Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

reply to post by NaeBabii


The bag theory, the bird theory, have all been presented. I find it a sham that a picture with multiple reflection angles has NOT been seriously considered for deconstruction.

Your thoughts?

And no, the UO is not floating out above the island. It IS within 23 inches of the camera lens. Period. The anomaly is the result of a close proximity reflection.

reply to post by Druid42

I think the window being down has stopped people from delving further into a reflection/light theory. Even though it is not a reflection in the window, it could be a bouncing off of something else, according to the debunked UFO case I am remembering.

This actually could explain why she didn't "See" it.

I am trying to find you a link.

reply to post by NaeBabii


Which is why I have this position. Many UOs have been proven to be lens flares, often shot through a window. With knowing the window was down, the possibilities of multiple reflection angles has still been ignored and not analyzed yet.

Thanks to you for your open mind. It's people like you that make ATS great. Those willing to accept an alternate theory.

reply to post by Druid42


Took me a minute to find this... not exactly what I was thinking, but definitely has a similar concept.

First post, I have lurked many times but this time I felt compelled to sign up just to engage on this thread.
I sub' to HoaxKillerFriend on YT and this came across our desk at DISCL0SUR3 as well, where I'm an administrator. I tried to find out if this had been debunked here to no avail and I just don't have the time to go through 50+ pages of discussion and analysis to see if it was so here goes.

One of our members posted this story on DISCL0SUR3 Facebook and in the course of our investigation another member found this image and posted it the thread on this subject.

picturestack.com...

So, not to belittle the epic amount of time that has been spent analyzing this so far but can someone tell me if this has been discovered by anyone here yet and picked apart in detail to see if it precedes the original claimed UFO photo? If it does it kinda buries this one doesn't it?..

The Last Modified date on the page info is Monday, October 01, 2012 1:30:08 PM.

Here's a really rugged straight C&P of the EXIF data I could get from my browser plug-in.

IPTC
Coded Character Set 27, 37, 71, 32, 47, 32, 27, 37, 71
Record Version 0
Caption/Abstract
Date Created 2012/08/19
Time Created 09:13:45+00:00
IPTC Core (Adobe XMP)

Expand All / Collapse All / Show/Hide XMP Source / Show/Hide XMP Legend

xpacket = begin="" id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d"
x:xmpmeta

EXIF IFD0
Image Width [0x0100] 4000 pixels
Image Length [0x0101] 2248 pixels
Bits Per Sample [0x0102] 8,8,8
Photometric Interpretation [0x0106] RGB (2)
Image Description [0x010E]
Camera Make [0x010F] Canon
Camera Model [0x0110] Canon PowerShot S100
Picture Orientation [0x0112] normal (1)
Samples Per Pixel [0x0115] 3
X-Resolution [0x011A] 1800000/10000 ===> 180
Y-Resolution [0x011B] 1800000/10000 ===> 180
X/Y-Resolution Unit [0x0128] inch (2)
Software / Firmware Version [0x0131] Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Last Modified Date/Time [0x0132] 2012:10:01 23:29:26
Y/Cb/Cr Positioning (Subsampling) [0x0213] co-sited / datum point (2)
EXIF Sub IFD
Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) [0x829A] 1/1250 second ===> 0.0008 second
Lens F-Number / F-Stop [0x829D] 32/10 ===> ƒ/3.2
ISO Speed Ratings [0x8827] 80
Sensitivity Type [0x8830] SOS and REI (4)
EXIF Version [0x9000] 0230
Original Date/Time [0x9003] 2012:08:19 09:13:45
Digitization Date/Time [0x9004] 2012:08:19 09:13:45
Components Configuration [0x9101] 0x01,0x02,0x03,0x00 / YCbCr
Compressed Bits per Pixel [0x9102] 3/1 ===> 3
Shutter Speed Value (APEX) [0x9201] 329/32
Shutter Speed (Exposure Time) 1/1244.41 second
Aperture Value (APEX) [0x9202] 107/32
Aperture ƒ/3.19
Exposure Bias (EV) [0x9204] 0/3 ===> 0
Max Aperture Value (APEX) [0x9205] 64/32 ===> 2
Max Aperture ƒ/2
Distance to Subject [0x9206] 58/100 m
Metering Mode [0x9207] pattern / multi-segment (5)
Flash [0x9209] Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Focal Length [0x920A] 5200/1000 mm ===> 5.2 mm
User Comment (Hex) [0x9286]
User Comment Character Code not defined
FlashPix Version [0xA000] 0100
Colour Space [0xA001] sRGB (1)
Image Width [0xA002] 4000 pixels
Image Height [0xA003] 2248 pixels
Focal Plane X-Resolution [0xA20E] 4000000/293 ===> 13651.88
Focal Plane Y-Resolution [0xA20F] 3000000/220 ===> 13636.36
Focal Plane X/Y-Resolution Unit [0xA210] inch (2)
Image Sensing Method [0xA217] one-chip color area sensor (2)
Image Source [0xA300] 0x03,0x00,0x00,0x00
Custom Rendered [0xA401] normal process (0)
Exposure Mode [0xA402] auto exposure (0)
White Balance [0xA403] auto (0)
Digital Zoom Ratio [0xA404] 4000/4000 ===> 1
Scene Capture Type [0xA406] standard (0)
Camera Owner Name [0xA430]
EXIF IFD1
Compression [0x0103] JPEG compression (6)
X-Resolution [0x011A] 72/1 ===> 72
Y-Resolution [0x011B] 72/1 ===> 72
X/Y-Resolution Unit [0x0128] inch (2)
Embedded thumbnail image:
EXIF Interoperability IFD
Interoperability Index [0x0001] R98
Interoperability Version [0x0002] 0100
Related Image Width [0x1001] 4000 pixels
Related Image Length [0x1002] 2248 pixel

reply to post by Omega47


Yes, this picture has been discovered and discussed. Some see a third horn on one of the goats.

reply to post by RoScoLaz


Now you've made it look like an enormous creepy mask!


Komodo

My big question is: are digital camera's able to pick up ALL the spectrum of light that the eye can't see?

I believe that all Digicams can pick up IR and UV,a theory I've used to de-bunk South American enormous invisible UFOs flocking in V form.

Really,I have.

I'm going to use my amazing "outhouse rat"eyes and study the original pics a bit longer-This one is intriguing^^

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by NaeBabii

 

The bag theory, the bird theory, have all been presented. I find it a sham that a picture with multiple reflection angles has NOT been seriously considered for deconstruction.

Your thoughts?

And no, the UO is not floating out above the island. It IS within 23 inches of the camera lens. Period. The anomaly is the result of a close proximity reflection.

edit on 10/10/12 by Druid42 because: added a sentence.

if it was a reflection off the sunglasses and mirror wouldn't the 'effect' be in the mirror? - i can't see any way for an image to be projected into empty space that would then appear in the picture

any chance you could provide a diagram outlining what you think is happening?

reply to post by Omega47


From the EXIF you posted. This matches the original photo.

Date Created 2012/08/19
Time Created 09:13:45+00:00

This tells you when someone removed the "object" from the photo.

Software / Firmware Version [0x0131] Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Last Modified Date/Time [0x0132] 2012:10:01 23:29:26

Wasn't removed well, looks like it left a mark.

I've seen this photo without the UO on a greek forum. Where did your source find it?

Originally posted by Zephirus


but look! Goat has 3 horns!

Over the years Goats have been bred to have less and less horns for easy handling. It is very common to have goats with more than two horns. I remember first time I saw a whole bunch of goats on a farm with more than three horns and freaked out a lil only to have it explained to me by the owner.

Anyways...ya this thread is a fun read. But I'm still not buying to photo.

MM

reply to post by Omega47


You've been hoaxed. The image you linked to has far more JPEG artifacting than the original, and definitely shows signs of second generation decompression.

I don't believe the object is anything mysterious or fantastic... but the photo you provided is simply childish.

Whilst looking at the hoaxed photo (and trying to figure out why people thought one of the goats had three horns -- it's two ears and two horns per goat, folks ) I noticed this anomaly, which is also on the original picture.

Any guesses as to what this is? As the window is down, it's not a smudge, water mark or reflection, and it seems way too small to be something on the camera lens (and does not appear in the same lens location in the other picture.)

reply to post by adjensen


Looks like the clouds in the upper right corner.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by adjensen

 

Looks like the clouds in the upper right corner.

No, this looks more like a ring than a "solid" cloud. If I was a believer, I'd suggest it's a remnant of when the UFO came up out of the water.

Originally posted by ophidan
reply to post by Springer

 

holy damn, over 5 times the same post. calm the (blank) down dude

I've got "less than five minutes" for how long it takes this clown to get banned.

Originally posted by adjensen
Whilst looking at the hoaxed photo ...

From my point of view, there is nothing to prove that either photo is valid. People keep referring to exif data, but it is simple to edit exif data. This is the ultimate problem with the digital world. You can take all the photos you want, and none of them is really particularly useful as proof of anything.

And all of these fifty pages of discussion might be totally pointless if the photo was simply something composited onto the image..

But from my point of view, there simply is no UFO at all, since the photographer saw nothing.
So all we have is an anomaly that was somehow recorded. Is the anomaly "an object"? Who knows? How far away is it? Who knows?

After fifty pages of discussion, I don't see this discussion going anywhere.
Maybe if there was a team of professional photographic analysts who could be consulted, that might actually lead to some sort of conclusion. But this is clearly going in circles.

reply to post by adjensen

No, this looks more like a ring than a "solid" cloud.

Take a good look at the ring of clouds farthest to the right.

I think the fact that the photographer did not catch the image is that she was focused on the goats...pure and simple. I think this is not a picture of a UFO, rather a great and rare picture of the AIRBUS BELUGA landing or flying by. The Belgus is a transport plane that carries large airplane parts. The "bubble" center of this and the reflection it seems to have lines up with the Beluga's profile. I wonder how hard it would be to verify it the Beluga was indeed in Crete at that time(or where this picture was taken)?



I realize this is not the best picture of the Beluga and the angle is wrong, but it gives you the general idea)

reply to post by SGBear98


a) It doesn't look anything like that
b) Unless it was going like a million miles an hour, something that big would have been in one of the other pictures
c) Unless the photographer and her husband were both blind and deaf, they'd have seen and/or heard something that big

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by adjensen

 

No, this looks more like a ring than a "solid" cloud.

Take a good look at the ring of clouds farthest to the right.

Nope, still not seeing it, sorry. I am, however, coming to the conclusion that what I do see is a compression artifact -- when I look at the water, I can see other areas that have a similar appearance.