Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

It would be so helpful if everyone who wishes to pontificate just READ the entire report and thread before they made inane claims and asked questions that have been answered several times over the past week plus.

Springer...

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

He's not using the window edge as a "focus scale", he's using to as a level guide.

Springer...

I am using it as a focus scale and so can you or anyone viewing the photo.
It corroborates anyones view that the UFO is a near camera object.

The focal point of the camera is here:


Everything beyond that point is out of focus. Can everyone agree the point is just to the edge of the sideview mirror? She was trying to capture the goats and the portrait at the same time, a compromise.

The UO is a near camera object. Not out in the bay.

I read through the entire post thread and went away to research. Its been a while since this thread has been up now and of course 355 flags from the ATS (same mind community).

After showing this photo to numerous people and comparing it to stacks of photos on line it comes as no shock to me that 355 flags is largely because one of the site Owners posted it. I went through as many UFO threads on here as I could find and none some much as come close to the flagging of this one.

MY Opinion

The photographers line " we didnt notice anything in the shot" cries BS to me. If Mr springers FBI (hoping not female body inspector) friend says it is as far as he can tell not tampered with then we have to assume that the OBJECT was infact present when the photo was taken. So what does that leave us with. Well I can create pretty much a UFO pic like hers that is not tampered with and looks just as clear. Many people on this thread have stated that they can not pinpoint the distance of the UFO, which to me is irrelevant. Yes there is something there. Could it be a advertising blimp type object? YES it could be. Could it be Kids Kite 3D version? Yes it could.

Everything boils down to the witness here and I dont believe her story of the one she is going with. From her reflection in the mirror there is no way she did not see it. Are we to believe that a UFO from another planet has the capability to be invisible to the naked HUMAN eye but can be picked up on a camera as they have not figured out how to avoid that kind of tech? MMMMMmmm......also the UFO looks to be hovering there...like its waiting for a shot to be taken? And this paragraph

We zoomed in on our camera screen and could not believe what we saw, such a strange shape. We immediately started discussing possibilities to define what it could be, but had no idea. We didn't notice anything was in the sky when I took the shot. We didn't experience anything strange. It was a warm, sunny day, but there was a strong wind out of the Northeast. There was no sound."

Screams BS because it absolves them of explaining where it went and what it was doing like hovering, spinning or whatever. The person taking this picture is in my opinion LYING!

Wow, I am rather disappointed in the last few pages. This is to be expected, I suppose.

While I have to agree that if I offered up a photo (which I knew to be real) to have it dissected into a million pieces along with my integrity and morals questioned the entire time, it is entirely possible that I could be offended to some degree.

Contrariwise, SHOOTER is technically anonymous, so the questions/ideas should not be taken personal. After all, you can only come to a general consensus after throwing ALL OF YOUR IDEAS (Best, worst, good or bad) into the air and reviewing them.

THAT BEING SAID, it DOESN'T really matter WHO provided the photo, the fact STILL remains that we have a pretty convincing photo of something UNIDENTIFIED.

Originally posted by Six6Six
I read through the entire post thread and went away to research. Its been a while since this thread has been up now and of course 355 flags from the ATS (same mind community).

After showing this photo to numerous people and comparing it to stacks of photos on line it comes as no shock to me that 355 flags is largely because one of the site Owners posted it. I went through as many UFO threads on here as I could find and none some much as come close to the flagging of this one.

How about this thread with 641 flags and counting Mr. Six6Six?
UFO releases intelligent moving spheres!! First ever video footage!
Topic started on 5-7-2009 @ 02:45 PM by Yummy Freelunch
ATS Members have flagged this thread 641 times
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You see how easy is to be wrong.

Here are snippets of objects in the scene, all at the exact resolution that they are in the entire picture.

Going on "Edge Definition" alone, which is based totally on the original picture resolution, which is the same for all of these objects, and the focal characteristics of all objects as referenced to the actual focal plane of the camera, and the edge resolution being a factor of that focus.....

I would place the object somewhere between the Rock outcropping on the left , and the car itself. Again, based purely on how out-of-focus the objects are. This backs up what DRUID42 showed in a few posts above.

You did not include the bottom of the window edge, you put a cut out of the verticle window edge.

Using the bottom window edge, I would place the objects distance between the mirrors distance from the camera and the camera itself.

Others have posted this same view although differ on the composition of the object. Some believe it is a reflection I believe it is what it looks like, a liquid substance.

reply to post by TinfoilTP
Do you think a liquid substance would appear that big?

Originally posted by NaeBabii
reply to post by TinfoilTP
Do you think a liquid substance would appear that big?

That depends on how far from the camera it is. The tip of your thumb can appear larger than a building.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation
Right, but look at the placement. Wouldn't that mean it was inches away from the camera?

I came back to this thread with high hopes that by now we would have an answer.

Well, my hopes have been dashed

It appears there is no change and the fact remains we are still looking at a UFO.

That is kinda cool really. A ufo.

reply to post by NaeBabii


Ok, I tinkered a bit in Gimp about my theory:
(Disclaimer: I have little to no graphics skills.)



It's a rough sketch, and not to scale, but it shows the possibility of how multiple reflective surfaces could produce an anomaly, and it doesn't violate the theory that the object is approximately 23 inches from the camera lens.

reply to post by Druid42
Great sketch, starred. It gives a basic understanding of how the reflection could happen.

You have the angles, objects and reflections mapped out, but now can you add lines to show which object could leave a reflection and where?

The sun is on the opposite side of the ring, so if it is a reflection, I don't see how it could be the ring. What else could cause a reflection such as this?

Originally posted by magma
I came back to this thread with high hopes that by now we would have an answer.

Well, my hopes have been dashed

It appears there is no change and the fact remains we are still looking at a UFO.

That is kinda cool really. A ufo.

Correction, as per the original OP there is no UFO, only a UO or unidentified object.

To go further it may not even be an object but a refractive anomaly having zero substance.

The flying part is not even considered, there is no F and never has been. Object sure, either substantive or a reflection of an object of substance. Where flying is understood to be of its own power or control, not a mere observation of a force of physics.

reply to post by NaeBabii


I'll try. I see a lot of POSSIBLE reflective surfaces. The trick will be to determine which ones line up properly.

Let's see......


I'm favoring at the moment, the upper right corner of the sunglasses. The edge of the frame almost matches the contour of the UO.

Of course, we haven't established how many times the image gets inverted during the reflection process.

Originally posted by Druid42
...the theory that the object is approximately 23 inches from the camera lens.

23 inches (58/59cm) is the "Focus Distance Upper", meaning that everything that is close to 23 inches distance is in-focus:



I guess that this is not the case as the object is clearly not in-focus; anyway, if it was the case, object's length would be of 1.7cm (0.67 inches) [and less of course if it's closer to the camera]:



Another interesting info that can be calculated from the EXIF data is the value of the Depth of field, using this online DOF calculator



Then, using the EXIF data:
- Circle of Confusion: 0.006 mm
- Focal Length: 5.2 mm
- F number: 3.2
- Subject distance at Focus Distance Upper: 58 cm

We have a depth of field value comprised between 41.3 cm [16.26 inches] and 97.5 cm [38.38 inches].
The object, not acceptably sharp as defined by the FOV definition, is not within these values.

So we can conclude from that that either the object is very close to the camera and therefore tiny OR that it's farther away of 97.5 cm.

Let's say that it's 1m away of the camera, then it will have a size of..... 2.9 cm:

reply to post by elevenaugust


nice work

just for reference could you calculate how big the object would be if it was 10m and 20m away?

also, has anyone managed to establish how far away the rocks are from the shooter?

thanks

Druid42, I don't mean to curb your enthusiastic efforts, but could you please show:
- an example of your methodology being applied to something known
- an example of the actual effect you are referring to using *any* other objects
- an indication of where you have taken into account the possible curvature of the mirror
- an indication of what you believe the reflection is on

I'll stop there, but there other issues..

Thing is, although the goats may be difficult to duplicate , the lighting conditions, mirror, sunglasses etc, etc are all pretty easy to roughly duplicate, and given that, with not too much effort you should be able to produce something at least vaguely like what you are trying to prove - ie a 'rogue' reflection...

The science of photogrammetry is quite complex and like most sciences, it doesn't really allow for unproven, undemonstrable approaches.. I'm happy to be shown examples, but until I see those..

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Originally posted by magma
I came back to this thread with high hopes that by now we would have an answer.

Well, my hopes have been dashed

It appears there is no change and the fact remains we are still looking at a UFO.

That is kinda cool really. A ufo.

Correction, as per the original OP there is no UFO, only a UO or unidentified object.

To go further it may not even be an object but a refractive anomaly having zero substance.

The flying part is not even considered, there is no F and never has been. Object sure, either substantive or a reflection of an object of substance. Where flying is understood to be of its own power or control, not a mere observation of a force of physics.

The F stands for .... Floating

So correction back at ya

You do not know what the object is.

What you need to do is prove it is not floating,

Until then I will refer to it as a UFO

Mmmmmmkay

Originally posted by aynock
reply to post by elevenaugust

 

nice work

just for reference could you calculate how big the object would be if it was 10m and 20m away?

Thank you!

And sure, here you go: