Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

page: 72
377
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
What is it exactly that you want me to say?

I was hoping you would simply answer the question bolded below, which I've now asked THREE times. You refuse to even acknowledge it, let alone quote it, let alone answer it:

Do you still claim that the only explanation for the colour/brightness of that object is distance haze?

You could have simply said "Woops, yes, that stuff I said about it having to be distant is not correct, sorry" and all would be well. But now, it seems pretty clear why you won't answer it...


That I could be wrong? Everyone can be wrong, me included, which I have said as well through this thread...so what's your point other than constant one upmanship here?

When I make a specific error, I fess up and even try to help the eager audience to see where I went wrong and how the 'analysis' could now be improved. I'm funny like that - when something is incorrect, I like to make sure it is acknowledged and fixed and that everyone learns something from it.

That's constant "one upmanship"? - or could it possibly be that I'm just trying to make sure the correct information stands..?


You're older than me? Really? Are we going to that? Seems rather juvenile.

So.. when you say that you've been at this for 26+ years (a theme you've repeated several times in this thread) it's justified, but when I respond (quite politely) by saying how long I've been at it, it is "rather juvenile"? OK - nice to see that you don't engage in personal attacks...


My point was that it *isn't* about experience or how much money you make - it's about whether the stuff you post is correct, on the day. I would have thought that point was pretty obvious when I mentioned Jaime Maussan...


Again, I will be specific - here in your quoted report and here and here is where you said:

..the object does exhibit atmospheric haze one would expect to see in a solid object of some distance away..
.. it's level of atmospheric haze indicates to me it is of some distance away and of substantial size..
...
{The object is} .. further away than the mound..
.. highly unlikely to me that this is anything close..
...
..I know distance haze when I see it. And I see it here..


Those statements are all flawed/incorrect. Specifically, you cannot possibly make any determination about distance of an object via haze effects UNLESS:
1. The colour and brightness of the object is KNOWN. It isn't.
OR
2. The object is darker or more contrasty than it could possibly be (and thereby CLOSER) than if it was affected by measurable haze. That does NOT apply here - it's the reverse situation!

Elevenaugust went into this in quite some detail earlier, Phage seems to agree, and frankly, I don't think those two facts are in dispute. So your claims that it is "further away than the mound ...{and}... highly unlikely to me that this is anything close" are simply not correct. The object could simply BE that colour and brightness.

And if anyone else asks nicely, I'll demonstrate what I mean (but read elevenaugust's post first)...


Stop misrepresenting that as "claims".

How ironic. I've stated VERY clearly what claim I am disputing. Read the quotes above. And answer the question:

Do you still claim that the only explanation for the colour/brightness of that object is distance haze?


I note that you avoid the fact that 99.9% of all the evidence presented to me from here I've I.D.'d as fakes.

How is that relevant to a mistake you may have made here?


Yet you presume to take me to task because of something I don't know?

Like I said - ironic - I NEVER took you to task on stuff you didn't know - I specifically told you what I thought was wrong.


I explained my take on the density haze, and that's my take. Don't like it?

No, I don't. It's demonstrably wrong and should be withdrawn.


Great, as I said - next time you can do the work when Mark asks you. He will ask you won't he?

Good to see that you don't do any of that "one upmanship"...


so I won't be responding again to some anonymous online facade

OK. I'd rather the error be corrected - and I'm quite happy to elaborate further - but it seems at least one person won't engage in further debate or a step by step analysis of exactly why the It-looks-hazy-so-it-must-be-distant" claim is simply wrong...




posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Looks like one of those ancient vimanas that appear in far east mythology.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
tommytoy.typepad.com...
Could it maybe be one of these a box wing aircraft seen from the front although I don't know if any of these have gone into production yet?
edit on 22-11-2012 by cookiemonster32 because: Link was not working



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by jritzmann
What is it exactly that you want me to say?

I was hoping you would simply answer the question bolded below, which I've now asked THREE times. You refuse to even acknowledge it, let alone quote it, let alone answer it:

Do you still claim that the only explanation for the colour/brightness of that object is distance haze?


How many times is it going to be said before it gets through?

I don't know what it is. (So how can one claim to know the actual color? Hello???) What I am saying is with a specular highlight such as is present, I think atmospheric haze is a reasonable statement to make. You disagree, that's fine. I don't know how far it is. Neither do you. I do think it's some distance away, not only due to distance haze, but the clarity issues of the object as compared to surrounding demonstrably closer objects. Could I be wrong? (For the billionth time) Yes. But I don't think I am, or I wouldn't have said it in the first place.

Close? Great. Show me the shadow on the ground which by all tells should be there.

Again, this wasn't worth your time. So what do you care? The reason I mention my time involved in this field is because people want to know who they're reading a report from. You mention it as some vain attempt to one-up someone you think you simply must de-throne (as if there was a throne to begin with) to make some "name" for yourself.

I mention the fact that 99.9% of what I've found here or been presented with have been fakes, because if I didn't think there was something interesting here I wouldn't say so. It's called track record. People like to know that too, although this seems to mean little to you - your reply in turn speaks more to again some sort of troll personality.

I'm not going down this road as it's counter productive. So you can continue to harp. I'm not wasting time playing with you.
edit on 23-11-2012 by jritzmann because: addition



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by cookiemonster32
 


I think the passengers in the vehicle would definitely have seen such a thing, and I don't think it really falls into the shape we're looking at.



posted on Nov, 23 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Hi, I'm on the side of folks who feel for whatever reason her camera did capture an image of a UFO. Front, back, side, we don't know, but not the classic saucer shape. Most feel such craft would come from a very advanced technology, maybe thousands, even millions of years older than ours. If so, they probably do utilize, manipulate physics we don't even dream of today. Perhaps our concept of speed, of movement does not apply to them. A biological living occupant may not even be needed for the craft. Only a couple decade's ago many felt what our military drones could do today, was just a dream. I feel the fact the folk's involved say they didn't see the object, for me gives the object another layer of it's mystery. As of today, we can't explain it, maybe never will. Many just don't believe such things exist, and have a right to their opinion. I encourage their hard work to explain what the image is, in much more mundane terms for us. It's only been a couple of months since Springer started this thread.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Do you still claim that the only explanation for the colour/brightness of that object is distance haze?

I don't know what it is.

Sigh. I asked specifically about distance haze being the only factor for the colour. So again, rather than answer the question, he answered a different question.


(So how can one claim to know the actual color? Hello???)

Which was my point right from the start. What's more, near Greece/Crete, a light coloured bluish white plastic or paper bag is hardly going to be a surprise... So why did he say "I know distance haze when I see it", other than to justify/reinforce the supposedly 'analytical' claim about how distant it was?

A good analysis does not dismiss possibilities (or in this case likelihoods) like that.


What I am saying is with a specular highlight such as is present, I think atmospheric haze is a reasonable statement to make.

?? That doesn't follow. A specular highlight is simply a very bright area caused by a reflection off something that is highly reflective. If it were chrome (or reflective mylar), we would see a very sharp and dazzling reflection that would likely overload the sensor and blow it to 255/255/255. But if it is, say, slightly matt (as are most plastic shopping bags...), then the reflection will be less. In this case, it is about 217/231/242. In simple terms - that's a very light bluish-white. And if we accept it is a reflection (- it could have a significant transparency component) then of course the reflected light will be bluish white given the bright sun and glary blue sky.. and then there is that possibility that the bag is bluish anyway.

And yet someone here knows distance haze when they see it ...


You disagree, that's fine.

I most certainly do.. but as this business about the alleged haze making the object distant WAS A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE 'ANALYSIS', then I think it it needs to be corrected. That's a little different from a couple of anonymous posters disagreeing...

Indeed, if the analysis contains arguable interpretations that the author won't bother debating in proper detail, then what is it worth ...?


I don't know how far it is.

???? Previously, he said:

..the object does exhibit atmospheric haze one would expect to see in a solid object of some distance away..
.. it's level of atmospheric haze indicates to me it is of some distance away and of substantial size..
...
{The object is} .. further away than the mound..
.. highly unlikely to me that this is anything close..

These claims were in the analysis and reinforced in later posts. So why the turnaround, I wonder?


Could I be wrong? Yes. ..But I don't think I am, or I wouldn't have said it in the first place.

But there's the problem - he first said it in what was a supposed analysis.


Show me the shadow on the ground which by all tells should be there.

What??? If the object was closer - let's take a wild (and wide stab) at anywhere from 5 - 50 metres away - the shadow would be behind the mirror. This is very trivial geometry - look at the shadow angles on the goats and apply it to the 'object', taking into account the perspective of the sloping terrain... Here's a picture showing what should be pretty obvious...

Any questions?

I rest my case about the quality of this 'analysis'.. To reiterate:

1. The colour and brightness of that object IS NOT necessarily due to haze and CANNOT be used to determine distance.

and I'll now add..

2. If the object was a plastic bag at any distance from about 5-50 metres, any ground shadow (if it WAS distinct, given the bags possibly semi-transparent nature and/or terrain issues) would NOT be visible in that image simply because of the position of the mirror.


Again, if anyone else has problems with my comments and/or wants clarifying information, let me know. I'm happy to continue offering information (I don't call it 'playing'..).
edit on 24-11-2012 by CHRLZ because: spelin erur



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   
I would like to point out that while her camera appears to be a happy snapper ,proffesional photographers don't just have one camera they normally have several expensive ones with massive lenses for zoom shots or macro shots I have a canon eos 500d while not being the most expensive one around I wouldn't like to have it hanging out of a car window on a bumpy dusty gravel road just to take a picture of goats walking on the road only to put it back in its protective case only to haul it out again around the next corner because there is an interesting bush or something so my point is that for the photo's she wanted to take a happy snapper like she is using is perfectly acceptable according to me.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


I agree, if the object is close, the shadow will be hidden by the mirror.

If the shot was taken a fraction of a second later, the object probably would have moved into a place where the shadow would be visible.



edit on 24/11/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
I agree, if the object is close, the shadow will be hidden by the mirror.

If the shot was taken a fraction of a second later, the object probably would have moved into a place where the shadow would be visible.


Thanks, CW, nice to see you're still around and adding a voice of reason..


I'd be interested to hear your overall opinion - do you see anything in that image that is inconsistent with a windblown plastic/paper bag?

And forgive me for being a devil's avocado
, but do you reckon further investigation will reveal anything useful?

cheers, c



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
For # Sake! u guys its a UFO end of story



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


I wasn't around when this one broke so have kept out of it till now, mostly because others have done a good job on taking it apart.

I can see where Jeff is coming from in regards to the distance haze that appears to be there, the fact that the shadow could be hidden adds to the ambiguity of it though.



but do you reckon further investigation will reveal anything useful?


I think the next step is to try and replicate the plastic bag theory.

Thanks to elevenaugust we have a reasonable estimate in size and distance, off the top of my head it was 30cm in size at a distance of 10 metres.

A typical plastic shopping bag fits the size perfectly, so ideally we need to find someone with a Canon powershot S100 and gets some shots of the plastic bag at 10 metres distance and with a focal point of 0.58m

May or may not help, but ya never know...



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
I think the next step is to try and replicate the plastic bag theory.

Fairy nuff.
Obviously, replicating it exactly will not be possible or realistic, but I might have a go..


A typical plastic shopping bag fits the size perfectly

I've already rounded up a couple of suitably sized and coloured bags...


so ideally we need to find someone with a Canon powershot S100 and gets some shots of the plastic bag at 10 metres distance and with a focal point of 0.58m

You gunna buy me one?
Nearest camera I have is an SX130IS, and I'm not really that interested in getting an S100. The SX130IS is capable of emulating the S100 very well, but has a smaller sensor. That means that the depth of field is not going to be the same, so to get as close as possible I would need to tweak the focus distance / aperture a little...

Having said that.. I've already made some comments about the difficulty of usefully measuring the sharpness of the thingamajig (that's a technical term in forensic imaging analysis..). The amount of blur (some of which may even be motion blur) is so near to the resolution limit of the image, it is not going to be much of a guide in helping to determine distance behind / in front of the focus plane.

Anyway, doing such tests will take a fair bit of time and it isn't 'xactly my highest priority right now (besides, it's *dark* here...) so don't hold your breath, dear readers..


BTW, my thanks to the lurkers for the stars!



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Seems we're on the same train of thoughts anyway at least.

Appreciate the effort guys like yourself and Jeff have put into it (even if you guys are butting heads)!



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I say it is an unidentified aerial phenomenon and I am sticking to that.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 

what do you think of this


also this one thanks

i thought this was a comet/asteroid
edit on 24/11/2012 by maryhinge because: (no reason given)
edit on 24/11/2012 by maryhinge because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


I think the next step is to try and replicate the plastic bag theory.

Thanks to elevenaugust we have a reasonable estimate in size and distance, off the top of my head it was 30cm in size at a distance of 10 metres.

A typical plastic shopping bag fits the size perfectly,


YES! let's do that now, because over 70 punishing pages discussing a plastic bag sure isn't enough for me.
edit on 24-11-2012 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


Gotta be thorough Zaz

Painstakingly, pretentiously thorough




posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


Hi there Springer excellent post ,I am totally sure this is a UFO because I looked very very carefully in IMG 3134 and if you look from the right of the picture count four bushes to the left and above the fourth biggish one about an index finger width up you can see something in the distance coming from where the UFO in the main picture looks to be coming from and I don't think its a spot on the windscreen there are some but they are much darker.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


That looks like a small spacecraft from the Andromeda Council.

More info here:

Biospheres Ready To Go

Apparently, the Arcturians are in charge. Go ahead and view all of the slides.
Something big is going to happen soon.
We have reached the end of a very long journey. We are not alone.
Time has run out. The magnetic poles on the Earth flip every 20,000 years.
It will happen again soon.





new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join