Okay. I've read almost every post on this thread. It is very confusing to say the least!

So, for fun, and in the spirit of Johnny Anonymous...




This is what I see if I use my imagination - a sphere nested into a curving wedge that is shaped to the sphere.

I know, I know - this couldn't possibly be accurate - but I do have an active imagination!

peace.

AB

PS - I know I don't have it exact - I'm not that great of an artist...

OK, let's try a sensory/perceptual approach to this object.

Evolution has tweaked our senses and ability to perceive and act in favor of survival. Case in point: a camouflaged tiger in jungle brush, or hearing breathing in bushes, or catching a whiff of big cat musk -- those who noticed and ran survived and passed on their genes to their children, those who didn't became lunch.

Nature has also endowed us with the ability to 'ignore' (consciously at least) unimportant, harmless or irrelevant stimuli when engaged in some activity. Take this phrase:

like repetition of the
the in this text

OK, so you may have noticed the two instances of the article 'the' in the phrase. Or maybe you didn't. But if you write and edit text, you will often see such mistakes. The brain just glosses over it while reading.

So, if a person is preoccupied, common, everyday objects and activities tend to be ignored. but even if preoccupied, an unusual object, movement or stimulus will tend to be noticed, harkening again to instinctual survival response. ('Dang--I was so busy sexting that I almost fell into that fountain!')

So now a person sees something in the sky: 'What is it?' A plane or a jet -- no; there's no sound; it must be a balloon -- no, balloons don't zig-zag and zip around at such speed; it's trash blowing in the wind -- no, again the motion is way too fast and erratic; a bird -- no, birds don't fly sideways, and anyway can't fly that fast with such weird jerky motions; so what is it?? It's.....something grey, round or oval and domed on top with shimmering edges like a mirage created by hot asphalt...shaped a little like two plates stuck together moving erratically and very fast and whoops! There it goes..it's gone! What the hell was it!?' The brain tries to identify it as a familiar object, but ends up with only a description of the object's shape, color and behavior along with some certainty of what it wasn't.

The brain will continually attempt to identify until it finds a 'fit'; or not, in which case the person will say, 'I don't know what it was, but I know what it wasn't!'

There were two people in the car, a driver and the photographer. She was busy with the camera, he was attentive to driving. Both were facing generally forward. IF the object wasn't a common, everyday occurence, one of them might have noticed. Neither did. Ergo, it was likely an ordinary seaside event, and likely disregarded as unimportant, irrelevant, harmless.

Now, what is one likely to find in the air near the seashore that one would likely disregard when otherwise engaged?

---

---

I appreciate all of the above opinions regarding perception; however, this aspect has been discussed and does not sit well with me.

Even if the object WAS in fact an ordinary object, then why was it not in either the before or after shots? Only in one?

I tend to think, if it was an ordinary object her brain just "glossed" over, it would at least be in one of the other shots, SOMEWHERE in the shot. It isn't.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

---

---

LOL
OK let me try again. The "SHOOTER" from the OP claims she did not see the object.
There has been speculation and just basic talking out the ...about how she could or could not have seen this thing.
-I posted a you tube video that demonstrates just HOW selective attention can be.
-The test is to count how many baskets the people in white shirts can make.
-While you are trying to focus on this task, there are people with black shirts shooting baskets also.
-In the middle of the video a person in a GORILLA suite walks in.
-Most people do NOT see the GORILLA when doing this task.

This should put to rest any speculation about how she could or could not have seen this.

Since actual information relating to the OP and backing up her claim is being removed while just plain and simple speculation based on nothing is going back and forth and around and around, It is no wonder that this is going in circles.
If you are interested in the video, you will have to find it yourself.

Thank You.

These confounding findings from cognitive psychologists Daniel Simons and Christopher Chabris detailed in a 1999 study revealed how people can focus so hard on something that they become blind to the unexpected, even when staring right at it. When one develops "inattentional blindness," as this effect is called, it becomes easy to miss details when one is not looking out for them.

"Although people do still try to rationalize why they missed the gorilla, it's hard to explain such a failure of awareness without confronting the possibility that we are aware of far less of our world than we think," Simons told LiveScience.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Actually I don't think that video is comparable to this situation.

how so?

a photographer focused on taking a picture does not notice something that seems like it should be noticed. "Flags" are raised by members because it could not possibly be.

relates 100%

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Guess it is but very similar.

its not the original.

Just strange how something is fine one time but off topic another.

Thats OK because now I will make it on topic until everyone is sick of it.

Originally posted by gguyx


So, if a person is preoccupied, common, everyday objects and activities tend to be ignored. but even if preoccupied, an unusual object, movement or stimulus will tend to be noticed, harkening again to instinctual survival response. ('Dang--I was so busy sexting that I almost fell into that fountain!')

I think this is incorrect. Apparently when preoccupied, unusual objects are also ignored.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Actually I don't think that video is comparable to this situation.

how so?

a photographer focused on taking a picture does not notice something that seems like it should be noticed. "Flags" are raised by members because it could not possibly be.

relates 100%

The difference is you know the objects in the video - they have known behaviors and known movement parameters.

The UO behavior is not known. For all anyone knows, the object shows up as the shutter was open for that split second, and left just as quickly when it closed. In the end, you don't know what it is, and therefore cannot attach parameters on it.

I find it amusing that ghost phenomena, when captured and not seen by the shooter - is perfectly plausible. Yet there is no more evidence for ghosts in that sense, then there is in the enigmatic "UFO". Neither have given up proof of tangible, physical existence, and both remain largely a hardline suspicion - and to some an article of faith. Both phenomena chuck out burning scintillas of tantalizing novelty, yet neither has defined itself per mankind's observations or expectations.

So...

Making a contention that it should have been seen, is making grand suppositions about an object that has no definable actions or attributes. It doesn't work.

First of all, big props to Springer for submitting the best analysis I have yet seen on this site. This is the kind of thread I only wish I could post.

Now, what the heck is this? I don't know! Yup, it could be Mylar, but there is documented evidence that shows unidentified aerial phenomena looking just like that...shiny silver.

Now I have to take the time to read the remaining posts...