Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

page: 70
377
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


That was one big pic. Here it is resized:


I think the artifact you drew a box around is just a dried water droplet, such as what we see on the sideview mirror. Also noticed the windshield streak.

That pic was shot throughout the windshield, so of course we'll get a dried water drop blur to show up. That's the Occam explanation.




posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by LEL01
 





I think Druid might be right about the light messing with the sensor.


I'm still trying to get my head around that. Still, I'm going with software artifact, or secondly, reflection anomaly.

Until it is soundly refuted, I think that is the best explanation so far. Nobody has proven it is neither of those. For that matter, we haven't proven anything yet. A real toughy here. I am simply sticking to what I think it is.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 


I agree that it leaves a lot to be desired. But it would lend itself to the power-kite explanation. As in it got whipped across the bay and zipped up to be photographed for our UO shot.

Only 2 pics were referenced in the OP, img 3137 and img 3134. Reading throughout this thread I have found reference to img 3136 and I'm not sure how it got brought in. Is there more pics that we can take a gander at --namely img 3135 and 3138 or others?



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by dudeawesome
 


Try this.

The others are posted in there somewhere.....I used Search to find those two. Not sure what you are after.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 


Thanks for the quick reply! The only image I see on that page is 3136 and the UO pic, which I have seen. I was wondering how 3136 got introduced to the thread and if there were more were it came from.

The photo's in the OP are huge, but I can't find one of 3136 that big, or any others.

Probably not surprisingly the search tool didn't cross my mind...lol. So I did a search for 'img 3135' and 3138 and came up with ziltch. I thought maybe there was a group of photo's uploaded somewhere by the OP that weren't listed in the OP.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by dudeawesome
 



I was wondering how 3136 got introduced to the thread and if there were more were it came from.


3136 is the 5 seconds before
www.abovetopsecret.com...

ETA: This has 3138
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 3-11-2012 by DenyObfuscation because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druid42
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.


Actually, I referenced compression artifacts in a number of my observations. They are present in all of the pictures, because she didn't have the camera set to RAW mode, so the camera compressed the images (slightly) at the time that they were taken.

However, compression artifacts are a known thing that anyone can take note of, and once you know what you're looking for, you'll never look at another non-RAW photo the same way again.
And the anomaly is most definitely not a compression artifact.

Compression artifact example



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Hmm interesting people are proposing compression error or unintended artifact. Yes that may be best explanation for one photo but other cant be explained that way so it i mute. If u have earthly explanation for best pic then u have a valid argument. THANK to OP for thorough analysis in opening post. Suggestion, don't even bother responding to debunker as u will never convince them or change their mind and it just gives them more attention, this post is for open minded people in the UFO feild. It is so had to convince a non believer because one incident on its own is never proof and u have to study field for year to build enough knowledge to say the most statistical probability is UFO visitation as to explain a million cases differently would have to involve mass hallucination, secret Gov aircraft 10x what we can imagine and super rich anonymous party that gets materials from outta space to create implants to put in people after they abduct them in alien suits/makeup. Also have to be powerful enough to convince nasa somethings happening and fool 13 odd astronauts into believing we visited by Aliens. And the hardest part is finding motive!

I think this is a good case for the files



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
So what's the opinion of the person who actually took the photograph?

It's a little disappointing that after a multitude of proposed theories (and not a few man-hours of clicking, pasting and typing) by the good folk of ATS we've had no feedback from the people who were actually at the scene and were best placed to judge if any of the ventured explanations could be possible.

Presuming they've read all of this, what's their take on it? Rational explanation or genuine UFO?



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Silver Star
 


"Shooter" has read a large portion of this thread, and (like myself) has found no real good explanations have really been brought forward. They are as perplexed as everyone else, and like me, make no solid judgement as to what the object is. We simply don't know.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 

Just to be clear, have you ruled out the ideas that the light on the UO is from the sun hitting the side of the car which can be seen in the mirror and that the UO is the mirror, or the idea that it could be that light messing with the camera's sensor?
I think these are good explanations. I'm not any kind of an expert but we all know how pictuers with mirrors can cause problems. Just asking to be sure incase you missed those posts.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by LEL01
 


Yes.

To the degree we are seeing here - essentially calling it a lens flare, or an internal light aberration? It doesn't work for me. I have a bunch of photos in sequence, which have the same environment and scenarios of shooting, in which such an aberration (if even remotely possible) isn't present in any way shape of form.

A "happy accident" as Bob Ross would say? There's simply too many other issues there that don't add up - some relating to the UO and a premise as you suggest, and issues non-related to that pertaining directly to the UO.

Believe me, I've considered a hell of a lot of "maybes" in the month I worked on it. And while I have not spent gobs of time on it lately, it is frequently on my screen during down time, where I continue to pick it apart.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 

Thank you for your reply, I'm just calling it the mirror, the clever stuff is a bit over my head for now.

For my peace of mind, can you tell me if the side of the car can be seen down the edge of the mirror in any of the other pictures? Also the sun on the ladies face and sun glasses which might be from a reflection in the mirror, although i could be wrong about that.

I do believe you, I just have a dislike of pictures with mirrors and I have that need to know like everyone.
Thanks.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by LEL01
 


I'm not sure if I'm understanding the question correctly, but there are other shots that yes, are the same configuration of angles and elements that show no UO.

No, the reflection of the light on her, is not from the mirror.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 

In the picture with the UO you can see where the sun hits the side of the car down the right edge of the mirror. This is not in the five seconds before picture. The light on the ladies face and sunglasses is also not in the other picture, thats why I thought it could be a reflection from the mirror.
I'm only looking at these two pictures, I hope that makes more sense.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Notice the line the sun creates.



Now notice the apparent multi-faceted stone catching the edge of that light. You can see a tip glowing ever so slightly.


Coupled with the mirror facing back to the camera, its possibly some sort of anomaly created by these conditions.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Castellan
 


If you note in the photo crops you posted, the edge of the window behind her is catching the majority of highlight. The edge you see on her face is from the blocking of the edge of that window, not from the mirror. I'm not in any way no light is being reflected in the mirror - but not directly light such as that - not by a long shot. If you've ever been driving and had the sun catch in your rear view - it's blinding. The side mirror btw, would not be angled outward, but inward, which reflects more of the dark inside the vehicle than anything else.

And I have to ask - a diamond ring caught by the sun, reflected into a mirror and then back through a lens, to a CCD and recorded as a domed structure and all it's apparent points of interest - is it just me or does anyone else find that to be completely incredulous? I encourage anyone who thinks that's the answer to try it. Shouldn't be horrifyingly difficult.
edit on 14-11-2012 by jritzmann because: addition



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
And I have to ask - a diamond ring caught by the sun, reflected into a mirror and then back through a lens, to a CCD and recorded as a domed structure and all it's apparent points of interest - is it just me or does anyone else find that to be completely incredulous?


It doesn't matter -- for about the millionth time, there is nothing in that space for the image to be reflecting off of, so whatever it is cannot be a reflection. It's either a real object, or it is something randomly manufactured by the camera. I think the latter borders on impossible, for reasons that I've cited earlier in the thread, so my conclusion is that there is a real object in that space, one which remains unidentified.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


You're preaching to the choir here. I see nothing whatsoever in the argument for reflections or refraction of any kind producing an image like that. That's my whole point.





new topics
top topics
 
377
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join