Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

reply to post by AGWskeptic


The flash did not fire, and was off, according to the EXIF data. The bright shiny section on the UO would be sunlight reflecting off the sunglasses.

I have some free time today, so I may do some more work on my theory.

reply to post by Druid42


How about that bright dot on the edge of the lens?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Druid42


If the flash did fire there would be a huge bright white light in the mirror too wouldn't there? Considering we can see the entire camera in the mirror we'd know if the flash went off.

Springer...

If the flash fired we would see the beetle's wings too.

I don't have the time to skim through all 50+ pages of this topic, and I just wanted to know if we have access to the RAW images from the camera, or do we only have these compressed .jpg images?

So far, this object doesn't look genuine to me. I've noticed a few things, but don't want to mention them until I know if there is a RAW image I can download first, to double check something.

I do know one thing though. If that object is anywhere outside the vehicle, it is far too big not to see it while taking the picture. It is in a spot that attracts attention, and your eyes automatically jump to it. If she didn't see it, that raises lots of flags. I doubt it's a craft of any sort, and would lean towards lens artifact, if not a good fake, with a good actress.

Originally posted by senselessness

I do know one thing though. If that object is anywhere outside the vehicle, it is far too big not to see it while taking the picture. It is in a spot that attracts attention, and your eyes automatically jump to it. If she didn't see it, that raises lots of flags.

I'm not so sure, you'd be amazed at what people miss in front of them when they are concentrating on other things..



CX.

Hi guys,

Sorry for my late entry into this thread.

I've been enjoying all the debate surrounding the UO, and decided to try and have a go at solving the mystery of its identity myself.

One of the tricks that I use, when looking at an unknown object, is to view it from every angle.
(If we don't know what the object actually is - how can we know if it's the right way up?)

So I tried rotating a cropped image of the UO like this...


Then adjusted contrast/brightness...


and finally cleaned up the edges a little, and guess what I see now??


I see a lightweight plastic shopping bag.
One handle sticking out, the other bent out of sight, the bag itself puffed up and blowing in the wind.
Metallic silver grey in colour, quite reflective. With some kind of pattern / logo / design on the front.

Any thoughts?
GTD

reply to post by CX


Apples to oranges...

That video gives you a task to do, a distraction. Hence why SOME people don't notice the gorilla. All they are doing with that video is demonstrating the sleight of hand technique magicians have been using for decades, using a misdirection.

When someone is taking a picture of a scenery, enjoying the view, their only distraction is the view itself. Unless she was trying to count the hairs on the goats back, or count the rocks on the ground, there is no reason she wouldn't see the object. If this was a large craft outside the car, there is no way she didn't see it when she is obviously looking right towards it. Her eyes would have had to jump to it and glance at it. If it is more than 100 feet away, that object would be far too large to miss.

I know you can create a 100 excuses why she wouldn't see it, but I wouldn't buy any of them.

Originally posted by senselessness
reply to post by CX

 

Apples to oranges...

That video gives you a task to do, a distraction. Hence why SOME people don't notice the gorilla. All they are doing with that video is demonstrating the sleight of hand technique magicians have been using for decades, using a misdirection.

When someone is taking a picture of a scenery, enjoying the view, their only distraction is the view itself. Unless she was trying to count the hairs on the goats back, or count the rocks on the ground, there is no reason she wouldn't see the object. If this was a large craft outside the car, there is no way she didn't see it when she is obviously looking right towards it. Her eyes would have had to jump to it and glance at it. If it is more than 100 feet away, that object would be far too large to miss.

I know you can create a 100 excuses why she wouldn't see it, but I wouldn't buy any of them.

edit on 6-10-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)

her eyes are focused very near - she's looking at the screen on the back of the camera, specifically she's looking at her face in the screen (to check it's in focus)

whatever it was it would have appeared on the viewing screen (however briefly) - that's where she didn't see it

reply to post by aynock


If she was looking at the viewfinder on her camera it would have been visible to her. The object is relatively as big as a goats head in the image.... It would stick out like a sore thumb like it obviously does in the image.

Still not buying this story.

I certainly don't think it's a reflection off of the side mirror. You can clearly see that the mirror is dirty, anything that bright reflecting off of it would be illuminating the dirt on the mirror.

Also, only her glasses are reflecting any kind of bright light back to the mirror, and it in no way resembles the shape or color of the object in question. It is also not a strong enough reflection to show up on the camera so brightly. Also, the side mirror is of a convex shape, meaning that any reflecting light would be further reduced and minimized by the effect of the mirror.

Add to this the fact that there is a definite atmospheric haze that would not be present in a light reflection, there should be no discussion of a mirror reflection.

reply to post by senselessness


i think most photographers have taken what they thought was a great picture, only to find later it's been spoiled by something in the frame they didn't see at the time they took the picture - i have

i find her story that she didn't see it plausible

reply to post by aynock


Those objects that photographers fail to see while taking a photograph are usually small and insignificant. Which is exactly what I think the object is. If it was a large craft, I don't see how it could ever go unnoticed. Only if it is small and insignificant does her story hold water to me.

Originally posted by Gordi The Drummer
Hi guys,

Sorry for my late entry into this thread.

I've been enjoying all the debate surrounding the UO, and decided to try and have a go at solving the mystery of its identity myself.

One of the tricks that I use, when looking at an unknown object, is to view it from every angle.
(If we don't know what the object actually is - how can we know if it's the right way up?)

So I tried rotating a cropped image of the UO like this...

Then adjusted contrast/brightness...

and finally cleaned up the edges a little, and guess what I see now??

I see a lightweight plastic shopping bag.
One handle sticking out, the other bent out of sight, the bag itself puffed up and blowing in the wind.
Metallic silver grey in colour, quite reflective. With some kind of pattern / logo / design on the front.

Any thoughts?
GTD

I think you're right. I immediately thought it was a plastic bag when I saw the original aswell. And let me tell you guys, I was in crete a couple of months back on vacation and there's a lot of garbage lying around there. No matter where I went, even inland on the island, the sides of the roads were lined with garbage. Bags, empty cans you name it. It was everywhere, so I'm not surprised at all to see a bag appearing in someones holiday snaps.

I think that Pareidolia works both ways.

Halfway through the editing process, you can see the highlighted areas on your enhanced photo are the same color as the background sky which you indicated as the "Loop" of the bag handle. However you just picked out one of the "Sky Colored" areas and left out the rest. You can't just forget about those other spots.

Those other spots would also appear to be open blue sky which would mean that it is definitely not a bag.

Looking at it as a bag, it would even seem strange that only the "top" of the bag has billowed out and not the bottom, which is typical of a bag caught in the wind.

reply to post by BrianVillar


Unless the bag has water in it and was thrown upwards from the bottom of the cliff.

Originally posted by BrianVillar

I think that Pareidolia works both ways.

Halfway through the editing process, you can see the highlighted areas on your enhanced photo are the same color as the background sky which you indicated as the "Loop" of the bag handle. However you just picked out one of the "Sky Colored" areas and left out the rest. You can't just forget about those other spots.

Those other spots would also appear to be open blue sky which would mean that it is definitely not a bag.

Looking at it as a bag, it would even seem strange that only the "top" of the bag has billowed out and not the bottom, which is typical of a bag caught in the wind.

NOR can you 'just forget', particularly when you chose to analyse a post-processed and contrast enhanced JPEG..?, that similar or even matching colours do not necessarily mean you must be seeing the same thing. Apart from the obvious saturation change, JPEG's posterise colours - ie the compression process deliberately replaces almost-matching colours where it thinks the eye won't notice, to save file space. This type of camera sensor is also prone to posterisation. And then there's the possibility that the colours of the bag and sky may in fact match (indeed given the different shadows and lighting on a bluish bag, it would be surprising if there were *not* closely matching areas..) and if it is somewhat transparent or highly reflective then that chance increases..

Analysis is fine, but it needs to be sensibly applied, based on good data (not jpegs..) and *all* possibilities, no matter how trivial or unlikely, need to be considered.

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by BrianVillar

I think that Pareidolia works both ways.

Halfway through the editing process, you can see the highlighted areas on your enhanced photo are the same color as the background sky which you indicated as the "Loop" of the bag handle. However you just picked out one of the "Sky Colored" areas and left out the rest. You can't just forget about those other spots.

Those other spots would also appear to be open blue sky which would mean that it is definitely not a bag.

Looking at it as a bag, it would even seem strange that only the "top" of the bag has billowed out and not the bottom, which is typical of a bag caught in the wind.

NOR can you 'just forget', particularly when you chose to analyse a post-processed and contrast enhanced JPEG..?, that similar or even matching colours do not necessarily mean you must be seeing the same thing. Apart from the obvious saturation change, JPEG's posterise colours - ie the compression process deliberately replaces almost-matching colours where it thinks the eye won't notice, to save file space. This type of camera sensor is also prone to posterisation. And then there's the possibility that the colours of the bag and sky may in fact match (indeed given the different shadows and lighting on a bluish bag, it would be surprising if there were *not* closely matching areas..) and if it is somewhat transparent or highly reflective then that chance increases..

Analysis is fine, but it needs to be sensibly applied, based on good data (not jpegs..) and *all* possibilities, no matter how trivial or unlikely, need to be considered.

edit on 6-10-2012 by CHRLZ because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-10-2012 by CHRLZ because: (no reason given)

Exactly. You simply cannot jump to the conclusion of bag based solely on a hunch and a "handle" on an even further processed image. You begin to create things that simply aren't there. That bag handle isn't even noticeable and seems more like a solid object on the original image. And this isn't even counting the part where the already enhanced photo was "cleaned up", by overwriting image data to show what was seen.

I've been able to pick the brain of an Adobe guru regarding their yet-to-be-released de-blur filter for Photoshop PS6 (the version I'm currently using). Much of the effectiveness of the filter -- which is intended primarily to correct blurry images from shaky cameras and other motion -- can be mimicked in PS6 through a series of layered high-pass filter effects (offset in the direction of the motion blur). Layering a high-pass filter using the "hard light" blend has been a common technique to try and sharpen blurry images -- I just never thought of using several layers, each with a different setting in the high-pass filter. I also added in some despeckle and a custom offset filter I defined (if you look at the left edges of the rock outcropping, there appears to be a little motion blur -- other portions of the image show the blur as well.

Here you can see the results on the rock outcropping:

As you can see, the process retains a lot of noise, but more detail also emerges. Not unlike an old analog TV signal that has been tuned in to be sharper, but still with some static.

And here is the object...



Still odd. However... inexplicably like some of these items:
design.kitchensatlanta.com...
gadgets.boingboing.net...

And for the life of me, in this sharpened state, I swear I've seen something like that in hardware stores for precise and no-tape edging when painting an interior room. Like this thing:
www.youtube.com...


So... there you have it. Just to see what can be seen.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Yeah, but what about the C3PO image in the second picture? (Here)

At this point, that's the biggest issue raised here... I detect the hand of George Walton Lucas, Jr. in all of this...

Was surprised to see that this thread wasn't raised at all during tonight's ATSLive.