Mendel
Senior Member.
Because the image is vertically compressed (as if tilted)—you can see that on the street grid as well. It's still aligned due north.
1971 Lake Cote / Lago de Cote UFO Aerial Photo
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
FatPhil
Senior Member.
The image you provided does not support that claim. If you have an image that supports that claim, perhaps you should have embedded that image.
You do realise that "vertically compressed" plus "tilted" can turn any set of axes into any other set of axes, I hope. (The "tilted" does a lot of the heavy lifting here, by the time you were typing that you should have considered whether your argument could be miscontrued as "red is blue if you rotate the palate".)
Scaramanga
Senior Member
Mendel
Senior Member.
Yes, it does.
The image is aligned north, the flight path for the aerial photography is not.
But then I did not write
You understand maths, please recall that vertical compression flattens the slope of diagonals (of either slant), but does not rotate anything.
I picked the image because the source it comes from is a lesson on how to lay out a flight path for aerial photography that does not reference the cardinal directions, supporting the claim that they're not important. The not-north-aligned flight path is just a visual representation of it. I did not check the map when I posted it because I assumed it was north-aligned, which it is. Please observe the street grid of Del Mar Heights to confirm that.
No, both transformations leave horizontal lines/axes horizontal, like the street grid at Del Mar.
But then I did not write
"vertically compressed" plus "tilted", I wrote vertically compressed (as if tilted), which constrains the tilt to "away from the viewer". Vertical compression leaves vertical lines intact.Just strike the "(as if tilted)", it's in parentheses anyway and does zero lifting.
You understand maths, please recall that vertical compression flattens the slope of diagonals (of either slant), but does not rotate anything.
Mendel
Senior Member.
The scale mismatches affect the slant of the coastline and other diagonal map features. However, horizontal E-W and vertical N-S lines stay horizontal and vertical.
Last edited:
PublicStranger
Active Member
Looks exactly like a cymbal. Any chance this image could be doctored in any way? Considering it was a camera that took automatic photos every 20 seconds could it be possible somebody chucked something from the plane, that being said the reflection evidence doesn't support this being an actual physical object.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Ann K
Senior Member.
Or a light fixture. Or a slightly dented aluminum pot lid, one that's been dropped on the kitchen floor once too often. But that speculation doesn't get us much closer to a resolution, I'm afraid. If it's an object "chucked out of a plane", I don't think I'd expect a sharp, crisp image, but more of a blur.
Been decades since I did any photo film processing, the old way where run the film through developer and fixer and water to clean the chemicals away. But I suspect that is where this UFO originated, in the wet chemistry processing of the original film. A dot of some material, and it would only take a tiny amount, got onto the emulsion side of the film and during processing it dissolved and effected a tiny spot on the emulsion.
The film was probably processed on a continuous feed machine, where the film passes over and under multiple rollers as it is pulled through multiple tanks containing the various chemicals. It would take a microscopic look at the emulsion side of the original film to see if there is any damage to it, so any look at copies however made is never going to be definitive.
Tone and Texture. Always compare the tone and texture of the proposed UFO to the tone and texture of the rest of the image. So often there are noticeable differences as there are in this case. The UFO shows faint concentric "scratches" around the black dot that is presumably the center of the object.
The ground length of those scratches is tens of meters, judging by the size of the small buildings visible. Those scratches are just to uniform to be expected on a curved surface of this size, they should change with the presumed curvature of the objects surface. To me the UFO here just does not "belong" in this image, an actual object where this one appears to be would not look so different in tone and texture as this object does.
The two alternating versions of the image in the lower photo show how far from the original image this evidence has traveled. Different resolutions and different brightness and contrast. Until some one finds the original film, the film that was actually flown, this will remain unresolved. To me at least this is just a blemish in the emulsion.
Finally, has anyone tried to create a three dimensional object that would look like this under the well established lighting conditions? Is the object oval or round and tipped up on one side? When I look at this object I see a pot lid shaped object tilted up, with the left side submerged in the lake. What is the actual shape of this object and what is its orientation?
Prophet Rob
New Member
The source could be anywhere outside the frame , but doesn't have to be.
The example was for a different sort of lens than the wide angle topogon style that the aerial photograph was taken with. There doesn't have to be other elements visible necessarily, it's possible to sometimes hit a precise spot where only one is readily visible, there's very complex reflection geometry that happens internally to the lens akin to wizardry.
I went looking for some examples of wide angle lens flare and came up with this example where I have modified the brightness/contrast and overlaid the thin white line along the center of the flare axis and a green circle around the off center lens ghosting.
I think I may have solved even more of the question about the exact skew of the anomaly via that red herring of thinking that the skew matched the off level condition of the camera, because while I was thinking about it I realized that triangle has similar angles with the triangle formed by the displacement of the reflection to the center of the film plane.
Here I have overlaid the level indicator on both the anomaly and the geometry of the reflection with respect to center to illustrate the similarity relationship. The level gradation also happens to be slightly off axis to the image capture fiducials for some reason, but barely.
I need some time to figure out how to diagram up and skew the anomaly back into what it would have looked like as the lens cone pointing down in its original orientation.
For the people looking for what object it could be, it is the front cone of the camera lens taking a photo of itself unintentionally.
Last edited:
This ties in with my suggestion earlier in this thread somewhere that the 'ufo' is a blob of something and the image we see is of a person, possibly the photo developing technician, as they look onto the imaging table when the photo was being resampled.
Ravi
Senior Member.
I thought the artefact was on the original negative?
it may be, and that may scupper my theory.
Ravi
Senior Member.
Check out post #21it may be, and that may scupper my theory.
Mendel
Senior Member.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1971-lake-cote-lago-de-cote-ufo-aerial-photo.11729/post-248498
Are those negatives or positives?
Giddierone
Senior Member.
...the truly shocking thing is that she appears to be holding an iPhone 11 which wouldn't be released until 2019!...
Last edited:
Here's a new video from TheSneezingMonkey going through his thoughts on the 'disc'...
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGI2eY8Xuks&ab_channel=TheSneezingMonkey
His YouTube summary...
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGI2eY8Xuks&ab_channel=TheSneezingMonkey
His YouTube summary...
Last edited:
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Mine as well, but to settle on that I think we need to circle back to:
SOMETHING remarkably similar looking appears in frame 299 that is not there in 300. Of course, if there is one dimple or flaw in the negative, there could be more, I suppose...Well, I don't really know what to think about this, but at least it is perhaps worth sharing.
On frame 299 there's an object that looks like the UFO-to be including a seemingly conical shadow.
It looksslightly smallerhalf-size but parallel to ground with no shadow projected. It can't be seen on same position from frame 300...
EDIT: I have added disk from frame 300 next to disk on frame 299 both zoomed to 800%
Horsehockey
New Member
I say she needs a rhinoplasty ASAP.
DavidB66
Senior Member.
I note that in the 'main' photo one side of the object appears to be obscured by something. Likewise in Frame 299. But in the main photo there is an obvious candidate for the 'something' that is obscuring the object: namely the lake. Whereas in Frame 299 the object (if it is an object) is over land. Maybe part of it is obscured by trees?
The difference in apparent size seems to rule out the two objects being the same thing, unless the object in the main pic is actually much closer to the camera. But then it would be some distance above the lake, so the lake could not be obscuring the edge.
I don't have a solution. Unless perhaps the objects in the two pics are both fakes, and the object in 299 was a first attempt and the faker was dissatisfied with it. Obviously it is less noticeable and 'saucery', otherwise it wouldn't have taken decades before Kasparovitch noticed it.
JJB
Active Member
[ADMIN: DUPLICATE THREAD MERGED HERE]
This is one UFO photo that I don't think we have covered before? It was taken in September 1971 from an airplane flying at around 3,000 meters (10,000 feet). The plane was operated by the Instituto Geografico Nacional (IGM) as part of an aerial land survey for the hydroelectric project that later became the man-made Lake Arenal and dam. Photos were taken in 13-second intervals. Aerial photographer name was Sergio Loaiza.
Later, when the high-definition black and white photos were developed, an unexpected anomaly in one of the frames became obvious. When examining the negatives, one image showed what appeared to be a metallic disc—a flying saucer—hovering over the lake. As far as I know it is still unexplained to this day?
I have been searching online for a couple of days now, but there doesn't seem to be that much about it part from the usual headlines?
What do you guys think?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1940204/best-ufo-photo-ever-released
This is one UFO photo that I don't think we have covered before? It was taken in September 1971 from an airplane flying at around 3,000 meters (10,000 feet). The plane was operated by the Instituto Geografico Nacional (IGM) as part of an aerial land survey for the hydroelectric project that later became the man-made Lake Arenal and dam. Photos were taken in 13-second intervals. Aerial photographer name was Sergio Loaiza.
Later, when the high-definition black and white photos were developed, an unexpected anomaly in one of the frames became obvious. When examining the negatives, one image showed what appeared to be a metallic disc—a flying saucer—hovering over the lake. As far as I know it is still unexplained to this day?
I have been searching online for a couple of days now, but there doesn't seem to be that much about it part from the usual headlines?
What do you guys think?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1940204/best-ufo-photo-ever-released
Last edited by a moderator:
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Here you go, 8 pages worth:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1971-lake-cote-lago-de-cote-ufo-aerial-photo.11729/
JJB
Active Member
Thank you, and sorry for any inconvenience everyone. Sloppy. Might as well delete this one then.
Last edited:
JMartJr
Senior Member.
No worries, I was glad to have a very interesting thread recalled to mind. A frustrating case in that I feel pretty confident it would be solved in seconds of the original negative would be shown to anybody, but there are a couple of puzzling features. When somebody says "MetaBunk (of just debunkers) always just claim to have solved a case with some easy explanation," I refer them to that thread, where we had some ideas but I don't feel like we've solved it conclusively, and to the Kumburgaz, Turkey thread where we very clearly have rejected some "easy" explanations as the evidence failed to support them, and still had strong proponents of different ideas when the thread mostly petered out.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
I knew we had a a thread on it,but it was still a bit difficult to find. I typed "Costa Rica" into the search bar and then checked the "titles only" box as @Mendel suggested. Sometimes things can be a bit hard to find based on how the title of the thread was worded. Hopefully the thread is useful for you or you have some new insights. Welcome aboard.
deirdre
Senior Member
sometimes a site specific google search helps. (not always though, some threads seem to have disappeared from all search engines)
Scaramanga
Senior Member
Mendel
Senior Member.
That picture was taken at 1/25s shutter speed.
Compare this example from a treatise on aerial photography:
Source: https://www.asprs.org/wp-content/uploads/pers/1976journal/feb/1976_feb_239-249.pdf
Since aerial photography is shot from cameras fixed to moving aircraft, slow shutter speeds would incur considerable motion blur.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
I'd suggest putting further comments about this case over in the existing thread (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1971-lake-cote-lago-de-cote-ufo-aerial-photo.11729/) rather then doing it here and having two unconnected threads on the substance of this case.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
Which would suggest why the 'UFO' is oval rather than round, and would elongate along the direction of the plane's motion....which would appear to be what we see.
Mendel
Senior Member.
It doesn't suggest that.
it didn't do that
we don't see either
Ann K
Senior Member.
I continue to think this is a post-exposure defect or deformation in the negative. But having just tried to do something like this with clear film that I had (of two different weights) and actual exposed photo negatives (which I discovered today in a forgotten drawer), I've so far been unsuccessful. It looks to me like the kind of thing that would happen if physical stresses split apart two lamina, thus creating a more opaque spot which would leave a whiter place on the print.
Any suggestions of methods I might try to recreate the effect?
Any suggestions of methods I might try to recreate the effect?
Ann K
Senior Member.
Did that (well, actually, a hammer and nail.) Also bent it and hit it with a hammer. Next up, I think I'll stack it with a little bead or grain of grit and leave it for a while with pressure on top.
Of course, it could be something like a smeared drop of ink, or a dirty fingerprint.
Z.W. Wolf
Senior Member.
Undeveloped film is a lot different from developed film. Specifically the emulsion layer. And that's where the damage most likely occurred, because the base is tough. Most likely made of polyester or triacetate. And that layer doesn't change after the film is developed.
But... in undeveloped film, the emulsion is soft. It's a gelatin-based coating filled with light-sensitive silver halide crystals. And it's as delicate as it sounds, and easy to damage. Not only is it easily dented or scratched, it could be chemically altered, (though I don't remember how).
When something like sand or dust presses into that soft surface, it doesn't just leave a physical mark, it could alter the shape of the emulsion itself. Think of pressing something into modeling clay. The edges could be raised as the gelatin is pushed aside.
That kind of deformation would cause uneven exposure by scattering light. And that's what I think happened. It's not just a deformation... the deformation changed the way the emulsion was exposed.
But when you develop the film, the chemistry of the developer and the fixer fundamentally changes the emulsion. The silver halides are transformed into metallic silver wherever exposure occurred, and the rest are washed away during fixing. More importantly, the gelatin hardens. It was a soft and pliable gel, but after being fixed it becomes pretty hard. Like a layer of shellac, I guess would be the way you could think of it. It can even crack and flake off.
(The anti-halation layer is gone too, but that wouldn't be important, I don't think.)
In the case of your negatives, if you press a grain of sand into the emulsion or the back surface of the film, it might cause a scratch or surface abrasion, but it won't cause the same kind of internal structural change that occurs when the emulsion is still gooey.
Also, if what I suspect is true, it's not just the dent that causes the disk to appear as it does on the print... it's also the way the emulsion was exposed. I wonder which is more important... Probably the exposure.
Bottom line, what you're trying to do won't work.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
Thanks for the explanation. That sounds as if it is more likely that a roll of undeveloped film was damaged during the manufacturing process, perhaps.
Similar threads
