Photo Analysis of an Aerial Disc Over Costa Rica 1971

Originally posted by eLPresidente
It's a metallic disc shaped RC helicopter.

No no don't you see the lake below? It can't be anything else than someone kite surfing


joke aside:
thanks for bringing this to light again Zorgon. I ve already seen this photo a long time ago and now it is a good time to share this for those constantly asking for clearer pictures.
Ironically older cameras seem to work better than today's blurry mess

I've always loved this photo. A truly compelling photo of a UFO. What is it? WHAT IS IT?

Hi fellas, my first post here after just reading up on topics for a few months now, so hello!

This prompted me to join and comment as the disc here looks just like the effect produced fom a telephoto lense created in the NASA STS-75 "Tether UFO" Video, whch is Explained And Replicated here: www.youtube.com...

nice docu on the subject of usos....

reply to post by 00adam

Sorry but this looks nothing like the Tether objects. Many good threads on that here and you might want to watch this one

www.youtube.com...

I must say though I am impressed with the comments on youtube on that one you posted Seems the people are not fooled

Originally posted by Tribble

Good find, and a clear image from a reliable source.
So- they hide in the lakes!

Not only in lakes Tribble, here are some very interesting threads that could be of your interest.
It’s entirely about the so called USO phenomenon.
Personally I have no doubt whatsoever that the USO phenomenon is unmistakable connected with the UFO/UAP phenomenon.

USO Research

www.abovetopsecret.com...

UFOs,USOs and the Island of Puerto Rico

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Water related UFO/USO phenomenon: Suboceanic Intelligence?,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wow!!!!!!

It's one of Xena's breast-plates!

Well this is better than the balloons anyway.

I have no clue what it is.

S&F btw




www.ufologie.net...

The absence of any shadows on the surface of the earth tends to suggest that the object itself is at or close to the surface; Hence, no shadow of the disk would be expected. Equally intriguing is the fuzzy area on the left side of the disk, which may be explained by the possibility that the disk was partially submerged, producing the irregular boundary. Aside from visual inspections of the negative and enlarged prints, with different contrasts, computer enhancement was used to uncover further details after which the authors concluded:

"In summary, our analyses have suggested that an unidentified, opaque, aerial object was captured on film at a maximum distance of 10,000 feet. There are no visible means of lift or propulsion and no surface markings other than dark regions that appear to be nonrandom... There is no indication that the image is the product of a double exposure or a deliberate fabrication."

Haines, and Vallée, 1989.

Computer scientist and ufologist Jacques Vallée participated in this photograph's analysis and stated in a recent interview:

"Digital enhancement of photographs is very useful. In my book, Confrontations, I mention the photograph that I brought back from Costa Rica, which was unusual because the object was over a lake [Lago de Cote], so there was a uniform black background. Everything is known about the aircraft that took the photo. At the time the picture was taken, nobody on the plane had seen the object. It was only after the film was developed that the object was discovered. The camera used was exceptional: It produced a very large negative - ten inches, very detailed. You can see cows in the field. The time is known; the latitude, longitude and altitude of the aircraft is known. So we spent a lot of time analyzing that photograph, without being able to find any obvious natural answer to the object. It seems to be a very large, solid thing."

"I obtained the negative from the government of Costa Rica - if you don't have the negative, analysis is a waste of time. I also obtained the negative of the picture taken before and the picture after, all uncut. I took negatives to a friend of mine in France who works for a firm that digitally analyzes satellite photographs. They digitized the entire thing, and then analyzed it to the extent that they could, and could not find an explanation for the object."

This photograph,which has been thoroughly investigated, is on tof the may photographic prrof of the reality of UFOs as solid and material crafts of non terrestrial origin.

How about a shirt button? No eh? lol

The photo above (cropped and enlarged) was taken by a Costa Rican government mapping plane during an aerial mapping mission. This UFO photograph is unique for several reasons. 1) The photograph was taken by a high-quality, professional camera. 2) The unidentified object is plainly visible against the uniformly dark background of the lake and appears in sharp focus. 3) The camera was aimed downward and the plane was flying at a known, fixed altitude (10,000 feet), which makes it easy to calculate a maximum size for the object (683 feet).

The plane carried a crew of four; a specialist in aerial photography, a geographer, a topographer, and the pilot. No member of the crew stated that they saw anything unusual during the routine flight.

www.ufoevidence.org...

According to this article, no member of the crew saw anything unusual

during the routine flight. How does one miss an object 683 feet?

It's not a camera artifact. hmmmm

reply to post by spacevisitor


Thanks for the links I will check em out. I always thought they might be in the ocean since we haven't or can't look that deep.

My avatar is a new found fish from deep off the Australian reef.
I did stretch it for Halloween though


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9bda1d94[/img]

reply to post by Chadwickus

How nice, it's been turned into a skeptic bashing thread.

Sigh! Read my posts! I have nothing against skeptics. I have said i dont like the de-bunkers and hardcore believers that plaugue most threads. In any ufo thread, you need decent skeptics in there too.

For your information, I was the first to flag this thread, I read it, enjoyed the change from the October 13 crap, then flagged it and moved on.

You flagged it, good for you! Read my posts in the october 13th threads, and you will see that i hate the hardcore believers, who just believe everything they see/read, just like i don't like the clueless de-bunkers who don't offer anything to the subject.

I can accept that the image hasn't been manipulated and I can accept Marilyn E. Bruner's rebuttal as well, fact is there doesn't seem to be that much more information about it.

What we have here is an almost perfect photo of a disc shapped ufo. No fuzzy photo or blurry pic. And it was not just some random person on the street. I don't know what it is. Maybe a secret government project,who knows. While its not evidence of ET, its evidence that there are some strange things flying in our airspace.

I also don't see why you're demanding skeptics and debunkers to come in here and say their piece.

Erm, i said i wanted decent skeptics in the thread to offer something new about the photo, whats wrong with that?

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Jay-morris

 

How nice, it's been turned into a skeptic bashing thread.

For your information, I was the first to flag this thread, I read it, enjoyed the change from the October 13 crap, then flagged it and moved on.

I can accept that the image hasn't been manipulated and I can accept Marilyn E. Bruner's rebuttal as well, fact is there doesn't seem to be that much more information about it.

I also don't see why you're demanding skeptics and debunkers to come in here and say their piece.

I agree, Oct 13th was total crapOla!

But I do wonder about the sheer size of this saucer-like object 683' in diameter

and wonder how the crew didn't notice anything unusual whilst 10,000' up.

reply to post by KIZZZY


The october the 13th sightings are a complete joke, and shows all the things that is wrong with the ufo subject. Thats why it was good to see this thread. A good old fashioned case

Yes, i wonder too why they missed the object. I wonder if there are any interviews with the crew. Maybe they explained how they could miss the object.

reply to post by Jay-morris


Yes, saw you on that thread. A complete waste of time and energy

if you ask me! I am thru with that thread. One can talk till one is

blue in the face ...you can't reach the people who want to hear

and see what they want. le shrug.



IDK if there was an interview with the crew of that 1971 pic. but I do

think that object was massive and could hardly be an oversight



Something reflecting from under the water?

Originally posted by KIZZZY
But I do wonder about the sheer size of this saucer-like object 683' in diameter

and wonder how the crew didn't notice anything unusual whilst 10,000' up.

It's not that strange, because as it seems in the second link posted in the OP, the object was there for just a fraction of time.

Abstract-The original negative of the Costa Rica film of an oval aerial disc-like object was obtained and carefully analyzed.

On the basis of a very careful examination of the preceding and following frame, under different levels of magnification, it is clear that a second image of this aerial disc is not present in either one (unless it is concealed behind a dense cloud).

Therefore, it must have flown into and then out of the field of view of frame 300 within a 20 second period of time or otherwise become invisible.

Assuming that the object did not simply disappear, but travelled in a straight line, it is possible to calculate its maximum speed of travel.

Assuming that the disc flew along a straight west to east path at ground level, it would have had to travel about 1,988 miles per hour to traverse the entire distance from its current image location on frame 300 to just beyond the eastern edge of frame 299 (a distance equivalent to 1 1.04 miles). Likewise, R. F. ~ a i n easn d J. F. Vallee assuming that the object travelled along a straight line connecting its current position to the SW comer of the same frame (No. 300) (7.92 miles), moving generally southwest in the same general direction as the thin, parallel fingers of light originating on the body of the object, it would have had to travel at least 1,425 miles per hour.

Seventh. We examined frame 299 and 301 under various magnifications in the same region of the lake where the disc is found. We were looking for any kind of disturbance to the surface of the water. There was none.

www.scientificexploration.org...

I found this on google....now....are those disc-like objects under

the water concave or convex? And....is that some sort of volcanic

type dome? And....I know, I know, I am grasping for straws but...

well.....I don't know so I will paste it anyway....


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a5301194e4d4.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Jay-morris
I find it very frustrating when i good photo, and case comes along like this, and its ignored by certain people who can't de-bunk it. It really makes me think that some people don't give a crap about the subject, and are only interested in de-bunking. At least can we have one skeptic join this thread to get another opinion. Is that to much to ask for?

Agreed. Debunkers are only interested in things they can debunk. Things like this which (IMO) are pretty much solid 100% proof of a UFO craft, will never be touched by these people because it will shatter their precious "Earth is special
& only planet with life" world view. Great find. S &F. Keep fighting the good fight.

reply to post by KIZZZY


I looks convex to me. Can you give some coordinates to look if it is near any tectonic plates are known volcanic regions? And could you try measuring the "disks" to get a size comparison to some other reports of U.S.O's?

reply to post by Xionmir

Here it is!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/de2a60ccf803.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to poolst by KIZZZY


Im sure there is a perfectly good explanation why those underwater structures look like pyramids right? lol

I find that very odd....those cant be pryamids....tell me they arent pyramids!!!

I am not trying to be a tool OP but I have no idea what I am looking at in the original photo you posted. Can somebody please explain what we are looking at or is it the whole picture in general.

Thanks in advance.