Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

So many pages?? I thought this was solves months ago... there is nothing in there worth the attention.

reply to post by Imtor


Months ago? The thread is less than 2 weeks old. By the way thanks for that professional diagnosis. Just because people come in and in 1 post state "It is a bird" or "It is a bag" and then say "thread over" hardly makes it finished or solved.

The amount of work that has been put into this so far not just by Jeff Ritzman but the other countless contributors in this lengthy thread make your simple comment really insulting. Out of curiosity did you actually read all 60 pages before you came to this conclusion or did you just skim over the "important" parts?

As a side note, I find it funny that many of the regular folks who have posted by now probably hundreds of "Martian fleet leaving moon" and "Giant Mothership next to the sun" type threads haven't popped their heads in here to chime in. It's almost as if this is too mundane to be real, it seems to be lacking motherships and martian fleets I guess.

Great thread though Springer. It seems all the meat and potatoes were in the original posts though in my opinion. I appreciate all of the work put into the Bird and Bag theories but they seem to be lacking any real substance beyond "it looks like a bag to me, and we know bags exist so It must be a bag". Not to put anyone down that believes this but I feel like it ignores a lot of important analysis that Jeff included in his report that would negate the claims. I am not saying we should all take Jeff's word as gospel but he has shown to be a very competent researcher and source of information. Jeff you knew there would be knuckle heads involved in the thread before it was posted, don't let the fact that you were correct hinder any further progress please. I know you seem to be at your capacity for further thoughts on the subject but I hope it doesn't get you down.

I would highly suggest anyone not familiar with Mr. Ritzmans work here at ATS or more importantly his personal disclosure thread read them. It will really shed light on why this is more significant than it appears on the surface.

I vote this the best thread I have read in a few years at least. It reminds me why I started devoting so much time to this website in the first place. Just when I thought all credibility was lost here, it is quickly regained in my opinion. Thanks guys, I personally really appreciate it.

reply to post by sputniksteve


What is seriously lacking here is any witness to any UFO. So as much as people can talk til they are blue in the face, there is nothing more than another anomaly in another photo. I really don't think it has been shown to be that exceptional at all. I would however welcome if this actually got some analysis by a team of professionals.

Until then, I guess all we have are a lot of opinions and nothing so far to suggest that this is anything unusual at all.

reply to post by elevenaugust


Thanks. That is so far the most useful information that has been provided on this thread - at least the most useful since the first posts made.

reply to post by elevenaugust


I'm trying to duplicate your calculation using a samsung SL102 with a jpeg picture I took.

How did you arrive at the degree figure? Number of pixels of the object as compared to the ExifImageWidth?

Originally posted by gguyx
reply to post by elevenaugust

 

I'm trying to duplicate your calculation using a samsung SL102 with a jpeg picture I took.

How did you arrive at the degree figure? Number of pixels of the object as compared to the ExifImageWidth?

I have my own software that can do that and which is used by the French GEIPAN for working on UFO pictures, but if you want to do it with maths, here's the formula:

alpha = arccos [(2*sqr(F)+sqr(PA)+sqr(PB)–sqr(AB)) / 2√[(sqr(107)+sqr(PA))((sqr(F)+sqr(PB))]]

With:
F= Focal Length equivalent 35mm
PA= Distance between the center of the photo (P) and one extremity of the object (A) in mm
PB= Distance between the center of the photo (P) and the other extremity of the object (B) in mm
AB= Length of the object, in mm

To determine these length in mm, you firstly need to know the real length of the pixel for this camera, in mm.
For example, for a 24x36mm film format and a 2432x3648 image size, you'll have a pixel size of 0.00986 mm, (36/3648 and 24/2432) then you just have to multiply this number by each distance measured in pixels in the photo.

If you want me to show you a step by step process for your picture, I'll be glad to do it for you.

Originally posted by Imtor
So many pages?? I thought this was solves months ago... there is nothing in there worth the attention.

Agreed. Anyone grounded in reality can easily tell that this is a bag being whipped up in the wind. And as I said some pages back, Crete is littered with rubbish including plastic bags. It can also be very windy there. Seeing a plastic bag blowing in the wind in Crete is not really surprising.

No F for you, as it is clearly not in the ocean.
If you mean in the air then you only get a speculative H for hovering.

No UFO, sorry.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


It is not hovering

If it was it would be a uho

Instead it is a ufo

Can you understand the difference here?

F for floating......

reply to post by elevenaugust


Can you see the focus distance in the EXIF of the "5 seconds before" shot? I can't. If you can, would you mind determining the width of the mirror housing in the UO shot and the 5 seconds before shot?

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Druid42, I don't mean to curb your enthusiastic efforts, but could you please show:
- an example of your methodology being applied to something known

How about a traffic light reflection?

- an example of the actual effect you are referring to using *any* other objects

I realize that I am nowhere close to matching the parameters of the Shooter's environment....

- an indication of where you have taken into account the possible curvature of the mirror

It's not the mirror that's curved, they are flat, but it IS at an angle in relation to the lens of the camera. IF the reflection is from the sunglasses, they are the object that is on a parabolic curve, and not uniform at that.

- an indication of what you believe the reflection is on

I'll stop there, but there other issues..

Thing is, although the goats may be difficult to duplicate

, the lighting conditions, mirror, sunglasses etc, etc are all pretty easy to roughly duplicate, and given that, with not too much effort you should be able to produce something at least vaguely like what you are trying to prove - ie a 'rogue' reflection...

The science of photogrammetry is quite complex and like most sciences, it doesn't really allow for unproven, undemonstrable approaches.. I'm happy to be shown examples, but until I see those..

My simple experiment in no way matches the conditions of the Shooters, yet I was able to produce a reflection anomaly.

To duplicate this experiment properly, you'd need the same camera, at least three goats, the same car, the same brand sunglasses, the same lat and lon, the time of day, etc, and even then it would be extremely difficult to replicate.

As it stands right now, here are the conditions that I am adhering to, until otherwise refuted:

1. The picture hasn't been tampered with. The EXIF data is sound.
2. The UO is just outside the focal range of the camera. (Either closer than 19 inches, or more than 35 inches away, thanks elevenaugust!)
3. It is probably not a bag. Was not seen floating.
4. It is probably not a bird. Same reason as #3.
5. It is probably not a water droplet.
6. The UO has not been positively identified.

That's not saying I am not open to any other ideas, but the "reflection anomaly" theory just seems to be the best explanation so far. Yeah, it's just an opinion, however, we are far from calling this over and inconclusive. Right?

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by elevenaugust

 

Can you see the focus distance in the EXIF of the "5 seconds before" shot? I can't. If you can, would you mind determining the width of the mirror housing in the UO shot and the 5 seconds before shot?

Sure!

Here you go:





Is it ok or do you want also an estimation of the sizes in cm?

Originally posted by Druid42

As it stands right now, here are the conditions that I am adhering to, until otherwise refuted:

1. The picture hasn't been tampered with. The EXIF data is sound.

Simply no way to know if its been tampered with as EXIF data CAN be edited. The most you can say is that there is no obvious indication that it was tampered with.

Originally posted by Druid42
2. The UO is just outside the focal range of the camera. (Either closer than 19 inches, or more than 35 inches away, thanks elevenaugust!)

That seems to be true.

Originally posted by Druid42
3. It is probably not a bag. Was not seen floating.

OR... She saw the bag and simply didn't make any note of it because it was not a focus of her attention. I think this is a very big possibility. One point to make... All kinds of people take photos of bugs and birds and other stuff which when they view the photo are totally surprised. "It wasn't a bird. I didn't see a bird." Well, they didn't see the bird or simply paid no attention to it. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

Originally posted by Druid42
4. It is probably not a bird. Same reason as #3.

Its probably not a bird because it simply doesn't match up with any bird in terms of its color, geometry, or the fact that it seems to have a reflective surface that is reflecting the sun.

Originally posted by Druid42
5. It is probably not a water droplet.
6. The UO has not been positively identified.

I'd agree that it has not been positively identified, but I still think it might possibly be a wind blown bag, or maybe a water droplet. Although if its a water droplet, how did it get there?

Originally posted by Druid42
That's not saying I am not open to any other ideas, but the "reflection anomaly" theory just seems to be the best explanation so far. Yeah, it's just an opinion, however, we are far from calling this over and inconclusive. Right?

I think we need some professional photo analysts to answer that question. I certainly haven't ruled it out.

possibly a spycraft

reply to post by elevenaugust

Is it ok or do you want also an estimation of the sizes in cm?

That's very good and thank you. What do you have for focus distance?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

Focus distance upper:

Photo n°3136: 0.98 m
Photo n°3137: 0.59 m

reply to post by elevenaugust


Thanks again. Any idea what the camera is focusing on at that distance of almost a meter?

reply to post by bluestreak53

OR... She saw the bag and simply didn't make any note of it because it was not a focus of her attention. I think this is a very big possibility. One point to make... All kinds of people take photos of bugs and birds and other stuff which when they view the photo are totally surprised. "It wasn't a bird. I didn't see a bird." Well, they didn't see the bird or simply paid no attention to it. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

Well, I have problems with the bag theory, as stated. Furthermore, you haven't accounted for the reflection on the bag. Others have pointed out the amount of trash along that section of road, and the fact that it was windy that day, so yes, it is possible. But, from the trash/litter post earlier in the thread, most of the trash is white or blue, the most common colors, quite opaque, and the fact that the bag would need to have a reflective coating to reflect light in the manner in which it is. Such a mylar bag, as stated, would have much less pliability than a simple grocery bag, as they usually have more than one layer, nor are shaped quite like that. Added layers means more weight, and less wind loft, and much harder to float in the air. Such heavier bags roll around the ground, and never get airborne. To have a bag float as high as it appears, it would by necessity need to be very lightweight, and shiny. If they made a shiny single layer plastic grocery bag, then by all means I would switch to the "bag theory" camp. I cannot. You can have your lightweight floating bag that is a dull matte finish, or you can have a reflective multilayered, heavier bag with obvious problems for floating by. Not both.

I'd agree that it has not been positively identified, but I still think it might possibly be a wind blown bag, or maybe a water droplet. Although if its a water droplet, how did it get there?

The water droplet theory is goat sweat, but a google question, "Do goats sweat?" leads to the opinion that goats don't sweat. It was a sunny day, no precipitation, so the only viable source of moisture would be from the goats, either sweating or drooling. As caught as an airborne reflection, the probability for a flinging drop of any material from the goats being caught at that location, sorry, is even more remote than my reflection theory.
However, there are dried water marks on the side view mirror. That has bothered me a bit. Where did they come from? A recent car wash? A brief thunderstorm? Goat drool/sweating being flung against the car, and drying quickly in the hot sun? Would they be a factor in an out of focus anomaly?

A hot island and sunny conditions would refute an abundance of water droplets being present, much less catching one with a 1/2400 shutter speed. To further the nail in the coffin, Jeff has decided there was little to no motion blur, and a water droplet flies through the air, (as does a plastic bag) so such blur should be present in the picture. Relying upon Jeff's analysis, I would agree the object lacks any severe motion blur, and thus is a static object.

That almost rules out the "bag theory" and "water droplet" theory, right?

If we can decide to rule out what it ISN'T, then we are that much closer to figuring out what it IS.

Originally posted by Druid42
Well, I have problems with the bag theory, as stated. Furthermore, you haven't accounted for the reflection on the bag. Others have pointed out the amount of trash along that section of road, and the fact that it was windy that day, so yes, it is possible. But, from the trash/litter post earlier in the thread, most of the trash is white or blue, the most common colors, quite opaque, and the fact that the bag would need to have a reflective coating to reflect light in the manner in which it is. Such a mylar bag, as stated, would have much less pliability than a simple grocery bag, as they usually have more than one layer, nor are shaped quite like that. Added layers means more weight, and less wind loft, and much harder to float in the air. Such heavier bags roll around the ground, and never get airborne. To have a bag float as high as it appears, it would by necessity need to be very lightweight, and shiny. If they made a shiny single layer plastic grocery bag, then by all means I would switch to the "bag theory" camp. I cannot. You can have your lightweight floating bag that is a dull matte finish, or you can have a reflective multilayered, heavier bag with obvious problems for floating by. Not both.

Actually, most plastic bags I am acquainted with are not "dull opaque" but have a fairly reflective and smooth surface. I don't know if they would reflect the sun like you see in the photo, but I think you'd have to consult some image analysis experts to discount the possibility. There are bags made of many materials.

Note that the hue of the "object" is quite bluish (maybe more cyan than blue) and this is one reason that a bag theory seems quite viable.

Originally posted by Druid42
The water droplet theory is goat sweat, but a google question, "Do goats sweat?" leads to the opinion that goats don't sweat. It was a sunny day, no precipitation, so the only viable source of moisture would be from the goats, either sweating or drooling. As caught as an airborne reflection, the probability for a flinging drop of any material from the goats being caught at that location, sorry, is even more remote than my reflection theory.
However, there are dried water marks on the side view mirror. That has bothered me a bit. Where did they come from? A recent car wash? A brief thunderstorm? Goat drool/sweating being flung against the car, and drying quickly in the hot sun? Would they be a factor in an out of focus anomaly?

A hot island and sunny conditions would refute an abundance of water droplets being present, much less catching one with a 1/2400 shutter speed. To further the nail in the coffin, Jeff has decided there was little to no motion blur, and a water droplet flies through the air, (as does a plastic bag) so such blur should be present in the picture. Relying upon Jeff's analysis, I would agree the object lacks any severe motion blur, and thus is a static object.

That almost rules out the "bag theory" and "water droplet" theory, right?

Actually, I believe the fast shutter speed rules out the possibility that you would be able to discern motion blur in the photo. And I certainly never believed the "goat sweat" or "goat saliva" theory. Saliva? Maybe the driver spit into the wind? I do agree that it is hard to account for the origins of a possible droplet of water or fluid.

Originally posted by Druid42
If we can decide to rule out what it ISN'T, then we are that much closer to figuring out what it IS.

Well, if you make enough assumptions, you can eliminate the possibilities that you don't believe. That doesn't mean you will get the right answer. I'd say that after 50 or 60 pages, we are really not that much closer to having an answer of what it is - unless its just photoshop.

We really need this to be analyzed by a bunch of photo experts. What I wonder if they just take one look at it and laugh, saying "looks like a bag to me!".

But I doubt we'll get any answers without consulting some professionals. Lots of amateur opinions here (mine included).

But I really do think that a team of professionals would be able to at least tell us if it might be a reflection or something that is related to the optics, sensors, hardware and processing in the camera.

much less catching one with a 1/2400 shutter speed. To further the nail in the coffin, Jeff has decided there was little to no motion blur, and a water droplet flies through the air, (as does a plastic bag) so such blur should be present in the picture. Relying upon Jeff's analysis, I would agree the object lacks any severe motion blur, and thus is a static object.

reply to post by Druid42


i disagree - something would have to be moving very fast to show motion blur at that shutter speed

1/2400 of a second is easily fast enough to freeze a bag or droplet

i don't think the shape is right for a droplet though, and there is the question of it's origin