Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

Juat a couple of things to add regarding all the cries about her poor quality photography/camera considering she is a professional photographer....

Just because this is what she does for a living, does that automatically mean she will produce or even aim to produce a world class industry standard photo for every single pic she takes in her life?

Does it mean she will be using her full range of photographic equipment for every pic she takes?

Is it so inconceivable to think that maybe she has a slightly lower quality camera for every day holiday snaps, or one she likes to keep in the car? She probably has a dozen cameras, and maybe, just maybe one of those is her every day fun camera for every day stuff?

You can see by the first picture that she seems to be taking a quick shot of the goats. Just point the camera out of the window, quick check that the goats are in the screen and click. Job done.

Does it really have to be something worthy of National Geographic every time she takes a shot?

Just thought it was worth adding as so many people are pouring scorn on this lady's photography skills.

I qualified in personal training and sports therapy when i left the forces, doesn't mean i'm a picture of ripped perfection 24/7.

CX.

reply to post by Springer


Looks like a truck with no hanger

Mystery Solved!

Haha. Great & intriguing thread. I hope someone can come up with an explanation, or find some sort of wind sail or something that has the same shape. I hate seeing one picture of a UFO without accompanying ones to compare it to. It's like going from 2d to 3d when you have more than one.

To me, the object doesn't look that gigantic, and looks like it couldn't be all that far behind that rock. There's also a trail in the water below it to the right that looks like it would be going in the direction that the UFO would be pulling it, (if it were a wind surfer of some kind)

Just my thoughts. S&F

Originally posted by CX
Juat a couple of things to add regarding all the cries about her poor quality photography/camera considering she is a professional photographer....

Just because this is what she does for a living,

CX.

Where does it say she is a PRO photographer? She says she is a computer artist, not a pro photog.... The initial post refer to her as the 'photographer'.. doesnt mean she is a professional... Or did I miss something?

Not enough resolution here to see what's going on.

AT a guess I'd say it's either one of the camera hobby kits you can get or a small non-conventional drone. More or less with a helicopter body shape and some round ring at the base --- that's either a fan housing or a gyro to stabilize.

I'd seen a design a few years back with a big fan on the base of a drone, and likely the thick outer ring is for a spinning gyro.

Or of course, if we don't see it zip around, it could be just a hover balloon with a fan.

>> If we see it move fast, my bet is on a drone -- but the shininess of the object makes me think that this is unlikely military.

LEAST LIKELY is a space craft, there are too many exposed parts for re-entry unless it has some kind of force field, and if they had that tech -- we wouldn't even see the craft because, well, that's a longer story about resonating space/time to create a shield in the first place -- which also means you can allow light to pass through an object since it's interference with space/time that makes objects opaque in the first place (and that's another long conversation).

Thanks for the post. Likely we are going to see a HUGE NUMBER of these things with the prevalence of drones. You need to have enough resolution to show that they have "no fan blades" however -- so otherwise, NOBODY can say for sure, right?

reply to post by dunipop

I'm all for trying to debunk this but why every time someone post a photo of something paranormal/ufo there will be a fairly large group of people who will come up with the most illogical theories..?

Bird
Plastic bag
baseball cap
diamond ring reflection
Smudge/chip in the roll down window
Bug

Can you explain why these are illogical?

From what I see, people are just throwing out ideas.

Don't think anyone has mentioned this yet but on the second image there is either an anomoly on the lens or it's the ufo that's captured in the first image. I'm betting that it's that ufo given that it's around the same direction.

On that note about the anomoly on the lens, it's not there on the first image and it moves up and down if you scroll the image. Either way, very interesting Springer and gives alot of food for thought.



Scroll along to see the anomoly i've marked

I've been looking through the many images on the web, as i'm sure many of you have here, and i must say i'm struggling with the kite theory.

I flew power/traction kites for many years, and although i never tried kiteboarding, the larger kites are pretty much the same in shape and the way they fly. I even contemplated venturing into the design of kite themed t-shirts, and spent a lot of time designing logos relating to kite shapes.

So although i'm no expert, i know many of the shapes a kite makes when in the air, and i still struggle with making this one fit. Typing in "kiteboarding" into Google will give millions of pics of kites out at sea, pulling all sorts of shapes, but they don't match the pic in question. Theres always a first though, so if any other kite flyers can prove me wrong, feel free.

Secondly, there was the mention of an air base nearby. Is there usually any increased drone activity around bases these days? For security or general surveillance?

I ask because although not being the same as what is in the discussed picture, i came across this video about the first spherical drone from the Japanese MOD. If they've got them, you can bet your life many other countries have by now.

Might be worth thinking about, although i'm not sure what the protocol for using drones so low to where the public is?

To be honest, i know very little about them at all, i just thought i'd put it out there....



Even without any relation to the object being discussed, i reckon this thing would put to sleep so many UFO sightings out there.

Theres also the "RC toy" theory. Have been looking into those a great deal, but as yet, cannot find anything similar. They are not uncommon on any beach these days.

CX.

reply to post by jessejamesxx


Explanation: St*rred!

Great work ..but you have overlooked the vital peice of the equation which is what was the camera's preset focus range etc. limited to?, ... and as I clearly showed in my post on pg17 that the focus range was sub 60cm!

Several other members such as phage and nothingwrong have also detailed similar information based directly off of the exif data without any credible refuting being mustered against the logic and details we provided to this thread.

Furthermore the seas were choppy and the winds were detailed by Springer on Coast2Coast radio as being in the 20mph range and I wonder if such boating and aerial sporting tourism practices could be carried out in such conditions as I am far from the ocean and about as land loving as one can possibly get without becoming a miner?

Finally if the parachute/sail is visible then why wouldn't a passanger/seat be also visible suspended beneath the object [Jellyfish! ] in question?

Personal Disclosure: Can you please show that the object, you offer up as a possible explanation, can be accounted for within the limitations of the exif data?

sideview of something like this? there are many different shapes and sizes of these things. www.skywalkervtol.com... Could be this type also but can't get the right view.www.iconaircraft.com...

reply to post by jessejamesxx


The shoot is tilted on those types of things. It isn't a parachute type craft.

Originally posted by dunipop

Originally posted by CX
Juat a couple of things to add regarding all the cries about her poor quality photography/camera considering she is a professional photographer....

Just because this is what she does for a living,

CX.

Where does it say she is a PRO photographer? She says she is a computer artist, not a pro photog.... The initial post refer to her as the 'photographer'.. doesnt mean she is a professional... Or did I miss something?

Ah my mistake.....apologies for that.....however in that case, theres no excuse then for people moaning about her photography then.

CX.

reply to post by jritzmann


Thanks Springer & Ritzmann, this is one of the best photo cases I've seen in a very long time.

And to Mr. Ritzmann, your explanations, while eloquent and very credible, won't do you a lick of good on this site. Only a small majority of posters here are actually interested in trying to understand the widespread and worldwide UFO dilemna. This is evidenced by the few that actually took the time to read the study and look at the photos. I took the time, and appreciate your work.

These forums have been reduced to a popularity contest amongst the resident "experts" (and I use that term very loosely) who always offer up prosaic explanations, no matter how far-fetched they might be in light of what is being presented.

Originally posted by dunipop

Where does it say she is a PRO photographer? She says she is a computer artist, not a pro photog.... The initial post refer to her as the 'photographer'.. doesnt mean she is a professional... Or did I miss something?

Here you go, this is what i was referring to....i thought i recalled something about her photography in JR's report...bold highlight by me....

She has not made any suspicious excuses, nor has she concealed one very interesting aspect of her life: she is a professional, and very artistic photographer. Her work is shown in prominent upscale galleries and she seems to be very well seated in her long standing professional career.

Whether actually classed as a professional photographer or not, it seems she is obviously capable of that standard of work. Therefore, i refer back to my initial post about it.

CX.

A single image, no corroborating sightings at the time, no intent on the part of the photographer to capture anything anomalous at the moment that the picture was taken (action of taking photo was not in response to seeing something odd and reacting), so all one ultimately has is a single image.

I personally feel there is little of interest or importance here. The term "grasping at straws" comes to mind.

Originally posted by CX

Originally posted by dunipop

Where does it say she is a PRO photographer? She says she is a computer artist, not a pro photog.... The initial post refer to her as the 'photographer'.. doesnt mean she is a professional... Or did I miss something?

Here you go, this is what i was referring to....i thought i recalled something about her photography in JR's report...bold highlight by me....

She has not made any suspicious excuses, nor has she concealed one very interesting aspect of her life: she is a professional, and very artistic photographer. Her work is shown in prominent upscale galleries and she seems to be very well seated in her long standing professional career.

Whether actually classed as a professional photographer or not, it seems she is obviously capable of that standard of work. Therefore, i refer back to my initial post about it.

CX.

edit on 1/10/12 by CX because: My spelling was that of a clumsy chimp.

well exactly, whether she is a pro or not is irrelevant... the photo was not meant to be a masterpiece, she saw goats running in front of the car and snapped some pics... The camera itself is not meant for masterpieces, just souvenirs....

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by jessejamesxx

 

Great research, cheers!

I personally don't really agree that the object has to be within 60cm. Are you saying the EXIF data proves that it is? The rocks are much further than 60cm and are more in focus that the object, in my opinion of course. It could be that it's a small object close up, but I don't think there's much definition at all on the object and it seems pretty out of focus for the most part.

I'm trying to see the image how you're describing it, but it's one of those optical illusions. I can't make my brain believe that the object is within reach out of the window.



In the situation I proposed (not very confidently) the surfer would be in the water on a board or boat of some kind holding onto the kite/parachute thing. The object could be headed toward the beach and be closer to the camera than the person in the water. It's a weak theory, I know.

ETA; if it is a parachute of some sort, it could be weirdly folded/not totally inflated by the wind, wasn't the wind 20mph? That doesn't seem very strong. I'll see if I can illustrate what I mean in a following post.

I just read the diamond ring theory and clicked to enlarge the picture, and looked at her unusual shaped ring, and there is quite a resemblance. Not sure what she's up to there. Not sure why the goats were looking if it is just a diamond ring, though. So that's not conclusive, but a possibility, since that isn't a normal shaped craft.

reply to post by ukredstar


Nice analysis but it's important to read the thread prior to making such determinations. This has already been discussed.

Thanks for the contribution, however.

She is reflected perfectly in the mirror with her ring, so that is quite a strong likelihood. On my list of possibilities/probabilities, diamond ring #1.