Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

page: 77
377
<< 74  75  76    78  79 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 

I hope you get an answer to your questions, I can only tell you that I don't know. If I try to guess I would only prove that I don't know. What I do know is that in the five seconds between the UO picture and the picture before, the lady moved closer to the _ I feel quite sure that if she hadn't moved between pictures we wouldn't be looking at this now unless it is a plastic bag or something else.




posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


I will try to explain to you what I mean and if no one understand I will provide a small drawing that will make it more clear. Maybe I didn't used the right term before, sorry about that. It's not reflection but refraction. The action of distortion of light beam going thru a transparent object, in this case a water droplets, well we assume that's what it is. The light is distorted but also reversed, for example, take a transparent glass of water and look at it, you will see that the image behind it is reverse and from my opinion this is what we see in this photograph. A reversal of the light coming from the mirror going thru the droplets.

Hope it helps, but like I said before, that's what it looks like to me. I will never presume that I understand 100% what is going on in this picture.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by GhislainO
 


If this post is correct and that is the ladies face, then the light on the UO matches up with where the camera is. That would bring us back to the sun hitting the right, rear side of the car that can be seen down the right edge of the mirror.
I still don't know how it appeared where it is in the picture.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by GhislainO
 

There were some water droplet photos posted(I think) a while back that showed the image reversal - refraction. Speaking for myself, I was hung up on this being a "reflection". I guess the angle doesnt have to be too sharp depending on the distance.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by LEL01
 





What I do know is that in the five seconds between the UO picture and the picture before, the lady moved closer to the _

It looks to me like she moved farther from the _ In the pics I've seen there is more of the vehicle interior showing in the UO pic than in the 5 seconds before shot.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 

You're probably right, I was just making the point that she moved between pictures making a difference to what the camera picked up. It will take me all night to find the before picture to check, I trust you on this.


ETA. I found it already in one of your posts on page 64, you are right it looks as though she just straightened up a bit meaning she moved away from the _ I was wrong.
edit on 14-12-2012 by LEL01 because: Added more.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by LEL01
 





I was wrong.

No problem. That wasn't my purpose, just a little conversation about the pics. I've compared those two pics quite a bit. Don't like what I see but not confident enough to claim they're manipulated.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 

I'm glad you corrected me before I got jumped on, I remembered it the wrong way round, I should have checked before I posted. It's pictures with mirrors that I don't like so I'm just mirror bashing.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by LEL01
 


Speaking of the mirror, have you noticed how the mirror and door frame appear to be at the same angle in each of those two shots but the tilt of the horizon varies greatly?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 

I hadn't noticed that but I see what you mean, I'm not clever enough to work out why that would happen. Could it be because the car was moving? I really don't know, did you have any ideas about that?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by LEL01
 





Could it be because the car was moving?

I could see it being caused by vehicle roll, passenger side down. If that is what happened I find it odd that the mirror and window frame would remain at the same angle relative to the camera. Also I don't see much reason for the vehicle to roll like that, at least not at the speed I imagine they were going with all those goats around.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Maybe a pothole or dip in the road?
A small movement of the car forwards/backwards into a rut/hole/dip could result in a significant tilt to the side.
The photographer - still seated in the same position would capture the mirror/door frame at the same angle but all would be tilted relative to the outside and horizon.

Sounds plausible?

GTD



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gordi The Drummer
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Maybe a pothole or dip in the road?
A small movement of the car forwards/backwards into a rut/hole/dip could result in a significant tilt to the side.
The photographer - still seated in the same position would capture the mirror/door frame at the same angle but all would be tilted relative to the outside and horizon.

Sounds plausible?

GTD


Plausible yes, probable no. Given the nearly identical position of the land in the background in these two shots and also in the "Afternoon on the way back" shot.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Plausible *and* probable, imo.

When using a camera from such an awkward position, the photog is almost certainly going to settle into a position that is most comfortable for them so the camera's position in 3D space will be almost identical for every shot. However, the camera can be very easily tilted *while still at that same location*, so that it's 'yaw' (left right angle), 'roll' (ie tilt of horizon) and 'pitch' (vertical position of horizon) vary. A small change in any of those angles of the camera, or the vehicle's angle, will result in a quite large change of the *outside* scene. You would need to consider the photog's/car's exact positions, their physiology and even their photographic habits to determine what might be the most likely of those three (pitch/roll/yaw) to vary.

In my early photography I was pretty slack when it came to ensuring level horizons, and I still occasionally miss, especially if the image is just a casual snapshot...



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 




A small change in any of those angles of the camera, or the vehicle's angle, will result in a quite large change of the *outside* scene.

Have you determined the difference in the angle of the horizon between 3136 and 3137? I don't think I have tools on my computer for that. That would be a true measure of how much the vehicle had to roll to cause this, I think.

I'm still bothered by the position of the land in the background being almost identically located in 3136, 3137 and the ( IDK the number) "Afternoon" shot. Not only does it seem to close to perfect to be just a coincedence but the tip of that land appears to line up vertically with the UO.

I'm asking you these questions because I respect and value your opinion.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
Have you determined the difference in the angle of the horizon between 3136 and 3137?
...
I'm still bothered by the position of the land in the background being almost identically located in 3136, 3137 and the ( IDK the number) "Afternoon" shot. Not only does it seem to close to perfect to be just a coincedence but the tip of that land appears to line up vertically with the UO.

I'm asking you these questions because I respect and value your opinion.

Compliment greatly appreciated - and I shall take a much closer look and get back to you. Xmas activities are currently allowing me a short breathing space, but who knows what will next transpire!



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I agree with all of the above, I think.

I do know that it's a pretty crappy picture for a professional photographer, all that car and not much goat, and she seems to be holding the instrument of her profession like a builder handling a brick.

Next.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I might be incredible late to this party,but, right in the first lines of Ritzmann's Report, the Analsys from Mr. Allin, the stuff on LAB colors, respectfully, is BOGUS...

Nobody pretending to do any kind of serious investigation is going to fiddle around in LAB.
LAB is a bunch of tables of numbers mapping a (somewhat) machine independend colour space,
on TOP of LAB is your profiles, color management, RGB, CYMKY, HLS,
unless your in the print business or alike you shouldn't have to deal with LAB.
Machines live in LAB, photographers live in RGB.

My 2c...



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I don't know what this is anymore than most of you i don't think it was faked and their has been alot of suggestions as to what it might be no here really knows for sure but it has been fun reading all the comment's and looking at a daylight UFO is rare enough.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I just want to say that I think, Jeff analyses of the photograph was a really good one, I just wanted to bring something that maybe he didn't see and would bring another aspect to the study of this picture. (see my other post to know what I'm talking about). And I think that most of you guys are the same. I don't think it's fare to say that the way he did his analyses is not the right way. I never worked myself with the Lab Colors mode but I won't dismiss it has a bad tool. If your used to it why not. Here is some excerpt from wikipidia.

"Unlike the RGB and CMYK color models, Lab color is designed to approximate human vision. It aspires to perceptual uniformity, and its L component closely matches human perception of lightness, although it doesn't take the Helmholtz–Kohlrausch effect into account. It can thus be used to make accurate color balance corrections by modifying output curves in the a and b components, or to adjust the lightness contrast using the L component. In RGB or CMYK spaces, which model the output of physical devices rather than human visual perception, these transformations can only be done with the help of appropriate blend modes in the editing application.
Because Lab space is much larger than the gamut of computer displays, printers, or even human vision, a bitmap image represented as Lab requires more data per pixel to obtain the same precision as an RGB or CMYK bitmap. In the 1990s, when computer hardware and software was mostly limited to storing and manipulating 8 bit/channel bitmaps, converting an RGB image to Lab and back was a lossy operation. With 16 bit/channel support now common, this is no longer such a problem."

It looks good to me, I think it should be the new way to work with all the HDR images on the market now.

Please lets us work together on this, nobody is better then the other, just maybe more experience and that's all. Even with all the experience in the world you will miss something, trust me I know. I'm just saying that together we have more chance to solve this.





new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 74  75  76    78  79 >>

log in

join