1971 Lake Cote / Lago de Cote UFO Aerial Photo

[Ann K]

Perhaps it was just an artifact of the filming and developing process, but it looks to me more like a deliberate creation. Either way, it seems to have been deliberately represented at some time as something that it's not, so it's still a hoax.

Metabunk and it's community are a great resource for examining and analyzing imaging problems and for worrying out the details of a given complex scenario. But sometimes when I read these threads it reminds me of a group of people in lab coats standing around trying to figure out how someone got a jackrabbit to mate with an antelope.

"It's a hoax", while sometimes true, is often the lazy way to dismiss a thing. That's usually what we DON'T do here. If it's a hoax, we want to know how and why it was done before drawing that conclusion. If it's a mistake, a misidentification, a genuinely strange thing, we want to know that as well. People throw their initial ideas into the ring for discussion first before they are "tested to destruction".

 

[JMartJr]

Perhaps it was just an artifact of the filming and developing process, but it looks to me more like a deliberate creation. Either way, it seems to have been deliberately represented at some time as something that it's not, so it's still a hoax.

It is not a hoax if it was presented in good faith and was not intentionally faked. It could still be any of several things, including a hoax. But just saying "It is a hoax" is not evidence that it is one! Earlier you'd posted about double exposure and a high hat cymbal. Can you walk me through how that would be done, using the system that was used to make this photo. |

I'd suggest being a bit cautious about conflating "it looks like a thing" with "it is that thing." It does indeed look something like a cymbal. It also looks rather a lot like a conchoidal fracture in a pane of glass -- when I first saw it, I was pretty sure that's what it was. Later evidence convinced me that was not the case -- but it still looks a lot like one!

Heck, it looks a LOT like this illustration of something to do with flint knapping:
https://www.chegg.com/homework-help...s-stone-tools-artifacts-due-resista-q36460622

I don't think that's what it is.

Metabunk and it's community are a great resource for examining and analyzing imaging problems and for worrying out the details of a given complex scenario. But sometimes when I read these threads it reminds me of a group of people in lab coats standing around trying to figure out how someone got a jackrabbit to mate with an antelope.

That may be an unavoidable side effect of the process, especially if you really would prefer a simple solution. But as you note, the technique does seem to yield results.

 

[Ravi]

@DarkLight

A hoaxer would've have to create fake aerial images in an obscure format, that are not possible to make if you are not in an aircraft using a dedicated camera, photographing the scenes.
Unless you believe it was recreated using models and such.. I am not seeing this a real option.
I think it is an artefact, as we discussed very early in this thread. We just don't have a good way in making sure it was.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Metabunk and it's community are a great resource for examining and analyzing imaging problems and for worrying out the details of a given complex scenario. But sometimes when I read these threads it reminds me of a group of people in lab coats standing around trying to figure out how someone got a jackrabbit to mate with an antelope.

But for most of us, that's a fun part of it all. These are puzzles to be worked out. I would also argue that good debunking is accurate debunking, or at least as accurate as possible.

If someone presented a "jack-a-lope" as curiosity or gaff, we likely wouldn't spend much time on it. If, like many UFO, paranormal and cryptid claims, someone presented a "jack-a-lope" as evidence of a real animal, we may in fact put on our virtual lab coats to understand if it's a hoax and if so how was it done. Maybe it's not a hoax, but a rabbit with Shopes rabbit papilloma virus, which is real and causes horn like growths on some rabbits:

The Shope papilloma virus (SPV), also known as cottontail rabbit papilloma virus (CRPV) or Kappapapillomavirus 2, is a papillomavirus which infects certain species of rabbit and hare, causing cancerous lesions (carcinomas) resembling horns, typically on or near the animal's head.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shope_papilloma_virus

Jack-a-lopes are known hoax and it's likely anyone presenting one as a real creature is presenting a hoax, but not necessarily. If in fact they are presenting a CRPV infected rabbit, dismissing it as a hoax is inaccurate.

Similarly with the Cote Lago UFO, it may be a hoax, created with known objects and a double exposure. Or it may be an artifact from the camera, or the making of analog copies of the negatives, or a number of other things. Figuring out exactly, or as close as possible, to what we are actually seeing, isn't just a fun puzzle, it's a good exercise in proper debunking.

 

[jackfrostvc]

There was a similarish pic allegedly taken from a russian satellite showing a disk shape in I think the Area 51/Papoose lake area. Supposedly it was obtained by Jon Farhat from New Line Cinema when they were working on the film of Bob Lazar in the 90's. Bob had sold the movie rights to his story which passed hands from a number of studios till it got to New Line who in the end also didn't go ahead with the film

I don't know where this pic is now. But I remember Bob's friend Gene Huff later said they had found out it was a photographic artifact I believe. It popped up in recent years, I believe Corbell had reposted about it. I don't believe it came with Gene's explanation though. Sorry , I know this is vague.

 

[JMartJr]

There was a similarish pic allegedly taken from a russian satellite showing a disk shape in I think the Area 51/Papoose lake area.

This?

Found by Googing variations on the descriptive words, the image popped up with essentially no context here:
Source: https://imgur.com/ueSi3fb


Last minute addition: It seems to be discussed to some extent here:

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/s3d4rp/the_real_location_of_s4_according_to_bob_lazar/

 

[jackfrostvc]

Yes that looks like it

And here is Bob Lazar's close friend at the time who was stuck to him like a rash in the early days talking about that disk russian sat image

 

[ThomasH]

The Costa Rica case from 1971 is one of the cases I still find interesting. Mostly because the data is so good, and the image exists in 17,000 × 17,000 pixels, so there is no reason to complain that it is blurry

We know exactly which camera and lens it was taken with, we know precisely where and when, at what altitude and where the sun was, so I made a 3D reconstruction a couple of years ago.

Now I see the case is trending a bit again, so I tried to use my 3D version to determine how large the object could actually have been, if it was an object. Simply by scaling it relative to altitude, so it appears the same size in the image at different heights from 0 to 2300 m.

It clearly was not right above the water, because then you would be able to see a reflection.
Up to 1000 m also does not seem possible, since you should be able to see a shadow on the ground, and there is nothing at all.
If it had been under 20 m from the camera, it would have been out of focus, so it has to be somewhere between those distances

The debate is still what it was. As always, I would say that a spacecraft from another planet is probably the least likely explanation.
It is definitely not a flaw in the glass, since it does not appear in the images before and after.
A flaw in the film is unfortunately the most boring and most likely explanation.

But it is still interesting and fun to have enough data to analyze and recreate it


Source: https://youtu.be/Bu03kUBCLS0

 

[jarlrmai]

I can scan things at crazy resolutions as well, it doesn't mean that we have any more data

 

[ThomasH]

I can scan things at crazy resolutions as well, it doesn't mean that we have any more data

By data I mean, time, location, height, lens, angle etc.

 

[jarlrmai]

What is needed is physical examination of the remaining, if any, intermediate physical stages of the print transfer from the original film.

Scanning the print again doesn't really help.

 

[ThomasH]

What is needed is physical examination of the remaining, if any, intermediate physical stages of the print transfer from the original film.

Scanning the print again doesn't really help.

I'm pretty sure it is a negative scan, isn't it ?

 

[Ravi]

@ThomasH It is interesting, but you are leaping over the idea that it might not have been an physical object, but a camera artefact.

 

[NorCal Dave]

What is needed is physical examination of the remaining, if any, intermediate physical stages of the print transfer from the original film.

Scanning the print again doesn't really help.

This far along , has anyone yet confirmed the object actually appears on the archived negative? IIRC, Vallee said it did, but that's just 2nd hand to us. Back on page 1, Mick was getting some prints from somewhere that were supposedly made from contacts of the original, but still not the original.

 

[JMartJr]

@ThomasH It is interesting, but you are leaping over the idea that it might not have been an physical object, but a camera artefact.

He says:

A flaw in the film is unfortunately the most boring and most likely explanation.

But to explore all avenues, it is worth looking into "If it WAS am object, what properties would it have to have had?"

If it had been under 20 m from the camera, it would have been out of focus,

I assume this is derived from properties of the camera/lens?

 

[ThomasH]

He says:



But to explore all avenues, it is worth looking into "If it WAS am object, what properties would it have to have had?"



I assume this is derived from properties of the camera/lens?

Exactly. I think it might be an artifact in the film, but if was impossible to recreate it too, it would be closer to a debunk. But it's actually possible for it to be an object, that's all I tried to prove.

Yes I made the Blender camera with the exact lens and sensor specification, it's pretty accurate in everything I've tested with real cameras, so I believe it's true.