Flying saucer in woman's moon photo

[ChrLzs]

On 3/6/2021 at 7:06 AM, Tom O'Neil said:

Prove it.

Before you make such silly demands, how's about you explain how you ruled it out.  If you haven't ruled it out, then that's a really silly demand to make.  You would have to check every possible camera angle, and every possible car.  Beyond daft.

There are some clues in what I and others have already said - I don't *think* it's a speedo, but I'm not ruling it out - it *is* possible, particularly with an older car, or if she was shooting through say, a rear passenger window, and happened to be at the right angle.

 

As a little advice, a good investigator should NOT be over-eager in ruling things out... you need to keep a more open mind.

Edited March 7, 2021 by ChrLzs

[+Nuclear Wessel]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

As a little advice, a good investigator should NOT be over-eager in ruling things out... you need to keep a more open mind.

Hey, are you actually suggesting that it WASN'T a flying saucer? Come on, Chuck! CLEARLY IT'S A FLYING SAUCER.

I mean, a flying saucer is infinitely more likely than maybe some kind of external/oddly-angled tacho/speedo, right?!

Joking aside, I know that you mentioned earlier in the thread that those meters were designed specifically with reflection potential in mind, but... I'm really reluctant to let go of the idea that it's a tacho. It's entirely possible that it has nothing to do with a tacho/speedo, too... but IDK.

My $0.02 is that the woman tried to hoax a flying saucer by placing a tacho on the dash. People can be pretty creative when they want to create a hoax. There's a reason it's cropped...

Edited March 7, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel

[preacherman76]

I don’t know if this is a reflection or not, to me, if I saw that, I’m getting out of the car and taking a video

[Silver]

On 3/5/2021 at 9:03 PM, Tom O'Neil said:

If you look at the inner circles of the ufo itself there not aligned, this could be real, because the car window would cause an optical illusion as the car window is sort of concave.  The ufo's movement would cause this I'm thinking.  Also the lines around the circle are blurred so this would have to be outside the window.  The ufo in my opinion looks fairly close to the observer.

Another reason this photo is blurry is because of the observer must of been excited and could not hold her phone camera still! 

 

Well, she wasn't excited, she thought she was taking a photo of the moon. She didn't see the 'UFO' till later. 

[Silver]

On 3/5/2021 at 9:45 PM, Stiff said:

I didn't say it was this exact speedometer, just something very similar. Plus 'potato cam'.

Can't you see how obvious it is or are we going to have to keep spoon feeding you?

A general observation: I am always puzzled why wildlife photographers ditch their state-of the -art equipment and pull out the potato cam when something mysterious hoves into view. Maybe it is a convention.

[ChrLzs]

On 3/6/2021 at 8:36 PM, ted hughes said:

Funnily enough, I took a photo of the full moon a few nights ago, just so see if my phone could manage it (it couldn't).

Most phone based cameras will struggle with this.  The moon is sunlit, so to expose it correctly you need a daylight-ish exposure of around 1/250 sec at f5.6/f8.  But at night the background scene requires an exposure of about 1/30 sec or slower, at f4.  Because the moon is such a small element of the scene, the phone goes with the latter, and thus the moon gets 'blown', ie it goes bright white and expands outwards like it's way out of focus.  Plus, the camera doesn't focus well on small bright things, it needs a bigger / longer edge, so that makes it even worse...

The only way you can do it is by using two separate shots, one exposed for the background, and one for the moon, but you prolly can't do that as there's no way to override the exposure by the amount required.  Plus most phone cameras only have relatively wide angle lenses, so the moon's gunna be tiny...  There is a function called HDR that can help on the really high end cameras, but it's generally not designed for this - you really need a better camera..

Here's a shot from my DSLR, using a nice big lens at 1/125 at f8, with built in image stabilisation.

Had I included any background stuff, it would have been horribly underexposed or not there at all...

 

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by ChrLzs

[Silver]

3 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Most phone based cameras will struggle with this.  The moon is sunlit, so to expose it correctly you need a daylight-ish exposure of around 1/250 sec at f5.6/f8.  But at night the background scene requires an exposure of about 1/30 sec or slower, at f4.  Because the moon is such a small element of the scene, the phone goes with the latter, and thus the moon gets 'blown', ie it goes bright white and expands outwards like it's way out of focus.  Plus, the camera doesn't focus well on small bright things, it needs a bigger / longer edge, so that makes it even worse...

The only way you can do it is by using two separate shots, one exposed for the background, and one for the moon, but you prolly can't do that as there's no way to override the exposure by the mount required.  Plus most phone cameras only have relatively wide angle lenses, so the moon's gunna be tiny...  There is a function called HDR that can help on the really high end cameras, but it's generally not designed for this - you really need a better camera..

Here's a shot from my DSLR, using a nice big lens at 1/125 at f8, with built in image stabilisation.

Had I included any background stuff, it would have been horribly underexposed or not there at all...

 

 

A girl I work with took a great, clear shot of some meteors once. All I get of the moon is a blurry white blob. Maybe it is because of the differing quality of our phones (and built in cam). I was being a bit cynical about the potato cams, btw, if you want to fake something the blurrier the better.

Edited March 7, 2021 by ted hughes

[ChrLzs]

7 minutes ago, ted hughes said:

A general observation: I am always puzzled why wildlife photographers ditch their state-of the -art equipment and pull out the potato cam when something mysterious hoves into view. Maybe it is a convention.

Well, sort of.  It's so they can use the footage at conventions for true (and wallet-carrying) believers...  

[Silver]

11 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Most phone based cameras will struggle with this.  The moon is sunlit, so to expose it correctly you need a daylight-ish exposure of around 1/250 sec at f5.6/f8.  But at night the background scene requires an exposure of about 1/30 sec or slower, at f4.  Because the moon is such a small element of the scene, the phone goes with the latter, and thus the moon gets 'blown', ie it goes bright white and expands outwards like it's way out of focus.  Plus, the camera doesn't focus well on small bright things, it needs a bigger / longer edge, so that makes it even worse...

The only way you can do it is by using two separate shots, one exposed for the background, and one for the moon, but you prolly can't do that as there's no way to override the exposure by the amount required.  Plus most phone cameras only have relatively wide angle lenses, so the moon's gunna be tiny...  There is a function called HDR that can help on the really high end cameras, but it's generally not designed for this - you really need a better camera..

Here's a shot from my DSLR, using a nice big lens at 1/125 at f8, with built in image stabilisation.

Had I included any background stuff, it would have been horribly underexposed or not there at all...

 

 

Tell me more. That is a seriously impressive photo! What kind of equipment, magnification?

[ChrLzs]

It's now a fairly 'old' camera, a Sony Alpha a57, 16 megapixel DSLR (ie interchangable lenses).  Cost me about $550 iirc, but that was several years back.  I went for the Sony as it was the first Digital-Single-Lens-Reflex camera to meet my 3 major requirements, namely:

1. Compatible with my beloved Minolta lenses (I used to have a Minolta film camera and several lenses), especially my favorite 75-300 zoom lens (which becomes a 105-450 on the Sony's cropped sensor - that's roughly equivalent to the view thru 10x binoculars)

2. Good in-camera stabilisation, so all my lenses would be stabilised.  Many DSLR's have stabilisation in the lenses, which means all the lenses are dearer..

3. A good *constant* viewfinder and ability to see video footage live through that vewfinder. (other cameras of that era required you to use the screen during videoing and that sucks)..

Note that the market has changed significantly since I bought it - cameras are better and even cheaper...

Here she is:

 

Edited March 7, 2021 by ChrLzs

[Jon the frog]

On 3/5/2021 at 4:03 PM, Tom O'Neil said:

If you look at the inner circles of the ufo itself there not aligned, this could be real, because the car window would cause an optical illusion as the car window is sort of concave.  The ufo's movement would cause this I'm thinking.  Also the lines around the circle are blurred so this would have to be outside the window.  The ufo in my opinion looks fairly close to the observer.

Another reason this photo is blurry is because of the observer must of been excited and could not hold her phone camera still! 

 

We can see a supernova too, it's blue, just above the house ! Incredible picture !

[TashaMarie]

On 3/5/2021 at 9:07 PM, Tom O'Neil said:

I think you are wrong if this was true you would see feint outlines of numbers.

Well I can clearly see the number two.  

Added the others are to blurry to make out,

Edited March 7, 2021 by TashaMarie

[the13bats]

Its clearly without question a reflection, of what i still have no clue.

Tonight i went out to fetch dinner and on my side widow reflection was a part of my speedo, just floating over that outside rearview mirror, moving my head changed it and i could even see part of the tach face.

So after i ate i went to the car back out of the carport and in the background is the churchs building and just look at the cornucopia of UFO floating above it, i dont have a clue about the white hash mark mother ships which i didnt see while my note 5 took this one pix.

Enjoy...

Does this match the OP photograph? Nope but does it prove the OPs picture shows things reflected from inside the vehicle? For me you bet it does.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

[Silver]

4 hours ago, TashaMarie said:

Well I can clearly see the number two.  

Added the others are to blurry to make out,

 

1 hour ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Flying in formation! Hope they were caught on radar!

[astrobeing]

1 hour ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Well I can't read any numbers so that means they have to be space craft from outer space.

[the13bats]

Update, the hash mark UFO in my pic is from the center upper dash stereo/gps it was on stereo,  it has ubs input and i imagine i could float a picture of a flying saucer.

Adding:

Just dawned on me OP was in UK,  hence rhd so theres another nail in the coffin this is refection,

Edited March 8, 2021 by the13bats

[Silver]

Tom O'Neill said: I have determined the image of a ufo is a lie based on my intuition.  Normally if someone is really awe inspired by the subject matter like the moon they usually center the subject matter in the photo. 

On 3/6/2021 at 5:27 PM, astrobeing said:

Dude, didn't you even read the article??? She wasn't "awe inspired". She said she didn't even know she had taken a photo of the thing until she looked at it later.

Read the article before commenting.

You misread what Tom wrote in that sentence. She was inspired by the moon, which is why she took the photo (I did the same that night, but that is irrelevant. Took a photo of the moon I meant, not that I was awe-inspired).

Tom's post then wanders off into inconsequentialities after that though, it is hard to understand his main point.

Edited March 9, 2021 by ted hughes

[Silver]

On 3/7/2021 at 8:33 AM, preacherman76 said:

I don’t know if this is a reflection or not, to me, if I saw that, I’m getting out of the car and taking a video

It is a pretty impressive 'UFO' in the photo, but she did not see it, she was taking a photo of the moon.

[CloudSix]

It would be pretty amazing if real life politics and/or statesmanship affairs were resolved in the forums of the UM, you guys dissect things very hard! And with a good eye! 

[Trelane]

13 hours ago, CloudSix said:

It would be pretty amazing if real life politics and/or statesmanship affairs were resolved in the forums of the UM, you guys dissect things very hard! And with a good eye! 

Oh, they try that for sure in other sub forums. It is quite the trainwreck of burning dumpsters and tires one would would expect though.

[CloudSix]

1 hour ago, Trelane said:

Oh, they try that for sure in other sub forums. It is quite the trainwreck of burning dumpsters and tires one would would expect though.

Too bad. Maybe all the users can switch one day: people from UFO sub will debate about politics, and the guys and girls from the politics sub can debate about UFOs.

I wonder if I'm mixing oranges with slightly different oranges.. 

[the13bats]

3 hours ago, CloudSix said:

Too bad. Maybe all the users can switch one day: people from UFO sub will debate about politics, and the guys and girls from the politics sub can debate about UFOs.

I wonder if I'm mixing oranges with slightly different oranges.. 

I hung in politics and said i would leave when trump was gone so i did, pol is just a mess of ct and angry bitter cult mentality, ill take crypto, ghosts, and aliens any day over it.

[astrobeing]

22 hours ago, ted hughes said:

You misread what Tom wrote in that sentence. She was inspired by the moon, which is why she took the photo (I did the same that night, but that is irrelevant. Took a photo of the moon I meant, not that I was awe-inspired).

I've never heard of anyone being so awe-inspired by the Moon that they couldn't hold a camera steady. She might faint if she ever sees the Milky Way.

[ChrLzs]

1 hour ago, astrobeing said:

I've never heard of anyone being so awe-inspired by the Moon that they couldn't hold a camera steady. She might faint if she ever sees the Milky Way.

?  I'm not seeing significant motion blur in the OP image.  Compression/post proc artefacts? yes.  A poor sensor being pushed way past it's usable sensitivity levels? yes.  Low quality digital enlargement?  probably.

Motion blur?  no.  Unsteadiness (surprisingly) isn't really causing a problem.

Edited March 10, 2021 by ChrLzs