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

a reply to: Lucky109

It was very popular in its day, don't judge it by today's standards.

originally posted by: ArMaP

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.

-- I think it's fair to say that photographing distant scenery would definitely render a car's window's specks as out-of-focus.

I guess the next counterargument is that maybe he was sitting as far away as possible from the window.

Well, still, I believe that holds true. The camera is focusing on distant scenery / infinite setting, so yeah specks that are like 2 or 3 feet away would be blurry. AFAIK.

And of course, imagining him sitting 2-3 feet away from his car window is all the more incongruous with the photo's lack of any indication that he's inside his car. That is, we absolutely don't see the 2-3 feet of theoretical car area, between him and the theoretical window.

-- Cars in turbine areas: I can only report that the one time I visited some wind turbines, cars were absolutely not permitted in the same area. Which makes sense because it's not hard to imagine the huge damage a car could cause by hitting a wind turbine.

That, and the photo does not suggest anything about cars, and it looks like he was walking around outside.

-- Ultimately, only he could confirm the car situation; I'm only describing that the photo gives no suggestion of a car being involved, or a road, etc. But I will agree with you that yes, it's POSSIBLE that the photo was taken inside a car... But I just don't see any reason to think that.

Also, what the guy does, in general, is that he walks around nature, and snaps a photo, occasionally. This is clear from his Twitter page. He has pics of walking around the beach, hiking over cliffs, etc. Not that this proves anything, except that his own content suggests that any nature pic that he posts, probably comes from him walking around outside.

--Light streaks: I haven't decided 100% but I sure don't see any resemblance of glass there. I've seen plenty of clouds casting faint shadows though.

--The fact that he didn't notice it at the time: Yeah, I just think this is irrelevant. The UFO could have literally been outside his field of vision, if he was facing / looking off to the right, too much. (i.e. the left side of the pic could have been outside his field of vision if he was looking more to the right.)

Plus, the pic looks very bright, full of sunlight, so that could have reduced his vision a bit. (Squinting, or just light glare in his eyes, reducing his visual acuity.)

Plus I already mentioned that everybody is always, ALWAYS subconsciously ignoring millions of little specks in our eyes, even right this moment. We have "floaters" which are blurry bits of microscopic cells, which are always passing over our eyeballs. And then we have the constant "neumona" (someone tell me if there's a better word for this?), which resembles static on a TV screen, and which is happening every single moment. This seems to just be a side-effect of our normal vision processes in our eyes (and it's very similar to how video cameras also always have a slight bit of static effect).

The fact is that every human is accustomed to ignoring the tiny specks in our vision. For example, you guys probably don't normally notice your eyes' floaters and neumona when you're staring at your computer screen, but they're actually very visible against the dark grey background of this site, and you'll see it if you deliberately look at it.

See what I mean?

Everyone's always ignoring millions of specks so yeah it's irrelevant that he didn't notice these two particular specks in the sky, with light glare in his eyes presumably, and it may have even been outside his field of vision...

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.

^Yes, that's exactly what I was just saying. I don't know what you said "No" to, because you just verified and illustrated exactly what I was saying: That cameras obviously do sometimes capture light that's slightly beyond human vision. As in your example of the remote control light showing up in photos, but not visible to the naked eye.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Ultimately, only he could confirm the car situation;

Ask him. That would be a start. Though sometimes people's memories work retroactively.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: JamesChessman

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

Look, I don't know exactly where the sun is. It's obviously not in the photo, so nobody knows exactly where it is.

The only thing that you, or anyone, knows is the light and shadow effects on the objects in the photo. Especially on the wind turbines themselves.

The vertical body of the wind turbines, is the best indication of where the sun is.

And that best evidence, i.e. the light and shadow effects on the turbine body, is clear that the sun is shining from somewhere off to the right side.

The body of the turbines shows dark shadow on the left side, only.

I will agree that it's possible the sun is also mostly behind the photographer, but even then, it would be off to the right side, because that part is undebatable.

Also, I don't see what's an indication of whether the sun is low or high. I only see the obvious fact that it's shining from somewhere off to the right side.

And, again, I don't know for sure what those streaks are in the sky. My best guess is the faint shadows of clouds. I don't see anything to suggest glass. It's kind of a strange effect.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Also, I don't see what's an indication of whether the sun is low or high. I only see the obvious fact that it's shining from somewhere off to the right side.

The shadow is cast downward from the turbine head to the mast. If it were early in the day, this would not be the case.

My best guess is the faint shadows of clouds.

The only shadows I see are on the wind generators. Can you reconcile those shadows with the angled lines on the left of the picture?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman

Ultimately, only he could confirm the car situation;

Ask him. That would be a start. Though sometimes people's memories work retroactively.

I already said that I reached out to him, and he didn't respond. I hope he does. I sent him my video of his photo, so maybe that will spark his interest to respond to me.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman

Also, I don't see what's an indication of whether the sun is low or high. I only see the obvious fact that it's shining from somewhere off to the right side.

The shadow is cast downward from the turbine head to the mast.

Ok yes, thank you. That is correct. So that establishes that the sun is indeed high, in the sky, and off to the right side of the photo.

...

The lines in the sky are still something I don't know, exactly. Though my best guess would still be the faint shadow streaks of clouds, under bright sunlight, creating a strange effect.

Hmm...

a reply to: JamesChessman

The lines in the sky are still something I don't know, exactly

Or maybe they are not "lines in the sky", but reflections on glass.
Abandon confirmation bias.

The only shadows I see are on the wind generators. Can you reconcile those shadows with the angled lines on the left of the picture?

Not really, no.

The turbine shadows definitely DO show the sun is high, and off to the right side. But that's the only part that's very clear.

Although, such light effects of clouds casting shadows in bright sunlight, are weird looking, and just recently you were saying that you never saw it happen before. So I think it could be the very weird shadows of clouds somehow causing those line effects. But no, I'm not sure exactly why / how that would work out, to create those exact lines that we see in the photo.

However it really doesn't look like glass of any kind though, to my eyes. I'm not even sure how you guys are interpreting it that way.

originally posted by: Generation9
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.

The joke is on you, because alien spacecraft have been reported for at least hundreds of years before modern airplanes and media.

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: Lucky109

It was very popular in its day, don't judge it by today's standards.

It's still amazing. Ecco games are simulations of the ocean and its various locations and ecosystems.

I'm mostly referring to the classic 2D series, and mainly on Genesis / Sega CD.

There's a 32-bit version of the first Ecco game which can be downloaded for free, and that includes all its relaxation music being available as perfect audio files. Ecco PC: Fixed and Enhanced Edition.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
-- I think it's fair to say that photographing distant scenery would definitely render a car's window's specks as out-of-focus.

I guess the next counterargument is that maybe he was sitting as far away as possible from the window.

Well, still, I believe that holds true. The camera is focusing on distant scenery / infinite setting, so yeah specks that are like 2 or 3 feet away would be blurry. AFAIK.

It's not that simple. Depth of field depends on the aperture, so for a photo taken in bright sunshine you would use a small aperture, resulting in a big depth of field. Where it starts depends on the lens.

And of course, imagining him sitting 2-3 feet away from his car window is all the more incongruous with the photo's lack of any indication that he's inside his car. That is, we absolutely don't see the 2-3 feet of theoretical car area, between him and the theoretical window.

Why would we see the car? Would you include the car if you wanted to take a photo of the turbines? Only a bad and inexperienced photographer would do something like that, and by the quality of his photo I don't think that applies to him.

-- Cars in turbine areas: I can only report that the one time I visited some wind turbines, cars were absolutely not permitted in the same area. Which makes sense because it's not hard to imagine the huge damage a car could cause by hitting a wind turbine.

There's a fence between the camera and the turbines, at some distance, with no visible road from the place where the camera is to the turbines. I don't see a car being a danger to the turbines in those conditions.

That, and the photo does not suggest anything about cars, and it looks like he was walking around outside.

To me it does suggest it was taken behind a glass, the most likely explanation being that he was inside a car.

--Light streaks: I haven't decided 100% but I sure don't see any resemblance of glass there. I've seen plenty of clouds casting faint shadows though.

I've seen plenty of both.

And no, I'm not saying we are seeing the glass, what I'm saying is that we are seeing something reflected in a glass, something that caught more light than the rest and, in consequence, became visible.

Plus I already mentioned that everybody is always, ALWAYS subconsciously ignoring millions of little specks in our eyes, even right this moment. We have "floaters" which are blurry bits of microscopic cells, which are always passing over our eyeballs. And then we have the constant "neumona" (someone tell me if there's a better word for this?), which resembles static on a TV screen, and which is happening every single moment. This seems to just be a side-effect of our normal vision processes in our eyes (and it's very similar to how video cameras also always have a slight bit of static effect).

I know that, I'm always seeing them, but, being used to see those small objects out of focus in my field of vision I can easily notice things that are far away.

^Yes, that's exactly what I was just saying. I don't know what you said "No" to, because you just verified and illustrated exactly what I was saying: That cameras obviously do sometimes capture light that's slightly beyond human vision. As in your example of the remote control light showing up in photos, but not visible to the naked eye.

I said "No" because you said "It's not even a fringe idea", so I was agreeing with you: No, it's not a fringe idea.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
The lines in the sky are still something I don't know, exactly. Though my best guess would still be the faint shadow streaks of clouds, under bright sunlight, creating a strange effect.

Hmm...

Look at how things look after a little level adjustment:



Does it still look like "lines in the sky", specially if you look at the right side of the closest turbine?

It's not that simple. Depth of field depends on the aperture, so for a photo taken in bright sunshine you would use a small aperture, resulting in a big depth of field. Where it starts depends on the lens.

Man come on, lol. I don't think that this is even arguing that a camera focusing on distant / infinite, would also probably show up nearby glass raindrops as blurry.

A car would probably mean the theoretical rain drops are like a foot or two, away. Yeah, they'd be blurry in a photo focusing on Infinite.

Why would we see the car? Would you include the car if you wanted to take a photo of the turbines? Only a bad and inexperienced photographer would do something like that, and by the quality of his photo I don't think that applies to him.

^I was only acknowledging the obvious, which is the total lack of any indication of a car being involved. And actually if someone is doing that, using a camera in a car, it's actually hard to do without any trace of the car.

Of course, then he could always just come home and crop out the edges of the photo, if they showed the windowframe, for example. But then that's another layer of assumed complications being involved... Whereas I don't get the impression of glass or anything in the first place...

a reply to: JamesChessman

And actually if someone is doing that, using a camera in a car, it's actually hard to do without any trace of the car.

Have you tried?
It really isn't hard at all.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
The lines in the sky are still something I don't know, exactly. Though my best guess would still be the faint shadow streaks of clouds, under bright sunlight, creating a strange effect.

Hmm...

Look at how things look after a little level adjustment:

Does it still look like "lines in the sky", specially if you look at the right side of the closest turbine?

I saw the darkened image when I made my video. Including the lines showing up more, like that.

I wasn't considering it something very interesting though.

My best guess is that it's sunlight / cloud shadow effects. I don't know. It could be a lame artifact created by a camera... not really blending its colors correctly... but then that would just be a lame camera lol.

Regardless what are you arguing, that the lines are showing glass reflections? I really don't see that, guys. Of all the millions of ways a glass window could show up in a pic, this doesn't even look like glass in any way lol.

I think it somehow looks like sunlight / shadow effects of the bright sun and clouds. I'd love a better explanation but glass ain't it, imo.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman

And actually if someone is doing that, using a camera in a car, it's actually hard to do without any trace of the car.

Have you tried?
It really isn't hard at all.

Well you're just being obnoxious, lol. Yes it is difficult to take a huge landscape photo like this, from inside a car, and not show up any trace of the car or the glass.

The edges of the window being the limiting factor in taking a huge landscape photo. That, and the inevitable slight marks & reflections of a glass window. Which we just don't see in the photo.

a reply to: JamesChessman

I see you don't know much about photography.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: JamesChessman

I see you don't know much about photography.

I do. What I said was obvious and self-evident. Landscape shots obviously require the widest possible perspective and window frames are obviously limiting to that. Along with the glass' inevitable slight distortion & artifacts.

Also the UFO's are his interpretation, so obviously he didn't think he was seeing raindrops on his window either lol.