Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

reply to post by OmegaLogos
I am not familiar with droplets, or salt spray, but I have a few more thoughts.

I did read that Salt Spray can travel some distance, but not in droplet form.

Is there any data on how Salt Spray breaks form during travel?

If we assume that the object is within inches of the lens, I would think that it would be possible there would be some spots on the car, or mirror that were still wet. They are dried, and wet spots are not visible anywhere else. In fact, dust is visible on the door.

The "droplet" is very close to the lens while being away from any accompanying spray and still in form. I agree this is plausible, but I would think there would be more evidence of spray in the picture than one lone droplet.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


So you are claiming that this single drop of sea water traveled somewhere between 240-300 feet through the air, in tact, and in solitude? Only to be photographed intact, and then you are able to claim with confidence to be able to decipher the reflection in that drop of water?

Honestly, goat sweat seems more plausible than that. While I appreciate the amount of work you put into this theory I don't think it holds any "water".

*Also please factor in the fact that the "water droplet" is level with the camera according Mr. Ritzman. I don't know enough to expand on that idea but it seems significant and important to the report and is something that all of these theories completely ignore.

It seems an incredible amount of coincidences going on all at the same time for a water drop, shopping bag, goat sweat, or balloon to be the answer. Not just incredible but unbelievable. I am still open to the ideas but they are not seeming the most likely, instead they are seeming the least likely. In all cases we have to take huge leaps in logic to make them work.

Not likely, I think she woulda seen the bag gently wafting by on the offshore breeze, and if anything else it would been in other shots or the very least noticed by her, some how she magically forgot?! LOL uhm..no.


reply to post by SkepticOverlord

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


Explanation: St*rred!

Is it possible that the reflection be reversed?

No! Here is why ...

Since it is mirrored and the car is heading north and the right hand side of the car is the closest to the object the front of the car [to the left hand side of the original ufo picture] MUST be to the left hand side of the reflection of the object and conversely the rear right hand tyre MUST be to the right hand side of the reflection of the object!

I agree you are seeing the car ... just reversed and I ask you to reassess my post to that effect Here (pg61) and compare with your post Here (pg52).

Could this effect be caused by a Mylar balloon?

Yes it could and I post about that Here (pg40).

But since the EXIF data clearly shows that to be way beyond the DOF, as shown by elevenaugusts posts in thread, of 56.cm ... that must be discounted now.

Personal Disclosure: I hope that helps!

On another note the colour of the car isn't white as shown in the Fiat Pandas pics I embedded ... It is Gold!

If its in front of the lens it would be drastically out of focus and not show any atmospheric hazing which it does. I noticed people throwing out blatantly absurd theory's just for 'something different' without having actually read the in depth analysis, it seems.

i]reply to post by NaeBabii

reply to post by ATSZOMBIE
Agreed. While it is a great theory, it just doesn't sit well with me. There is NO evidence of spray ANYWHERE else in the photo.

There's plenty evidence of spray in this photo...



... the spray from the windscreen washers that no doubt have been liberally used to wash off the dust that can clearly be seen caked to the windscreen (and the tyres).

It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that a stray droplet of water has coursed it's way along the upper door seal only to drop at the moment the picture is taken.

reply to post by Silver Star

Sorry, I may have not clarified... by no evidence of spray, I meant WET evidence, not DRY evidence. Since the droplet was still in form, I would think it was a recent droplet. Not an old spray droplet travelling upwind.

I still am having a hard time seeing the lone Salt Spray droplet; however, I do accept your possible theory and explanation. Let me see what I can come up with, in regards to windshield spray/streaks/droplets.

reply to post by Silver Star


While this is muuuuch more plausible than sea water, we have photos of the windshield that don't show that the wipers and washers were used just prior or during the photo. It would be very apparent if this were the case, and I highly doubt it would have gotten past the initial investigation. Could be wrong on that but either way this does seem the most likely than the odd sea water droplet.

I have to start watching the boy so I don't have time to look, but the actual anomaly photo should be really obviously wet in the lower or upper windshield corner if indeed it was cleaned prior or during the photo.

Originally posted by free_spirit

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.

Ummmm sorry to poo in your cornflakes but one is a video and one a photograph. Two separate types of "evidence". I was referring to Photos and maybe for the benefit of people like yourself who are obviously some way behind even the simplest of people I should of been more clear on that point. However, as we were discussing a photo that should of been a given. But thanks for pointing out the fact that you need things laid out like I would do for a child.

Originally posted by Six6Six
But thanks for pointing out the fact that you need things laid out like I would do for a child.

[size=10]Stop it!

There's no reason for snide personal attacks, so just quit it, OK?

reply to post by NaeBabii


The side mirror has dried water drop residue of it, and it was emphasized earlier that the front windshield has a streak from the dirty windshield. The front view photo shows a streaking windshield.

It's known that the road is dusty.

Where does the moisture come from, which causes the driver to use the wipers?

In the process, smearing the windshield?

Ocean spray. That's the most logical conclusion. Road dust mixing with ocean spray explains the dried drops on the side mirror, and the front windshield streaking.

However, I am with you on the random, solitary water droplet.

If anyone can find the presence of another water droplet, anywhere on the car, to prove recent exposure to seaspray, then the theory would hold more weight. What I see is older exposure to seaspray, already dried.

At the location of the Shooter's capture of the UO, fresh seaspray is unlikely. At least now we are focusing on more likely aspects of explaining the UO. I'll trade goat's sweat/drool for seaspray for a more likely explanation (sorry TinfoilTP!).

But it's not solved yet.

I'll propose that the solution will be a combination of the "reflection theory" and the "seaspray theory". I'll propose that the anomaly IS reflecting back at the camera, meaning the dark spots in the anomaly is a reflection of something in the picture. What, exactly, hasn't been determined yet.

Dang, I love good mysteries like this. Just beyond our reach. For ATS to go over two weeks, and not solve a puzzle, mystery, or anomaly, well, that just makes the solution all the much more worthwhile. We're getting closer, but this is a tough one.

There are more than 2 reasons a dried water drop could be on a side mirror too. Could be days or weeks old. Could be spit, soda, tea, etc. I dont think it is indicative of anything other than at one time part or parts of the vehicle had fluid on it. I am willing to bet 1 of my 3 vehicles has dried water on a mirror as we speak and i have never been to Crete or near the sea or near any goats.

Using elevenaugust's analysis of object size and combined with the amount of blur of the object and amount of blur of the edge of the cliff just below the object, I arrive at a length of approximately 12" to 18" (at 10 meters and 15 meters respectively), which is quite within the expected length of a soaring, or gliding seagull as seen in profile view, riding the updraft created by the cliff.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by bluestreak53

 

Yes Jeff Ritzman is a professional.

Yes, Jeff Ritzman is a professional what? You mean he is a professional photographic analyst? That is something I did not know and I don't recall him actually providing us that information. Usually that would mean that he has completed a program of study and has been certified by an accrediting professional association. (Note: I don't know one way or the other, but I just want to confirm that I am not misunderstanding you and you can confirm that you actually know his photographic analyst professional status - and aren't simply throwing the word around meaning something entirely different.)

Originally posted by sputniksteve
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 a rude, presumptive and arrogant statement to make! How do you know what I have read and what my comprehension is?
You are simply demonstrated a childish attitude here that is hardly building any sort of case.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
What I meant by no one is trying to convince you this is an Alien is this: Read the material with an open mind,

Another rude and presumptive comment.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
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.

Actually, I have quite a bit of experience with people submitting photographs with "UFOs I didn't see". The fact that the photographer did not remember seeing anything there is highly suggestive of the fact that it was probably something quite ordinary - assuming it is an actual object. I can assure you that people take thousands of similar photos each day where something shows up that they have no recall at all was there when they took the photo. The reason they don't remember seeing the object is because it was just an ordinary object in their peripheral vision. The chance that this photographic anomaly is anything at all out of the ordinary is very unlikely. It is made more unlikely by the very fact that it was so ordinary, the photographer didn't even notice it.

I will say that most of the time, it is not hard to find a likely explanation for the anomaly. But there are cases where the anomaly defies easy explanation. That certainly doesn't mean that the "object" is itself anomalous - just unexplained.

In my opinion, if you don't have a witness, you really don't have a UFO report. And I don't think that photographs are particularly useful anymore as evidence since the advent of digital photography. The problem is that it is possible to fake just about anything so someone who takes a photograph of a "real UFO" (something they actually witnessed and can describe), really isn't likely going to convince anyone of anything. This is a real problem facing UFOlogy, that although there are more tools for recording UFO observations, those records are really not going to be useful as "evidence" at all.

reply to post by bluestreak53


What better witness do you require?

It is actually caught on film.

Sorry, it was caught in a digital photo... to appease the technicians

reply to post by bluestreak53


This may sound like a cop out by i already said i wouldn't do a back and forth. The information is available if you want it. In fact he already answered you directly on the last page.

But again where you are getting confused is no one claimed it was a UFO. It is merely an unidentified object. Don' mean to be condescending but read the report. With respect, lets please not do this at this point of the thread. There are already enough off topicish posts.

reply to post by sputniksteve


Actually I stated it was a UFO

Many pages back

F stands for floating in this case.

Originally posted by magma
reply to post by bluestreak53

 

What better witness do you require?

It is actually caught on film.

Sorry, it was caught in a digital photo... to appease the technicians

A witness to what? We have at this point no idea if it is even an object. And as I stated, the very fact that neither the photographer nor the driver witnessed anything anything unusual STRONGLY SUGGESTS it was a totally normal object - if there even was an object.

And as I said, the reality is there is no way to prove that it is even real as it is just bits in a file. And from a philosophical perspective, their is in fact no way to prove that the image has not been manipulated - because it is just bytes in a file.