Photographer captures something she can't explain in skies over Greenville County

I think the lens flare crowd is behaving like brainwashed automatons who are terrified of being ridiculed for saying this is an anomalous object and it might even be an UNIDENTIFIED flying object.

Since when does a "lens flare" have symmetrically spaced glowing dots running along a very large and evenly circular orb? You guys need to check your programming because you've been duped into seeing only what you've been told to see by homogenizing every object into a "lens flare".

Ridiculous.

a reply to: elevenaugust

That's a convincing post, but.....


This one here makes me not sure about that answer.


And Ultrlight, UFO only means it's unidentified. Once it's no longer a mystery, we can call it a space ship from Lapnaurb.

a reply to: antoinemarionette

I think as long as proper citation and linking is done to prove a point, any and all theorys should be looked at. Including lens flare. If we ignore the answers that we don't like, it's almost promoting ignorance no?

I do agree that a one line post of "it's a lens flare" is annoying by itself.

originally posted by: antoinemarionette
I think the lens flare crowd is behaving like brainwashed automatons who are terrified of being ridiculed for saying this is an anomalous object and it might even be an UNIDENTIFIED flying object.

Since when does a "lens flare" have symmetrically spaced glowing dots running along a very large and evenly circular orb? You guys need to check your programming because you've been duped into seeing only what you've been told to see by homogenizing every object into a "lens flare".

Ridiculous.

Awesome post.

a reply to: network dude

agreed it's the interesting one but it would be good to see the uncropped original

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: antoinemarionette

If we ignore the answers that we don't like, it's almost promoting ignorance no?

How am I ignoring an answer that I don't like when I've responded to it?

Your response is ignorant indeed, for it ignores it's own premise (response to post).

I have cited multiple reasons why chanting 'lens flare' is a questionable supposition.

originally posted by: network dude
I do agree that a one line post of "it's a lens flare" is annoying by itself.

If nobody had ever explained lens flare here before, maybe I'd agree. But it's been explained many times, and it's a common occurrence, so I think expecting a detailed analysis of how it's lens flare every time someone posts lens flare is asking a bit much. If you have the full image it's usually opposite a bright light source compared to the optical center, just as elevenaugust showed. These are some other examples:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's a picture with almost the same lighting and flare, and the effect is very much the same, except no white dots. I have no idea where the white dots are coming from, or what causes that, but it would be good to know.

originally posted by: hillbilly4rent
...the forth you can zoom in and see a square box of distorted pixels as in crop marks.

Lens flare.

The pixels you see around the "object" (lens flare) is perfectly normal, and due to a JPEG artifact known as a "blocking artifact". It does not necessarily indicate a cut-and-paste job.

Blocking artifacts occur in JPEG compression because part of that compression involves the JPEG algorithm "interpolating" the color of pixels based on neighboring pixels. Sometimes when there is a color against a homogenous field of another color goes a little "wrong", and the result is an interpolation of the pixels in 8x8 blocks between the two colors.

Here is a tree against a blue sky that shows a blocking artifact where the tree meets the sky:

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: Digital_Reality
I live on the Gulf Coast and I also saw this driving home. I almost pulled over but it was rush hour traffic.

If it was rush hour traffic, why couldn't you have snapped a pic? Or is your rush hour traffic not like ours in Pittsburgh where you are barely moving for miles? If you really saw this, then it can't be a lens flare....No??

I wanted to but it did not work out. I don't just take pictures of everything I see incase I'm challenged online. It was stop and go traffic for 30 minutes. I was barely able to make sense of what I was looking at without running into the car in front of me. I was confused trying to figure out what I was looking at since I could clearly see what looked like a sun and a moon not far from each other.. When I saw it, it was a deep red color and it was speckled like in the picture. I don't think you can get lens flair from your eyes.

It was the size, color and position that caught my attention. After pulling into my driveway I tried to go to my back yard to get another look but I could not see it. Sorry I don't have anymore info or a picture but I saw it sure enough, whatever that's worth.

originally posted by: elevenaugust
Those are without any doubt lens flares:

For technical explanation, see "lens flares" in analysis methodology here.

Don't usually post on UFO threads, but I have to ask, how can you judge the optical center with only two points of reference?

eta. Why would she stop to photograph lens flare? It'd only be visible through the camera.

Hercolubus inbound.

hercolubus.tv...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Note how ill-defined the edges of all those images are.

Also, note how they were only taken from one perspective -- not three different views as shown by the OP.

Also, where are the symmetrical glowing dots running along any of these "examples" ?

a reply to: RoScoLaz4

Ufo/fallen-angel,nephallim, entering or exiting inter-dimensions in pre or post manifesting. The ones that hold shape and can still still longer are the higher hierarchy of fallen-angel, and the ones that blink move erratically and can't hold same shape or changes color and shape rapidly are the lesser ones the weaker fallen-angels and most of the nephallim and all of the hybrids. They all run from and are subject to Yeshua Jesus christ and as such in all cases were a real believer calls out in Jesus's name they flee like roaches when the light is turned on. Also in the same token by a well seasoned believer whose faith is greater than a mustard seed and who knows their name is written in the Lamb's book of Life written before the foundation's of this world were placed can actually command them through the power of Yeshua Jesus christ, the Holy Spirit, and God the father Yahovah whether it be to instantly flee for good over your household, property,properties, those around you and your community and for others at their request and only if they profess Yeshua Jesus christ as their savior it is the main key to all understanding knowledge, wisdom and fear of the Lord God our divine creator Yahovah and the inter workings of the physical, spiritual, every dimension in between that was, is, and will be, as God is God of Gods, King of Kings, Hosts of Hosts, the Alpha and the Omega, was, is, and will be, the great Iam is Iam; all things eternal forever more.

thank you to everyone for your comments. without larger images for perusal, i'm leaning towards lens-flare myself but still open to any other possibilities.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
Don't usually post on UFO threads, but I have to ask, how can you judge the optical center with only two points of reference?

Hello Flatcoat

Well, no, this is not exactly how the optical center can be defined. And sorry if I wasn't enough clear in my explanations and in the analysis methodology link I provided above.

The characteristic of a lens flare is that it is located, in the picture’s plane, on a straight line connecting the photograph’s optical center with the light source.

In other words (on an uncropped picture) if you draw a line that connect the (supposed) lens flare and the bright light source (it could be the sun, a streetlamp, whatever that is a bright source of light), this line will always pass through the optical center that, most of the time, matches the geometrical center.

You can also define the geometrical center by simply drawing two diagonal lines accross the whole picture (in green in the sketch below).

However, in some cases (and it depends of the camera's optics) this geometrical center does not exactly match the optical center, but is always close to it:



This is a strong clue that the supposed flare is indeed what it appeared to be .... just a lens flare

About the bright tiny dots that are inside these lens flare, I don't know what it could be. A look at the original photos could help to find what it's all about anyway.

a reply to: elevenaugust

Right, got it. Thanks for that. Still a little doubtful though. If I'm understanding correctly, the woman thought she was taking photos of the moon and sun close together. This would mean that she saw the artifact before grabbing the camera, and lens flare would only be visible through the camera lens.

About the bright tiny dots that are inside these lens flare, I don't know what it could be. A look at the original photos could help to find what it's all about anyway.

If you don't know what these symmetrically aligned bright dots are, and you know they are not characteristic of lens flares, then why call it a lens flare?

The fact is we don't know what the object is.

a reply to: antoinemarionette

I'm sorry if you took that personal, it sure wasn't meant that way. eleveaugust had just made a detailed post that tried to explain the images. And they used a lens flare to do it. While not all have to agree with it, calling them out for doing it was, in my opinion, a bit harsh. I am not looking for confirmation bias here, just the truth.

It just seemed counterproductive to attempt to silence the opposition. Again, sorry if it offended you.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: network dude
I do agree that a one line post of "it's a lens flare" is annoying by itself.

If nobody had ever explained lens flare here before, maybe I'd agree. But it's been explained many times, and it's a common occurrence, so I think expecting a detailed analysis of how it's lens flare every time someone posts lens flare is asking a bit much. If you have the full image it's usually opposite a bright light source compared to the optical center, just as elevenaugust showed.

I agree with that. But there needs to be a little more thought put into debunking than just saying that. Sure 90% of pictures like that may be explained that way. But the other 10% shouldn't be ignored either. (IMHO)

Elevenaugust put a great post together to explain his/her point. That's the kind of posts and responses to this kind of though provoking thread that made me love this site years ago.