Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

page: 54
377
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Here are the full EXIF data taken off the original photo I obtained from Springer for analysis:





No Photoshop tags.
edit on 10-10-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-10-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Can someone please make the original images available?

What is the point of keeping them hidden? Upload them somewhere please? I would like to run some tests on the original uncompressed images.
edit on 10-10-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous
 


So all images attached to the first posts have been altered by some unknown person using CS5 Windows, i.e. all analysis based of those pictures is totally worthless. Maybe you should have posted a huge red warning on the first page that the attached images is not original, but Photoshopped versions of them, so you should treat them as such?

Instead of the original photos being available only to researchers who personally request the photo from Ritzmann, would it possible to just upload the original image to some 3rd party website which allows bigger photos? Please?



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Analama
 


I believe, if not mistaken, the ORIGINAL file had been emailed to several people, and EXIF data confirmed.

People hear you... it has just been rehashed several times already... and over fifty pages in, I don't think they feel the need to keep repeating this.

This was back on Page 26.

Originally posted by nerbot
I have been emailed (as have others) the original RAW file which I can confirm HAS NOT been edited to the best of my knowledge.

What you see on this site or uploaded to the internet are 'copies'. Files here have been resized etc to fit the post so WILL have editing software data included in the exif data.


Also, found this:

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist
It's not the original photo, you can email Springer if you'd like a copy.


With plagiarism running rampant already, I wouldn't upload the original for anyone to grab either; however, I would make it available upon request... which is what has been done.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by NaeBabii
 


OK so nerbot says he has been emailed the original RAW file. Post at the top of this page shows EXIF from full original obtained from Springer, it shows

File Type: JPEG
Record Mode: JPEG

Would RAW or RAW+JPEG even show up in EXIF? I don't know but please excuse this illegitimate researcher for being confused about all this.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


The file was 'jpeg' format and maybe I should have said 'raw' (eg: untouched) instead of 'RAW'. Confused me too.

Amazing how this thread has evolved and still a good read. Keep up the work, I love logging in to see the latest posts.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by nerbot
 


OK, JPEG, got it. There's raw the adjective and then there's RAW the format.

How about EXIF reliability? I've seen many posts about many programs that can edit EXIF but have no idea how it works. I guess my bottom line question is can the EXIF be edited in cam or memory card or only after the image file is transferred to a computer? If I had the actual camera in hand, could the EXIF data therein have been edited?



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


EXIF information can be altered readily with a low-cost software package most professional photographers either have, or are aware of: Graphic Converter: www.lemkesoft.com... There are also other less graceful ways to modify the data -- it's just text in the file after all -- but that's the easiest for Mac owners.

This is why the only real indicator of authenticity is to have the camera and memory card so that the native file system can be examined to confirm the digital photo originated on the camera, and has not been altered.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Analama
 


That's because you're looking at an image that was re-sized (compressed) and uploaded to ATS. We did not upload the original, straight off the camera, images because they're all over 2MB in file size each. We limit image uploads to 500K here at ATS.

The images that have been analyzed are "straight off the camera" and show zero signs of being altered. If you would have read the entire thread you'd know this has been addressed several times.

The images linked in this thread are not the full uncompressed images straight off the camera.

Springer...



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Someone said this was a bird and I was like " What? How can this possibly even be considered."
I then tried to see a bird there and I did. I see a beak and the two legs in back.

It's like that old pic of the little girl with a jogger behind her that at first glance looks like a space guy. Once you see it's a jogger you can't see it as anything else.
Lol...now all I see is a bird.

I"m not saying that's what it is. I have no idea what it is, but I'd love to know



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by nerbot
 


OK, JPEG, got it. There's raw the adjective and then there's RAW the format.


On the Canon S100, you have to specifically put the camera into RAW mode, the default is JPEG. While the woman is a professional photographer, it's unlikely that she would have thought it important to switch to RAW format, so there most likely are no images other than JPEGs (though the ones on the camera would have the least compression.)

Canon S100 User Manual



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by marymaryg4321
 


Once you've seen it, you can't unsee it.


This brings us back to perspective. The scenery may change a bit, depending on where SHOOTER was and EXAMPLE PHOTO was, it will have slight differences. That doesn't mean there is something "funny", it just simply means to me that the SHOOTER was more left, or more right, in her car.

Also, someone has mentioned we have no idea at which way we are looking at the object. Drones flip, rotate, spin, and with her not seeing it with her own eyes, there is no way of knowing in which way it was moving, or which way it was positioned.

I have long quit focusing on specs, background, scenery and EXIF data on the picture. I think this has all been established. No matter how long, or how hard I study, the object, I cannot come to a reasonable conclusion.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I'm sorry but i cant get past the idea that
NaeBabii may just be the "photographer" that took these pictures as she has just got on here and is trying hard to defend them. Of course I could be wrong but I don't believe so.

I also believe this "UFO" is FAKE and this thread should be closed.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Sakrateri
 


Originally posted by Sakrateri
I'm sorry but i cant get past the idea that NaeBabii may just be the "photographer" that took these pictures as she has just got on here and is trying hard to defend them.


LoL, oh wow! I didn't take the pictures; however, I did find them through Coast to Coast AM (which I have been listening to since I was 11 or 12). Nor have I ever been to Crete, but it looks beautiful!

I am not trying SO HARD to defend the photographs, I just honestly haven't heard a REASONABLE debunk yet, and am simply stating why I don't agree with the current explanations.

AND let's not forget, I kinda did just say this on my last post...



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
My current analysis. Best to watch full screen.




posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

picturestack.com...

ops, will the original photo (without the UFO)

but look! Goat has 3 horns!

warrants that photo





posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by HoaxKillerFriend
 


Nice leprechaun


I agree, it's likely a bag (and nice job finding some obvious candidates lying about,) though that "shiny bit" is still a little bit problematic -- I don't know that a bag would reflect that much light.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by HoaxKillerFriend
My current analysis. Best to watch full screen.



Totally amazing for your first post on ATS. Your join date is January 2012, yet this is your first post, and accompanying it is a completely thorough video. I'm sorry, but to launch your ATS debut after joining 10 months ago without a single post, just simply baffles me. You'll have to explain that. Or not.

I'm personally not in the floating bag camp. Sorry, your video was good, but not convincing. You can't prove a bag floated by, no matter how many BLUE (why all the same color?) bags you find in the surrounding area. That's suspicious. They make white, grey, purple, and many other colored bags. Why did you only find blue ones? If there is such litter, why focus only on the blue bags?

Also, you don't explain why the sunlight reflection on a plain blue littered shopping bag. They are a flat matte finish, so therefore, they can't reflect sunlight, right? Explain that.

I'm in the reflection from the sunglasses camp.....Care to join?



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by NaeBabii
 





I have long quit focusing on specs, background, scenery and EXIF data on the picture. I think this has all been established. No matter how long, or how hard I study, the object, I cannot come to a reasonable conclusion.


I'll agree with your definition of established facts.

What's not established is the multiple reflection angles from the position of the camera, the sideview mirror, and the sunglasses. I have tried duplicate experiments, but I have no goats to reflect in my sunglasses. No goats to duplicate the dark spots on the anomaly. I've tried cars going by, and the best I can replicate is a triple replicated traffic light due to a lens anomaly from my own camera, which is not the same as the Shooters. Fact is, I don't have the same camera, the same lighting conditions, nor the same goats walking by, nor the same sunglasses. This anomaly is a rare artifact, and is the cumulation of a series of rare conditions, nearly impossible to duplicate.

Nobody has worked out the multiple reflection angles yet.

We have to rule that out. Right?

Premise:

The camera is focused within 2 feet of it's lens. It reflects from the sideview mirror. It reflects back from the parabolic lens of the sunglasses. The sunglass lens was reflecting the image of the goats beside the car, and reflected in the lens of the camera, creating the anomaly which looks far away. The dark spots in the UO are actually the goats beside the car.

Can this be disproved?



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 


Hmm, you reminded me of something, but before I start, let me make sure I am understanding. Are you suggesting that the object is a reflection, off of something else, just floating in the air and then captured on film?

Now that you brought this up and sparked a memory, I remember a UFO being disproved as only reflected laser pointer lights bouncing off of a shield.

If this is what you were suggesting, it is something to consider.





new topics
top topics
 
377
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join