1971 Lake Cote / Lago de Cote UFO Aerial Photo

[NorCal Dave]

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.

Or during handling and loading into the camera. Maybe being removed or while in the camera itself. Pretty much anytime prior to development. Like the Calvine, McMinnville or many other classic UFO photos, we really need a collection of old analog film cameras and film to try and recreate these. A Metabunk lab with a whole collection of cameras, video recorders, old computers and other stuff. Kinda like the old Mythbusters TV show

 

[Scaramanga]

It doesn't suggest that.

Er...says who ? I just suggested it. How about a proper refutal. Nothing you've said negates the notion that the 'object' is a circular object ( such as helicopter rotors ) seen at an angle and thus adding an oval appearance.

 

[Mendel]

Er...says who ? I just suggested it.

You didn't write, "I suggest", you wrote "which suggests", which implies a logical connection. You have not demonstrated that, and it is not there.

How about a proper refutal.

I am not going to spend more effort on refuting your idea than you did on supporting it (that's not true, I actually made sure my reply was correct).

Nothing you've said negates the notion that the 'object' is a circular object ( such as helicopter rotors ) seen at an angle

yeah, but a circle seen at an angle is an ellipse, and the UFO isn't that.
That's also a different point than the one you brought up before.

and thus adding an oval appearance.

It's not oval, though.

 

[Scaramanga]

yeah, but a circle seen at an angle is an ellipse, and the UFO isn't that.
That's also a different point than the one you brought up before.
It's not oval, though.

What ? It is very clearly oval shaped.

OK, well if you're going to argue just for the sake of it then its a bit of a pointless discussion.

 

[Mendel]

What ? It is very clearly oval shaped.

I can see lots of kinks and asymmetries.
It's obvious that this was not created from a circular shape.

OK, well if you're going to argue just for the sake of it then its a bit of a pointless discussion.

You're the one who hasn't supported their argument. I asked you to, but you go ad hominem instead.

 

[Scaramanga]

I can see lots of kinks and asymmetries.
It's obvious that this was not created from a circular shape.

You're the one who hasn't supported their argument. I asked you to, but you go ad hominem instead.

This is NOT oval ???

 

[Scaramanga]

You're the one who hasn't supported their argument.

What part of 'suggests' is an argument ? It's a suggestion.

 

[JMartJr]

This is NOT oval ???

View attachment 81069

The upper edge is distinctly flattened, the left edge appear more "pointy" than an oval, though this is less clear and may be an illusion caused by the extra bright pixel there!

I mean, it is generally ovalish, but with that flat upper edge it's hard to see how the circle traced by helicopter blades would produce THIS shape. That said, I admit freely to not being an expert in helicopter blades, perhaps they do something that would create that effect that I do not know about, and that somebody with helicopter-knowing could explain...

(It is also my impression that the center point is too close to the top edge and too far from the lower edge to indicate a flat circle -- if it is a physical object, it looks distinctly conical to my eye.)

This is the closest I can find to the sort of "disc" of helicopter blades under discussion:

(https://greenmantle.biz/how-to-capture-full-disk-helicopter-photos/ -- strong contender for the most tightly focused webpage topic ever)

The most notable thing to me, as relates to the UFO picture, is how visible the helicopter is under the disk of the rotor blades...

Edited: Hit the post button before quite finishing...
Second edit: Removed pictures of the bow of the Gerald Ford with got attached somehow... computers is hard.

 

[Mendel]

This is the closest I can find to the sort of "disc" of helicopter blades under discussion:

it's the same picture and source Scaramanga originally used to suggest it is a helicopter

 

[JMartJr]

it's the same picture and source Scaramanga originally used to suggest it is a helicopter

Oh wow, that was unintentional on my part, it was not intended snarkily or anything. There just don't seem to be a lot of pics of this.

Here, I found another (I hope somebody did not use this already, too!^_^)

The point remains, though. I can't find a photo of the "full rotor disk (or disc)" of a helicopter that is not a see-through disk with a visible helicopter under it!

I also can't find a large number of such pictures -- perhaps there is a search term that would turn them up that I do not know?

Out of curiosity, I tried "full disk (disc) prop photo aircraft" to see if maybe a plane prop would give the "block what's behind it" disk. There are more pics for planes, at least to my search, and discounting ones of plane models showing ways to create a "motion blur" effect for modelers. But no joy, they're also all "translucent" see through effects.

 

[Mick West]

Yeah, there's no way it's a helicopter.

Any circle viewed at an angle from any reasonable distance can be turned back into a circle just by stretching it.
Any blurred helicopter blades is going to be concentric rings, or one flat color, and transparent

This isn't a circle. There are no rings and there are irregular shapes. It's not transparent. It's not a helicopter.

 

[Ravi]

The point remains, though. I can't find a photo of the "full rotor disk (or disc)" of a helicopter that is not a see-through disk with a visible helicopter under it!

Must be because of the shutter speed of the camera used. To make a rotor appear like a solid disc, would need shutter speeds of say 1/10 of a sec or much slower. These are impractical speeds for all photography, hence why you don't find a lot online.
Not a chopper, indeed.

I also can't find a large number of such pictures --

 

[Ann K]

Must be because of the shutter speed of the camera used. To make a rotor appear like a solid disc, would need shutter speeds of say 1/10 of a sec or much slower. These are impractical speeds for all photography, hence why you don't find a lot online.
Not a chopper, indeed.

I'm not sure how that would work, since a helicopter viewed from above at any speed is always going to be, say, 10% rotor, 90% body of helicopter. Now if the background and the helicopter are well matched in color and value, that might be enough to disguise it.

 

[Mendel]

Must be because of the shutter speed of the camera used. To make a rotor appear like a solid disc, would need shutter speeds of say 1/10 of a sec or much slower.

No, it would need for the rotor to be a solid disc.
Or for the rotor to be considerably brighter than the body.

And the "UFO" does not appear like a disc, either.

 

[Ravi]

If you make a photo of a fan or rotor, and you keep the shutter open longer than normal, that the fan will become more prominently visible. I am not sure why we disagree. I am not claiming it is a chopper guys, let that me clear. Just talking about photography.

 

[Mendel]

If you make a photo of a fan or rotor, and you keep the shutter open longer than normal, that the fan will become more prominently visible. I am not sure why we disagree. I am not claiming it is a chopper guys, let that me clear. Just talking about photography.

Right.
And per the source I gave in #312, aerial photography uses short shutter speeds, e.g. 1/225s, presumably to avoid motion blur etc. since the camera is mounted on a moving aircraft.
So that's the first reason why it's not a rotor disc.

 

[Mick West]

If you make a photo of a fan or rotor, and you keep the shutter open longer than normal, that the fan will become more prominently visible. I am not sure why we disagree. I am not claiming it is a chopper guys, let that me clear. Just talking about photography.

I think the disagreement is just with your first statement:

To make a rotor appear like a solid disc, would need shutter speeds of say 1/10 of a sec or much slower.

Once it's made a full rotation (or 1/3, with segments. It's a transparent disk. More rotations is just more exposure of everything. So, yes, you could get a solid disk, but only in the way that any transparent light thing gets more solid, by over-exposure. Here it is in steps of +0.5ev. A +1.0ev (every other image) is doubling of the exposure time

And here it is in steps of +1.0ev, or 1/25, 1/12, 1/6, 1/3 and 0.66 seconds

So it's true that:

If you make a photo of a fan or rotor, and you keep the shutter open longer than normal, that the fan will become more prominently visible.

But also true that:

it would need for the rotor to be a solid disc.
Or for the rotor to be considerably brighter than the body.

And

a helicopter viewed from above at any speed is always going to be, say, 10% rotor, 90% body of helicopter. Now if the background and the helicopter are well matched in color and value, that might be enough to disguise it.

 

[Ravi]

Right.
And per the source I gave in #312, aerial photography uses short shutter speeds, e.g. 1/225s, presumably to avoid motion blur etc. since the camera is mounted on a moving aircraft.
So that's the first reason why it's not a rotor disc.

Like I said twice already, in NO way do I think the cote lago image is showing a helicopter..

 

[JMartJr]

Like I said twice already, in NO way do I think the cote lago image is showing a helicopter..

Indeed.
The claim that it might be a helicopter was not yours. Two related discussions are blending together here --

(1) whether or not the UFO might be a helicopter, as mentioned by Scaramanga above, and, growing out of that

(2) whether it is possible for a helicopter rotor to be photographed as an opaque disk, and if so under what circumstances.

An affirmative position on (2) does not imply an affirmative position on (1). However, if the answer to (2) is "no, can't be done," that tends to rule out an affirmative answer to (1).

 

[jackfrostvc]

Apparently there's a new Doco on the pic etc. They claim there is a new drum scan photo of it they found.
It's all in this tweet, I dont care enough about this case to dig it all p. Just posting this here for those interested
"the team obtained a new and absolutely amazing drum scan of the "best ufo photo" which can be FREELY downloaded in its RAW format in the website. "


Source: https://x.com/UAP_CR/status/2035747984239886673

 

[Mendel]

"the team obtained a new and absolutely amazing drum scan of the "best ufo photo" which can be FREELY downloaded in its RAW format in the website. "

https://f.io/VgCvZPtM
expanded https://next.frame.io/share/f626bc7...e4e05366/61a64ed6-af93-429d-af64-6665bb3c0753

The second one may be the best option (PNG, 530 MB).

The close-up:

 

[Giddierone]

From just a quick comparison it looks like a better scan of the negative (positive, whatever) but without all the post-scan retouching.

Here inset is detail of an older published image (left) the previous retouched "drum scan" (right) overlaid on this new scan.

 

[JMartJr]

I'm not seeing much newly-visible in the new scan -- other than, being a bit less contrast-y, it looks more like a bubble or drop of water or such.

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 looks slightly smaller half-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%. Pics used are Mick's from #14.

Just quoting the above in hopes that the documentarians were aware of it, and looked at it as well. Or if not, perhaps they can for the sequel!

The existence of another, at least somewhat similar, shape that is there in one frame but not another is not given enough love as this case is considered, by debunkers or the pro-bunk community! Whether it indicates an actual object/objects in the area, or a recurrence of whatever flaw in the film/camera is above my pay grade. But I have a hard time believing it is totally unrelated.

 

[DarkLight]

Every musician that saw that this photo probably said about the same thing.."yeah, that's a UFO alright- from the mysterious planet of Zildjian".

 

[JMartJr]

Every musician that saw that this photo probably said about the same thing.."yeah, that's a UFO alright- from the mysterious planet of Zildjian".

Certainly a strong resemblance -- but I have a hard time envisioning how one could wind up there to be photographed!

 

[Trailblazer]

Every musician that saw that this photo probably said about the same thing.."yeah, that's a UFO alright- from the mysterious planet of Zildjian".

The object (if it is an object) looks like it has some thickness to it, not like a cymbal. The lower part appears to show a near vertical edge, rather than tapering to a point like the cross section of a cymbal. Of course, that could be an artifact caused by a doubled image giving the appearance of solidity.

 

[DarkLight]

Certainly a strong resemblance -- but I have a hard time envisioning how one could wind up there to be photographed!

Probably just a double exposure during the developing process.
It would be amazing that the only frame captured of a flying saucer just happened to look exactly like a set of high hat cymbals.
On the other hand, maybe the aliens saw a set of cymbals and copied the shape.

This is literally Billy Meier level stuff.

 

[DarkLight]

The object (if it is an object) looks like it has some thickness to it, not like a cymbal. The lower part appears to show a near vertical edge, rather than tapering to a point like the cross section of a cymbal. Of course, that could be an artifact caused by a doubled image giving the appearance of solidity.

View attachment 89262

The "thickness" is just the shadow on the edge of the cymbal and the brighter area is the lower half of the set. You can even see the center post and what looks to be some highlights relflecting off of the stand on the other side behind it and the reflection on the top cymbal is exactly what you see when looking at photos of cymbals.

Good grief-it's not that complicated.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Good grief-it's not that complicated.

Well it's a bit more complicated than "that's a high-hat". The photo has a pretty good provenance. It's not like a Billy Meier photo that somebody went out and hoaxed, then show up with it. This photo originated in an aerial survey program run by the Costa Rican government back in the '70s and the object has always been known about for quite a while.

While it may remind some of a high-hat, the logistics of an actual high-hat appearing in this photo would be, well, complicated. It would suggest a high-hat somehow floating above the ground, but under the plane as the photo was taken, or double exposure of some sort in which a very tiny high-hat is somehow introduced to one frame of a large roll of film prior to it being developed. Sounds unlikely. Remember the actual object is very small in the actual frame of film. Here it is in the lower center "over" the lake:

Note that this is frame 300. The RMK camera used had a film magazine with a spool of film loaded into it:

So, one would have to gain access to frame 300 on a spool of undeveloped film in an attempt to create a double exposure inserting a tiny image of a high-hat.

It's possible that someone made copies of the original negatives or positives after they had been developed and cut into individual photos. They then doctored and/or created a double exposure with the copies, then replaced the original with the doctored copy in the archives. Seems a bit convoluted just to produce 1 supposed UFO photo.

 

[DarkLight]

Well it's a bit more complicated than "that's a high-hat". The photo has a pretty good provenance. It's not like a Billy Meier photo that somebody went out and hoaxed, then show up with it. This photo originated in an aerial survey program run by the Costa Rican government back in the '70s and the object has always been known about for quite a while.

While it may remind some of a high-hat, the logistics of an actual high-hat appearing in this photo would be, well, complicated. It would suggest a high-hat somehow floating above the ground, but under the plane as the photo was taken, or double exposure of some sort in which a very tiny high-hat is somehow introduced to one frame of a large roll of film prior to it being developed. Sounds unlikely. Remember the actual object is very small in the actual frame of film. Here it is in the lower center "over" the lake:

View attachment 89263
Note that this is frame 300. The RMK camera used had a film magazine with a spool of film loaded into it:

View attachment 89264

So, one would have to gain access to frame 300 on a spool of undeveloped film in an attempt to create a double exposure inserting a tiny image of a high-hat.

It's possible that someone made copies of the original negatives or positives after they had been developed and cut into individual photos. They then doctored and/or created a double exposure with the copies, then replaced the original with the doctored copy in the archives. Seems a bit convoluted just to produce 1 supposed UFO photo.

I think that you are massively overcomplicating this.
"Pretty good" provenance doesn't mean much. How does "always been known about for quite a while" work exactly? If there is any gap in the chain of provenance from the time that the image was made to the time that it was first identified as displaying an anomaly, then claims based on provenance go out the window.
Is this particular frame even intact on a strip? How does a "chain of custody" work if the image ended up on someones wall in their office?
I've got bad news..that's not how chain of custody works and any documentation claiming otherwise isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

The simpler explanation is that someone crafted a double exposure-it's one of the first tricks that people started playing with when photography was invented-very likely the first person who reported seeing it.

I have occasionally taken flying saucer enthusiasts to task for inventing incredibly convoluted explanations for why reports of don't add up, but the same thing is happening here-just with skeptics taking the place of the ufo fans and with explanations just as convoluted.

It's a single photo from a strip. It's not in it's original context and has something that looks remarkably like a set of high hat cymbals superimposed over a landscape, and to wildly misappropriate Freud, sometimes something is just what it looks like.

It seems to me that someone not only successfully fooled the UFO fans, but successfullys hoaxed the skeptics too.
Of course, YMMV.

 

[Ann K]

It looks a lot like the stone-caused hole in the windshield of a car I once had.
Just sayin'...

 

[Trailblazer]

The "thickness" is just the shadow on the edge of the cymbal and the brighter area is the lower half of the set.

I was picturing a ride cymbal, not a hi-hat. It looks a bit more like a hi-hat, but I think it's just one of those illusions where a flare or other image imperfection gives the impression of a real object.

 

[Mick West]

looks remarkably like a set of high hat cymbals superimposed over a landscape, and to wildly misappropriate Freud, sometimes something is just what it looks like.

And sometimes it isn't. Pareidolia can get you stuck on one thing. We don't know what this is.

 

[DarkLight]

And sometimes it isn't. Pareidolia can get you stuck on one thing. We don't know what this is.

No one claimed that we did know what it is.
I'm just offering an explanation that fits the evidence and known hoaxer behavior without introducing entirely new and convoluted theories that require as much or more supposition as the ufo enthusiast explanations that we so often dismiss.