Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

page: 67
377
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 20 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Okay. I've read almost every post on this thread. It is very confusing to say the least!

So, for fun, and in the spirit of Johnny Anonymous...




This is what I see if I use my imagination - a sphere nested into a curving wedge that is shaped to the sphere.

I know, I know - this couldn't possibly be accurate - but I do have an active imagination!

peace.

AB

PS - I know I don't have it exact - I'm not that great of an artist...

edit on 20-10-2012 by AboveBoard because: the image came through! yay!
edit on 20-10-2012 by AboveBoard because: disclaimer...
edit on 20-10-2012 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
OK, let's try a sensory/perceptual approach to this object.

Evolution has tweaked our senses and ability to perceive and act in favor of survival. Case in point: a camouflaged tiger in jungle brush, or hearing breathing in bushes, or catching a whiff of big cat musk -- those who noticed and ran survived and passed on their genes to their children, those who didn't became lunch.

Nature has also endowed us with the ability to 'ignore' (consciously at least) unimportant, harmless or irrelevant stimuli when engaged in some activity. Take this phrase:

like repetition of the
the in this text

OK, so you may have noticed the two instances of the article 'the' in the phrase. Or maybe you didn't. But if you write and edit text, you will often see such mistakes. The brain just glosses over it while reading.

So, if a person is preoccupied, common, everyday objects and activities tend to be ignored. but even if preoccupied, an unusual object, movement or stimulus will tend to be noticed, harkening again to instinctual survival response. ('Dang--I was so busy sexting that I almost fell into that fountain!')

So now a person sees something in the sky: 'What is it?' A plane or a jet -- no; there's no sound; it must be a balloon -- no, balloons don't zig-zag and zip around at such speed; it's trash blowing in the wind -- no, again the motion is way too fast and erratic; a bird -- no, birds don't fly sideways, and anyway can't fly that fast with such weird jerky motions; so what is it?? It's.....something grey, round or oval and domed on top with shimmering edges like a mirage created by hot asphalt...shaped a little like two plates stuck together moving erratically and very fast and whoops! There it goes..it's gone! What the hell was it!?' The brain tries to identify it as a familiar object, but ends up with only a description of the object's shape, color and behavior along with some certainty of what it wasn't.

The brain will continually attempt to identify until it finds a 'fit'; or not, in which case the person will say, 'I don't know what it was, but I know what it wasn't!'

There were two people in the car, a driver and the photographer. She was busy with the camera, he was attentive to driving. Both were facing generally forward. IF the object wasn't a common, everyday occurence, one of them might have noticed. Neither did. Ergo, it was likely an ordinary seaside event, and likely disregarded as unimportant, irrelevant, harmless.

Now, what is one likely to find in the air near the seashore that one would likely disregard when otherwise engaged?



posted on Oct, 21 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by gguyx
 

I appreciate that comment, and I do know what you are talking about.

I did a little experiment and it was enlightening - I'm wondering if anyone else sees this?
Look directly into the camera in the mirror where the woman is focusing and stare for just a second or two - do you notice the object disappearing? For me, it literally goes out of the picture - my brain erased it entirely, just like your extra "the" in the example (which I did catch, btw ;-) - will some other's try this and see what you think?

Use the original, large photo from page 1...

It may explain a bit why she didn't see it, and if it was real (not an artifact), and only in her field of vision for a moment... Anyone?

Thank you!

peace,
AB



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
There is the blind spot test which involves the back of the eye where the optic nerve exits. But this blind spot requires the head to be tilted to the left, and the left eye shut, as respects this photo and the object in question. The woman's reflection in the mirror at the moment of taking the photo does not show a tilted head. If both eyes are open, each eye fills in the missing information from the other.

You can try it yourself here:

www.blindspottest.com...

But I don't think this is what you mean. I think you mean that staring a while in one spot away from the object causes the object to 'blend' in to the sky in the photo. And this also possible while staring at a fixed spot in a real-world scene.

Anyway, looks like this thread has fizzled out.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by gguyx
 


Yes - you did understand what I was saying - not the specific "blind-spot," but more of a "blend in" effect.

If it is a real object in the sky and it was only there for a very brief 'flash' then her "not seeing" it is reasonable, imo.

Thanks for responding, btw - I'm afraid I may be a "thread closer" once again... :-( lol

- AB



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by AboveBoard
 


Your right in the fact that it is an object in the sky

but your not another thread closer........



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I appreciate all of the above opinions regarding perception; however, this aspect has been discussed and does not sit well with me.

Even if the object WAS in fact an ordinary object, then why was it not in either the before or after shots? Only in one?

I tend to think, if it was an ordinary object her brain just "glossed" over, it would at least be in one of the other shots, SOMEWHERE in the shot. It isn't.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



LOL
OK let me try again. The "SHOOTER" from the OP claims she did not see the object.
There has been speculation and just basic talking out the ...about how she could or could not have seen this thing.
-I posted a you tube video that demonstrates just HOW selective attention can be.
-The test is to count how many baskets the people in white shirts can make.
-While you are trying to focus on this task, there are people with black shirts shooting baskets also.
-In the middle of the video a person in a GORILLA suite walks in.
-Most people do NOT see the GORILLA when doing this task.

This should put to rest any speculation about how she could or could not have seen this.

Since actual information relating to the OP and backing up her claim is being removed while just plain and simple speculation based on nothing is going back and forth and around and around, It is no wonder that this is going in circles.
If you are interested in the video, you will have to find it yourself.

Thank You.
edit on 23-10-2012 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...
...and your point is people ignore this info? Perhaps nobody is noticing the obvious because they are so focused on their own thing. Is that your point?

and thats a different video!

...and I posted a link to an article on page 17. about 40 pages before the one this refers to.
edit on 23-10-2012 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 



...and your point is people ignore this info? Perhaps nobody is noticing the obvious because they are so focused on their own thing.

Actually I don't think that video is comparable to this situation.



and thats a different video!

Guess it is but very similar. Just strange how something is fine one time but off topic another.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

These confounding findings from cognitive psychologists Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris detailed in a 1999 study revealed how people can focus so hard on something that they become blind to the unexpected, even when staring right at it. When one develops "inattentional blindness," as this effect is called, it becomes easy to miss details when one is not looking out for them.

"Although people do still try to rationalize why they missed the gorilla, it's hard to explain such a failure of awareness without confronting the possibility that we are aware of far less of our world than we think," Simons told LiveScience.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Actually I don't think that video is comparable to this situation.

how so?

a photographer focused on taking a picture does not notice something that seems like it should be noticed. "Flags" are raised by members because it could not possibly be.

relates 100%



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Guess it is but very similar.


its not the original.



Just strange how something is fine one time but off topic another.


Thats OK because now I will make it on topic until everyone is sick of it.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by gguyx
There is the blind spot test which involves the back of the eye where the optic nerve exits. But this blind spot requires the head to be tilted to the left, and the left eye shut, as respects this photo and the object in question. The woman's reflection in the mirror at the moment of taking the photo does not show a tilted head. If both eyes are open, each eye fills in the missing information from the other.

You can try it yourself here:

www.blindspottest.com...

But I don't think this is what you mean. I think you mean that staring a while in one spot away from the object causes the object to 'blend' in to the sky in the photo. And this also possible while staring at a fixed spot in a real-world scene.

Anyway, looks like this thread has fizzled out.


I think more like this:


imagine that you are staring fixedly at a little red X. Slightly off to the left we briefly show you a cross. All you have to tell us is which is longer--the cross's vertical or horizontal line. That task is something people can do effortlessly. Now we surreptitiously introduce a word directly on the cross during the second that you are judging line lengths. Arien Mack of New School University and Irvin Rock, then at Rutgers University, discovered that people will not spot the word.
How blind are we?



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by gguyx


So, if a person is preoccupied, common, everyday objects and activities tend to be ignored. but even if preoccupied, an unusual object, movement or stimulus will tend to be noticed, harkening again to instinctual survival response. ('Dang--I was so busy sexting that I almost fell into that fountain!')


I think this is incorrect. Apparently when preoccupied, unusual objects are also ignored.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Actually I don't think that video is comparable to this situation.

how so?

a photographer focused on taking a picture does not notice something that seems like it should be noticed. "Flags" are raised by members because it could not possibly be.

relates 100%


The difference is you know the objects in the video - they have known behaviors and known movement parameters.

The UO behavior is not known. For all anyone knows, the object shows up as the shutter was open for that split second, and left just as quickly when it closed. In the end, you don't know what it is, and therefore cannot attach parameters on it.

I find it amusing that ghost phenomena, when captured and not seen by the shooter - is perfectly plausible. Yet there is no more evidence for ghosts in that sense, then there is in the enigmatic "UFO". Neither have given up proof of tangible, physical existence, and both remain largely a hardline suspicion - and to some an article of faith. Both phenomena chuck out burning scintillas of tantalizing novelty, yet neither has defined itself per mankind's observations or expectations.

So...

Making a contention that it should have been seen, is making grand suppositions about an object that has no definable actions or attributes. It doesn't work.
edit on 24-10-2012 by jritzmann because: grammar



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


I think we are in agreement on this point. In order apply this psychological phenomenon, it would have to be a real definable object that was not noticed. If it has been completely ruled out that this is a real object such as a bag, bird, etc.. Then it doesn't apply.

The problem I have is that people seem to be arguing that she must have noticed a real object if it was there flying around and therefore it couldn't be. Im saying there is a known psychological phenomenon to account for not noticing such an object. I can't prove that this or would have occurred since it seems to happen only half the time. I can only say that it does happen and that it is a well documented phenomenon.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
First of all, big props to Springer for submitting the best analysis I have yet seen on this site. This is the kind of thread I only wish I could post.

Now, what the heck is this? I don't know! Yup, it could be Mylar, but there is documented evidence that shows unidentified aerial phenomena looking just like that...shiny silver.

Now I have to take the time to read the remaining posts...





new topics
top topics
 
377
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum