Costa Rica UFO analysis

[James R]

How do we know that somebody didn't drop a saucepan lid or a hubcap out of the plane taking the photograph?

 

[DaveC426913]

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

Nope. Just proved it can't be a metallic cone-shaped disc.

 

[DaveC426913]

Were we to try to torture this into a shape with a metallic reflection, based on the light source being lower right, it would actually be concave - the inside of a flattened hollow cone.

 

[DaveC426913]

You know what it looks like more than a metal disc?

The reflection of the parabolic mirror in an old aviator's flashlight.

 

[James R]

Could be something dropping off, or out of, the plane.

Film canister lid, perhaps?

 

[foghorn]

That old MR capitalised ''ARE'' again.

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

Logo

 

[DaveC426913]

The converging rays of the sun tell us that the camera is pointed at the ground obliquely (i.e. not straight down). All the arrows converge on the horizon in the direction the camera is pointed - which is pretty much due West.

If the artifact is a real object, its own shadow will fall somewhere in the hollow of the arrow.
I don't for a moment suggest that not finding a shadow hints that the object casts no shadow, but it would have been very helpful if it had.

Anyone can feel free to look closer than I have.

 

[DaveC426913]

Now that we know how the camera is oriented wrt the horizon, we know what "horizontal" is, and we can rotate the pic so that the horizon is horizontal.

The object, if it is a disc, is not oriented horizontally. It is canted quite significantly - as much as 45 degrees - from horizontal.

 

[DaveC426913]

A more accurate estimation of disc diameter.

Zooming in the BW photo's scale, we can directly measure the size of the object from the identical Google map with its built-in scale.



We can directly see that the maximum size of the object is pretty close to 100m.



If the object's altitude is nape-of-Earth, then its diameter is pretty close to (76/97*100=) 78m.


Let's look at the report:

The report says "The laboratory in Costa Rica, which was the first to process the photo, estimates that the disk is almost 67 meters in diameter."

OK, that's within an order of magnitude of what I got. It makes me wonder though, if they; managed to decide on an approximate altitude. If they somehow measured, calculated or guessed an altitude of about 500m, that would make their 67m wide object look the same as my 78m object at an altitude of 0m.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here is a hi-rez pic in relation to nearby land.
https://news.co.cr/best-ufo-photo-in-the-world-taken-at-arenal-costa-rica-45-yrs-ago/50584/

Mapping Google maps onto it, we get a(nother) measurement for the anomaly's max diameter.




(58/144 x 200=) 80.5m or 264ft.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have not come up with a way of estimating altitude, but this chart shows the correlation between object diameter and altitude:

 

[DaveC426913]

In summary, this "best ever" photograph of a UFO is up to Magical Realist's usual standards: appallingly low and unconvincing.

I'd say the thing that sets this photo apart from most/all others is the wealth of data that can be drawn from it. partly because of the abundance of calibration data but also because of the relationship with the landscape.

At least there is something - anything - to analyze.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here is the 19-page report:
https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/3/jse_03_2_haines.pdf


It is well worth the read. I recommend it in particular to @MagicalRealist is an excellent example of dispassionate analysis that does not over-reach its theorizing, does not manipulate words in an attempt to make a more convincing story.

 

[DaveC426913]

Camera/exposure details:

"... the camera used was an R-M-K 15/23. The lens would have featured a fixed focus and a 6-inch focal length. The shutter speed was 1/500 second at f5.6. The intervallometer was set at 20 seconds between successive exposures."

 

[DaveC426913]

[DUPE]

 

[James R]

The intervallometer was set at 20 seconds between successive exposures."

20 seconds between frames gives the object - assuming it was an object - lots of time to move. A dropped hubcap wouldn't still be in frame after 20 seconds, since presumably it would have fallen behind the plane.

 

[DaveC426913]

20 seconds between frames gives the object - assuming it was an object - lots of time to move. A dropped hubcap wouldn't still be in frame after 20 seconds, since presumably it would have fallen behind the plane.

Indeed. None of any of the above calculations take into account the movement of the plane, which cruises somewhere around 200mph.

 

[Magical Realist]

Here is the 19-page report:
https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/3/jse_03_2_haines.pdf


It is well worth the read. I recommend it in particular to @MagicalRealist is an excellent example of dispassionate analysis that does not over-reach its theorizing, does not manipulate words in an attempt to make a more convincing story.

Did you know that the authors of this study, Haines and Vallee, are both famous ufologists in addition to being scientists? Just goes to show you that believers can be objective about this subject too. In fact they usually are being acquainted with the many ufo cases that turn out to be explained by hoax or mundane events.

 

[Sarkus]

Just goes to show you that believers can be objective about this subject too.

Whodathunkit, eh! So I guess you have no more excuses now.

 

[Sarkus]

Indeed. None of any of the above calculations take into account the movement of the plane, which cruises somewhere around 200mph.

Next thing to do is to get a manual (Haynes type thing) for the relevant aircraft, and see what parts possibly look like the object, that could have fallen off.