Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

CRATER LAKE 1971 - A Mystery To Solve

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 01:31 AM
link   
This was a photo taken at Crater Lake in the summer of 1971. The photo was shot as a "postcard-type" beauty shot, which makes the next thing part of the puzzle: the photographer [and friends] saw nothing of the sort next to the pine tree while photographing. This then is one of those "where the heck did THAT come from?" photos.

Just so everyone starts at the same place with any speculations: Both the photographer and the correspondent looked closely at the negative and can see nothing funky there. Supporting the not-a-problem-with-the-negative position is the striking fact that the "object" shows, pretty clearly that it is right next to the tree and has the tree's shadow marked on it.

So, at first glance, we have a rather large object, which no one saw, nevertheless photographed, which does not seem to be a camera or film problem, but rather existent in the outside world.

Michael Swords

thebiggeststudy.blogspot.com...



files.abovetopsecret.com...


3.bp.blogspot.com...
edit on 14-7-2014 by milomilo because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-7-2014 by milomilo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Pretty cool looking image.

The object is not spherical. That would lead me to believe it's a water droplet and the 'design' you see on the surface is a refraction.

Disclaimer: I am nowhere near an expert in imagery analysis.

ETA: Just back from reviewing the comments/analysis from the source site. Was that 'our' Kandinsky? LOL
edit on 1472014 by Snarl because: ETA



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
Pretty cool looking image.

The object is not spherical. That would lead me to believe it's a water droplet and the 'design' you see on the surface is a refraction.

Disclaimer: I am nowhere near an expert in imagery analysis.

ETA: Just back from reviewing the comments/analysis from the source site. Was that 'our' Kandinsky? LOL


yes it is our Kadinsky .. She is pretty famous in the world's UFO circuit
edit on 14-7-2014 by milomilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: milomilo
That has to be one of the worst claimed UFO photos ever. I'm no expert at developing film during the 70's, but, obviously something went wrong with the developing of that photograph. You can see what appears to be a reflection in the water when it's turned counter-clockwise. You also see tears at the upper portion of the circle and what looks like a partial fingerprint on the lower right:



edit on 14-7-2014 by Ectoplasm8 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 02:16 AM
link   
It's more of a reflection to me - you can see that the light patches go with the gaps between the two trees. You can see the reflection of the rock in the lower front. And you can see a reflection of the photographer as well.

I'd go with a crinkled aluminum foil balloon.
edit on 14-7-2014 by stormcell because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 02:39 AM
link   
I'd have to agree with the idea that this is a water drop on the lens



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 02:41 AM
link   
hmm...

Lago de Cota

Deja vu



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: milomilo

looks like a water droplet. You can see the trees through it.

ETA: I plan on going to crater lake in the next few years.
edit on 14-7-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 04:07 AM
link   
personally i think while this is UNIDENTIFIED and seems like a FLYING OBJECT , it is not what commonly can be categorized as a 'UFO'..

i think this is some kind camera / film anomaly ...

just my opinion



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
It looks like someone froze a water-balloon, then took the balloon off the sphere of ice, threw it in the air and took a photograph of it.



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I'd go with water droplet on the lens.

Is there anything in the photo that suggests the "UFO" is casting a shadow?



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 01:32 AM
link   
is it possible for a water droplet to cause an anomaly in single frame of negative and not in the subsequent frames ? maybe a defect in negative processing more likely



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: milomilo
snip
Supporting the not-a-problem-with-the-negative position is the striking fact that the "object" shows, pretty clearly that it is right next to the tree and has the tree's shadow marked on it.

So, at first glance, we have a rather large object, which no one saw, nevertheless photographed, which does not seem to be a camera or film problem, but rather existent in the outside world.

Michael Swords



"Supporting the not-a-problem-with-the-negative position is the striking fact that the "object" shows, pretty clearly that it is right next to the tree and has the tree's shadow marked on it."

The shadow falling on the tree bothers me. The shadow would be correct if the light source was at the same plane as the camera, to the right. Look at the shadows of the rocks in center bottom and you can see that the light source is up and behind the rocks.





new topics




 
5

log in

join