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
-- if the upper right corner was reflecting the sky, it would be reflecting the sky in front of it, not behind it, and yet the colour is consistent all the way from the area (apparently) beyond the scope of your dome right over to the white part.


Excellent point and well noted, particularly with a hazy sky perhaps. Maybe not quite to the extent you imagine because a curved surface would graduate to flat on it's extremity and give an almost direct line to the sky behind, but at an angle nevertheless.

Hard to find a reference picture because so many chrome ball images are 3D and not good for true comparison. Will keep searching.
edit on 2/10/2012 by nerbot because: stuff



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


I blew the picture up as much as I can on my browser and to me it looks like two Mylar balloons, one facing the camera and one on its side, inside some kind of net mesh. you can see a sort of hoop around the bottom which may be where the netting is sewn to cloth. Looks like that more to me than an interstellar spacecraft.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness
 

Thanks for that. The more I look at it, the less I believe this picture, mostly for reasons that have nothing to do with shiny things in the sky. But none of those really matter if it wasn’t there in the first place. It just becomes a not very interesting pic of goats - although I'm sure if someone played around with photoshop they could make the goats far more interesting






So, is noone else is the least bit curious as to why there is a version of this pic, on a Greek website, without the object?? info

Or why, when you zoom in to compare the the areas in the sky the one with the object looks a bit dodgier than the one without, at least to my eye?

And yes,I have read the thread and yes, I know I am not looking at the raw of either. I also know about jpeg compression artefacts, and I know I don’t have anything flash in the way of software to do a proper analysis to the level that has been done on the pic with the object. On that basis the two close ups in my earlier post maybe don’t say a whole lot.

Despite all that, I still think that the question of which image came first and whether it is possible to work that out, is worth asking before I start worrying about whether it is ET, drone, super shiny gull, plastic bag, mylar balloon or goat sweat (my favourite
)

I don't have the tools so I can't tell for sure. Can anyone else?

edit on 2-10-2012 by teamhair because: because I still can



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
It is a Gull head towards the left:

Please see this video for reference:

www.greeka.com...

And this website detailing the species of Crete:

gullsofcrete.blogspot.com...

There are three "lower" spots pointed out in the original analysis.

The one on the left of the picture is the right wingtip which is behind the head, the one in the middle is the left wingtip, the one on the right are the legs tucked under the tail.

You can also make out the signature m shape of the wings in the highlights just behind what I am calling the head on the left. The very tip of the left is the beak and directly behind and above the beak is the dark spot that is an eye clearly visible.

Please look at the pictures and video and tell me what you think.

Thanks!



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 





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


The evidence presented suggests this, yes



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:49 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


The bird analogy as used by you is good because they would be also highly reflective if wet, although I don't particularly see a need for the wings to be black, just wet, and between that idea and the camera could produce ambiguities in the end product..the picture, as it is eventually processed to the camera's satisfaction, not necessarily the photographers. It's not much use of talking about symmetry either, in this picture, except in making a comparison of similar lumps and bumps at a distance and out of focus, if the object is indeed out of focus, which I think it is. The picture is about goats close by, two of which are out of good focus, and the other nearest the wing mirror is pretty okay for obvious reason. The object is undefined and could be a jumbo jet, or a witch/warlock on a broomstick.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
The location - Road to Balos, Crete



A visit to the sighting location in the Road to Balos - Nice place.



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

Originally posted by Jinglelord
It is a Gull head towards the left:

Please see this video for reference:

www.greeka.com...

And this website detailing the species of Crete:

gullsofcrete.blogspot.com...

There are three "lower" spots pointed out in the original analysis.

The one on the left of the picture is the right wingtip which is behind the head, the one in the middle is the left wingtip, the one on the right are the legs tucked under the tail.

You can also make out the signature m shape of the wings in the highlights just behind what I am calling the head on the left. The very tip of the left is the beak and directly behind and above the beak is the dark spot that is an eye clearly visible.

Please look at the pictures and video and tell me what you think.

Thanks!


I think you are absolutely right. I "love" these zillion word analysis and then one right minded guy comes in and says how it is
People see what they want to see. Like in this case.

EDIT: I am not skeptic. This is just not anything worth while.
edit on 2-10-2012 by PrimoUno because: EDIT



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I'd like to know how fast an object could go at the shutter speed she was shooting at for it to look like it does. In other words, if say, it was below the cliff line, and shot upwards, just as she was snapping the photo, how fast could it be going and still appear as it did. For I don't believe it's only visible to cameras.. I think if she honestly did not notice it, it was going at a fair clip. Not mylar balloons or anything else where a slower speed would have been easily seen in her viewfinder or as she lifted the camera to her face.

One that that always cracks me up is how many experts we have here who enjoy to nitpick over the original analysis.. and they all come up with different theories. Airplanes (bi-planes, jet going super-sonic, small plane and RC), bugs, birds, trash bags, balloons, reflections, et al. So many experts.. so many ideas of what it is. You know.. you can't all be right.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by HarryJoy
 


On behalf of Harry who was a bit "under the weather" at the time of his posting. I his close friend scotty2hotty would like to elaborate on and clarify a few things. It is Harry's belief that a great entity of another dimension ( these entities are several hundred feet tall) was strolling along the coast or perhaps bathing himself in the waters of this secluded locale when he began to materialize beginning naturally at the top and working down. At the point that his helmet was nearly fully materialized he noticed that he was not alone and quickly dematerialized leaving only this photo as evidence of his having been there.


ps..... Now the disinfo agents need to get busy and bury this post lest the light of truth should fall upon the eyes of the masses
edit on 2-10-2012 by HarryJoy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
I'd like to know how fast an object could go at the shutter speed she was shooting at for it to look like it does. In other words, if say, it was below the cliff line, and shot upwards, just as she was snapping the photo, how fast could it be going and still appear as it did. For I don't believe it's only visible to cameras.. I think if she honestly did not notice it, it was going at a fair clip. Not mylar balloons or anything else where a slower speed would have been easily seen in her viewfinder or as she lifted the camera to her face.

One that that always cracks me up is how many experts we have here who enjoy to nitpick over the original analysis.. and they all come up with different theories. Airplanes (bi-planes, jet going super-sonic, small plane and RC), bugs, birds, trash bags, balloons, reflections, et al. So many experts.. so many ideas of what it is. You know.. you can't all be right.


If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Seriously there is nothing inconsistent with Seagull... at all and it looks like one when you examine it closely and understand the pose it would have to be in (a natural and common flight/ soaring pose).

The experts proved it was not fake and showed symmetry and made some educated guesses and ruled out birds from erroneous symmetry arguments that can be shown to be false when you stare at enough seagull pictures.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by free_spirit
 


Here's the full video so people can get a better look at the area. The spot where the photo was taken is at 3:35.



It looks very clean, I don't see any trash or litter. There's a couple of birds flying around, they look quite a bit smaller than the object in the photo. Also they're white, not translucent blue.

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



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
reply to post by free_spirit
 


Here's the full video so people can get a better look at the area. The spot where the photo was taken is at 3:35.



It looks very clean, I don't see any trash or litter. There's a couple of birds flying around, they look quite a bit smaller than the object in the photo. Also they're white, not translucent blue.

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


Thanks for this video! I facepalmed when i thought the previously posted video was the original. Now it looks very interesting!



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
reply to post by free_spirit
 


Here's the full video so people can get a better look at the area. The spot where the photo was taken is at 3:35.

It looks very clean, I don't see any trash or litter.


Yeah, looks very clean... any idea what happened to this? First two pictures are from the video, third is from the second picture of "SHOOTER".






Red lines are mine. I suppose that the angle is slightly different, and whatever it is might be behind one of the goats, but I'm not 100% on that.
edit on 2-10-2012 by adjensen because: second != third



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Well that video is at least 3 years old so whatever those white slab things are they could have been removed. Or struck by a car going too fast around the bend. That road looks really dangerous!
edit on 2-10-2012 by freelance_zenarchist because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
reply to post by free_spirit
 


Here's the full video so people can get a better look at the area. The spot where the photo was taken is at 3:35.

It looks very clean, I don't see any trash or litter.


Yeah, looks very clean... any idea what happened to this? First two pictures are from the video, third is from the second picture of "SHOOTER".





Red lines are mine. I suppose that the angle is slightly different, and whatever it is might be behind one of the goats, but I'm not 100% on that.
edit on 2-10-2012 by adjensen because: second != third


Perhaps a rock fall as well as a different angle.

edit on 2-10-2012 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ExNihilo
 







posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
In my opinion of this photo i dont know what it is,is it a bird? Plane? Superman? Hoax? UFO?

The list can go on and on as to what it is or what it is not.but i know this much it sure as hell has brought out a lot of wonderful thinking in the community,its kinda like long ago when i started lurking on this website reading about aliens and ufo etc and its why i signed up the other day to learn more because of threads like this.

Im gonna go to back lurk now and try learn some more from you all.

Enjoy it for what it is.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Here is the best I can do for now I am nowhere near my computer with photoshop or any real photography programs but I think I can get the point across with paint...



Remember this is highly compressed and even with the original was never shot is RAW only Jpeg which means the imaging software will take liberties with objects not fully in focus including softening of edges and slight color changes to match the surrounding (AKA the sky).

Please see my previous post outlining seagull pictures and you will see the anatomy and scale matches perfectly.

Can anyone prove or show good evidence this is wrong?



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
377
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join