Man Snaps Two Pictures of UFO From Car In Connecticut

(Click Here to Read Story)

Photo 1

Photo 2

Enlargement of Photo 1

Enlargement of Photo 2

Date of Sighting: August 2, 2004
Date Reported: October 3, 2004
Time of Sighting: 1:30 PM E.D.T.
Location of Sighting: Windsor Locks, Connecticut
Latitude: 41.88903 Degrees North
Longitude: 72.67349 Degrees West
Number of Witnesses: One
Weather: Sky mostly clear with a few scattered clouds

Description: An Australian man (on work assignment in the U.S.) was driving in his car and wanted to use up film in his disposable camera.  The witness stated that he just pointed the camera straight ahead and without looking through view finder snapped two photos.  In photo number two it appears that he moved the camera closer to the windshield because you can't see the side of the wind shield.  When the film was developed several months later he noticed the odd object in the two photos.   He did not see anything unusual in the sky while driving.

Investigator Notes:  The strength of this case rests with the photos as there were not any witnesses and the photographer did not see the object.  In the first photo the object appears immediately above a tree slightly to left of center.  In the second photo the object is higher with respect to the witness's position.  The witness was driving to the northwest at the time that the photos were taken.  (See street map of the road that he was traveling on while taking photos.) Therefore the sun would be positioned slightly to his left (southwesterly direction) when the photos were taken.  The enlargement of both photos shows a reflection of the sun at the frontal point of the object. 

The witness has a good technical background and I have no reason to believe that these photos are the result of a hoax (see analysis below).

Photo Analysis:  The original negatives of the photos above have been obtained from the witness.  Pictures have been developed from the negatives.  The artifact (object) in the above photos shows up in the prints developed from the original negatives.  Therefore we can definitely conclude that these photos were not digitally doctored.  I also purchased the same type of camera used by the witness (Fuji disposable color camera).  I then took photos through the windshield of my car through a pronounced dust spot (towards top and center of windshield).  The photos were taken under similar lighting conditions of the photos taken by the witness.  I took two photos.  The first photo was from the normal driving position.  I leaned towards the windshield and took the second photo.  I did not look through the view finder of the camera in either photo.  This is the same fashion that the witness took the two photos.  Obviously my intent was to replicate the witness's photo session and make some deductions in whether or not the object could be a spot on the windshield.  I took several sets of photos, but decided on two (see photo comparison). 

The photo comparison template shows my photos to the left.  The photos are numbered in red font to the lower left hand corner of each picture.  Photo 1 was taken in the driver's position and photo 2 was taken leaning towards the windshield.  The photos to the right were taken by the witness.  Photo 1 was taken in the driver's position and photo 2 leaning towards the windshield.  (Both photos are also numbered in red font to the lower left of each picture.) The witness stated that the two photos were about two minutes apart.

The differences are obvious:

• My photos show the dust spot out of focus in both photos.
• The object in the witness's photos is in focus.
• The dust spot (my photos to left) looks nearly similar in photo 1 and photo 2.
• The object in the witness's photos looks much different in photo 1 and photo 2.  (The size and position of the object are considerably different and the object remains in good focus.)
• The shiny area of the object would probably not occur from an artifact on the windshield.  Both photos (see blow-ups above) show the shiny area.
• The windshield of the car driven by the witness should have been free of debris on the exterior because it rained several hours the day before.  The witness stated that he had used the wipers prior to when the photos were taken. 

Concluding Remarks:  I believe that the witness took a photo of an object that was moving towards his car based on the above evidence and considering that the photos were not hoaxed .  (His car was also traveling in a direction towards the object.)  I do not believe that the witness photographed a spot on his windshield based on the fact that the object was well in focus in both photos.  The experiment that I tried clearly showed that spots on a windshield will be considerably out of focus compared to more distant objects when photographed.  The question arises?  If this is a real object, then what is it?  The object has a "distorted" shape and shiny area to the front.  Currently no other sightings have been reported to other UFO organizations for this area and time.  The witness did not see the object himself.  However, many good photos have been taken of UFOs where the photographer did not see the UFO.  It is has also been observed in the past that UFOs briefly appear and then disappear.  Could the witness have photographed a UFO that briefly appeared?