Crete UFO Image Captured - What Is It?

www.coasttocoastam.com...

www.coasttocoastam.com...

The interviews coming up soon on the Winnipeg station.

The segment is airing on Coast to Coast now.

Originally posted by The Shrike

I'm suspicious and you, Springer, should have higher standards.

In all fairness, Springer has just put this out here for discussion, of which there will be much i am sure.

As he said in his first paragraph, "at least to my "not professionally trained in digital imaging" eyes". He put this straight to an expert in digital photography, to me that shows a higher standard than trying to pass himself off as some UFO expert who expects you to take what he has posted as gospel.

Don't get me wrong, i have a niggling doubt about this one too, it almost seems too like some of those toy rc UFO's you can buy these days, especially the hoop part at one side of it......but then again i'm no expert either.

Enjoying reading all of the thread though, some great knowledge here amongst our members when it comes to photography and imagery.

CX.

Originally posted by Zeta Reticulan

looks like a kite

edit on 30-9-2012 by Zeta Reticulan because: (no reason given)

it kinda does huh

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Komodo

 

Not really.
While consumer cameras like the Canon Powershot s100 used here can be modified to extend into the near infrared range there is no indication that this has been done here.

It's true that these cameras can be modified by removing the infrared filter from the lens, and that there is no evidence of that here, however even with the filter there is significant infrared sensitivity. Anyone can prove that simply by pointing a remote control at the camera lens and observing the camera's screen. You will see the remote's LED flashing, where nothing is observed with the naked eye.

BTW, I worked as an engineering assistant with infrared and near-infrared protography and designed the lighting system used for the EZ-Pass system in NYC. We found that most digital cameras can detect beyond near-infrared and into the infrared part of the spectrum.

For those wondering, the reason for the filter is that allowing infrared through to the CCD causes a kind of hazy blur, so the filter is added to prevent that.

reply to post by elfie


The photo is clearly focused on the the back of the goat on the left. The depth of field I estimate at 10 ft, based on the sharp focus of the rocks behind and in front of the goat and on the angle of the camera as seen in the mirror, very slightly down.

Based on the blur of the object, it appears to be about the distance of the rock outcropping above the mirror. There does not appear to be any blur due to motion of the object in any perceivable direction. Also, we can see it is fairly windy from the whitecaps.

Thus I think it is a bird, maybe a a gull, facing to the right, but hovering where the wind is pushed up by the cliff. The very bright area of the object is the end of the bird's right wing. The darker area directly to the left is the top of the left wing, also cupped, or curled to catch the updraft.

Having spent many years near the cliffs and seashore, this sight and flight behavior is very familiar to me.

But I admit to many this would not be familiar.

That's my 2 cents.

[asskissing]

Very Nicely done Springer.
You came across very professionally and level headed.
You made us all proud tonight.


[/asskissing]

Seriously, Nice job.
Off to bed I go.
I hope I can hear the rest of this somewhere somehow.
Please post the full interview for those of us who needed our beauty sleep.

reply to post by gguyx


A bird? Hmm. All I can say is I'm flabbergasted at your conclusion. I imagine with the evolution of birds over the years, this has altered their DNA in a way that now allows them to reflect sunlight in such a bright and luminescent way.

reply to post by Springer


Clearly a craft, of some sort. Listening to C2C. Very compelling, after the many fakes out there. Still, there's that what if. Thanks for staying up, and talking about it.

With all due respect, I have a very different take on the picture in question than that of the author. When I look at the object I don't see a dome or round top/flat bottom craft... I see a prominent sphere (like a basketball) as being the prominent/central object which is reflecting the sun very clearly. That is the center. But (it would be easier if I could draw this) I see a chrome, fluid-like "tail", or ribbon that protrudes from the the TOP of the central sphere, then, quickly curves left and downward, essentially "wrapping" around the sphere as it descends down and to it's (the chrome ribbons) left. It reaches the bottom of the sphere on the far side (from the camera) of the sphere where it slightly levels off, trails out and expires. Sort of like a single trail of water draining around a baseball.

That is what I, personally, see very clearly. Felt I should throw it out there. Thanks for reading.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by Still Naive?

 

The pic is mine. After he emailed me back, I imported the pic into WildBit editor, I know....it sucks but I have no knowledge of photo editing and it is a free download. I made it into a negative, zoomed in and added the pic to my post. He did not send a pic in his email, but I can see the green and purple he was talking about.

You guys will have to figure this one out as I have no clue what is up or down when it comes to real/rake pics.

This highlights how silly things can be.

You recited what your friend said to you in his 'expert' opinion, and you attached an image that looks like a processed image to validate what your friend said.

But in reality, you just fiddles with the image yourself, but adding it to the opinion of your friend, it appears to add credibility to his opinion, and people gave you stars. Not because they understand or even comprehend what it is your friend said, but because they know no better. "Sciency computer graphics stuff and an image with all the filters.. zomg, must be trued!!"

I wish you'd added that in your post. Because I see absolutely no evidence that what your friend said, and your image purports to show, that this is added after the fact.

Now it may well be, or as I originally thought, it's as someone else said, a bag in the wind or something. I can see how it could be either.

Or it may well be a craft darting around our atmosphere, knowing the humans are looking for it, some might even shoot at it, but somehow managing to evade us all these years, without a single act of self preservation OR offensive attack on an otherwise backward and easily overpowered native people.

Why do people always look at a picture that has been inverted, colour balanced, yadda yadda and instantly think "GOOD WORK!"

No one has done an embossed image yet, lets see if that proves a pixels...

.. personally, I doubt this is a UFO.

come on ! thats a jelly fish !!! the goats tossed it up in the air !!!!

reply to post by Still Naive?


Take a look at:

cdn6.fotosearch.com...

It's fairly close to what I am seeing, though the colors are different.

Reminds me of a UFO on an old ATS thread back in March......



www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ok the one i just posted isn't as good quality, just thought the shape looked similar.

Who knows.....could be a new drone

CX.

PS: On a side note.....possibly food for thought for a book sequal....."The women who stare at goats".

reply to post by Still Naive?


Since when would a craft manipulating space, time and gravity surrounding it need any kind of aerodynamics?

Hence, a triangle shaped UO. Aerodynamic logic does not apply to travel outside our current means (approaching the possibility of light speed ++)

Except there is zero evidence that space is being manipulated blah blah blah. Occam's razor.

Further, one of the persons on C2C insists this object is symmetric, but I don't see it that way.It looks "dented" on the right side.

OL and i have concluded that is is indeed , a jellyfish ocean pray , that the goats were trying to capture ! case closed ! OL do you have anything you wish to say upon this matter ?

Don't laugh at my MSPaint skills...........

I will laugh for ya!




This is what I see, or you can say, what I want to see.



I still stand by, that it looks like a craft of some sort. Almost translucent.

reply to post by gguyx


Just like the picture you linked, if this was a gull...that would be obvious as to what we're looking at...

I'd like to add the woman stated that nothing was visible to her at the moment of taking the photo. Regardless if she missed a bird flying into the frame, if that's what it was, that would be obvious to us. I'm sorry, I respect your opinion in it's entirety but my opinion is that it's fairly obvious that what we're looking at is not a bird.

Case solved.

It's a shorebird, probably a gull.

All you have to do is enlarge it and you'll see the head and beak on the right, the cupped wings and even the swept back feet of the bird on the bottom.

C'mon people.

Case closed.

reply to post by sonnny1


This is exactly how I see it, however, I see something....sitting....where you have drawn the area to be the "seat"...