Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

Thanks for ignoring my post, top of page 9 Springer. I know you saw it because you're actively responding and moderating the posts before any other admin/mod.

reply to post by Still Naive?


Perhaps the bird is tagged?

reply to post by McGinty


It's been stated several times that the window was down when the picture was taken.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by jpmail

 

There was no glass in this shot, the side window is down.

Springer...

If that is true and can be verified, then all I can say is it's either doctored or the real deal.

Like already stated, this photo is very likely genuine.

A comparison of the EXIF data of the “UFO” photo with those of an original photo test taken with the same camera in 16:9 shows no differences between the two, both in the name tags and their relative position in the EXIF field:



Of course, EXIF data can be tampered with, but the JPEG compression characteristics of this photo 100% match as well those of the "photo test":

reply to post by elouina


I will look into any bird tagging operations around where this photo was taken tomorrow. If you want to jump the gun on me and do it tonight, that would make for an interesting read when I return tomorrow!

reply to post by Phage


"always raises a flag for me"

I have not seen anything on this forum, EVER that did not rais a flag for you. You seem to be a sceptic overlord. I wonder If you get paid a lot for it.

I'm at a loss here. An ATS exclusive UFO. I clicked with interest and excitement, saw that the site owner had written it.... OMG OMG... is this it!?

no. it's a bloody photo of a blurred object in the distance. No better than any other UFO picture we've seen and again, not seen by the photographer at the time of taking it. Now... when i take a photo, if something moves, i see it (generally it pisses me off as it buggers up the shot) Unless this camera is equipped with UFO detecting abilities, i'm more inclined to lean towards an anomaly picked up... whatever, we'll never know will we?

Exclusive? Oh dear, I'm all for the publication and discussion of the photo, but I'm really questioning the ATS EXCLUSIVE tagging of this with so little usable evidence (photos alone do not cut it these days). You've just moved ATS closer in the rankings to GLP and the other site we can't mention.. which isn't a good thing, you know?

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by jpmail

 

There was no glass in this shot, the side window is down.

Springer...

Looked at it again and you are right the window is down. When you see the women in the wing mirror you can see her fingers are just out past the where the window would be. Thanks for info that made me look again Springer.

Read the thread and every comment on every page.

Not convinced by anything that has been offered really. The balloon and bird theories aren't doing it for me, especially the bird one. Unfortunately with how strangely shaped the object is, and with that jagged circular hole on the left side, pareidolia runs rampant.

I'm not completely sold on this, but it's definitely an interesting image.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Oh come on. You are staring at the space in front of you, take a photo and only realize afterward there was something in front of you you didn';t see. Either it's a hoax or this woman is blind.

The only two explanations. You don't look at the picture and say this is what I see... you look at the picture and say what else is going on that's not obvious... the fact she didn't notice it while looking in that direction shows her story is bollocks.

I'll say this again. The digital camera can see more than the human eye.

For instance: A typical remote control outputs its signal in infrared. I cannot see it. My digital camera can. By your logic, I am either blind, or a liar by claiming this magical device outputs this beam of light that no one can see.

You can barely make it out in the reflection on her sunglasses. Also, it does appear one of the goats is noticing it. The goat's head position indicates it is not "looking down" but, it is rather looking slightly up and exactly in the direction of the UO.

Originally posted by higherconscience

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Oh come on. You are staring at the space in front of you, take a photo and only realize afterward there was something in front of you you didn';t see. Either it's a hoax or this woman is blind.

The only two explanations. You don't look at the picture and say this is what I see... you look at the picture and say what else is going on that's not obvious... the fact she didn't notice it while looking in that direction shows her story is bollocks.

I'll say this again. The digital camera can see more than the human eye.

For instance: A typical remote control outputs its signal in infrared. I cannot see it. My digital camera can. By your logic, I am either blind, or a liar by claiming this magical device outputs this beam of light that no one can see.

but the camera hasn't picked up infra-red has it? it's picked up a giant shiny metalic object in the sky, which couldn't be seen with the human eye? so, this camera is also equipped with what exactly? how can it see objects of that nature? at least tell us how a camera can do this, instead of spouting unrelated technical babble.

Originally posted by Popular
Thanks for ignoring my post, top of page 9 Springer. I know you saw it because you're actively responding and moderating the posts before any other admin/mod.

To be fair, your post was really reaching into the "what if" drawer.

I doubt Springer is going to post a screenshot of his inbox or whatever.

I just joined up after the Coast to Coast show that Springer and Jeff were on. This is a really good discussion with some top notch analysis. I'm leaning toward it being the real thing. I've seen some crazy stuff of my own- including a mylar balloon in a shot of an F-15 doing a zoom climb at an airshow. I've photographed plastic bags in the sky that were lifted by winds and thermals. This photo doesn't fit into any of my experiences.
(On a side note, I just emailed Springer about a sequence of 25 sunset photos with a very bizarre object in all shots)
My 20 years experience in Naval Aviation as a Combat Aircrewman gives me the background to judge some types of photos. The photo that is the subject of this thread goes outside the parameters for explanation.

reply to post by Screwed


Looks a bit like a ring pull from a can of soda/beer to me.

Or it could be a space ship.

I havn't woken up properly just yet.

Originally posted by murkraz

Originally posted by Popular
Thanks for ignoring my post, top of page 9 Springer. I know you saw it because you're actively responding and moderating the posts before any other admin/mod.

To be fair, your post was really reaching into the "what if" drawer.

I doubt Springer is going to post a screenshot of his inbox or whatever.

Agreed. Sometimes people have to remember that the few that own/run this site are probably a little busier than the average member here. If i recall rightly, a few years back in a thread Bill mentioned how many emails and messages he got in a single day here.....it was more than i'd want to cope with i know that much.

Add to that the replying to every post that we write. It's some task, and i'd even go as far as saying forgivable if they missed one post. It just may not be an intentional personal attack.

CX.

To tell you.. I am also dubious when I see a clear photo of an object. What's the story other than being photoed, it isnt some famous case.

reply to post by Springer
Camera is pointing toward the ground,what kinda fool could not see this,unless there is a shooter in the back seat!

So wait a minute, Ritzmann used top line software and software that is only available in his field to study this photo? The only software he mentions is Photoshop CS3?

Brilliant report and write up though and certainly one of the best photos i've seen.

The object to me seems to not be that far away. It looks as if it's right in the middle of the 'bay area' bit of the sea.

I rarely post here anymore and this reminds me of why.

An object that is clearly not one of the normal bird-atmospheric-balloon-waterdrop-photoshop is posted. It is well reviewed by experts, the shooter is credible.

How many replies asking questions already answered? Raising objections already addressed? grasping at straws to explain because this somehow hurts their reality, or simply making assumptions about light, photography, perspective etc with no experience or expertise at all other than how it seems it should work.

Good lord too bad public forums don't have a stupid filter.

I am going to assume it is what it looks like because there is no evidence otherwise.

Look at the area on a map (I did) there is a bay about 5 miles wide with secluded mountains on either side. The mountainous peninsulas on either side of the bay are very sparsely populated and it is a very remote area.

I believe it looks like a craft emerging from the water of the secluded bay changing from a water camouflage to an atmospheric camouflage.

Look at the proximity to the hottest spots of violence, war, and possible sparks to WW3.

Wouldn't an underwater base in a secluded and hidden bay be a good idea for any nation or alien that has a stake in the future of the planet?

and the goats are clearly looking at it... you can tell by the way they are holing their ears. People who don't know goats shouldn't make stuff up they don't know about.