Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

*rocks back and forth holding her head between her hands*

Thanks 90% of the members posting in this thread for not reading the analysis by the photo expert before posting. We finally get an interesting picture and I have to wade through 28 pages of total bollocks?

Tip: READ THE THREAD before posting. How can we expect to have any kind of intelligent discussion on a site where the majority of the members either can't or don't bother to read?

Regarding the Photo:

Wow. I haven't seen anything that interesting in a long time. It doesn't look the same, but it reminds me of the Solway Firth photo. Where a man was taking photos of his daughter on a grassy plain, and after they were developed they showed a "space man" standing in the background. No one saw this spaceman with their eyes, but he was definitely in the photo, which were proved by analysis to be genuine. It was featured in one of those brilliant, earth's real life x-files threads around here recently.

I read the entire analysis, and this was not considered.

Try to imagine what this would look like from the side view, about 3 or 4 feet outside the car. Completely un-noticed by the photog. Virtually silent against the wind and ambient noise. The wings are virtually transparent; even more so with camera motion blur. They fly with their reflective shells closed. Their hind legs hang back. They exist on Crete.

I hope it's an alien or military craft too, but you have to consider all things.

reply to post by Springer


mr springer, I saw a similiar silver looking craft off the coast of california years ago.

it looked THAT real as well. they are almost like probe level UFOs/drones

I live on Crete Island and the beach this photo was taken is one of THE most visited places. There is just no way, that no one else would have seen something like this. (This would hit the local news here immediately)

Having said that, this to me looks like one of those transparent plastic bags caught in the wind. (she mentioned it was very windy)

It is just a lucky shot in my opinion.

When I saw this the first time,


It reminded me of this.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by cornucopia
i have seen craft up close, i have communicated with them/us...lol

really

OK. Good. can we get a year, make and model on this one?

lol, yes


the one i saw from not a far distance with my mom and her friend was not from this world, i was young at the time and i remember a bright light...

ever since then i have known, an inner knowing...i was reminded

and yeah i was on south mountain with my ex, saw a lightship, thought/asked for it to come closer, it did , but when i got closer i got distracted by thoughts of coyotes and so that broke the even and the ship faded out


next time i will not fear anything, just love and awesomeness will ensue


plus they were not going to get too close because my lady said she was scared...lol, i'm like c'mon princess you know it's all good..

we ALL know, just the veil shields us from all knowing....thankfully the veil is thinning


great time to be here

as a Humans for the rising of consciousness


love is the key.

Originally posted by Malynn
Thanks 90% of the members posting in this thread for not reading the analysis by the photo expert before posting. We finally get an interesting picture and I have to wade through 28 pages of total bollocks?

I've read the analysis, and I'm not convinced.

My experience -- I've used digital imaging software since before there was Photoshop (Color It!), and Photoshop extensively since the first version (I've recently shown Adobe's former chief product evangelist some things he didn't know about Photoshop) and have worked with high resolution LAB color space files directly off high-end drum scanners... and much more.

I just don't agree with a lot of it and other shape analysis by others... too much resampling going on with format conversions and up-sizing with smoothing all over this thread -- both of which adds new information (color conversions, smoothing, etc.). I showed how I think it's a mylar balloon, losing helium, in this post. They now come in a wide range of sizes, and there were many family-centric events on Crete that day where balloons would likely be involved. Given the local and limited information, it's more plausible to conclude the mundane, rather than fantastic.


Another aspect I noticed about the original image is that the JPEG compression artifacts in the sky show strong evidence of progressive compression -- meaning areas of similar color received more aggressive compression than areas of high contrast. This is a very common technique for the compression in on-board cameras. This means that the blue "object" most-likey received a higher compression than the rocks or goats... further obfuscating the actual shape. And as a result, giving even more erroneous results when people attempt to upsample and smooth out the shape.


Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more photos that are plausibly fantastic objects. I just don't think this is one.

I have to comment this thread, even though I don´t have anything relevant to add. This has got to be the most interesting UFO thread in such a long time here on ATS. I have been a member a while and before that I was a long time lurker so and I really must say WOW! Thanks for posting this. It´s about time we get a good UFO thread going. Thanks to all that have contributed to the analysis.

Keep it rolling please... And don´t mean trolling...

Originally posted by Jinglelord
There are more than a few here who are convinced this is a bird and admittedly it really does bear a striking resemblance to a seagull in flight at the exact right moment.

Actually, it more closely resembles a white pelican just before it makes a dive into the water. Although it's a bit high in the air for what typically is seen from those birds.



White pelicans are very prominent around Crete. The atmospheric haze and compression combine to make it difficult to rule out a pelican in flight, at a moment when it's wings are brought close in preparation for a dive.

It's been mentioned that the car had a dirty windscreen, I wonder if at any time during the trip on that dusty road he squirted the windscreen, flicked the wipers to clean it and some water has landed and sat in or around the door sill area.

Then they say it was quite windy; she's rolled down the window and as she's snapped that picture just as the wind has blown that little droplet of water hanging off the doorframe right into view in front of the camera.

The wind may very well have dried out the windshield by then, but maybe not around the window frame area...

Two and a half hours later, after reading the WHOLE thread, I have come to the conclusion it is the reflection of her ring in the image, and will now begin building my case to that end:

On Page 20, OmegaLogos solidifies a sub 60 cm focus range. That's a focus range of 23 inches or less.

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

The side view mirror is approximately that far from the camera lens. When several members agree on one thing, it's safe to run with their ideas. (Sorry, OL, not a jellyfish!)

However, we are dealing with four reflective surfaces, (one of which is not the window!), but the sunglasses, the ring, the sideview mirror, and the lens of the camera itself. That's four tricky reflections going on at the same time.

To simplify, the SHOOTER points the camera, and clicks the picture. At that moment in time, we need to examine all the possible reflective surfaces. The camera focuses on something within 23 inches of the lens, the shutter opens, and light reflecting off the mirror PLUS the normally present photons enter the CCD. The shutter closes. Overlooked so far is the light reflecting off the sunglasses and the ring.

On Page 21, jritzmann goes further to state: (And yes, Jeff, I read your whole summary. Excellent work.)

it's readily evident that the UO is further out of focus than the mound.

If the UO is a reflection, there was not enough time, given the shutter speed, to focus.

I've not seen any symmetrical domed reflective birds around lately.

But I have seen a symmetrical domed object in the picture. It is on the right hand of the SHOOTER. (On vacation with her husband, but ring on her right hand??? Who wears their wedding ring on their right hand???) The image in the sideview mirror is transposed.

Facts so far:

23 inch focus length.
Object not seen by SHOOTER. Rules out bird, plane, and balloon. It does not rule out reflection.

I just looked at the time, and I have go watch eyelid theater. I'll check back later. Hopefully someone will be able to soundly refute my theory.

After 29 pages and expert analysis, doesn't look like this is going to be solved soon. But we will. I know it. We just have to look at the most probable solution.

reply to post by Malynn


Solway Firth Photo

above is the link to the Solway Firth Photograph info

This is facinating in that the OP photo could be the spaceship for the "spacemen"

Interdimensional is likely ....

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

I just don't agree with a lot of it... to much resampling going on, which adds new information. I showed how I think it's a mylar balloon, losing helium

Yep, I posted the same conclusion, just without any photoshop analysis. I have seen so many of these mylar balloons when hiking the hills that they now qualify as routine "urban trash." Your comment that there was a party nearby nails it for me. Further, there is nothing symmetrical about that shape. I don't see how the original poster could have made that conclusion.

Regarding LAB, I find the best analysis of objects in the sky comes from viewing the red channel. That is delete the green and blue channel then turn the red channel to grayscale and the adjust the histogram as needed. This photo shows the technique as employed on a SU-27 that left Groom Lake and flew towards the east.



I believe this was an intentional leak by Groom Lake since my presence was known. They flew the SU-27 between sessions of Red Flag with no shortage of photographers, but only one that was willing to lay on his back in the desert for maximum stability to get the shot.

This is what I saw when I looked at this image:



if you notice in the mirror you can see smudges on the glass. Now you can't tell for sure if the window is up or down but lets assume that the window is up. Notice what looks like it could be a chip in the window in the smaller red circle.

If we compare the UFO to the chip in the window this is what I came up with (Bare in mind I did this in paint... nothing fancy sorry!)




Any possibility we are seeing a chip in the window that looks rather large due to the closeness to the camera? seems like the two items have a similar shape. If anyone with better software wants to make a higher quality comparison that would be cool. XD

-Xis

reply to post by xistence05


only 1 major problem.

The window is DOWN

reply to post by Jinglelord


/
The primary problem I see with this is the shape. gulls do not make an arc of this specific angle nor the exact symmetrical lay out. While it is of course possible light and angles can play amazing tricks.
/
Gull's wings do curl or cup the updrafting wind and they 'crab' (aeronautical term) into the wind to maintain position, altitude and course.

Would we expect to see more bird features if it was a bird? I think so.
/
Of course. IF the subject of the photo was the bird. It wasn't. The subject was the goats, and the pic's focal area goes from about 5-6 ft to 10 or 12ft. (my estimate) Beyond (and before) that distance begins blurring.
[NB: It's possible to increase the focal area to include near and far objects. See a primer on photography.]

/
Okay so we have an over all outline that could in theory be a bird. We have no distinguishing bird features. The picture just 5 seconds before shows no signs of a bird, gulls are not often alone on a seashore, there is no indication of a bird in either photo except for the object in suspect.
/

On the contrary, just a plain close-up indicates a head on the right, the bright part is the right curled wing generally pointing towards the camera, the darker area to the left is the curled left wing, something like slightly fanned tail feathers can be seen, and the feet would be close to the lower abdomen enabling effortless gliding flight (I can't see them, though) and don't extend past the tail in gulls anyway. If one could see the gull from behind, the wings would look like a horizontally stretched out letter 'm'. Note the close-up of the crane a few posts up, there's a bright highlight on the front/top of the wing. Now imagine it whiter and out of focus, that would enlarge the bright spot.

While it's true gulls tend to congregate it's also true they often fly solo. I have seen them glide the updrafts on the edges of cliffs, seawalls and even moving waves approaching the beach.

/
finally goats are not looking at a gull. they don't care. I am convinced that the position of the ears indicate the goats are looking in that exact direction. If any of you have goats or have access to goats stand behind them and throw something noisy they will have to investigate and watch closely their ears. You will be able to tell where they are looking I guarantee.
/

There was no mention of noise except the wind. However, most creatures will direct their attention (senses) in the direction they are going. Additionally, goats' eyes are largely on the sides of their faces allowing for excellent peripheral vision. And their pupils are rectangular-elongated horizontally giving them a nearly panoramic field of view (about 330 degrees). So it may not look it, but the goats can see the photographer plainly, as well as where they're going.

Originally posted by Malynn
*rocks back and forth holding her head between her hands*

Thanks 90% of the members posting in this thread for not reading the analysis by the photo expert before posting. We finally get an interesting picture and I have to wade through 28 pages of total bollocks?

Tip: READ THE THREAD before posting. How can we expect to have any kind of intelligent discussion on a site where the majority of the members either can't or don't bother to read?

Regarding the Photo:

Wow. I haven't seen anything that interesting in a long time. It doesn't look the same, but it reminds me of the Solway Firth photo. Where a man was taking photos of his daughter on a grassy plain, and after they were developed they showed a "space man" standing in the background. No one saw this spaceman with their eyes, but he was definitely in the photo, which were proved by analysis to be genuine. It was featured in one of those brilliant, earth's real life x-files threads around here recently.

Star

for

this!

reply to post by magma


Then what is causing the odd light discoloration on her sunglasses? If she was looking straight ahead the only other thing could be light reflecting of the craft maybe? except that much light so near to the eye would probably catch your attention....

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


well..

then you're flat out saying she and her husband are lying? IF so the only way to prove if they are is a lie detector test.

I did read the entire post and analysis and do find the photo intriguing. Here is my problem with this picture and don't see others pointing this out -- COMPOSITION. I don't know how to attach a pic as so many did in their comment but any of you can repeat your own test I conducted. The UFO is too perfectly placed in the picture for a completely random event - compositionally speaking. Draw 4 lines from the center of the ufo - two diagonally with the UFO being the apex of the pyramid shape, one vertical and one horizontal. Have the left diagonal first intersect the right top corner of the side mirror, as it continues it will perfectly intersect photographer' nose in the center of her face, then precisely the intersection of the mirror to the car, then the intersection of window frame then the edge of air vent where shadow meets light. All these coincidences act as a perfect arrow to lead your eye to the ufo - as in a constructed composition.

The right diagonal starts again at the center of ufo, then descends right ending at the bottom center of the rear goat's right rear foot. Note the parallel lines of forward goat's rear leg and neck leading the eye again like an arrow to the ufo, but before the eye arrives there it perfectly intersects the left top corner of hazy island in distance. These are all tools of an artist in leading the eye - study a DaVinci painting for example.

The vertical line drawn from the center of the ufo perfectly intersects the distant island where it meets the water - again too perfect alignment for a randomly occurring presumably high speed moving object (or one jumping interdimensionally)...

The horizontal line drawn through center of ufo hits the edges of the window frame on left and picture frame on right not perfectly bisecting the space, but nearly so. The sum total is this UFO could not have more fortuitously positioned itself in this picture for optimal composition effect then this. Adding the unlikely nature of even capturing a ufo on film, much less one with such high detail and then to have it so perfectly framed is beyond belief.

Just looking at the picture initially, the triangle formed by the goats and mirror with the artist including herself - another give in my opinion - her signature to her artistic creation, it all seemed too contrived. If one were to be so lucky to capture a ufo at random - she states she did not see it so was not framing for it, wouldn't you expect it to be flying out of frame in the upper right corner, or anywhere but perfectly aligned as it is?

My guess is this is a prank by an artist to test the gullibility of the general public, ufo community. She is an artist - this is a performance in my opinion. I do want to believe, but this is just too perfect a photo. Clearly she made it too perfect on purpose due to her skill. Also as pointed out - the ufo is perfectly horizontal/parallel to the camera. If it were truly flying, it should be horizontal/parallel to the water/earth or any other slight angle - except to the camera. Again - adding up ALL these fortuitous coincidences of composition is too much.

Think about it.