Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

page: 73
377
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
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.

Yes! Here are again my calculations for the readers not to go through 72 pages to find these:



I refined my estimation here of the photographer position, and have done some calculation to estimate where the object can be, depends of its distance to the camera.
If we assume "A" is where the photographer was standing, "B" the main rock to the left and "C" the small rock to the right, then we have:





....with the two red arrows that define the FOV of the shot and the green arrow the axis where the object is.

Then we have a problem here, if I'm right (I could be wrong and if so, someone, please correct me!) the photographer position can't be closer to the rocks, otherwise these will be out of sight.
So, there's roughly 50m between the two rocks and the photographer and if the object is located at these 50m, then it have a size of .... 1.47m, which is quite big for a plastic bag!
If it's located 10m away, then it is far much closer from the photographer than the rocks and than previously thought and I have some difficulties to still see it as a plastic bag.


Originally posted by Chadwickus
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...

Like CHRLZ, I would be glad to help, but my *poor* Canon Powershoot A720IS is light-years away behind the S100....

I think anyway it worth a try, in a sunny day (not today... rainy day...), with the same sun elevation and angle with the camera.

Here are the full tests and technical specifications of the Canon Powershot S100, if someone have a camera that have closer settings to it than mine...
edit on 24-11-2012 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-11-2012 by elevenaugust because: typo




posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


I think your calculation is a little off. Obviously the image was taken while on the road, not off the road. That would put rock A and B a little closer together, so that means you can also move the camera closer to rocks A and B to match up their positions in the FOV.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminated0ne
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


I think your calculation is a little off. Obviously the image was taken while on the road, not off the road. That would put rock A and B a little closer together, so that means you can also move the camera closer to rocks A and B to match up their positions in the FOV.


Why did the aliens drop the cloak?

Putting on an air show?

It worked!



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I think this is a photoshopped hoax.

The position of the UFO in the image screams, "Premeditated!". It is almost perfectly centered in the window, and pretty much perfectly centered in the sky between the top of the image and the horizon.



That is too perfect to be an "accident" like claimed, in my opinion. Sure it could be a complete coincidence... but to me it looks like whoever made this hoax didn't think much about the position, and how it relates to their story, so they just centered the UFO in the image without thought.

The photographer claims they didn't see the UFO when taking the picture, and only noticed it later when looking at the images. Well, the chances of taking a random picture and later going back and finding a UFO near perfectly centered in the frame are very low. That alone stinks like a hoax.

I don't care how innocent the lady sounds to you people who talked to her. I don't care if she doesn't seem to have a motive. It wouldn't be the first time a seemingly normal and sincere person made a UFO hoax just to do it.



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   




Why are the goats looking at the UFO ???


It must be real !



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TauCetixeta
Why did the aliens drop the cloak?

Putting on an air show?

It worked!



Originally posted by TauCetixeta
Why are the goats looking at the UFO ???


It must be real !


This is a completely honest and sincere question...

Are you mentally challenged?



posted on Nov, 24 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seeee

Originally posted by TauCetixeta
Why did the aliens drop the cloak?

Putting on an air show?

It worked!



Originally posted by TauCetixeta
Why are the goats looking at the UFO ???


It must be real !


This is a completely honest and sincere question...

Are you mentally challenged?


I want to believe !


The X Files was my favorite TV Show.

Don't you remember?

"Mr. Mulder -they have been here for a long time-.

More info here:

Alien Interview

Her name was Airl.



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I still think its this www.ufocasebook.com... I found on UFO casebook.

I think the aliens are on holiday again. Why not.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Ok. Um, I clicked on the link for this article expecting to see some blurry, out of focus, ridiculous photo...

I'm not so sure what to think at the moment. That is not something I could honestly identify if I was put under oath.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by RUFFREADY
 


Your link shows something extremely similar. I could easily agree with you that they may be of the same technology if not the same object itself.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Seeee
 


I would be of the same mind, but if I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the OP, I would have to admit I don't have any idea what the object actually is.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
I still think its this www.ufocasebook.com... I found on UFO casebook.

I think the aliens are on holiday again. Why not.

Hi RUFFREADY, I looked up the photo you describe, and the story of the pic is interesting/similar:
"2003-Iceland. Photo taken in Lyngdalsheidi, Iceland on March 29, 2003. This is an extremely interesting photo. It was taken by a 40 year old man, through his car's windshield. He was only trying to capture the extraordinarily beautiful landscape when he snapped the photo. He did not see the unknown object when the picture was taken, but noticed later when uploading to his computer."



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by lyingunderoath
 


Thanks for that! I think thats the ticket!

Well, until we meet again, the case is sol-ved.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by RUFFREADY
 


No, it's not solved based on that old "sighting".

www.ufocasebook.com...

The only similarities between the two sightings is the fact that the person "didn't see the UFO" when taking the picture. Other than that, no similarities.

It's obvious in the above image that the windshield of the vehicle is cracked on the bottom. I would even imagine the "UFO" is a chip in the glass, which is often the source of many UFO. Just Google "windshield chip" and click the "Images" link and scroll down to look at all the possible UFOs.

This Crete UFO was not taken through a window glass. The window was down. So, I don't see any similarities.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Seeee
 





I think this is a photoshopped hoax.


then....
clearly you didn't read the OP, or skimmed through it fairly quickly...you're thoughts don't coincide with experts in such matters..



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


Along with about half the people posting. They either didn't read it or did and didn't comprehend what they read. I think the belief this isn't hoaxed is the 1 thing the professionals do agree on. I still think this is a really interesting photo, and still hope we wil be able to come to an agreed conclusion eventually. I say we but I mean them because I have no skills that could assist in finding that answer.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


Your argument from authority is quite ignorant.

Just because an "expert" says something, doesn't mean it's true. With that said, I am an expert too. Probably with more experience than Jeff Ritzmann.

I can easily make a hoax that would make experts think it is real. Actually, it is quite simple.

Most of Jeff Ritzmann's "analysis" is based on visual cues. All of which can easily be faked without any indications of manipulation.

Here is Jeff's main arguments against the object being a digital composite:



7) Digital Composite (hoax)
-Object shows channel specific data not visible in the combined channel, or "normal" viewing mode. Such data is more visible in LAB color mode in the A channel with simple "auto level adjust" operation in photoshop.
-No evidence of composite edge, or poor alpha channel mask.
-Pixels of image seem consistent throughout.


With a simple google search, any hoaxer can figure out how to make their image contain the properties above. That makes the above arguments invalid.

Also, I am pretty sure everyone has agreed that this sighting is inconclusive and will remain inconclusive.
edit on 3-12-2012 by Seeee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Seeee
 


Did you take into account the other professionals and their opinions as well? Thats great you are a also a pro, can you give us any more information on your opinion that its a hoax? I don't think Komodo statement was as much an argument from authority as much as hint to you that if it was a hoax at this point one of the many other pros would have also picked up on this seemingly obvious conclusion. I agree if it was a page one comment based only on Jeffs analysis you could argue that, but we are quite a bit passed that I think.

So instead for the sake of all involved could you give us your in depth analysis? I would think for someone that is a pro, even better than Jeff probably, providing us with your incite should be easy. Not to mention the clout you would get from coming in a thread this late and proving all these so called pros wrong with something as simple as a photo shop hoax would be worth your time.

There is always the option of putting your money where your mouth is, and making a hoaxed photo that non of these guys are able to spot. Either way now is the time to step up to the plate and set us all straight. The ball is already in the air, go ahead and hit it out of the park.



posted on Dec, 3 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by Komodo
 


Along with about half the people posting. They either didn't read it or did and didn't comprehend what they read. I think the belief this isn't hoaxed is the 1 thing the professionals do agree on. I still think this is a really interesting photo, and still hope we wil be able to come to an agreed conclusion eventually. I say we but I mean them because I have no skills that could assist in finding that answer.


Even without skills, you always present a rational position. Kudos.

It's people like you that make ATS great, providing balance, yet remaining optimistic.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


Here is my professional opinion of the image:

It is a well known fact that the further an object is from an observer in an atmosphere, the more Rayleigh scattering affects the light that the object is emitting or reflecting towards the observer, and it causes what some refer to as an "atmospheric haze" in front of the object. An example of Rayleigh scattering is visible when looking at the land mass in the distant background of the Crete image, and taking note of its light blue appearance.

A not-so-well-known fact is that Rayleigh scattering tends to make the edges of objects much more "hazy" and or "blurry" than the rest of the object when the background is brighter than the object. That is because the brighter background creates a soft shadow on the object visible by the observer, and the penumbra of the shadow causes the edges of the object to appear lighter to the observer, forming a type of "light bloom" around the edges. The lighter edges of the object caused by the penumbra are then affected by Rayleigh scattering, and that causes the edges of objects to appear more "hazy" and "blurry" than the rest of the object. Again, an example of this is visible on the land mass in the distant background when looking at the edges that meet the sky. You can see the edge is not very sharp, it is soft. You still with me?

It is my opinion that the creators of this HOAX lacked knowledge of light and physics, and used a common technique for faking the "atmospheric haze" on the object. The common technique for faking "atmospheric haze" on a composited object is simply making the object semi-transparent so that the color of the background sky blends with the colors of the object. The problem with that technique is that it only simulates "atmospheric haze" on the body, and it does not successfully simulate how the edges of said object would look with real "atmospheric haze" in real lighting conditions.

It is my opinion that the edges of the object are too sharp for the amount of "haze" that it appears to have. The amount of "blue haze" visible on the object would indicate that object is very far away, however the edges of the object are far too sharp, and don't appear to show any real "haze" effects, indicating the object is closer (which is a conflict). The sharp edges are an indicator that the "haze" is faked by using the common technique explained above. It also indicates the object was probably cut and pasted, or rendered, or created from a completely different light environment or with no lighting taken into account, because the edges of the object are far too dark, and don't show any type of "light bloom" or penumbra effect that are often visible when the background is brighter than the object.

Also, the fact that the bright specular highlight on the object is slightly blue in color also indicates the common fake haze technique describe above was used. When they made the object semi-transparent to fake "atmospheric haze" they also caused the specular highlight to become blue. In reality, specular highlights are a higher intensity light which causes them to be less affected by Rayleigh scattering, so they should not show "haze" or be slightly blue.

A lot of the above can all be explained away if you just consider the object itself is blue in color, close to the camera, and small. However, that doesn't explain why the specular highlight is slightly blue. The only argument that would explain the slight blue color of the highlight is that the object is slightly matte, and not very glossy. However, matte highlights have very smooth edges. In my opinion, the edges of the specular highlight itself appear too sharp for the object to be matte. The sharpness of the edges of the specular highlight on the object indicates the object is glossy, but the color of the highlight itself indicates the object is matte (which is another conflict).

My conclusion is that the lighting and haze effects are artificial... fake. The hoaxer must have not known two key things about light in order to make the errors that are plainly obvious to me. They didn't blend the edges of the object enough when trying to fake atmospheric haze, and they applied fake atmospheric haze to a glossy specular highlight which is just wrong.

Combine that with the obviously staged position of the UFO which I commented on earlier, and you have yourself a CGI hoax.
edit on 4-12-2012 by Seeee because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
377
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join