Anyone seen this picture?

[TheMacGuffin]

Nonsense. Of course I knew there were other pictures. The lady's account mentions other pictures. You're just being ridiculous, as usual.

If you knew, you gave not the slightest hint of it, nor did any of you Septic Skeptics bother to post them--or even inform anyone of their existence. Why is that?

[Euphorbia]

I could care less about that, but I can read what they guy said. The picture was not enhanced or tampered with since they have the original, and that's all I'm interested in.

If they have to use that particular format to post them on the Internet then so what? Everybody does that.

Wow, you just simply don't get it, do you? It's like talking to a wall.......

[TheMacGuffin]

Wow, you just simply don't get it, do you? It's like talking to a wall.......

It sounds completely irrelevant to me.

[Euphorbia]

And the person who originally analyzed these pictures had 26 years of experience:

*Snip*

Yeah, I can read.......so what. What makes this person so reliable to you? Do you know him personally? I would only trust seeing the original raw files, or having them examined by a forensic photographer.

It's not necessarily the years of experience but the experience itself! I don't know this guy and have no real reason to believe/not believe him.

[Sweetpumper]

Yeah, I can read.......so what. What makes this person so reliable to you? Do you know him personally? I would only trust seeing the original raw files, or having them examined by a forensic photographer.

It's not necessarily the years of experience but the experience itself! I don't know this guy and have no real reason to believe/not believe him.

I'm sure he knows the other person about as well as he knows you.

[booNyzarC]

If you knew, you gave not the slightest hint of it, nor did any of you Septic Skeptics bother to post them--or even inform anyone of their existence. Why is that?

Why should I have mentioned something that was already mentioned in the original account?

To be completely honest, as far as UFO pictures go, this one isn't all that great in my opinion. And as far as your 'who posted this or that' p***ing contest goes, I really don't care one way or the other. To me it just looks like a blurry flying beetle or other similar insect. I'm not saying that this is definitely what it is, but that's what it looks like to me. You are free to disagree with that assessment, but just because I've raised it as a possible explanation doesn't make me "Septic Skeptic" and I don't appreciation your insinuation that I am, or the tone with which you address people who merely offer possibilities about UFOs in general.

[TheMacGuffin]

I'm sure he knows the other person about as well as he knows you.

I don't know either one, and can't say that I want to.

[Euphorbia]

I don't know either one, and can't say that I want to.

You have exemplary manners!

[TheMacGuffin]

As I said, regardless of the format in which they are posted on the Internet, the original pictures from the camera show that they have not been altered or manipulated. Someone already checked all that.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread886584/pg12

[Euphorbia]

As I said, regardless of the format in which they are posted on the Internet, the original pictures from the camera show that they have not been altered or manipulated. Someone already checked all that.

http://www.abovetops...ead886584/pg12

Do you not realize that EXIF data can be altered? Hell, even I can do that!

[TheMacGuffin]

Do you not realize that EXIF data can be altered? Hell, even I can do that!

I'm sure that you have, but you have offered no proof of any kind for all your assertions on here.

I will admit that I have a HUGE suspicion of anyone involved in photography these days, with all the new-fangled tricks and equipment that they use. I strongly distrust the whole bunch, no matter what they say, but in this case it seems that someone has bothered to analyze the pictures in much greater detail that usual to rule out fakes and hoaxes.

Edited October 4, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[booNyzarC]

Its clearly no bug and what would this something else entierly be ? a bag ?

Just face it no one can explain it, it could just be a blur of paint that someone has added to the photo.

What makes it so clear to you that it couldn't be a bug? Did you even bother looking at the video I posted previously and comparing?

Check out the video in this link. Near the end one of the beetles takes flight... Notice the blur... at the correct angle, we'd have a pretty decent match with the Crete picture in my opinion.

Enjoy

And again, I'm not saying that it definitely has to be a bug--I'm just raising the possibility because that's what it looks like to me, but when people start saying that it couldn't possibly be one I'd like to understand their reasoning. So far all I've seen in this regard are declarations that it couldn't be one. How useful is such a declaration with no substance behind it?

[White Unicorn]

Do you not realize that EXIF data can be altered? Hell, even I can do that!

The reality of this is much like a robber breaking into a store and a person takes a photo as evidence. All data can be altered so are we not to believe any data presented. It can be proved wrong but it can't be proved true. All the witnesses also can also be lying but can you prove they are not? The robber would like you as his defense witness!

[Euphorbia]

I'm sure that you have, but you have offered no proof of any kind for all your assertions on here.

I will admit that I have a HUGE suspicion of anyone involved in photography these days, with all the new-fangled tricks and equipment that they use. I strongly distrust the whole bunch, no matter what they say, but in this case it seems that someone has bothered to analyze the pictures in much greater detail that usual to rule out fakes and hoaxes.

I'm sorry, who's the one with the assertions? That would be you! All I'm asking for is reliable information! Again, how do you know this guy's reliable?

You say you have "suspicion of anyone involved in photography these days", yet somehow this guy's A-OK?

[TheMacGuffin]

What makes it so clear to you that it couldn't be a bug?

Because the person who analyzed the pictures said it wasn't, and I have yet to see anyone on here do better.

[TheMacGuffin]

yet somehow this guy's A-OK?

No, I don't think anyone is OK, but I see evidence that someone has analyzed these pictures for fraud in more detail than usual, and no one on here has done any better. They are just talking about bugs, birds and bags, based on their own whims.

Edited October 4, 2012 by TheMacGuffin

[thewonderman]

Because the person who analyzed the pictures said it wasn't, and I have yet to see anyone on here do better.

I'm sorry I do like the majority of you're posts but you can't just belive what someone says when you have never even met them.

[Euphorbia]

The reality of this is much like a robber breaking into a store and a person takes a photo as evidence. All data can be altered so are we not to believe any data presented. It can be proved wrong but it can't be proved true. All the witnesses also can also be lying but can you prove they are not? The robber would like you as his defense witness!

He presented EXIF data, data which can be altered. That is a fact! I don't know about all manufacturers, but Canon makes special software that does guarantee that the raw file hasn't been altered.

You're trying to compare a robber breaking into a store with a UFO? Apples to oranges.....

[ShadowBoy86x]

If its a bug, then booNyzarC a undercover us government pony trying to lead us astray from the undyin truth!!!! lol

I think its still very strong evidence, and I appreciated all the comments, for and against

Edited October 4, 2012 by JeffRobinson

[thewonderman]

What makes it so clear to you that it couldn't be a bug? Did you even bother looking at the video I posted previously and comparing?

And again, I'm not saying that it definitely has to be a bug--I'm just raising the possibility because that's what it looks like to me, but when people start saying that it couldn't possibly be one I'd like to understand their reasoning. So far all I've seen in this regard are declarations that it couldn't be one. How useful is such a declaration with no substance behind it?

Well first off it the object clearly looks like it is behind the rock which is in front of them and I have never known a bug to be that big ever before.

Infact lets take a look at the goats head in the bottom right corner compare that to the size of the 'BUG'. OK so we can safely say its not behind the goats and infact past the rock.

Edited October 4, 2012 by thewonderman

[Euphorbia]

No, I don't think anyone is OK, but I see evidence that someone has analyzed these pictures for fraud in more detail than usual, and no one on here has done any better. They are just talking about bugs, birds and bags, based on their own whims.

But how do you know this guy is reliable? You're taking him on his word yet dismissing anything anyone else has to say?

Why is this guy so damn reliable to you?

[booNyzarC]

Well first off it the object clearly looks like it is behind the rock which is in front of them and I have never known a bug to be that big ever before.

Infact lets take a look at the goats head in the bottom right corner compare that to the size of the 'BUG'. OK so we can safely say its not behind the goats and infact past the rock.

There is no way to determine the actual size of the object without knowing the actual distance it is from the camera. Likewise, there is no way to know how far away it is from the camera without knowing the actual size of the object. Saying that "it looks like it is behind the rock" doesn't confirm the assertion with anything verifiable. It could be a very small object close to the camera or a larger object some distance from the camera. Neither can be determined without the other.

[TheMacGuffin]

There is no way to determine the actual size of the object without knowing the actual distance it is from the camera. Likewise, there is no way to know how far away it is from the camera without knowing the actual size of the object. Saying that "it looks like it is behind the rock" doesn't confirm the assertion with anything verifiable. It could be a very small object close to the camera or a larger object some distance from the camera. Neither can be determined without the other.

Once again, that's not one the person who analyzed the pictures said--not at all--and no one on here can claim to have done a similar analysis--not even close.

They haven't checked his work in any way, shape or form, just questioned his integrity and disagreed with his conclusions. Of course, if they had agreed with the conclusions, the Septic Septics would all be on here in a chorus saying he was the greatest thing since sliced bread. LOL

[White Unicorn]

He presented EXIF data, data which can be altered. That is a fact! I don't know about all manufacturers, but Canon makes special software that does guarantee that the raw file hasn't been altered.

You're trying to compare a robber breaking into a store with a UFO? Apples to oranges.....

The reality of this is much like a robber breaking into a store and a person takes a photo as evidence. All data can be altered so are we not to believe any data or testimony presented? It can be proved wrong but it can't be proved true. All the witnesses also can also be lying but can you prove they are not? The robber would like you as his defense witness!

If this is true about Canon I would say the word needs to get out to serious people in gathering edvidence!

Point is with UFO's no witness testimony is taken serious even from astronauts, common people et al. then if there is any edvidence its is thrown out because is could be altered.

Maybe UFOs should be taken to the courts to establish the truth of the UFO occurrences LOL

At least then we would focusing on what each UFO really is instead of trying to defeat anything that is presented as evidence just like the case of a robber!

Edited October 4, 2012 by White Unicorn

[booNyzarC]

Once again, that's not one the person who analyzed the pictures said--not at all--and no one on here can claim to have done a similar analysis--not even close.

They haven't checked his work in any way, shape or form, just questioned his integrity and disagreed with his conclusions. Of course, if they had agreed with the conclusions, the Septic Septics would all be on here in a chorus saying he was the greatest thing since sliced bread. LOL

What are you talking about? He said this:

Without the ability to travel to the location and do specific measurements of stationary objects to compare with focal lengths and other triangulation points,

I cannot determine the distance of the object

.

However, it's level of atmospheric haze indicates to me it is of some distance away and of substantial size (perhaps even the legendary 40ft diameter is not out of the question)

What does that mean exactly?

By the way, how different from motion blur is atmospheric haze?

You're hanging your hat on this guy's supposed qualifications without knowing anything about him unless I'm mistaken. I haven't spent any time looking into him or his qualifications. I don't really care that much about this picture to bother with such things. I just find it fascinating that you seem to be jumping all over the 'defense' of this picture when nobody knows what it is. Are you incapable of understanding what I mean when I say "this is what it looks like to me, but I don't claim to know whether this is actually what it is." ?

By merely presenting the possibility of it being an insect I am now a Septic Skeptic in your opinion?

Please also point out where this Jeff Ritzmann supposedly says that it isn't a bug and his reasoning for that statement. So far I've seen him say that it isn't a bird, and his reasons are:

-Object does not resemble a bird in any way whatsoever

-While birds can appear to have highlights, they do not reflect the light per this object, nor have reflective properties

Oh, well gee. I guess it can't possibly be a bird then, because he said so.

If it wasn't so sad, it would be hilarious.