Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

Here's something to think about, as I believe what we are seeing in these photos are just hyped up nothings.
But the real question you all should be asking is, that if we are all able to take photos, and edit photos and videos, than why would they be here for anything revolving around the fact of getting out attention.

With that said, if there are crafts being seen by other people, legit claims, and they are not trying to get attention, what are they doing here?

I could care less if someone believe in them or not, that's their problem, not mine, but the main issue is, what are they and why are they around in the skies?

Originally posted by mrshakabuku
reply to post by Springer

 

Its suspicious. if she didn't see the object,

I don't think it is implausible thate someone would not notice something that otherwise would seem obvious. Attention is very selective: www.livescience.com...

as far as this being an "unprofessional" photo...I just had some "professional" photos taken, several were not that good but a few were good and some I look like I am pretty good shape. To get a better impression of her skills, we need to look at her work as a whole...not just one random photo.

Funny that they did not notice this thing. They were probably too busy looking at the goats. It is so obvious to see that the goats are looking at that thing. They even appear to be walking towards it, not fearing it at all. I don't know if it is some form of man made drone or it could even be something someone local has built like a remote control hovercraft. With so much drone technology being developed it is not surprising to see pictures pop up. It could be alien but I think aliens are not alien, being original inhabitants of earth. We are not the only advanced race of beings that developed on this planet. If they are advanced enough we wouldn't be able to find them.

Good thread, it looks real. What it is is the only thing that is probably up for debate. Maybe someone who has knowledge of this technology will reply. It is definitely not a hubcap or anything like that. I can't help identify it because I have no experience with these things. People often focus on something and can't see anything else. That is how magicians fool so many people. Our brains do this automatically, if they don't then a person suffers from ADD or related conditions.

Looks like a chip in the window to me.

But the window was down.

Springer,

This thread responses is so polluted than all other thread, either its 911, Middle East, etc etc, the mentality of people responding to this post here are so... ..."sad" and lack of strength or is it disinfo struggling to kill the thread ?

Either its intentional or intended, I'm sorry for my opinion, but the level is really showing.

Guys, at least read the early explanation in the thread entry. Then start your own study.
See how Phage is doing it - hes gone to do his debunking research, still havent respond yet, because this is pretty hard to debunk. For the mean time, I'll debunk you guys.

1.The glass window was down. Go back to 1st page and see.
2.Shooter was randomly taking pics of her subject - goat.
3.Object was not seen - too fast for her eyes maybe ?
4.It is very very rare when you can capture yourself taking pics (except in those showoff teen pics)
5.Angle of picture can be triple check, its very rare opportunity - horizon + picture + camera captured itself
6.Validity of pic was explained at least 2 times already, at least!
7.If its a plastic bag, she would seen it.
8.Would you take pic of yourself, faked it and claim it as original ? (except the teen pics!)
9.I saw everyone zooming in, mark something,and post. Yet its terribly poor quality ? Why ? See my pic, its 700% magnify and I dont see a big square shape.
10.The live session require payment, maybe because its "the real deal ?"
11.The object is far, if its near then it might be inside the focus area and appear more in detail.
Seriously, go back and read the first page, the guy comment it professionally and its well written. Quite a waste if you dont read it, the report is free!

Ah yes, the goat pose do suggest they are looking at the object, but its arguable.
What is it ? I have no need for that question anymore, I already accept the fact.
Whats matter is - why there ?

Has anyone mentioned that the Lens may be chipped?

Haven't read every page, but when I first saw the image, that is what I thought.

blogs.evergreen.edu...

Originally posted by auraelium
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

Im pretty sure its a power kite, someone below the cliff is kite surfing, which i have done myself on Crete at one time,oddly enough.Its very popular there.
Some times when they lose wind they collapse and fall and can make circular shapes like that and they come in all colours and sizes.Metallic ones with gold and silver are quite common.
But giveen its close proximity to the shore and the fact that it looks to be very good kite surfing weather from the photo, perfect actualy,I would say theres a pretty high likelyhood it is.

edit on 1-10-2012 by auraelium because: (no reason given)

This theory needs to be tested and I am not skilled to do it.

We need to know how large a power kite is in general (The size range) and determine how far it would be based on it's size in the photo. Then from the would be able to determine how high it would be.

Finally we need to know about how far she is from the beach and the terrain, how high is the cliff, etc.

After thinking on it it appears to me to be too high to be a kite. But without knowing how high they normally would fly and how far it would have to be to be a kite of that size I really don't know.

The possibility of a drone to me is every bit as crazy as an alien craft as it would mean someone has a secret base on Greece because I kinda doubt a bankrupt country is rolling some multi billion euro secret drone program.

It is most likely a mundane object that we have yet to conclude, it may be a kite but I wouldn't believe that until someone runs the numbers. ALL of the other ideas so far make no sense when held up to scrutiny.

reply to post by Springer


Edit...cuz after reading all the posts on page one, my observations were already addressed.

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


I don't think the light reflection is off. There appears to be protuberances on the surface that we are seeing, so I'm not viewing it as a slick "dome". If you invert the light you can see some things better.



With the dark areas being reflected sun. There is a very sharp angled surface with what appears to be a second structure at the base of the angled surface where it intersects the lower half of the object, and it is at this point that the sun's reflection seems to glinting off the object. Also, it appears to me that something is protruding toward us about midline and at the lower section of the object. A wing? Something...it's causing what appears as a protuberance that I believe was labeled "A", but I actually think it is extending outward.

The other dark areas (i.e. sun reflections) toward the left end of the object also seem to indicate a contour that has forward pointing (toward the viewer) (or concave) features to it.

I don't know what it is...but it's kind of neat to look at!

I'm not sure that because they didn't see it means it wasn't there. She was taking a series of shots like 3 seconds apart and if this thing was going fast, then I would think it would be easy to miss while focusing on just clicking pictures repetitively. I also think a slow-moving bag would end up in multiple pictures....as would a bird.

The gentlemen who posted saying he lived in that area and indicating that there were air force bases in the area has been the most informative reply I've read so far. This could be something from one of those bases.

reply to post by Springer


Explanation: S&F!

After several hours discussing this issue [during and after listening to the c2c radio broadcast by Springer] with several of my fellow members in the ATS Chat room I have come to the following conclusions ...

1stly Some members questioned the type of camera and Canon type of camera was confirmed [note the large A in the mirror writing ok]...



The object is within 60cm of the camera [as stated by Phage on pg1] due to the following data that tends to prove that ...

The EXIF data [as shown by elevenaugust on pg12 of this thread] details ...



With an aperture of 3.2 she needed a high shutterspeed otherwise the pic would be overexposed.

That lead to a very fast shutter speed of 1/1244.

Also it was set on face recognition [ie face detect], thus the focus point was in the mirror, to capture the self portrait.

Now this means although the focus range was set at auto it chose a very close point to focus onto and further proof of this is ...

The rocks just beyond the car to the left hand side are out of focus and yet everything closer than that is in focus.

The object itself is in focus due to being very sharply defined even when zoomed in and sceengrabed and saved as a jpg...



Therefor the object is most likely within 60cm of the camera.

Where was the picture taken from???

"On August 19 of this year (2012) my husband and I were driving towards a very beautiful beach called Balos beach, Gramvousa in Crete where we were on a holiday break. We were driving on a long dirt road to get to the beach and because of all the holes and humps in the road we're driving really slow. At some point during this half hour drive a hurt of goats were on the road, sort of walking with us so I started taking pictures of the situation. I took some shots leaning out of my opened window and shot the pictures with my reflection in the mirror, the goats walking with us and the spectacular view. At some point I got out of the car and took some more shots.

I found the area in question using Google Earth app and here are my screen grabs ...

Compressed to fit ATS thread posting limits ...


And the fullsize version supplied as thumbnail ...


And the mountain range across the bay looks very similar to the mountain range across the bay in the original pic supplied in the OP.


The original picture clearly shows a windy day due to white foamy peaks on the rather choppy looking waves and Springer mentioned they estimated 20mph winds which means anything airbourne and carried by the wind would be moving at 8+m/s and so what ever the object is ... it was lucky to be captured in frame at all as an instant before or later it would have been out of frame.

Since it must be very close and it doesn't seem to cast a shadow [which me and my fellow chatters agreed would probably appear lower on the door frame out of the picture frame] and appears airbourne ...

It must be very small indeed and OL and his fellow chatters speculated as to what that could be!

We came up with the following scenerio...

Sea Foam Bubble



Sea Foam [hoydenabouttown.com]

This is a natural process occurring in especially big seas, where plankton and other small sea organisms are literally pulverised against the rocks of the shoreline, resulting in a very fine protein suspension in the sea which coats the air-bubbles created by the waves to create a stiff froth, just the same way as egg protein coats air bubbles to make meringue, and beer protein coats air bubbles to produce a head of foam in a beer glass.

Sea Foam [wiki]

As aerosol Sea Spray USO





Note how airbourne that gets.

Personal Disclosure: Continued next post ...

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Explanation: Continued from previous post ...

Now to make it really weird ...

Carrying a Lethal Transparent Baby Jellyfish!

Jellyfish [westmeade.net]

One of the smallest is also one of the most deadly. The Irukandji is only about 1 1/2 inches across yet it is very poisonous. It is very dangerous because it is transparent (nearly invisible). Sometimes swimmers do not realize that they have been stung until the get very sick!

Jellyfish are not fish.
A jelly has no head, brain, heart, eyes, nor ears. It has no bones, either. It is 95% water! Scientists estimate there may be 2,000 species (kinds) of jellyfish, but we are only familiar with 200. They have been drifting through the world's oceans for more than 650 million years.

Can a baby jellyfish sting you?
When baby jellyfish are first born they do not look much like jellyfish. Look at the picture below. When the baby jellyfish reaches the Medusa stage it uses its stingers to catch food! So the answer is no. Only as the baby nears adulthood can it sting you.

So yeah I believe it is a baby jellyfish taking a norty ride in its parents sea foam sea spray uso bubble at amazing aerial speeds of 8+m/s [20mph]!

Personal Disclosure: Thanks to Rubicant13, vVv, LSH and several other members from chat [too many to mention] for helping me assess and debunk this threads data. You lot ROCK!

OMFG are you serious?!! That takes the cake for most ridiculous speculation ever

reply to post by freelance_zenarchist

The things that bother me about this:

If she is a professional photographer howe come this is such a lousy photo? The focus is wrong, the framing is terrible.

The Cannon Powershot s100 used is far from being what most professionals would use, especially those who are reasonably well off.

The object is right there almost in the center of the vertical of the frame.Lucky! Considering the terrible framing of the shot over all.

A photographer is trained to look at and see what is in the frame and this becomes second nature. It seems very odd that she did not see this at the time the photo was taken. This lady looks at photographs and takes pictures for a living!

I don't buy the explanation regarding why the object lines up with the orientation of the camera and not the natural horizon. Is the suggestion that the object saw that the photo was being taken and adjusted its orientation accordingly?

The aperture setting on the camera was f3.2. on this camera the sensor is a 1/1.7" CMOS. Even at 5.2mm (35mm equiv 24mm) wide angle the depth of field is very limited because of these factors. According to the exif data the focus was "At 58cm, with a depth of field of about 57cm, (from about 17cm before the focus point to about 40cm after)"
That means only stuff which was within that 57cm range would be in focus. And the further away you get from that range, the more out of focus it would get. So if this object is a considerable distance from the camera it aught to be much more out of focus than it appears to be.

The picture was taken August 19, 2012 9:13:45AM unless the cameras clock was set wrong. I doubt it was as this is a professional photographer we are talking about! I can't remember if this fits in with the story, but it does seem the sun is quite high in the sky for that early in the day. Of course the camera could well have still been set to the photographers home city time zone, but we are not told where that is.

Compare this pic of a Cannon PS S100 with the one in the picture. The S100 writing is missing from her camera??
www.dpreview.com...

From a photographers point of view this picture is suspicious, although I agree some of my points above could be thought of as week, taken together they make me suspicious.

reply to post by OmegaLogos

Very nice post OL. I have to agree that the camera aperture and other aspects were definitely not up to par for a so called "professional". Nice catch and very good hypothesis. I believe that this photo was something close to the lens and not something photographed at any far distance. Good catch.

Originally posted by auraelium
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

Im pretty sure its a power kite, someone below the cliff is kite surfing, which i have done myself on Crete at one time,oddly enough.Its very popular there.
Some times when they lose wind they collapse and fall and can make circular shapes like that and they come in all colours and sizes.Metallic ones with gold and silver are quite common.
But giveen its close proximity to the shore and the fact that it looks to be very good kite surfing weather from the photo, perfect actualy,I would say theres a pretty high likelyhood it is.

edit on 1-10-2012 by auraelium because: (no reason given)

That theory doesn't fly...

Have you ever been on a beach when some people are doing kiting ?
With such a clear sky you are almost compelled to watch it. Plus it doesn't ring with many things already pointed out several times in this thread.

Of course, you might not agree with that, but usually, while on a beach your attention goes to :
1. a beautiful babe
2. a kite
3. a goat
4. noisy people
5. noisy people pointing at a UFO
6. a UFO

Not even close, from that distance it would have to GIGANTIC to even approach the size of the object. NO.

reply to post by auraelium

This is probably the first time I've seen something on ATS and have no explanation readily available.. and as much as I admire Phage, his suggestion doesn't seem to fit for me this time.. but I still take the skeptic's point of view that this will turn out to be something mundane ( if ever we get a good explanation ) .. the fact she didn't see it takes a lot away from what we can ever know.. she's basically no different than us .. we're all just viewing the photo same as her.

People put much to much faith in EXIF image data. I know several programs that can edit EXIF data. So saying that this is not photoshopped because there is nothing in the EXIF data that suggests it means nothing.

Im still undecided on what the object is or how it got there. But it looks to clear and bright to be very far away if it was a real object.

Its certainly not proof off anything at the moment.

If this UFO caught in the OP image is real, this thread will be (or is) a prime example of what will happen when a legit UFO image/video come into our lives.

What will it take to make us believers? I don't think there's a video or image in this day and age that we will not doubt or question.

There will always be those who will question the validity of such image/video and hence there are lots of people around the globe who refuse to come forward presenting their finding for fear of being ridiculed when they are telling the truth of what they saw/took a pic of.

Originally posted by Phage
The "photographer did not see the object while taking the picture" always raises a flag for me.

Mr. Ritzman believes it shows characteristics of being a distant object because of haze effects. I don't see it. As seen by near field objects (like the rear view mirror) being in sharp focus and the EXIF data, the automatic focus has selected something at a distance of 0.58m (probably the rear view mirror) from the camera. The rock outcrops are assuredly out of focus. He says there is no evidence of motion blur but with a shutter speed of 1/1,244 second this is not surprising.

While it's not possible to say exactly what the object is, it appears to me that it is close to the camera and relatively small. I don't really understand how Mr. Ritzman can come to the conclusion that if it were a wind blown object it would have to be of "extremely significant size".

If someone wants to place some sort of metaphysical explanation on the object (it knew its picture was being taken) that's fine. For me it seems to be something close to the camera, either blowing or flying past, which looks odd.

edit on 9/30/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I agree with your post 100%. When I saw this photo the first time I was pretty sure it was someone's beach hat, (perhaps with some shiney decoration on it) that had escaped and was floating away on the breeze.