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

I fiddled with it a little more. I thought I could make out a screwdriver slot, but that just might have been a processing artifact. Looks more like either a button or possibly a hex bolt.


Here's a little better look at the thing it's attached to. Still not quite sure what it is. If the photographer was sitting in the passenger seat taking a photo out of the front windshield, it could be something in the center console. If he was in the passenger seat, it may be on the door, like a handle or arm rest. (I removed the distracting wires and piece of windmill to get a better look at just the mechanism.)

Or it's an alien mothership not quite cloaked enough to be totally invisible.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
...Its like, at some point, people are just making up crazy explanations lol.

Some may even say they are extraterrestrial spaceships.

^Lol, I did set myself up for a comment like that.

However, the difference is that when I suggest they're alien spacecraft: There are at least a couple reasons, that this is a natural thing to consider:

1) They look like that, arguably;
2) The photographer pointed them out as "UFO's," presumably referring to alien spacecraft.

So it's a natural thing to consider, and quite the opposite of some suggestions, which resemble writing a story to explain things in a very unlikely, convoluted way. (Photo-shop / collage; a hidden reference to NASA's long-dead Echo program; guerilla marketing for a long-dead videogame series, etc.)

Anyway I did hear back from him again, and now we do know the car situation. I'll post it in a sec.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I fiddled with it a little more. I thought I could make out a screwdriver slot, but that just might have been a processing artifact. Looks more like either a button or possibly a hex bolt.

Here's a little better look at the thing it's attached to. Still not quite sure what it is. If the photographer was sitting in the passenger seat taking a photo out of the front windshield, it could be something in the center console. If he was in the passenger seat, it may be on the door, like a handle or arm rest. (I removed the distracting wires and piece of windmill to get a better look at just the mechanism.)

Or it's an alien mothership not quite cloaked enough to be totally invisible.

I'll be honest, I can't tell if your posts are being serious or not.

In your last post, I'm not sure why you pointed out that you manipulated contrast, but that you didn't change the colors... when the contrast could be called a way of manipulating the colors. IDK, maybe this is just a misunderstanding.

But FWIW manipulating contrast can easily create artifacts, that weren't really there, and changing contrast does this MUCH more than only changing the colors.

And then for your last post: Your zoom in crop of the UFO... is less clear than my thumbnail of my vid. The UFO are blurry in your crop.

And just to show what I'm saying, here's my vid thumbnail, which looks completely more clear and sharp than that:



(I manipulated colors and adjusted the contrast too, but not a huge amount of contrast increase.)

And the black-and-white picture, I'm really not sure what this is supposed to be, sorry. Is it just the contrast cranked up so much that it's basically creating shapes and artifacts? Why not post the rest of the image, so it's not so confusing, what we're looking at?

Alright so it turn out that I was wrong about the pic being obviously shot outside. I had been convinced of it.

But it turns out that he shot the pic through his windshield, while driving.



And while he doesn't quite say anything exactly about his phone, I did ask if he was just using his iPhone on normal settings, and I think his responses implicitly confirmed that.

So now I'm just imagining that he was cruising by the wind turbines, slowly, and he simply picked up his iPhone and snapped the pic, thru his windshield.

Unfortunately, I realize that many people will consider the case as solved, just because of the fact that the pic is looking thru his windshield. Which leaves endless different mundane explanations related to his windshield: Reflections, rain, etc.

However, I think the UFO's in the pic are still worth considering what they might be (i.e. alien spacecraft).

And I still don't think the mystery is perfectly solved, because the UFO still don't look like anything obvious inside the car.

And plus, the photographer found the UFO as surprising / interesting / mysterious, despite knowing that his pic was thru his windshield. He didn't brush it off as reflections or raindrops etc.

So I still think the UFO are mysterious, though now I'm expecting everyone to just assume that the UFO are reflections.

a reply to: JamesChessman

I never consider the extraterrestrial spaceship explanation as the most likely because then we are explaining something we don't know with something we don't know.

Also, it's like not finding the car keys and saying "there must have been my next door neighbour that took them". Why look for an external explanation for a local event? That's why I always try first known explanations that look like they can be applied to the case, and, in this case, I don't think it's impossible for the "UFOs" to be water drops on a car window, so I looked more at that possibility and found that the car window explanation could also explain the different coloured areas in the sky.

Obviously, I may be wrong, it happens all the time.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Thanks for the update.

The only way we could completely dismiss the "UFOs" as something on the windshield would be if we had a video in which we could see the "UFOs" moving in a way that could only be explained as being on the windshield instead of being at some distance in the air.

As for him not noticing the "UFOs", that happens all the time with things we are used to see, we see them but do not mentally register the information.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: JamesChessman

I never consider the extraterrestrial spaceship explanation as the most likely because then we are explaining something we don't know with something we don't know.

Also, it's like not finding the car keys and saying "there must have been my next door neighbour that took them". Why look for an external explanation for a local event? That's why I always try first known explanations that look like they can be applied to the case, and, in this case, I don't think it's impossible for the "UFOs" to be water drops on a car window, so I looked more at that possibility and found that the car window explanation could also explain the different coloured areas in the sky.

Obviously, I may be wrong, it happens all the time.

I get the gist of what you're saying. Aliens will seldom be the most likely explanation for... most things.

And your example shows that. If someone loses their keys, then there's probably no reason to imagine that his neighbor took his keys... just like there's no reason to imagine that a ghost took his keys. Or that God took his keys. Or whatever.

If someone lost his keys, then it's most likely that the person forgot where he put them. Or maybe it fell out of his pocket. Or something mundane like that.

However, the other side of this scenario... is that sometimes, somebody will actually lose their keys, in an unusual way.

And if it was unusual circumstances, plus there was something that suggested the neighbor, then it actually would make sense to consider if the neighbor took it. (Like if you invited ur neighbor over, and then your keys went missing, and then you noticed some keys in your neighbor's window that look similar.)

So I think the UFO pic is more along those lines: The photo anomaly looks unusual / mysterious to the photographer, which prompted him to point out the UFO's. And plus, they arguably do look like spaceships. And so I think it makes sense to consider the possibility, while ruling out mundane reasons.

(So in other words, the spaceship idea is mostly because the pic is mysterious, and seems suggestive of that possibility. But yeah for other situations, without any particular reason to think of aliens, then it's not an idea that would fit for most things lol.)

originally posted by: JamesChessman
So I think the UFO pic is more along those lines: The photo anomaly looks unusual / mysterious to the photographer, which prompted him to point out the UFO's. And plus, they arguably do look like spaceships. And so I think it makes sense to consider the possibility, while ruling out mundane reasons.

We don't know if there's life outside Earth. It most likely exist, but we do not really know that it does or that it does not, so considering an unconfirmed possibility as an explanation is, to me, not an explanation.

Also, how can we know what an extraterrestrial spaceship looks like? We can assume specific shapes and sizes, but, once more, we do not know, and to act as if we did is doing the same the deniers do, only in the opposite direction, considering our opinions and ideas are facts.

That's why, to me, an extraterrestrial explanation will never be the most likely explanation unless we have evidence of life outside Earth.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I'll be honest, I can't tell if your posts are being serious or not.

Don't worry about it. At the end of the day, even if this image showed an honest to Odin real life spaceship from beyond the moon, you would never, ever, EVER be able to prove it because it's just an image.

Just like every single UFO photo ever taken over the last 75 plus years. Every... single... one.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I'll be honest, I can't tell if your posts are being serious or not.

Don't worry about it. At the end of the day, even if this image showed an honest to Odin real life spaceship from beyond the moon, you would never, ever, EVER be able to prove it because it's just an image.

Just like every single UFO photo ever taken over the last 75 plus years. Every... single... one.

You know what, this just strikes me as denialism, against all the most compelling photos, videos, and personal accounts, that have ever happened.

Not that my particular thread is the most compelling case ever... which might be the Phoenix lights, as the most compelling UFO case, ever?

But I don't think I can really say anything in response to denialism against all evidence ever. There are even cases of UFO's and aliens from before the modern age of airplanes and modern media. The German case of UFO battle was from the early 1500's.

But the real issue is not the lack of evidence, the issue is a mentality of denialism against everything. Which doesn't leave much discussion possible from me.

Anything I can possibly say will be dismissed as something mundane, and I guess that's it, lol.

Some people will never consider the possibility of alien life visiting us, unless they landed on the white house lawn... which they won't do, because it would cause our civilization to erupt into chaos.

But actually there was that UFO fly-over the white house in the 1950's or something like that.

So I don't think the problem is lack of all evidence, I think the denialism is just a mentality that people choose. And which really isn't the most realistic way of thinking, even though some people think that it is.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
So I think the UFO pic is more along those lines: The photo anomaly looks unusual / mysterious to the photographer, which prompted him to point out the UFO's. And plus, they arguably do look like spaceships. And so I think it makes sense to consider the possibility, while ruling out mundane reasons.

We don't know if there's life outside Earth. It most likely exist, but we do not really know that it does or that it does not, so considering an unconfirmed possibility as an explanation is, to me, not an explanation.

Also, how can we know what an extraterrestrial spaceship looks like? We can assume specific shapes and sizes, but, once more, we do not know, and to act as if we did is doing the same the deniers do, only in the opposite direction, considering our opinions and ideas are facts.

That's why, to me, an extraterrestrial explanation will never be the most likely explanation unless we have evidence of life outside Earth.

Technically alien life WAS confirmed, that time that the International Space Station found algae growing on its exterior, which was technically in space. But that case never got the attention it deserved. And it ended up getting dismissed as mundane explanations.

But there ya go, that's alien life confirmed, something like 15 years ago, and nobody acknowledges it.

Beyond that, alien life is not quite confirmed, but it's scientifically suggested that it's probably real. For example, Earth has life living almost absolutely everywhere, so that alone suggests that the rest of the universe is the same. We've found microscopic life INSIDE OF ROCKS that were cut open, for example. There's life in every inhospitable corner of the world, and that suggests that it's probably the same, outside of Earth.

Not to mention all the water and ice that's been found practically everywhere, as the believed crucial element of life. Water and ice are found on the moon, on Mars, on space debris. There's even "clouds" of water floating around in space.

There's every suggestion of life existing everywhere, outside Earth, just like it exists everywhere on Earth.

It's also worth noting that NASA and other space agencies are NOT searching for life... which means they'll never find it. They only search for possible indications of life and there's no shortage of that.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Technically alien life WAS confirmed, that time that the International Space Station found algae growing on its exterior, which was technically in space. But that case never got the attention it deserved.

As far as I can tell it was the claim of a cosmonaut. A claim which was never confirmed. Do you have more information than that?

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Technically alien life WAS confirmed, that time that the International Space Station found algae growing on its exterior, which was technically in space. But that case never got the attention it deserved. And it ended up getting dismissed as mundane explanations.

If it was dismissed as mundane explanations it wasn't confirmed as alien life.

It's also worth noting that NASA and other space agencies are NOT searching for life... which means they'll never find it. They only search for possible indications of life and there's no shortage of that.

And even then they haven't found clear evidence of the existence of life outside Earth.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman

Technically alien life WAS confirmed, that time that the International Space Station found algae growing on its exterior, which was technically in space. But that case never got the attention it deserved.

As far as I can tell it was the claim of a cosmonaut. A claim which was never confirmed. Do you have more information than that?

^Well it was published in multiple mainstream magazines and news sources, at the time. Probably TIME magazine, etc.

The "claim" wasn't even debatable, it was a fact that it happened on the International Space Station. IIRC afterward they started new cleaning procedures on the exterior of the ISS. To scrape off the alien-algae.

And the mainstream explanation was that it was probably algae from Earth, that probably was transmitted from the shoes of one of the astronauts.

So all of that was mainstream news though. And technically it was confirmed alien life, which wasn't really acknowledged as such, because people ended up talking about the astronauts' shoes lol.

It's replacing the meaningful phenomenon, with an explanation that's boring and mundane, and ignores the real meaning of what happened.

Do you want me to find online news articles about it?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Technically alien life WAS confirmed, that time that the International Space Station found algae growing on its exterior, which was technically in space. But that case never got the attention it deserved. And it ended up getting dismissed as mundane explanations.

If it was dismissed as mundane explanations it wasn't confirmed as alien life.

It's also worth noting that NASA and other space agencies are NOT searching for life... which means they'll never find it. They only search for possible indications of life and there's no shortage of that.

And even then they haven't found clear evidence of the existence of life outside Earth.

No, it was actually confirmed alien life... which was technically absolutely true... but I meant that it was "dismissed as mundane explanations" re: speculations that it was algae contamination from one of the astronaut's shoes.

Meaning that it was "dismissed" as a boring explanation, but even then, the fact remains that it was confirmed alien life. Even if it did come from someone's shoes, it was still life living in space, which makes it confirmed alien life. Shoes or no shoes lol.

Plus, the shoe-idea was the most speculative part of that case. It was quite possible that there was just algae cells floating in space, which landed on the ISS. Or maybe somehow Earth's oceans were floating algae cells up into space.

So while the alien life was confirmed, it was not explained where it came from, in any definitive way.

And even then they haven't found clear evidence of the existence of life outside Earth.

Aside from the ISS case, yes, you're right that NASA etc. hasn't found clear evidence of the existence of life outside Earth.

However, I don't know if you appreciate that NASA (and other space agencies) are NOT LOOKING for life.

They're only looking for EVIDENCE or signs of life, and there's no end of it. For example, there was a recent video that I didn't even watch yet, but it reported that Mars has oxygen levels that seem to correlate with the weather, which suggests some form of plant life, probably.

But the thing is, that they're not looking for the actual life itself. They're only looking for all these possible indications of life, and they keep finding more and more, everywhere they look.

Another great example is the water on the moon, it's verified that it's there, but then nobody bothers to use a probe to scoop up some wet soil and bring it back to Earth, and verify the microbes which are almost certainly living in it.

So it's not really meaningful that no one has found... what no one is looking for.

There was also a great example of seemingly alien life, back in the 90's, when a rock from Mars was found in Antarctica, I think? The rock had microscopic fossilized life.

But as you can imagine, there was no end of arguments against that discovery, arguing that the rock must not have been from Mars, and/or the fossilized microbes were not what they seemed.

So there's a certain stubborn denialism about such topics lol. And then the arguing leads to the real discoveries being mostly overlooked and forgotten about...

It's a problem with human beings' mentality, in general. More than it's a problem of lack of evidence.

Along those lines, I saw a vid one time that IIRC, back in the 1950's or something, there actually was soil from Mars tested for organic compounds, based on a procedure of heating up the soil, and then checking its chemical signature. Something like that.

So then the soil did test positive for organic compounds, which is not quite life, but it's very suggestive of life.

And then the test results ended up being dismissed as contamination from Earth life, and NASA never again tested for organic compounds, like that, ever again. As if they just didn't want to find life, so they stopped testing that would lead them to find life.

And now here I am, like 70 years after that happened, explaining my vague memory of a vid that I watched about it.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
No, it was actually confirmed alien life... which was technically absolutely true... but I meant that it was "dismissed as mundane explanations" re: speculations that it was algae contamination from one of the astronaut's shoes.

I only saw references to algae from Earth, I never saw any reference to alien algae.
It woud be good if you could find one reference to alien algae

Aside from the ISS case, yes, you're right that NASA etc. hasn't found clear evidence of the existence of life outside Earth.

I meant clear evidence of indications of life.

They're only looking for EVIDENCE or signs of life, and there's no end of it. For example, there was a recent video that I didn't even watch yet, but it reported that Mars has oxygen levels that seem to correlate with the weather, which suggests some form of plant life, probably.

A suggestion is not evidence.

But the thing is, that they're not looking for the actual life itself. They're only looking for all these possible indications of life, and they keep finding more and more, everywhere they look.

None of those is clear evidence, as all they find is possibilities.

Another great example is the water on the moon, it's verified that it's there, but then nobody bothers to use a probe to scoop up some wet soil and bring it back to Earth, and verify the microbes which are almost certainly living in it.

If I'm not mistaken, what was verified was the existence of solid water, no wet soil.

There was also a great example of seemingly alien life, back in the 90's, when a rock from Mars was found in Antarctica, I think? The rock had microscopic fossilized life.

I never trust people when they look at a rock found on Earth and say it's from Mars, as they cannot be absolutely sure about it.

Along those lines, I saw a vid one time that IIRC, back in the 1950's or something, there actually was soil from Mars tested for organic compounds, based on a procedure of heating up the soil, and then checking its chemical signature. Something like that.

I think you are talking about the Labelled Release Experiment, done by the Viking landers in 1976.

a reply to: ArMaP

— Dude, algae living in space, is alien life. Technically, it’s absolutely true. It doesn’t matter if it derived from someone’s shoes or, more likely imo, algae cells somehow floating into space, from earth, or just floating in space, in general.

— For NASA and other space agencies, you don’t seem to appreciate that they’re not looking for life. Which means they’ll never find it, if they’re not looking for it.

What they look for are suggestions of life, or indications of life, etc., and they keep finding that everywhere they look.

The fact that they keep finding water everywhere is a huge suggestion of life being everywhere.

— Moon: I think you’re right that they’ve only verified ice. However, ice only takes a small bit of heat to become water, and the moon is getting hit by sunlight, so I bet there’s liquid water there somewhere too.

Also it only takes a tiny bit of water to support microbial life, of course.

— The 1990’s Mars rock was analyzed by scientists, to be clear, it wasn’t just some fringe theory. It was identified as being from Mars, as much as that’s possible, and the magnification did show microscopic life, seemingly.

— I’ll look up the Viking landers you mentioned. That was the most vague part of my post and my memory because I only saw one vid about it, a long time ago. Thanks!

originally posted by: JamesChessman
— Dude, algae living in space, is alien life. Technically, it’s absolutely true. It doesn’t matter if it derived from someone’s shoes or, more likely imo, algae cells somehow floating into space, from earth, or just floating in space, in general.

If the algae were from Earth but were on the outside of the ISS they were as alien as the astronauts/cosmonauts inside the ISS.

— For NASA and other space agencies, you don’t seem to appreciate that they’re not looking for life. Which means they’ll never find it, if they’re not looking for it.

No, not looking for one thing doesn't mean they will not find it. If they land a rover on a site they think was likely to have harboured life in the past and find some plants or basic animals do you think they would not publish their findings?

What they look for are suggestions of life, or indications of life, etc., and they keep finding that everywhere they look.

They do not keep finding "suggestions" of life, they find things that may be related to life.

— Moon: I think you’re right that they’ve only verified ice. However, ice only takes a small bit of heat to become water, and the moon is getting hit by sunlight, so I bet there’s liquid water there somewhere too.

That's why they found ice, because they found it in places that never get sunlight. If the light hits the ice and heats it then the ice would turn to vapour instantly, as the lack of pressure makes the boiling point of water too low.

Also it only takes a tiny bit of water to support microbial life, of course.

Yes, but for a long period, so life can appear. An ocean that only lasts a couple of centuries is not very likely to ever be populated by life.

— The 1990’s Mars rock was analyzed by scientists, to be clear, it wasn’t just some fringe theory. It was identified as being from Mars, as much as that’s possible, and the magnification did show microscopic life, seemingly.

I know, I was only saying that I don't believe anyone, even scientists, when they say a rock came from the Moon or Mars or whatever, as cannot really know, they can only know that the rock appears to be similar to those existing on the Moon or Mars.

— I’ll look up the Viking landers you mentioned. That was the most vague part of my post and my memory because I only saw one vid about it, a long time ago. Thanks!

a reply to: ArMaP

Well no, the point is that the algae was living in space, exposed to space.

Which makes it the first confirmed life form to live in the openness of space.

Which makes it confirmed alien life. AFAIK that’s it. Unless there’s some technicality of the definition that I’m not realizing.

The possible source from shoes, doesn’t change that.

It’s like, imagine if NASA found algae living on the moon, then it would obviously be alien life, wouldn’t it? And that wouldn’t change if they blamed it on someone’s shoes lol.

...

Plus the shoes were a very lame explanation anyway imo. I find it unbelievable. Because people don’t usually walk around with algae on their shoes. And I’d expect astronauts to be very careful of the stuff they bring onboard.

People do normally have some sweat in their shoes, which means most people probably have some slight bit of fungus in their shoes. But fungus is not algae.

If the space station got overgrown with fungus then it would make sense to blame it on shoes. But that’s not what happened.

...

Plus there’s the contradiction of the algae growing on the OUTSIDE of the craft, which is supposed to be sealed airtight, afaik. So it doesn’t even really make sense to blame it on something from inside the craft.

All indications are that the algae must have come from something EXTERNAL, in space.

Which means space has algae cells floating around in it, even if it’s from the Earth.

The ISS counts as being in space.

It boils down to either algae cells floating into space from Earth’s oceans, OR that there’s just algae floating around in space, in general.