UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2008 > May > May 6

Malargue Argentina UFO Photo Controversy Continues

From: Scott Corrales <lornis1.nul>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 12:17:33 -0400
Archived: Tue, 06 May 2008 07:24:16 -0400
Subject: Malargue Argentina UFO Photo Controversy Continues


INEXPLICATA

The Journal of Hispanic Ufology

May 5, 2008


The Controversial Malargue UFO (Argentina)

By Luis Burgos (FAO)

The Event

Felix Fernandez, Omar Gonzalez and Virgilio Moreno, employees of
the Direcci=F3n Provincial de Vialidad, were returning from Paraje
La Junta to the city of Malargue in southern Mendoza province
after working on repairing some machinery. As the trip elapsed,
Fernandez took pictures of the landscape with his cellphone (of
which no information has been hitherto available). At 18:50
hours, a strange discoidal flying object makes an appearance,
maneuvering in front of the sun and the witnesses, and flying
over the zone for 15 minutes until pausing for a moment and then
vanishing from sight toward the west in the El Chacal zone. This
allowed for several photos to be taken of the object. Fernandez
told his own story on Radio 1 Alvear and the story reached the
media. The photo analyses performed by Jorge Luis Figueiras,
through various filters, show the typical solid =93saucer shape=94
with interesting contours and edges, similar to photos taken
with cellphones from El Chocon and Santiago del Estero, both in
2008.

The Main Witness

This, then, is the narrative of the case and of the analyses
performed by our specialist, Jorge Luis Figueiras, using the
only photograph that was circulated in the media. After a few
days, I received an e-mail from the main protagonist of the
event. Mr. Felix Fabian Fernandez, 41, expressing his _total_
lack of commercial interest in the photo, fully placing it at
the disposal of this author, and therefore, of the FAO, to
perform any analyses to the required material, consisting of a
series of images taken that afternoon, and making himself
available for any questions or consultations that we may deem
pertinent. As days passed, we exchanged several phone calls,
text messages and e-mails. We can extract from them the
following evaluative concepts from the eyewitness=92s account:

The camera: It was not a cellphone, as the media claimed, but a
digital camera with a 1 Megapixel lens, Mp4 and video
capability. The photos have a 640 x 480 resolution.

The photos: Seven photos were taken of the object, not just one
(the photo that appeared in the media).

The time: According to Felix, between 2-4 minutes elapsed
between each photo. The 15-minute duration of the observation
took place on a poorly kept road, covered in dirt and rip-rap,
and along a detour. This allows us to deduce that the distance
covered by the pickup truck was NOT VERY LONG, compared with 15
minutes driving along a normal road. Hence the nearly permanent
presence in the same landscape. We must add to this the time
taken to get out of the vehicle to take better photos.

The UFO: The disk-shaped object remained at a constant altitude
and made gyroscopic movements, balancing itself slightly
throughout the observation and even as it sped away...

The geography: While this is an open area, the facilities of the
Pierre Auger Observatory are nearby, well known for its capture
of cosmic rays. In other words, the object flew over this
location.

The photographic variables:

If the object is far away =96 it is undefined.

If the object is near =96 it is too real.

If the object is out of focus or blurry =96 it is a spot, a bird
or a bug.

If it is in front of the Sun or near it =96 it is a reflection.

If there are eyewitnesses =96 then it must be a hoax, etc., etc.

Perhaps in order to counteract this, and also as a test, we
would have to resort to the AIRPLANE EFFECT: in other words,
begin taking photos of distant aircraft, as far as possible, and
if they are near the sun, better yet. 80% of the photos would be
DISQUALIFIED as such. They would be merely distant, elongated
forms, poorly lit, with odd contours, etc. and no matter how
hard the witness tried to prove that he saw and photographed a
plane, [this would be rejected] simply because the photo
presented as proof WOULD NOT SUPPORT IT!!!

The analyses: Having employed all of the filters [the object]
indeed presents contours, edges and even a reflection of its own
image in one of the photos, but when all of the photos are
superimposed, the object=92s location is almost the same. It seems
to be fixed in all photos between the Sun and the camera.
Untrustworthy? Obviously. Impossible? Not at all. With regard to
the low resolution of cellular or low quality cameras, which
present =93dark central spots=94 when aimed at the Sun (not in all
cases) and sometimes strange oval objects, this is not the case.
Here we have a classic =93two plates joined at the edges=94 shape,
not an oval or ovoid. It is obvious that it would be henceforth
necessary for naysayers to =93prove the hoax=94, as there is no
confusion here. It=92s either a UFO or a hoax, and in the case of
the latter, we would be speaking in terms of RETOUCHING a dark
spot produced in the photos.

Conclusions

In the light of all this new information and the analyses
performed, the case shall without question remain polemical.
There will be those who will rely on the eyewitness version of
the events, those who will call it into question and those who
will dismiss it as a hoax, where we would now face a
photographic montage as well as a =93confabulation=94 by three
witnesses, employees of a state company. In other words, one
person hoaxing the images and two more corroborating the story.
This is hard to believe, but not impossible, logically. Let us
bear in mind that this isn=92t a mere photo or =93phantom=94 photo ---
 it is a sighting =93backed by photo evidence=94, to judge by the
proof presented.

Question: And if the three witnesses hadn=92t presented photos and
gone to the media with their story, would this have made the
case more credible? Why bother with photos, if the press reports
everything or nearly everything, especially from rural
residents? We therefore present all of the analyses performed on
the photos. Let everyone draw their own conclusions:
coincidences, reflections, hoaxes, questions, certainty, new
discoveries, etc. Everything is possible in the field of ufology
=96 just ask the FOTOCAT project!

-----

Translation (c) 2008, Scott Corrales
Institute of Hispanic Ufology




Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com