| ID | #1565962569 |
| Added | Fri, 16/08/2019 |
| Author | July N. |
| Sources | |
| Phenomena | |
| Status | Fact
|
Initial data
A longer strip or light a glowing path of the satellite, and the shorter strip on top of the unidentified.
The broken negatives were intensively studied by Dr. Corrales and other qualified scientists.
Dr. Corrales:
"It can't be double exposure because the stars also recorded a double image on the plate, and they didn't. This may not be an internal reflection from the camera, because the path is not the same size as the left companion.
It's not a scratch on the plate, for inspection while increasing the deposition of the emulsion on the photographic material, which is achieved by only one light."
Translated by «Yandex.Translator»
Original news
The longer streak or light is the luminous path of sputnik II and the shorter streak above is unidentified. The blown-up negative has been intensively studied by Dr. Corrales and other qualified scientists. Dr. Corrales, “It cannot be a double exposure for the stars would have registered double image on the plate also and they didn’t. it cannot be an internal camera reflection as the path isn’t the same size as the one left by the sputnik. It is not a scratch on the plate, for examination by magnifying it is a precipitation of the emulsion on the photographic material , whieh is only accomplished by light alone. The camera’ pr,oiog”rpr,J;;lil;; we can’t identify If the luminous trail running the path produced bv -paralrert o the sateliie,s tra’ is -lnother uoav unJ -ii period became Iuminous during a short of time, we would.be prFr; “n f,vpotr,”ri, fr”.J lo-p”ouJli urveUOfn. Inasmuch the Doctor hesitates to ituo”iru, we,’take the liberty: It is obvious that the object is not a ………..flying intelligently and therefore it must be an controlled in our opinion
Hypotheses
Investigation
Resume
Log in or register to post comments
