Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
ShadowBoy86x

Anyone seen this picture?

424 posts in this topic

No, I wasn't thinking of lens flare. I was thinking of a dew droplet or pit in the camera lens catching the sunlight and reflecting it, in the same way that a shiny, much more distant object would. I can't see that happening, due to the geometry of the Sun, with respect to the camera. What was suggested about a very near, very small object being hopelessly out of focus; essentially invisible, seems to make sense. The camera seems to be focused on the goats, several feet distant. The apparently more distant object in the sky and crags appear to be moderately out of focus.

The clarity of the photographer herself in the mirror and everything else in the foreground makes the argument about things close to the camera being invisible moot. Surely anyone can recognize this?

The fact that the object in question is out of focus could equate to it being distant and relatively stationary (which begs the question of why the photographer and the driver didn't notice it) or to it being relatively small, close by, and in motion (which could explain why it wasn't noticed, as most bugs go).

How many bugs go unnoticed when you're looking at something else? Who can know for sure when such things go largely unnoticed?

How many (purportedly) 40 foot wide hovering alien piloted vehicles go unnoticed in the same circumstances? If there was an object that large and you were looking at goats within a 30 to 60 degree angle, do you think your peripheral vision just might pick it up? Would you need to see a photograph after the fact to recognize it had been there?

Sorry for pointing out the obvious, but this whole line of argument seems counter-intuitive to me. I glance at the slightest of discrepancies when I see them with my peripheral vision. Don't we all? If an object of that size were hovering in front of you, don't you think you'd at least notice it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this could be a blue plastic bag, a bug. I am surprise no one has come up with the idea of a flying jelly fish. It near the sea right? this must be it, a new undiscovered specie of flying jelly fish that's lighter than air. I make a good skeptic, don't I? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, seriously everyone over at ATS are really going with the bird/bag theory?

Or saying that the image is faked, even though there is ZERO signed of the image being manipulate in any way, but saying 'it is still possible to fake an image properly' so that no traces of fakery can be found?

That is the logic those guys really use?

I am glad that people are discussing and debating UFO images, as most ARE faked, but I would say that this one is very much legitimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this could be a blue plastic bag, a bug. I am surprise no one has come up with the idea of a flying jelly fish. It near the sea right? this must be it, a new undiscovered specie of flying jelly fish that's lighter than air. I make a good skeptic, don't I? :D

No, you don't. Come up with something that is plausible and you might achieve a measure of appreciation, but your contention about a jelly fish is simply absurd.

I'd call this a failed attempt. A failed attempt of what? A failed attempt at attacking the rational and constructive analysis of the UFO phenomenon, and a failed attempt at ridiculing people who offer valid hypothetical explanations for what was captured by that camera.

Feel free to do so if you'd like, but I suggest that you work on your delivery before trying again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, seriously everyone over at ATS are really going with the bird/bag theory?

Or saying that the image is faked, even though there is ZERO signed of the image being manipulate in any way, but saying 'it is still possible to fake an image properly' so that no traces of fakery can be found?

That is the logic those guys really use?

I am glad that people are discussing and debating UFO images, as most ARE faked, but I would say that this one is very much legitimate.

And what say you regarding the bug hypothesis? Could it be a bug? Or is ET piloted vehicle the only answer that you'll accept?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what say you regarding the bug hypothesis? Could it be a bug? Or is ET piloted vehicle the only answer that you'll accept?

The bug theory is plausible. At least I can accept some of what skeptics are throwing out there as a possibility. But it seemed that skeptics never, and I mean ever accept that ET is a possibility. Some of you "skeptic" seem to have a singular goal of discrediting everything but refused to accept that it could be anything, including ET origin. Some of you are willing to throw every possibilities out there except ET. The jelly fish theory is not anymore absurd than the swamp gas theory or the planet uranus theory. Yes, uranus or is it venus?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what say you regarding the bug hypothesis? Could it be a bug? Or is ET piloted vehicle the only answer that you'll accept?

I am open to all reasonable suggestions, but I am yet to see any bug which resembles the appearance of the object in this photo, especially one with a 'metallic' like surface to reflect light like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SMH.

Please tell me you are not serious.

Let me put it more simply. Flying in terms of UFO means "aloft"....drift, fleet, float, flutter, glide, hover, levitate.

If it ain't on the ground it's flying.

Here it is used in a sentence:

If you get hit by a bus you will fly through the air... :w00t:

In response to :

I know what UFO means, but do you even have proof that it is flying? Plastic bags float....they don't fly. Or are you going to tell me it can also mean "Unidentified Floating Object"?

Again, this may or may not be a UFO....we have insufficient evidence!

Have to say this was a very ironic statement UFO not being an "Unidentified Floating Object"

when so many of the UFOs are explained away as being exactly that...balloons of one type or another !

Edited by White Unicorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am open to all reasonable suggestions, but I am yet to see any bug which resembles the appearance of the object in this photo, especially one with a 'metallic' like surface to reflect light like that.

Apparently people capture plenty of bug when they take pictures. I am sure there are plenty of picture like this one floating out there somewhere. I am not a picture person, so I don't have any. I am sure some of the expert skeptic/photographer have some pic that look like this, you know, a misidentified bug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bug theory is plausible. At least I can accept some of what skeptics are throwing out there as a possibility. But it seemed that skeptics never, and I mean ever accept that ET is a possibility. Some of you "skeptic" seem to have a singular goal of discrediting everything but refused to accept that it could be anything, including ET origin. Some of you are willing to throw every possibilities out there except ET. The jelly fish theory is not anymore absurd than the swamp gas theory or the planet uranus theory. Yes, uranus or is it venus?

Offering potential terrestrial explanations doesn't mean that I don't entertain the possibility of something extraterrestrial. Why would you think that?

By offering potential terrestrial explanations I'm only suggesting something that is more likely, and I'm only suggesting it as a possibility. How could a terrestrial explanation be less likely than an extraterrestrial one? Think about that for a moment.

Until everything close to home is ruled out, why jump to something that isn't close to home as the de facto conclusion?

I am open to all reasonable suggestions, but I am yet to see any bug which resembles the appearance of the object in this photo, especially one with a 'metallic' like surface to reflect light like that.

Then you haven't watched the video I linked to earlier have you? The beetles in that video definitely resemble the appearance of the object in this photo, especially the one in flight. Perhaps not an exact match, but we are dealing with angles and perspectives as well. There isn't a perfect side-on perspective that I've found yet, but anyone with spatial awareness should be able to recognize the plausibility of this photo being a bug captured mid-flight with motion blur with a side-on perspective.

And again, I'm not saying that this is the definite answer, but Jesus, none of you even seem to acknowledge the possibility of it?!? How closed minded do you accuse skeptics of being? Look in the fracking mirror. (sorry for the 'fracking' reference... perhaps being influenced by the Battlestar Glactica remake...)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently people capture plenty of bug when they take pictures. I am sure there are plenty of picture like this one floating out there somewhere. I am not a picture person, so I don't have any. I am sure some of the expert skeptic/photographer have some pic that look like this, you know, a misidentified bug.

People do. Some people have actually made freaking UFO films about them. Rods? Heard about those? What are they? Bugs! An entire film has been devoted to these bugs under the guise of being extraterrestrial or inter-dimensional entities. But they're just bugs.

Yep, bugs.

Where else have bugs shown up as supposed UFOs? Many places. Some people have even presented YouTube videos of bugs captured with night vision and purported them as being UFOs or inter-dimensional beings in combat. How nonsensical is that? Who buys this crap? Do you?

It's time to wake up and smell the coffee balloon boy. There are plenty of people who are ready to tell you that ET is here, but none of them have proof of it. Not a single one. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. None.

Why don't they?

Perhaps it's because ET is a sneaky SOB? Or perhaps it's because ET isn't here?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it about this object that identifies it as possibly alien anyway? The fact that it's unidentified and air born (because honestly anything else is simply conjecture)? Is that all that is required to make the leap to ET? I'll never understand that particular train of thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offering potential terrestrial explanations doesn't mean that I don't entertain the possibility of something extraterrestrial. Why would you think that?

By offering potential terrestrial explanations I'm only suggesting something that is more likely, and I'm only suggesting it as a possibility. How could a terrestrial explanation be less likely than an extraterrestrial one? Think about that for a moment.

Until everything close to home is ruled out, why jump to something that isn't close to home as the de facto conclusion?

Then you haven't watched the video I linked to earlier have you? The beetles in that video definitely resemble the appearance of the object in this photo, especially the one in flight. Perhaps not an exact match, but we are dealing with angles and perspectives as well. There isn't a perfect side-on perspective that I've found yet, but anyone with spatial awareness should be able to recognize the plausibility of this photo being a bug captured mid-flight with motion blur with a side-on perspective.

And again, I'm not saying that this is the definite answer, but Jesus, none of you even seem to acknowledge the possibility of it?!? How closed minded do you accuse skeptics of being? Look in the fracking mirror. (sorry for the 'fracking' reference... perhaps being influenced by the Battlestar Glactica remake...)

I never said it was less likely. I think you know better than to put all believers into one basket. Yes, it's a possibility that it's a bug, but do you also accept that it's possible that it could be ET? Of all the pictures of UFO that claimed to be genuine, do you think they are all terrestrial? So the possibility that some pics are real is non existence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it about this object that identifies it as possibly alien anyway? The fact that it's unidentified and air born (because honestly anything else is simply conjecture)? Is that all that is required to make the leap to ET? I'll never understand that particular train of thought.

What do you think it could be? If it's not a blue bag or bug, does it look like an airplane, helicopter, glider or anything conventional? Is it a secret military object from the US, Greece or another country? The Greece gov't broke but they have plenty of money for secret projects? It could just be a toy from a beach goer, i am sure. But it sure as hell don't look like anything I know of that are operated by man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said it was less likely. I think you know better than to put all believers into one basket. Yes, it's a possibility that it's a bug, but do you also accept that it's possible that it could be ET? Of all the pictures of UFO that claimed to be genuine, do you think they are all terrestrial? So the possibility that some pics are real is non existence?

Thank you for acknowledging the possibility that this might be something terrestrial.

Do I accept that there is the possibility that it is extraterrestrial? I believe that I've already stated that this is possible. I've also stated that it is unlikely.

Are all UFO images terrestrial? Nobody can answer that, but to conclude otherwise is to assume the improbable. Still within the realm of possibility, but also improbable.

I'll put it this way.

I haven't seen a single UFO picture that I can say is definite proof of extraterrestrial visitation, but I've seen thousands (literally) of pictures that are most likely terrestrial.

This picture is no different. Could it be ET? Sure, I suppose it could. Is it ET? Probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the difference between believer and skeptic. Our possibility are bigger. It doesn't seem as improbable to someone who has seen it with their own eyes. Hell, I would likely be a skeptic if i haven't seen it myself! Fortunately I am not shutting the door on all the possibility of what could be out there based on that experience. Thank, boon for acknowledging that it could be ET, no matter how small that possibility might be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think it could be? If it's not a blue bag or bug, does it look like an airplane, helicopter, glider or anything conventional? Is it a secret military object from the US, Greece or another country? The Greece gov't broke but they have plenty of money for secret projects? It could just be a toy from a beach goer, i am sure. But it sure as hell don't look like anything I know of that are operated by man.

I honestly don't know what it could be. More importantly the list of things that I know that it isn't is quite large but ultimately incomplete. For example, I know it's not a school bus however I don't know enough to be able to say it isn't some sort of unknown weather phenomena or some such. Also I don't know enough to be able to say it isn't an alien craft either, only that there are quite a few Earthly explanations that would be more likely. Anyone who is honest with themselves would say the same.

And no, I'm not claiming it is some unknown weather phenomena. But it might be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well after spending a few hours today at work looking at all the evidence ( been a busy Friday :clap: ) I can honestly say that it is inconclusive either way .

I can see where the beetle or bug thinking comes into it , I spent some time checking all the local bugs in Crete and couldn’t find an exact match but found a few that could be a possibility , the right hand side of the object ( zoomed ) kind of look like legs and the body shape is some what correct , however the left hand side of the object ( zoomed ) doesn't really look like the head of any bug or beetle that I could find .

I’m happy to say that this is a UFO - it appears to be flying and I can't identify it :td:

I would like to point out that after spending a few hours looking at the picture from different angles and zooms ,the way she holds the camera , herself in the shot etc , I get this gut feeling that something is wrong with this picture , what you may ask ? I’m not sure but something is telling me that this picture is not right

TiP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

yet everyone constantly say need EXIF data or its a hoax...someone provides the EXIF data then we are told that its not worth anything as it can be altered..... :w00t:

I wouldnt sound so surprised that EVEN you can do that.......seeing as you have over 20years experience in photography :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

photo shoped,the person in the picture isn't even aiming the camera,and if she is why is she smiling,Fake fake fake,oh did I mention FAKE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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." ?

Boon, may I ask what you mean here exactly? Are you stating that motion blur and atmospheric haze are very similar and can easily be confused with each other?

Also yes I think many of us go with what the 'expert' has said, to be honest all I have seen to date is people attacking him and not any of his points. Euphorbia keeps asking McG why does he trust him and that he should even prove him 'right' huh? Surely the experts can pick apart his points? that is the way it works isnt it?

One other quick point, If we use both pictures and 'pretend' that what we see is the UFO 30 seconds earlier. Surely some mathematics can be used to calculate approx speed or size??? Of course this is working of the premise that its the same object but it would be interesting.

Boon, I know you said it looks like a bug to you, BUT do you think that is what it is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get this gut feeling that something is wrong with this picture , what you may ask ? I’m not sure but something is telling me that this picture is not right

I get the same feeling...

Setting aside the 'UFO' for a minute.....I was looking to see signs of it being some kind of photoshopped montage...

If you look at the shadow coming from the goat's front right leg (the goat showing it's bottom :))....it doesn't look correct...

But I could be splitting (goat's) hairs with that shadow...dunno.

Another thought.....if the pic is genuine....what about the possibility of a drone nipping to or from North Africa ...

Something like this maybe... http://infoseekchina...ting-terrorism/

Or.... :alien::D:P

.

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offering potential terrestrial explanations doesn't mean that I don't entertain the possibility of something extraterrestrial. Why would you think that?

By offering potential terrestrial explanations I'm only suggesting something that is more likely, and I'm only suggesting it as a possibility. How could a terrestrial explanation be less likely than an extraterrestrial one? Think about that for a moment.

Until everything close to home is ruled out, why jump to something that isn't close to home as the de facto conclusion?

Hi Boony!

I have to say that your comment of..."How could a terrestrial explanation be less likely than an extraterrestrial one? "...is a perfectly valid one. ...Only if used by a person that is not convinced that extraterrestrial visitation is a likely reality! [because surely to someone that believes in the reality of ETV, if the anomaly has the appearance of 'what is perceived as an ETV', then to that person, an ETV must logically be the primary-impression!]

Lack of tangible proof aside,as you know, we differ in that opinion.And if you are leaning toward 'the bug explanation' for this particular photographic-anomaly, then I have to say that we are of differing opinions on this one too.Because although I do not completely dismiss that option out of hand,..I find it a very unlikely one, for the reasons that I have seen nothing so far to indicate that the photographic-analysis expert over at ATS is 'unreliable', and in his report he makes it clear that he thinks that the object in the picture is of a considerable 'distance' from the photographer, and therefore logically the 'size' of the 'Bug' is not commensurate with any known bug here on earth!

[unless of course , someone can show that the expert's analysis is irrevocably-flawed?]

And also,..as scientifically sound as ever,.. I would like to add the codicil that though I have seen plenty of pictures that contain out of focus birds,insects and bugs etc, that have been touted as exotic-craft....this one is not in that class![call it a gut-feeling if you like]....For me, this anomalous photograph is something entirely different to those ones.

It is my opinion that the options for identifying the object in the photo are , either a 'semi-deflated balloon', in which case, if the analyst's distances are correct, then it must have been 'a whopper'.lol.

...or some kind of 'secret test craft, or experimental Drone'...which begs the question..."why would it be jaunting around the Mediterranean Islands?", and "is the shape of that thing viable for conventional technology?".

And the third option for myself personally,[as a proponent of the ETH] is that the photographer has unwittingly caught a ETV on her holiday snaps !...But by no means do I suggest that this thing [or the other speculations] is a definitive conclusion!...Merely the most exciting possibility!

And then of course...as always in these cases, there is the very-real possibility that the whole thing is a dirty heinous scam!...that has been so expertly executed by the perpetrator that it has completely hoodwinked even the 'expert analyst at ATS!

There may be other options that I have overlooked ,but in my honest opinion, this photograph, ...just like so many others throughout the years, will remain 'up in the air' ,unless a confession of 'fakery' eventually turns up!...Because that is how the extraterrestrial debate between the 'believers' and the 'non-believers works'!

....if it's fake...then it's a good one though! :tu:

Cheers buddy.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bug theory is plausible. At least I can accept some of what skeptics are throwing out there as a possibility. But it seemed that skeptics never, and I mean ever accept that ET is a possibility. Some of you "skeptic" seem to have a singular goal of discrediting everything but refused to accept that it could be anything, including ET origin. Some of you are willing to throw every possibilities out there except ET. The jelly fish theory is not anymore absurd than the swamp gas theory or the planet uranus theory. Yes, uranus or is it venus?

Point is: we know about bugs, we know how they can accidentally show up on photos, and so on. I have worked in an Eastman- Kodak lab for 10 years, and although I was only busy analyzing the chemicals used, I have seen zillions of photos with the most unbelievable images (and how many photographed noses by people who had no idea what was front or back of their camera, you won't believe it, lol). That was before the time of digital cameras, btw.

But all we see here is an 'UNidentified object' in the sky. We don't even know if it was flying..

If you say that it could be an ET spacecraft or something, then I can say it is a very rare and cryptoid kind of silver skinned elephant having severe gas problems.

That's a possibility too, right?

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the same feeling...

Setting aside the 'UFO' for a minute.....I was looking to see signs of it being some kind of photoshopped montage...

If you look at the shadow coming from the goat's front right leg (the goat showing it's bottom :))....it doesn't look correct...

But I could be splitting (goat's) hairs with that shadow...dunno.

Another thought.....if the pic is genuine....what about the possibility of a drone nipping to or from North Africa ...

Something like this maybe... http://infoseekchina...ting-terrorism/

Or.... :alien::D:P

.

Would a drone be at a much higher altitude? It would be a strange drone in that shape.

Here's and enlargement of the goat's leg shadow. It does look strange, but I think it's because there's a depression in the road there that the shadow disappears into.

I still think the photo and everything in it are real, but identifying the "UFO" is impossible.

goatslegshadow.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.