Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

The reflection theory is even worse than the mid air water/fluid droplet theory whatever that UO is... its no reflection, projection or digital artifact..common sense tells you that.. but dont let me stop you enjoying yourselfs its the weekend after all...have fun.

reply to post by bluestreak53


no need for the info from wikipedia - i'd just read it

again, i DON'T think the 'object' is lens flare

Originally posted by aynock
reply to post by Druid42

 

the first and last images you posted are examples of refraction, the second and third are reflections - in both cases the reflection is in a reflective surface

in the picture the object appears in the sky - i'm still not sure how you think that is happening

What you, and the vast majority of others are saying is the UO is in the SKY. I disagree.

I am looking at a 4000 x 2248 pixel image, very high resolution, a grid, so to speak, in which a UO appears approximately at the 325 to 370 vertical, and roughly 2230 to 2330 horizontal.

There is no sky. There are no goats. There is no Shooter.

There are only pixels captured by a 1/1.7 CMOS sensor. On a grid of 4000 x 2248.

Everyone should read THIS:

The lens in a camera focuses light on a plane behind the rear element. In 35mm cameras, that plane contains film. In digital cameras, the plane is occupied by a piece of silicon (chip) which I'll refer to as the sensor. Sensors come in two primary types: CCD (charge-coupled device) and CMOS (complimentary metal oxide).

Long term, CMOS is the likely candidate for most sensors. Nevertheless, CCDs are mature and well-known, and they do have a baseline noise production that is lower than CMOS, all else equal.

On this sensor are an array of light-sensitive spots, called photosites. Photosites are usually square in shape (currently have been two major exceptions that I'll deal with in a moment), and laid out in rows and columns.

Every digital camera attempts to deal with dark current by "masking off" a set of photosites so that they don't see light (which is part of the explanation why your 3.34-megapixel camera only produces images with only 3.15 megapixels). Your camera's brains compares the values it sees from photosites that weren't exposed to light to those that were. Dark Current is partially random. So, in the most simplistic form, the camera averages all the values found in the masked off photosites and subtracts that from the values seen by the photosites exposed to light to remove the Dark Current.

It may surprise you to find out that the sensor in your camera reacts to all light with relative equality. Each individual photosite simply collects only the amount of light hitting it and passes that data on; no color information is collected. Thus, a bare sensor is a monochromatic device.

Your digital camera is Black and White. I was shocked to learn that. So why are there colors?

At this point, we have one-third the data we need for a complete color picture (we need red, green, and blue values at each photosite location, and we have only one of those values from each photosite). Here comes the tricky part: a processor (a Sparc-based computer in many early Coolpix models, dedicated proprietary circuits in most new cameras, called the EXPEED engine by Nikon) looks at blocks of this data and tries to guess the actual RGB color value of each pixel by comparing adjacencies!

but it illustrates how the camera's software has to function: it examines a block of adjacent pixels and uses that data to build the missing two values for each location. Again, this process is often called interpolation, though the software routine that does this is more correctly called demosaicing. Camera manufacturers are extremely secretive about their demosaicing methods.

What happens if the sensor can't process the data? Artifacts in an image?

there's a real battle going on inside your digital camera between the speed at which images are processed and the amount of data the camera has to deal with.

Each additional manipulation of the underlying photosite data gets us a little further from the original information and introduces the potential for artifacts. In essence, by the time the camera is done with all its processing, it is impossible to reconstruct the original data (exception: most modern DSLR cameras have the ability to save the actual photosite data from the camera in a raw file, for later demosaic on your computer).

After understanding a bit more about how digital cameras work, and applying it to the specs of the Canon s100, I'll propose another theory to consider, adjacent to the reflection theory:

"The UO is a software processing artifact in the picture the camera captured, created by the software's interpretation of the data residing in the photosites." For simplicity, I'll call it the "SPA theory".

There's a reason for an SPA, dealing with the sunlight and reflections that caused it in this grid of pixels, 4000 by 2248. The question is......What caused this information to be saved in this manner?

A bit more accurate, I think.

Originally posted by Druid42
The UO is a reflection. When you guys are saying no wall/reflective surface, there is a lens (reflective), a mirror (reflective), and sunglasses (reflective). The CCD in the camera is pointed nearly directly at the mirror. The sunglasses are line of sight to the mirror, and accordingly, the camera lens.

What we're saying is that there is no reflective surface where the anomaly is -- there is just sky. There needs to be a surface that bounces the image back to the camera, or if it's a projection, something to project against.

While those people are actually trying to capture those images, the Shooter caught an unintentional one. A rare feat indeed.

All of those pictures perfectly illustrate what we're talking about -- in each of them, there is a surface there for the reflection.

Excusing the crudity of this "cut and paste", this picture illustrates how you're saying the anomaly appears -- the cliffs in the upper right are somehow being projected by the glass, and that's clearly impossible.

Originally posted by aynock
reply to post by bluestreak53

 

no need for the info from wikipedia - i'd just read it

again, i DON'T think the 'object' is lens flare

edit on 19-10-2012 by aynock because: (no reason given)

That was more added for others reading the thread than you, since you already had expressed that viewpoint.

I just wanted to emphasize that I didn't think it was likely to be a lens flare.

Note: I did quote from wikipedia. I did check some other websites, but I thought the Wikipedia references encapsulated the most info in the fewest words.

reply to post by adjensen


I'll pause while you digest the new theory.

I'm awaiting your comments.

Jeff, in his analysis, never addressed SPAs in digital pictures. I am basing my theories mostly to avoid inconsistencies with his presentation, which was thorough, and informative.

The NEWEST theory doesn't violate any of his premises.

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by adjensen

 

I'll pause while you digest the new theory.

I'm awaiting your comments.

I've seen a number of digital artifacts, but never anything coming remotely close to that. Typically what one finds is a "smoothing" effect, in the case of compression artifacts, and random noise in the case of digital error. The odds that a software processing artifact could produce something that large and that non-random I would have to place at astronomical.

If you can find another image that displays something similar and is attributed specifically to a SPA, you might have something, but I don't think that you'll find one.

reply to post by adjensen


Well, that just makes it all that much more interesting.

Either:

Duplicate.

Or

Find another example.

Those ARE two other choices, but I am focusing on the functions of the CMOS inside that particular camera model, and the plethora of reflections going on, and where that flash of light from BugWhisperer's (originally Blaine) camera lens came from. That bright flash of light in the CMOS, at the instant the picture was taken, seriously messed with the software.

The software processes nearby pixels. A flash of light, from the sun's reflection on SOMETHING, for a mere moment, would cause the software to process this ONE image differently. The mirror, the camera angle, the sunlight, are all factors to consider.

Bug is right, that bright spot on the camera lens is only visible on the pic that produces the UO. That is suspicious. That is where I am focusing my explanation.

reply to post by Druid42


Again, I think that the basic problem is that there is no seemingly sense to the anomaly and its location in the frame. It isn't related, geometrically, with anything else in the picture, so we're left with the assumption that it is a random artifact (if it isn't an actual object, as I believe,) and randomness doesn't create something with ordered complexity.

Here is an article on "Image Noise" -- as you see in the examples, digital noise is random, not ordered.

reply to post by adjensen


I'm not saying digital noise created the SPA, I'm saying the CMOS chip in the camera caught a flash of light, a reflection, whatever, but the CMOS stored that data as electrons in it's photosite at that particular location in the 4000 by 2248 grid. I'm looking at the picture as both a picture, and as well, a digital representation of said dimensions, in pixels.

The UO is blurred by the sampling of nearby photosites......

.....but there is something that CAUSED the UO. The bright spot on the UO leads me to believe MORE of a sunlight REFLECTION, than direct sunlight itself on an object in the bay. Remember, this is a grid you are looking at. The depth perceptions you are struggling with is actually a two dimensional picture.

A two dimensional representation of a bugger of an object. Perception has us tricked, at the moment.

reply to post by Druid42


Let's look at it this way...

If randomness could create complex images, even on an infrequent basis, given the billions of digital photographs that are taken each year, wouldn't this be a known, and fairly frequently occurring, phenomenon? I've looked, and there is nothing that I can find that even approaches the orderly complexity of this image.

Occam's Razor says that the most likely option between "orderly object created at random" or "actual object of some unknown nature" would be the actual object. (Of course, Occam also falls down on the mundane side of the "It's an alien craft!" and "It's a blue shopping bag", but that's neither here nor there )

Originally posted by Druid42
How about a traffic light reflection?

? I don't understand - can you circle the reflection that ISN'T on an obvious surface, namely the mirror or side window? Maybe i missed it..

You are claiming that the 'thing' is a reflection - so again, I ask - what is it ON? Reflections do not just appear somewhere - they must, by definition, be on a surface or , eg in the case of say, a mirage, on a density boundary that acts as a reflective surface. If you are talking about a refraction, then no surface is required, but then the appearance and rules change dramatically...

It's not the mirror that's curved, they are flat

I think you will find that the passenger side mirror on that Fiat is indeed curved, just as is the passenger side mirror on my car, and just about every car on the road... Surely you are aware of that?

BTW, that stuff you posted about artefacts should be accompanied by some examples of the type you think are responsible. Until you post something of substance, that is just a pile of text. The *nature* and causes and appearance of artefacts are quite well known - things like posterisation, flare, bloom, blocking, quantisation/compression, sharpening, contrast enhancement.. which of those, or in what combination, do you propose as responsible? Frankly, I have to question your experience in photogrammetry and even basic digital imaging if this is the first you knew about the monochromatic sensor being covered by an RGB filter set to turn it into a colour imager...

And to add to your facts - just because the shooter didn't notice the bag, doesn't mean it wasn't there. Same with a bug. They have not been ruled out, except by those who desperately don't want this to be mundane.

It is. It's not just Unidentified, it's UnidentifiABLE.

Get over it.

Unless... .. has anyone got multiple reports of *unexplainable* things flying around Crete since this? no? Then do carry on pointlessly investamagating, as this thread went nowhere on page one and has gone downhill since then, imbo.

reply to post by adjensen

I've looked, and there is nothing that I can find that even approaches the orderly complexity of this image.

It seems to me that you are reduced to finding examples to compare against. Can you not admit that the parameters involved are unique, and perhaps it is a violation of Occam? (Ok, I'm stretching the Occam that I adhere to.)

Seriously, if it was a bag, the Shooter would have seen it, as well as the husband driving the Fiat. You discount the very eyewitnesses to the scene, and manipulate their credibility to fit your scenario. Your definition of a bag floating by is as preposterous as my SPA theory. Not quite, because Occam doesn't permeate my soul as quickly as it does yours. I am open to any ideas that uphold scrutiny. I uphold the credibility of the Shooter and her husband, and if they didn't see it, and it didn't make noise, according to their EYEWITNESS testimony, then those are basic premises we must factor into our analysis.

reply to post by Druid42


No, I think that the impetus of proof would be on the part of someone claiming that order can appear out of chaos, but perhaps that's a topic for the Debate Forum

However, in this case, we have readily obvious distractions -- "Shooter"s husband is obviously focused on driving in a country and geography that he is unfamiliar with, and "Shooter" is focused on the goats (again, after spending some time looking at the goats, I begin to understand this ) The time involved here is a matter of seconds, not minutes.

reply to post by CHRLZ

It's not just Unidentified, it's UnidentifiABLE. Get over it. Unless... .. has anyone got multiple reports of *unexplainable* things flying around Crete since this? no? Then do carry on pointlessly investamagating, as this thread went nowhere on page one and has gone downhill since then, imbo.

Since it is unidentifiABLE, iybo, does that mean you will refrain from further comments in this thread? If, according to your opinion, it is impossible to identify, should we all just delete this thread from our MyATS list, and forget about it, evermore? Hardly.

IMO, the thread started on page one, and has grown since then. We have analyzed, as we continue to do, EVERY possibility. The discourse of intelligent minds is refreshing, and although not always of my opinion, I factor the viewpoints of other members, and quite often, cherish them. Just because someone DOESN'T agree with me doesn't make a puzzle unsolvable.

This is a good puzzle, and it IS being examined at all angles. And will be, until it is solved.

My "unprofessionalism" is a mere ploy to get the "professionals" involved. A bit crude, yes.

Lacking a simple explanation, you state an unsolvable puzzle. Really?

The answers may not be forthcoming, but it is in our nature to figure them out.

reply to post by adjensen

impetus of proof would be on the part of someone claiming that order can appear out of chaos

I'm not saying a magical object at all. I'm saying we haven't examined all the possibilities that would ALLOW such an order to appear.

in this case, we have readily obvious distractions -- "Shooter"s husband is obviously focused on driving in a country and geography that he is unfamiliar with, and "Shooter" is focused on the goats

Your distractions are exaggerated. The husband is a tourist, as well as the Shooter, and therefore in no obvious hurry. The pace, accordingly would be slow and cautious. I'd speculate they stopped often to stretch and enjoy the beautiful scenery, as opposed to them being focused on strictly driving in rush hour traffic. When you are in a tourist mode, you DO notice ALL of your surroundings. They were from Germany, on vacation in Greece, and if I was there, I would've stopped the car, petted the goats, went down to the beach, and wiggled my naked toes in the sand.

My point being, when you are a tourist, with no hurry for anything, on vacation, you tend to SOAK UP the surroundings as opposed to being focused on a task. They were driving (specualtion, of course) at a leisurely pace. Their attention was focused on the surroundings, all the detail, the birds flying, the bags wafting, yet NONE of that was reported as occurring, yet you seem to make that a common occurrence.

Placing myself in that scenario, I would've noticed the goats ( ) but I also would've commented on the litter wafting about frequently, and the birds flying about. If they were there.

Sticking to facts, no birds are reported, no bags are reported, so I find it needless to fabricate stories to support a highly unlikely possibility. If you can just concede the bag theory is irrational, then I'll quit blathering.

Originally posted by Druid42
Since it is unidentifiABLE, iybo, does that mean you will refrain from further comments in this thread?

Sorry...? It's not a public forum? Why do you wish me to leave? Should I not post when I see errors or misuse of photogrammetry or flawed digital imaging analysis?

If, according to your opinion, it is impossible to identify, should we all just delete this thread from our MyATS list, and forget about it, evermore? Hardly.

Did I say that? May I ask you a simple question - is EVERY single thing on every image positively identifiable? More importantly, is every single image worthy of deep investigation? Is everything photogrammetrically analysable? And are all analyses correct?

Hint - no to all of the above. Flawed analysis is worse than no analysis, as others will copy it - which is WHY I asked for examples of your claims.. Eg, please answer the question - where is the example of a reflection that *isn't* on a surface? That's because there is no point coming up with solutions that are not testable and/or not correct.

In this case, there is very little that can be gleaned from the image, and the fact that the 'witness' saw nothing makes it even less worthy of random and unsupported guesses, if not proper analysis..

And IF the person was staring at the screen rather than the scene, do you honestly believe she would have seen a pale blue, low contrast flicker across the sky on that small, daylight-washed-out screen, when she was most likely looking at the goats?

This is a good puzzle, and it IS being examined at all angles. And will be, until it is solved.

I'm sorry, but that is simply unsupported optimism. Unless a very similar sighting/image is made of a known object, it will NOT be solved.

My "unprofessionalism" is a mere ploy to get the "professionals" involved. A bit crude, yes.

Funny how you say that .. now..

Most of the "professionals" are at other forums... I very rarely post here nowadays (not that I'm claiming to be one, but do ask around..)

Lacking a simple explanation, you state an unsolvable puzzle. Really?

Yep. No incredulity required. Because even in my own collection of tens of thousands of cityscape / landscape images, there are many that have unidentifiable bugs, birds, aircraft, helicopters, litter and other skyborne 'stuff'. Unsolvable puzzles - but frankly, who cares? Would you like me to post some for you (or anyone else here) to try to positively identify?

reply to post by CHRLZ

Would you like me to post some for you (or anyone else here) to try to positively identify?

That would be a great idea for another thread. Right now, in this one, we have our hands full.

I do see your point.

Originally posted by Druid42

in this case, we have readily obvious distractions -- "Shooter"s husband is obviously focused on driving in a country and geography that he is unfamiliar with, and "Shooter" is focused on the goats

Your distractions are exaggerated. The husband is a tourist, as well as the Shooter, and therefore in no obvious hurry. The pace, accordingly would be slow and cautious. I'd speculate they stopped often to stretch and enjoy the beautiful scenery, as opposed to them being focused on strictly driving in rush hour traffic. When you are in a tourist mode, you DO notice ALL of your surroundings. They were from Germany, on vacation in Greece, and if I was there, I would've stopped the car, petted the goats, went down to the beach, and wiggled my naked toes in the sand.

Perhaps, but I still think that the husband was focused on driving -- in the pictures that lead up to this one, they're obviously driving through a herd of goats, in a rental car, so while I agree that he's going slowly, he's likely paying attention to where the goats are, not looking off in the sky to the right side of the car. They're on a bumpy gravel road, apparently with a sharp drop off on one side and a bunch of unpredictable horned animals surrounding them. Hardly a pastoral drive.

Placing myself in that scenario, I would've noticed the goats (

) but I also would've commented on the litter wafting about frequently, and the birds flying about. If they were there.

There aren't many shorelines that I've been on that didn't have a bunch of birds flying around, and we've seen pictures of this very area with blue grocery bags on the beach, so I think it likely that they were present.

Sticking to facts, no birds are reported, no bags are reported, so I find it needless to fabricate stories to support a highly unlikely possibility. If you can just concede the bag theory is irrational, then I'll quit blathering.

As I said earlier, to me, it's the most rational explanation.

• Water on lens - not present in before or after pictures
  
• Drone or conventional aircraft - too large and slow moving to be in this picture and no other
  
• Alien spacecraft - there are no aliens
  
  
• Bird - doesn't have the appearance of a bird, and unless it was massive, it would be too close to not have distinctive features
  
• Reflection - no surface to reflect off of in that space
  
• Software artifact - too complex to have resulted from randomness
  

On the other hand, we know that there are blue plastic bags in the vicinity, it is very windy, so the bag would be there and gone in different pictures, it is ordinary enough that it could escape notice of people focused on less ordinary objects (goats) and, most importantly, it looks like a blue plastic bag

So let me get this straight this could possibly be camera artifact because something unknown hits the sensor which the software is unable to deal with throwing a wobbly resulting in artifact that no one has ever seen or able to reproduce ?

Ok fine im not going to argue with that just like the water/fluid flying through the air theory it doesnt make no sense to me but i think i understand one thing maybe its going to take a combination of creative/artistic and scientific people to solve this one if these groups can work together.