Costa Rica UFO analysis

[DaveC426913]

On the contrary. A fast enough moving object would show up in only one frame

And would have motion blur.

Odd that this does not then.

 

[Magical Realist]

And would have motion blur.

Odd that this does not then.

Not necessarily. I could post photos of any number of flying craft that aren't blurry.

 

[Magical Realist]

Analysis of the original photo and its negative:

https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/4/jse_04_1_haines.pdf

Photo Analysis of an Aerial Disc Over Costa Rica: New Evidence

RICHARD F. HAINES 325 Langton Avenue, Los Altos, CA 94022 and JACQUES F. VALLEE 2882 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025

"Abstract-The original negative of the Costa Rica film of an oval aerial disc-like object was obtained and carefully analyzed. Not only was there no evidence of optical defects, deliberate hoax, or support for other prosaic explanations for the disc image, but interesting new surface details were found, all of which possess the same oblique orientation. The disc shaped object remains unidentified."

 

[DaveC426913]

Not necessarily. I could post photos of any number of flying craft that aren't blurry.

You have not though that through.
We are not talking about merely "a craft that is not blurry", your hypothesis is that it is transiting the field of view of the camera that it is only captured in one frame of a sequence.

How is it possible to transit the field-of-view in the one frame, yet not be blurry in that one frame? There's some math to be done there.

 

[DaveC426913]

Removed for editing.

(The more I review my analysis, the better methods I find. I've removed the post until I final the final touches on it. Stay tuned.)

 

[DaveC426913]

Pic 1: Exact match on Google. Lake Cote, Costa Rica

Scale: 72px=500m or 6.95m/px or 0.144px/m
Compass heading: 295 - (map is looking 65 degrees West of North).
X marks the spot: N 10.5767, W 84.9111

(The road is marked merely to show exact calibration.)

 

[DaveC426913]

Pic 2: Disc shape
Interesting: The silhouette of this thing isn't even close to elliptical.

I tried a dozen ellipse matches but none fit. This is just a couple:

 

[DaveC426913]

Pic 3: Presumed path

The article's diagram indicates the angle of motion blur. I've measured that and confirmed it to be about 30 degrees from "true" to the photo's orientation.

We map that angle onto the photo, aligning it per the tiny object in it. That gives us a presumed path of movement, which is likewise 30 degrees off from the photo's orientation:



As per the paper, the object was only captured in one frame, meaning it must have passed in and out of the hi-rez image zone in less than 20 seconds.

The path I have plotted covers 384 pixels, which, per the scale (see pic 1), is 2,667m (or 8,750 feet).

 

[DaveC426913]

I see two discrepancies:

Per the paper:

1. "...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)..."

Yet: The entire photo is only 568px across, which per the scale Google has provided, is only 8km - less than 5 miles.
What distance of 7.92 miles are they measuring on a photo that isn't even 7.1 miles corner-to-corner?


Here is a hint:
"...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). "

The authors are taking about about things not in evidence. We are not given the privilege of seeing of frame 299 (or 301).







2. "...moving generally southwest in the same general direction as the thin, parallel fingers of light originating on the body of the object"

Yet: the parallel fingers of light are pointing West of North (or East of South). Where do they get southwest from?



It is as if they just assumed that the photo was oriented North by default. It isn't.

 

[Magical Realist]

So what is your conclusion Dave? Is the object in the photo real or is it a camera artifact per James?

 

[Sarkus]

How is it possible to transit the field-of-view in the one frame, yet not be blurry in that one frame? There's some math to be done there.

Does anyone know what the camera shutter-speed was for those photos?
If one assumes something like 1/200 seconds or 1/400 seconds, something like that, how far would the phenomenon have moved during the exposure time?

E.g. if the calculation is that the phenomenon, due to not appearing in either of the previous or next image, must have had a speed of 2,000 mph (taken from your quoted line above) then over 1/200th to 1/400th of a second you'd expect it to move somewhere between 4.5 and 2.5 metres during the exposure time. Would that be enough to create a blur on the image? (Note: I'm not a photographer, so the example exposure times I've used could be wide of the mark, but I'm imagining that the exposure times for aerial photography would be quite short, possibly even quicker than 1/400th, to get the sharpest shots. So take this purely as an example of something to consider). So maybe there wouldn't be any noticeable distortion from an object moving at that speed?

Of course, even if one would expect more motion-blur than is present, it could have stopped at the precise moment so as to photo-bomb the image, and then flown off again.

 

[Michael 345]

Of course, even if one would expect more motion-blur than is present, it could have stopped at the precise moment so as to photo-bomb the image, and then flown off again

The American SUN newspaper has the UFO

In first two paragraphs the UFO goes from

'metallic flying saucer zooming underneath plane'

into

'appears to be a metallic disc hovering beneath the aircraft'

Perhaps should add 'stopped at the precise moment so as to photo-bomb the image, and then flown off again' to its abilities in my notes

 

[DaveC426913]

Does anyone know what the camera shutter-speed was for those photos?
If one assumes something like 1/200 seconds or 1/400 seconds, something like that, how far would the phenomenon have moved during the exposure time?

E.g. if the calculation is that the phenomenon, due to not appearing in either of the previous or next image, must have had a speed of 2,000 mph (taken from your quoted line above) then over 1/200th to 1/400th of a second you'd expect it to move somewhere between 4.5 and 2.5 metres during the exposure time. Would that be enough to create a blur on the image? (Note: I'm not a photographer, so the example exposure times I've used could be wide of the mark, but I'm imagining that the exposure times for aerial photography would be quite short, possibly even quicker than 1/400th, to get the sharpest shots. So take this purely as an example of something to consider). So maybe there wouldn't be any noticeable distortion from an object moving at that speed?

Of course, even if one would expect more motion-blur than is present, it could have stopped at the precise moment so as to photo-bomb the image, and then flown off again.

That was where I was going originally. My earlier post that I removed was all about required shutter speed. I had calculated 1/265th, which was eminently reasonable,
But I had to remove it because my first attempts and assumptions were full of errors and my numbers changed wildly.

 

[DaveC426913]

So what is your conclusion Dave? Is the object in the photo real or is it a camera artifact per James?

Of course there's no conclusion forthcoming.

 

[Sarkus]

Of course there's no conclusion forthcoming.

I initially thought it might be a helicopter, with it possibly disappearing under cloud in other pictures. But then I don't know what a helicopter looks like from above when photographed like that: would the individual blades be more visible? Would it even look anything remotely like the image taken?

 

[James R]

And what kind of anomaly presents as a metallic disc?

Who says it's a metallic disc? Apart from you, obviously.

As usual, you have nothing beyond "it looks like a metallic disc to me". You're just making assumptions, as usual. Fantasy land.

 

[DaveC426913]

I initially thought it might be a helicopter, with it possibly disappearing under cloud in other pictures. But then I don't know what a helicopter looks like from above when photographed like that: would the individual blades be more visible? Would it even look anything remotely like the image taken?

At any useful shutter speed, helicopter blades don't rotate (225-500RPM) nearly fast enough to be blurred into a disc.

This is the worst case I could find in a quick Google search:




And the body of a helicopter will not be obscured by rotating blades.

 

[Sarkus]

At any useful shutter speed, helicopter blades don't rotate (225-500RPM) nearly fast enough to be blurred into a disc.
And even if they did, the body of the craft would not be obscured by it.

This is the worst case I could find in a quick Google search:

I did try and find a comparison, but none of a helicopted from 1 or 2km above, where the heli is not the focus of the shot, so wasn't sure if that would affect the image. I don't imagine it will particularly, to be honest. But "heli" was my first thought.
Plus, back in the 70s (or whenever the photo was taken) they possibly had some weird helicopter designs flying around.

There's always this: https://www.foxnews.com/tech/china-...opter-with-stealth-coating-and-missile-system (albeit some 50 years after the photo! )

 

[Magical Realist]

As usual, you have nothing beyond "it looks like a metallic disc to me"

It doesn't look like anything else. And most things ARE what they look like.

 

[DaveC426913]

Pic 5: Light and shadow

Were we to interpret the lights and darks of this anomaly at face-value, we might perceive it as a flattened cone with the top edge reflecting light and the bottom edge either reflecting less light or in shadow from the central peak.

Unfortunately, that's not possible. The clouds in the photo show that the light source is from the East.

If the object is a flattened cone-shape, then the light on it would have to be coming from the North West.





The incontrovertible conclusion, based on these simple facts alone is that - whatever this anomaly is - it is not a flattened, cone-shaped metallic disc.