Yes, even some of the GLPers managed to figure that out. But it is a cool image.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

But do any cars reflect the speedo in the windscreen in such a manner?

Unlikely, but I don't argue it's necessary the speedometer. Clearly an inspection of the car in question is necessary.

We know the windscreen would have to be the glass in question, as opposed to any side windows.

The London Eye photo was taken from Northumberland Avenue approaching the Embankment along a roughly SSE line of sight.

The Tower Bridge photo was taken from the southbound lane Tower Bridge Approach along a roughly SSW line of sight.

Neither of these lines of sight allows for the car to be traveling transversely to it -- there is simply no suitable roadway at either of those locations. Hence it is unlikely that either photo was taken through a side window; the photos were taken roughly along the car's line of travel.

However the line of sight relative to the car's direction of travel is not the same. In the London Eye photo, a photographer sitting in the front passenger seat (the left seat in England) would need to aim farther to the right. Hence we see the vehicle's right front fender in the London Eye shot. (Incidentally this would rule out a van, as would the apparent height from which the photos were taken.)

In the Tower Bridge photo the line of sight is more directly aligned with the vehicle's direction of travel. Hence the anomalous object is farther to the right edge of the frame, and the fender (if visible) would be out of frame.

It is extremely unlikely that a driver's dashboard indicator would be reflected in a typical car's windscreen in this manner.

However my experimentation reveals that for the following conditions

• photographer in front passenger seat
• inward sloping windscreen
• line of sight azimuth between 20 and 45 degrees right of car's direction of travel

a center console feature will be reflected in exactly the same manner as the anomalous object. That is, a circular inset object in a horizontal plane between passenger and driver at about elbow level will produce a reflection in the windscreen at that line of sight that

• is positioned in the photographic frame identically to the photos in question
• is oriented in the image plane identically to the photos in question
• presents to the photographer an object aspect that is identical to the photos in question.

However, we don't know whether or not the photos have been cropped.

I believe the London Eye photo is full frame and the Tower Bridge photo has been cropped, since the Tower Bridge photo lacks edge noise along the bottom edge. However, different relative sizes of the anomalous

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Not that I would be as presumptuous to correct or explain anything Jay says, but...
Since most instrument panels are shaded from the sun, it reinforces what Jay said in this comment.

Sounds like the description of a cup-holder.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

I don't know, if I had to take a stab at it I'd say it's a reflection off a side window reflecting off the "windscreen" (windshield 'round these parts).

Though most cars I'm familiar with have more than one lighted dial on the dash, and there's no hints of any other dials reflecting. Possibly they're being covered by the steering wheel/arms or hands of the driver/whatever. It's hard to get a good feel (at least, for me it is) for exactly where on the windshield this is reflecting, and where from inside the car the shots were taken.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

"A long time ago, yet somehow in the future"

Well, since I don't read the sun much, other than in woo-woo threads I can't imagine it is worse.

However, perhaps I understimate my friends from across the pond

Wayne

The car could have been a Mini. It has a big speedo in the centre of the dashboard. I've tried to find a good pic of one but I'm struggling so far.

The photos were fairly conclusively shot through the wind{screen,sheild}. Initially I believed they may have been shot through the side windows. However my analysis of the lines of sight rule this out.

A normal car windscreen that is tilted inward at the top into the passenger compartment and acting as a reflector from the passenger or driver's point of view will tend to reflect the floor of the car, and do it in a way that makes it seem to be in a vertical or near-vertical plane. The only view lines leading to a double reflection from the side window and windscreen are very restricted in the field of view.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I don't know, if I had to take a stab at it I'd say it's a reflection off a side window reflecting off the "windscreen" (windshield 'round these parts).
(I do love quoting myself)
Upon reflection, the shot would have to be taken with a pretty good angle from close to the glass to get a double reflection off a side-window, and judging from the perspective it wasn't. I think Jay's center-console theory fits better. My office window faces a street and I've been watching the cars that pass, and a good percentage of the windshields angle far enough back that this makes perfect sense. Though it sure "appears" to be a dial like a speedometer or tachometer.

But it could also be the spirt of a pedestrian killed on that very motorway, on a rainy night 8 years ago to the day. ooOOOoOOoo!

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

"A long time ago, yet somehow in the future"

Damn you Jay, you beat me to it. Now my post appears to be in reaction to yours. >:[ I want full credit for proving myself wrong, dagnabbit! (anyway, yes I agree)

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

"A long time ago, yet somehow in the future"

The pictures look fake in my opinion

__________________
All about space related topics: http://www.spacestart.eu

That's a rather broad comment...Any reason you think why?

No stars?

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

The object is so clearly visible and the photographer said she saw the object when she loaded the pictures on the computer. If the object was really there she must seen it when taking the picture. But like i said that is my opinion and I am not an expert in ufo pics.

__________________
All about space related topics: http://www.spacestart.eu

I have noticed if you turn the photo upside down, it could be the reflection of two music cds stacked on the dashboard reflecting the interior light of the car. Just a thought...

__________________
I don't believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein

Biologically speaking, if something bites you it's more likely to be female. Desmond Morris.

Quantum analysis is scientific dithering

Professor Frink: My observations n'hey, n'hey, show the universe could be a torus Weh, uh, or toriod it may like the typewriters and bananas and the monkeys with big teeth the biting the screaming Mm-hai!

Homer: mmmmm... doughnuts!

Actually, I think that reinforces the reflection idea.

If it were from a camera phone, then the reflection will be in a different location or not even visible when comparing camera angle with viewing angle.

I'm not sure what a cell camera's field of view is, but I would be willing to say that it's got to be better at window distance than at distant buildings distance.

Finally; if the car were moving, then the reflected object will be moving with the car and more likely be in focus.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

It sure looks a little like that but it doesn't explain the "thing" with the light under the object.

__________________
All about space related topics: http://www.spacestart.eu

Reflections from glass usually are hard to see through a view-finder, and doubly so through an LCD view screen (like on a digital camera). Once you look at the printed (or in this case, uploaded) picture, they stand out like a sore thumb.

I don't think this is anything she intentionally put into her pictures as a hoax. But it's certinaly not a large glowing object flying through the night sky that no one else saw with their naked eyes.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

"A long time ago, yet somehow in the future"

I don't think it is a 'thing'. To me it seems like light reflecting off the object (if cds) and creating an optical illusion of depth. The problem here is you've got light reflecting off the object and off the windscreen, and with the way cds reflect light as well it just makes it worse.



ETA. It's a shame the quality/definition isn't better for zooming in.

__________________
I don't believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein

Biologically speaking, if something bites you it's more likely to be female. Desmond Morris.

Quantum analysis is scientific dithering

Professor Frink: My observations n'hey, n'hey, show the universe could be a torus Weh, uh, or toriod it may like the typewriters and bananas and the monkeys with big teeth the biting the screaming Mm-hai!

Homer: mmmmm... doughnuts!

To me too it looks like a reflection. Could it be from dials in the dashboard of the Cooper Mini. Mainly the dial above the wheel: http://images.motortrend.com/roadtes...er_Console.jpg

Alltough I don't know if that dial comes with a blue backlight.

Damn you Jay, you beat me to it. Now my post appears to be in reaction to yours.

Naw, just proves that great minds think alike.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base