1971 Lake Cote / Lago de Cote UFO Aerial Photo

jarlrmai

Senior Member
What shutter speed do we think they would have used, would need to be slowish to blur a helicopter rotor blades.
 

iAmuseMe

New Member
This is my first real post. I hadn't seen this done previously, especially in video format, but forgive me if I have duplicated anything.

Some assumptions I made:
  • Maybe there is a protective covering/window in front of the camera with a conical dent
  • Maybe the camera is looking straight down, with no tilt, zoom or pan (at least between these three photos)
  • Maybe the covering is not moving relative to the camera

I saw the post where Kasparovich pointed out the "seemingly conical shadow" on 299, but that is in a different area of the camera frame.

If it were a dent in glass, perhaps the reason it is so apparent in 300 is that the lake provides stark contrast that the mountains do not. If my three assumptions are true, maybe I could find a "ghost" of the dent in the same position in the camera frame but not as readily visible.

I took the photos 299, 300 and 301 and "stabilized" them in Pixelmator so that they were mostly aligned. It is hard to get them just right without distorting the images. At first I made pink dots on the corners of each photo with the goal of aligning them, but then I realized I could use the four W shaped indentations on the edges of each photo to get a better alignment.

Once aligned, I marked each one with the photo number and indicated the area of focus with a yellow rectangle. Then I changed the opacity of 299 and 301 so that I could fade them on and off to examine what I think is the same area of the camera frame in each image.

The result is that I couldn't detect any obvious "ghost", even thought I felt like sometimes my eyes were tricking me into seeing one. Of course this means nothing unless my three assumptions are true. Any thoughts on whether they might be?

Here is a screen capture.

 

SpOoKy777

New Member
My first post here too... :)

I can't shake the feeling that the "UFO" isn't something actually captured in the photo but a tiny spec of dust or some sort of particle under the adhesive(?) layer that seems to be applied to the physical photograph in the picture...there is a distinct glare to it in comparison to the black matte paper underneath...

I did a quick test with some approximate materials I had at hand (see attached image)...isn't that hard to get a very similar looking effect that way...
 

Attachments

  • particleTest.jpg
    particleTest.jpg
    186.4 KB · Views: 474

Leak

Member
I can't shake the feeling that the "UFO" isn't something actually captured in the photo but a tiny spec of dust or some sort of particle under the adhesive(?) layer that seems to be applied to the physical photograph in the picture...there is a distinct glare to it in comparison to the black matte paper underneath...

I did a quick test with some approximate materials I had at hand (see attached image)...isn't that hard to get a very similar looking effect that way...
So basically if it's a blemish in the actual photograph it should look different under different lighting conditions if someone were to check the originals - but I'm pretty sure it looked the same across all images in this thread.
 

Max Phalange

Active Member
So basically if it's a blemish in the actual photograph it should look different under different lighting conditions if someone were to check the originals - but I'm pretty sure it looked the same across all images in this thread.
If the blemish was introduced at an intermediate step during the development process, it would just leave a 2D image on the finished print.
 

SpOoKy777

New Member
So basically if it's a blemish in the actual photograph it should look different under different lighting conditions if someone were to check the originals - but I'm pretty sure it looked the same across all images in this thread.
I've just re-read the OP...somehow I missed that the zoomed-in version came from a scan, I was so focused on the photographed photos from Reddit, that is indeed a problem...


If the blemish was introduced at an intermediate step during the development process, it would just leave a 2D image on the finished print.
...or not :) Good point...unfortunately I'm not familiar with photography development (especially in that era)...

Or maybe we are looking at a "copy" of an identical photo with some sort of adhesive layer, and the blemish was on that one (not sure that was technically possible back then)...hard to tell, without knowing the history of the physical photo...
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
My first post here too... :)

I can't shake the feeling that the "UFO" isn't something actually captured in the photo but a tiny spec of dust or some sort of particle under the adhesive(?) layer that seems to be applied to the physical photograph in the picture...there is a distinct glare to it in comparison to the black matte paper underneath...

I did a quick test with some approximate materials I had at hand (see attached image)...isn't that hard to get a very similar looking effect that way...
Interesting. Out of interest, inverted it, which turned it blue-tinged, then shifted color towards sepia to match original pic better. Very, very interesting...
 

Attachments

  • particleTest.jpg
    particleTest.jpg
    427.5 KB · Views: 420

kasparovitch

Active Member
My first post here too... :)

I can't shake the feeling that the "UFO" isn't something actually captured in the photo but a tiny spec of dust or some sort of particle under the adhesive(?) layer that seems to be applied to the physical photograph in the picture...there is a distinct glare to it in comparison to the black matte paper underneath...

I did a quick test with some approximate materials I had at hand (see attached image)...isn't that hard to get a very similar looking effect that way...

Where's that adhesive layer or material supposed to come from? Would it affect negative, which is the source of the object?

Does it account for the second image or object from frame #299 with same shape and inconsistent shadow?

IMHO considering that finding from frame #299 unbeknownst for 50 years makes it especially difficult to sustain an artifact or a fraud (quite unlikely in a highly technical job for a state agency with certified stuff) BARD.
 

kasparovitch

Active Member
I have merged a selection from frame #299 covering object with frame #300 so that distance traveled by object can be measure and speed calculated.

Assuming object from frame #300 measures 4.2mm as stated in article by Haines and Valee from pdf in post #1, then object travels 3.84cm in 20sec. As scale is 1/50,000 this means 1.92Km in 20sec. or 345.6Km/h or 214.7 miles an hour.

1622299657044.png
 

Buckaroo

Member
My first post here too... :)

I can't shake the feeling that the "UFO" isn't something actually captured in the photo but a tiny spec of dust or some sort of particle under the adhesive(?) layer that seems to be applied to the physical photograph in the picture...there is a distinct glare to it in comparison to the black matte paper underneath...

I did a quick test with some approximate materials I had at hand (see attached image)...isn't that hard to get a very similar looking effect that way...
WOW. Looks like we've got a winner.
 

SpOoKy777

New Member
Where's that adhesive layer or material supposed to come from? Would it affect negative, which is the source of the object?
Prompted by JMartJr's finding that my test picture looks even closer when inversed (Great thinking! Thanks!), I did some research into negative and film processing/development in general.
I found that the negatives probably are "cellulose acetate" based (there is "KODAK SAFETY FILM" written on the physical picture, which points to that) and that they consist of multiple material layers...some of these layers are washed away in development but if I understand correctly some stay...

Also Deterioration of the negatives can form bubbles/blisters or cause other types of delamination...so I guess it doesn't have to be particles/dust between the layers necessarily...

Sources:

https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/about...onic-books/Pages/visual-glossary-acetate.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Acetate_Deterioration.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_and_restoration_of_film

And a .pdf detailing the process (attached)...

Does it account for the second image or object from frame #299 with same shape and inconsistent shadow?

I'd say yes, if those blemishes originate in the film stock there is a chance that they'd appear randomly in different images...
As for your wording, I'd say the shape is just "similar" but not the same and in regards to the shadow, I don't know...that's Pareidolia territory for me...
 

Attachments

  • Film.pdf
    171.9 KB · Views: 235
  • screen1.JPG
    screen1.JPG
    122.2 KB · Views: 302
  • screen2.JPG
    screen2.JPG
    23.5 KB · Views: 288
Last edited:

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
I think it's probably a photographic artifact. But just to throw something out there... If it is a hoax; this type of lamp was very popular in the 50's and 60's


s-l1600 (7).jpg


s-l1600 (8).jpg
s-l1600 (6).jpg


3e79354612073aa2f87a152da0f3e3fc.jpgs-l1600 (9).jpg
 
Last edited:

Ravi

Senior Member.
I think it's probably a photographic artifact. But just to throw something out there... If it is a hoax; this type of lamp was very popular in the 50's and 60's

Interesting thought. However, to get this kind of lamp image in the survey image, you need some kind of double exposure (trusting the research that the negative was not tampered with). I am unsure if that would all be possible if you have an image taken in/from a plane.. Or are you suggesting there was a hoax done using an actual lamp in field of view?
 

neo_seoul

New Member
Prompted by JMartJr's finding that my test picture looks even closer when inversed (Great thinking! Thanks!), I did some research into negative and film processing/development in general.
I found that the negatives probably are "cellulose acetate" based (there is "KODAK SAFETY FILM" written on the physical picture, which points to that) and that they consist of multiple material layers...some of these layers are washed away in development but if I understand correctly some stay...

Also Deterioration of the negatives can form bubbles/blisters or cause other types of delamination...so I guess it doesn't have to be particles/dust between the layers necessarily...

Sources:

https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/about...onic-books/Pages/visual-glossary-acetate.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Acetate_Deterioration.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_and_restoration_of_film

And a .pdf detailing the process (attached)...



I'd say yes, if those blemishes originate in the film stock there is a chance that they'd appear randomly in different images...
As for your wording, I'd say the shape is just "similar" but not the same and in regards to the shadow, I don't know...that's Pareidolia territory for me...
Interesting hypothesis, would be interesting to see if there is a chance to get the whole photoset to look for similar artifacts.
 

Florian

New Member
I am a film maker – I can tell you chips in lenses have ruined entire scenes for me. That's why a good equipment rental place checks every lens properly after every movie. Here's a site about Nikon camera and lens maintenance. It shows how a tiny crack can easily get you to Costa Rica.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2021-06-17 at 10.17.47 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2021-06-17 at 10.17.47 AM.png
    937 KB · Views: 227
  • Screen Shot 2021-06-17 at 10.16.44 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2021-06-17 at 10.16.44 AM.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 256

dana.escoli

New Member
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...
Hi. Regarding the shadow, could it be to the right of that hole? There seems to be a darker spot about the size of the UFO.
I'm talking about 70 pixels to the right of the UFO, in the 299 in post #14.
 

dana.escoli

New Member
No, I'm looking more to the right.
299_shadow.png
Maybe is the quality of the image, but when you zoom in there's a patch darker than the rest.
This location makes more sense, considering the position of the sun.
Here's a screenshot with 700% zoom.
299_zoom_shadow.png
 

kasparovitch

Active Member
@Mick West could you arrange for a high resolution pic of the area depicted in last post from the original photograph in Costa Rican Archive?

I need to do an experiment and such source pic would be quite valuable if that's feasible.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
@Mick West could you arrange for a high resolution pic of the area depicted in last post from the original photograph in Costa Rican Archive?

I need to do an experiment and such source pic would be quite valuable if that's feasible.
I'm not sure what you mean. But I'm suspecting the answer would be no.
 

TopBunk

Active Member
Maybe, just maybe it was a real thing that was being developed around that time, but was just a bit crap and difficult to control, crashing into school yards etc. It looks like this Victor Zakry sketch from the 1966 Westall sighting in Australia...

...but this sketch was made in 2008, not 1966 so could be influenced by the Lake Coto image.

[Source: http://theozfiles.blogspot.com/2014/08/]

Westall66-VZakry.png
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A new scan of this image has emerged:

Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kXt41O4hFBDibDessRt_uIwbTkbTpkPN/view


Article:
Recently, UAPMedia UK acquired a ‘drum scan’ copy of the photograph from Esteban Carranza, citizen of Costa Rica (Twitter user @UAP_CR).

Esteban Carranza has a 40+ year old 8x10 negative, which is a “contact” copy of the COTE UFO original negative that resides in the National Archives of Costa Rica. He acquired this from his late uncle, who passed away last year. He obtained it back in the late 70s - early 80s from the National Geographic Institute.

He recently visited Sergio Loaiza, who was the technician in charge of the camera at the moment the picture was snapped. All 3 technicians flying in the mapping plane (in addition to the pilot) had received aerial photography training from the US Army Map Service. When Esteban Carranza showed Loaiza the negative, he was pretty excited! He believes the contact copy might have been made around 1975, since by the time the negative became famous in the 80s, it already had a lot of scratches from its manipulation.

Last year Esteban Carranza sent the negative to a photo laboratory in Kansas, by the name of Michael Strickland Photography. He used a Tango Drum Scanner and produced a very high-quality scan of 1.7GB in size.


2022-05-06_09-27-17.jpg
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The inked image is inverted, so needs flipping left/right for analysis

2022-05-06_10-06-25.jpg

Here I've narrowed the dynamic range to being out details over the lake. There's an odd blotchiness, and a dark streak above the object. Possibly some indication of tampering.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This new image really seems to point to an in-camera or later fake. I just don't see how this sun-direction lighting can possibly work with an object in the scene.


2022-05-06_10-38-31.jpg
 

nmarsollier

New 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
Looks like the reflction of a lawntern
 

Attachments

  • istockphoto-669353308-170667a~3.jpg
    istockphoto-669353308-170667a~3.jpg
    13.2 KB · Views: 32

Ann K

Active Member
This new image really seems to point to an in-camera or later fake. I just don't see how this sun-direction lighting can possibly work with an object in the scene.


2022-05-06_10-38-31.jpg
This looks very like a CONCAVE object such as the interior view of a metal-shaded desk light, perhaps somewhat bent. Then the reflected light from that direction makes more sense.
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
1651925511433.png

I find it interesting the top edge of the oval is much sharper as compared to the edge on the bottom. Something that would have physically have flown there would have sharp edges along the edge 100%.
 

nmarsollier

New Member
Whould be nice to see the photography setup, if there where a glass in front of the camera, ligts behind it, a lawntern or desk light reflection could be possible.

Also the camera position, aperture, etc. I dont beñieve it is wather in the camera, or somthing too close to the camera, that would be out of focus.

Maybe a the revelation process could add some artifacts in the negatives?
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Whould be nice to see the photography setup, if there where a glass in front of the camera, ligts behind it, a lawntern or desk light reflection could be possible.

Also the camera position, aperture, etc. I dont beñieve it is wather in the camera, or somthing too close to the camera, that would be out of focus.

Maybe a the revelation process could add some artifacts in the negatives?
The camera is mounted in a plane facing the ground, I think the model has been linked earlier in the thread.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
This new image really seems to point to an in-camera or later fake. I just don't see how this sun-direction lighting can possibly work with an object in the scene.


2022-05-06_10-38-31.jpg
Mid-century photography equipment? If so, we're looking into the concave interior surface of the reflector. The "cut off" area would seem to be a shadowed area.

steampunk-industrial-vintage-machineage-adjustable-studio-work-light-1stopretroshop-n103010-3.jpgsteampunk-industrial-vintage-machineage-adjustable-studio-work-light-1stopretroshop-n103010-1.jpg


steampunk-industrial-vintage-machineage-adjustable-studio-work-light-1stopretroshop-n103010-6.jpg


Another Photogenic Speed-Lite

photogenic-s-400-w-8080-studiomaster-speed-lite-power-supply-w16-reflect-1.35__34472.1490092358.jpg

UFO.jpg


speed-lite.png





Other models:

safer.jpgphotax_xl_studiolight_2x.jpgphotax_aluminium_studiolight_2x.jpg
 
Last edited:

DavidB66

Active Member
There's an odd blotchiness, and a dark streak above the object
Having seen some of the photographic equipment examples above, I wonder if the 'dark streak' could even be the remains of a filament from a broken bulb. It would be odd to leave this visible in a deliberate fake. Could there be any way in which a piece of disused equipment in the processing studio could have been accidentally projected into the image?
 

TopBunk

Active Member
There seems to be an awful lot of interesting noise in the image, around but not on the apparent object.

For example, are the two dots below the "saucer" with what appear to be the same triangle of dots within them evidence of a photoshop clone tool or similar?

Some images below using Forensically on a section of the newly released image [https://29a.ch/photo-forensics/#forensic-magnifier] and the settings used to bring out the noise patterns.

Is this just water blotches on the negative (from drum scanning) or something else?

Screenshot 2022-05-07 at 22.21.00.png
Screenshot 2022-05-07 at 22.20.52.png
Screenshot 2022-05-07 at 22.20.44.png
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Senior Member
AFAIK we know its on the original print, its not photoshop.

I'm not seeing how an in focus but tiny representation of a flash lamp ends up on the negative/final print, the shape is compelling though.

I feel if the negative was available it would be solved.
 

nmarsollier

New Member
indded looks like there is a wire going from the left ro the bulb in the middle of the flash. Also.that there is a bulb there.

Could have been an accodental double exposure in the black room lab?
 

Attachments

  • UFO.jpg
    UFO.jpg
    131.8 KB · Views: 36
Top