Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

page: 57
377
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
To those who seek to grab this image from ATS and use it in a video:


We are protecting the copyright of "SHOOTER", we have been proactively removing unauthorized uses of the image per her request.

Youtube puts the copyright infringement notice on your video not us.

All you had to do was {b]ASK US, we've worked with several people who wanted to analyze this video since we broke it.

Springer...
edit on 10-11-2012 by Springer because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Note:

I sincerely suggest a return to the topic.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ATSZOMBIE
 


Thanks Zombie...
I thought my Bird/Balloon/Bag/Blob comment sort of covered it all..what was that..page 2 or something?
This thread has turned into its own convoluted Monster.
But thanks, at least I was 100% in someones eyes...even tho they thought 100% wrong..
..good on ya!!



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
I'd like to ask ATS staff if they've had any feedback from the person who took the original photograph. Has she (or the people with her) had a chance to review any of this thread and could she/they offer any more information based on what has been discussed?

From my point of view, I think this will go into the archives as an unsolved case. No hoax, no proof.

I've been impressed at the imput of some of our finer members who have offered so many possibilities and opinions, I'm frustrated we can't do more, but still glad we have had the chance to do what we do best....rip something apart down to it's every detail.


The last few pages have had some inevitable bad posting and it's good to see our mods doing a fine job. It's also a real treat to see some interaction from the owners and top ATS crew. Very refreshing, informative and entertainig at the same time.

The friend I approached for some analysis of the EXIF data finally got back to me today and guess what? She can find nothing about the data that points to tampering. No real surprise.

She did make one interesting suggestion in a casual discussion though and it may or may not open up a whole new can of worms. Bear in mind, she is not a photographer but a CGI programmer.....

* * * * * * * * * *
What if...the photo in question, and all other photos from the same date were actually photos of photos?
* * * * * * * * * *

A professional photographer snaps a bunch of shots while on holiday and looks at one that sets a scene for what we have been lead to believe is a UFO, where in fact, all those original shots are PRINTED (possibly enlarged), one is ALTERED, then the whole lot are shot again under professional studio conditions with the original camera. NO flash and high quality lighting of the right kind.

To make things more authentic, they add just enough detail to make 'it' look like something in the air that is shiny and other-worldly but not enough to make it look overdone.

The EXIF data would be genuine and untampered, but the image concerned is a hoax.

I did ask for conformation about the time/day/date setting on the camera way back in this thread but the idea of this kind of hoax only came to light when my friend mentioned photographing photos.

Possible? Or just an interesting idea but not possible?

EDIT TO ADD: As someone who has lost original data to some of my own artwork, a friend offered to photograph copies of some pieces I had done about 3 years ago that were given as gifts to friends so I at least still had reference for my portfolio. We never got round to it but I kick myself for not considering this more at an earlier stage in this thread.

Maybe this kind of scenario planted the seed for what we are now looking at. Standing with a camera, looking at a photograph and thinking.....what if...
edit on 11/10/2012 by nerbot because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot
* * * * * * * * * *
What if...the photo in question, and all other photos from the same date were actually photos of photos?
* * * * * * * * * *


Interesting idea, but I think that they would be subject to keystoning, and I don't see any evidence of that. She would have to have some incredibly accurate equipment that would perfectly parallel the camera and image, and that seems like a lot of bother to hoax a handful of people.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by nerbot
 


Yes, I've had lots of interaction with "SHOOTER" and so has Jeff Ritzmann, we both consider her an "Honest Agent" for what that's worth coming from us in this situation. Personally (and that's all I have to go on here) I just don't see it.

You have to ask WHY. Why would someone like this, who wants to remain anonymous, do something like that?

She wants no fame (she wants the opposite) or "speaking engagements for money" or anything else one would subscribe to a hoaxer. It's just not a big deal to her, she simply couldn't define the anomaly and asked us to see if we could. That's truly the why she asked us to get involved.

What does that leave us? The giggles of making the Ufology Community go crazy trying to figure it out?

Nope...

"Shooter" has been at a showing of her art for the past two weeks in a capitol city, she doesn't even have the time to follow the thread much less the over all internet response. Just doesn't add up.

I guess it could be possible, as possible as any other theory, but it just doesn't hold water for me. That doesn't mean much I admit, but it would take lots more than "maybe she took a picture of a picture" (since I can't imagine why she would do that) to make me think this wasn't a "real" picture from a digital camera on the scene, live, at the time of the shot.

Springer...
edit on 10-11-2012 by Springer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


I agree... I have moved my position from an initial skepticism about the nature of the pictures, based on her story, and the photos themselves. I no longer believe it to be a hoax, though I still maintain that it has a mundane explanation, given the non-symetrical nature of the object, the fact that she didn't see anything, and the general skeptical nature of myself.

My only conclusion, thus far, is that if you stare at photographs of goats long enough, goats start to be a source of amusement. For me, at least, these are the most famous goats since the Three Billy Goats Gruff



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


I have been watching the thread since its inception and I have to say that even when ATS stands its grounds that they have a sense of protection like no other site.

I am more compelled to except the anonymity of the "shooter" and focus on the actual importance to the community whether found legit or not, then to dwell on the "smaller issues". Why would I not consider the actual "shooter" to be as important as the actual photo?

Because not in all my years on this site has ATS just blindly posted something they thought didnt have actual credence... not once. Not for the fame that so many are quick to point out or otherwise, if you don't believe me, look around.

Not only am I happy that ATS has chose to go this route, but in my opinion it has opened the door to others that may be holding information and have no where to go. If this is found to be false, then I am sure that ATS will take the high road and call themselves on it.


Some out there may think that this is some how going to change the views of a few new members, but for most of us that are seeing what is really going on, know that this is actually going to change how ATS receives more In-depth information, and a whole new amount of info we "may" start seeing in the future.

We live in interesting times, and I for one am more concerned with the importance of a site that is willing to not just protect the information they provide... but the people that provide it!!

Peace, NRE.
edit on 11-10-2012 by NoRegretsEver because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-10-2012 by NoRegretsEver because: spelling sorry




posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by NoRegretsEver
I agree 100% with you. If this is a real photo, and ATS preserved her anonymity, it will certainly give others a sense of safeness for those who may hold photos and are hesitant about providing them, which could be for any one of hundreds of reasons.

Not everyone who finds/presents a photo is looking for fame.

That being said, most of her face is present in the photo. That makes me question how much anonymity she wanted.

I believe this photo is real, I just don't know what the object IN THE photo is.


Originally posted by aynock
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

Ok, I posted a video back that could help me better explain the reflection theory to which I was referring.

Basically, someone pointed a laser pointer through a piece of glass, which projected a light out into the distance. While I am not saying this is what happened, it gives a general idea of something that could be happening with a reflection.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


Springer, if you get a chance ask her if she noticed any seabirds at the site. Seems to me, if she spent several minutes there she may recall this. If she does remember some, also ask her which direction was the bird(s) going. Thanks.

BTW, speaking of witnesses, what ever happened to 'Eyewitness', (from O'Hare)?
edit on 11-10-2012 by gguyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
But it is symmetrical

reply to post by adjensen
 



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATSZOMBIE
But it is symmetrical


No, it isn't, Jeff is wrong in his claim about symmetry in the OP. See my post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Surely it is time for this thread to close.

It's a poor image that could be a bag, kite, bug, angel or spacecraft. The photographer will not speak for herself. The so called analyses seems very shoddy with next to no answers to relevant questions that have been asked. The majority of posts are in no way constructive, the whole thing is making me cringe, especially as it is an ATS special. Far better threads than this have been closed down before reaching the page mark.

50/60 or whatever pages of rubbish does not make a good thread. You could cull the nonsense here and make the thread into a readable two pager. Maybe it looks good on the stats but it looks truly awful for visitors and occasional posters.

Sorry about that.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by stiver
 


The image after the "UO" image is about 11 minutes later and over looking the beach that was around the corner and up the road from the where the "UO" shot was taken. Totally different section of the sky and you can't see the area the "UO" was shot at.

Springer...
edit on 10-3-2012 by Springer because: (no reason given)


Could you post a thumbnail of that image please?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Here it is:




It's compressed for upload so there's bound to be all sorts of compression artifacts in it.

files.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 10-12-2012 by Springer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


The scenary is almost alien in todays world.

Off topic, but valid





top topics
 
377
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join