The El Yeso, Santiago, UFO. An Open Case Pending. Ufo Best Picture? (NARCAP Full Analysis)

reply to post by Zcustosmorum


Also the line in not centered if "he" appempted to correct it by 1 pixel if would be too far off center in the opposite direction.but that dont mean anything.Though why do everything have to align with something?

reply to post by imitator


Not close at all.

reply to post by RUSSO


Why! It's just a simple sun glare and nothing more....

Originally posted by imitator
Lens glare.... CASED CLOSED

This one was easy.... as already demonstrated by Chadwickus.
You point a camera at the sun, and you can get all kinds of silly anomalies of the non-terrestrial type.

edit on 5-8-2011 by imitator because: (no reason given)

No Evidence of Pixel Distortion. It is a well known fact that digital photographs can be easily manipulated to add or delete details. The area around the present UAP was enlarged to the point where individual pixels were apparent in order to discover whether the UAP might have been created (in another file) and then “pasted into” the sky background scene of Figure 2. Details of this method are given elsewhere. (Tortorella, 2009) During the process of deliberate hoaxing of this kind so-called “block artifacts” are produced somewhere within the larger grid of pixels making up the background scene.12 No such distortions in luminosity or spatial displacement 12 Images compressed using the JPEG’s Discrete Cosine Transform algorithm produce high frequency AC coefficients that are (usually) zero or nearly so. However, images that have been cut and pasted (to produce a hoaxed or false image) produce non-zero coefficients that can be detected because their boundary possesses an inverse relation to the strength of the image, i.e., a difference in luminosity.

NARCAP IR-2, 2010 Page 17 R. F. Haines
International Air Safety Case Report
were discovered suggesting that the UAP was present when the photograph was taken.
Comparison of Photographs

Figures 12 through 15 are the other four photographs said to have been taken about 45 seconds apart following the image of primary interest (Fig. 2). The photographer also confirmed that this was the order in which she took them. Several things can be learned from a careful comparison of these photographs? First. The UAP is not found in any other photograph but the first one (Figure 2). A careful comparison of Figure 2 with 12 was made by centering both solar discs over each other and rotating one to match the other as nearly as possible using the reddish high altitude cloud pattern as a guide. The reddish clouds in Figure 13 either had dissipated significantly, moved across the sky, or the photo was taken many minutes later or wasn’t in the sequence claimed.

Second. Cloud Pattern Changes are apparent and show the effects of time and winds at different altitudes. While one expects clouds to constantly change shape these photographs suggest one of two things: either more than 45 seconds elapsed between exposures, the winds at the cumulus cloud altitude was very high and turbulent, or both. Since meteorology data showed winds to not exceed 30 knots the elapsed time between exposures must have been longer than 45 to 50 seconds. Figures 12, 13, and 14 include the top of a nearby mountain that can be used to align one image with the other. A slightly greater zoom setting was used in Figure 12 and enlarged the cloud detail somewhat. The cloud patterns are significantly different, however and (once again) suggest the passage of many minutes between exposures. The reddish clouds are visible in Figure 2 and 12 through 15. If the camera was oriented identically for Figures 2 and 12 then the reddish clouds are traveling generally NE and are rotating (as much as 30 degrees) as a unit and are not fragmenting. Of course the photographer could have rotated the camera between these shots. It seems unlikely that only 45 seconds
passed between these two photographs. Figures 14 and 15 were obviously taken sequentially as shown by the relatively unchanged cumulus cloud patterns yet sometime different from the earlier photographs. Figure 12 was
aimed slightly higher than Figure 14 and did not include the top of the foreground mountain. The automatic exposure (f stop and exposure duration) was probably the same for both. If JPEG metadata was available for each image this could be verified.

Third. The obvious aiming point the photographer used was the white, cumulus clouds and the solar disc. All of the sky images contained these same objects.

reply to post by Chadwickus

No, I've drawn a line between the middle of the lens flare and the centre of the sun.

well it is not surprising it matches up given that you could draw a straight from anything to the centre of the sun and they would match up to. reflection or not, i do not see how drawing a line proves it is a reflection.

This is not a lens flare. If your so sure this is a lens flare show us another example of this.





This a lens flare and you cant tell me what im seeing is a lens flare

reply to post by RUSSO

You were right in your first post. The reflection crowd did not take long to arrive.

Reflection.

Why wouldn't be a reflection? Since I feel I'm part of the group that you lovingly call the "reflection crowd", then I guess I should explain why I think as such:

As per the witness' account:

They indicated that nothing unusual was sensed during the time the photographs were taken nor were any unusual noises heard. It was not until viewing the photographs later on a computer monitor that the UAP was noticed by family members.

Now Russo, don't you think that a UFO that size is something you miss when you take a picture of the sky where it sits ??

More:

The UAP was not visible in any of the other photographs taken of the same location in the sky,

So I guess this is why you describes it as a mysterious object considered “stealthy” in your opening post...cause I read all the sources and couldn't find this anywhere...so this is your take on it.

It's not "stealthy", it just appeared in one picture as described in the source:

Figures 12 through 15 are the other four photographs said to have been taken about 45 seconds apart following the image of primary interest (Fig. 2). The photographer also confirmed that this was the order in which she took them. Several things can be learned from a careful comparison of these photographs? First. The UAP is not found in any other photograph but the first one (Figure 2).

That would be at least 5 pictures taken of the same area at 45 seconds apart and yet it only shows in one picture.

Again Russo, if it only shows in one picture through a sequence and the witnesses claim that they didn't see the UFO when they took the pic....doesn't that ring any bells to you? Cause it raises flags with me.

Last thing. The expertise comment:

Even the Chilean CEFFA have trouble identifying this image, but our "expert on call" draws a few lines, makes a silly animation and voila, case closed.

Let's take a look at the expertise from CEFAA/NARCAP for a brief second:

It also isn’t known whether the photographer reset the white balance, exposure compensation, or light metering controls on the camera for any of these photographs.

Why? They don't know what EXIF Data is over there ?? But missing this info, they conclude:

this caused details elsewhere in the image to become extraordinarily dark. As will be noted below, the details of the UAP image only became evident when the entire frame was lightened and its contrast increased.

If THAT, my good friend Russo, isn't a good description to highlight a picture artifact or a reflection, honestly, I don't know what is...

So yes, as you wrongly claimed as with the mysterious object considered "stealthy", some of us do read links and sources.

ufosontherecord.com...

And bring other opinions, research and complement in the discussion as Chad and others did.

Deny Ignorance.

reply to post by SonoftheSun


Bring other opinions is all I want. But call reflection on this? No.

You think the people of National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena / NARCAP dont know the difference between a reflection and an unidentified object? Dont think so. Nothing that your friend did was enough to prove anything

NARCAP

This is not a personal attack, just an observation.

reply to post by RUSSO

Bring other opinions is all I want. But call reflection on this? No.

Again, why not? Cause someone at NARCAP assumes so?

The UFO is translucent, only in one pic from a sequence, not seen by the photographer (as it would most probably be centered in the pic as mentioned by the source) and highlighted through brightness and contrast...

I could be wrong, I don't claim it as truth but I tend to think that this is a reflection, based on the facts before me.

Nothing personal either.

Just an opinion from what I see and if there is a better explanation that comes forward, I'm all ears. Well, eyes actually...

It's a good catch in any case !

reply to post by SonoftheSun


The photos were sent to NARCAP [Dr. Richard Haines’ group in California which works with CEFAA], which concluded, not just assumes in a long report that it shows a solid object with its own light not translucent.

He can be wrong? Maybe but the analysis he did show me the opposite.

Thanks, people like you, who know how to respect others' opinions are always welcome

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

No, I've drawn a line between the middle of the lens flare and the centre of the sun.

i do not see how drawing a line proves it is a reflection.

Exactly.

reply to post by RUSSO


I still say Mr Haines assumes.

Reason being:

Mention also must be made (for the sake of completeness) of the occurrence of the huge 8.8 magnitude earthquake17 of February 27, 2010 (at 0334:14 hrs. local time) that was centered at 35 deg 54’ 32” South,; 72 deg 43’ 59” W. This was only thirteen days after this photo was taken. The estimated depth of the temblor’s epicenter was 22 miles. The horizontal distance between the photographer’s location at the El Yeso reservoir and the surface location of the earthquake’s epicenter18 is approximately 225 miles!

ufosontherecord.com...

Now that is ONE HUGE assumption !!!!!

reply to post by SonoftheSun

In summary, although this UAP could not be positively identified it presented a number of highly intriguing details that deserve further research.

Well, he concludes this case deserve further research. So its a open case to me, but no less interesting. .

reply to post by RUSSO


Hi Russo. I think I might have solved the mystery.
I rotated the photograph 180 degrees.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/df1cd3292c9f.jpg[/atsimg]
Faint lettering and/or numbering (which seems quite large) can be seen in the circled areas.
That this could be a optical illusion created by the interaction of
sunlight with clouds is beyond chance.
This is clearly the reflection of some handbook or paper inside the vehicle,
and this shot must clearly have been taken through glass.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/83fa3021d792.jpg[/atsimg]
As to what this is? Some small object laying on the handbook/paper.
My guess is a peanut or something similar.
Maybe a piece of chilean confectionary or candy.
(The symbol in the circled area might provide a clue).

I could be wrong. But I call this Busted.

Originally posted by Zeer0
This is not a lens flare. If your so sure this is a lens flare show us another example of this.





This a lens flare and you cant tell me what im seeing is a lens flare

Not a lens flare.

reply to post by pshea38


She was not inside the vehicle

... some of the photos in the series were taken from inside an utility vehicle. Hermosilla states that the image with the UFO was taken outisde the car

But thanks.

reply to post by LightAssassin


And if the image has been cropped?

I can't say either way if it has or not, but if it has then the "centre point" will be false.

I admire Dick Haines and the work of NARCAP. His interview with the Paracast was excellent (right click save as if interested) and his history at NASA as a senior scientist (psychology) illustrates his intelligence and critical thinking.

The thing is, in this case, I think he dropped the ball. In the report, he doesn't mention any EXIF data so was he working with RAW files? He doesn't address the possibility that something in the vehicle is being reflected on the windshield.

The original investigation by CIFAE doesn't mention the make and model of the vehicle, but they did test the possibility that an internal reflection was the cause. They were unable to match the reflection. At this point, they also dropped the ball. The circumstances of the images involved a family day out for 5. It makes sense that the inside of the vehicle would be full of bags, change of shoes and all the *stuff* a family day out involves.

This isn't a criticism of CIFAE or NARCAP. In this case, it looks like a reflection of a textile object in the vehicle on the windshield. Although the family say they were outside the vehicle, CIFAE think they were inside when the image was taken.

reply to post by Kandinsky


You're just replicating the skeptical view of the case. Nothing wrong with that. But I think by being a credible body, we can give a credit of trust to NARCAP and think that they, as professionals, would know that the work should be done in the raw material. Dont you think? About the vehicle, the witness claims to be outside the vehicle, so I dont think it's a case of reflection.

I respect your opinion Kandinsky, but I'll give my vote of trust that NARCAP did good work as always, like you said. Especially because if the report was about a reflection, skeptics would be congratulating their work.

reply to post by RUSSO

You're just replicating the skeptical view of the case. Nothing wrong with that. But I think by being a credible body, we can give a credit of trust to NARCAP and think that they, as professionals, would know that the work should be done in the raw material. Dont you think? About the vehicle, the witness claims to be outside the vehicle, so I dont think it's a case of reflection.

I'm not replicating anything. Lance Moody pointed me towards the report (31st July) and I read it with the intention of disputing him. I've long been an admirer of NARCAP and Haines is someone I've respected for a long time before knowing about NARCAP.

If you read the original article by CIFAE transla ted to English here, the likelihood that it's a reflection becomes probable.

Notice a family of five and the vehicle they used to rule out internal reflections wasn't the actual vehicle. Furthermore, they didn't take into account all the stuff a family would have in the vehicle for a long day out. They also are clear that they think the images were taken from inside the vehicle.

Haines spends a paragraph working out the timing between images and doesn't mention EXIF data. He wouldn't need to work out the timings with EXIF data so it suggests he either didn't check or that the files he had didn't include the EXIF. Whether the EXIF was there, or not, a detailed analysis of digital images falls short if it isn't mentioned.

None of which lessens my respect for Haines or NARCAP, but it's why I think the image shows a reflection of something textile on the windshield.

ETA: the translated link hasn't worked. The original article is here and you'll have to run it through a translator yourself...