Because the image is vertically compressed (as if tilted)—you can see that on the street grid as well. It's still aligned due north.
Yes, it does.The image you provided does not support that claim.
I picked the image because the source it comes from is a lesson on how to lay out a flight path for aerial photography that does not reference the cardinal directions, supporting the claim that they're not important. The not-north-aligned flight path is just a visual representation of it. I did not check the map when I posted it because I assumed it was north-aligned, which it is. Please observe the street grid of Del Mar Heights to confirm that.If you have an image that supports that claim, perhaps you should have embedded that image.
No, both transformations leave horizontal lines/axes horizontal, like the street grid at Del Mar.You do realise that "vertically compressed" plus "tilted" can turn any set of axes into any other set of axes,
"vertically compressed" plus "tilted", I wrote
vertically compressed (as if tilted), which constrains the tilt to "away from the viewer". Vertical compression leaves vertical lines intact.
Just strike the "(as if tilted)", it's in parentheses anyway and does zero lifting.I hope. (The "tilted" does a lot of the heavy lifting here, by the time you were typing that you should have considered whether your argument could be miscontrued as "red is blue if you rotate the palate".)
Looks exactly like a cymbal ....could it be possible somebody chucked something from the plane
It appears so. If you drop the brightness you can see the pitch of the roof catching the light.
There are also two other ground objects much closer to the "flying saucer".
A roundish looking thing they airbrushed out completely on the recent drum scan.
Do we think that's something on the print or something real on the ground?
The other building (in the red box) you can see in more detail on the drum scan and that it's a also a building with a pitched roof somewhat catching the light.
Also notice the green box. They airbrushed out the fiducial mark and the light bleed.
The source could be anywhere outside the frame , but doesn't have to be.This is useful info. fig 1.8 seems to support the idea that the point light source could be far outside of the frame. (Unless I’m misunderstanding it). Perhaps a reflection from the lake as someone suggested earlier in the thread. (I wonder if more images from the mosaic from the parallel pass to the North that the aircraft took could be retrieved from the Costa Rica land registry).
If the point source is the building you indicate wouldn’t there be more than the single ghost at the far edge of the frame?
Playing about with my basic zoom and contrast functions, I was surprised to see an appearance by the Blessed Virgin Mary...
...in a rather oversized robe and maybe wearing a floral crown.
(Pareidolia, of course).
I thought the artefact was on the original negative?This ties in with my suggestion earlier in this thread somewhere that the 'ufo' is a blob of something and the image we see is of a person, possibly the photo developing technician, as they look onto the imaging table when the photo was being resampled.
The link from @deirdre in #47 is I think the answer to the question if the ufo was already on the negative:https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1971-lake-cote-lago-de-cote-ufo-aerial-photo.11729/post-248498
Are those negatives or positives?