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

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
No, the algae definitely grew on the exterior of the ISS. I don’t know how that’s even debatable unless we’re just calling the astronauts liars, who reported it.

You don't know how because you don't think like me, obviously.

When you see a tree in a park do you know if it was born elsewhere and planted there or if it grew from a seed naturally in that place?
If you remove your preconceived ideas you have to admit that you don't really know how the tree happened to be there (unless you have more information about it, obviously).

And IIRC, it requires routine cleaning of the exterior, because it keeps growing back.

Evidences, please, I don't trust your memory.

Well, if you're willing to disbelieve that it even happened, after it was announced by Russian astronauts and their space agency, and it became a huge news story in the media, at the time... then I'd consider that denialism lol.

Sure, maybe the astronauts are lying or fabricating or hallucinating, their direct observations of their own space craft.

That, or people just want to argue against anything that challenges their cozy little close-minded notions of the world.

It's obvious which explanation is more realistic and compelling. Astronauts' first-hand testimony? Or the average joe, arguing denialism.

And yeah eventually I'll just make a new thread about this topic, with links to news reports etc.

(However my next thread will probably be a certain recent UFO video recording that I found very compelling, and that I manipulated the colors to see the UFO better. It's a more compelling case than the original topic of this thread, though I still consider it unexplained, what exactly Mr. Annunziata captured in his photo.)

originally posted by: JamesChessman
^ I think I'm going to eventually just make a new thread about the ISS algae, LIVING IN SPACE, completely exposed and unprotected.

Please do, it would be interesting.

Your concept of the classification process would mean that ANY life that was found, outside of Earth, would need to be debated for its possible source, to decide if it was alien life or not. Which seems crazy when you think of the logical extension of that:

Like for example, if NASA announced they had verified microbes living on the moon... I think it's pretty obvious to most people that it would count as alien life.

But your concept is that first, the microbes would have to be debated about whether they came from Earth, and if so, then they wouldn't be alien life? Despite living on the moon? No offense but it's just ridiculous, and the more so, if you consider more complex life being discovered outside Earth.

"My" concept is what makes it possible to know if it's Earth life that reached the Moon or if it's life that is native to the Moon.

Also doesn't that make it practically impossible to count anything as alien life, anywhere? Because it could always be argued to have originated on Earth? Even discovering life on Mars or Europa etc. could STILL be argued to have originated from Earth, if that's the mentality lol. All alien life could be argued as being seeded by previous NASA probes, if that's really how people want to look at it...

It's not a question of "being argued that it originated on Earth", analysing and classifying those life forms would show if they were from Earth or not, so if the conclusion was that they had, for example, a basic cell structure that does not exist on Earth then they could only be alien life forms, while if we found that they were a variation of life found on Earth then it could be either alien life that came to Earth or Earth life that got to other space objects.

Like the algae. If they analysed them and saw that they were an Earth species then it means that they, somehow, got to the outside of the ISS. But if the analysis showed that it was a species that doesn't exist on Earth or that it was a variation of an Earth species completely different from those we know on Earth then the conclusions would be different.

I mean, every probe we send into space is presumably loaded up with microbial life, at the very least...

It depends on the mission, if there's any danger of contamination with Earth life they need to sterilise the probe up to a certain amount.

Read this.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I've thought about this, of course. But the answer is that the meaningless narratives seem like that, because of the big picture that we've already been discussing.

Don't make the mistake of the "big picture" distract you from the facts, I have seen that happen many times.

ISS algae was the 1st known life living exposed in space, and instead of discussing its implications, the public narrative obviously became directed toward meaningless speculation that one of the astronauts had algae stuck in his shoes, and that explanation alone is ludicrous.

The finding of Earth algae living outside the ISS has at least two implications:
- it got there and it shouldn't;
- Earth algae can live in space, although inside the Van Halen belts.

Both should be analysed.
...

The Mars rock: Bigger picture again makes the mundane explanations seem ridiculous. Scientists announce finding a rock from Mars (in Antarctica IIRC), and they publish photos showing microbe fossils.

I also think it was in Antarctica, but you shouldn't let that "big picture" distort the facts, and in this case the fact is that what they published were photos showing what looks like microbe fossils.

Scientists themselves are the best judge of the rock's origin and its contents, and that was their report, and that's it. Whoever started arguing that maybe it's not from Mars, were NOT the same scientists who actually discovered it. Same for the microbe fossils, the arguments didn't come from the scientists who made these discoveries, and they'd be the best authority on what they found and studied.

"Scientist" is a vague word. If the rock was found by geologists then they were most likely perfectly capable of identifying an Earth rock, but I doubt they would be capable of being 100% sure the rock was from Mars, as geologists usually do not study rocks from other planets, although some do.

Then we have the "microbe fossil". A geologist is a scientist but geology is not the best science to identify a microbe, so we need a biologist for that. But a biologist, usually, leave fossils to geologists, so to be sure that it was a Mars rock with a fossil of a microbe we need a group of scientists from several fields of study agreeing that it was a Mars rock with fossil of a microbe.

One aspect that I remember standing out, was that it was said that if those same microbe-fossils were found in any Earth rock, then there'd be absolutely no debate about whether they were fossilised microbes.

Many people say that, usually because they feel their opinion is being ignored. They are usually wrong.
In this case, if a geologist finds a rock and classifies it as an Earth rock and says it has fossil of a microbe we still need the opinion of someone specialised in microbes to see if it really was a microbe.

a reply to: ArMaP

It seems we’re mostly exhausting these topics until I research more specific details and make threads about each one.

But re: the classification of alien life:

If NASA announced verified microbes living on Mars, your thinking is that it’s NOT alien life? Because we’ve sent probes there for decades, so therefore it’s possible that the Mars microbes originated from the probes?

And so finding microbes on Mars would not count as alien life?

Same for finding microbes anywhere in space, because there’d be some kind of probe there to find it, so any microbes anywhere could be argued to come from the probe...

So basically microbes in space could never count as alien life? Right?

And the same for algae, like finding algae on Mars, that wouldn’t count either, because it could be argued that it came from the probe too...?

Algae and microbes can apparently just never count as alien life then, no matter where it was found in space...????

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Honestly such a statement shows your mentality more than anything.

It does, but probably not in the way you are thinking.

The Phoenix Lights event itself was the evidence of alien life. There are videos of it; there were literally THOUSANDS of people who reported seeing it. The mayor himself has stated that it was unidentified flying objects (although when it happened, he first made a joke out of it).

The Phoenix Lights event is evidence that there are things that appear in the air that we do not know what they are. What were seen was lights, apparently attached to a large structure, but nobody claimed to have witnessed any beings in or around the lights.

If we don't know what was seen how can we honestly say it was not from Earth?

I can see from your statement that you just have a rigid outlook against considering that anything can ever possibly count as alien life.

You are wrong, I'm not against considering any thing as possible alien life, I just try to see things as they are, without any preconceived ideas interfering in my search for the truth, based on what we know as facts (as much as we can say we know any thing).

I think the Phoenix Lights was the most clear mass-sighting of UFO's, even with video recordings of it, thousands of witnesses, and a mayor confirming it.

UFO, yes, alien life, maybe, but we cannot really know from that event.

Let's face it, human beings are generally just a bunch of primitive monkeys who learned how to talk, but with most of our mentality still very primitive. You know, like denialism about things we don't completely understand... even in the face of the most evidence that's ever happened.

In my case it's not denialism, it's scepticism.

If we want to know the truth we should not accept the first thing we find that supports our ideas, we should look at everything with caution, to see if we are interpreting things in the right way or not, otherwise we could spend our entire lives looking in the wrong direction.

Things I don't understand (they are many) I just classify as "unknown" and, if they are related to some topic I like, I keep on looking for more data. If it's something I'm not really interested in I just move to the next case, without forgetting that once I saw something I didn't know that looked related to that specific topic.

A simple example is the number of times I look words in a dictionary (both online or on a real, old-fashioned book). Every time I ear a word I don't know or that, for some reason, I find strange, I look for them to see what they mean or to try to find why from where that word came.

To me, find something I don't know or don't completely understand related to a topic I like is one of the best things that can happen to me, as they are the start of a new study related to that topic, and learning is something I do love, and one of the few things we can do all our life.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Heck we've been watching the world go crazy about coronavirus, people beating each other bloody over toilet paper, which doesn't even have anything to do with the virus. Like I could understand people fighting over a CURE, if it existed. But toilet paper?

That didn't happen everywhere, only some people reacted that way. I, for example, do not know one case.

Things like this are signs that human beings are generally just barely living over the threshold of chaos, even in the best of times.

I agree, but different people have different chaos "triggers". For some it's toilet paper (for whatever reason), for others is politics, religion or sports.

Make a new ECCO game.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Right but I hope you understand that NASA and other space agencies will only find definitive proof of life, IF THEY WERE LOOKING FOR IT.

And they're not. So they won't.

They can find even if they are not looking for it.

If Curiosity, for example, took a photo of an unknown animal approaching it, that would be a proof of life.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Well, if you're willing to disbelieve that it even happened, after it was announced by Russian astronauts and their space agency, and it became a huge news story in the media, at the time... then I'd consider that denialism lol.

That's the problem, I haven't seen any announcement from the Russian space agency about algae, what I saw mentioned was "plankton".

Show me a source that talks about algae and I will follow that lead, but I don't just follow a direction just because someone says "they announced that ..." without providing evidence that what they are saying is correct.

Sure, maybe the astronauts are lying or fabricating or hallucinating, their direct observations of their own space craft.

Or you are mistaken and it wasn't algae.

That, or people just want to argue against anything that challenges their cozy little close-minded notions of the world.

Not me, my notions of the world are far from cosy.

It's obvious which explanation is more realistic and compelling. Astronauts' first-hand testimony? Or the average joe, arguing denialism.

Are you the astronaut (or, in this case, cosmonaut)? If you are not then what I am reading is what you remember of that case, and we all know memory is not something we should rely 100%.

And yeah eventually I'll just make a new thread about this topic, with links to news reports etc.

Do that, we need more good threads.

(However my next thread will probably be a certain recent UFO video recording that I found very compelling, and that I manipulated the colors to see the UFO better. It's a more compelling case than the original topic of this thread, though I still consider it unexplained, what exactly Mr. Annunziata captured in his photo.)

I'll wait for that too, this is the kind of thread I was used to participate in when I joined ATS.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
If NASA announced verified microbes living on Mars, your thinking is that it’s NOT alien life? Because we’ve sent probes there for decades, so therefore it’s possible that the Mars microbes originated from the probes?

It's not that.

So basically microbes in space could never count as alien life? Right?

Wrong.

If we find microbes on Mars (for example), we need to analyse them so we are able to classify them.

If the analysis shows that they are different from everything we have on Earth then they are obviously alien.

But if the analysis shows they are exactly like the some Earth species then they are Earth microbes on Mars, not alien microbes.
Even such a find would be very interesting as it creates three possibilities:
- the microbes came to Earth from Mars, in which case they are alien microbes;
- the microbes went from Earth to Mars (and in that case that aliens on Mars but alien to us);
- the microbes came from somewhere else to Mars and Earth, in which case they are alien microbes that colonised both planets.

So, if we find microbes on another planet, they are most likely alien, but just the fact that we found them on another planet does not make them automatically an alien life form.

At least that's how I see it.

a reply to: ArMaP

In my case it's not denialism, it's scepticism.

If we want to know the truth we should not accept the first thing we find that supports our ideas, we should look at everything with caution, to see if we are interpreting things in the right way or not, otherwise we could spend our entire lives looking in the wrong direction.

Things I don't understand (they are many) I just classify as "unknown" and, if they are related to some topic I like, I keep on looking for more data. If it's something I'm not really interested in I just move to the next case, without forgetting that once I saw something I didn't know that looked related to that specific topic.

A simple example is the number of times I look words in a dictionary (both online or on a real, old-fashioned book). Every time I ear a word I don't know or that, for some reason, I find strange, I look for them to see what they mean or to try to find why from where that word came.

To me, find something I don't know or don't completely understand related to a topic I like is one of the best things that can happen to me, as they are the start of a new study related to that topic, and learning is something I do love, and one of the few things we can do all our life.

Well that is really well-explained. Thanks for that. I'm glad to see you're not as rigidly close-minded as I thought. I also enjoy learning, including finding new words to look up in the dictionary, once in a while.

I guess you're more of a stubborn agnostic then, about a lot of topics... But I give you credit for that. Agnosticism is intelligent and honest thinking, because technically there's almost nothing that anyone can know with 100% certainty.

Generally I'm agnostic about a lot of things too, like how for the topic of the thread, I only say that it COULD be UFO's, but I didn't say that it's definitely that.

Still you seem a lot more close-minded than me lol, but if general agnosticism is really what you're about, then I give you credit for that.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Heck we've been watching the world go crazy about coronavirus, people beating each other bloody over toilet paper, which doesn't even have anything to do with the virus. Like I could understand people fighting over a CURE, if it existed. But toilet paper?

That didn't happen everywhere, only some people reacted that way. I, for example, do not know one case.

Things like this are signs that human beings are generally just barely living over the threshold of chaos, even in the best of times.

I agree, but different people have different chaos "triggers". For some it's toilet paper (for whatever reason), for others is politics, religion or sports.

^Yeah I think it's the US that has mostly been going crazy and getting into fist-fights over toilet paper... I haven't seen it happen in person, however our local grocery stores have been getting manned with increasing numbers of security guards and actual police. Because apparently people are stealing and just going crazy in general. We need to walk past a small group of guards and cops now, every time we buy food.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Right but I hope you understand that NASA and other space agencies will only find definitive proof of life, IF THEY WERE LOOKING FOR IT.

And they're not. So they won't.

They can find even if they are not looking for it.

If Curiosity, for example, took a photo of an unknown animal approaching it, that would be a proof of life.

Right. But if NASA didn't want to find it, in a public sense, then they'd keep it secret, and publicly they still would have never "found" it.

But anyway I meant more for things like finding microbes on the moon, Mars etc. If they're not even sending such equipment to do the testing, then of course they won't discover if Mars happens to have a thriving ecosystem of microbes, for example.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Well, if you're willing to disbelieve that it even happened, after it was announced by Russian astronauts and their space agency, and it became a huge news story in the media, at the time... then I'd consider that denialism lol.

That's the problem, I haven't seen any announcement from the Russian space agency about algae, what I saw mentioned was "plankton".

Show me a source that talks about algae and I will follow that lead, but I don't just follow a direction just because someone says "they announced that ..." without providing evidence that what they are saying is correct.

Sure, maybe the astronauts are lying or fabricating or hallucinating, their direct observations of their own space craft.

Or you are mistaken and it wasn't algae.

That, or people just want to argue against anything that challenges their cozy little close-minded notions of the world.

Not me, my notions of the world are far from cosy.

It's obvious which explanation is more realistic and compelling. Astronauts' first-hand testimony? Or the average joe, arguing denialism.

Are you the astronaut (or, in this case, cosmonaut)? If you are not then what I am reading is what you remember of that case, and we all know memory is not something we should rely 100%.

And yeah eventually I'll just make a new thread about this topic, with links to news reports etc.

Do that, we need more good threads.

(However my next thread will probably be a certain recent UFO video recording that I found very compelling, and that I manipulated the colors to see the UFO better. It's a more compelling case than the original topic of this thread, though I still consider it unexplained, what exactly Mr. Annunziata captured in his photo.)

I'll wait for that too, this is the kind of thread I was used to participate in when I joined ATS.

Yes this will make a good thread at some point. I'd like to brush up my knowledge of the case, so I'll do that at some point. For this thread, I have indeed only been referring to that case from memory of it happening, all those years ago. It happened years before I acquired a computer or internet connection, so at the time, there was no way to research it further on my own. (Besides reading magazine articles etc., which I did, at that time.)

Re: the semantics of it: Honestly I'm just referring to the well-known case, that happened. So if they called it "plankton" then so be it. I wasn't ever saying that I knew exactly what kind of "algae" or "plankton" it was. And honestly, I considered the words "algae" and "plankton" as extremely similar terms... if not almost exactly the same thing.

But anyway, yeah this should just be its own thread, after I do some modern research about that case.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
If NASA announced verified microbes living on Mars, your thinking is that it’s NOT alien life? Because we’ve sent probes there for decades, so therefore it’s possible that the Mars microbes originated from the probes?

It's not that.

So basically microbes in space could never count as alien life? Right?

Wrong.

If we find microbes on Mars (for example), we need to analyse them so we are able to classify them.

If the analysis shows that they are different from everything we have on Earth then they are obviously alien.

But if the analysis shows they are exactly like the some Earth species then they are Earth microbes on Mars, not alien microbes.
Even such a find would be very interesting as it creates three possibilities:
- the microbes came to Earth from Mars, in which case they are alien microbes;
- the microbes went from Earth to Mars (and in that case that aliens on Mars but alien to us);
- the microbes came from somewhere else to Mars and Earth, in which case they are alien microbes that colonised both planets.

So, if we find microbes on another planet, they are most likely alien, but just the fact that we found them on another planet does not make them automatically an alien life form.

At least that's how I see it.

Alright, well it's definitely now how I was originally thinking about it. And I'm kind of amazed that you just said that microbes on Mars, would not count as alien life, if they seemed to resemble our Earth microbes, and seemed to have come from Earth. I would have thought they still counted as alien life, if they were living on Mars, regardless if they may have originated from Earth.

However, I don't know exactly how the official classification might work out, for whoever would actually decide that officially. Whether it would be NASA, or whoever.

So yeah I'll have to make a thread and probably a video about the ISS algae / plankton, and why it does or doesn't count as alien life.

It seems a philosophical thing, mostly...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Alright, well it's definitely now how I was originally thinking about it. And I'm kind of amazed that you just said that microbes on Mars, would not count as alien life, if they seemed to resemble our Earth microbes, and seemed to have come from Earth. I would have thought they still counted as alien life, if they were living on Mars, regardless if they may have originated from Earth.

While I was having dinner I remembered that what I was really thinking about was not just as something being an alien, I was thinking specifically about "alien life forms", so a life form that is the same as one on Earth is not an alien life form.

However, I don't know exactly how the official classification might work out, for whoever would actually decide that officially. Whether it would be NASA, or whoever.

I suppose that would be a question decided by astrobiologists.

So yeah I'll have to make a thread and probably a video about the ISS algae / plankton, and why it does or doesn't count as alien life.

It seems a philosophical thing, mostly...

I see it as technical thing, as we are talking about specific things that have specific definitions and are studied by specific branches of science.

PS: algae are plants, plankton is a heterogeneous grouping of many life forms, from bacteria to small crustaceans, fish and jellyfish, so finding plankton may have different consequences to the finding of algae.

a reply to: ArMaP

While I was having dinner I remembered that what I was really thinking about was not just as something being an alien, I was thinking specifically about "alien life forms", so a life form that is the same as one on Earth is not an alien life form.

OK I understand, but... personally, I would think that for something to live off-planet, exposed to space... I'd expect that alone to be enough of a difference to consider it as alien life.

In other words, I'd consider its location -- exposed to space, on the outside of the ISS -- I'd expect that location alone, to be enough reason to consider it alien life.

And to consider it as something DIFFERENT from the algae or plankton that we can see on our beaches, floating around in the water, in green globs, growing on rocks, etc. I just think it's patently absurd to consider it the same exact species, based on location alone.

And I mean that, even if it was argued to be the same exact organism. In my eyes, there MUST BE some kind of physical / biological differences. Just because of different environment.

And so if they are believed to be the same exact organism, then apparently they're not seeing / understanding the real differences that MUST BE there. Just as a result of the different environment.

To spell this out even more: A beachfront organism, like its microbes, or its algae, plankton, moss, etc. -- It simply must have biological / physical distinctions from the stuff that grew on the ISS. Just because of its different environment.

For example, the stuff growing on the rocks on the pier: It's various kinds of moss, algae, plankton, etc. It gets 100% humidity in its air, all the time, because it's living on the rocks, in the water. Sometimes the water actually washes over it.

Alright so this stuff is dealing with water overwhelming it, all the time. It's going to be adapted to that. It's going to be soaked with seawater. It's going to have the vitamins and nutrients of the seawater.

OK so the damn ISS stuff is going to be much opposite, it will be completely dry in open space, presumably. So at very least, it will be in a state of constant dehydration. Very dry, almost 100% dry. It's not going to be soaked full of seawater.

So I mean, aren't such differences enough to call it a different organism. The ISS stuff is also going to be exposed to different UV light etc. since there's no atmosphere to screen it out, like our stuff on Earth.

Considering it the same stuff just seems impossible, there simply must be a ton of really discernible differences, like that.

...

And so along those lines, yeah I think it's pretty arbitrary if the ISS stuff was going to be categorized the same exact way as the stuff growing on Earth's rocks. Yes, it seems absurd and arbitrary imo. And I'm saying that even if the official classification worked that way, like from NASA etc. If that really is the stance from NASA and astrobiologists etc. then I would still consider it an arbitrary, absurd perspective.

All that is why I said it seems philosophical whether it counts as alien life. You're right that it's a technical thing, but it strikes me that the technical thing is arbitrary. The bottom line is that it's just patently absurd to call it the same exact organism, even if it did possibly originate from Earth, it's still just very arbitrary and silly if NASA etc. considers it the same exact organism.

I've been thinking about this honestly for a long time and that's my perspective on that.




At any rate, like I keep saying, this will have to be resumed in its own thread.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Just one last post about the ISS algae/plankton/whatever and classification.

The fact that an organism is living in different conditions doesn't mean it's different, it means only that that organism is prepared to live in those conditions.
For example, do you that there are some species of fish (lungfish) that are capable of breathing air and live for months buried in dry mud, waiting for the rainy season?
In the ISS case it's important to know what kind of organism was found to know how much of a difference in environment it was living in. If it was some bacteria usually found in plankton then the conditions needed are different from those an algae needs. Only with more data can we really look more closely at that case.

As for classification, the system used for many years uses the physical characteristics of the organism being classified, with more complex organisms like the fish above being classified but their physical characteristics and the way their bodies work. Simple organisms like bacteria are classified more or less in the same way, but being much simple they are usually classified also by their chemical characteristics, as the way they "work" is closer to the basic exchanges of energy by chemical processes than those of a fish, for example.
Based on that, if we find organism X somewhere that has the exact physical characteristics and has a metabolism that works exactly in the same way as organism Z then organism X considered as being part of the species of organism Z.

PS: the above is an approximation, as I am not a biologist, I'm just a computer technician, so I probably made a lot of mistakes.

a reply to: ArMaP

Thank you, these are all good points, and we are both honestly out of our league here, since neither of us is a biologist or astrobiologist.

It's just my guess that the ISS stuff simply must have a lot of distinct differences that would warrant it being considered a different organism, compared to the stuff growing on Earth's rocks and trees. And I tried to list some such differences that I'd expect.

Something I didn't think of at the time, but it's along the same lines, is that it's been proven that DNA actually becomes altered and mutated, when exposed to the extra radiation of space, for a long time. This was proven by an American astronaut who had a birth-twin, who lived on Earth, while he spent something like a year aboard the ISS. When he came back, they both had their DNA tested, and the ISS guy had something like 5% of his DNA mutated different. Compared to his brother on Earth.

So even on the level of DNA, the ISS plankton / algae stuff would automatically have its DNA as different from the Earth stuff. Even if it's like a 5% difference or something like that.

Well anyway...

Re: The actual original topic of the thread, I'm disappointed that no one tried to speculate the possibility of the UFO's being actual UFO's, and what their structure was, etc.

I also honestly don't see what exactly they resemble as a glass reflection... Like if my car was reflecting my dashboard lights, I'd expect that to look pretty obvious lol. I'd have the red "check engine" light, reflecting in the glass, for example, and I have some yellow light about my automated brakes not working, etc. I just honestly can't see the UFO's as anything recognizable being reflected.

That one poster even made that black-and-white image which was apparently just a sarcastic joke, lol. Oh well. In such cases it's amazing and hilarious / sad, to think that we may be looking at real alien craft, and most people can't even be bothered to consider it in a serious way... Just imagine how dumb we humans must look in such cases, if the aliens are monitoring our responses, to their own craft, being exposed in the sky.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I also honestly don't see what exactly they resemble as a glass reflection... Like if my car was reflecting my dashboard lights, I'd expect that to look pretty obvious lol. I'd have the red "check engine" light, reflecting in the glass, for example, and I have some yellow light about my automated brakes not working, etc. I just honestly can't see the UFO's as anything recognizable being reflected.

I think that what we are seeing is the reflection of some part of the car's interior that was getting direct light from the Sun, so it appeared bright enough to be visible on the reflection, while the rest of the car wasn't.