Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

page: 69
377
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

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.


Thank you for eloquently both illustrating and serving to prove my point especially, as it would seem, by your lack of understanding of the phrase, "so far", English is not your native language.




posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
Thank you for eloquently both illustrating and serving to prove my point especially, as it would seem, by your lack of understanding of the phrase, "so far", English is not your native language.


My pleasure. But it's actually the phrase 'pass muster' that I have a problem with. And may I suggest that before you suggest I am not a native-english-speaker, you thoroughly check the grammar of the sentence in which you do so....



Some simple questions for you:

1. What does 'pass muster' mean? I'm rashly assuming you mean 'be accepted'..

2. Do you seriously think that something will eventually 'pass muster', given more time on this thread?

3. Do you accept that there is a slender
possibility that we will NEVER know what that indistinguishable blob is?

4. Why would you make that comment about the bag / water droplet, if not to imply that they were unlikely suggestions?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



With the greatest of respect, I think you're totally missing the point and merely trying to find an entrance point to pick holes in something that was never said or actually, implied.. My original post, you chose to quote, was not about the object at all rather, the typical psychology of what goes on on this forum and a possible insight in to the thinking and motivations behind it.

However, as you seem to have some problems with grasping that, for you I will reiterate. It doesn't really matter what the object finally turns out to be, it is very unusual to have such a ,seemingly weak piece of "evidence" that lasts 68 pages without and sort of consensus at all, based on any genuine methodology, to explain it. Hence, those with a personal interest in everything being "perfectly normal" are running true to character by becoming increasingly terse and dismissive, without giving any true reasoning for doing so.
edit on 27-10-2012 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
With the greatest of respect

Respect would be better indicated by you simply answering the questions. I see none of them were worthy of your time...


I think you're totally missing the point

You mean that the thread is long, and that there is a psychology behind what people post? I wonder about the purpose of stating the obvious.

Unless...


and a possible insight in to the thinking and motivations behind it.

Ie, that you thought the earthly possibilities were weak, and that some were allegedly 'too eager' to dismiss it? Yet, contrarily, you think it went on for far too long?

Is it just me, or is anyone else puzzled by the 'point'?


It doesn't really matter what the object finally turns out to be

And yet you decided to imply that some possibilities didn't 'pass muster' ('so far')....


it is very unusual to have such a ,seemingly weak piece of "evidence" that lasts 68 pages

Not been here long?



without and sort of consensus at all, based on any genuine methodology, to explain it.

Which is why I asked you the questions above - why on earth should all/most image anomalies be explainable?


Hence, those with a personal interest in everything being "perfectly normal" are running true to character by becoming increasingly terse and dismissive, without giving any true reasoning for doing so.

????
Did you somehow forget to mention BOTH sides? (conveniently). How about "those with a personal interest in it being "paranormal" are running true to character by becoming increasingly terse and vocal, without giving any true reasoning for doing so."


There.. Now it's a *balanced* argument...



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
So i dont know what it is..but its must be something mundane shows complete objectivity and no bias at all

Heaven forbid we consider the extraordinary because thats simply not possible or fit into our comfortable view of the world.
edit on 28-10-2012 by anomalie because: spelling and missng words



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
The light on the UO is the sun hitting the right side rear window and/or the right side of the car between the two windows. This can be seen down the edge of the mirror in the UO pic but not in the 5 seconds before pic.
I believe the UO is everything you can see reflected in the mirror.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


You know, there's an old saying that goes something like.

"Only the truly ignorant, would claim to ever give an unbiased and balanced view". it was probably Voltaire, or someone of his ilk, who said that. The fact that you choose to change my words to suit your own bias says more about your "balanced view" of life than I ever need to.

I could also point out that people who annotate their posts with endless.
are often people who are absolute cards in their own mind. I don't pretend to be balanced, unlike some, who falsely, endlessly claim that's exactly what they are on this forum. In my experience and note I say my experience, weird stuff happens, everyday, all day and we only see a tiny tip of the iceberg of that weird berg. In fact, I'd go further, I suspect it is that very same weird stuff, that binds our particular reality together and is the source of every single "spiritual" philosophy. I make no bones about that, I wear my freak flag with pride I don;t feel the need to hide behind "balance" simply because, I've met about 3 people in my whole lifetime I could, in any way shape or form, describe as such.

Again, you totally fail understand my point, not a problem, I don't expect everyone to work on my level and my level, is not the bench mark for truth or balance. It's an individual's take of the world they perceive exists. my world begins and ends with "I think", many on here, including you it would seem, world begins and ends with the premise "I know". That's fair enough, doesn't worry me at all however, if you are going to try and analyse my posts, at least do me the service of actually understanding them.

See, to me, to even mention tenure on this site, immediately suggests the idea of "pecking orders and ownership of views that have a right to be expressed". Me, I couldn't give a rat's arse how long someone has been a member if they make salient points or, their posts are just damn well researched and as it happens, I'm almost an "old timer" in these parts.

As you seem so goal orientated rather than interested in research for research's sake, that does rather beg the question. If you are so sure of your bias then, why not put your hand in your pocket and pay for an independent analysis of the photo? Given there's a huge rump on here who already know "it's mundane" maybe you could have a whip round and do it and we can all discuss the results? Or, could it be many, simply love the sound of their own voice (sic) and really only post on this thread and many others like it, as part of a slightly sad group that hands out stars to each other without even reading a post as "That poster is on message"?

Personally, I have no truck with either of the entrenched views that seem to use the star system as some sort of contest and a validation of their agenda. In fact, I have often given stars to posts by people I disagree with on just about every fundamental about the whole of Ufology however, in my book, if it's a good post it deserves a star. Damn, how utterly balanced of me, I really must quit that.

Again, let me make plain, my key point and only point really was, to mention that. This thread, having failed to nail the culprit in the photo after 68 pages, has now, to all intents, descended into the "power politics of the school yard" where two groups snipe at each other and the posts become little more than the actions of apes beating their chests in an attempt to show superiority. Meanwhile, there's another bunch of kids who all think, it's a "bit silly", waiting patiently for someone to solve the riddle and give their reasoning and evidence to breathe life back into the subject.

Finally, my apologies for not using the word you wish to hear, "paranormal" only, I tend to steer away from such pejorative terms. An ostrich wandering in front of camera on a Crete cliff top is both anomalous and mundane at the same time. That's why I used the term anomalous in the first place. Then again it might well be you don't really have much experience of this sort of study, so it's perfectly understandable that, you have no real grasp of the subtle differentials of terminology, those more experienced, prefer to use.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
At 1:38 in this video you can see the effects of three drops of water on a camera lens, and it's easy to realize that's what they are in a video. But in a still like the Crete photo, given the placement of the arifact, it's not nearly as easy to make the case for a little moisture, even in an M-class environment.

Paint it Black--Vietnam War



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FireMoon
{Wall-o-text snipped}

It was probably enough that it all began with an only-slightly veiled ad hominem.. but then my eyes glazed over.

TL;DR.

And apart from the fact that you, unlike me, never even bothered to offer anything close to 'analysis', instead preferring to simply dismiss, without justification, other people's work...

... you still didn't answer the questions. Bit too complicated, were they?


bybye.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Would it be out of the question for the UO to be a result of image capture while the shutter closes over the lens?

As in the 'wing' behind is the shutter closing, the 'sphere' is the lens, and the front 'wing' is the shutter opening. And since the camera is tilted down and a little to the left, the UO was caught above and a little to the right during this process.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by dudeawesome
 


If im understanding you right a semi closed shutter would not the show picture you see nor create UO due to reflection of internal mechanism of the camera.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure how that process works, or if it could do what I suggested which would almost be an overlay of 4 pictures together or a time lapse error during image capture. It's what I came up with for a malfunction inside the camera. I have also noticed something else that would be outside the camera.

In image 3134 of the OP there is a small spec above the bushes that looks like it could be a distant object in the vicinity of where the UO is depicted. I don't think it is something on the windshield because there are no streaks around it and the complexion of the other streaks of dirt on the windshield are generally lighter.

However it isn't in the shot of 3136 that I can see, and it isn't exactly compelling, so I'm not sure what to make of it.
edit on 2-11-2012 by dudeawesome because: image fix



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by dudeawesome
 

Hey dude,

I saw that and dismissed it as being "on the windshield" - but after revisiting this photo, there is a small shape that seems interesting, and very possibly not on the windshield. Is it proof of anything? No - but it is still very interesting! It is from the photo you showed - I centered your "speck" - is this what you are seeing??

peace,
AB









edit on 2-11-2012 by AboveBoard because: photo fix
edit on 2-11-2012 by AboveBoard because: tweaking...
edit on 2-11-2012 by AboveBoard because: image came through finally...



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by AboveBoard
 


Yea that's it! I think it's odd that in this particular place on the windshield is the only spec on the whole thing and it just happens to be in the general direction of the bay of where the UO will be located, if you imagine the spec staying stationary and the car moving up to where the photograph was taken.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by dudeawesome
 


I looked at it again - I'm having a little trouble identifying distances, etc. I think if the speck is the UO, then it moved slightly inland towards the second pic. Not saying I have it down though. I do think that pulling the camera to the right from the earlier photo, and being closer to the "big rock" formation pulls "the speck" in closer to the right position, and being closer to it would make it appear bigger without it moving, but it seems so significantly bigger, I would guess (and its a 100% "eyeballing it" with no math involved guess! lol!) that it moved inland somewhat - and that's assuming it isn't a smudge on the windshield in the first pic! So... So much for my scientific (ahem) analysis. I REALLY hope someone else will play with this that knows more about it - could even run an animation or something between the pics as if the "speck" were the UO. Just for fun... Could be interesting... Well. Dang. I'm going to have to go back through this thread. I know I'm not quite remembering some info that would be interesting, and the speck may already have been talked about, too.


peace,
AB
edit on 2-11-2012 by AboveBoard because: to add ...



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   
It looks like there is definitely something in img3134 that resembles the UO. You will have to scroll right until you see the box I put in. I can't upload to ATS because of noscript or something not sure so this is the best I can get done sorry for such a huge image.




*hoping this embeds image correctly. Utilizing my sick paint skills I put a box around the object. It appears to be similar in shape as far as I can tell and looks to be in the appropriate position just further back on the horizon. My paint skills aren't actually that sick so if someone else can do the same type of photo shop magic that was done on the original picture it will be great.
edit on 11/3/2012 by sputniksteve because: embedding image
edit on 11/3/2012 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
The "photographer did not see the object while taking the picture" always raises a flag for me


I don't like agreeing with you as you always take the fun out of everything but I can't help it now


If that is something in the distance then it is big, and there is no way she would not have noticed a UFO that size while she is staring out in that direction and taking photographs, sorry, but it's either a hoax, image anomally or something floating past fairly close



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
It looks like there is definitely something in img3134 that resembles the UO. You will have to scroll right until you see the box I put in.


If you zoom in to that space and can see it on a pixel basis, it's fairly clear (in my opinion) that what you have in that spot is a compression artifact. The variance is almost exactly the same as the compression artifacts near it, there is just a concentration in that spot.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by LEL01
 

That was my first post here, I just wanted to creep in and creep out again.
I want to add that it was Omega Logos who noticed the light on the UO was from the sun hitting the _
That made sense to me because I could see it in the mirror and the UO is more or less the same shape as the nirror, flat along the bottom, rounded at the top left and thrown out of shape by the light on the right.
I'm not clever enough to say how this happened but I do think it's because the photo was taken through a mirror. I think Druid might be right about the light messing with the sensor.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Hmmm, interesting how you can state a compression anomaly in one photo, but not in any of the others. A compression anomaly indicates a software created artifact. If it's possible in one photo, shouldn't it be possible in others?

I had to step back from this thread, and think about it for a while. Still mulling ideas, and still lurking and reading responses.





new topics
top topics
 
377
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join