Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

page: 68
377
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
ZetaRediculian, im with you on how something can be right in front of you and not be noticed i mean the amount of times ive left my keys on the table only to find them their later. The keys was their all the time but i just missed them..what the hell
either that or it was Casper


A lot of posters have a taken that on board have speculated..well in that case it could be just a mundane object like balloon, bag, bird, flying loogie / water droplet, and camera artifact but no ones been able to explain why this thing does not appear on previous and after shots nor have the properties this object shows ?

Thats the whole problem imo..its just doesnt fit into any known category and i havent heard anything here that makes me think that explains it pretty well


Dare i say it...its a UFO unless someone can up with an explanantion that makes sense.

(and before someone brings it up yes i know we cant determine its flying from a photo especially as there are no witnesses and not claiming its a ET spacecraft)




posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Right. As I stated in the report, IF it represents an unknown phenomena - then we cannot define how it works. The majority of people are completely hung up on the "nuts and bolts" category of "UFOs". But there's some little talked about news here for them: after 60+ years of modern investigation and interaction with the phenomena (nevermind the sightings of antiquity) there is no nut, and no bolt. Period.

I think it's far past time to consider what Jung postulated in his book "UFOs, a Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky" (which besides Jacques Vallee is the only other guy to really push the envelope of the UFO problem) when he connected the UFO to psychical phenomenon.

Of course the minute the UFO crowd hears psychological terms they fly into the rant that it's a "real" phenomena and not anything related to the mind. That explanation is like the antichrist of the UFO community.

What they miss is that Jung didn't infer that it was "all in your head", and that indeed if it was psychical phenomena, it made it no less a "real" thing. That some collective unconscious manifestation has gotten loose of the ego doesn't mean these things aren't real. In fact to me, they'd be more real, than real.

Manifestation is a good word. These things haunt the skies like a ghost haunts a house or a battlefield.

So what was there when "shooter" took the shot? Don't know. But lets say it is the phenomena expressing itself:

Was it "real" that one could hit it with a rock?
Was it inhabited by something?
What was it truly made of?

All the answers to these questions would be: "who is to say?"

The question is, what is it doing. That would be the real question at that point.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann

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


Firstly, the interpretation of everything in every image is just based on our experience and ability to match against common everyday phenomena. So anything out of place or out of focus provides a challenge of interpretation. That doesn't imply there is anything inherently "anomalous" about anything that is a challenge to interpret.

Secondly, my experience with people who submit photographs containing "UFO anomalies" is that most people swear they never saw the "object" that they say is a UFO. This is as true with any blur that might be an insect, or bird without obvious "wing" profile, or lens flare.

I think that what you are attempting to do with this "analysis" is take the most unlikely possibility that defies every logical analysis and shoehorn it into the proposal that it is a likely explanation. The reality that the photographer did not see the object, does not provide convincing evidence that this is some "unexplained phenomena", unknown to science that simply manifested in front of the camera for a microsecond while the camera was recording an image.

I think it is much more likely that it was a totally mundane, everyday object, either close to the lens or in somewhere beyond the foreground, that the photographer simply didn't notice as she was taking the photo.

I find that your "logic" in the above post is a reversal of common sense and rational thought.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluestreak53
I think that what you are attempting to do with this "analysis" is take the most unlikely possibility that defies every logical analysis and shoehorn it into the proposal that it is a likely explanation.


Since we're all "thinking", I think you need to "think" a little more. Or read. My analysis is, that I cannot identify it. That is all. I have said this multiples of multiples in this thread, and in the OP.

In short:
Don't pretend to state what my opinion is, as I have already stated it.

Past that, I'm conjecturing just like anyone can do.

Perhaps you ought to try that rather than take a condescending air and state what others positions are.

I have made no claim to know what it is, as you have done. Please, if you can identify the object in the photo? By all means, do it.

And to your other point, if you can compare known objects and their known parameters of movement, to an unknown object with no known parameters - then please tell us all how you arrive at that - I personally find your contention that such a position is possible to take, the illogical one.
edit on 25-10-2012 by jritzmann because: punctuation/code



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
Of course the minute the UFO crowd hears psychological terms they fly into the rant that it's a "real" phenomena and not anything related to the mind. That explanation is like the antichrist of the UFO community.
HA!
yes, I have experienced the rath by mentioning of the word "hallucination".



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


LOL..perish the thought sir / ma'am..

Bigger deeper questions need be asked in this stuff. Clearly the same old notions are not bearing fruit of any sort. I worry not about the wrath, I worry more about a study/question/"field" that hasn't budged in years, and remains complacent to it's old presumed notions.

What is it they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
edit on 25-10-2012 by jritzmann because: gender assumption.




posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


I am not the person who said:



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.


That was you. I was simply stating that this is a pretty nonsensical assertion to make. If you find that to be condescending, that is your problem.

No, I don't have any conclusion on what the object is. But the very fact that the photographer does not remember there being anything there does not in any way suggest the "object" (if it IS an object), is anything anomalous at all.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
It appears that more people are trying and more people fail.

This object is genuinely unidentifiable.

Makes a refreshing change from all the other objects that, when put under scrutiny, turn out to be "something".



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Physical manifestaion of individual or collective unconscious could possibly explain other paranormal phenomena such as ghosts, greys, poltergeists, bigfoot etc so why not UFOs... or maybe its just a glitch in the matrix ?

Having my own experiences of high strangeness (personal and with other witnesses) im willing to think outside the box but where do we go from here .



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluestreak53
reply to post by jritzmann
 


I am not the person who said:



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.


That was you. I was simply stating that this is a pretty nonsensical assertion to make. If you find that to be condescending, that is your problem.

No, I don't have any conclusion on what the object is. But the very fact that the photographer does not remember there being anything there does not in any way suggest the "object" (if it IS an object), is anything anomalous at all.


I said "for all anyone knows" - thats no "assertion" - again, demonstrably you do not follow the thread of conversation.

You don't know what it is - so you also don't know its behavior, do you? Enough said there. This is a move of the goalposts to the original point of the conversation, and the reason for my scenario which you find so distasteful: someone put up a video demonstrating perceptual distraction. The analogy is incorrect, as the video contains known objects making known movements within their parameters.

We do not know the parameters of this UO, because we don't know what it is. Thats the point. The hypothetical scenario I lay out is you can't make assumptions about what someone would and would not note based upon no known parameters of what something is.


Originally posted by bluestreak53
I think that what you are attempting to do with this "analysis" is take the most unlikely possibility that defies every logical analysis and shoehorn it into the proposal that it is a likely explanation.


I think you don't read. I don't know what it is. I never claimed to. I am as free to theorize as the next guy.


However you say:

Originally posted by bluestreak53
I think it is much more likely that it was a totally mundane, everyday object, either close to the lens or in somewhere beyond the foreground, that the photographer simply didn't notice as she was taking the photo.


Great. Then perhaps you'd like to actually pick up the mantle and go to work to prove that. If not, then you're really just chucking unfactual barbs and misinterpretations from the sidelines aren't you?



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by magma
It appears that more people are trying and more people fail.

This object is genuinely unidentifiable.

Makes a refreshing change from all the other objects that, when put under scrutiny, turn out to be "something".



And if anyone would actually read the book I mention in the report? Nothing in this thread would be the slightest surprise - it's all very common to the arena of paranormal issue and discussion: the haters, the one who want to misstate and misrepresent, the moving goalposts, the anger, resentment....it's got it all.

This is why UFO groups, ghost teams, and paranormal groups never last very long. This is online discussion. So you can walk away. Face to face this all would have transpired much differently, but would have ended the same - in conflict and condescension.

I urge you all to take a look around and see the patterns in paranormal endeavors that have nothing to do with the subject - but more to do with the way the subject effects people. That's a really interesting dynamic.

And with that - I'll be back in a week.
edit on 26-10-2012 by jritzmann because: added cont.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by bluestreak53
I think it is much more likely that it was a totally mundane, everyday object, either close to the lens or in somewhere beyond the foreground, that the photographer simply didn't notice as she was taking the photo.


Great. Then perhaps you'd like to actually pick up the mantle and go to work to prove that. If not, then you're really just chucking unfactual barbs and misinterpretations from the sidelines aren't you?


Prove it? Why don't you prove it is actually something anomalous?

You can't and you actually have zero evidence that it is anything anomalous at all.
You don't even have any witness testimony to support the theory that this is something non-mundane because the photographer didn't even notice anything out of the ordinary.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


You- "Prove that this object is something we have never seen before and have 0 knowledge on what it is"

If you can't see the logical fallacy in asking for someone who is making no claims to prove a negative then you need to read up on "Critical Thinking".

It seems you either have a hard on for Mr. Ritzman or you are way out of your league because all you want to seem to do is argue that this is some regular mundane thing even though it appears to be anything but that as well as make Jeff say what he thinks it is even though he has stated a million times he doesn't know what it is and won't claim to know, unlike you. We went over this a couple pages ago and you assured everyone then that you have read the original report and are aware of what was originally claimed but either do not grasp what has been discussed or you are just looking to troll the thread.

If you believe it is an ordinary everyday object then great. Some people involved in the thread obviously don't. So what do you hope to accomplish? Insulting people until they agree with you? I just don't understand why you are stating the same thing over and over even though everything has been explained to you very clearly. I don't wish to insult you, but it really seems from my perspective like you can't comprehend what is happening in this thread.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
I said "for all anyone knows" - thats no "assertion" - again, demonstrably you do not follow the thread of conversation.
]

In that case, I will refrain from making any assertions in this post by preceding every statement with "for all anyone knows"...

1) For all anyone knows, you are just arguing for arguments sake.

2) For all anyone knows, the photograph is a hoax.

3) For all anyone knows, the "object" is actually a pink elephant in a tutu, but it is simply using its mind control to "manifest" its form from another time and dimension as something less obvious.

Anyways, I am not actually making any of the above statements as assertions, I am merely presenting them as comments.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


All I am stating is my opinion. You seem to be implying that I should not post my opinion because I have stated it already. But I just figure some statements are made that should be challenged.

I thought that was the whole point of having a forum? Or is the point to say it is okay to state some opinions and not others?

And my whole point is not that I am certain that it is a mundane ordinary object. Just that the circumstances strongly suggest that it is probably a mundane ordinary object - because the photographer didn't notice anything out of the ordinary. I think that is a valid point to make.

Jeff was being argumentative to suggest that I should "prove" something I never suggested was a fact.
It was an opinion, get it?
So I was merely throwing back the "prove it" point to him.

My point of argument with this thread is that a photograph by itself really provides really no real evidence of an anomaly, if there was no anomaly actually observed.

And by the way, I find the comment that I have a "hard on" for Jeff to be highly offensive and childish. And Jeff is being equally so to agree with your stated opinion in the post below. Whatever respect I had for Jeff as a commentator in the field of Ufology has been completely lost in reading through this thread.


edit on 26-10-2012 by bluestreak53 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-10-2012 by bluestreak53 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
It seems you either have a hard on for Mr. Ritzman or you are way out of your league because all you want to seem to do is argue that this is some regular mundane thing even though it appears to be anything but that as well as make Jeff say what he thinks it is even though he has stated a million times he doesn't know what it is and won't claim to know, unlike you.


I have found the former to be more true in these parts. When you're perceived as some "expert" (of which I am not, nor is anyone else in these matters of the UFO), people come out of the woodwork to make their bid to "de-throne" you and feel that somehow this will make others respect and/or admire them for "taking on the man".

Because I have worked some 22+ years in imaging as a career and have been educated in such a discipline doesn't mean I know everything. Damned few do, even in that arena. You're always learning. I have however spent more of my life in this UFO "field" than not, which I dare say does give me some insight (whatever that means) into what to look for.

In the end, these types will attract to any perceived spot of soft theory or pontification in which they can gouge a knife in. When you answer their condescending retorts and leave no way to respond, as their very argument has no basis except in their own mind - they become more agitated and give nonsensical answer posts such as you see there.

They feign an inability to understand basic communication - to moving goalposts, and misinterpreting everything you say (often to their benefit). I've encountered this hundreds of times, as has anyone who's been in this game for any length of time.

It's all part of the territory, and after while it doesn't bother you. It just becomes another aspect of people reacting to the topic of the unknown, and the consistencies you see in individuals are no less fascinating then the rest of the subject. I do however limit how much I respond to such characters these days, as it throws the notion of time and productive discussion into question.

I am glad you see the point, and urge you to look for this kind of dynamic more - it'll astound you how many consistencies you'll see.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Part of what jritzmann has written about is proved simply by dint of us being on page 68 of a thread about something no-one actually saw, yet showed up on film. Plus, as jritzmann has pointed out, most have reacted and projected onto the object that which suits their dynamic and their world view. We are, it seems, no closer to actually identifying the object than we were the night it was first posted, which would seem to suggest it's about as anomalous an object as anomalous can be? That doesn't make it preternatural or alien however, flying plastic bags, drops on the lens have failed, so far, to pass muster .

To that extent jritzmann is right on the money when he comments on there is a,certain desperation, starts to set in amongst those of a particular mindset whereby, they feel the need to dismiss, out of hand, the whole incident as "unimportant" and merely something utterly mundane, as yet, unidentified. However that presupposes that everything in life is indeed "mundane and identifiable by our current knowledge".

Again it is often overlooked, forgotten or simply, deliberately ignored for the sake of "faith" that, the basic standpoint of all science is; "I/We don't know". Imagine adopting the same attitude, historically to say, Super Nova,. There is, in fact little difference, in terms of overall philosophy between the church's "You don't need to understand all god's works" and "Meh. obviously something perfectly natural we simply haven't spotted the key to explaining it"

They share a common fear that is often denied and yet always seems to be there that, some people are simply scared there might be something more than they know or have the ability to assimilate as a concept. If we are 68 pages into a thread and people still feel the need to post little more than.."Meh, nothing to see" it begs the question, why bother?

For me, I come back to a 68 page thread to find that, those who often get their jollies from explaining these sort of photos still haven't and neither have the more considered critics. That in itself, on this forum , is anomalous.
edit on 26-10-2012 by FireMoon because: spelling



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
To that extent jritzmann is right on the money when he comments on there is a,certain desperation, starts to set in amongst those of a particular mindset whereby the feel the need to dismiss, out of hand, the whole incident as "unimportant" and merely something utterly mundane, as yet, unidentified. However that presupposes that everything in life is indeed "mundane and identifiable by our current knowledge".


Actually, I don't have the supposition at all that "everything in life is indeed 'mundane and identifiable by our current knowledge'"'. So you are barking up the wrong tree if any of those comments are directed in my direction.

In fact I think that there is considerable evidence that some UFOs are unexplained (or at least - have not been satisfactorily explained). But in this case, I simply feel that evidence is extremely weak that there is any sort of anomaly involved.


Originally posted by FireMoon
Again it is often overlooked, forgotten or simply, deliberately ignored for the sake of "faith" that, the basic standpoint of all science is; "I/We don't know".


But that assertion does not automatically lead to the conclusion that for all we know, the image was simply manifested in the milliseconds the camera was recording the image. I accept that as an extreme, outlier hypothesis, but in practical terms, I think it is evidence of someone who is "grabbing at straws".

We may "never know" but without employing some degree of judgement on probabilities (need I mention "Occams Razor" here?), then we would be forever floundering in the mud (which in my mind exactly what has been happening on this wayward thread).

And (in my mind) the primary reason we are (at least in my observation) floundering, is that there is no human witness of any anomaly, despite the fact that there were two people present at the time the photo was taken. So if there IS no witness of anything unusual at all, why does this rank as any sort of "significant" anomaly at all? Okay, maybe I am belaboring a point. But I really don't think that question has been answered - except with all sorts of extreme angry hyperbolic accusations that I am not listening, or not understanding the "conversation" (which seems pretty one sided to me at this point).
edit on 26-10-2012 by bluestreak53 because: who the hell cares
edit on 26-10-2012 by bluestreak53 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   
UFOUpdates had a link to a free deblur program from Vladimir Yuzhikov.

github.com...

which I used to adjust this cropped snippet of the original posted image.





Zoom it up to about 200%.

I see a bird flying to the left, with a beak and an eye, and cupped wings, and feet up against it's abdomen. YMMV. This is the best of 27 different settings.

The settings I used were radius 0.6 and 99% smooth.

edit on 27-10-2012 by gguyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
most have reacted and projected onto the object that which suits their dynamic and their world view


however, flying plastic bags, drops on the lens have failed, so far, to pass muster .

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but that looks like a wonderful example of irony/hypocrisy.

Do tell, firemoon, in precisely what way do the bags/bugs/drops 'fail to pass muster' (and why didn't you mention all the possibilities)? Is that your 'muster', perhaps? Your 'dynamic and world view'?

If not, can you please enlighten me, in proper detail, how you have logically and provably dismissed those possibilities?

And could it be that those (like me) who are now dismissing this as a total waste of time are simply reflecting a basic principle - namely that MANY, MANY things in images are just NOT identifiable or usefully analysable, because of lack of sufficient information. No big deal - it's just the way life is..

In fact YOU seem to be saying exactly that... but then you try to pretend that it *must* be important because people are - supposedly - desperate to dismiss it?

Good Grief, Charlie Brown.





new topics
top topics
 
377
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join