Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

page: 79
377
<< 76  77  78   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


Have you seen this post?
Post
Has the lady who took the picture seen it? Is there any chance of some feedback from her about that post?
I feel sure she will see that the UO is her face reflected in the mirror.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by nothingwrong
 


I'm a full time photographer (I hate using the word pro) I agree with what you say about her settings being odd for a pro and the way she is griping it is odd, although I know tons of so called "pros" who have no idea, they buy an expensive camera and think they can shoot weddings etc.

My boss, who owns and runs a photography company and is a "pro" still thinks "A" priority on a Nikon DSLR is auto lol

I'm not going to judge her choice on camera, apart from it being a poor choice. I don't even own a decent digital camera, I just use my iPhone if I'm not working.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Revisited:

This lil guy has been bugging me, on the back of my mind for a while. I thought reflection, lens anomaly, and let it rest for a while. I was thinking about the camera angles, the mirror reflection, but never factored in the shear that takes place on a reflection from a mirrored surface. Intuition told me it was an inverted image somehow, but we've never really looked into all the angles.

I decided to play with shears, and transforms, in GIMP.

The shooter, hardly to scale, but inverted and sheared at an angle:

Another, sheared harder, trying to duplicate the proper angle the shot took place at:

Now, I'll rotate the UO 180 degrees, and apply some labels:

and provide a nonscaled, but sheared and transformed version of the shooter:

The sun was captured in the shot, shining from behind and to the right of the shooter, and the camera's sensor was overloaded. The intricate angles produced the artifact in the image, but I'll present this post for review of my peers.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Druid42, I appreciate your enthusiasm (contrasts well with my terse tenaciousness!), but.. there's a few problems with that approach.

First up, optically, where did the shear come from? All we have is a slightly concave mirror, and it's pretty much square on.. *How* did your scenario happen - what did this to the image and created that result? I would point out that you don't really get that sort of 'shear' from reflections, unless the reflective surface is heavily twisted/angled/curved. And we still have the problem of why (and how) only that bit of image is being projected somewhere

Second, it's not all that good a match imo (in shape, brightness, contrast, colour), and I think if you played with other areas, you could get similar vague matches. That sort of approach is frowned upon in image (or any) analysis - you are playing with the adjustments to try to get a desired result - and that allows Confirmation Bias to creep in..

Now, there *is* a way you could justify this - but you'd have to give an example of how it happened by trying to recreate the effect - not in an image editor!, but by creating a real scene using a vaguely similar environment.

BTW, the sensor isn't overloaded - the image shows virtually no blown highlights whatsoever (just one tiny area on the dashboard, nowhere near the 'thing').



So while I applaud your ideas, I can't see how that one would work, sorry.

And yes, I know, I need to get off my backside and do my tests with a plastic bag or three - sadly the forecast for my weekend is once again cloudy, but one can hope...



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


"why (and how) only that bit of image is being projected somewhere"

It's the mirror, the sun is hitting the right side of the car from behind. In the UO picture you can see the side of the car down the right edge of the mirror, it's not in the 5 seconds before picture. This is what's causing the bright light on the UO and messing with the cameras sensor. The mirror is the only part of the picture that caught the sun hitting the side of the car, that's why I think only that part of the picture was projected.

We can all see the hazy mist in the picture so I'm guessing that hazy mist is what the image is projected onto, we just can't see it but that clear blue sky isn't really what I think a clear blue sky looks like.

The curve of the mirror has caused the image to turn sideways, everyone is turning the image to make it look like a bag but when turned around the other way you can see what's reflected in the mirror. You can see her face, her sun glasses, her hand and the bright light is right where the camera should be.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


I hope you are right, as that does look convincingly like a craft - and I've never seen anything like that come up in a photo as an anomaly.
edit on 2-3-2013 by saintinwaiting because: removed pic



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by LEL01
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


"why (and how) only that bit of image is being projected somewhere"

It's the mirror, the sun is hitting the right side of the car from behind. In the UO picture you can see the side of the car down the right edge of the mirror, it's not in the 5 seconds before picture. This is what's causing the bright light on the UO and messing with the cameras sensor.

So.. 'messing with the camera's sensor' somehow makes it just reflect and shear that tiny selected area? Not the areas around it that are both brighter/darker and more contrasty? How does that work? And what exactly do you mean by 'messing with the sensor' - could you provide a cite or explain in what way the sensor is providing false information? It just records the photons falling on it - yes, the lens and mirrors and other things can cause deflections and the like, but these effects (like lens flares, reflections, refractions, etc) are VERY well understood. Sensors don't just make random stuff up..

While it's nice to make conjectures, they need to be grounded - so I would ask that you now provide at least one other image showing the type of effect you are referring to. Just one will be fine, and it doesn't have to be a close match, but it should show the effects you are suggesting.



The mirror is the only part of the picture that caught the sun hitting the side of the car

No. Very clearly the sun is illuminating the entire door frame, both along the window seal at bottom and also at the front adjacent the mirror.. it is also illuminating the road, the goats.. There is simply no mechanism that would cause a small portion of just the mirror image to be projected.


We can all see the hazy mist in the picture so I'm guessing that hazy mist is what the image is projected onto, we just can't see it but that clear blue sky isn't really what I think a clear blue sky looks like.

The haziness relies on a LOT of mist being between you and the affected part, ie the distant hills - it has no visible effect on anything within 50 metres or so. Even then, it is a graduated effect and does not offer some sort of surface to allow either a reflection or projection. BTW, digital camera makers often bias their cameras towards cyan, giving sky colours that they think are more pleasing - you can't expect a portable digicam to give a perfectly accurate colour rendition. Plus, the 'blue' of the sky varies from place to place and with latitude and of course time and day, haze, dust, etc. Some of the most intensely beautiful blue skies can be found in the Australian outback, but where I live now, the sky is a quite different hue.


You can see her face, her sun glasses, her hand and the bright light is right where the camera should be.

I'm sorry, but even with the 'shear' applied by Druid it obviously still doesn't align exactly. If you think it does, please supply an image showing the lines/angles and measurements you have checked.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhislainO
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.



CHRLZ
So it was the lens not the sensor that caused it, thank you for clearing that up.
No, I can't provide you with any of the things you're asking me for, I've made it quite clear in this thread that I'm not any kind of an expert. I do have two eyes in my head and I can see the UO is what's reflected in the mirror as shown in the post I'm quoting. I do think there is something more than just the mirror, I believe what you think is the handle of a shopping bag is the goats tail.

I've known all along that it was the mirror but if other people can't see it then there's not really anything I can do about that. I'm still happy to read other people's ideas about what it could be even though in my own mind I know it's the mirror.

I know the shopping bag idea is the most popular but that doesn't make it right.

The 'shear' applied by Druid has nothing to do with my post, the only connection there is that I tried to answer a question you asked him.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Hello all I am a new member and people might not even look at this thread anymore ,but this UO has a striking similarity to the one captured by the gentlemen in Turkey. Like I said I am new to this and I will figure out how to link things and what not but I really do think these things look an awful lot alike.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I still think it's possible that it's a common beetle, which happened to get caught in the frame. They are plentiful in that location.





posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by zayonara
 


It reminds me of a carpenter bee, which is quite large and slow-flying and is certainly a common sight in the Greek islands. The abdomen is often rounded and shiny, and the legs trail behind the insect in flight. A Google image search offers a number of examples for comparison.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   
It still looks like a bird, flying to the left with long legs hanging behind, to me. It's wings are arched up. I have no clue what the light is, possibly the bird is wet and reflective.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   









That's what I think.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Great post, you got a laugh out of me with the Angry Bird.


When I first saw it I thought ET went to Greece for vacation and used his flying V W New Beetle to get there.

Springer...



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


Why thank you. A couple of those were serious attempts at something. I was just looking at all the pictures I had regarding this and saw how ridiculous they all looked together. I had a great post with the angry bird but one of the mods deleted it. Can you fire them?



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Springer
 


I had a great post with the angry bird but one of the mods deleted it. Can you fire them?


ABSOLUTELY NOT but thanks for asking.
edit on 6-20-2013 by Springer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


That's well strange..... our guitarist designed that car....


Just to make it plain.... he didn't design the prototype, rather adapted it and down scaled it; There's a curious anomaly where certain curves do not downscale properly and end up looking wrong. Classic case is the British Rail Warship class of diesel, it's impossible to model the curve of the front end in 1/72 scale without it looking completely wrong so the smaller scale replicas have to be adapted. It's a case of where something that is technically "wrong" however, it looks to the eye as "right".
edit on 20-6-2013 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Springer
 


Just wondering if you have had time lately to check whether any of the follow up analysis of the photo has been progressing?

(Even though you were probably expecting someone from wherever you sent it to keep you posted - people get busy, things fall thru cracks and sometimes it's necessary to be the one to do the contacting of those who were 'supposed' to contact us...)





new topics
 
377
<< 76  77  78   >>

log in

join