Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

I am genuinely puzzled by something here.

From the report in the OP,

-absolutely no discernible movement blur whatsoever.

yet the "object" is deemed by many to be out of focus.

Considering that we don't know what the object is and therefore don't know know how it should appear, can both of these beliefs be correct?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


movement blur will be in the direction of the movement - you'd see a 'ghost trail' created as the camera or object moved while the shutter was open - out of focus is a more general blurring

Originally posted by jritzmann
For the "balloon/bag/bird" people:

Where is the balloon at this wide shot taken 30 seconds before the UO?

Where is the balloon/bag/bird, etc 5 seconds before the UO?

If indeed your contention is that it's a balloon/bag/bird, then it would be in front of the mound. Otherwise you have a size problem. So where is any hint of that?

If this is your answer, then we're talking about a bag/bird/balloon, in the most mind blowing trajectory and speed ever seen in bag/bird/or deflated mylar balloon flight in a remote area.

I agree that this disproves the Balloon theory to a point.

To say a gull travelling from right to left in the photo would have been out of frame 5 seconds before. Especially if it is about 100ft away as I suspect.



Assuming a lone Gull soaring is an adult it would be between 24 and 36 inches long depending on the exact species of gull we can calculate how far it would have to be, I suppose I'll have to figure that out because nobody is seeing the obvious.

How can you look at what I have posted and disregard a bird? It shows the symmetry, explains the three dark spots you pointed out, and can even be made out in the LAB color space you presented.

I appreciate your analysis and see how this is very difficult to make out given the weird angle and pose. I do not call into question your expertise, I just think this was missed.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


A lens reflection wouldn't show motion blur, but would be out of focus. Both statements are true if you consider the premise of the previous statement.

Very informative and interesting thread.


I hope i live long enough to see absolute proof.


Many thanks

Originally posted by aynock
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

movement blur will be in the direction of the movement - you'd see a 'ghost trail' created as the camera or object moved while the shutter was open - out of focus is a more general blurring

edit on 3-10-2012 by aynock because: (no reason given)

Wasn't the shutter speed insanely fast due to a large aperture?

This translates as losing focus very quickly with little depth of field and all motion completely stopped. 1/2000 of a second shutter is enough to stop hummingbird wings. We see no motion blur and shouldn't expect to.

Assuming a lone Gull soaring is an adult it would be between 24 and 36 inches long depending on the exact species of gull we can calculate how far it would have to be, I suppose I'll have to figure that out because nobody is seeing the obvious.

reply to post by Jinglelord


the only species of european gull without black tips to the wings are glaucous and iceland gulls - neither come farther south than britain/northern france and then only in winter - there are no black wing tips on the picture you have drawn

if you're going to say it's a bird i think you need to narrow it down to a species - i'm familiar with all common european species and it doesn't look like any to me.

reply to post by Druid42


Explanation: St*rred!





Personal Disclosure: I have even more other stuff I see in the reflection on the anomaly!

Originally posted by Jinglelord

Originally posted by aynock
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

movement blur will be in the direction of the movement - you'd see a 'ghost trail' created as the camera or object moved while the shutter was open - out of focus is a more general blurring

edit on 3-10-2012 by aynock because: (no reason given)

Wasn't the shutter speed insanely fast due to a large aperture?

This translates as losing focus very quickly with little depth of field and all motion completely stopped. 1/2000 of a second shutter is enough to stop hummingbird wings. We see no motion blur and shouldn't expect to.

you would if it was an alien spacecraft travelling at a thousand miles a second

reply to post by aynock


I think based on the shades the wing tips could very well be black. I also think the head is darker but other than the outline the color is obviously messed up by jpeg compression and sun glare.

There is no way to narrow it down to a Gull species. Most people I know can't even tell Gulls apart with a GOOD picture and even birders have a difficult time with gulls due to the huge variation based on molt and age...

If you are a European gull expert I apologize, but gulls are generally ignored by bird people as the rats of the sky always in the way and chasing off the "good" birds.

Originally posted by Jinglelord
reply to post by aynock

 

I think based on the shades the wing tips could very well be black. I also think the head is darker but other than the outline the color is obviously messed up by jpeg compression and sun glare.

There is no way to narrow it down to a Gull species. Most people I know can't even tell Gulls apart with a GOOD picture and even birders have a difficult time with gulls due to the huge variation based on molt and age...

If you are a European gull expert I apologize, but gulls are generally ignored by bird people as the rats of the sky always in the way and chasing off the "good" birds.

i'm certainly not a gull expert - most birders i know (and i know a lot of very good ones) generally take pride in their ability to id and age gulls and do not consider them rats of the sky

why don't you post the pic on a bird id forum and see what the experts say?

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by OmegaLogos

 

I believe you are getting closer. The anomaly is reflecting something, which I believe is the scene from the Shooter's sunglasses. The anomaly is a lens reflection from the sunglasses.

I gave up the ring reflection theory, it just isn't in the proper place to reflect that anomaly.

However, I did bisect the complete picture with lines to find the focal point of the picture, then bisected an area from the center of the camera lens reflection in the side view mirror. The anomaly appears in the upper left quadrant on a 79.2 deg angle from center. The corresponding angle in upper left quadrant of the reflected camera image points directly to a sunlit section on the Shooter's sunglasses. The same 79.2 deg angle. Coincidence?

So you are saying the anomaly is a reflection of the scene from the shooter's sunglasses. But for this to be true, it would have to be a reflection of a reflection, since the sunglasses are behind the camera, so I guess you mean its the sunglasses reflection of the scene as reflected in the rear view mirror.

In which case, I suppose it could also be a reflection of the scene on the camera lens since it is also a reflective surface - that has been reflected off the rear view mirror.

In any case, an interesting theory. Would take some math to figure out where all the scene elements should be in this "double reflection".

Originally posted by aynock

Originally posted by Jinglelord
reply to post by aynock

 

I think based on the shades the wing tips could very well be black. I also think the head is darker but other than the outline the color is obviously messed up by jpeg compression and sun glare.

There is no way to narrow it down to a Gull species. Most people I know can't even tell Gulls apart with a GOOD picture and even birders have a difficult time with gulls due to the huge variation based on molt and age...

If you are a European gull expert I apologize, but gulls are generally ignored by bird people as the rats of the sky always in the way and chasing off the "good" birds.

i'm certainly not a gull expert - most birders i know (and i know a lot of very good ones) generally take pride in their ability to id and age gulls and do not consider them rats of the sky

why don't you post the pic on a bird id forum and see what the experts say?

edit on 3-10-2012 by aynock because: punctuation

There obviously can't be many "gull species" that are blue (that is the color of the object). And I'm sure there are very few birds that have metallic or iridescent feathers covering their wings...

I know lots of people have a hard time "seeing" birds from odd angles in photos, but this really does not look like a bird. The wing geometry is totally wrong.

Originally posted by bluestreak53

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by OmegaLogos

 

I believe you are getting closer. The anomaly is reflecting something, which I believe is the scene from the Shooter's sunglasses. The anomaly is a lens reflection from the sunglasses.

I gave up the ring reflection theory, it just isn't in the proper place to reflect that anomaly.

However, I did bisect the complete picture with lines to find the focal point of the picture, then bisected an area from the center of the camera lens reflection in the side view mirror. The anomaly appears in the upper left quadrant on a 79.2 deg angle from center. The corresponding angle in upper left quadrant of the reflected camera image points directly to a sunlit section on the Shooter's sunglasses. The same 79.2 deg angle. Coincidence?

So you are saying the anomaly is a reflection of the scene from the shooter's sunglasses. But for this to be true, it would have to be a reflection of a reflection, since the sunglasses are behind the camera, so I guess you mean its the sunglasses reflection of the scene as reflected in the rear view mirror.

In which case, I suppose it could also be a reflection of the scene on the camera lens since it is also a reflective surface - that has been reflected off the rear view mirror.

In any case, an interesting theory. Would take some math to figure out where all the scene elements should be in this "double reflection".

That's where I'm going with this!

Now where are all the photog experts at?

Originally posted by Jinglelord
How can you look at what I have posted and disregard a bird? It shows the symmetry, explains the three dark spots you pointed out, and can even be made out in the LAB color space you presented.

Because it ignored the full and even "dome" area, and because again, you can draw anything on an object and call into question the anatomy.

Perhaps you should explain why a seagull at the distance you specify would be blue, and have a very clear specular highlight?

Those would be my reasons - because your argument is not nearly as clear cut as you contend - there's till a lot to answer for.

Anyway, I've said all this before - just didn't want you to think I was ignoring your concern. I'm back out.

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by Jinglelord
How can you look at what I have posted and disregard a bird? It shows the symmetry, explains the three dark spots you pointed out, and can even be made out in the LAB color space you presented.

Because it ignored the full and even "dome" area

You keep claiming that the top of the thing is a solid arc, when it is clearly not. See my post here: www.abovetopsecret.com... There is no reflection, we are seeing the sky behind the object, not in front, to the side, or through a transparent surface.

There is nothing in that space in the upper right, apart from wishful thinking -- this is not a symmetrical object.

reply to post by jritzmann


@jritzmann
Thanks for posting the third picture! That was much needed.

Are there any other pictures right after the UO one?
And another question. Do you know were the goats alone on the road? Maybe there was someone, a goatherd with them? Maybe there is a third witness.

reply to post by jritzmann


I'm in the gull/bird camp with others here and specifically with Jinglelord's pic and drawing of a bird flying, gliding, hovering towards the left with cupped wings to catch the updraft. (See his post several posts above)

As to 5 seconds, this is a long time for a gliding / hovering gull. Assuming the gull is riding the strongest part of the updraft flow created by the cliff and assuming it is close the edge of the drop-off, and knowing as we do that it was windy that day (not only by the white-caps but also by the photographer's statement), I ask you to look again at the pic, place yourself in the picture, and count out 'one thousand..two thousand...', and imagine a gull being swept up into view and gliding off frame or back below line of sight.

A gull could easily traverse the entire photo frame twice over in five seconds. But because I see no motion blur, I suspect it was swept up by a gust where it slowed it's ascent (here's when the photo may have been taken), hovered momentarily, and dropped back below line-of-sight.

This is a very common sight anywhere near cliffs, seawalls and even moving waves approaching the shore.

We really have to consider the most likely solutions first.

So, at this site, given the weather conditions what is more likely to have been there, a bird...or a ufo? Not enough thought had gone into the analysis to dismiss mundane solutions and rush to a "UO" label. A single snapshot with no witnesses (she didn't see it), I have to go with Biedny's take on it -- 'grasping at straws'.

But if this much time and effort is to be spent on one photo then let it be done thoroughly.

Now mind you, I'm convinced that there are craft out there. Like many of you I've spent years sifting through data accumulated by such notables starting with James McDonald, Keyhoe, Haines, Hall, Hill, Feindt, Hastings, Kitei, Schroeder, Sturrock, Vallee, and others. The preponderance of evidence is staggering. The best cases are multi visual, multi radar, such as the rb--47 and the '65 Edwards AFB, the nuclear base incursions, witnessed by highly reliable pilots and security personnel.

But this photo, as much as we would like it to be a craft, has a mundane though interesting solution.

reply to post by stiver


The image after the "UO" image is about 11 minutes later and over looking the beach that was around the corner and up the road from the where the "UO" shot was taken. Totally different section of the sky and you can't see the area the "UO" was shot at.

Springer...

Unless it's a bird wearing a mylar sweater, it's not a bird.

In my opinion.