1971 Lake Cote / Lago de Cote UFO Aerial Photo

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
2021-05-10_13-31-56.jpg

It's a classic, now over 50 years old. I was recently reminded of this by the New Yorker article:
Article:
Leslie Kean is a self-possessed woman with a sensible demeanor and a nimbus of curly graying hair. She lives alone in a light-filled corner apartment near the northern extreme of Manhattan, where, on the wall behind her desk, there is a framed black-and-white image that looks like a sonogram of a Frisbee. The photograph was given to her, along with chain-of-custody documentation, by contacts in the Costa Rican government; in her estimation, it is the finest image of a U.F.O. ever made public.


Full Frame: https://www.metabunk.org/f/Lake Cote LARGE Tape Scan From Reddit.jpg
Source: Reddit H-M-1-1

Curiously, most published versions of the photo are of a lower contrast and lower resolution scan that the one above, making the feature (I hesitate to call it an object) seem smoother. The image I posted was shared on Reddit a month ago, and seems to be a high resolution scan of a now slightly degraded negative (with added dirt and some tape around the edges). I can't find it in that resolution anywhere else. Here's a comparison of the old and new photos showing the amount of additional genuine [looking] detail. [UPDATE: It's possible this might an AI upscaled version]
2021-05-10_13-50-04.jpg

The new photo makes it look far less conical, with the apparent structure around the sides seeming almost bulbous. The dark shape in the center seems to have more definition too.
2021-05-10_13-53-21.jpg

The location is 10.577071°, -84.912665°, the attached Google Earth image can be used to visualize it in place. 2021-05-10_13-58-08.jpg

Measuring its size on the ground gives about 210 feet by 130 feet. Of course, the closer it is to the camera, the smaller it would be.
2021-05-10_13-59-23.jpg

Being 50 years old, lots of people have had a crack at it. Here's some relevant excerpts:

Article:
Photo Analysis of an Aerial Disc Over Costa Rica
RICHARD F. HAINES & JACQUES F. VALLEE
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 1 13-1 3 1, 1989


On the basis of these observations and on the authors' discussion of the inconsistent shadow patterns, it is my opinion that the oval image is more likely to be an artifact such as a pressure mark than a photographic image of a physical object.
...
Obviously this part of the discussion is based largely on conjecture, since the original film was not available for inspection. The particle hypothesis could, in principle, be tested by examining the original negative under strong, glancing incidence illumination. If the image is a pressure mark, it may be possible to find marks or scratches on the emulsion or local deformations in the film base.


Article:
On the morning of September 4, 1971, a plane from the Costa Rican Geographic Institute was taking photographs to map the area of the Arenal region. The four crew members did not remember seeing anything unusual, but then the camera was set to automatically photograph every 20 seconds or so. It was a special RMK 15/23 camera with ASA 80 bw film, with an 8x8 negative imprinted on Kodak air safety film, type 3665.

One shot was taken at an altitude of 10,000 feet, frame 300, showing the mountains around Lake Cote in the province of Guanacaste, 25 miles south of Nicaragua. A disc-shaped object clearly appeared in the lower half of the lake. The photo is to be considered unique and of great scientific value. Doctors Richard Haines and Jacques Vallée listed a number of reasons in their first study of the Lake Cote case, published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 1989:



Article:
While the report [of Haines and Vallee] did look into the possibility of some type of debris on the film or its film plane back-plate was discussed and disregarded, they never looked at the camera itself.

The camera system has a very unique optic system that looks very similar to the object in the photograph.
image003.jpg
Because there were no eyewitness reports from the ground or the members of the mapping team there is not much of a chance of this being an object of approximately 683 feet in size or even something that was an actual object of any size flying in the air beneath the plane.

The problem that report had with the object not creating a shadow is easily explainable if the image was created by the optics of the camera and not a physical object below the plane.
The object in the image appears to have been created by reflections of ambient light inside the optics of the camera system caused by a unique combination of the type of camera system, angle of the plane to the light, position of the sun and possibly the angle of the light coming from the surface of the water located beneath the plane.


(And a rather speculative one)
Article:
Allow me to explain in the center of the disc there appears to be 2 black object on further examination and image processing it soon become obvious that the black object is in fact a large boat that for some unknown reason has suddenly slammed into reverse causing the wake around the boat just as the recon plane took the photograph the bright parts of the "UFO" are waves caused by the sudden reversal of the boat the reason they are bright is because they are reflecting sunlight.


The idea that it is 683 feet in size (about 208 meters) is possibly a units conversion error that has propagated for decades to all subsequent researchers because nobody bothered to check. It's about 210 feet, not 210 meters.

A recent discussion thread that links to the Reddit image can be found here: https://archive.is/1sb7B, with the Reddit poster H-M-1-1, saying it was "Verified by Jacques Valle" - although it's not clear if they are referring to this new image, or Vallee's 1989 study of the image.

A key issue is the lighting. The sun in the image is coming from the lower right (about due west), and yet there's no real way light from that direction makes any sense for a physical object
2021-05-10_14-29-40.jpg
And of course, there's no shadow. If it's a physical object that limits the possibilites.

Note that people raise various magical hypotheses to explain these problems, like the "UFO" being made of a light pumping metamaterial that moves light around in unexpected ways. I think we can much such explanations to the bottom of the list as they are highly speculative, and require some new physics.

I think the most likely explanation (but by no means certain) is that one suggested by the Rocky Mountain Paranormal Research Society, back in 2013:
Article:
The object in the image appears to have been created by reflections of ambient light inside the optics of the camera system caused by a unique combination of the type of camera system, angle of the plane to the light, position of the sun and possibly the angle of the light coming from the surface of the water located beneath the plane.


In 2014 this was expanded upon a little, suggesting a chip in the glass that only showed up when the sun caught it.

Article:
But I don't want to end without contributing my grain of sand to the case. The first time I saw the photograph it seemed to me that it could be something that was on the camera glass. It has all the appearance of a chip produced by a stone during a take off or landing. Surely it has ever happened to you on the windshield of the car. I went to look for the different brands that can appear on car windows and I found this:

2021-05-10_14-39-13.jpg

The resemblance to the “Partial bullseye” impact is striking. Even the little circle in the center. But then why does it appear only in one photograph and not in the rest? The answer lies in Haines' analysis. The elevation of the sun at that time was 16º, and the camera was not perpendicular to the ground when it fired, possibly due to a spin of the plane. Sunlight was able to hit the chip sideways, producing reflections.


Given this newer image as only just (mysteriously) surfaced, perhaps some other ideas might spring to mind? If it is a camera artifact, the ideal solution would be to find something similar. I'm not entirely convinced that "The camera system has a very unique optic system that looks very similar to the object in the photograph." Perhaps some more detailed image of the camera internals (RMK A 15/23) can be found.
 

Attachments

  • Lake Cote Lago Cote.kmz
    956 bytes · Views: 79
  • jse_03_2_haines.pdf
    1.5 MB · Views: 95
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Coincidentally, while I was writing this, a new article was published in Medium:

Article:
There’s always been speculation about whether the craft had just emerged from Lake Cote or was about to go into it. There are local stories galore about objects coming out of the lake. Because neither negative on either side of #300 shows the craft or even water roiling, there’s no way of knowing. Yet even if it’s a giant garden variety UFO, it is rendered in specific, clear detail.

That original negative has been retained by the Costa Rican government and is in the the National Archive there. Copies exist, such as the one reviewed by Vallee and Haines.


His article contains what seems to be a third scan, maybe of a print, which is of medium quality, and has a slight discontinuity in it.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
The sun in the image is coming from the lower right (about due west), and yet there's no real way light from that direction makes any sense for a physical object
if its a say teapot lid thrown out of the plane, and this area was a dent in the lid... would the light make sense? obviously it would been (i'm guessing if the sun is 16 degrees) light from clouds vs direct sunlight.
dent.png

found this photo of the camera. whatever those blue lines i see are, they do sort of match the "teapot lid" "dents" (you'd have to flip the photo 180 degrees). would a camera reflection show up angled like that? vs the bullseye example above,
https://www.nts-info.com/product/zeiss-rmk-top-a-1523/
Ref348.ZeissRMKTop15.B (1).jpg
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
i dont know if this photo is real (it was on pin interest) as the top is darker then the bottom.. but light and shadows might be easier to see if it is real.
f419b40ef30f3cde50b2bbbc002ccebb.jpg
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
If the below image is the original it tells you all you need to know. The coast is in focus as you'd expect from an aerial survey. Yet the UFO is in focus as well. The image was doctored to add that UFO IMO


1620698076606.png


There is also a perfect straight edge rectangle that has been edited directly above the UFO that also cuts a straight edge on the top of the UFO.

See below, My rectangle is all over the place. But if you look at the original image above, you will see the straight edge rectangle in that area.

1620699029709.png



Conclusion: The image is a poor fake.
 
Last edited:

JMartJr

Active Member
There is also a perfect straight edge rectangle that has been edited directly above the UFO that also cuts a straight edge on the top of the UFO.
I see why you say that, looking at the picture nekkid-eyed, but when fiddling with contrast/levels and such to make it "pop" more, it does not seem to be there. I think it is an illusion caused by the odd straight-ish edge of the "object" there and a zone with few white specks (dust?) above it. On the other hand, there is a definite rectangle well below the "object" in the first picture Nick posts, I'll post my "push the levels to make it pop" below, once you see it it is noticable in the original, though I had not noticed it until trying to make the your rectangle visible. I have no theory as to why it is there, or what if any relevance it has to the "object."

2021-05-10_13-31-56.jpg
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
@JMartJr

I still see it, I think the settings you chose does that. But at other settings it's clearer. Here I drew a line around the rectangle. It's clearly there

1620703859281.png

And yeah, there is that bigger rectangle you pointed out. The image seems to have been edited in photoshop
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The image seems to have been edited in photoshop
It's from 1971. Although it wasn't first analyzed until the 1980s. The originals (this and other photos from the survey) are in the Costa Rican national archives. There are older scan that don't show any "rectangles" - I don't think being edited in Photoshop is a good explanation here.

The coast is in focus as you'd expect from an aerial survey. Yet the UFO is in focus as well. The image was doctored to add that UFO IMO
Focus is largely irrelevant. It's entirely possible to have something a few feet and something a few miles in focus at the same time. Your phone does it fine.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
It's from 1971. Although it wasn't first analyzed until the 1980s. The originals (this and other photos from the survey) are in the Costa Rican national archives. There are older scan that don't show any "rectangles" - I don't think being edited in Photoshop is a good explanation here.


Focus is largely irrelevant. It's entirely possible to have something a few feet and something a few miles in focus at the same time. Your phone does it fine.

And was that double focus ability available to do in 1971?

BTW, where is the original oldest scan from the archive. We should be looking at that
 

Fin

Member
The fact this disc's top edge has kinda been chopped blunt, is more consistent with what we'd expect from an internal lens reflection of some sort, (see chopped off edges in the Turkey Kumburgaz UFO event also) than it is consistent with a genuine disc shaped craft, that for some strange reason, has got one blunt edge.

Also, those supposed reflection lines we see on the surface of the disc are not actually consistent with how reflections would work on a disc shaped, metallic object, at this angle, of this approximate size. The disc's top side is facing upward, towards the sky, right? Then what does that dark strip in the reflection represent? Whether its the horizon... or something else... the way this reflection is wrapping around the top left and right sides of the disc is inconsistent with how such a reflection would actually work on a rounded object.

So we've got a disc that isn't actually disc shaped. And we've got reflections that don't actually work like reflections. So, I think this is not a physical object out there in the air. I think this is an internal lens reflection or some other similar artifact.


"And was that double focus ability available to do in 1971"

Yes but its not called double focus. This is definitely not "photoshopped". Its not cgi. There's no evidence for it being a hoax.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Then explain the straight edge rectangles. I cant imagine they are an artifact
Which is why we need to see the verifiable originals to make sure BTW

As for image editing, photoshop is something just thrown out there. I use it in exchange for photo editing/manipulation generally.
And that goes way back to when photos were first made , degree at which its done improving and changing over the years

For example, this was done in 1937

1620709640383.png

Original below:

1620709696846.png
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There's at least two scans, one that's from a messy negative with tape on it, and one that does not have tape on it.

The HD Tape version seemed like a higher resolution scan, at 4000x4716 (4k_tape), so I though it to be a new hd scan of the negative. However it might just be an upscaled version of an older 1000x1179 image (which I'll call 1K-Tape)

Here it is compared to an enlargement done with imglarger.com

Tap Versions Comparison.jpg
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
@Mick West

You said the Costa Rican national archives had the original pics.
Does the Costa Rican national archives have the pics online?
If so, got a link to them?
 

Fin

Member
My concern is that, regardless of exactly what time of day it was, and where we orient our horizon, our sun, clouds, and even how we rotate our disc, the reflections don't seem consistent at all with what we'd expect. Any idea which direction is North, Mick? Check out the shadows of those clouds. At the orientation in this last pic you just shared, the clouds shadows are above and to their right. So the sun is at our 8 o'clock? And yet the "disc" has its main shadowed area at 9 o'clock. How is that consistent with with what we'd expect with the sun behind us and to our left. It doesn't make sense from where I'm sitting. i.e. the reflections on the ufo are not actually consistent with the reflections we'd expect. Perhaps they aren't reflections at all... but the illusion of them.

Playing around in Blender, I've assumed a certain shape for the UFO, if its a disc some distance below our viewpoint. The reflections always meet at the top, due to the shape. Also, as we tilt the disc shape away from us, the top edge does not ever appear to be chopped off. The circular profile just gets squished, as expected.

Lake-Cote-UFO-1.jpg

blender_2021-05-11_08-22-42.jpg
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
No, but someone is getting them for me. UAP_CR on twitter. They posted images of the adjacent frames:
It would be good to get close-ups of the same area of the frame where the UFO is present on the other frames (with no UFO).
If it was down to a flaw or crack in the optics then you would expect to see some kind of blurring or other artefact in the same place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jackfrostvc

Active Member
I'm guessing that plastic film over the pic is what's causing these weird artifacts(reflections?) around the object?


1620733968241.png
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Reference to the photos can be found on the Costa Rican national archive web site:
http://201.196.50.14:8082/fotos/bus...I=1970&aniof=1972&submit=Look+for#prettyPhoto
(via: https://www.archivonacional.go.cr/index.php?option=com_quix&view=page&id=70)
Three images:
2544-1.jpg
2544-2.jpg
2544-3.jpg
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
i.e. the reflections on the ufo are not actually consistent with the reflections we'd expect.
i dont think those are reflections. i think they are dents and bends. picture a tin teapot lid that some guy went at with a pair of pliers to disguise its shape a bit. thats why the bottom rim of the "lid" that goes into the teapot is a bit too 45 degrees at the east and west positions. do you love my description :)

not saying it is for sure a lid, but just giving you another viewpoint of what we might be seeing (its what i see anyway, a bent tin teapot lid).

5-11-2021 11-57-54 AM.png
I'm guessing that plastic film over the pic is what's causing these weird artifacts(reflections?) around the object?
i think thats a reflection of the photographer. i just recently took phone pics of all my photos (for fire archive purposes) and even my matte photos i had a hard time not having my reflection on the photo. i dont know why.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Shuffles

New Member
This is my first post on Metabunk.

I Agree about the orientation of the sun --the cast shadows of the trees indicate that, without question, the lighting is going right to left. And those are very sharp cast shadows, so it's probably a fairly bright day.

Re: the "object," I think the hypothesis that this is a camera artifact is correct. If you look at the shadow shape on the front of the object, the darkest spot appears to be an indented point --meaning the "V" shaped shadow doesn't look like a cast shadow at all. Instead, it looks more suggestive of a core shadow with the darkest spot being the centre --this possibly indicates the form to be concave, not convex, with the darkest point being the centre --much like the dish shape on a pupil (a conical shape going inward toward the centre). As such, considering the source of the light, I think this shape is more consistent with light refracting into a lens than being a physical object.
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Active Member
The image shown all over the place is of course rotated and isolated out of context to look as similar to a flying saucers as possible.

When looked at in context and at high res, it looks like something kinked/punctured the film during development.
 

Ravi

Active Member
And was that double focus ability available to do in 1971?

FYI, the focus depth of a camera is to a large degree determined by the F-number of the lens. This means, the more you reduce the aperture of the camera (iris), the sharper everything becomes (the hyperfocal distance becomes smaller). If you do this to the extreme, you end up with a pin-hole camera, where basically everything is "in focus", even as close as 1mm from the camera. The trade-of that is the case here is of course the amount of light coming in the camera, to make a decent picture without having to wait for 10minutes.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Looking at this scan for the Costa Rican National Archive make me more inclined to think the 4K version is AI upscaled. Here you get more of a sense of it almost being like two stacked disks, or looking upwards thought a hole.


Here's a version edited to remove the watermark and some of the jpeg artifacts

2021-05-11_10-12-18.jpg
"looking up through a hole" seems to make more physical sense (in isolation) than "looking at shiny cone". But still makes no sense in the context of the entire image.
 

Mr. Shuffles

New Member
My concern is that, regardless of exactly what time of day it was, and where we orient our horizon, our sun, clouds, and even how we rotate our disc, the reflections don't seem consistent at all with what we'd expect. Any idea which direction is North, Mick? Check out the shadows of those clouds. At the orientation in this last pic you just shared, the clouds shadows are above and to their right. So the sun is at our 8 o'clock? And yet the "disc" has its main shadowed area at 9 o'clock. How is that consistent with with what we'd expect with the sun behind us and to our left. It doesn't make sense from where I'm sitting. i.e. the reflections on the ufo are not actually consistent with the reflections we'd expect. Perhaps they aren't reflections at all... but the illusion of them.

Playing around in Blender, I've assumed a certain shape for the UFO, if its a disc some distance below our viewpoint. The reflections always meet at the top, due to the shape. Also, as we tilt the disc shape away from us, the top edge does not ever appear to be chopped off. The circular profile just gets squished, as expected.

Lake-Cote-UFO-1.jpg

blender_2021-05-11_08-22-42.jpg
Hi Fin, what happens in your simulation if the wireframe model of the "object" is more concave/conical or dish shaped --like a pupil, with the centre point sloping inward (instead of being convex?)
 

Mr. Shuffles

New Member
Looking at this scan for the Costa Rican National Archive make me more inclined to think the 4K version is AI upscaled. Here you get more of a sense of it almost being like two stacked disks, or looking upwards thought a hole.


Here's a version edited to remove the watermark and some of the jpeg artifacts

2021-05-11_10-12-18.jpg
"looking up through a hole" seems to make more physical sense (in isolation) than "looking at shiny cone". But still makes no sense in the context of the entire image.
"looking up through a hole" as though it is more concave/conical -- like a pupil/dish shape or aperture, with the shadow shape being broad on the outside and narrowing as it slopes or moves inward/upward (depending on how you orient yourself) --could the rim shape along the edge and the and the other black "dent" ( the darker circle in the shadow shape) you mentioned in an earlier post, be a doubling the image? they almost both look offset at the same angle/perspective
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
gotta be careful of not confusing white and dark as bulges... its totally possible just a trick of the eye. meaning "bright bits" over exaggerates or creates a hump.
1620755510449.png
 

NorCal Dave

New Member
I first saw this photo about 15 years ago. To me it looks like a bubble or blemish in the emulsion of the negative.
Yes. Reminds me of being in the collage dark room in the mid-80s. Any little spec on, or in this case damage to, the negative affected your final print. Would be interesting to see the original negative.
 

SweetDee

New Member
In my misspent youth, my brothers and I would shoot BB guns at glass bricks in the junk pile. This is exactly the disk we would produce if lucky. Voting for artefact.

Yes, I still have both eyes.
 
Last edited:

bonzaitripper

New Member
Can you provide a single example of this "chipped glass" phenomenon in any other photos? I've yet to see any evidence of this in practice, or other photos with a similar visual effect.

These theories seem pretty baseless without photographic evidence of this "chipped lense" ever occurring in another photo, and I don't think you can declare this debunked without proving the chipped glass effect happens in a way that could produce something like the original image.
 

Max Phalange

Active Member
Looking at this scan for the Costa Rican National Archive make me more inclined to think the 4K version is AI upscaled.
I think you're right about this. The author of that Reddit post also runs a subreddit called "CelebsUHD", which seems to contain a number of upscaled images. The text of the Reddit post is copy-pasted from a Costa Rican news site, so it doesn't appear that very much effort was put in: https://news.co.cr/best-ufo-photo-in-the-world-taken-at-arenal-costa-rica-45-yrs-ago/50584/

Also notable that the 4k image has dimensions that are precisely 4x larger than the 1000x1179px version found elsewhere on the web, e.g. http://www.openminds.tv/wp-content/uploads/Cote-Lake-UFO-photo.jpg

And it has some unusual-looking high frequency detail which is very AI-upscaler like, e.g. toward the bottom-right here:


So the 4k version is probably not a solid foundation for any analysis of the "disc".
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Active Member
In the high res this symbol seems oddly smooth, possible upscaling

1620819969691.png

Also as noted above just by the object there is a rectangle of different pixels in the lake surface, the area here is sharply defined and looks to be less "detailed" note the white mark to the right of the object changes as it transitions into this area.

1620820197142.png
 
Last edited:

Fin

Member
Hi Fin, what happens in your simulation if the wireframe model of the "object" is more concave/conical or dish shaped --like a pupil, with the centre point sloping inward (instead of being convex?)
I think perhaps the whole simulation thing I've played with here is only even marginally valuable once we agree some ideas as to what shape this was, assuming its even a solid object at a distance to begin with. I wonder why so many who address this image as being one of the best never mention the strange looking chopped off far edge. Are they, like me, assuming its a classic disc?

This blanket disregard of that fundamental issue with its shape shouldn't be overlooked. It reminds me of Billy Meier's classic saucer which has an incredibly obvious wonky rim! lol. So your question is spot-on and something I wanted to explore anyway. If anyone has other ideas what shape this might be (assuming its an object out there and not an image artifact) that I may have completely overlooked, please feel free to suggest or better yet draw it.

Important to note: based on my initial assumption of its shape if its an object, and where that central dark dot is representing the central highpoint of the dome, I'm tilting all of these example models away from us at 20.6°. Its tilted towards us in the wireframe model on the left, but in the actual recreation on the right, its tilted away at 20.6°.

Notice how in all of them, due to the conical shape, the reflections are all forced to meet at that central point; the tip of the dome. Unlike in the actual UFO pic. So I've either got the fundamental conical shape wrong, or its not a physical object with conical shape reflecting light. Period. This fact alone has me leaning strongly towards the artifact hypothesis, unless someone suggests a better shape.

I'm assuming many others also always thought this genuinely was, perhaps, a conical disc shaped genuine UFO, as I did since first seeing it years ago. Until I began to sensibly think about how the reflections are interacting with that disc. As soon as I thought about that, I realized the environment doesn't react like that with that sort of shape.

It would be much easier to assume this was a camera artifact if I'd seen anything like it before. And I like many here am well aware of a host of different camera/video artifacts, from modern cameras and ancient ones. But I've not seen one like this before. I'd be very interested if anyone could post any previous examples that look even remotely similar to this. Because, as we know, even the classic lens flare can vary dramatically in appearance based on the many factors involved in its makeup.

blender_2021-05-12_23-37-23.jpgblender_2021-05-12_23-38-46.jpgblender_2021-05-12_23-49-26.jpg
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I wonder why so many who address this image as being one of the best never mention the strange looking chopped off far edge. Are they, like me, assuming its a classic disc?

This blanket disregard of that fundamental issue with its shape shouldn't be overlooked
UFOs dont have t be disk, that's just a science fiction fiction.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
U Contrails in "Diamonds are Forever" 1971 Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 9
Swifty Blickling Hall Lake UFO UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 23
Agent K Earthquake at China Lake Current Events 1
edby View across Utah Lake Flat Earth 34
R Utah "Flat Eath" Frozen Lake Experiment Shows Light Visible over Longer Distance than Expected Flat Earth 8
Soundly A Side View of the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain Flat Earth 55
Mick West Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain Flat Earth 91
Mick West Oroville Watershed Weather Forecast, Lake Level and Inflow Calculations Oroville Dam 194
Rory Canandaigua Lake, NY, USA "Flat Earth experiment" Flat Earth 21
Bass In Your Face Stephen Hawking's "Genius" Helicopter Demonstration of Lake Curvature Flat Earth 27
Mick West Folsom Lake Photographs Demonstrating the Curvature of the Earth Flat Earth 36
Sandor Szekely Lake Balaton Laser experiment to determine the curvature of the Earth, if any. Flat Earth 1027
Mick West Contrails over Sting & Peter Gabriel Concert in Lake Tahoe Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Mick West A Dark Contrail near Salt Lake Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Veronica! Debunked: UFO caught sucking up water out of California Lake (satire) UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Mick West Local Political Candidate Cindy Lake talks about "Chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 10
ssfor27 Salt Lake City "Haarp Ring" HAARP 15

Related Articles

Top