Thursday, February 02, 2006

MEXICO: UFO OVER OAXACA

InexplicataLogo
2-1-06



     The attached photographic sequence was taken by Miguel Luna in the mountainous region of the Mexican state of Oaxaca at Cerro de la Caja on August 5, 2005 at approximately 13:00 hours.

The witness states that he initially believed that the "shadow" could be a burned area on the mountainside, but he later realized that it moved and it was also possible to see the flying object among the clouds.

The images were taken with a Sony DSC-P73 camera at normal exposure and at ISO 100.

Photo credit: Miguel Luna

UFO Over Oaxaca By Miguel Luna 2
UFO Over Oaxaca By Miguel Luna 3

* (Translation (c) 2006, S. Corrales, Institute of Hispanic Ufology (IHU). Special thanks to Ana Luisa Cid and Miguel Luna)

* Source

See Also:MEXICO: Spherical UFOs over Mexico City

Home

3 comments :

  1. A few thoughts on these photographs...

    In each image, the background is in good focus and reveals little if any "motion blur". This would indicate that the camera was relatively still during the photographs.

    If this is the case, the photos very likely reveal something other than UFOs. This is because if you are outside with your camera and you see something strange in the sky, the natural tendency is to follow the object with the camera, resulting in a blurred background with a more focused "object". Not so with these photos.

    I am of the opinion that this camera was trained in one area of the terrain, and several perhaps many, many shots were taken, and then afterward the photos were reviewed and the "anomalies" discovered. This kind of cherrypicking is unscientific. A better approach would be to display the entire sequence of images recorded by the camera, rather than two or three odd ones culled from (who knows how many?) mundane shots.

    Further, the appearance of the objects themselves reveal much. In each, the relative size of the objects is very similar which would indicate either that these objects are of the same rough size and distance from the camera, or that they are of varying sizes and distances which happened to coincide on this series of images. I would presume the former, which would support the hypothesis that these objects were of similar size.

    The color saturation of the objects is revealing as well. In these images, the object appears much darker than the background. Typically this is an indication that the object is not far in the distance, but rather close to the camera, as there is less intervening atmospheric "haze" than between the camera and the far background. If so, then the objects must be rather small since a very large object at close distance would take up much more space in these images.

    Finally, the aspect of the objects themselves is revealing. In each image there is undisputedly a central "thing", but also some blurry "noise" to one side or the other (or both) of the main "thing". While theories exist of "distortions" of one kind or another caused by UFOs, the simplest answer for these fuzzy areas around the object is that it is caused by rapid motion of some thing or things attached to the main "thing". If this is so, then the objects are roughly the same size, smallish...less than a meter in angular size...and moving rapidly enough to blur in the images, but not large enough to trip the auto-focus on the camera or to capture the attention of the photographer who didn't move the camera to follow the object.

    So, what could be found in a less than a meter size, capable of rapid motion through the air, which has appendages attached which move rapidly ASIDE from the motion of the main "thing", and which could be found in a photograph of what appears to be a wilderness or at least vegetative or forested environment?

    My guess? Not U.F.O., but B.I.R.D.

    If my thoughts above are incorrect, then the object is massive, very dark, and moving slowly enough for a camera to catch it more than once while not even following its motion, and possessing appendages or devices which either move rapidly or create some sort of atmospheric distortion. And the news wasn't awash with sightings of this massive dark object moving around in daylight distorting the atmosphere?

    Best,

    Kyle King

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree. One would think, after all the years thousands of photos of supposed UFO's, someone would step foreward with a _clear_ photograph. Maybe I should summit my photo of an out of focus blueberry muffin to The National Enquire, wonder what they would pay for it.......?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Greetings Kyle, Et al,

    Very astute observations in regards to the pics! My two cents: First to be clear, I use the term "UFO" verbatim, i.e., an object that is flying that can't currently be identified. That said, what we have here are two things--a minimal declaration from the photographer, and some pics; one of which he claims has something to do with an object in the clouds.

    I believe the first pic could be a "shadow" of what I don't know. (I would initially assume a cloud based on the pic alone). He says (Luna) it that it's the shadow of the object; however, and most curiously, he doesn't immediately take a picture of it, (the object) as evidenced by the increasing cloud cover between shots. The other two "UFOs" IMHO are a bird and a bug, although I can't say for certain with the current data at hand, henceforth they remain "UFOs" in the truest sense of the word.

    These pics are very reminiscent of the Whittlesea "bug" er, "UFO" pic of a while back. With the rapid pace of advancement in regards to photographic technology we see more and more "photographic anamolies." What's usually lacking, is eyewitness "support" for what the camera captures. Why? Because the camera captures what the eye doesn't see: a small bug flying by, a bird in the distance etc.

    From a "scientific standpoint" (since you mentioned it) we have to look at what data is on the table; the pictures by themselves have no merit; the pictures with Luna's "limited declaration" have little more.

    Regards,
    Frank

    ReplyDelete

Dear Contributor,

Your comments are greatly appreciated, and coveted; however, blatant mis-use of this site's bandwidth will not be tolerated (e.g., SPAM etc).

Additionally, healthy debate is invited; however, ad hominem and or vitriolic attacks will not be published. Please keep your arguments "to the issues" and present them with civility and proper decorum-FW

LIVE SIGHTING REPORTS BY MUFON