Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

Originally posted by CigaretteMan

Thanks for the effort even though it did not work out very well. Imagining things and dreaming is ok so its healthy for you but when it comes to investigation I think imagining and wanting to believe is why your explanation has fallen flat. But your art is pretty good. Can you draw us a painting or do some sketch art, it would be much more impressive than your ufo investigation skills which are so far falling short of logical.

I think you are confused. Someone else came up with that. No investigation on my part. I did not draw that. I only said the drawing resembled a bird that was common in that area. Perhaps read the post?

here is the original post. so all your criticisms should be directed at dethfromabuv...

Originally posted by dethfromabuv
I've got to go with the bird explanation.

reply to post by dethfromabuv

Originally posted by MarrsAttax

Originally posted by aLLeKs
from my feeling it does not seem thaaat far aways... I would say it is one of this helium filled baloons you can get a a fair... and, maybe it is only me, for me the shape looks like the head of a panda slightly tilted back

silver black panda head shaped helium filled baloon in the sunlight

that's it...

btw. I say panda because my imagination shows me black panda eyes

edit on 30-9-2012 by aLLeKs because: (no reason given)

I turned the image upside down. Defintely looks like a cartoony panda face to me

Maybe it's me but...It looks like her ring when it's upside down. Could this be some kind of reflection from her ring to the mirror to the camera lens?

reply to post by free_spirit


Hi there....

A question from someone who hasn't got a clue about Photoshop....does the info you provided there give any indication as to what was done in Photoshop?

Would it show as having used the software even if all you did was to open the picture up in Photoshop, even if you did not manipulate the image after that?

For example, when i look at my photos, i use Microsoft Office Picture Manager. If you open a photo in Photoshop purely to view it, does this count as use of picture editing software and therefore disqualify a pic from being original?

Thanks,

CX.

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, 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.

I read all the posts up to this one on page 20-odd and as a semi pro photographer and the wife of a professional photographer who has to make money with his work I have to say this now.
It is odd that she has a crappy camera.
It is also odd that she is supposed to be an artist.
We always, always, always have our pro cameras [Nikon D300 and hubby D800] with various pro lenses on us.
ESPECIALLY on holiday!
The reason is that he photographs landscapes and I like to capture interesting smaller details. Where on earth can you get new and exciting material from, if not on holiday?
However in order to make money with any photograph, they have to be taken in high resolution. So when customers want posters and you blow them up to a large size, you keep the details.

Anyone who doesn't care about the resolution of their images when blown up to larger sizes is either a hired small newspaper photographer [as resolution doesn't matter too much], not really into photography that much or just a normal lady on holiday with a small camera.
Basically every picture she is taking like this will be useless for any art or publishing, unless she keeps them facebook size. Which artist is going to be happy with that?

These are the gripes I have about the background story of this lady.

However. Lets say she is all that's been said. Then maybe the fact that she is an ARTIST could mean that this could be an art project.
Has anyone thought of that?
Plenty of similar stuff has been made as an art project. See the London UFO a while back:
www.youtube.com...


Last but not least, if she is all that's been said and the picture is what it is, then it is an object for sure. What kind of an object can absolutely NOT be found out by us using only this picture as a guide.
The object could be upside down, sideways etc. We just don't know.
It seems metallic but small. The first thing I thought was 'weatherballoon'.
Then again it reminded me of this UFO:
www.youtube.com...
Which apparently was a weatherballoon.

In wind, the bottom part may well have wrapped itself around the bulbous head.
I will go with weather balloon or mylar balloon before I believe that this is an alien spacecraft from another dimension.

However my opinion may be completely wrong and it is alien. Nobody can say anything with 100% certainty but we have to eliminate the more likely explanation first before believing blindly.

This is a brilliant thread, very enjoyable. S&F

The original images were numbered..
e.g.
1365.jpg for example.

Originally posted by paradisepurple

Originally posted by ukredstar
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

edit on 1/10/2012 by ukredstar because: EDIT: Added last sentence

Surprised no-one seems to have commented on this post by ukredstar on page 19... Nice one! I checked that pic and didn't see it...

Saw that, but it is of a different order being shot through the front windscreen, which also carries a long streak from most likely is the wiper blade perimeter through more dirt. Nothing to say though that it could be the same object at a far greater distance, or just the remains of a bug. Perhaps if you asked Springer if the driver used the washers at any time near when the picture was taken might help too, there are residual water marks on the rear view mirror in the subject photograph. Just to clear up that aspect.

reply to post by free_spirit

A proper explanation is offered to know why the use of Photoshop appears in the EXIF.

Because Photoshop was used to save the file. It does not indicate that any manipulation of the file was done (other than jpg compression).

This is one of the most complete reports I have ever encountered of a UFO on this site in the regrettably short time I have been using it. Kudos to Springer!

With that said, it looks legit. That's not saying a lot, but what else can I say? I'm not an expert. All I know is that the OP has gone to extensive - truly extensive - effort to make known everything that could be known about this event.

This is a goldmine compared to what we usually get, so maybe it's the real deal. The more information you have, the more chances of finding a fake. So far, looks like it's standing up pretty well to scrutiny. I just think the person who got the shot was pretty friggin' lucky. One of these days, man....one of these days...

Edit: Maybe I should recant. That UFO does look suspiciously like the ring she's wearing, as can be seen in the mirror. I took a good look, and the gleam appears in just the right spot. The UFO looks distorted the way it would look if it had been a ring before it was enlarged. Can anyone take that ring and try to rework it that same way and see what comes out?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by free_spirit

 

A proper explanation is offered to know why the use of Photoshop appears in the EXIF.

Because Photoshop was used to save the file. It does not indicate that any manipulation of the file was done (other than jpg compression).

edit on 10/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Would it indicate as such if any manipulation WAS done? If so, how would it be displayed in the EXIF?

Thanks.

CX.

reply to post by Phage


Although the photo analyst said he used CS3?
Can the versions be distinguished by the various software?

Originally posted by gguyx
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
jellyfish
/

See William of Occam.

Also, your presupposition that the pic is 'of something paranormal/ufo', like you've already made up your mind just what kind of pic it is.

a ufo is "unidentified flying object" ... and what I meant was a picture presented as something paranormal, etc... I have no idea what the object is but I know what it isn't...

reply to post by CX

Would it indicate as such if any manipulation WAS done? If so, how would it be displayed in the EXIF?

No. It wouldn't. EXIF data can be very useful in image analysis (providing details like shutter speed and focal length and, in this case the distance at which the camera was focused) but it doesn't record manipulation.

Someone who has Photoshop (I don't) might want to take that ring on her finger and see if they can flip it and enlarge it to imitate that UFO. See how much they look alike. Try to reproduce what MIGHT have happened, and see how likely it is that it DID happen.

I'm not saying it did, I'm just suggesting we check all avenues. I know Springer seems to approve of the shot, but hey, let's be a little cautious here, yeah?

Edit: If all the information is fully correct, I can't find anything wrong with it. I reserve judgment, but I will definitely say that it's probably not a fake. What it is, I don't know!

reply to post by Reverend58


Don't think so. It would never have shown that clearly.

Originally posted by freelance_zenarchist

Originally posted by davidbiedny
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.

Says the guy who called the Jerusalem UFO hoax "the most compelling video I've seen in years".

You had almost none of that corroborating evidence in that case yet you called the Jerusalem videos "some of the best genuine UFO footage shot in recent memory".

It's pretty clear you're letting your personal opinions of Ritzmann cloud your judgement here. Thanks for stopping by though.

Please mods let me go off topic to make this point?
If not I understand.

You gotta watch that HOAX stuff. This is how interesting sightings get
squashed and forgotten. And no offense at all because I completely
understand why you feel the way you do about that sighting...however,

This is approached of labeling the other members views as not sound,
because of the belief that the Jerusalem UFO was genuine is very is damaging.
I'm quite sure you know the debate about it being a real case or not.
And if you understand the debate you should know you can not say,
the Jerusalem UFO is a proven Hoax.
It's quite a bit like saying..

JERUSALEM UFO PROVEN REAL!

Yep Discovery Magazine said it was a Hoax as did ATS ultimately in a hotly contested move.
Did anyone read why it was deemed hoax?Or did they stop at the word Hoax?
Read why the Jerusalem UFO is said to be a hoax. www.google.com... -case-closed-110331.html&ei=TSJqUPDTDuPbyAHWvIAI&usg=AFQjCNED-vCjUdwlbhMsgGvGhXDMCKjNLQ
and check out this take on it www.aolnews.com... And here..www.abovetopsecret.com...

Proven hoax? No flipping way.
But it will be labeled and remembered that way
if every time it's brought up, if it has the word HOAX next to it.
If that's the intention it works incredibly well.

My very speculative unproven opinion?
Utah had the same craft and was the first sighting because that's where these giant Aerogel
and Graphene Triangles live. At Nellis. Doesn't have to be ET.

Oh crap Phage is here . Well I sounded intelligent and reasonable for a brief moment.

reply to post by Springer


Looks a little bit like a US Early warning Jet to me. DC10 "or something similar", with a Large radar system mounted on top.

Lots of US bases in the region and I believe there's one in Crete isn't there?

Originally posted by CX
reply to post by free_spirit

 

Hi there....

A question from someone who hasn't got a clue about Photoshop....does the info you provided there give any indication as to what was done in Photoshop?

Would it show as having used the software even if all you did was to open the picture up in Photoshop, even if you did not manipulate the image after that?

For example, when i look at my photos, i use Microsoft Office Picture Manager. If you open a photo in Photoshop purely to view it, does this count as use of picture editing software and therefore disqualify a pic from being original?

Thanks,

CX.

An original digital photograph must be uploaded directly from the original camera or it's
memory card in order to perform a valid analysis. This procedure does not involve Photoshop
or any other similar software. In this forum it is requested always to submit the original
photograph that is a direct copy by that procedure, then the EXIF DATA will not be altered.
You can view any digital photograph with Photoshop or any other software as long as you
don't save again the file because that would wirte the use of Photoshop or similar. Just for
purposes of viewing but keeping the original unedited file is always recommended.

The photograph from Crete posted here shows Photoshop CS5 in the EXIF I provided.
The question is why and by whom. Also who has the original unedited untouched photograph
also known as raw file? The photograph posted in Facebook by member jeffkrause is not the
raw file despite the claim because the EXIF shows it's a very low resolution copy 107 kb at
960 X 539 pixels? For this type of Canon S100 camera no way. I would like to check the original
photo because this is a good case to investigate, a challenge.
Let´s wait to see if we can get the original photograph from the source to confirm the absence
or not of Photoshop.

reply to post by Reverend58

Maybe it's me but...It looks like her ring when it's upside down. Could this be some kind of reflection from her ring to the mirror to the camera lens?

Someone is thinking outside the box.

Bravo!

But no one will listen

Great report man - I just noticed one 'detail' that I didn't like,
maybe some of you masters here care to look, I'd be glad to see your feedback.
imageshack.us...
Look at the 'circled' detail in the mirror,
it is a continuation of the horizon (almost perfect to a mm fit) of the real (in front) image horizon - not sure if I put it right,
but how could a horizon / water line match and continue unto the mirror ??
The only viable option is that mirror is sort of semi-transparent ? doubt it,
then I don't think that 'matches' the car interior.
And if it was real horizon reflection - there is no chance to get 'in line' - as it's curved as the Jeff said, going 'downwards'.
I mean, I'd like this to be 'real', not trying to debunk or something, it was one of the best analysis of photo image I have seen. But this just caught my eye,
Best
Gaga

I am seeing a lot of logical fallacy and plain ignoring of the facts in attempts to debunk, or more correctly identify.

First of all nobody has claimed this is an alien craft only that this is a photograph of an object that they don't know what it is.

Whatever it is I feel the evidence (in the OP) is sufficient to show there is something out there that doesn't match the criteria of any of the mundane objects or light aberration offered as an explanation.

The jelly fish was clever, the powered kite makes some sense but isn't quite right, Mylar balloons, birds... none of them fit 100% especially given the previous photo being only seconds earlier with no sign.

The "Smudge" in the earlier 5 second earlier photo is also very compelling that is being mostly ignored.

Anyone can look at this and say "It is an obvious fake" but nobody has clearly shown or debunked with any authority the claims in the OP as to why it isn't a mundane item or a fake an my guess is the level of patience of those replying with a flippant answer is not even sufficient to read,let alone understand the original analysis.

I am an amateur photographer and have taken college level photography courses, taken tons of photographs with point and shoot and DSLR not to mention film from back in the day. I have also subscribed to and read many photo mags, read many many books on the subject and from everything I've read it is NOT uncommon for a pro to be wandering around with a little camera while on holiday especially while travelling light to a remote area.

A struggling photographer, a travel photographer, and possibly outdoor or wildlife photographers might bring some gear on vacation to a destination such as this, but someone who is likely a design, art, or fashion photographer would likely not bring more than a P&S for capturing memories.

To me the back story is very credible. This isn't a publicity stunt.

ATS does not need to risk their reputation for a minimal one time traffic boost, traffic and site usage is good. No reputable photographer wants to be the lady who snapped a ufo on holiday, we don't even know her name and likely never will.

Why can't we look at the area in more detail?

Crete has a rich history and is strategically located to give access to most of the old world and also the wolds current most volatile places. In the middle of a sparsely populated bay is a great place for a secret base.

This isn't a smoking gun by any means. But to me it shows the area could benefit from a more extensive study. I can find no information on the topography of the bay's floor. I would be interested to know how deep, historical sightings / myths, the possibility of a human or alien secret underwater base.

Instead we bicker over things that have already been answered with nothing to refute except "It doesn't look that way to me" Great, I don't care how it looks to you and nobody else does either. Now maybe if you can tell us exactly why and why the OP was wrong using actual science or facts I'm all ears.