Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

It looks fake.

It's not a ship from another world in my opinion.

Why would they hide from us if so?

They haven't said hi so they are hiding, so why wouldn't they hide from cameras?

If they have the technology to come here from another world or dimension, surely they can hide from a camera.

reply to post by Springer


I'll add to this a little, as I have spoken to SHOOTER quite a few times during the course of all this, and I'll be blunt:

Frankly SHOOTER thinks a lot of what has been said here is absurd and ridiculous, from her being maligned for using a point and shoot camera, to "goat sweat", to many of the other absurd statements, such as calling her a "fraud".

Mark is correct. She is highly successful, obviously don't need or want capital gains from this, and is well known and respected for her art. She already (unlike many in this "field") already has personal accomplishments and big success.

She doesn't know what to make of the photo. I don't either. But after all, my work on it has been called "shoddy" by a recent poster - when in fact I've had a longtime well respected, major research group tell me they were highly impressed by it. No one thinks it's "shoddy" when you expose a hoax, as I have done here on this very forum more times than I can count. Everyone seemed just fine with that.

But say you don't know? That seems unacceptable for some individuals around here. Good for them. My answer is do your own month long examination, write a full detailed report, and post it publicly here - with your full name on it, and not some ambiguous screenname so many hide behind when chucking their uneducated rocks.

I'll make one last note here on this subject: I said I didn't know what this UO is. Many here have made the claim that they do know what it is. However none, not one, has proved their case beyond any question. They are effectually making the claim, not me, and not the shooter. So it's upon them to concretely prove it - as I have done on the myriad of hoaxes here.

See how that works? Welcome to UFOlogy.

I'm highly disappointed that folks here did not see the subtleties of this photo, and miss a genuine opportunity to look differently at UFO visual data. Yes, visual data can only tell us so much and no one should be betting the farm on any photo or video. But there's interesting things here if you actually look and use careful consideration.

In the spirit of true scientific method (which UFOlogy claims to do but rarely does), this photo will be going to other analysts to examine. I am by no means the final word, and my work on it is still in the preliminary stages. This stuff doesn't happen overnight. It's called work.

Whatever this photo represents in the end, there's something to be learned here - when a truly interesting photo does come up - many of you will eat each other alive trying to grab the brass ring of an answer, with every bit the venom laced exchange that true believers will race to call something a "real" UFO. At that point, it's not a battle of trying to draw out datasets, it's about ego one-upmanship and utter disrespect while wearing the convenient masks of anonymity.

As a byline point to make? This is exactly what the phenomena tends to do: cause chaos and infighting. I saw this coming from the get-go, and told Mark so from the very beginning. This is all very typical if again, you look at what surrounds the paranormal community and the phenomena itself.

And to that end, it is of no mystery to me why so few people want to present their data to the public - and in the end throw it away and forget it.

reply to post by jritzmann


So do you think the UP is an alien craft? What do you think it is?

I agree that people don't post decent data because of idiots who will never see a spade for a spade even if the 90 metre wide thing lands on their front lawn, but this picture could be anything, and we haven't even had the shooty post a comment on what happened. What was the timeline? What were the conditions? Did she see any stray crisp packets or plastic flying around? your word or Mark's word will never hold as much weight as the blond lady's. Why won't she have a quick word?

I'm not even a non believer in alien craft, but I'm really unconvinced by this. The object looks peculiar alright, but so would my dog's crack from two metres under a blazing Greek sun with a cheapy point and shoot. Forgive the vulgarity please.

One more question, sorry if it has been answered before but it is a big thread and I've only read half of it. How far was the object from the lense?

reply to post by jritzmann


Comparing the "5 seconds before" to the UO shot I notice an obvious difference in the orientation(?) of the horizon in the frame, yet the mirror arm and housing angle remain the same. I bring it up because I'm looking for answers besides what I have come up with myself.

Also, in the 2 shots mentioned above and the "Afternoon" shot, the length of the peninsula across the water to the right in the shot appears to be the same length in all 3 shots. Seems like more than a coincidence, what do you think?

reply to post by jritzmann


Oh my god, she read this thread? How embarrasing.
Way to represent the community of cutting edge ufology.

Edit.
(actually, there are some good examples of well practiced analysis in here. Well, until someone starts looking for occult significance in the numbers of the exif data.)

reply to post by jritzmann


To be offended by the goat sweat theory shows obvious bias toward ones own pareidolia.

The chances of the object being 10cm from the camera are far more likely than it being half a km away in the sky.

Sometimes the simplest answer is simple because it is what it is. The object appears to be a fluid, in the time honored tradition of KISS, (keep it simple stupid), goat sweat fits the bill.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Overlay the two photos.

Line up the vertical window edge and the mirror as best you can. You obviously will have to shrink one. I'll let you discover which.

You'll note the horizontal window edge is crooked compared to eachother in separate photos.

Now go to the horizon. You'll note the differentials are the same Between the horizon differentials and the horizontal window differentials. It's all about perspective and positioning. So in essence, it's as it should be.

Originally posted by jritzmann
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

Overlay the two photos.

Line up the vertical window edge and the mirror as best you can. You obviously will have to shrink one. I'll let you discover which.

You'll note the horizontal window edge is crooked compared to eachother in separate photos.

Now go to the horizon. You'll note the differentials are the same Between the horizon differentials and the horizontal window differentials. It's all about perspective and positioning. So in essence, it's as it should be.

edit on 12-10-2012 by jritzmann because: spelling

Go back and look at that horizontal bottom window edge of the car door. It is a perfect scale of focal length. By the time you reach the mirror you are in good focus, as you follow the edge away from the mirror towards the camera you witness a sliding scale of less and less focus, now compare the nonfocused UFO in question, be honest with yourself and decide where it compares on the window edge you just used as a focus scale.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


He's not using the window edge as a "focus scale", he's using to as a level guide.

Springer...

reply to post by jritzmann

Overlay the two photos.

Believe me, if I could I would. Picture's worth 1000 words in these situations.

You'll note the horizontal window edge is crooked compared to eachother in separate photos.

Isn't that more about the camera angle, rotation on its vertical axis so to speak? The camera is moved from one shot to the next. The camera would have to be turned to the right more in the UO shot to give that perspective as the shot is taken much closer than in the "5 before" shot.

Now go to the horizon. You'll note the differentials are the same Between the horizon differentials and the horizontal window differentials.

But my question was about the changing horizon vs. the mirror which stayed the same. The horizon tilt was caused by her left hand being higher than her right hand in the "5 before" shot. That same tilt should be evident in the mirror assembly but it is not.

reply to post by Springer


Correct. Or more along the lines of a tilt guide and comp rule to 3137. And as far as the focal issue, objects go in and outside a focal length - the far landmass isn't in focus either. Nor are wave 1/4 of the way out. So I'm afraid the other poster's point is not valid as a judgement of focal range and UO distance.

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

He's not using the window edge as a "focus scale", he's using to as a level guide.

Springer...

I am using it as a focus scale and so can you or anyone viewing the photo.
It corroborates anyones view that the UFO is a near camera object.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


Unfortunately not.

Originally posted by jritzmann
reply to post by Springer

 

Correct. Or more along the lines of a tilt guide and comp rule to 3137. And as far as the focal issue, objects go in and outside a focal length - the far landmass isn't in focus either. Nor are wave 1/4 of the way out. So I'm afraid the other poster's point is not valid as a judgement of focal range and UO distance.

edit on 12-10-2012 by jritzmann because: (no reason given)

It is just as valid as anyone saying the object is distant because it is out of focal range.

If you say my point is not valid then you throw your point out that it could be a distant out of focus object with the babies bathwater also.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


I did not contend distance for that reason. Again, your point isn't being dismissed out of hand, it's being dismissed because it's factually incorrect, and has no bearing on the report I wrote about distance.

I think productive discussion here has pretty much ended for now. Will check back Monday if I can.

Good weekend to all.

Originally posted by jritzmann
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

I did not contend distance for that reason. Again, your point isn't being dismissed out of hand, it's being dismissed because it's factually incorrect, and has no bearing on the report I wrote about distance.

I think productive discussion here has pretty much ended for now. Will check back Monday if I can.

Good weekend to all.

The only reason it is not in your report is because you failed to examine the evidence the photo offers in respect to near objects out of focus.

Anyway a blob of fluid the size of a royal hotub captured in the sky vs a water droplet......one is seen every day the other may only happen in Hollywood.

Originally posted by jritzmann
Whatever this photo represents in the end, there's something to be learned here - when a truly interesting photo does come up - many of you will eat each other alive trying to grab the brass ring of an answer, with every bit the venom laced exchange that true believers will race to call something a "real" UFO. At that point, it's not a battle of trying to draw out datasets, it's about ego one-upmanship and utter disrespect while wearing the convenient masks of anonymity.

Nah, that's not going to happen. No single image will ever create that kind of competition or argument unless it's backed up by something more substantial. Hard evidence would be great. Even a simple thing like sighting and description by a witness would be an improvement in this case. Then the argument would shift to chains of evidence and proving defining what people mean when they say an artifact or object is "alien."

And at the end of the day, there will still be people who will either accept something as fact, or not, and it will have nothing to do with any kind of evidence either way. That's the way people are.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Nah, that's not going to happen. No single image will ever create that kind of competition or argument unless it's backed up by something more substantial. Hard evidence would be great. Even a simple thing like sighting and description by a witness would be an improvement in this case. Then the argument would shift to chains of evidence and proving defining what people mean when they say an artifact or object is "alien."

And at the end of the day, there will still be people who will either accept something as fact, or not, and it will have nothing to do with any kind of evidence either way. That's the way people are.

Really? Are you really serious with this? How could we get a statement from a "witness" when the ONLY TWO people there didn't see anything in the sky?

Who said anything about "alien"? It's as of yet unidentified conclusively for most people.

Springer...

reply to post by jritzmann

It's all about perspective and positioning.

I agree. In the UO shot, take a look through the windshield at "ET". Compare how much land is between ET and the sky vs this photo taken very near the UO shot position. I think it's obvious but ET is a little lower than and left of center in the pic at this link

www.panoramio.com...

It appears to me that the view through the windshield would be seen from a point closer to ET causing it to appear closer to the top of the land behind it.

Mr. Ritzmann you want members here to give up our anonymity to prove the photos are fake when the "shooter" herself wants to remain anonymous? You would maybe have a bit more credibility with me if you:

(a) did not take the "shooter's" side. We have no reason to give her the benefit of the doubt since she took pictures of goats' behinds but didn't see the Unidentified Flying Object directly in front of her.

(b) respond to the other quirky objects that are out of place in the photos. If you won't explain the "C3PO mask" on the rocks, the blurry object in the sky means nothing.

Before we worry about the supposed UFO, we need to be convinced the photos are not faked. So far, I'm leaning 99.9% to them being hoaxes (reasons already posted), regardless of how cute the photographer is.