Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

page: 61
377
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Thanks again. Any idea what the camera is focusing on at that distance of almost a meter?

That's a good question. The answer involves many technical and optical aspects of the photo subject.

We see earlier that the Focus Distance Upper value for photo n°3137 was 0.59m (23 inches) and that the DOF value was comprised between 41.3 cm [16.26 inches] and 97.5 cm [38.38 inches].
Here's photo n°3137 with its center materialized:



Let's look now at the EXIF data for photo n°3136:
- Circle of Confusion: 0.006 mm
- Focal Length: 5.2 mm
- F number: 3.5 (3.2 for photo n°3137)
- Subject distance at Focus Distance Upper: 98 cm (59 cm for photo n°3137)

Using our favorite DOF calculator, we can determine, using the values above that the DOF for this photo is comprised between 55.3 cm [20.86 inches] and 427.6 cm [168.34 inches]; (41.3 cm [16.26 inches] and 97.5 cm [38.38 inches] for photo n°3137)



So we can clearly see that, since the F number and the Focus distance upper values varie from photo 3136 to 3137, it "dramatically" change the value for the DOF range, and especially for its max value, which is now about 4.30m away from the camera.

Here's now photo n°3136 with its center materialized:



Comparatively to photo 3137, it's obvious that the center is NOT located at the same position, being farther away from the closer in-focus subject, which is the outside rear-view mirror; that's why the auto-focus in photo 3136 mainly focuses in more far away objects.
edit on 14-10-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluestreak53
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


What is seriously lacking here is any witness to any UFO. So as much as people can talk til they are blue in the face, there is nothing more than another anomaly in another photo. I really don't think it has been shown to be that exceptional at all. I would however welcome if this actually got some analysis by a team of professionals.

Until then, I guess all we have are a lot of opinions and nothing so far to suggest that this is anything unusual at all.




I suggest you look into the background of Jeff Ritzman and actually read the material provided in the thread and in other threads in this forum. We have professionals working on this, these aren't armchair experts like you and I. Thats why an off the cuff comment and attitude is so insulting. Use the tools available to you please, it will make things much easier to understand.

I am not trying to convince anyone this is an alien spacecraft and neither is Springer or Ritzman. If you fail to see that much you will inevitably fail to see anything else important going on here.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


That's all good info but I'm under the impression that what Phage said on page 1 is correct about the camera selecting an object 58 cm from the camera. The mirror seems the obvious choice there. Will the camera focus on air 98 cm away? There's no object at 98 cm so I'm very confused as to why the camera would report a focus distance of 98 cm in the EXIF.

Do you know if this camera uses an IR active autofocus system?



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by aynock
 




1/2400 of a second is easily fast enough to freeze a bag or droplet


Or even, a spaceship traveling at ultrasonic speeds. Not an acceptable premise. But, you do have a point.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
I suggest you look into the background of Jeff Ritzman and actually read the material provided in the thread and in other threads in this forum. We have professionals working on this, these aren't armchair experts like you and I. Thats why an off the cuff comment and attitude is so insulting. Use the tools available to you please, it will make things much easier to understand.


Really? I only know of Jeff Ritzman through his web casts. I have no idea of his actual professional accreditation that makes him a "photo analysis expert", but if he is an expert, I would think that he would know other experts in the field, and would have solicited their opinions to provide a more definitive analysis - or maybe just some affirmation that the photograph defies a more definitive analysis.

I thought he made a good initial overview, but I hardly see his analysis as providing any real illumination on what we are looking at.

As I stated, because we have no actual witness of any "UFO", all we have is some sort of photographic anomaly. No one has yet demonstrated that it does not have a prosaic explanation. And as much as we have people offering many ideas, we so far do not have anything that provides a definitive explanation. I welcome the information that elevenaugust is providing. It narrows down the possibilities by providing data that tells us a range of distances and sizes for the anomaly based on focal range.


Originally posted by sputniksteve
I am not trying to convince anyone this is an alien spacecraft and neither is Springer or Ritzman.


Did I say that Springer and Ritzman were trying to convince us that this was an alien spacecraft?
No I didn't. You are obviously reading a whole lot into my post that simply isn't there.


Originally posted by sputniksteve
If you fail to see that much you will inevitably fail to see anything else important going on here.


Uh, well, whatever that means.
By the way, I find your whole post to be somewhat insulting and condescending, but maybe I am just imagining things there.

I may not be a photo analysis expert, but I know enough about computers to state that this photograph could quite possibly be faked, if anyone was so inclined.
edit on 14-10-2012 by bluestreak53 because: Additional comment



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


That's all good info but I'm under the impression that what Phage said on page 1 is correct about the camera selecting an object 58 cm from the camera. The mirror seems the obvious choice there. Will the camera focus on air 98 cm away? There's no object at 98 cm so I'm very confused as to why the camera would report a focus distance of 98 cm in the EXIF.

Well, you can't take the Focus Distance Upper value for the only valuable one as the DOF value has to be taking into account as well (and as it's more accurate) and as this EXIF value is often inaccurate (from Phil Harvey itself - the creator of EXIFTool)

So, in photo 3136, all that is comprised between 55.3 cm and 427.6 cm (DOF) is inside the acceptable values for the objects to be acceptably sharp.
In photo 3137, all that is comprised between 41.3 cm and 97.5 cm (DOF) is inside the acceptable values for the objects to be acceptably sharp.

In photo 3136, the whole DOF 'length' is of 372.3cm
In photo 3137, the whole DOF 'length' is of 56.2cm

So, in photo 3136, the camera could have been focused on the head of the goat and return a value for the Focus Distance Upper of 98cm, which is most likely very approximate and probably not accurate.


Originally posted by DenyObfuscationDo you know if this camera uses an IR active autofocus system?

No, it doesn't.
It uses a 'normal' AF assist lamp and:
• AiAF (Face Detection / 9-point)
• 1-point AF (Any position is available, fixed centre or Face Select and Track)

Moreover, when there are an IR AF assist lamp, and comparatively to a 'normal' AF assist lamp, it's just in order to keep the brightness down for people trying to take pictures in dark rooms.
edit on 14-10-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Thanks for the links, going to read them now. In the meantime is there any chance of the 9-point assist lamp illuminating a shadow or reflection on the lens causing it to appear in the photo? Just a thought.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Thanks for the links, going to read them now. In the meantime is there any chance of the 9-point assist lamp illuminating a shadow or reflection on the lens causing it to appear in the photo? Just a thought.

Frankly, I don't know, but I found the idea interesting.

However, looking at the weather conditions at the time the shoots were made makes me very cautious about it though.

Remind me an old case that involved Game Cameras at night:



It was (if I remember correctly) probably a reflection of one row of the IR LEDs system of the camera in the cover protective plastic.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Thank you. I'll plug that equation into my trusty TI-89 later. Also, it looks like ImageJ has a plugin for counting pixels.

I suppose I can use a large protractor at the site to determine the approximate degrees of the captured image and derive a ball-park figure for the degrees of the object in my picture.

The online DoF is also a help although the calculation seems more accurate using the focal length in the EXIF as opposed to the numbers on the lens itself when I'm looking at a zoomed-in (camera' optical zoom) picture. But it was late last night when I tried it and so I may have slipped in some wrong numbers.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


Yes Jeff Ritzman is a professional. Yes he has passed this on to other professionals. This has all been stated in this thread. Hence why I said it would benefit you to do some research on the people involved. I know my post was condescending, what do you think your posts are when you talk like you have read the material but show that you obviously haven't read it or didn't understand it because the information you think is lacking is right here for you to get?

What I meant by no one is trying to convince you this is an Alien is this: Read the material with an open mind, really understand what is being said, and then realize that all of that only adds up to what this most likely isn't. If Jeff was arguing that this was most definitely an UFO from Andromeda carrying a grey I would be right with you in saying hold your horses here. That is not what is being said. You have real professionals, that do this for a living saying what it is most likely not. That carries a lot more weight than what you or I can deduce from a simple photograph. What I am trying to say is the things you are asking for are right here, in front of your eyes. They are 10 steps ahead of you, and have already thought of and dismissed the things you are just now thinking about. If you read the initial post thoroughly and understood what was being said you would most likely already realize this. Make sure you read all of Jeffs posts in this thread, they are all valuable.

And a question: If the "shooter" would have seen the object at the time, that would make everything substantial for you? Even though human eyes and brains play tricks on us, and our memories fade or reinvent them selves, in this circumstance it is what is lacking? The reason I am asking is because in 99% of these sightings it is the exact opposite. It isn't anecdotal evidence that is wanted or requested, it is physical evidence like photographs or videos that we want for studying. Not someones memory. If it was a court of law I doubt whether what she saw or thought she saw or didn't see would even come into play.

I really don't want to continue to go back and forth man, it really is not productive to this thread. I just wanted to make sure I replied. I will be happy to continue in a U2U if you like, I think you along with a lot of other people are just lacking the necessary and correct information that makes this more significant that what it seems. I think if you had all that necessary information you might see things differently.

From what I understand SO must be a proffesional as well? You will see in this thread he has contention with some of Jeff's points. That is good, that is required. I hope for all of our benefit we get as many more professionals in here as possible. I hope those professionals look at Jeffs over all report and take into consideration all of the points he covered, and not nit pick the ones they like and can argue against and then ignore the ones they can't. That is what this is about, all of these factors coming together making it what it is.

I am coming off like some fanboi which I don't want to be, but knowing Jeffs background and reading his report multiple times has gotten me kind of excited. I would bet my money on this being an earthly known object or craft, because I have yet to see any proof in my 6 year career here that anything otherwordly exists. However I keep an open mind, and try and weigh the evidence presented and listen to people that know much more than I do. I feel like people are seeing this as the typical UFO thread which we see 100 times a day, but it isn't that. It is a real shame too. It's not your/our fault, that is what those 100's of crap threads have turned us into. They have trained us to dismiss everything and everyone, even when we shouldn't. The truth is though that if it was any other thread or any other poster or investigator you would be right.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


I will stand firm that the photo is "untampered" with. From the EXIF data, and Jeff's opinion.....



I may not be a photo analysis expert, but I know enough about computers to state that this photograph could quite possibly be faked, if anyone was so inclined.


.....to another nail in the coffin: The error level analysis.



I found an ELA plug-in for Gimp. I ran the photo through it. That's the result.

Mind you, you'll see bright pixels in a photo with tampering, in the area that's tampered with. I honestly expected to see many bright pixels around the UO. There are none. Uniform distribution in this photo yields to the fact that it is unaltered.

Compare the original to the one I have altered, run through the ELA plug-in:



That pic shows clear signs of "tampering". Of course it should, as I bisected lines, and added text. That kind of altercation appears in ELA.

Honestly, the ELA should rule out, once and for all, any photo manipulation.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 


thx

you

for

this !~!! we more minds like yours on here !!!



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
Star for you!

I agree. I have been playing with the photos all day.

As an experiment, I compared the EXIF data of 4 photos today.

Photo 1 was an Original picture straight from my camera.
Photo 2 was an edited photo.
Photo 3 was original uploaded to ATS.
Photo 4 was edited uploaded to ATS.

The EXIF Data in Photo 1 and Photo 3 were near identical, with the exception of compression in the 3rd photo.

The EXIF Data in Photo 2 showed there was a Photoshop edit. (I had the photo Cropped and Resized.)

The EXIF Data in Photo 4 showed Photoshop edit, and compression changes.

Taking this information, I took a second look at the ATS UO Photo and Original UO Photo EXIF Data.

As far as I can tell, the EXIF data is near perfect. Even the detailed EXIF data on the ATS UO photo showed NORMAL, BASIC data. The only change was in compression and file name.


If it is a multi-reflection, it should somehow line up or match something that the sun is hitting since the flash did not go off.

I have taken the image and flipped, rotated, and even resized the UO looking for similarities.

I believe our answer will be there.

edit on 14-10-2012 by NaeBabii because: spelling.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by NaeBabii
 

Clearly it is is a UFO

You can do whatever you like, flip rotate inverte posturise desaturate .

The fact is that you , like everyone who has tried before you, will not be able to identify the object.

But hats off for havin a go....



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


Explanation: Upon further reflection
...

The very close object is reflecting this zoomed and cropped veiw ...



And this enhanced veiw ...



Zoomed and cropped ...



And the wider enhanced picture ...



Now Since 'Shooter" is sitting in the front right hand side of a Fiat Panda with the window fully rolled down whilst taking the photo ...



We have to remember the 20mph wind came from the NNE and the sunlight is coming from the ESE and that we are near the ocean and also that water droplets are highly reflective! ...

www.flickr.com...




Water drop with reflection in the kitchen.


www.flickr.com...




This photo was taken on February 18, 2007 using a Canon PowerShot A640.



Some Water drops with reflection of a candle burning below and Lost Season 2 DVD Cover.
Approx 100% Crop. Rotated 180


So I propose that the reflection off of the object...



IS of the following! ...



Now taking the gif displaying various filtering ...



And comparing that with a real life example ... [Note: Please scroll to the far right ok
]



I can clearly see what the reflection is now.


Therefor I propose, for the second time, that the object is ...



Sea Spray!

Here is why ...

elevenaugust reply to thread (pg61a)


Using our favorite DOF calculator, we can determine, using the values above that the DOF for this photo is comprised between 55.3 cm [20.86 inches] and 427.6 cm [168.34 inches]; (41.3 cm [16.26 inches] and 97.5 cm [38.38 inches] for photo n°3137)



And ...

elevenaugust reply to thread (pg61b)


In photo 3137, all that is comprised between 41.3 cm and 97.5 cm (DOF) is inside the acceptable values for the objects to be acceptably sharp.

[EDIT: redacted by OL]
In photo 3137, the whole DOF 'length' is of 56.2cm


elevenaugust reply to thread (pg10)




Then, for the object to be 1m (39.37 inches) away from the camera, it will have a length of 0.02943m (1.16 inch);
if it's 100m away (328ft), then it will have a size of 2.943m (9.66ft), etc....


The above information meens it must be less than 0.02943m (1.16 inch) in size due to the sub 1m (39.37 inches) DOF being between 41.3 cm [16.26 inches] and 97.5 cm [38.38 inches] for photo n°3137

Water droplets can range in size from microscopic aerosol spray to large drops of rain.

So taking the 56.2cm (22.20inches) DOF and assuming the object is at that range that would make it 12-15mm approximate in size , which would be a large water droplet but not outside the realm of reason or logic.

A 12-15mm droplet of sea spray made airbourne by waves crashing barely 80m away and traveling upon the wind at 20mph [8m/s] in a SSW direction towards the car could easily splatter upon the ground an instant later and no longer be noticible to anybody.

The limited area that is reflected also shows that it is small and very close.

Close, but no UFO anymore.


Personal Disclosure: I hope this helps.

edit on 15-10-2012 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to fix broken quote bbcode.
edit on 15-10-2012 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to add missing : to my Explanation :shk:
edit on 15-10-2012 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to fix spelling.
edit on 15-10-2012 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to replace the gif with my ATS upload of the saved file aquired from pg2 of this thread.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 





However, there are dried water marks on the side view mirror. That has bothered me a bit. Where did they come from? A recent car wash? A brief thunderstorm? Goat drool/sweating being flung against the car, and drying quickly in the hot sun? Would they be a factor in an out of focus anomaly?


You have adequately explained the presence of the dried water marks on the side view mirror, which was a puzzle. Sea spray, and no doubt the vehicle was at times closer to the spray. Hmm. You present a sound argument!



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluestreak53

Really? I only know of Jeff Ritzman through his web casts. I have no idea of his actual professional accreditation that makes him a "photo analysis expert", but if he is an expert, I would think that he would know other experts in the field, and would have solicited their opinions to provide a more definitive analysis - or maybe just some affirmation that the photograph defies a more definitive analysis.


I am in the process, as I have said before if *anyone* would read what I write here upon multiple occasions, that I am sending data to other imaging professionals for their take. I am not exclusively going to "UFO investigators" either.

But, this does not happen on your timetable. It's not about you, and what you want right this minute. This sort of thing takes time, and often many months. I have to say I'm getting a bit put off by this sort of entitled attitude.

I also have an aversion to "expert" titles. Do not refer to me as that. I, like every other professional in my field am always learning, and you're never NOT a student. No one knows it all. I have worked in digital imaging as a full time career since 1989, and continue to do so til present day. I have applied what I know, to this field and visual evidence for over 2 decades. So, "expert" - who is? Do I know what I'm doing when looking at digital or analog imagery? Yeah, I think I do after this long. My track record here and in the field speaks for itself. But, no one is a "final word", not me and not anyone else. It's all about opinion and how one interprets data.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Going back to the Salt Spray theory, here is another look at Salt Spray.



Isn't it strange there is only one droplet visible, and no spray or droplets visible in 5 SECOND before photo?

I agree it is reflective, and it is a great way to look at the object, I just have a hard time thinking one stray drop was captured on film. Any thoughts?



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 

I definitely see a car shape which I pointed out a while back. Seems more than pareidolia. The wheel well is clear as are 3 wheels, windows etc. I was convinced that this was a cut and paste job up until it was shown that it could not have been. Though I see the car front opposite of you. Is it possible that the reflection be reversed?

Could this effect be caused by a Mylar balloon?



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NaeBabii
 


Explanation: St*rred!

Here is the photo taken 5sec's before the UFO photo was taken ...



And I agree that there is NO sea spray in view!


However the photo is being taken a good 20m above sea level and some 50m+ away from the ocean ...



And therefor any large amounts of spray would be not visible ... just like I showed with the shadows of a possible mylar ballon and or bag/bird etc. ...



But with the 20mph whipping winds coming NNE off of the ocean they could easily grab the most highest drop of sea spray and carry aloft for say a journey of no more than 100m upward and forward towards the oncoming travelling car!


Personal Disclosure: I am confident the above is also well within reason and logic.


However just to sow some more doubt about ... it may be a small fleck off of a silvered plastic foil chocky bar wrapper.









new topics
top topics
 
377
<< 58  59  60    62  63  64 >>

log in

join