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

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hmm good point. Thanks

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
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.

Sometimes people do lie too.

I remember a case on ATS where the UFO was dirt on a windshield. An ATS member went to interview the photographer who insisted the photo wasn't taken through the windshield. It turned out she was lying. So people do lie sometimes, but hopefully not in the majority of cases. More often I think people are just poor eyewitnesses and this is only human and has nothing to do with lying.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
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.

Sometimes people do lie too.

I remember a case on ATS where the UFO was dirt on a windshield. An ATS member went to interview the photographer who insisted the photo wasn't taken through the windshield. It turned out she was lying. So people do lie sometimes, but hopefully not in the majority of cases. More often I think people are just poor eyewitnesses and this is only human and has nothing to do with lying.

Agreed

The Lens Flare is a good scientific explanation for this UFO. If you look at picture four, the "close up" there is another faint sphere in the bottom right corner. It's just beneath the branch, looks like a grey sphere just descending out of the clouds. On the other hand, there is an elliptical cloud ring around the UFO. Which would indicate something interacting with the clouds!

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: Mianeye

Wouldn't lens flare be in front of the branch?

I definitely see a bit of flare in front of the branch...Not the dots, but I see a clear difference, especially in color, in the middle branch...

As far as the dots, I said it before in this thread...I believe that is dust on her sensor. The dust, plus shooting into both the setting sun and the rising moon = the mystery dots...

ETA: The dots could be hot pixels, or blown pixels, in her camera's sensor...I'm a believer, but this just isn't anything but poor photography by someone who doesn't take very good care of their gear...IMHO.

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
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.

Only idiots or people with an agenda that blinds them or do not care about reality choose an explanation without a reason. In this case, it does look like lens flare, so why shouldn't people say that they think it's a lens flare?

Although it says "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" that doesn't mean she saw them outside the camera, as she could have been talking about the photos, that's why I try to avoid reaching conclusions based on short quotes like that, we don't really know the context of that sentence.

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.

In some cases, yes, people do lie, but the biggest source of bad information are those doing the publishing, as in this case, like in many other cases, we only have what that site tells us, we are not talking directly to the witness.

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.

It doesn't say that she saw them in the sky with the naked eye.

In fact, when she says "That doesn't make sense to me because the object was behind clouds in some pictures and behind tree branches in others and out in the open in others" it makes me think that she only saw it on the pictures, as she doesn't say that she saw the object behind the clouds or behind the trees.

Apparently this object is a weather balloon..

poleshift.ning.com...

Yes looks to me like this is some sort of 'lens flare' which is common in shots like this, I have over 50 years experience as a photographer so I know.

Case closed.

a reply to: RoScoLaz4

The Facebook comments where hilarious, thank you for cheering up this old fella

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Mianeye

It's a lens flare, the dots means nothing.

It sometimes means "have a nice day".

Wow this picture is amazing. Could these photographs indicate new discoveries in the color spectrum or something similar? Now I'm not a photographer, but I have never seen these strange photographic anomlies, other people have had this probably so its coming from multiple sources/multiple witnesses with no connection to each other, surely this must mean something?

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.

I agree... anyone who thinks it is a lens flare must take into account that the photographer would be lying in that case. I think the photographer saw the pictures and made up the story afterward and that they are lens flares, but that is just my opinion.

a reply to: darkbake

One thing to consider... she would have had noticed that the "object" was moving around in viewfinder since it was a lens flare.

hmmm

Believe systems are the cause of all trouble...at this stage what is the problem with admitting that you don't know?

Admitting you don't know will start the quest for the truth.

To all 'believing ' in the lens flare theory please do yourself a favour and instead of believing just research and come up with identical lens flare..i searched tons of images and couldn't find a match. So please before you come and try to put this to rest with just 'aaa its a lens flare' come with some tangible evidence.

Myself, don't know what it is.

Is it possible for solar eruptions to appear in a flare?



This is the Sun right now, and the pattern seems to match the white dots.

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

No No he was able to see from the Gulf coast a small object over South Carolina, because small craft are visible 500 miles away. I am sure Alaskans watched it simultaneously as well. /sarcasm off

originally posted by: heineken
To all 'believing ' in the lens flare theory please do yourself a favour and instead of believing just research and come up with identical lens flare..i searched tons of images and couldn't find a match.

To get an identical lens flare we would need to use her camera.

originally posted by: heineken
Is it possible for solar eruptions to appear in a flare?

I don't think so, as they do not appear on photos taken with common cameras in normal conditions.

Been interested in Nibiru for years.

I watched these videos years back. They'be been popping up for probably going on 5 years. A couple of years ago I watched a few that saw a blue "planet" next to the sun. Thankfully it was summer and the UK had actually got some sun so I went out myself.

Of course I couldn't see anything because the "planet" was so close to the sun. So I messed around with my camera for a little while until I could get rid of the sun's glare. And there it was.... a blue orb next to the sun. I was shocked. But here's the deal. I moved the camera back and forth slightly away from the sun and back to it and the blue object disappeared at certain angles. It was a lens flare (of sorts) A strange one, and i can understand why people didn't believe it was a lens flare, but it was.

I've also seen with my eyes 2 "suns" - I posted on here a while ago now with pictures (they weren't great pictures) and so few people even heard me out or believed me. I was happy to admit it was an optical illusion of sorts but they genuinely believed I thought it was Planet X. I saw it with my own eyes as did my mother. It was snowy and there were 2 suns in the sky. Our "normal" sun was bright - This other was like a dull reflection - presumably from ice particles in the clouds or something?

My point is, looking at these pictures (although interesting) the are more than likely an illusion of sorts whether it be natural or from a camera distortion. But we're not all "so quick to jump" to lens flares as an excuse. But when i've experienced the above myself - sometimes you have to be logical. However much you want to believe in Nibiru. I do too!!

there's always that 1% chance that it isn't thought.....

originally posted by: darkbake

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.

I agree... anyone who thinks it is a lens flare must take into account that the photographer would be lying in that case. I think the photographer saw the pictures and made up the story afterward and that they are lens flares, but that is just my opinion.

As a joke? Possibly.

It would go hard against her personal reputation, though, as any photographer that knew what a lens flare was would point out that it looks very strongly like, well, a lens flare. What benefit is it to her to lie?

I can't imagine someone throwing themselves to the dogs like that, but, people are strange, so anything is possible.
Anyway, I'm at 90% "It's a lens flare" with just a 10% tiny benefit of the doubt towards the photographer's potential honesty.

- AB

originally posted by: AboveBoard
I can't imagine someone throwing themselves to the dogs like that, but, people are strange, so anything is possible.
Anyway, I'm at 90% "It's a lens flare" with just a 10% tiny benefit of the doubt towards the photographer's potential honesty.

Try 100% sure it's lens flare. I see no conflict of that with the honesty of the photographer, and when people say there's a conflict I'm disappointed at their skills in interpreting journalism where we rarely get the full accurate story.

ArMaP gets it. Read his post carefully, then give him a star for a good explanation of why it's not either "lens flare" or "honesty" and why it can be both:

www.abovetopsecret.com...