Photographer captures something she can't explain in skies over Greenville County

I'm reasonably sure they are lens flares. Since they are translucent artifacts in the tree photo you can just barely see where the flare changes the color of the limb where they overlap.

I can't explain the dots, but I don't see anything to indicate they're not lens flares (yes I am a photographer). The dots could be dust on the back/rim of lens, they could be other artifacts, or they could be tiny aliens in blobs of light.

I'll stick with flares, though.

Good greif people, the person SAW IT WITH THEIR EYES, the lens flare thing sounds ignorant, unless you think the person is lying about seeing it and I don't think there is a reason to think that..

a reply to: Foderalover

It's my understanding that she only noticed the orbs on the photos after she took them and then zoomed in and saw the dots.

I may have misread.

a reply to: smurfy

Thanks for the reply, I see what you mean.

Well explained. In this instance It could be, however the other witness that saw the same thing still puzzles me.

originally posted by: Urantia1111

originally posted by: Digital_Reality
I live on the Gulf Coast and I also saw this driving home. I almost pulled over but it was rush hour traffic.

No, no. It's already been proven a hoax, lens flare, and a faked cropped image. You couldn't have seen it in real life with your real eye. /sarcasm off

Exactly...People are pulling of the highway to take a picture of, nothing...They then end up with lens flare and post it as a U.F.O....Makes perfect sense...

a reply to: RoScoLaz4Saw one just like that about 55 years ago (without the dots)...It was larger than the zoomed in pictures here and was clear to me that it was much closer than the object in the pictures...Had defined edges and traveled very slowly....It traveled about 2 miles in 15 to 20 minutes...

originally posted by: smurfy
I haven't seen that effect before, and there doesn't seem to be all that much light for lens flare in any of the pictures. The picture with the cross seems to have the object/effect cut at the cloud level as if half in and half out of the cloud cover, and so if real, it is not small, but then that picture is the brightest and the best candidate for a lens flare, and there is also some shading to pink in that area of the picture.

The only thing I can think of that remotely resembles the object, is an illuminated Buxus Ball...but then they are green!

I say lens flare and dust on her lens/sensor...

As far as light, she was shooting towards the sun..

I do a lot of photography and while this hasn't happened to me (I keep my gear CLEAN) I can see it happening taking a shot like this.

originally posted by: darkbake
I never thought about this before, but with Fox News at the helm, I could see reports on E.T. and UFO's happening more often.

It's a part of the plan. Keeping certain things in the social consciousness. I'm going with more hoaxes to keep people thinking about UFOs and possibly make sure they are looking more at the sky and less at their cell phones when TPTB needs to be looking.

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: Digital_Reality
I live on the Gulf Coast and I also saw this driving home. I almost pulled over but it was rush hour traffic.

If it was rush hour traffic, why couldn't you have snapped a pic? Or is your rush hour traffic not like ours in Pittsburgh where you are barely moving for miles? If you really saw this, then it can't be a lens flare....No??

Watch out of the Pittsburgh left! I almost died there LOL.

Yep, those dots are weird, very weird.

Orbs or something else?

originally posted by: Foderalover
Good greif people, the person SAW IT WITH THEIR EYES, the lens flare thing sounds ignorant, unless you think the person is lying about seeing it and I don't think there is a reason to think that..

Yeah, people need to say "Liar" instead of Lens Flare in this case. Because the person claims that they seen it with their own two eyes.

So stop saying Lens Flare and just call a person you don't know from Adam a Liar.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
Yeah, people need to say "Liar" instead of Lens Flare in this case. Because the person claims that they seen it with their own two eyes.

So stop saying Lens Flare and just call a person you don't know from Adam a Liar.

I'm going to say learn to read without inferring too much. Here is what the article said:

www.wistv.com...

a Taylors shutterbug thought she had snapped a few shots of sun and moon close together in the twilight sky Sunday.

When Stephanie Davenport looked closer, she said something caught her eye.

“I originally thought it was the moon, but when I zoomed in on my pictured it clearly wasn't. It is round and looked to have lights on it,”

Don't assume that when the article says: "thought she had snapped a few shots of sun and moon close together" that she wasn't looking through the viewfinder.

People seem to be inferring or even making up things the article doesn't say.

In any case, it looks exactly like lens flare with maybe some dust on the lens causing the artifacts in the flare. It's not uncommon for people to take a picture and then wonder what they've photographed and there is nothing in the OP article to suggest this isn't what happened if you read carefully and don't make too many unfounded inferences.

I can't believe people make such a big deal out of lens flare and a dirty lens, sheesh!

People kept arguing about whether or not she saw the object with her own eyes forgetting one thing...

Certainly she KNEW what the moon looks like? Certainly she have seen the moon in sky thousands of times? Why would she say she thought it was moon till she zoomed in and NOT notice the moon with her eyes in the sky?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
People kept arguing about whether or not she saw the object with her own eyes forgetting one thing...?

I didn't forget that. I just have enough experience to know how accounts get distorted, even when there's no intent to distort them. When you're trying to get hits on your news story, then distortion attempts may not even be accidental.

Nowhere does it say she saw the moon with her naked eye and I think it would be silly to assume that she did because, that's no moon. The account could be accurate if she thought the lens flare was the moon when looking through the viewfinder. If you don't find this credible I'd say you need to open your mind regarding journalism and how accurately accounts are portrayed.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I understand that. The point is that she KNOWS what the moon looks like. If it was me, I'd check the sky after seeing the object that I thought was moon on viewfinder. You never miss the moon. It's big and visible.

It's just something to think about. Just throwing ideas out. Maybe she's just confused lol.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
People kept arguing about whether or not she saw the object with her own eyes forgetting one thing...

Certainly she KNEW what the moon looks like? Certainly she have seen the moon in sky thousands of times? Why would she say she thought it was moon till she zoomed in and NOT notice the moon with her eyes in the sky?

Some sympathy with that, and probably the nub of things one way or another. While the Moon could have been around at the time she took the picture..and while it could have been faint and maybe seeable, it was only a sliver and still is, so what ever is in the pictures is not the Moon. That being the case, you need to know why she thought the Moon, and likely that being she simply didn't know that the picture could not be the Moon, meaning that it is something else, if her story is true.

a reply to: Digital_Reality

If you had gotten a picture everyone would just yell 'lens flare!' anyway
I think its awesome that you saw it, thanks for throwing that out there- it gives us all more to chew on

a reply to: smurfy

You are right. One other thing to consider: wouldn't she notice that the 'object' she was seeing in camera move around if it was lens flare?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
I understand that. The point is that she KNOWS what the moon looks like. If it was me, I'd check the sky after seeing the object that I thought was moon on viewfinder. You never miss the moon. It's big and visible.

I disagree. The moon can be hard to see when it's near the sun in the sky because nearly all the sunlight is hitting the side of the moon you can't see in that case. Here's a photo showing what I'm talking about, where Venus is actually brighter and easier to see than the moon:

The moon is bigger, but not all that easy to see, and even harder looking at a small viewfinder or small digital display on a camera.

If the moon was closer to the sun and not close to Venus I'll bet lots of people wouldn't even notice it, because then you wouldn't even see the thin crescent.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

But people are always quick to jump to these "Lens Flare" "Venus" "Ice Crystals" "Swamp Gas" conclusions on any given UFO thread when at times, it clearly states that the witness seen it with their own two eyes.

Its as if some people think they are constantly looking at these things through a Lens or a Glass Window or something. That is not always the case.

That is why people need to start calling folks like these a Liar and stop bringing up these debunking items that have no bearing regarding the sighting.

Seen with the naked eye? Must be a Lens Flare or the Planet Venus. Nah, its more appropriate to call the person a Liar in that case if what they saw doesn't fit in with your overall belief system.

I swear, some debunkers and skeptics are "Try Hards" and they need to take their own advice at times when it comes to critical thinking.

This reply wasn't aimed at you specifically Arbitrageur, but what I am discussing here bothers me a lot more than the staunch believer threads do.