# 1971 Lake Cote / Lago de Cote UFO Aerial Photo

The terminology is getting really confusing, to me anyway.

You just have to remember that in a silver halide process (most photography of yore), light causes darkness on the target medium.
So when you shine light through an original, what is light in the original causes darkness in the target.
Therefore making a true copy of either a negative or a positive slide requires two of these inversion steps to restore the original parity.

For reference, I'm no fan of the wikipedia wording you quoted. I learnt by doing at a very amateurish level, and didn't grow up with the formal terminology, and their description doesn't correspond to what I did and saw. The "inter-" denotation in general us useful though, it tells you it's the half-way inverted step of a duplication process.
(Ug, I might confuse matters if I add that the inter itself isn't intrinsically an interpositive or an internegative, as it doesn't know what it's the inverse of, it just carries lightness where there was darkness and darkness where there was lightness. Ooops, too late.)

The "inter-" denotation in general us useful though, it tells you it's the half-way inverted step of a duplication process.
"inter" is just Latin for "between".

Intermission is a break between two acts.
Interlock is a lock between two pieces.
Intersection is a crossing between two streets.
Intermarriage is a marriage between two groups.
Etc.

below i've resized the "saucer" and aligned it with the elements on the edge of the negative in it's original orientation.
I've had another try at this.
It just seems too coincidental that the lighting on the dial and the object are so similar while the lighting on the object is completely at odds with the landscape.
Below I've copied and moved the dial across from it's position on the edge of the frame without resizing it.
I've resized the object to the same height and positioned one copy below and one to the right of the dial.
This shows that the thin strip of shadow on the left side of the dial looks proportionally the same on both the object and the dial. The shadow follows the same line.
The curves and some of the shadows on the different levels of curve inside the dial face also look very similar to the object. If you adjust for scale and layer them on top of each other they are the same.
The illumination from the left hand side is similar - if not the same.
However we're suppose to believe that a flying disc flew under the plane in precisely the same orientation to an element inside the camera...

Last edited by a moderator:
Okay. Several things, and a question.

This is the kind of machine they used to copy negatives. This is a KG30. It was a very physical process.

The "auxiliary data" is on the dials on the edge of the frame which I think look like the "UFO".

Also not only is this process very physical but they also used to physically mark aerial photographs, making a hole in the emulsion. The description of which is similar to how you might describe the "UFO".

Question: are we looking at a deliberate marking on the frame - and on other frames. What would one of these marks look like when a diapositive copy is made from the original using the pressurised KG 30?

#### Attachments

• Screenshot 2022-05-14 at 00.30.22.png
405.6 KB · Views: 147
Last edited by a moderator:
The "auxiliary data" is on the dials on the edge of the frame which I think look like the "UFO".

The "fiducials [..] exposed with natural object light" refers to what laypeople would call grid marks, not the auxiliary data.
Article:
FIDUCIAL MARKS: Index marks, located in the corners or edge-centres of an aerial photograph, rigidly connected with the camera lens through the camera body. They are used to define the frame of reference for spatial measurements in photogrammetry.

"inter" is just Latin for "between".

Intermission is a break between two acts.
Interlock is a lock between two pieces.
Intersection is a crossing between two streets.
Intermarriage is a marriage between two groups.
Etc.

Your interlocutor studied latin at school.

Perhaps a silly question, but if I took it, aren't PM1 markings expected to be there in negatives? Unless perhaps if aerial work has never been used for mapping.

RE: [#69] & the object in frame 299. These are the images from [#14] aligned. (I'm ignoring the drum scan for the moment because it's been so heavily edited). You can see how certain ground features (boxed in green) are catching the light much more in 299 than in 300.

The same seems to be the case lower down in the image across the three frames. The thing in the box is an example.

Of course it is impossible to tell what is real, a defect or has been removed on these prints as these are old photos of photos.

Last edited by a moderator:
You should make sure you're using images from #14 as frame 300 at least doesn't look so in resolution and shade. In frame 300 from #14 there's a small white dot nearby the one you pointed in frame 299. Assuming that it might be a small cloud formation, one would expect a large displacement like large clouds. However, if that small cloud formation was very near ground, it wouldn't be displaced that much and maybe just a small distance as this. I don't know if this is the answer, but it would explain those two small white dots in different positions.

Note that frame 300 below is rotated 180º relative to frames in post above.

My mistake I used frame 300 from [#1] and 299/301 from [#14]. Same difference really.

Recently I went through hundreds of old aerial (and some earthbound) pictures from roughly 1930-1970, looking for similar defects...here is a quick collage of my findings...nothing too impressive but I thought it'd be a good idea to reference some other photos...

Image sources:

https://ba.e-pics.ethz.ch

https://britainfromabove.org.uk

(Very low-res downloads but interestingly a large gallery full of images from damaged negatives...)

There is probably more to find there but I'm exhausted

#### Attachments

• defCompSourceImgs.zip
31.1 MB · Views: 171
Here is info page on drum scan services by Michael Strickland Photography in Kansas, where Carranza claims to have had his negative drum scanned to 1.7GB. Looks like he paid \$125 for it. A 4GB scan would cost twice that.

Drum scans have a freebie dust cleanup at 60% (100% would be surcharged 25%) so it seems Carranza forgot to waive such complimentary add-on under "special requests" in the form

Maybe Carranza might try asking for an unclean drum scan by saying he forgot to waive the freebie and save \$125 (or \$250 if upgrading) to have it scanned again. An unclean scan would be more informative even if that's not a true negative anyway.

https://www.michaelstricklandimages.com/drum-scanning-service

Here is info page on drum scan services by Michael Strickland Photography in Kansas, where Carranza claims to have had his negative drum scanned to 1.7GB. Looks like he paid \$125 for it. A 4GB scan would cost twice that.

Drum scans have a freebie dust cleanup at 60% (100% would be surcharged 25%) so it seems Carranza forgot to waive such complimentary add-on under "special requests" in the form

Maybe Carranza might try asking for an unclean drum scan by saying he forgot to waive the freebie and save \$125 (or \$250 if upgrading) to have it scanned again. An unclean scan would be more informative even if that's not a true negative anyway.

https://www.michaelstricklandimages.com/drum-scanning-service

Given the cleanup is digital it's likely the pre-cleanup version still exists.

I guess so, and suggest Carranza might ask for it and send it to UAP UK as they wouldn't appreciate to have acquired a cleanup scan for sure.

It’s been requested. See [#142].

Recently I went through hundreds of old aerial (and some earthbound) pictures from roughly 1930-1970, looking for similar defects...here is a quick collage of my findings...nothing too impressive but I thought it'd be a good idea to reference some other photos...

Image sources:

https://ba.e-pics.ethz.ch

https://britainfromabove.org.uk

(Very low-res downloads but interestingly a large gallery full of images from damaged negatives...)

There is probably more to find there but I'm exhausted
Most (perhaps all) of these are examples of fungal growth; so not apropos.

Re [#144] aren't the scratches typical when looking at film this closely? For example they appear everywhere in this aerial mosaic, most noticeably over darker areas of water. (examples below). Aren't they just a result of how the film is spooled through the camera and/or handled during development?
https://digimap.maps.arcgis.com/apps/StorytellingSwipe/index.html?a&appid=3f19d179f7104f0b9c1376051cbc2f93
Note that some scratches are white and some black. When talking about b&w photography, these are some causes for scratch marks visible on a print.

Something happened to the negative:

Black: Emulsion scratches - The emulsion has been removed and leaves a clear area on the negative. More light gets through the negative, so the print emulsion is exposed to more light.

(Processed emulsion is not gel-like but is fragile more like the way chalk is fragile.)

Very faint/blurry: The emulsion is not bare. There's a tough coat on top. Very light scratching of this layer might just look like a line of blurriness. This is the kind of scratch that can be be corrected through the use of an optical printer with a wet transfer film gate.

White: Base scratches - The tough side of the film is the back or "base." When this is scratched or gouged not much material is lost, but usually the film just gets distorted. This lets less light through (directly, anyway) and the print emulsion is exposed to less light.

White: An emulsion scratch so deep that it has distorted the base.

White: Sometimes the negative gets marked rather than scratched. In other words, something soft/waxy gets smeared on the film.

Something happened to the print:

White: Emulsion has been scratched off. Paper is showing through paper print; more light is shining through transparency print.

Any color: Something soft/waxy has become smeared across the print.

And there are scratches along the way the film travels through the camera/projector/printer, and scratches across that path.

This all gets more complicated when there are multiple generations.

Last edited:
If it is a lens flare/reflection then,

1.What is the source of the reflected light?

My understanding of lens flares is that they are typically caused by light just outside of the frame.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare

2. Could the source of the light be an object on the ground reflecting back up at the camera?

I arranged the three frames in a mosaic along the guides lines in this document.
Source: http://www.edc.uri.edu/nrs/classes/NRS409/RS/Lectures/409509Class2-2008.pdf
(pink line is the direction of flight taken by connecting the principle points of each photo, yellow is the direction of sunlight, green is a proposed path from a source of reflected light to the object).

There is one building which appears in frame 299 but which is just outside of frame 300.

3. Could that building be momentarily reflecting light from the east back up at the camera to produce the flare/reflection?

4. If it could be an effect produced from a reflecting object on the ground I wonder if this is the reason for the deliberate removal of such items in the recent drum scan. It could also be from one of the white objects beside the lake much closer to the object that were removed. See examples in [#175]

5. If it is a lens flare/reflection wouldn’t you expect the see streaking across the image such as in these examples? (However these are taken from an oblique angle not vertical). The camera in the Lake Cote photo is tilted slightly in the direction of the planes flight.

Source: https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/SPW047884

Source:https://britainfromabove.org.uk/en/image/SPW022108

There are a few examples of lens flares/reflections on Google earth images taken from a vertical position. However they all appear to be when the light is reflecting directly off the object to the camera.

Source:

5. If it's not light from a source on the ground what other source could produce this effect? A reflection off part of the aircraft? Something else out of the frame?

6. Are there any examples of lens flares/camera reflections in vertical aerial photography that don't also have connecting streaks?

Last edited by a moderator:
If it's not light from a source on the ground what other source could produce this effect? A reflection off part of the aircraft? Something else out of the frame?
Earlier in the thread, we talked about the "viewfinder" protrusion that is part of the camera setup, and looks like it'd be located just out of frame. If the sun position was just right and the aircraft tilted just so, could a lens flare occur?

Earlier in the thread, we talked about the "viewfinder" protrusion that is part of the camera setup, and looks like it'd be located just out of frame. If the sun position was just right and the aircraft tilted just so, could a lens flare occur?
Would it not also be visible in the other frames too? I mean, nothing changes from frame to frame (except flight position).

5. If it's not light from a source on the ground what other source could produce this effect? A reflection off part of the aircraft? Something else out of the frame?
A specular reflection of the Sun on the surface of the lake.

6. Are there any examples of lens flares/camera reflections in vertical aerial photography that don't also have connecting streaks?
Here is an almost streak-less example of a pond or small lake reflecting the sun:

#### Attachments

• WIH_FLv08-842.jpg
818.7 KB · Views: 137
A specular reflection of the Sun on the surface of the lake.
The sun's altitude (42 degrees) and position behind to the camera don't support a specular reflection of the sun in the lake acting as a plane mirror. There would have to be something reflecting the light other than the surface of the water.

Here is an almost streak-less example of a pond or small lake reflecting the sun:

This is interesting. Although it looks like the sun is closer to noon than the Lake Cote photo. Does the source give the time of day?

I did find these galleries when looking for anomalies in aerial photos, they include an amazing Glory and shadow of the aircraft which is visible across multiple frames in this collection. (although again, I don't think this is an explanation because sun position would need to be directly behind the observer)
https://ncap.org.uk/search?page=3&archive=24-1-27

And these wrinkled negatives with streaking across the image. It's not clear what caused these.
https://ncap.org.uk/search?page=10&archive=24-1

(you can zoom the images if you make an account - however that function seems to not be working at the moment).

Last edited by a moderator:
It’s been requested. See [#142].
Can you please link to posts, don't use post numbers. There's a link icon on the right. And if you want to reference something in a post, then reply to that post.

Here's a blemish on multiple frames (63) of a 1944 aerial survey of Saudi Arabia shot vertically. What do we think caused this?

Last edited by a moderator:
Translations:

Picture 1 enlarged - Many white probes a black one conspicuous. Probe scratches in high speed. (Similar to Tupi movie (TV) 1957. Probes also present in Trindade Island case... the probes [phrase truncated?]

Picture N. 3 - Enlargement

Picture n. 3 - Track scratches - On enlargement the probes are more [phrase truncated]

5th Picture - 3.000m far away - No zooming done. It can be seen a vertical scratch that crosses the "object" and a conspicuous white "probe" - zoomed in computer it got better [not sure what they mean here]

From Reddit (source):

"The Trindade Island Case is related to the alleged appearance, on January 16, 1958, of an unidentified flying object over Trindade Island, which would have been sighted by some members of the crew of the school ship Almirante Saldanha, of the Brazilian Navy, then anchored on the island."

Hi all. I will meet Mr. Sergio Loaiza today. He is one of the technicians on board of the plane used to take this pictures. Any thing you would like to know from him regarding these pictures?

Hi all. I will meet Mr. Sergio Loaiza today. He is one of the technicians on board of the plane used to take this pictures. Any thing you would like to know from him regarding these pictures?
Hi, thats is interesting!

Perhaps you could ask him if there was a navigation scope in use at the time? You can see the picture of it in post #222.

Thanks for the help!

Hi all. I will meet Mr. Sergio Loaiza today. He is one of the technicians on board of the plane used to take this pictures. Any thing you would like to know from him regarding these pictures?
Ask him if there's a way something could be manually inserted into the shot on the plane - like, say, a button on a glass slide. i.e. is there an accessible gap, or would it be impossible.

Ask him if anyone has done a microscopic examination of the true camera negative. I ask this because I think this is a pressure mark. A foreign body trapped between layers of film in the film roll has caused the film to become physically distorted. A physical distortion that can be seen, or potentially felt with a finger tip.

To me, this looks like a wrinkled surface. Concentrate on the left side.

Negative image

Last edited:
There's a somewhat similar thing in these photos
that thing is absolutely a drain stopper you use in your sinks or bathtub.

Hi. I'd like to know 1) what exactly Sérgio Loaiza handed to Ricardo Vílches to be analyzed by Ground Saucer Watch in 1979. 2) If he can date as precisely as possible (year at least) when they first found the anomaly in picture and 3) who from Government ordered them to make silence on their finding. 4) If he's aware of claimed original negatives handed by Vílches and colleagues for the article by Vallee and Haines from 1990 and if he can confirm they were originals indeed.

If you're in Costa Rica it would be great if you can you check original negatives in National Archive.

Hi all. I will meet Mr. Sergio Loaiza today. He is one of the technicians on board of the plane used to take this pictures. Any thing you would like to know from him regarding these pictures?
I'd ask him to if he can make an appointment to view the original camera negative at the Costa Rica Land Registry Office in San Jose with someone who can document the visit. (San Gerardo, San José, 11801, Costa Rica).

Ask him if anyone has done a microscopic examination of the true camera negative. I ask this because I think this is a pressure mark.
would be good to know if such pressure marks are a common occurrence (or foreign objects etc.)

might be useful to also get his opinion on the "chipped glass" hypothesis

Hola. Me gustaría saber 1) qué le entregó exactamente Sérgio Loaiza a Ricardo Vílches para que lo analizara Ground Saucer Watch en 1979. 2) Si puede datar con la mayor precisión posible (al menos el año) cuándo encontraron la anomalía por primera vez en la imagen y 3) quienes desde Gobierno les ordenaron guardar silencio sobre su hallazgo. 4) Si tiene conocimiento de los supuestos negativos originales entregados por Vílches y colegas para el artículo de Vallee y Haines de 1990 y si puede confirmar que efectivamente eran originales.

Si estás en Costa Rica, sería genial que pudieras revisar los negativos originales en el Archivo Nacional.

Just for the record, an interesting interview with Don Sérgio Loaiza from "Revista Dominical" 14 Nov. 2021 (a magazine from newspaper La Nación that shows up on Sundays).

Unfortunately pictures weren't captured, but can be seen on the next link (which is not archived though).

Revista Dominical 11-14-2021

Revista Dominical - print

Replies
51
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
830
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
1K