Costa Rica UFO analysis

Photograph of a flying metallic disc:

"A clear, high-resolution photo taken from a light aircraft flying over the jungles of Costa Rica shows a metal disk.

The high-resolution photograph has been called “the most convincing UFO photograph ever”. The picture was published only 50 years after this event.

Aerial photography operator Sergio Loayza used a special mapping camera while flying over Costa Rica....

....The photo is authentic and the object is not the result of some mistake. Our research allowed us to obtain the results according to which in the photo we can observe an opaque anomalous air object that was photographed at a distance of not more than 3 km from the camera lens.

“There are no visible means of lifting or propelling, and no markings on the surface other than dark areas that appear to be non-random.”

https://object51.com/researchers-re...4at3Po4zF0GT0rk8q15ZmvQO4iCRngESRLOyy3HiViEpM

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

An irresponsible thing to say.

They cant know it wasnt some sort of mistake.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Very strange it only appeared in one frame of 800 when the frame rate was 1 frame per 20 seconds

Estimate of size UFO given, yet no speed

Why would that be?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How can they determine the speed with the ufo in just one frame?

 

Do you have any evidence of some sort of mistake being made here?

 

No. Your point?

Do you think that means they can declare a mistake was NOT made? How would they know?

They should have said "...as far as we know."

 

Leave it to you to concern yourself with such pedantic trivialities.

 

I know right? Anything that smacks of actual analysis is a pedantic triviality. Analysis jsut a distraction for the True Believer.

 

Whining about how someone stated something isn't analysis of anything. It's just whining. Why don't you impress us all and actually analyze the ufo photo?

 

It's not your place to decide what is to be analyzed or not. On-topic please.


If the authors of this account are over-extending their claims, saying "It is not X", as opposed to "It is not X, as far as we know," then it speaks to their credibility, and raises the question about what other aspects of the claim they are over-extending.

True, it's a small point, and certainly not damning, - but the question then is: why was it too big a deal for them to simply not over-extend their claim?

 

'
I see. So you're just going to keep whining on this point and totally ignore the amazing evidence of the ufo as presented. Pardon me while I attend to other things.

 

The position of the UFO is clear yes?

The coast line edge is shown in the frame yes?

Calculate straight line length of coast line in frame

Match parallel point of UFO to coast line

The parallel point of the UFO to the coast to the edge of frame point of the coast would need to be covered in less than 20 seconds in order for it NOT to appear in the next frame

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You keep asking me questions. All Im doing is answering them.

Do you have any more? Or would you care to let it stand?

 

analyze the ufo photo?

You mean analyze a high-resolution version of the UFO photo ya?

A high-resolution image appearing to show a UFO has been released more than 50 years after it was taken from the sky over Costa Rica.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So uh...what was its speed?

 

Since I have no reference to the length of the coast line - unable

If you have said reference - do the calculation yourself

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Term - best ever - I think relates to the PHOTOGRAPH not the UFO

I think this because as I understand this is a high-resolution photo, produced from the original

Anybody out there with the ORIGINAL, can the original be released, alongside the enhanced high-resolution version, so judgement can be made as to how much change was made to the original in the production of this high-resolution version?

Thank you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

On the contrary. A fast enough moving object would show up in only one frame whereas an anomaly of the film would show up in several frames. And what kind of anomaly presents as a metallic disc? None that I know of.

 

https://www.the-sun.com/news/5286323/best-photograph-ufo-ever-released-flying-saucer/

Read - then copied the total text of article (to avoid ad distraction) - pasted on a note - read said note

OK time to digest the reporting

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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'

Ummmmm OKaaay

3rd para - this is a touched up photo

4th para - camera used for map-making weight was 100lb and hight of aircraft was about 10,000 feet

Not going to bother to go into the remainder of the article. Link is there if you wish to do so

I would like to know if the map-making cameras of the time included reference cross hairs or other such reference mark

Would also appreciate ORIGINAL photo to view ORIGINAL segment of photo said to have been enhanced

Did anybody at the time go to the region?

Nothing to do with above but might answer MR's question

Ummmm - How about a round shoal of silver fish?

Not a anomaly, but otherwise fits presents as a metallic disc

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!