It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

is it true this photo cannot be debunked?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sanndy

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?


how about, for a start, because he's had a good long study of the negative, and you've only seen a carpy jpeg on the interwebs?

guys, why all the arguing and hating over semantics?
we have a really intriguing picture here
but all i've read for two pages are people taking stabs at each other.
unless you're alleging that a government mapping crew decided to just hide a hoax in their archive
forget about it for eight years
confound experts with it for thirty odd years
and then put it into what seems to be a legitimate scientific paper [that's doing the rounds of universities, whatever the heck that means]
you're going to have to agree that it's legit, at least as far as the image capture goes
i've got no idea what it is
but saying things like "oh it looks like a cymbal therefore it can't be anything else"
seems more ignorant to me than people who assume it's a craft
because for one, what, this cymbal just teleported to costa rica and hung out for less than seventeen seconds?
i don't know, maybe that's what it is
proof of some strange teleport phenom that science is unaware of
but why be so close minded about it all?

and to the dude who said the french are trying to "stick it to the man" by going against the mighty ruling of america, america is not the man. america is just one country of hundreds, and i think the french are quite aware of that.




posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   
I am actually surprised it hasn't been called a weather balloon yet.

This is a really interesting photo and it seems pretty well established that something was actually photographed.

Were there any estimates on the size of the object?



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOven
 



Originally posted by reject
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



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by reject
 


I would love to believe this is real but as it's obviously a ver sunny day and even the clouds are casting shadows, and this thing appears to be very big... Where is it's shadow? I can't find it anywhere about where it should be



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by k0mbination
reply to post by reject
 


I would love to believe this is real but as it's obviously a ver sunny day and even the clouds are casting shadows, and this thing appears to be very big... Where is it's shadow? I can't find it anywhere about where it should be


There is speculation that it is entering/exiting the water.

It is too low to see its shadow.


And it is also almost 700 feet across which is pretty amazing.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by decepticonLaura
how about, for a start, because he's had a good long study of the negative, and you've only seen a carpy jpeg on the interwebs?


So what? He has no expertise in that field.


guys, why all the arguing and hating over semantics?
we have a really intriguing picture here
but all i've read for two pages are people taking stabs at each other.
unless you're alleging that a government mapping crew decided to just hide a hoax in their archive
forget about it for eight years
confound experts with it for thirty odd years
and then put it into what seems to be a legitimate scientific paper [that's doing the rounds of universities, whatever the heck that means]
you're going to have to agree that it's legit, at least as far as the image capture goes
i've got no idea what it is
but saying things like "oh it looks like a cymbal therefore it can't be anything else"
seems more ignorant to me than people who assume it's a craft
because for one, what, this cymbal just teleported to costa rica and hung out for less than seventeen seconds?
i don't know, maybe that's what it is
proof of some strange teleport phenom that science is unaware of
but why be so close minded about it all?

and to the dude who said the french are trying to "stick it to the man" by going against the mighty ruling of america, america is not the man. america is just one country of hundreds, and i think the french are quite aware of that.


No clue what you are talking about. I see the picture. I see no OBJECT. I see no UFO. I see NOTHING FLYING. Just because some people want to find a UFO so badly they will find one anywhere they look does not make this an intriguing picture. A picture of a flying object would have been interesting.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Its as fake as this new video



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pearj

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...


What? The "F" is kind of an important part of UFO. Apparently you have no idea what I am saying.

PICTURES OF THINGS - are not UFOS.
Pictures of Unidentified thigns that are flying are UFOs.

There is nothing in this picture to indicate and object, let alone a flying object. I have no idea who you think is freaking out but the term was not used correctly. If I see a spot on a window in the distance that I cannot identify, that does not make it a UFO.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by reject
 

I have heard of COMETA before. It is very interesting and impressive with the people they have involved.

That being said, I simply took the pic and looked at it with my video editing software and it looks as though it is "smudged" around the area with the UFO. Or it is inset into the surrounding land. Makes me suspicious.

So I don't know if it is real or not.


edit on 29-9-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

What you are seeing are the artifacts created by jpeg compression.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOven
 


Hmm, it sort of looks like a weather balloon to me.





However I do not think this is proof of alien or even advanced human tech. As with most pictures the quality and a frame of reference are sorely lacking. Do not get me wrong, I am a believer in intelligent alien races. I just do not buy the plethora of supposed pictures etc. that we are presented with as proof.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   


is it true this photo cannot be debunked?


Anything can be 'debunked'... which is first and foremost, a horrible misuse of the word. But for the sake of denial, debunkery has taken on a life of its own and is operated by simply refusing to accept one concept by way of introducing another.

In truth, very few things can be genuinely debunked... they can only be denied and/or ignored by approaching a subject or event from a different viewpoint.

In a nutshell, it's all merely a matter of opinion.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by tarifa37
Its as fake as this new video


Oh well... At least the girl is pretty. It wasn't a total waste watching it


IRM



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
The photo looks real and seems like it is unidentified. So UFO it is. Aliens? Don't know, the photo doesn't tell us that.

I am sad for this site at times, people debunk things so quickly and others say its true, hardly anyone is on the fence. Hardly anyone says this image may be the real image, undoctored.

Its automatically assumed a conspiracy to hide or show aliens is in place by the various sides.
No meaningful discussions just banter.

Waste of a morning i tells ya...



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Sanndy
 


So, it's still a UFO...Unidentified Floating Object (cause it's on water, not flying as you assume).

Either way, is it something you have seen before ever? Something in that day and age that is common? Is there anything it could be besides something we cannot identify?

Instead of arguing your point, prove it.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by EspyderMan
reply to post by Sanndy
 


So, it's still a UFO...Unidentified Floating Object (cause it's on water, not flying as you assume).

Either way, is it something you have seen before ever? Something in that day and age that is common? Is there anything it could be besides something we cannot identify?

Instead of arguing your point, prove it.
I'm not even sure it's an object.

Just because a photo shows an object, doesn't mean there is one. There are plenty of ways an image can appear in a photo, some of which we can't even think of.

This was thought to be an object when the photographic evidence was analyzed:


Further analysis revealed there is no object, despite the appearance of something that may look like an object in the film.

We were lucky somebody finally figured out what that was, but sometimes we never figure out the cause.

I'm not convinced it's either flying or that it's necessarily an object. The only part of the "UFO" term I can stipulate is that it's unidentified. But as the example photo I posted shows, sometimes these things which appear to be flying objects really aren't, and turn out to have mundane causes.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by reject
 

I have heard of COMETA before. It is very interesting and impressive with the people they have involved.

That being said, I simply took the pic and looked at it with my video editing software and it looks as though it is "smudged" around the area with the UFO. Or it is inset into the surrounding land. Makes me suspicious.

So I don't know if it is real or not.




edit on 29-9-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)


could be an electromagnetic field it is giving off?
2nd



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Sanndy
 


So this airplane is not flying? Prove it is.


So to call this a KFO (Known Flying Object) is completely out of the question because you can't see it moving. Therefore it's not flying.

Derp.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by EspyderMan
reply to post by Sanndy
 


So, it's still a UFO...Unidentified Floating Object (cause it's on water, not flying as you assume).

Either way, is it something you have seen before ever? Something in that day and age that is common? Is there anything it could be besides something we cannot identify?

Instead of arguing your point, prove it.
I'm not even sure it's an object.

Just because a photo shows an object, doesn't mean there is one. There are plenty of ways an image can appear in a photo, some of which we can't even think of.

This was thought to be an object when the photographic evidence was analyzed:


Further analysis revealed there is no object, despite the appearance of something that may look like an object in the film.

We were lucky somebody finally figured out what it was


So what was it? That's a strange artifact if it's not really there.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand
So what was it? That's a strange artifact if it's not really there.
It's an optical illusion. It's a reflection, which I suspect despite claims the OP photo can't possibly be a reflection, there's a chance that's what it is.

An optical illusion is not a hallucination, which some people get confused. Cameras can capture optical illusions, but not hallucinations.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by reject
 


Interesting thread by Zorgon about this specific UFO case a few months back:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join