It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UFO Photographed Accidentally, by Ed Annunziata, Creator of Ecco the Dolphin

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2020 @ 03:48 AM
link   
He just took a photo of some wind turbines, and 2 small UFO's showed up in the top-left corner.

They're blue like the sky, and they're not very dramatic-looking, but they do seem to show some regular structure / symmetry.

The standard debunk explanation would be lens flare, but it doesn't work here, with no obvious source of light, in the photo. (That is, there's no light source to glare into the camera and cause artifacts like that.) Plus, there actually seems to be lens flare from the UFO themselves, implying that the UFO are casting light, into the camera.

Not a whole lot more to say about it, except that I'm inclined to think that he was photo-bombed by some alien spacecraft, who were making their presence known, in this very subtle, quiet way. Part of that whole long-term plan of disclosure, over the course of decades or hundreds of years. Perhaps they were flying around and saw Ed with his camera, and saw the opportunity to photo-bomb.

Here's the link to his photo, which he posted to Twitter: twitter.com...

Here's his full photo, embedded:


Now anyone can download that photo, zoom in on the UFO, and manipulate colors to attempt better visibility. I made a quick video that does exactly that. Not monetized.

I'm just posting it here because the thumbnail shows the most zoom and color-manipulated clarity, that I could pull out of the picture.



I'm not sure how much discussion is possible but I do think that the topic is important and that such photos be analyzed thoughtfully.

The whole thread might devolve into arguing over lens flare, but... what do you guys think the UFO are in his photo?

A very interesting speculation is: What's the structure of these craft? The bottom UFO looks like a standard flying disc, while the one above, looks maybe bell-shaped, with windows or lights around its sides?




posted on Mar, 30 2020 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Looks kind of like drops of water on the camera lens. To me anyway.



posted on Mar, 30 2020 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jefferton
Looks kind of like drops of water on the camera lens. To me anyway.


I concur...

I hoping for the real thing when I click the thread



posted on Mar, 30 2020 @ 04:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jefferton
Looks kind of like drops of water on the camera lens. To me anyway.


Well that is a good point. But for that idea, I think the scale is all wrong, i.e. water droplets would be expected to look much larger on a camera lens. This is all speculation, of course, but I think it's being realistic, too.

Like if you imagine a camera lens, maybe 3 inches wide, a water drop would cover a huge portion of the image. All the more true for a smaller lens camera -- a typical digital camera lens is what, a half inch wide?

And then a smartphone camera lens is so small that it's all but impossible to also have a water drop on there, without covering the entire lens, which is basically the size of a water drop...



posted on Mar, 30 2020 @ 04:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: scubagravy

originally posted by: Jefferton
Looks kind of like drops of water on the camera lens. To me anyway.


I concur...

I hoping for the real thing when I click the thread


Um, it IS the real thing. It's really two Unidentified Flying Objects that photo-bombed his picture of wind turbines, apparently. He even pointed out the UFO's himself, under his Twitter post that I linked above. So it seems that he considers it real UFO's too, himself, as the photographer.

And I just posted why the scale is really too wrong, to be explained as water droplets, which would cover a huge portion of the pic, or even cover the whole pic. For example, a smartphone lens is only about the size of a drop of water...



posted on Mar, 30 2020 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: JamesChessman

Looks like a cloud.



posted on Mar, 30 2020 @ 04:56 AM
link   
To the left of the anomaly at the edge of the photo appears to me another small anomaly which might suggest something has splashed onto the lens. Also the fact that there are two anomalies close together, one above the other or differing size would also suggest a small splashing effect. But I could be wrong.



posted on Mar, 30 2020 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Jefferton

So it has been faked, because what a beautiful day in sight with not a cloud in the sky



posted on Mar, 30 2020 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Must be some size of lens, the most visible anomaly has a streak of light coming from it also, its very faint, but I can see it.



posted on Mar, 30 2020 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite

To the left of the anomaly at the edge of the photo appears to me another small anomaly which might suggest something has splashed onto the lens. Also the fact that there are two anomalies close together, one above the other or differing size would also suggest a small splashing effect. But I could be wrong.


The far left-side anomalies resemble lens flare, coming from the UFO casting light, imo. And the two actual UFO look like actual objects in the sky imo.

I think water droplets are practically impossible to be there without covering a huge portion of the image, or covering the whole image...



posted on Mar, 30 2020 @ 05:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: Jefferton

So it has been faked, because what a beautiful day in sight with not a cloud in the sky

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

However fyi, water can come from sources, other than rain.



posted on Mar, 30 2020 @ 06:08 AM
link   
If you look at the photo zoomed, it looks like some lines diagonally from left to right. I think that is because of the lens was dirty or had some dust on it.
Also, the upper so called UFO looks like it's fadding, you can't see the outer edges of it.



posted on Mar, 30 2020 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Jefferton
Yip, but Im no photographer and the first thing I would do when taking a picture would be to clean the lens.



posted on Mar, 30 2020 @ 06:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Must be some size of lens, the most visible anomaly has a streak of light coming from it also, its very faint, but I can see it.


I seen that too



posted on Mar, 30 2020 @ 06:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: JamesChessman

originally posted by: scubagravy

originally posted by: Jefferton
Looks kind of like drops of water on the camera lens. To me anyway.


I concur...

I hoping for the real thing when I click the thread


Um, it IS the real thing. It's really two Unidentified Flying Objects that photo-bombed his picture of wind turbines, apparently. He even pointed out the UFO's himself, under his Twitter post that I linked above. So it seems that he considers it real UFO's too, himself, as the photographer.

And I just posted why the scale is really too wrong, to be explained as water droplets, which would cover a huge portion of the pic, or even cover the whole pic. For example, a smartphone lens is only about the size of a drop of water...





Yeah nah, definitely moisture on the lens, you can even see the water ‘run’ mark that heads off in the 4 o’clock direction, not to mention while you’re looking for that mark, notice all of the picture looks moist,

Those two primary droplets came from the right of the lens to the left, maybe the camera was tilted.

I also feel like it’s an early morning picture.

Dewy.



posted on Mar, 30 2020 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

Must be some size of lens, the most visible anomaly has a streak of light coming from it also, its very faint, but I can see it.

That would be a beam weapon.
These are obviously aliens from the Don Quixote planet in the La Mancha galaxy, intent on destroying our windmills.



posted on Mar, 30 2020 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Water droplets.



posted on Mar, 30 2020 @ 07:02 AM
link   
If its a shopped collage, it could be a double exposure of the moon being used to suggest the archetypal Rover from the 1967 British television program The Prisoner. ECCO and 1960 project ECHO are close enough in spelling, and the Apollo hoax was announced by Kennedy in 1961.

Hoax bin.



posted on Mar, 30 2020 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I am not sure what it is, but I can say definitely what it isn't.

Being a photographer I can say that it is NOT water in any shape or form, the reason for that is, if water is on the lens, and the windmill is in focus, that just can't happen.
There is a thing called, "Depth of Field", (DoF) that means that there will only be a small portion of the subject matter that will be in focus using any lens aperture, from f/1 to f/32.

Another reason is that IF a water droplet or dust/dirt is on the lens, and the picture itself is somewhat in focus, there is no way that you can see that either.
I have seen a lens that was completely smashed and by looking at it you would 'just know' in your heart that it could no longer be used. That is not the case, the lens did a really good job, even after it had been smashed.
What that tells me is that even when a DIRTY, DIRTY lens, with whatever, is used, you can still get a REALLY good image from that lens.
A really good photographer doesn't always clean their lenses either, they may inspect them, but every time that you clean your lens it 'can' eventually remove the special light gathering coatings that make it what it is.

So, it is not water, dirt, smears, it is NOT on the lens, it's also not a bug, but...

Just because there is no light that we can see, there still could be 'light bounce' from the object itself, in this case, the windmills.
Any really bright object like the windmill can have enough 'light' projected from it to bounce into a lens. That is what photography is all about, getting light to 'bounce' off of a subject and into your lens.
There is a possibility that this is just that, a "light bounce', but I will admit to it being a very odd looking one.

It's way too hard to reproduce that kind of thing, even if it's your own equipment, but especially hard if you are to explain it from a computer chair.


Like I said, I don't know what it is, but I do know what it isn't.

The below is a video that shows that even a lens filter that is damaged can still produce a sharp image, but, this is not the video that I was referring to, I saw the one I am talking about a few years ago, so I have no idea where that one is.


edit on 30-3-2020 by recrisp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2020 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: recrisp

...Being a photographer I can say that it is NOT water in any shape or form, the reason for that is, if water is on the lens, and the windmill is in focus, that just can't happen.
There is a thing called, "Depth of Field", (DoF) that means that there will only be a small portion of the subject matter that will be in focus using any lens aperture, from f/1 to f/32....



Maybe not on the Lens, but possibly more internal, such as on the sensor.


leggnet.com...


This guy talks about how water drops on a lens CAN be an issues. But I will say that most of the issue here is with light reflecting in the droplets (although some droplets can be seen even without points of light reflecting in them):



Wetcamera - Avoiding Water Drops




it's also not a bug, but...

Bugs on lenses do show up , even with a wide depth of field in your image. Take this image of the space shuttle. Granted, this was a video camera and not a still camera.




There's this video as well.


Both of these last two examples were video cameras. I think that might be telling. Many of these cameras often work when the focus is set to infinity. That gives an ultra wide depth of field that puts near things as well as far away things in focus.

Things right up against the camera lens might are too close to be in focus even for a focus set to infinity, but they might still be visible -- as evidenced by the shuttle spider and the Isle of Wight water drop.

But is it possible that the windmill image might also have had a nearly infinite depth of field? Was that image taken with a smart phone, which might be more likely to have an infinite depth of field as a default?


edit on 2020/3/30 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join