is it true this photo cannot be debunked?

Yes, I do believe in UFO and alien spacecraft.
There is thousands of UFO photos that can not be debunked but just because a photo can not be debunked does not make it proof of anything. Proving that a photo is real is a lot harder than proving it a fake. A UFO photo can be proven a fake very easy. In fact just calling it a fake sometimes is enough to get the job done. You need little if any evidence to prove a UFO photo fake. It is almost a default setting for all UFO photos to be fakes. Now as to prove that a UFO photo is 100% real and it does in fact show a real alien spacecraft you need all the evidence there is in the world to do that. I am not sure if even GOD himself told the world it was real that even that would not be enough.
"Not debunked" really means "not debunked yet"

It's a photo taken with a large mapping camera. Jacques Vallee was able to examine the original negative and confirm it's not an emulsion flaw. Images were taken every 17 seconds on a mapping mission by the government of Costa Rica. The UFO was not in the previous or next frame and cannot be a reflection from anything inside the airplane, because of the type of camera and the way it is mounted. The debunker who calls it a button is just wrong. It could be a hat or something blowing in the wind, although that's a tad far-fetched. Another possibility is a manufacturing flaw on just that frame of the negative, but those usually look sharper, even though they sometimes look UFO-suggestive. At least it's not a hoax and came from an official government source. Nobody reported seeing it. It just appeared on one frame from a 1971 mapping mission.

ufos.about.com...

And here's the pic:

Originally posted by SecretKnowledge
that 'thing' in the close ups IS the ufo in question
centre right (all the way over) in the op picture. the big picture. disc shaped craft

Oh?
Well I find that hard to understand.
First of all, it is not flying.
Secondly, how do you determine it is a "craft?"

Do you get what I am actually asking? I get what you are all looking at. I see what part of the picture I am supposed to be looking at. I can obviously see the closeups. Whay I do not see is anything flying or anything resmbling a "craft" of any kind.

So what I am asking yet again is where is the UFO?
Does anyone know the difference between a UFO and a picture of some thing?

It almost looks like a reflection of the moon or the sun. Though I can't see such a reflection possible without some nasty distortion.

Wow, never have I seen such a total semantical confusion.

Ok, fine... yes, we cannot confirm it was a flying object.. or for that matter, even an object. It could have been some wierd reflection off the water or a manufacturing glitch in the negative, or whatever. It might have been easier to say up front that it might not be a flying object, though.

OK I am officially saddened that ATS is the place this discussion is being had but I should have learned my lesson after those bugs on windshield threads.

The UFO appears to be entering the water, as no water splash is seen, and one small side of the disc is hidden from view. Allegedly, the UFO was moving from right to left, at about a 30 degree angle. As the photo is rotated for display purposes, this would be from top to bottom.

They call it a UFO and say it was flying. Sure, ok. They then go on to say it must be entering the water. Uh...yeah sure. They then go on to say that it is because part of the disc is covered up that they believe it is entering the water. They also go on to point out that it is traveling top to bottom. So the covered part on top is the rear as it is moving down the page? I would love anyone familiar with physics or even just the difference between up and down to explain to me how it is travaling down the picture but also entering the water up the picture. Neat trick.

What is this?

"In summary, our analyses have suggested that an unidentified, opaque, aerial object was captured on film at a maximum distance of 10,000 feet. There are no visible means of lift or propulsion and no surface markings other than dark regions that appear to be nonrandom... There is no indication that the image is the product of a double exposure or a deliberate fabrication" - [Haines, and Vallee,1989].

Are they trying to say that this object was 10,000 feet in the air or that is the maximum distance the plane taking the pictures got to?

Just one more question.
Why does it matter what Jacques Vallee said about the photo?
Being a venture capitalist?
Educated in the life sciences?
Enjoys astronomy?

I am having a hard time figuring out which makes him most qualifed to do photo analysis.

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Wow, never have I seen such a total semantical confusion.

Ok, fine... yes, we cannot confirm it was a flying object.. or for that matter, even an object. It could have been some wierd reflection off the water or a manufacturing glitch in the negative, or whatever. It might have been easier to say up front that it might not be a flying object, though.

The only sematical confusion is in the thread title, the OP, and most of the replies getting excited over it. It is a picture of well...something. That is it. But we all know no one is going to flag and star a thread titled "Camera catches images of things."

Originally posted by Sanndy

Originally posted by rogerstigers
Wow, never have I seen such a total semantical confusion.

Ok, fine... yes, we cannot confirm it was a flying object.. or for that matter, even an object. It could have been some wierd reflection off the water or a manufacturing glitch in the negative, or whatever. It might have been easier to say up front that it might not be a flying object, though.

The only sematical confusion is in the thread title, the OP, and most of the replies getting excited over it. It is a picture of well...something. That is it. But we all know no one is going to flag and star a thread titled "Camera catches images of things."

Ok, I'll give you that... since my typical response to most UFO picture threads is "oh, wow, what an amazing white dot in the sky"

reply to post by rogerstigers


It is just kind of sad that the accompanying article says there is a UFO flying into the water and there is almost an entire page of people saying how cool it is. I was told ATSers did not fall for that kind of junk and actually analyzed everthing to death. But I see nothing flyin, no craft, and certainly no indication it is leaving or entering any water. The article itself is a travesty but at least you get where I am coming from. There are tons of pictures of "things" online that people call UFOs and I really thought here I would not see any of them called UFOs unless they actually were UFOs. I guess that is my problem though.

Originally posted by Sanndy
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

....There are tons of pictures of "things" online that people call UFOs and I really thought here I would not see any of them called UFOs unless they actually were UFOs.

"Unknown" "things" in the "air" actually are called Unidentified Flying Objects (or "UFOs").

No matter how you cut it:

"Unknown" = Unidentified
"Air" = Flying
"Thing" = Object

Originally posted by Pearj
"Unknown" "things" in the "air" are called Unidentified Flying Objects, or "UFOs".

Maybe you should try actually reading my posts before you reply. I know exactly what UFO stands for, in fact it was the main part of my point.

reply to post by xpoq47


Thank you, beat me to it. This photo has been discussed in many threads here and elsewhere. Look up Costa Rica UFO and you'll find them. It's a mapping photo, the plane was at 10,000 ft, not the object. It appears to either be entering or leaving the body of water. These force fit, knee jerk reaction debunks are sad. I'm not saying it's little grey men, but that it is a UFO in the true sense of the word...


Edit: oops, just saw similar posts to mine...sorry...

Originally posted by Sanndy
Maybe you should try actually reading my posts before you reply. I know exactly what UFO stands for, in fact it was the main part of my point.

I did - you don't like how many people call unknown things in the air UFOs - but you can't identify the object beyond a "thing" - therefore it remains an unidentified object - in the air.

Originally posted by Sanndy
I really thought here I would not see any of them called UFOs unless they actually were UFOs

Did you read my post? This object actually really is unidentified - UFO is an accurate description for unknown "things" in the air.

Originally posted by Pearj
I did - you don't like how many people call unknown things in the air UFOs -

If you actualyl did you would notice I said nothing about this object BEING IN THE AIR. You added that and that is why I suggested you actually read.

but you can't identify the object beyond a "thing" - therefore it remains an unidentified object - in the air.

Because you say it is in the air?

UFO is an accurate description for unknown "things" in the air.

No, not really. The F stands for FLYING, not IN THE AIR and this pic lacks evidence of either. Really if you want to argue with me about what I said you need to read what I actually said and you cannot just add random words to change what I actually said.

Originally posted by Toxicsurf
but that it is a UFO in the true sense of the word...

As soon as someone can show me where this thing is showing that it is flying we might have something.
I am still waiting for a reason why we believe this photo is an authentic craft based on the photo analysis of a hedge fund manager?

Originally posted by Sanndy
Because you say it is in the air?

My example was in the air because yours was:

Originally posted by Sanndy
...article says there is a UFO flying into the water...

Then your example people did (notice the F):

Originally posted by Sanndy
...pictures of "things" online that people call UFOs...

Lastly, I didn't say it was flying - some government did.

Originally posted by Pearj
My example was in the air because yours was:

No, it was not. That is something you completely made up on your own. My posts stand unedited. Try reading them. I promise that not only will it not hurt, it will save you time arguing with me about something I never wrote.

Originally posted by Sanndy
Then your example people did (notice the F):

What the hell are you talking about? That is from the article in the OP. If you ACTUALLY READ IT, you would see that I do not agree that it is flying or in the air just because you or the article say it is.

Originally posted by Sanndy
Lastly, I didn't say it was flying - some government did.

Then it sure as hell aint no UFO if it aint flyin' huh?

You just looking to argue? It is a picture of a round thing. Nothing shows it flying, floating, hovering, or any of that other crap.

You really do seem to be just looking to argue about anything. When you have to make up things to argue about it is time to get a better hobby.

I see nothing in the air, flying, etc. I see no UFO. How about instead of arguing you show me the UFO. That means I need to see a flying object. Hopefully you will catch on.

reply to post by reject
mods, kindly append this post to my OP please. Thanks.
The photograph is circa 1971. There were no PCs yet and therefore certainly no photo editing software such as photoshop

costa rica's dossier
On the morning of September 4, 1971, an aircraft of the Costa Rican Geographic Institute was photographing the Arenal region for making maps. The crew of four didn’t recall anything unusual, but then the camera was set to take pictures automatically every 20 seconds or so. It was a special R-M-K 15/23 camera with b/w film ASA 80, with an 8×8 negative printed on Kodak Safety aerial film, type 3665.
One shot taken at 10,000 feet altitude, frame 300, showed mountains around Cote Lake in Guanacaste Province, 25 miles south of Nicaragua. A disc-like object appeared clearly on the lower half of the lake. The photo is considered unique and of great scientific value. Drs. Richard Haines and Jacques Vallee listed a number of reasons why in their first study of Cote, published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 1989:

“(1) it was taken by a high-quality professional camera;

(2) the camera was looking down, which implies a maximum distance, hence a maximum size for the object;

(3) the disc was seen against a reasonably uniform dark background of a body of water; and

(4) the image was large, in focus and provided significant detail.”

Apparently, the disc was not noticed until 1979, when the Geographic Institute contacted professional photographer and ufologist Ricardo Vilchez, who sent copies of the photo to various international experts. The case is still being analyzed over three decades later. I had the opportunity of visiting Cote Lake last April with the Vilchez brothers, Edgar Picado, and retired NASA scientist Dr. Haines, who published with Vallee two papers on the photo. Knowing the lake’s dimensions and the aircraft altitude, Haines and Vallee calculated the “maximum dimension of the disc” if it was on the surface: “The 4.2 mm length of the image is equivalent to an object 210 m [meters] in length or 683 feet,” they wrote.

A senior Lockheed analyst raised the objection that the disc may be “a pressure mark” on the film, which was disproven when the Geographic Institute loaned the original negative for further analysis. “The image was smooth as glass so it set to rest that argument,” said Dr. Haines.

I am positing it wasn't a perfectly circular object but a somewhat "horseshoe" type object much like 1947 Rhodes ufo taken in Phoenix, Arizona

The Rhodes Photo Case
Elliptical object about 20-30 feet in diameter with a visible canopy; object moving at an estimated 400-600 m.p.h., spiralled down from about 2,000 feet, then went upward at a 45 degree angle, making no sound while within view. Analysis based on camera data indicated a diagonal size of about 40-50 feet. (Project SIGN "Initial Report," chart, Incident No. 40)

nicap

Originally posted by Sanndy
Then it sure as hell aint no UFO if it aint flyin' huh?

Sanndy, my point had nothing to do with Flying - take the F out of UFO..

You stated you were sick of people calling (in context 'unknown') "things" UFOs - I was pointing out that this actually is an unknown "thing".. or an Unidentified Object - so the term was used correctly.

That's all, nothing to freak out about. Moving on...