Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

page: 74
377
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 





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.


yes..

that's exactly what I was hinting at ..




posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
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.


totally ..

agreed.. and I'll be waiting with anticapation !



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Seeee
 


hmmmm.....

so where in the exfil data is that located .. because, from the OP, the owner did actually provided the original data...so, either the effects were added after the exfil was examied meaning Springer (ATS) or someone else who hand their hands on the raw data manipulated the imagine, or it was added before..

which leaves me totally confused as to what method your trying to say how the 'effects' were added to make it a hoax in your mind.. ??

please clarify



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


Don't you know that EXIF data can be edited?

Here are a few programs that edit EXIF data:

www.photome.de...
www.colorpilot.com...
www.opanda.com...
exifpilot.com...
www.gimphoto.com...

Checking EXIF data is not a fool proof technique for detecting manipulation. EXIF data can easily be saved before manipulation, than reloaded after manipulation to remove any trace of manipulation.... That EXIF data was most likely modified before being sent to ATS.
edit on 4-12-2012 by Seeee because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
What I find most disappointing here is that after 74 pages we are left with the same [snip] I thought to begin with, that being:

1. Its real, terrestrial.
2. Its real, extraterrestrial.
3. Its not real.

Tell me, what am I to believe?

Is this the nature of the subject at hand - I think so.

After monitoring this thread since its inception, I am frustrated, to say the least!



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublimecraft
What I find most disappointing here is that after 74 pages we are left with the same [snip] I thought to begin with, that being:

1. Its real, terrestrial.
2. Its real, extraterrestrial.
3. Its not real.

Tell me, what am I to believe?

Is this the nature of the subject at hand - I think so.

After monitoring this thread since its inception, I am frustrated, to say the least!


agreed...
sublimecraft~!



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:29 AM
link   
here's what I know about about Jeff Ritzmann, the ATS Image Analyst

I didn't know he was the resident Image Analyst for ATS, at least according to this article ..



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Should this be in the HOAX bin till proven otherwise ??

like most of the other ones are ??

1) Did we ever get any exfil data posted on ATS as of yet..
1a) if so, has anyone scoured the data to find any anomolies?



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seeee
..the further an object is from an observer in an atmosphere, the more Rayleigh scattering .. and it causes what some refer to as an "atmospheric haze" in front of the object.

Yes. HOWEVER, as has been discussed previously, when an object is LIGHT in colour, UNLESS you know its ACTUAL colour, you cannot make any judgement about its distance. If it is darker or more contrasty then you may be able to make some determination about its maximum distance - but that doesn't apply here.


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.

And - again - of course a light blue appearance can ALSO be because the object is CLOSE, and (duh) .. light blue ..


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 ... still with me?

That's an awfully wordy way of saying that things can get fuzzy if they are far away and the conditions are hazy.. Yes, they can. But fuzziness can also be motion blur, both across and towards/away from the observer or in-camera processing/sensor bloom/jpeg compression/etc.. on high brightness/low contrast details.. - why aren't you mentioning these other potential issues? And unless it spans several pixels, it is very difficult to accurately measure - have you measured it? How did you know what was an actual sharp edge? Would a windblown plastic bag have many sharp/contrasty edges?


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.

And *how* have you simply dismissed the fact that it might be a light blue shopping bag? Opinions aren't of much use if they simply ignore possibilities.


It is my opinion that the edges of the object are too sharp for the amount of "haze" that it appears to have.

I'd like to see you back that up with numbers and examples of how you have applied it successfully to other images.


The amount of "blue haze" visible on the object would indicate that object is very far away

NO, it doesn't, as already explained. WHY can't it simply be that colour?


Combine that with the obviously staged position of the UFO...

I'm afraid your 'measurements' on that left me highly unconvinced. I also have other problems with some of what you have extolled, but please address the most important issues above first. I may not agree with some parts of Ritzmann's analysis, but I think he's right in that it isn't cgi, for a number of reasons already covered. In particular, the report in no way reads like a hoax, and if they were going to fake the content, why not fake a sighting as well?
edit on 5-12-2012 by CHRLZ because: dang quote tags...



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 




and if they were going to fake the content, why not fake a sighting as well?

Simplicity. She wants the picture to speak for itself. Details regarding the "sighting" could potentially be used to discredit the story.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
The image is NOT digitally created. Springer had the image run through some pretty sophisticated software by a law enforcement official, and no sign of tampering or image creation software was found.

And, if anyone here can show me a faked UO image with channel specific data that can be inserted with not so much as a pixel out of place, and that such is not visible within the combined image - nor even within the channel specific until levels are adequately adjusted? Please do so.

Then, perhaps you can explain why someone would go to such inane lengths to fake an image - with channel specific data that can't (and likely wouldn't) be seen without extensive examination. There are lengths people will go to, to fake an image - I have not in 20+ years come across anyone who's gone so far as to include faked data that likely no one will ever see.
edit on 5-12-2012 by jritzmann because: addition



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Awesome read!



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminated0ne
What a giant failure your reply was

Oh, the irony.


and it got so many stars too.

????

Do stars upset you? Why? There, I've given you one just to make you feel better - normally I only give them when a post has merit, but I'll make an exception...

I'm sure nobody but me noticed that you simply quoted a whole pile of points and addressed NONE of them. Pretty sure I know why...

Anyway, do come back and actually debate the ISSUES, and then I'll take you seriously.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Actually, I just pointed out how your entire post was a giant waste of time and pointless. You tried to discredit "Seeee" by saying, "What if the object was blue? What if the object was light-blue! WHAT IF THE OBJECT WAS BLUE! Your opinion doesn't matter if you don't look at all possibilities!!!!!!1!1!11!!!!". But lo and behold, within the reply by "Seeee" he/she mentions exactly what you tried to discredit them for not mentioning. Which proves either you fail at reading, or you don't read entire posts.

Then you claim my post has no merit, but in reality what I did was discredit YOU based on your inability to read, and at the same time I highlighted one of the main arguments by "Seeee" so you and others can read it again (or for the first time).

I pointed out that you completely ignored "Seeee's" comment about the object possibly being blue, and why the glossy versus matte conflict visible in the sharpness of the edges of specular highlight and the color of the highlight is a significant observation. According to "Seeee", and which I agree with, the edges of the specular highlight are sharp which would indicate a glossy finish, however the blue color of the specular highlight indicates the finish is matte because specular highlights are usually unaffected by Rayleigh scattering because of their intensity. This conflict points to a fake atmospheric haze effect.

You also clearly didn't comprehend another part of "Seeee's" reply here:


Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by Seeee
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 ... still with me?


That's an awfully wordy way of saying that things can get fuzzy if they are far away and the conditions are hazy..


Since you didn't comprehend what he was saying, I will make it more clear for you in hopes you magically comprehend this (if you even read it).

"Seeee" was not simply saying "things get fuzzy if they are far away" like you tried to simplify and brush off in your post. He/she was explaining why the EDGES of objects appear MORE FUZZY than the BODY in the real world. He/she was explaining that if the the blue haze was caused Rayleigh scattering then the edges of the object should be even more fuzzy and light blue compared to the rest of the body.

Basically, in pure irony, "Seeee" was agreeing with you that object may be close to the camera and light blue in color based on the apparent sharpness of the edges of the object. Yet you still tried to discredit him with your irrational post.


The only reason I even mentioned the stars on your post is because it is obvious to me that people on ATS will simply star posts that only create the illusion that you successfully made a good post. They are oblivious to the fact that your entire post is pretty much a giant display of ignorance.


edit on 5-12-2012 by illuminated0ne because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-12-2012 by illuminated0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I'm still lurking this thread. Not impressed with the progress, a bunch of hair-splitting and arguments.

However, there are a few who wish to make progress, and I compliment them, without naming names. You know who you are.

I'm still with the reflection/processor anomaly theory, which would denote a "closer" object than a "further" object.

Just had to say that. Continue on, I'm back to lurking.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminated0ne
I just pointed out how your entire post was a giant waste of time and pointless.

OK, let's not worry about why you are replying on Seee's behalf.. let's go through it point by point and see who knows what they are talking about, shall we? If you wish to respond .. this time rather than post a whole string of items and ignore them, why not be brave and have a go at addressing them PROPERLY in detail?

You tried to discredit "Seeee" by saying, "What if the object was blue? What if the object was light-blue!

If someone is wrong, pointing that out is 'discrediting', is it?


WHAT IF THE OBJECT WAS BLUE!

I'm sorry, are you quoting me or is that your attempt at sarcasm? Here, let me politely explain. If you dispute any of these points, feel fee to do so, but please don't bother if you are not very familiar with imaging and cameras.
1. It's a bright, sunny, but somewhat hazy day.
2. On such a day, the predominant ambient light is a bluish white.
3. Because of 1 & 2, anything that is in the scene, if neutrally and lightly coloured, will take on a bluish hue.
4. But also, anything that is light bluish or is somewhat translucent (allows the sky colour through) or is mostly white but has bluish tones, will also take on a slightly bluish hue, no matter how close...
(Here's a big hint - what colour would a plastic shopping bag on Crete be, most likely?)
5. Now, I totally agree that anything distant will also:
- be bluish and lacking in contrast (just exactly as a shopping bag, possibly bein' bluish and translucent and all, would be).
- be slightly hazy and indistinct
From that, there are two very obvious possibilities that fit (there are more, but two will do to make the point, and I clearly need to keep this simple..)
1. A far away and hazy 'thing'.
2. a relatively nearby plastic bag.

within the reply by "Seeee" he/she mentions exactly what you tried to discredit them for

Did you not notice that I was addressing particular points that I wanted See to acknowledge first? Did you very conveniently miss the bit where I said:

I also have other problems with some of what you have extolled, but please address the most important issues above first.

Funny how that wasn't included in your retort. BTW, I'm happy to address the 'indistinctness' errors he made, but first things first.

you claim my post has no merit

Well, certainly had no original content..

what I did was discredit YOU

Really? Read on..

I pointed out that you completely ignored "Seeee's" comment about the object possibly being blue, and why the glossy versus matte conflict visible in the sharpness of the edges of specular highlight and the color of the highlight is a significant observation.

It ISN'T. It's a word salad, which is why I asked Seee (and now YOU) to back it up - so go ahead.

the edges of the specular highlight are sharp which would indicate a glossy finish

That DOESN'T follow at all. Give examples.

the blue color of the specular highlight indicates the finish is matte because specular highlights are usually unaffected by Rayleigh scattering..

More word salad. BACK THAT UP WITH examples, or admit it was pulled from nowhere..

He/she was explaining why the EDGES of objects appear MORE FUZZY than the BODY in the real world.

That's simply not true - multiple factors affect edge definition, and if you don't know what you are looking at you CANNOT make any such claims.

He/she was explaining that if the the blue haze was caused Rayleigh scattering then the edges of the object should be even more fuzzy and light blue compared to the rest of the body.

Righto then - you or Seee can now show us with diagrams and numbers and RGB levels and examples of how you have used this methodology on KNOWN subjects...


"Seeee" was agreeing with you that object may be close to the camera and light blue in color based on the apparent sharpness of the edges of the object.

Oh, right. And that's why he then went straight onto:

My conclusion .. the lighting and haze effects are artificial.. Combine that with the obviously staged position of the UFO.. you have yourself a CGI hoax.

??? Yeah, he agrees with me...


Anyway, See has told us how easy it is to fake such an image (in some ways, he's right..) so I'm sure he'll be back with diagrams and images to show us how those claims can be properly proven. I'll also be back a little later after I find time to do some baggy experiments... BTW, illuminatedOne - can you point me to your posts analysing this image? There don't seem to be many/any..


your entire post is pretty much a giant display of ignorance.

I'll let the audience decide.. after they've seen/heard your 'proofs'..
edit on 6-12-2012 by CHRLZ because: spelin erur



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo Should this be in the HOAX bin till proven otherwise ??


i would argue that nothing should be put 'in the hoax bin' until proven to be a hoax. however, i accept that proving any ufo picture to be either 'real' or a hoax is a minefield. c'est la vie.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Tbh I am impressed that people from germany would think of going to greece for holidays..not the most liked nation there at the moment.





new topics




 
377
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join