UFO, Lens flare, swamp gas?

[Duke]

I didn't want to hijack Eugenia's thread, so I started this one.

We lived for a year and a half in Central America. Every once in awhile there were floating spheres in photographs for no apparent reason.

I've enclosed a couple copies of the same photo. We were following some quadamundi in the jungle at night. (Quadamuni are smart little animals about half way between monkeys and raccoons. They have hands.) when I took several pictures. Only one had the floating sphere in it.

You might think lens flare, but there were no other lights for miles other than starlight and the camera flash and the coloring on the sphere is irregular. The local indians think they are spirits.

Swamp gas? UFO? Who knows. The second picture I changed the contrast ratio and lightened it so you could see the details.

[Unhollywood]

Did you see the sphere and take a photograph of it or were you just taking a picture of that thicket? The sphere looks quite large. Your sure it isn't something on the lens? I noticed a spec that appears off to the right and it obscures a pixel.

[Rumple]

A slight tangent but:

Unhollywood, your sig is wrong I believe...
Either that or Fred Allen stole that quote and changed it.

The quote goes:
"Television is a medium. So called because it's neither rare nor well done." - Ernie Kovacs

[um3k]

It's dust (or other particulate matter), illuminated by the flash.

[Unhollywood]

A slight tangent but:

Unhollywood, your sig is wrong I believe...
Either that or Fred Allen stole that quote and changed it.

The quote goes:
"Television is a medium. So called because it's neither rare nor well done." - Ernie Kovacs

I've seen that quote crediting Ernie Kovacs before. I also found this: Television is a new medium. It's called a medium because nothing is well-done. (Fred Allen, on the radio program The Big Show, Dec. 17, 1950)
I found at least 5 different websites with my signature quote as well. Both these guys were performing at roughly the same TV arrived time so it seems to have been a popular joke. I like this one too.

Sorry Duke...

[Duke]

I don't think it's a dust speck illuminated by the flash because I took several pictures in a row and that is the only one that has the sphere. No I didn't aim it at the sphere. It was a 'bonus'. I was aiming at noise.

I lean more towards a bubble of swamp gas. When I showed him later my Mayan guide said he's seen that before in photos. That's when he told me it was a spirit. That area has hundreds, if not thousands, of pre-Colombian Indian graves. Central America has over 900 pyramids.

[um3k]

It's dust. It's only in one photo because it moved out of the frame for the others. Things floating in the air tend to do that.

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

I agree, that's just dust on the lens. I am all for being open minded about UFOs, but I will first try to exhaust all obvious explanations before say that this was a UFO. And this is just dust, just like the recent "UFO over Obama's inauguration" was just a bird. Let's keep our feet on the ground before we can fly.

[um3k]

Thanks, Eugenia. It's nice having another critical thinker to back me up.

BTW, here's an image I shot a few years ago to demonstrate the effects of dust+flash. There's people out there who would say my living room is occupied by more than just, well, the living.

Orbs.jpg

The truth? One word: Kleenex.

[Braceface]

Its dust.

[Duke]

Not dust. Yours had many circles and they were regular in shape and color. A bug in flight maybe, but it's a sphere. If it was dust on the lens it probably wouldn't move out of frame on the next picture.

Besides, there's not too much dust in a muddy, steaming, equitorial tropical jungle. Slime or a drip from an overhanging branch are real possibilities.

I don't ever recall cleaning up dust there. Mud and mold yes, dust no. And a million mosqitoes. The popular perfume there is Eau de OFF.

[Erik Bien]

It sure looks like something very tiny, very close to a lens focused near infinity. If I had to guess, I'd say a water droplet.

[um3k]

Ok, maybe not dust, per se. But it's something small and close to the lens (but not on it), illuminated by the flash.

[Braceface]

It could be a small droplet of water. I agree. Or dust. Its something on, or very close to the lens though.

[um3k]

It can't be on the lens, because if that was the case, the flash wouldn't reach it, so you wouldn't be able to see it.

[Duke]

BTW, here's an image I shot a few years ago to demonstrate the effects of dust+flash. There's people out there who would say my living room is occupied by more than just, well, the living.

Considering 90% of household dust is dead skin cells, that room looks like it WAS occupied by something other than the living. LOL

[um3k]

The dust was artificially created--I tore up a tissue just above the frame.