1971 Lake Cote / Lago de Cote UFO Aerial Photo

jarlrmai

Active 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: 135

Leak

New 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

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...
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: 116

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: 7
  • screen1.JPG
    screen1.JPG
    122.2 KB · Views: 38
  • screen2.JPG
    screen2.JPG
    23.5 KB · Views: 42
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

Active 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?
 
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