Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


I'm not spilling any more beans than necessary. You didn't give me a star. You're a bad man.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian
Last night, I was able to take the laser pointer, point it THROUGH the sunglasses, it would create a larger image, enlarging any imperfection in the sunglasses and reflect it on the wall BESIDE me.

The begin result was a red dot, the end result was an oblong, transparent red shape. This gives me a general idea of how the multi-reflection theory could work.

I also could create a LONG, red, dotted line by pointing the laser point at the reflective ring around my camera.

So, I see how this COULD work, I am just not sure HOW it could work in, or what could create this particular reflection, the original photo's situation, assuming it was a multireflection image.

reply to post by NaeBabii


to the reflectionists:

a reflection means an image reflecting off an object into an eye or a lense - the reflection doesn't exist apart from the reflective surface the image appears in - you never look in the mirror and your face appears six foot to the side of the mirror

the object appears 'in the sky' - i don't think it's a reflection in the sky

are you talking about a projection?

reply to post by aynock
Not necessarily a projection, or reflection, but a multireflection (in which a beam of light undergoes multiple reflections between two reflecting surfaces.)

I used the term reflective, because I used something that WAS reflective and pointed it another object that was also reflective.

Although, you could say that the image reflected off of the mirror onto the sunglasses and then projected onto the wall.

I still am not sure this is a multireflection. I was simply trying to eliminate the possibility.

reply to post by NaeBabii


There's no "wall" in the image though. This is where I keep getting lost in the reflection theory, there is no surface available for the UO to reflect upon. It appears to be in mid air.

Springer...

Originally posted by NaeBabii
reply to post by aynock
Not necessarily a projection, or reflection, but a multireflection (in which a beam of light undergoes multiple reflections between two reflecting surfaces.)

I used the term reflective, because I used something that WAS reflective and pointed it another object that was also reflective.

Although, you could say that the image reflected off of the mirror onto the sunglasses and then projected onto the wall.

I still am not sure this is a multireflection. I was simply trying to eliminate the possibility.

even with a multiple reflection the light will still travel in a straight line from the last surface it reflected off, to your eye or camera lense, so that is where the image will appear

reply to post by Springer
You are correct. There is no wall in the Original Photo; however, that was the CLOSEST way I was able to recreate a multireflection.

I cannot seem get the multireflected image to appear "in air". I believe a projection COULD appear "in air", but I do not believe the UO is a projection.

Originally posted by NaeBabii
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
Last night, I was able to take the laser pointer, point it THROUGH the sunglasses, it would create a larger image, enlarging any imperfection in the sunglasses and reflect it on the wall BESIDE me.

Fascinating mental images, but I can't decide: Nerd Girl or Legally Blonde?

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by NaeBabii

 

There's no "wall" in the image though. This is where I keep getting lost in the reflection theory, there is no surface available for the UO to reflect upon. It appears to be in mid air.

I've been saying that since the concept first arose, without success... maybe they'll listen to you, though

reply to post by adjensen
It's not so much about NOT listening with me, it's more of I want to try it myself and see what I come up with. Maybe it's stubbornness, maybe it's curiosity.

Every time I try another theory, or consider another possibility, I am back to my original thought... this is a REAL photo of something. I just don't know of WHAT, yet.

In the meantime, I will keep experimenting, and keep researching, until I have exhausted all possibilities.

And on that note, what do you suggest the UO is?

Originally posted by NaeBabii
reply to post by adjensen
It's not so much about NOT listening with me, it's more of I want to try it myself and see what I come up with. Maybe it's stubbornness, maybe it's curiosity.

Hey, go ahead and give it a shot -- it's just that there is no way to have something reflect off of nothing, because an optical reflection is, by definition, light bouncing off of a surface. No surface... no reflection.

And on that note, what do you suggest the UO is?

Once I decided that it wasn't hoaxed, I have largely come down on the side of "blue plastic bag".

Originally posted by Still Naive?
reply to post by zayonara

 

I'm sorry, but I fail to see this as a flying beetle...

I mean, if you stare at that "UO" long enough, it kinda does look like a "flying beetle"

No?

reply to post by NaeBabii


I marked where it looks like a reflection is hitting the camera lens.
In the 5sec prior shot it doesn't look like there is a reflection on the lens.
Could that reflection be causing the U.O?




To NaeBabii: Great idea to experiment with the laser. What do you think of this?
I was thinking of sitting in my car in the same position as "shooter" with the sun in the same position and try to get the reflection to hit the lens, and see if we can get a similar result.

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by NaeBabii

 

There's no "wall" in the image though. This is where I keep getting lost in the reflection theory, there is no surface available for the UO to reflect upon. It appears to be in mid air.

Springer...

edit on 10-19-2012 by Springer because: (no reason given)

The only possible "reflective surface" would be part of the camera lens system itself. And I would think these lenses are designed to eliminate reflections. (Otherwise, people would be experiencing all sorts of reflection anomalies in their cameras).

The other factor someone mentioned is that the sunglasses are a convex surface and therefore the reflection would expand out, scattering the reflected light which would require a rather large, precisely placed concave surface to capture.

So I'm pretty sure that professional photographic analysts would rule out the "reflection" hypothesis.

The only possible "reflective surface" would be part of the camera lens system itself

reply to post by bluestreak53


it can happen - the result is 'lens flare' - pretty sure this isn't lens flare

reply to post by BugWhisperer


Good work, Bug. Blaine pointed that out earlier in the thread, but I had overlooked it at the time.

Now, it SEEMS to be the prime candidate.

I am thinking it is the reflection of light in the mirror from the sunglasses. Do you have another light source that can be causing that? The edge of the UO is showing a bright sunlight glare. The camera is showing a bright glare in the spot you pointed out.

I am working on all the different angles we have to deal with. It would also appear the UO is upside down. I'm PRETTY sure it needs flipped and mirrored to compensate for the lens/mirror/sunglass combination.

Originally posted by bluestreak53

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by NaeBabii

 

There's no "wall" in the image though. This is where I keep getting lost in the reflection theory, there is no surface available for the UO to reflect upon. It appears to be in mid air.

Springer...

edit on 10-19-2012 by Springer because: (no reason given)

The only possible "reflective surface" would be part of the camera lens system itself. And I would think these lenses are designed to eliminate reflections. (Otherwise, people would be experiencing all sorts of reflection anomalies in their cameras).

The other factor someone mentioned is that the sunglasses are a convex surface and therefore the reflection would expand out, scattering the reflected light which would require a rather large, precisely placed concave surface to capture.

So I'm pretty sure that professional photographic analysts would rule out the "reflection" hypothesis.

The UO is a reflection. When you guys are saying no wall/reflective surface, there is a lens (reflective), a mirror (reflective), and sunglasses (reflective). The CCD in the camera is pointed nearly directly at the mirror. The sunglasses are line of sight to the mirror, and accordingly, the camera lens.

(Otherwise, people would be experiencing all sorts of reflection anomalies in their cameras).

They do. It's called art.
Here's some reflective images:






While those people are actually trying to capture those images, the Shooter caught an unintentional one. A rare feat indeed.

I'm going to read up on the tech specs of the Canon s100, to see what it can actually do.

But think for a moment. You are the camera. You capture everything you see when you are told to. You have a sensitive CCD, which digitally records in so many MegaPixels, regardless of what you think it may be. You just do what you are told.

I'm not saying the reflection theory is correct, but I'm looking at this from every angle, with an open mind, focusing on the reflection theory until it is disproved to be impossible. So far, we have lots of opinions, but no real proof. In fact, nobody, including myself, knows what it is. It's only by careful analysis of ALL the details that we will be able to determine what it really is. "Looks like a....." and "Could be a....." doesn't quite cut it for me. So far, it defies simple explanation, and in doing so, makes itself all the more interesting.

reply to post by Druid42


the first and last images you posted are examples of refraction, the second and third are reflections - in both cases the reflection is in a reflective surface

in the picture the object appears in the sky - i'm still not sure how you think that is happening

Originally posted by aynock

The only possible "reflective surface" would be part of the camera lens system itself

reply to post by bluestreak53

 

it can happen - the result is 'lens flare' - pretty sure this isn't lens flare

Yes, but lens flare also involves scattering of light.

Lens flare is the light scattered in lens systems through generally unwanted image formation mechanisms, such as internal reflection and scattering from material inhomogeneities in the lens.

It doesn't create a "reflected image" but usually involves more complex manifestations, such as:

The spatial distribution of the lens flare typically manifests as several starbursts, rings, or circles in a row across the image or view. Lens flare patterns typically spread widely across the scene and change location with the camera's movement relative to light sources, tracking with the light position and fading as the camera points away from the bright light until it causes no flare at all. The specific spatial distribution of the flare depends on the shape of the aperture of the image formation elements. For example, if the lens has a 6-bladed aperture, the flare may have a hexagonal pattern.

You usually get a lens flare when there is a very bright light source in the image, such as the sun.