Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

page: 48
377
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous
 

Nice imagination! That was inspiring enough to make me pull myself out of my usual lurking hole and unleash my inner pareidolia




That's what I keep seeing the longer I stare at the image. Back to the lurking hole for me.




posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
It's clear that what obscures the view is the blue haze phenomenon.

However, like I said at the beginning of my previous post, the real useful informations that can be obtained from these data are when we are in the presence of dark/contrasted areas, which is NOT the case ni our "UFO" photo. So any further radiometric analysis at this point is useless, unfortunately.

Anyway, and just to show you how technically it can be done, I have a very good example where this "haze study" can be done; it's in the photo below that concerns an incident which took place during the hot-air balloons competition Mondial Air Ballon 2007 which was organized, as every year, on the former military base of Chambley-les-Bussières (Meurthe-et-Moselle, France) in August 2007.

One of the participants to this meeting, who had shot 120 photos with his Nikon D200 digital camera, selected one of them, dated 5 August, on which appeared, in the upper left corner, among hot-air balloons, a quite singular unidentified object.




Zoom on the object

The only visible elements of comparison in the scene photographed in Chambley are hot-air balloons. It was therefore important to make enquiries on the size of such objects.
Investigation on Internet taught us that a standard air-balloon has a volume in the order of 2500 m3, a height of 20 m and a diameter of 15 m.

The photo was shot from the ground, with a Nikon D200 digital reflex camera focussed to infinity, with an exposure time equal to 1/6400 sec.

It was also shot against the sunlight and we may consider that the darkest parts of the objects of the scene were submitted to variations of their apparent luminance mostly due to atmospheric diffusion. Consequently, we shall concentrate on the dark part of the unidentified object, as well as that of both reference balloons.

In a quite empirical approach, we shall content ourselves with noting down the darkest pixel value in each of these three areas, using specialized tool dedicated to the analysis of the radiometry of pixels within in a closed surface (here a red circle).


Dark level object = 24

The same for both reference balloons’ baskets.
Balloon 1 :


Dark level balloon1 = 30

Balloon 2:

Dark level balloon2 = 12

Assuming – which is highly probable – that the object and both reference baskets are really dark, we may conclude that the distance of the object from the camera was somewhere between that of balloon 1 and that of balloon 2. In fact, those distances may be estimated, if we assume that both balloons have a standard diameter Ф = 15 m :

Distance balloon1 = (Ф/2) / tan (δ ballon1 / 2) i.e.: Distance balloon1 = 391 m *

Distance balloon2 = (Ф/2) / tan (δ balloon2 / 2) i.e.: Distance balloon2 = 118 m *

Through linear interpolation on the darkest pixel values (an empirical approach), we obtain an estimate of the distance to the unidentified object:

Distance object = 300 m

From which we may derive an estimate of its actual length:

Length object = 2 x 300 tan (0,14°/2) i.e.:

Length object = 0,73 m

Taking into account uncertainties and calculation approximations, we can conservatively conclude that the length of the object – if it was actually dark – was somewhere between 50 cm and 1 m.


(Should its color have been - in reality - lighter, its length could only have been less than this estimate).

* : with δ being the angular dimensions of the object.
edit on 4-10-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-10-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
After checking out of TBL last night, I finished reading the article and the observations. What piqued my interest is when I reading about how the UO leveled itself to the shooter's camera as opposed to the earth's horizon. Then he was discussing the reason for that. I find this idea new to me.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 
This looks like a "container" used to store body parts (like parts of sheep, goats, horses ,oxen,cattle ,even human parts). Did you check the provincial authorities of any missing persons or mutillated livestock? Did you notice any loss of time during the time you photographed the object? The ufos usually manifest themselves in front of the victims right after the victim(s) have been abducted for extraction of certain reproductive cells from their body.
I think if you think of this ufo again and ask it to come back again - it will.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by siluriancryptic
Did you check the provincial authorities of any missing persons or mutillated livestock? Did you notice any loss of time during the time you photographed the object? The ufos usually manifest themselves in front of the victims right after the victim(s) have been abducted for extraction of certain reproductive cells from their body.
I think if you think of this ufo again and ask it to come back again - it will.


Springer did not witness this. It was an image sent to him.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous
 


As I noted on this post the other day, that monument/structure does not appear to be there any longer. After someone posted that it might have been destroyed in a rockfall, I noted that the top line of the rock is definitely different, and I suspect that's what happened to it.

Intersection of the red lines in this picture is approximately where it should be, but there is a pile of fallen debris there instead.




posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Actually the monument is still there, it's one of the shots SHOOTER sent us, we didn't include it because it's a couple hours after the "UO" shot and there's nothing on the road or in the sky.

I sent the image to Johnny so he can get a better perspective via the clearer shot.

ETA: After overlaying the "UO" shot it's clear the side mirror was blocking it, the goats in the shot you posted above are blocking it too, it's just a touch to the left (from our perspective) of where you have it pegged.

Springer...
edit on 10-4-2012 by Springer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by adjensen
 


Actually the monument is still there, it's one of the shots SHOOTER sent us, we didn't include it because it's a couple hours after the "UO" shot and there's nothing on the road or in the sky.

I sent the image to Johnny so he can get a better perspective via the clearer shot.

Springer...


Ah, okay, cool.

Hey, any chance of getting the rest of the pictures that she sent you uploaded in their original form/size? I was taken aback by Jeff trotting out another picture of the area five seconds before the one with the anomaly in it, and I suspect that some questions could be quickly resolved by additional imagery.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by voyger2
since nobody mentioned this...
the second image posted


haves this notes:


first:


second



the second note could it be the UO and the first a similar to the one captured (it's better to zoom in the original pic)
thought to bring this to attention. thanks.

Hi, I might have missed it, but has anyone commented or worked on the images voyger2 posted earlier? (above)
Also, for arguments sake, lets go that this is a legit UFO, and Shooter did not see it, but her camera did catch the image. Posters have discussed this as a negative, but wouldn't something with an advanced technology than ours, just might have an ability to do this?
Thanks.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by lyingunderoath
Also, for arguments sake, lets go that this is a legit UFO, and Shooter did not see it, but her camera did catch the image. Posters have discussed this as a negative, but wouldn't something with an advanced technology than ours, just might have an ability to do this?


You mean be invisible to the naked eye, but easily picked up by a digital camera? I'm not sure that physics would support that, but even if it did, that would be pretty crappy technology when surveying a planet where a large majority of the population has a camera on them at all times, no?



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by lyingunderoath
 


That image was taken through a dirty windshield, what appears in the shot is wiper streaks and dust spots.

S...



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
The beetle that passed the side window, is now flying downwind.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
Here we are 40 plus pages later, and still nothing. The arguments are going around in circles, and it is not getting or moving this picture anywhere.vvv

You are absolutely right. The thing is, an image is just an image, and without anything solid backing it up (we don't even have a witness in this case) it can never be anything more than a curiosity. And it's not just a matter of analyzing the photo better. We have always had perfectly good photos of UFOs. Nice, clear.

But what did they ever tell us about UFOs? That they were alien spacecraft? Hardly! That's way too far a leap to make from a photo of something to an craft guided by intelligent ETs. What we learned: nothing. What we get out of this topic: maybe a little entertainment, but basically nothing else. No answers.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by aynock

Originally posted by salmoneggs
You can add 15 multicoloured grid lines, talk of the trajectory of reflected angles and analyze contrasting proportions. It still looks exactly like a drop of water


water droplets tend to be round - the object clearly has a flat bottom - a drop falling straight down would show some distortion to the bottom caused by air pressure but the object looks too flat to be a droplet imo

if it is fluid it is definitely falling straight down though, so it's unlikely to be from the goats


Goat sweat goes up and comes down with lateral movement, like ballistics, when flung from the shake of the goats body.

It wouldn't shoot in a straight line from the goat to the vehicle.

Lateral velocity would elongate the miniscule fluid droplet and the ballistic characteristic of falling would flatten the bottom all at the same time.

If you don't like goat sweat than think wet jowl ejection or wet shaggy fur from a recent urination.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
What we learned: nothing. What we get out of this topic: maybe a little entertainment, but basically nothing else. No answers.


I think we are learning about pareidolia and related phenomena....and ats member tenacity and that posting pictures of angry birds is a no no.
edit on 4-10-2012 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
As Springer has previously mentioned, I was sent the other photo that has the structure near the rock/cliff. This might help those that are interested in attempting to have a "scale of reference" in helping determine possible distance.

In this shot, the driver (who is silhouetted out), has turned the car around and the photographer has stood even further away to get a nice wide picture of the area. I should mention that the reason why the driver and the license of the vehicle has been removed is to protect their identity. Which I'll add was established and checked on prior to the final analysis. We would do the same for you if you ever stepped forward with something you wished to share but also remain anonymous. So this will be the only version of the photo available.

With that said... In this picture the goats are away and not in the shot, but the "structure" is clearly visible. I should also mention that because of the size of the original photograph and the limitations we have with compression codecs, "pixel blockiness" and the "moray effect" do exist in this photo. But I'll add that I've scanned the original photo "quite thoroughly" (section by section), and found no evidence of anything there other than some clouds. No mylar balloons, trash, birds, bugs, reflections, mirages or UFO's.




posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous
 


It would also be good to add that this shot is a little over 3 hours later than the "UO" shot. This one was taken around 12:30PM and the "UO" shot was taken around 09:13AM

Springer...



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by lyingunderoath
 


That image was taken through a dirty windshield, what appears in the shot is wiper streaks and dust spots.

S...


the windshield it's a fact... but we can not be 100% sure that's a dust spot. a small object in a distance could also be represented by an spot. so will never know. thanks.



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I am sure its just coincidence, but it almost looks like the goats them self's are looking at the object. you would think they would be looking in the direction of the vehicular that's stocking them o.O



posted on Oct, 4 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by Blue Shift
What we learned: nothing. What we get out of this topic: maybe a little entertainment, but basically nothing else. No answers.

I think we are learning about pareidolia and related phenomena....and ats member tenacity and that posting pictures of angry birds is a no no.

I think I already knew about the ATS member tendency to see "aliens" everywhere, and latch onto an opinion and not let go of it no matter how much contrary evidence is presented to them.






top topics



 
377
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join