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

originally posted by: Slichter
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.

If you're accusing Mr. Annunziata of constructing a hoax photo, then you should know that it's not what the guy is about. His Twitter above is full of nature photos, just because he likes nature photos. This is one such photo, which he just happened to notice the UFO in, and he pointed it out, when he posted it. However, he didn't make a big deal about it, as he only posted the pic to Twitter.

My own video is not monetized and it's actually making a big deal out of his UFO, which he did not do, himself. (He actually posted the pic in June 2019, and it obviously did not receive any kind of attention, since then.)

And if you know anything about his work, including Ecco the Dolphin, then you know that he has been a successful, well-known videogame creator for at least about 30 YEARS. He is still currently creating games and making $$.

In other words, he's the last person to need to create a hoax for attention (as a successful, established game creator), and it's just something he's never done. Including now. There is such a thing as someone snapping a photo, and posting it, with a note about a small anomaly in it.

Also IDK if you're even serious to link the name "Ecco" with NASA's "Project Echo" (which I had not heard of before, but I'm glad that I did now): Because look, the Ecco series has been dead since the 1990's, so I promise that nobody is advertising a long-dead series lol.

Also it's just amazing that attacking / denigrating / insulting people ad hominem, is such a go-to debunking method, especially when nobody knows the attacked person, and what we do know about him, is that he's a brilliant, successful game creator, who has always mostly kept to himself, and has created some of the most inspired, ingenious games of our lifetime. And THAT'S what he's about.

originally posted by: recrisp
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.

Thank you very much, for the informed response.

I had not quite thought of it yet, as I had not been considering water drops before I posted it: But you're absolutely right that theoretical water drops on a lens can't be in-focus, at the same time that the distant scenery is also in-focus. Cameras work like our eyes do, in this respect: Our own eyeballs also can't focus on something close and something distant, at the same time. It's one or the other.

And this all suggests that the UFO are distant, like the wind turbines, because they're all in-focus.

And along those lines, yes you're right that a theoretical speck on a lens would be blurred or even invisible, when the lens is focusing on distant scenery.

Also, yes it's possible that the UFO are a strange lens flare effect, but the problem is the lack of an obvious light source in the pic. There'd need to be two small lights, roughly resembling the UFO, to create the UFO as lens flare. While the whole scenery is obviously full of light reflecting, we're not seeing any small lights at all.

a reply to: JamesChessman

And along those lines, yes you're right that a theoretical speck on a lens would be blurred or even invisible, when the lens is focusing on distant scenery.

How about something on a car window?

Notice what may be a reflection below the "UFO", angling across the image?

There is a common occurrence, "I didn't see it when I took the picture, but later on look what I found!"

originally posted by: Box of Rain

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?

^I appreciate the post and its images.

However, I think your examples are proving the opposite of what you intended; your photos are showing that water drops on a lens do NOT show up as sharp images. All of your examples are blurry examples of water drops, etc.

Re: The infinite setting: Yeah, distant scenery would be expected to have the infinite setting, but I don't see the point, as you acknowledged that even that setting would still leave anything on the lens, as blurry.

I do suspect that the camera was a smartphone, though he doesn't specify. I'll need to look more at his Twitter but IIRC there was one photo that he did specify that it was from a smartphone.

Although IDK what significance it would be, that he used a smartphone, except establishing the miniscule size of the lens, which helps rule out water drops on a lens that is only the size of a water drop, itself.

a reply to: Phage

That's what I was thinking, those lines from the left to the centre of the image appear to be a reflection of something not part of the camera.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman

And along those lines, yes you're right that a theoretical speck on a lens would be blurred or even invisible, when the lens is focusing on distant scenery.

How about something on a car window?

Notice what may be a reflection below the "UFO", angling across the image?

There is a common occurrence, "I didn't see it when I took the picture, but later on look what I found!"

Um, yes, a car window's water drop would be expected to be blurry too, when focusing the camera on distant scenery.

Plus, there's no reason to think that he was in a car.

Plus, AFAIK wind-turbine areas don't allow for cars, right?

Plus, the photo's obvious impression is that he's walking around and took the photo. There's no road in sight. There's grass-covered hills, and seemingly a grass-trail, in front of the camera. Not to mention the power-lines / telephone-lines hanging diagonally over the picture, which don't gel with the idea that he's somehow sitting in his car, as such telephone-lines always run alongside roads, not hanging diagonally over roads, AFAIK.

Ultimately only he could establish every small detail, and he has not responded back to me (and I don't blame him for not responding to some stranger, messaging him about UFO, lol).

But yeah I don't see any reason to think he was in a car, and there's every impression that he was walking around on grassy hills.

The diagonal streaks of light are interesting, and look like streaks of light in the sky, imo. They don't look like glass reflections imo.

Finally, it's just meaningless to point out that he didn't notice the UFO when he took the picture. He was obviously focusing his attention on the wind turbines, which were the subject of his photo.

And if the UFO were such small, blue objects, in a distant part of the sky, then of course they didn't grab his eye; they probably didn't stand out from the sky itself, not to mention the human eye's "floaters" and also, the human eye's "static" effects (which I believe is called noumena). Heck I'm seeing the "static" / noumena in my own eyes, as I type this. So the truth is that people normally ignore such things in our imperfect vision, and that would more than fully explain why / how he didn't notice something so small and subtle, in a distant area, that he wasn't even looking at.

And of course, the UFO might not have even been visible to the naked eye. It's a theme that photos turn out UFO that were not visible to the naked eye, and/or not noticed by the naked eye.

It's not even a fringe idea that some cameras pick up on light wavelengths etc. which are slightly beyond the human eye's natural capabilities.

a reply to: JamesChessman

What do you think those lines are?

Electromagnetic interference from the UFO maybe?

a reply to: JamesChessman

I would not have seen a UFO unless it was pointed out by someone else.
Its in the right place to be just a lens artifact from the white dish in the background.
So why is it a UFO?
Did number six ever escape the village in The Prisoner series?

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Phage

That's what I was thinking, those lines from the left to the centre of the image appear to be a reflection of something not part of the camera.

Looks like streaks of light in the sky itself, imo.

Though it doesn't match up with the angle of the sunlight on the scenery. Unless the sun is low on the horizon, off to the right, and shooting sunlight diagonally up to the left?

I'm really not sure what to think of those streaks of light, yet... But I don't see a resemblance of windshield reflections...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman

What do you think those lines are?

Electromagnetic interference from the UFO maybe?

My best guess is that the "lines" are streaks of sunlight, coming from the sun rising on the horizon, off to the right, and sending sunlight diagonally up / left.

Sometimes this can happen with clouds passing over the sunlight...

a reply to: JamesChessman

Looks like streaks of light in the sky itself, imo

Ah.

But I don't see a resemblance of windshield reflections...

Cars don't only have windshields.

Sometimes this can happen with clouds passing over the sunlight...

Don't see any clouds. Looks like a clear day. Can't be sure though. But I don't recall ever seeing that effect myself, across a blue sky.

originally posted by: JamesChessman

Also it's just amazing that attacking / denigrating / insulting people ad hominem, is such a go-to debunking method, especially when nobody knows the attacked person, and what we do know about him, is that he's a brilliant, successful game creator, who has always mostly kept to himself, and has created some of the most inspired, ingenious games of our lifetime. And THAT'S what he's about.

Woah there. The entire Ecco the Dolphin series sucked. They were far from the most inspired or ingenious games I've seen. You're getting crazy saying those kinds of things.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Um, yes, a car window's water drop would be expected to be blurry too, when focusing the camera on distant scenery.

That depends, among other things, of the distance between the camera and the window.

Plus, AFAIK wind-turbine areas don't allow for cars, right?

I don't know, but there's a fence between him and the turbines, so I don't see why they wouldn't allow for cars on the area the photo was taken.

Plus, the photo's obvious impression is that he's walking around and took the photo.

Not for me.

There's no road in sight.

Obviously, but that means nothing, as he wasn't taking a photo of the ground. There could be a road parallel to the fence and it wouldn't appear in the photo.

Not to mention the power-lines / telephone-lines hanging diagonally over the picture, which don't gel with the idea that he's somehow sitting in his car, as such telephone-lines always run alongside roads, not hanging diagonally over roads, AFAIK.

Your sense of perspective is not good. A road could perfectly well exist there, parallel to the fence and the wires. If he was sitting inside a car taking a photo slightly turned to the right the road wouldn't appear in the photo.

The diagonal streaks of light are interesting, and look like streaks of light in the sky, imo. They don't look like glass reflections imo.

They look like something being reflected on a glass to me.

Finally, it's just meaningless to point out that he didn't notice the UFO when he took the picture. He was obviously focusing his attention on the wind turbines, which were the subject of his photo.

It's not, when people don't notice things it's, usually, because they are normal things, things we expect to see there, so they do not grab our attention.

And of course, the UFO might not have even been visible to the naked eye. It's a theme that photos turn out UFO that were not visible to the naked eye, and/or not noticed by the naked eye.

It's a theme but an unproved theme.

It's not even a fringe idea that some cameras pick up on light wavelengths etc. which are slightly beyond the human eye's natural capabilities.

No, it's really a fact that most camera sensors are sensitive to infrared light, but some cameras use filters to block infrared light. If a photo captures infrared light it usually appears as a kind of an washed-out violet, like in the photo below of a remote control infrared LED.

a reply to: JamesChessman

The Sun rising? The Sun is high in the sky and almost behind the camera.

a reply to: ArMaP

Yes. The shadows cast by the wind turbine head on the mast would indicate that.
While the Sun might be "rising", it is not early in the day.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Those are clearly two scout ships of the type Zeenorf from a distant galaxy. That type of ship is known to be used by Quigbops and even Noorfloops. When they enter our atmosphere they look like whatever you want them to look like and this is precisely why they are used as scout ships. Nobody can tell what they are until it is too late. They are probably here observing the spread of coronavirus. I suspect soon their battleships will appear. When those come, it is too late. You will recognize them for what they are. They will cloak their amorphous forms with the image of spaceships popularized by your movies and television shows. They do this to assure you that they are your friends, but they are definitely here to exterminate you and hopefully stop the interstellar spread of Covid-19.

a reply to: Generation9

They do this to assure you that they are your friends, but they are definitely here to exterminate you and hopefully stop the interstellar spread of Covid-19.

Like what they did to Ben in Faulkners Sound and the Fury?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman

Looks like streaks of light in the sky itself, imo

Ah.

.........um, "Ah" yourself.

Also, um, if you haven't ever seen clouds casting shadows in the sky, then... What, you never looked at the sky? lol.

To be fair, I live in one of the cloudiest places on Earth, but I also didn't think this was an unknown phenomenon.

Windshields: The gist of my post stands, that there's no indication that he's sitting in his car, regardless which window of the car, lol.

originally posted by: Lucky109

originally posted by: JamesChessman

Also it's just amazing that attacking / denigrating / insulting people ad hominem, is such a go-to debunking method, especially when nobody knows the attacked person, and what we do know about him, is that he's a brilliant, successful game creator, who has always mostly kept to himself, and has created some of the most inspired, ingenious games of our lifetime. And THAT'S what he's about.

Woah there. The entire Ecco the Dolphin series sucked. They were far from the most inspired or ingenious games I've seen. You're getting crazy saying those kinds of things.

^Which means that you don't appreciate relaxation music, nor do you appreciate nature, in general. Right?

Do you find that nature "sucks" and that nature-documentaries "suck" on Discovery Channel, National Geographic, etc.?

Also what videogames do you possibly admire as inspired and ingenious? Ecco games are simulating nature's ecosystems. What kind of amazing videogames are more brilliant than that?

a reply to: JamesChessman

To be fair, I live in one of the cloudiest places on Earth, but I also didn't think this was an unknown phenomenon.

Looks like a clear sky. Not cloudy. I live in a place where there is often a mix of clouds and blue sky. I've never seen anything like what appears in the picture, in the sky. I have, however, seen reflections on glass which do.

Windshields: The gist of my post stands, that there's no indication that he's sitting in his car, regardless which window of the car, lol.

Except for the reflection.

Water drops on a side window. Probable origin: windshield washer.