Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

Originally posted by Seeee
....because you are not a professional image analyst?

Perhaps... but I've found the more someone on a forum tells you they are a professional, the less likely it is to be true. I'm happy to be judged on my content... And I DO back up my claims with real world examples...

According to Springer, they scaled down the image (which is lossy interpolation), and then lossy compressed it afterwards into JPG to save it again, all in order to reduce file size.

The link on the very first page:
Crete UFO Image
.. goes to a 4000 x 2248 image which is correct for the S100 in 16:9 mode. Ie, it has not been interpolated, just re-compressed and stripped of exif. Unfortunately, that re-compression was quite drastic - I wouldn't use such a low quality level on a picture that was for my dog.. Anyway, I am not arguing that the original won't be better, I just don't think it will be markedly better. And small sensor cameras are not well known for their accurate resolution of low contrast areas and when you add that to what jpeg quantisation will do at such high RGB levels... Yeuch.

Technically you didn't even see the original image.

Even if we somehow got the raw image, we still didn't see it... There's no such thing as an accurate original image recording, only what the sensor and the camera decide to give you..


Otherwise, agreed..

reply to post by CHRLZ


Thanks Chrlz,

I appreciate the tips. please rest assured that I don't always assume everyone telling me they are pro is pro. In the sake of brevity it is just a good tool to take people off guard and keep things positive. For instance if someone says "I am a pro blah blah" I almost always don't believe them. But by placating to their ego and pretending you do believe them you are able gain trust that you won't embarrass them. Then when you ask them to prove their professional knowledge they can either A. do just that and provide it or B. fall flat on their face and prove to the whole thread they were fabricating their credentials.

Either way it is a win/win. You either get genuine help for the scenario, or the poster outs themself to the whole thread with no one to blame but themselves.

Rhizostoma pulmo are commonly known as Barrel jellyfish, and are typically 16 inches in dia., but can reach 35 inches. They are found in the Mediterranean Sea.
Wikipedia Rhizostoma pulmo

Check out this image which was reported as a Jellyfish on a beach in Greece, this is the one that looks just like the UO, imho.
The color of the thing matches up pretty well with the UO also. The photographer also notes that it is large.

Below is another link with similar colors,and shape as UO.

Here is another image of a Barrel jellyfish that looks like a flying saucer from World Register of Marine Species


I think these photos look very similar to the UO. The question is how did this thing get up that high in the air? Dolphins have been known to kick jelly fish in the air. Or maybe a Dolphin just flung it? While fishing on the Gulf in Florida I have seen dolphins on multiple occasions fling my caught/released fish in the air about 10' to 20', just to show me that they caught them after I released the fish. Dolphins have a habit of showing off! On a very windy day a Dolphin may be able to fling a Jellyfish that high? Especially if the dolphin knew people were up there to show off too. Dolphins have been known to fling 20 lb Salmon 20' in the air.

Here is a video link of Dolphins playing jellyfish football.

This photo of a Dolphin flinging Jelly fish in air looks very similar to the UO also.

Of course it could have been some kids flinging the thing in the air with a stick? (This Jellyfish is not poisonous)

This is my first post on ATS, I got a feeling it could be my last? I just think the resemblance of the Barrel jellyfish with the UO is just too similar too pass up. And if one has spent time with Dolphins, they would also know that is a possibility.

reply to post by oburrr


While I think you've found a very good visual candidate, what I remember of the physical location makes it pretty unlikely -- your dolphin would have to kick it about 60 meters vertical and about 30 horizontal.

Originally posted by oburrr
Rhizostoma pulmo are commonly known as Barrel jellyfish, and are typically 16 inches in dia., but can reach 35 inches. They are found in the Mediterranean Sea.
Wikipedia Rhizostoma pulmo

Check out this image which was reported as a Jellyfish on a beach in Greece, this is the one that looks just like the UO, imho.
The color of the thing matches up pretty well with the UO also. The photographer also notes that it is large.

Below is another link with similar colors,and shape as UO.

Here is another image of a Barrel jellyfish that looks like a flying saucer from World Register of Marine Species


I think these photos look very similar to the UO. The question is how did this thing get up that high in the air? Dolphins have been known to kick jelly fish in the air. Or maybe a Dolphin just flung it? While fishing on the Gulf in Florida I have seen dolphins on multiple occasions fling my caught/released fish in the air about 10' to 20', just to show me that they caught them after I released the fish. Dolphins have a habit of showing off! On a very windy day a Dolphin may be able to fling a Jellyfish that high? Especially if the dolphin knew people were up there to show off too. Dolphins have been known to fling 20 lb Salmon 20' in the air.

Here is a video link of Dolphins playing jellyfish football.

This photo of a Dolphin flinging Jelly fish in air looks very similar to the UO also.

Of course it could have been some kids flinging the thing in the air with a stick? (This Jellyfish is not poisonous)

This is my first post on ATS, I got a feeling it could be my last? I just think the resemblance of the Barrel jellyfish with the UO is just too similar too pass up. And if one has spent time with Dolphins, they would also know that is a possibility.

II hope this isnt your last post , I found it well researched and above all interesting!!!!

reply to post by oburrr


Jellyfish was talked about earlier in the thread, I thought that member made a very good point.
I don't know why it was ruled out, your pictures do look like the UO.
Of course I'm not an expert.

This is a long thread, I am not reading it all.
But looking at the UFO closely I just came to the conclusion that it looks like a plastic bag blowing around.
Not saying it is, it's just that the bag theory has to be ruled out first.

reply to post by oburrr


Great thinking Oburrr and as for how it got there, not Dolphins but a gull type seabird. Picked it up from the beach, flying off to enjoy the tasty morsel and was attacked by another gull, as gulls do when one seas an opportunity of a free lunch, and drops it.

Thus it drops into the picture frame and drops out again in a matter of seconds. Hence nobody saw it, it was too quick.

Think that just about solves it.

Rests on laurels and awaits incoming.

Originally posted by dowot
reply to post by oburrr

 

Great thinking Oburrr and as for how it got there, not Dolphins but a gull type seabird. Picked it up from the beach, flying off to enjoy the tasty morsel and was attacked by another gull, as gulls do when one seas an opportunity of a free lunch, and drops it.

Thus it drops into the picture frame and drops out again in a matter of seconds. Hence nobody saw it, it was too quick.

Think that just about solves it.

Rests on laurels and awaits incoming.

OK, I'll bite!!
Can someone please explain how an airborne jelly fish seems more plausible than an airborne plastic bag?

Does this image look like a jelly fish or a plastic bag?

(All I've done is zoomed in on the UO in the OP and rotated it 90 degrees)

Here it is with increased contrast, to try and bring out more detail...

Is that a face I see on the side?

I'm just thinking... If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc.....

GTD

Originally posted by Gordi The Drummer
Can someone please explain how an airborne jelly fish seems more plausible than an airborne plastic bag?

Exactly. The thing is a fuzzy unresolvable mess. It could be a jellyfish, thrown up and across a few hundred feet by a conveniently passing dolphin... [cough]

Just as I, when I go out near a suitable pond, could get kicked to death by a duck. It's .. possible..
(if you're wondering about the duck.. my apologies to 'Dr Karl' - it's a local (Australian) joke..)

The thing is, can anyone point me to a few pictures of a thrown jellyfish? That way I could assess the probability of it, versus a "windblown plastic bag", an "airborne plastic bag", a "plastic bag in midair"..

I invite you to Google those search terms and take a look - you'll come across quite a lot of images of that phenomena. Sure, only some of those look anything like the 'thing'.. but then, do many of those images look like .. *each other*?

The point is that the plastic bag theory is very plausible and a relatively common scenario. - I think we've all seen plastic bags blown by the wind.. But I've NEVER seen a jellyfish in mid air - yet I even worked at a marine science centre and often piloted the boat in a region renowned for its plentiful (playful) dolphins... Seaweed, yes - even a fish once, but they were only thrown a metre or so at most. It's *very* difficult to throw something that is wet and slippery (and formless) any major distance.

Having said all that, we do have indisputable evidence of jellyfish, dolphins, and the dolphin's ability to throw said jellyfish upwards. So it is way ahead of any ET suggestion..

I don't think anyone said that a Jellyfish was more plausible than a plastic bag.
Are members not allowed to discuss other ideas now?
Just because you haven't seen something it doesn't mean it can't happen, Strange stuff happens all the time.

Oh I disagree, the sensor captures everything its capable of capturing..it doesn't make any decision's. Once in Lightroom you can bring back alot of details that where blown out or underexposed in the original exposure and had it been Jpg, lost forever. Raw is extremely flexible and saved my ass many a time. But if a raw of this shot exists it needs to be provided to the community for analysis.

Technically you didn't even see the original image.

Even if we somehow got the raw image, we still didn't see it... There's no such thing as an accurate original image recording, only what the sensor and the camera decide to give you..


Otherwise, agreed..

Hi. I'm new to this forum but I saw what you posted and I did an image comparison of what I see.... Let me know what you think. But my opinion is very simple. I don't think it's fare away, it looks like a droplet of liquid that is transparent and somewhat round, distorting the light going thru it. We see what the camera is seeing, meaning the refection in the mirror. I could be wrong.



Just to let you know what I do. I'm a graphic designer, special effect artist, and been working with Photoshop, Nuke, Maya, After Effect and Avid for like 20 + years.

reply to post by GhislainO


Good job, I agree with you. That mirror has bugged me from day one so I would agree, but you have shown what looks like the reflection in the mirror.

reply to post by GhislainO


That's a pretty good match. Do you think this can account for the car shape some see?

reply to post by LEL01


I don't see how you could see the car shape other than what is surrounding the person in the mirrors. We are in fact seeing thru the object, not the refection from it... I hope you understand what I'm trying to explain....

reply to post by GhislainO


You replied to the wrong person, we all make mistakes. I don't see the car, I see everything that can be seen in the mirror. I believe that's what you are saying, I agree with you.

reply to post by LEL01


Sorry my friend, yes that's what I'm saying...

I am having difficulty seeing how this works. If we are seeing the mirror through the droplet, does that mean the droplet must be between the camera and the mirror? Assuming that is the case, how does the droplet reflect (can't think of a better term) the mirror at such a harsh angle? Would it be more likely to reflect what is directly in front of it, or more in line with it's position or angle to the center of the camera lens instead?

I honestly don't know enough to try and contest your theory so I am hoping you can explain the angles and if they are possible. I actually think this is the most likely hypothesis considering it fits some of the gaps that the others don't. For instance it explains why they didn't see it at the time of the photograph and the insistence by a few people early on that it is actually very close instead of far according to their interpretation of the exif data. In this case though it seems more likely that if it is a drop it, any resemblance to objects behind the camera is just a coincidence. It however doesn't directly explain the anomalies Jeff has brought up. Of course we have to take into account randomness in any theory discussed and randomness is aggravating.

Originally posted by GhislainO
reply to post by LEL01

 

I don't see how you could see the car shape other than what is surrounding the person in the mirrors. We are in fact seeing thru the object, not the refection from it... I hope you understand what I'm trying to explain....

yes, I got ya now