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

The darker line streaks in the sky being questioned look like they go behind the windmill.

You'd think if it was something on a windshield, it would obscure the windmill (be in front of it, part of the windmill would be blurred?).

It's not apparently clear at first but if you zoom in... you can see the continuation of the dark streak line... and the windmill is in front of it. I could be wrong and I didn't read all of the comments.

originally posted by: geezlouise
The darker line streaks in the sky being questioned look like they go behind the windmill.

You'd think if it was something on a windshield, it would obscure the windmill (be in front of it, part of the windmill would be blurred?).

Which line streaks are you talking about the ones pointed out by the yellow arrows in the image below or the ones with red arrows?



The ones that are like reflections are the ones with the red arrows, but even if a thin object is in front of very bright object in a photo then the light reflected by the bright object will "bleed" over the thin object, making it look like it's behind.

a reply to: ArMaP

The red arrow lines, they go behind the windmill.

On the larger file, one may be able to eye drop the continuation of the lines to show that the lines do continue, however faintly, to the right of the windmill.

a reply to: geezlouise

I know they do, I was one of the people posting images that show it better.


But as I said, appearing to go behind the windmills is not the same as really going behind them, as bright objects do that to smaller objects in photos. If the object is something that already has a somewhat faded look, like those lines, it's even easier for them to be covered by brighter objects.

originally posted by: geezlouise
The darker line streaks in the sky being questioned look like they go behind the windmill.

You'd think if it was something on a windshield, it would obscure the windmill (be in front of it, part of the windmill would be blurred?).

It's not apparently clear at first but if you zoom in... you can see the continuation of the dark streak line... and the windmill is in front of it. I could be wrong and I didn't read all of the comments.

Thanks, the last time I was focusing on the photo, I became convinced that the lines are... old exhaust trails from airplanes. They're faded away, from time, and they're hard to see, but they're also catching the sunlight in such a way, that they create shadow effects. So we see these faded dark lines, in the sky.

After creating the thread, we learned that the photo was taken through Mr. Annunziata's windshield, so some folks believe the lines and the UFO's are simply glass reflections.

However, neither the lines, nor the UFO's, look like reflections to me.

Your comment will prompt me to check the photo again, about how you think it's behind the structures. Thanks.

originally posted by: geezlouise
a reply to: ArMaP

The red arrow lines, they go behind the windmill.

Thanks! This is really a good point, that I had not thought of myself.

The lines look to be behind the wind turbines. They don't overlap onto the turbine towers. The lines are just present before and after the turbine obstructs them, apparently.

I'll have to look at this more closely, but this would seem to rule out the explanation of the lines being reflections in the glass. Because reflections would be expected to overlap the turbine towers.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I'll have to look at this more closely, but this would seem to rule out the explanation of the lines being reflections in the glass. Because reflections would be expected to overlap the turbine towers.

No, a reflection or any small or thin object in front of a very bright area in a photo is reduced or disappears, as the bright area "bleeds over" the reflection or small/thin object.

I'll try to find or make an example.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I'll have to look at this more closely, but this would seem to rule out the explanation of the lines being reflections in the glass. Because reflections would be expected to overlap the turbine towers.

No, a reflection or any small or thin object in front of a very bright area in a photo is reduced or disappears, as the bright area "bleeds over" the reflection or small/thin object.

I'll try to find or make an example.

I agree. An example would be the Apollo images where the crosshairs were washed out, partially or completely, by the whiteness of some of the objects the crosshairs covered.

In this case, the whiteness of the towers could overexpose the pixels to the point that a potential reflection would be washed out.

EDIT TO ADD:
Here's an example from the Apollo images. This crosshair in the area I enlarged may not be washed out completely by the whiteness of the LM structural piece, but is almost completely washed out.

The crosshairs in this image below are very dark compared to the tenuous streak that goes past the bright white wind turbine tower. The streak would be more apt to completely wash out in the whiteness, even if it were something (like a reflection) that is in front of the tower.

Apollo image example (Apollo Image AS11-40-5922):

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I'll have to look at this more closely, but this would seem to rule out the explanation of the lines being reflections in the glass. Because reflections would be expected to overlap the turbine towers.

No, a reflection or any small or thin object in front of a very bright area in a photo is reduced or disappears, as the bright area "bleeds over" the reflection or small/thin object.

I'll try to find or make an example.

This strikes me as a situation that you can't have it both ways though. Like, if the lines are considered important proof, that it's all just reflections... then it should be important to look carefully at the turbine's overlap.

Because if it's really reflections then yes it should overlap the turbines.

Not the turbines overlapping the lines.

I suppose we need to try to manipulate the colors to try to bring that out, as clearly as possible...

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I'll have to look at this more closely, but this would seem to rule out the explanation of the lines being reflections in the glass. Because reflections would be expected to overlap the turbine towers.

No, a reflection or any small or thin object in front of a very bright area in a photo is reduced or disappears, as the bright area "bleeds over" the reflection or small/thin object.

I'll try to find or make an example.

Ok but I think there should still be some bit of the lines going over the turbine, if the lines are really window reflections. Even with some light bleeding. I don't think bleeding can explain 100% vanish... I'll manipulate the photo colors later on, to try to see this, as clearly as possible...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Ok but I think there should still be some bit of the lines going over the turbine, if the lines are really window reflections.

If the object behind is brighter then it's very hard or impossible to see a faint object (or a reflection) in front of it.

Look at the photos below, that I made a few hours ago. In them we can see a more or less triangular reflection in a window.



But if we move the camera slightly, so the reflection is in front of a white wall, the reflection almost disappears.



Maybe it's more visible in a video, so I made one.



PS: the object reflected in the window is a white, old refrigerator door. The Sun was shining directly on it.

PPS: I know, I need to wash the windows.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Ok but I think there should still be some bit of the lines going over the turbine, if the lines are really window reflections.

If the object behind is brighter then it's very hard or impossible to see a faint object (or a reflection) in front of it.

Look at the photos below, that I made a few hours ago. In them we can see a more or less triangular reflection in a window.

But if we move the camera slightly, so the reflection is in front of a white wall, the reflection almost disappears.

Maybe it's more visible in a video, so I made one.

PS: the object reflected in the window is a white, old refrigerator door. The Sun was shining directly on it.

PPS: I know, I need to wash the windows.

I understand but there are some big differences compared to your example. You’re showing a white reflection fading against a white background object.

This is not analogous to a dark reflection overlapping a white background object which is supposedly what we’re seeing, if the lines are really reflections.

Plus your example still shows the white object whereas Mr. Annunziata’s pic does not show the lines at all over the turbine tower, afaik.

a reply to: ArMaP

^Or actually maybe you are making the white reflection vanish, it’s still not a direct equivalent to the lines in OP’s photo.

And I think such pics really need their colors exaggerated to really bring this out anyway...

Plus I’m still surprised that this aspect of the photo is what people have focused on so much, but yeah the lines have become an interesting part of it...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I understand but there are some big differences compared to your example. You’re showing a white reflection fading against a white background object.

A white reflection is more visible than a dark reflection.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
^Or actually maybe you are making the white reflection vanish, it’s still not a direct equivalent to the lines in OP’s photo.

Unfortunately, I don't have access to that guy's car to take it to where he took the photo to try to reproduce the scene, this was what I could find in my home.

And I think such pics really need their colors exaggerated to really bring this out anyway...

If the colours reach the maximum value (255 on a regular 8 bits per pixel image) there's no way of exaggerate it, as it's already at maximum.

Plus I’m still surprised that this aspect of the photo is what people have focused on so much, but yeah the lines have become an interesting part of it...

People focused on it because if they were really reflections that would make the possibility of the photo being taken inside a car stronger. Now we know that the photo was really taken inside a car, but you still think that there must be some esoteric explanation for those lines instead of the most obvious one. And don't forget that the lines are not alone, there are other things that look like reflections in a glass, as several people said since the beginning.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
a reply to: ArMaP

Plus I’m still surprised that this aspect of the photo is what people have focused on so much, but yeah the lines have become an interesting part of it...

That's because if the streaks were reflections, then that means the picture was taken through a window. And if the picture was taken through a window, then the "objects" could just be spots on the window.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
^Or actually maybe you are making the white reflection vanish, it’s still not a direct equivalent to the lines in OP’s photo.

Unfortunately, I don't have access to that guy's car to take it to where he took the photo to try to reproduce the scene, this was what I could find in my home.

And I think such pics really need their colors exaggerated to really bring this out anyway...

If the colours reach the maximum value (255 on a regular 8 bits per pixel image) there's no way of exaggerate it, as it's already at maximum.

Plus I’m still surprised that this aspect of the photo is what people have focused on so much, but yeah the lines have become an interesting part of it...

People focused on it because if they were really reflections that would make the possibility of the photo being taken inside a car stronger. Now we know that the photo was really taken inside a car, but you still think that there must be some esoteric explanation for those lines instead of the most obvious one. And don't forget that the lines are not alone, there are other things that look like reflections in a glass, as several people said since the beginning.

This is almost hard for me to take seriously. No offense.

But anyway, like I said, your example is not analogous, to Mr. Annunziata's photo, with its darker lines which you think are reflections. Your example is white reflections, fading / vanishing against a white background. It's pretty substantially different. If you were trying to recreate the same thing, you could certainly force a situation with a dark reflection, and try to make it vanish against a white backdrop. That would at least be trying to recreate the same effect.

And it's probably more difficult to pull that off, which is why you went with the easier effect of white reflection, white backdrop.

...

Speaking against manipulating the colors, is confusing, what exactly you're getting at.

Obviously exaggerating the colors can bring out the lines in better clarity. It's the same thing that I did in the video in the OP, I simply manipulated the colors to attempt the best clarity of the UFO's. I wasn't focusing on the lines but of course the same thing could be done, focusing on that part of the pic.

Talking about "maximum value" and "exaggerate," actually now I think you're just arguing semantics, which would be very lame distraction from the actual conversation.



Plus you don't even have a point there, in terms of semantics. I said you can "manipulate" and "exaggerate" the colors and of course it's true, and it has nothing to do with the semantics of whether the colors are at "maximum value" or not.

Lameness.

"Exaggerate" doesn't mean that it's within the colors' "maximum value." How about "exaggerate" the colors, so they're MORE THAN the "maximum value" of the original picture. How about double the damn saturation, so it ends up at TWICE the color saturation, of the original pic's "maximum value."

...

The lines have not been proven either way, whether reflections, or not.

You say it like it's established, but it's not.

What is established is that it was taken through a windshield.

What's NOT established is that everything you want to be a reflection, is automatically a reflection.

And talk about forcing a biased, close-minded opinion.

You guys are wrong to assume that everything is automatically reflections.

Especially that it doesn't even resemble reflections.

The UFO's resemble UFO's, and the lines resemble old airplane exhaust trails, as far as I can tell.

And FFS it's not an "esoteric" interpretation that the lines we're seeing are airplane exhaust trails.

I'd be much more convinced if someone could explain what the reflections are actually reflecting, but no one can. The UFO's are just argued to be random light glare, which does make sense as a possibility, except that the UFO's actually look like symmetrical structures. And the lines don't resemble a reflection of a dashboard or something.

...

The question of whether the lines overlap the turbines is an important consideration and when I get the time, I'll try to bring that out in exaggerated, manipulated colors, even though some people seem to want to argue against doing that.

i.e arguing against trying to see the topic AS CLEARLY AS POSSIBLE. What a strange line of thinking to argue.

...

Also like I said, you can't have it both ways, re: The lines being important proof of reflections (as you've been arguing), but also, that it's somehow NOT important, to look closely at the overlapping areas.

If the lines are important proof of reflections, then it's ALSO important to look carefully at the overlap areas. Because that should really help settle it, either way.

And I for one, still think they're exhaust trails, and I sure can't see how the lines are showing a dashboard or anything like that.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I understand but there are some big differences compared to your example. You’re showing a white reflection fading against a white background object.

A white reflection is more visible than a dark reflection.

No, we're talking about reflections overlapping a white backdrop. In which case, obviously dark reflections should be more visible, against white backdrop.

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: JamesChessman
a reply to: ArMaP

Plus I’m still surprised that this aspect of the photo is what people have focused on so much, but yeah the lines have become an interesting part of it...

That's because if the streaks were reflections, then that means the picture was taken through a window. And if the picture was taken through a window, then the "objects" could just be spots on the window.

Well yes, the lines are an interesting part of the photo, it just wasn't something I had focused on, originally, when I was focused on the UFO's.

And yeah, the pic has been established that it was taken through a windshield. However, it doesn't automatically mean that everything is automatically just reflections.

I think we need to take a good look at the question of whether the lines are overlapping the turbines, or the other way around.

Because if the turbines are really overlapping the lines, then the lines are actually in the sky. Old faded exhaust trails, I reckon.

While the UFO's could be random light reflections, they look more like actual structures in the sky, imo.

And it's not like there's a ton of reflections all over the picture anyways. At most, the only reflections would be the tiny UFO's and the lines, neither of which I find convincing that they're reflections.

It'd be different if we saw the guy's dashboard lights actually reflected, all over the photo, like a red "check engine" light, or yellow "service required" lights, etc. Dashboards don't have blue lights like the UFO's, so if reflections, they'd have to be the purely random shine off a seatbelt or something random like that. Very unconvincing.