1971 Lake Cote / Lago de Cote UFO Aerial Photo

[NorCal Dave]

Thanks for the explanation. That sounds as if it is more likely that a roll of undeveloped film was damaged during the manufacturing process, perhaps.

Or during handling and loading into the camera. Maybe being removed or while in the camera itself. Pretty much anytime prior to development. Like the Calvine, McMinnville or many other classic UFO photos, we really need a collection of old analog film cameras and film to try and recreate these. A Metabunk lab with a whole collection of cameras, video recorders, old computers and other stuff. Kinda like the old Mythbusters TV show

 

[Scaramanga]

It doesn't suggest that.

Er...says who ? I just suggested it. How about a proper refutal. Nothing you've said negates the notion that the 'object' is a circular object ( such as helicopter rotors ) seen at an angle and thus adding an oval appearance.

 

[Mendel]

Er...says who ? I just suggested it.

You didn't write, "I suggest", you wrote "which suggests", which implies a logical connection. You have not demonstrated that, and it is not there.

How about a proper refutal.

I am not going to spend more effort on refuting your idea than you did on supporting it (that's not true, I actually made sure my reply was correct).

Nothing you've said negates the notion that the 'object' is a circular object ( such as helicopter rotors ) seen at an angle

yeah, but a circle seen at an angle is an ellipse, and the UFO isn't that.
That's also a different point than the one you brought up before.

and thus adding an oval appearance.

It's not oval, though.

 

[Scaramanga]

yeah, but a circle seen at an angle is an ellipse, and the UFO isn't that.
That's also a different point than the one you brought up before.
It's not oval, though.

What ? It is very clearly oval shaped.

OK, well if you're going to argue just for the sake of it then its a bit of a pointless discussion.

 

[Mendel]

What ? It is very clearly oval shaped.

I can see lots of kinks and asymmetries.
It's obvious that this was not created from a circular shape.

OK, well if you're going to argue just for the sake of it then its a bit of a pointless discussion.

You're the one who hasn't supported their argument. I asked you to, but you go ad hominem instead.

 

[Scaramanga]

I can see lots of kinks and asymmetries.
It's obvious that this was not created from a circular shape.

You're the one who hasn't supported their argument. I asked you to, but you go ad hominem instead.

This is NOT oval ???

 

[Scaramanga]

You're the one who hasn't supported their argument.

What part of 'suggests' is an argument ? It's a suggestion.

 

[JMartJr]

This is NOT oval ???

View attachment 81069

The upper edge is distinctly flattened, the left edge appear more "pointy" than an oval, though this is less clear and may be an illusion caused by the extra bright pixel there!

I mean, it is generally ovalish, but with that flat upper edge it's hard to see how the circle traced by helicopter blades would produce THIS shape. That said, I admit freely to not being an expert in helicopter blades, perhaps they do something that would create that effect that I do not know about, and that somebody with helicopter-knowing could explain...

(It is also my impression that the center point is too close to the top edge and too far from the lower edge to indicate a flat circle -- if it is a physical object, it looks distinctly conical to my eye.)

This is the closest I can find to the sort of "disc" of helicopter blades under discussion:

(https://greenmantle.biz/how-to-capture-full-disk-helicopter-photos/ -- strong contender for the most tightly focused webpage topic ever)

The most notable thing to me, as relates to the UFO picture, is how visible the helicopter is under the disk of the rotor blades...

Edited: Hit the post button before quite finishing...
Second edit: Removed pictures of the bow of the Gerald Ford with got attached somehow... computers is hard.

 

[Mendel]

This is the closest I can find to the sort of "disc" of helicopter blades under discussion:

it's the same picture and source Scaramanga originally used to suggest it is a helicopter

 

[JMartJr]

it's the same picture and source Scaramanga originally used to suggest it is a helicopter

Oh wow, that was unintentional on my part, it was not intended snarkily or anything. There just don't seem to be a lot of pics of this.

Here, I found another (I hope somebody did not use this already, too!^_^)

The point remains, though. I can't find a photo of the "full rotor disk (or disc)" of a helicopter that is not a see-through disk with a visible helicopter under it!

I also can't find a large number of such pictures -- perhaps there is a search term that would turn them up that I do not know?

Out of curiosity, I tried "full disk (disc) prop photo aircraft" to see if maybe a plane prop would give the "block what's behind it" disk. There are more pics for planes, at least to my search, and discounting ones of plane models showing ways to create a "motion blur" effect for modelers. But no joy, they're also all "translucent" see through effects.

 

[Mick West]

Yeah, there's no way it's a helicopter.

Any circle viewed at an angle from any reasonable distance can be turned back into a circle just by stretching it.
Any blurred helicopter blades is going to be concentric rings, or one flat color, and transparent

This isn't a circle. There are no rings and there are irregular shapes. It's not transparent. It's not a helicopter.

 

[Ravi]

The point remains, though. I can't find a photo of the "full rotor disk (or disc)" of a helicopter that is not a see-through disk with a visible helicopter under it!

Must be because of the shutter speed of the camera used. To make a rotor appear like a solid disc, would need shutter speeds of say 1/10 of a sec or much slower. These are impractical speeds for all photography, hence why you don't find a lot online.
Not a chopper, indeed.

I also can't find a large number of such pictures --

 

[Ann K]

Must be because of the shutter speed of the camera used. To make a rotor appear like a solid disc, would need shutter speeds of say 1/10 of a sec or much slower. These are impractical speeds for all photography, hence why you don't find a lot online.
Not a chopper, indeed.

I'm not sure how that would work, since a helicopter viewed from above at any speed is always going to be, say, 10% rotor, 90% body of helicopter. Now if the background and the helicopter are well matched in color and value, that might be enough to disguise it.

 

[Mendel]

Must be because of the shutter speed of the camera used. To make a rotor appear like a solid disc, would need shutter speeds of say 1/10 of a sec or much slower.

No, it would need for the rotor to be a solid disc.
Or for the rotor to be considerably brighter than the body.

And the "UFO" does not appear like a disc, either.

 

[Ravi]

If you make a photo of a fan or rotor, and you keep the shutter open longer than normal, that the fan will become more prominently visible. I am not sure why we disagree. I am not claiming it is a chopper guys, let that me clear. Just talking about photography.

 

[Mendel]

If you make a photo of a fan or rotor, and you keep the shutter open longer than normal, that the fan will become more prominently visible. I am not sure why we disagree. I am not claiming it is a chopper guys, let that me clear. Just talking about photography.

Right.
And per the source I gave in #312, aerial photography uses short shutter speeds, e.g. 1/225s, presumably to avoid motion blur etc. since the camera is mounted on a moving aircraft.
So that's the first reason why it's not a rotor disc.

 

[Mick West]

If you make a photo of a fan or rotor, and you keep the shutter open longer than normal, that the fan will become more prominently visible. I am not sure why we disagree. I am not claiming it is a chopper guys, let that me clear. Just talking about photography.

I think the disagreement is just with your first statement:

To make a rotor appear like a solid disc, would need shutter speeds of say 1/10 of a sec or much slower.

Once it's made a full rotation (or 1/3, with segments. It's a transparent disk. More rotations is just more exposure of everything. So, yes, you could get a solid disk, but only in the way that any transparent light thing gets more solid, by over-exposure. Here it is in steps of +0.5ev. A +1.0ev (every other image) is doubling of the exposure time

And here it is in steps of +1.0ev, or 1/25, 1/12, 1/6, 1/3 and 0.66 seconds

So it's true that:

If you make a photo of a fan or rotor, and you keep the shutter open longer than normal, that the fan will become more prominently visible.

But also true that:

it would need for the rotor to be a solid disc.
Or for the rotor to be considerably brighter than the body.

And

a helicopter viewed from above at any speed is always going to be, say, 10% rotor, 90% body of helicopter. Now if the background and the helicopter are well matched in color and value, that might be enough to disguise it.

 

[Ravi]

Right.
And per the source I gave in #312, aerial photography uses short shutter speeds, e.g. 1/225s, presumably to avoid motion blur etc. since the camera is mounted on a moving aircraft.
So that's the first reason why it's not a rotor disc.

Like I said twice already, in NO way do I think the cote lago image is showing a helicopter..

 

[JMartJr]

Like I said twice already, in NO way do I think the cote lago image is showing a helicopter..

Indeed.
The claim that it might be a helicopter was not yours. Two related discussions are blending together here --

(1) whether or not the UFO might be a helicopter, as mentioned by Scaramanga above, and, growing out of that

(2) whether it is possible for a helicopter rotor to be photographed as an opaque disk, and if so under what circumstances.

An affirmative position on (2) does not imply an affirmative position on (1). However, if the answer to (2) is "no, can't be done," that tends to rule out an affirmative answer to (1).