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 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...
If the blemish was introduced at an intermediate step during the development process, it would just leave a 2D image on the finished print.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...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.
...or notIf the blemish was introduced at an intermediate step during the development process, it would just leave a 2D image on the finished print.
Interesting. Out of interest, inverted it, which turned it blue-tinged, then shifted color towards sepia to match original pic better. Very, very interesting...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...
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.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...
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.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?
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 hypothesis, would be interesting to see if there is a chance to get the whole photoset to look for similar artifacts.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...
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.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...
I'm not sure what you mean. But I'm suspecting the answer would be no.@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.
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.
Looks like the reflction of a lawntern@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
View attachment 44230
And yeah, there is that bigger rectangle you pointed out. The image seems to have been edited in photoshop
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.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.
View attachment 51181
The camera is mounted in a plane facing the ground, I think the model has been linked earlier in the thread.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?
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.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.
View attachment 51181
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?There's an odd blotchiness, and a dark streak above the object
i think that's a cloud.is that seems that there is another shource of light (yellow)