• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

'Rod' UFOs Over Machu Picchu

Sid

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Messages
3,381
This discussion was spun off from its initial appearance in the Warminster Wiltshire UFOs thread:
https://forums.forteana.org/index.php?threads/warminster-wiltshire-ufos.9715/
---------------------------


And should you be interested in having a look whilst on the B.E.A.M.S webpage at another photograph which is in my opinion at least, the best and most convincing photograph I've had the pleasure of working with to date, it is the one marked on their webpage as:

[00-08-2017: Impressive Rod UFO/Craft? Over Machu Picchu, Peru]

In the photograph, you will see that a large red circle has been drawn (not my work) of what is known as a 'Rod' UFO, and very impressive it is too - it's also a fantastic photographic view of that particular world tourist venue.

However, after I'd studied the photograph for a good number of day's, I began to wonder if there might well be something else in the photograph that might be - shall we say, "not quite right."

Well sure enough I found another Rod UFO way over on the left hand side in that photograph, which took some finding, as I had to blow the photograph up to it's maximum, and there just nudging the left hand side of the mountain was the same type of UFO craft, though smaller, as it was much farther away - this had been totally missed out altogether in the original photograph that was published. Because of that fact, I'm convinced that the probability of this photograph being completely authentic was factual. In addition - there is also another unrecognisable image right on the pinnacle of the smaller mountain on the left, couldn't define exactly what this - at first guess I thought it might be a climber standing on top, but on closer blow-up the image is not like a person, just a blue image with black below, so I did not manage to fathom out what this 'object' actually was.

I sent my findings along to the B.E.A.M.S. web site, but once again it was just ignored - make of that what you will.

You might well be able to find it yourself, it's lurking in the distance if you are able to enlarge the B.E.A.M.S. photograph 'online' as much as possible, otherwise it would be all too easy to miss it out altogether.

Cheers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it would be sensible to suggest to anyone who is interested in the 'macho-pichu' photograph - 'of sound mind,' to have a look at the actual B.E.A.M.S. website photograph for themselves, search out the objects as outlined above, without any pre-scepticism and make up their own minds.
 
INSECTS! "Ha!" REALLY? Have a second look.

*Image #1 right side of the large mountain:
Machu Picchu, (Full Photo) Peru (3).jpg

*image #2 (all in the same photograph) left side, of left smaller mountain
- with unknown anomaly at the pinnacle:
Machu Picchu, Close-Up, Peru.jpg

"You might want to reconsider your assumptions of these images - as being insects!"
 
INSECTS! "Ha!" REALLY? Have a second look.

*Image #1 right side of the large mountain:
View attachment 18588

*image #2 (all in the same photograph) left side, of left smaller mountain
- with unknown anomaly at the pinnacle:
View attachment 18589

"You might want to reconsider your assumptions of these images - as being insects!"
Perspective is a funny thing. This man's hand for instance, is larger than the Eiffel Tower.

3980350.jpeg
 
The person behind the camera that took this shot:


... might be able to shed some light on what the airborne anomaly may represent. :pipe:

SOURCE: https://ak2.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/16777462/thumb/1.jpg
VIDEO From Which The Photo Is Excerpted: https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-16777462-machu-picchu---view-airplane-window
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "The above entry was NOT inserted by me:"
Sid
Junior Acolyte:

How can that be? As the image shown must have been taken at ground level 10 feet or so off the ground, with plenty of tourist's in the foreground of the shot to prove it. So how can such a low-level picture possibly be taken from an aircraft - unless it flew so low that it killed all the tourists in it's wake?
 
Last edited:
They sure look like insects to me. Given a 1/30 sec exposure, an insect could move more than 10 centimetres, leaving a trail on the image.
 
How can that be? As the image shown must have been taken at ground level 10 feet or so off the ground, with plenty of tourist's in the foreground of the shot to prove it. So how can such a low-level picture possibly be taken from an aircraft - unless it flew so low that it killed all the tourists in it's wake?

OK - if I have to connect the dots for you ...

The photo demonstrates that even airliners coming in on approach to Cuzco pass by Machu Picchu, obtaining an aerial vantage from the very same horizontal orientation to the site as a hypothetical alien occupant of the purported rod UFO in the big photo would have.

This very similar photo taken from another airliner (same livery; different color scheme):

https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/72435183/machu-picchu-peru-aerial-view.html

... demonstrates this is a regular photo opportunity afforded airline passengers.

Furthermore ... If you check you'll find there are many chartered small aircraft and helicopter aerial tours conducted around Machu Picchu.

And - to be safe - here's the final connection among these dots ...

It doesn't require a moving insect or bird in the relatively near distance to get a rod within your snapshot. The very same blurry photo anomaly could well represent a moving chopper, light plane, or even an airliner.
 
Last edited:
OK - if I have to connect the dots for you ...

The photo demonstrates that even airliners coming in on approach to Cuzco pass by Machu Picchu, obtaining an aerial vantage from the very same horizontal orientation to the site as a hypothetical alien occupant of the purported rod UFO in the big photo would have.

This very similar photo taken from another airliner (same livery; different color scheme):

https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/72435183/machu-picchu-peru-aerial-view.html

... demonstrates this is regular photo opportunity afforded airline passengers.

Furthermore ... If you check you'll find there are many chartered small aircraft and helicopter aerial tours conducted around Machu Picchu.

And - to be safe - here's the final connection among these dots ...

It doesn't require a moving insect or bird in the relatively near distance to get a rod within your snapshot. The very same blurry photo anomaly could well represent a moving chopper, light plane, or even an airliner.
Maybe so, but that still does not explain how any aircraft flying over the heads of tourists some ten feet off the ground, does it. And furthermore, you could say that what is in the photograph is anything that comes to mind... but I am simply stating that to me. It seems that you are the one who is connecting the dots and assuming that you see it as something quite different - others do not, there's nothing wrong with that statement - we all have eyes to see, and a brain to work things out for ourselves, and you have to allow for a difference of opinion.
 
Last edited:
Maybe so, but that still does not explain how any aircraft flying over the heads of tourists some ten feet off the ground, does it.

perspective. It's a big thing far away and not a small thing close by?
 
I agree with Sid; this is not an aerial photo. The details are too sharp, for a start.
 
One thing that goes against the 'insect' interpretation is that rods caused by insects usually have a wavy line caused by the flapping of the wings. I can't really see this here, although there is a very faint suggestion of wings which I have highlighted in this picture (original 'rod' is the top image, highlighted version is the lower image)
BUG.png
 
Wow ... Just wow ... As a late friend used to say, "You cease to amaze me."

I never implied, much less stated, the big photo from B.E.A.M.S. was an aerial photo. I even spoon-fed the implication as follows:

And - to be safe - here's the final connection among these dots ...

It doesn't require a moving insect or bird in the relatively near distance to get a rod within your snapshot. The very same blurry photo anomaly could well represent a moving chopper, light plane, or even an airliner.
 
Here's another Rod to compare how these things appear, in full enlargement. And no, it's not a double image. If you look at the highlights on each level, you will see that they do not match-up like-for-like.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot (104).jpg
    Screenshot (104).jpg
    33.5 KB · Views: 12
Here's another Rod to compare how these things appear, in full enlargement. And no, it's not a double image. If you look at the highlights on each level, you will see that they do not match-up like-for-like.
A different type of insect, with a different wing layout.
Also, you can't expect complete symmetry.
 
I have a great picture from 9/12/2001 of a UFO in the sky that looks just like this. Remember: No aircraft was flying that day. The country was basically grounded. It's a bug.
 
@Mythopoeika does it worry you that we are so much on the same wavelength sometimes? :oldm:
 
I have a great picture from 9/12/2001 of a UFO in the sky that looks just like this. Remember: No aircraft was flying that day. The country was basically grounded. It's a bug.
Some Bug Eh? Flies in the night sky, and happens to leave a vapour trial too... now that's clever - spose it could be a Tiger Moth! Mmm?
 
Bugs fly at night - what do you think bats eat?
 
Can someone give us a link to this picture?
 
Some Bug Eh? Flies in the night sky, and happens to leave a vapour trial too... now that's clever - spose it could be a Tiger Moth! Mmm?
:fbunny:
Oh my.
 
Can someone give us a link to this picture?
Sorry 'Justified & Ancient,' not with this one I afraid. Other than to point out that in the original photograph there are further anomalies which form a triangle without any visual solid form.
I should also add that right in the centre of this triangular form, after searching for any further anomalies - I came across a small, solid appearing orb.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top