Claim: ''UAP researcher'' released clear smoking gun photo of Orb captured by photographer

[Dadiot_007]

So has the photo been released yet?

It seems he has posted the alleged photo. I hope it's okay to post links:

https://x.com/UFOS_UAPS/status/1706458068937048087
https://x.com/UFOS_UAPS/status/1706473425651274000
https://x.com/UFOS_UAPS/status/1706473537186226590

 

[PublicStranger]

Unclear if this is the one he has been fantasizing about all this time, but it's the one he posted with this description.

 

[Ashley Pomeroy]

It's good that the second image has arrows pointing at the balloon. I would have missed it otherwise.

 

[RTM]

Those are arrows!

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Could be the one cos I reckon the arrows are pointing to the "lasers"?

His twitter appears to have a rebuttal of the rebuttal...


Source: https://twitter.com/UFOS_UAPS/status/1706496376517890309

 

[Ann K]

Our "orb" fails to have an orb shape. But it has a six letter-or-number inscription on the side (nice of the aliens to identify their visiting craft), and the upper side looks like either a specular reflection or perhaps a two-word logo five (or more letters) and six (or more) letters. Can anyone read it?

 

[Mendel]

Our "orb" fails to have an orb shape. But it has a six letter-or-number inscription on the side (nice of the aliens to identify their visiting craft), and the upper side looks like either a specular reflection or perhaps a two-word logo five (or more letters) and six (or more) letters. Can anyone read it?

How do you see that?



This looks worse than the Calvine photo. Or Patagonia.

Why was the photographer taking a series of pictures of the forest?

 

[AllTheQuestionsToday]

Why was the photographer taking a series of pictures of the forest?

Why does that matter? I take photos when I go out and I'm at a nice vantage. It's not even an agenda thing. Nice view > phone > photo > continue to enjoy view.

 

[SuppaCoup]

well that's......underwhelming?
I don't think it's that drone someone rather over-confidently suggested. Looks more like a balloon of some kind.
Firmly in the LIZ, almost no detail at all barring overall color patterns. Identifying a laser system on this thing with any confidence seems very unlikely, much less that it has "appendages".

 

[John J.]

Whatever our views on UAPMax's claim, it's important we don't badger him unnecessarily.

But it has a six letter-or-number inscription on the side

Ann K., I can't see that. Can you show us?

In the OP by @PublicStranger, quoting UAPMax (the claimant),

Arms or appendages extending. Same laser systems I reported on

We can reasonably expect to see visible laser beams emanating from the object, or details of the object in such extraordinary detail that we can surmise that it is carrying "laser systems" which would be amazing. Otherwise UAPMax's claims are bunk, at least in part.

Do I get a prize, please? I propose UAPMax's claim of laser systems is indeed "bunk".

And I don't see arms or appendages "extending".

..you will see the field it is creating

Content from External Source

On zooming in, I get the impression of some image distortion in a roughly square shape surrounding the badger's head ET spacecraft. It reminds me of the unintended effects when I edit/ cut-and-paste/ montage images for fun (I don't know the technical terms or explanations, others here will).

 

[Mendel]

Why does that matter? I take photos when I go out and I'm at a nice vantage. It's not even an agenda thing. Nice view > phone > photo > continue to enjoy view.

Do your pictures have grass and ferns in focus in the foreground, too?

 

[Mendel]

Note: the object appears lower in the image than the horizon, which means that its altitude is less than the elevation of the observer.


I've been wondering if it might be a kite or a parachute.

 

[NorCal Dave]

First of all, is this it, the photo he was hyping or a different photo? Or is it from a series of photos that includes the one he's been hyping, but not the actual hyped one? Sort of a teaser?

I guess these could be "appendages", but I'm not seeing a laser and the "field" it's supposed to be generating just looks like digital artifacts.



Guess us non-redditers will wait to see what others report on reddits/ufo thread thinks of this.

Maybe there's more.

 

[John J.]

I've been wondering if it might be a kite or a parachute.

Or a black bin bag. Or a dark, waxy leaf catching the sun. Maybe even a butterfly or day moth...

But I'm not sure that the image is a photo of an object that was actually there at all; it seems to me that the "UAP" sits in a roughly square-shaped area whose edges resemble the artefacts present from crude graphic file manipulation.

The lower and left edges are most prominent (I'm not ruling out pareidolia or misinterpretation on my part, though).



As for evidence of

(1) the appendages extending,
(2) laser systems,
(3) the disturbance in the air directly above it,
(4) the field it is creating,
(5) "...immense speed or direct portal travel",

...as claimed by UAPMax, let's be direct: (1) bunk, (2) bunk, (3) bunk, (4) bunk, (5) bunk.

 

[NorCal Dave]

But I'm not sure that the image is a photo of an object that was actually there at all; it seems to me that the "UAP" sits in a roughly square-shaped area whose edges resemble the artefacts present from crude graphic file manipulation

I thought that too, but could it be the camera algorithms and/or any compression algorithm used? The object is distinctly different from the background, so is there a zone next to the object that gets a little distorted when zoomed in this close? Not ruling out an insert, just asking.

 

[Mendel]

Or a black bin bag.

Wouldn't be the first one to have caused UFO reports, see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/big-balloons-that-are-not-round.12577/post-276849 and https://www.metabunk.org/threads/dark-uap-free-falling-possible-black-plastic-bag.12170/#post-262634 .

 

[yoshy]

Why not actually, you know, wait until there is something to analyze and break down before preemptively mocking and dismissing it?

This thread feels like mocking and hating just for the sake of it, which is not really the point of Metabunk as far as I can tell.

I think the answer should be obvious now

 

[Mendel]

Here is the photo

Cropped:

Fotoforensics' error level analysis suggests the picture wasn't edited.

 

[JMartJr]

I've been wondering if it might be a kite...

Not one with which I am familiar, but I'll ask around.

Or a black bin bag.

Were we closer to Medellin, Colombia, I'd be saying it is very possibly a solar balloon, popular up there and made of something similar to thin bin-bag-material. Not that they COULDN'T make them in Ecuador, it's just that I don;t know that they do and a fast google search "en español" didn't find any examples.

 

[JMartJr]

Not one with which I am familiar, but I'll ask around.

Found this almost right away. Dang. (Picture of kite being flown near Guayaquil, Ecuador, note in passing how the string is not really visible.)

Picture from: https://lodijeron.wordpress.com/202...ometas-en-cerro-el-muerto-parroquia-el-morro/, cropped to the relevant kite.

I'm tempted to point out all the obvious similarities, but these traditional kites in that part of the world pretty universally have long and obvious tails. I suppose it is possible that the tail fell off and the photographer happened to catch it as it was spiraling out of control before crashing, but that seems a stretch.

But dang it, the kite body is SO similar.

For comparison, another similar kite not made of black plastic so you can see the structure better:

The three-stick hexagonal frame is extremely common in that region, as is the extra fluttery pit of plastic/paper on the back end for drag, which would allow for second-to-second variations in shape in a picture.

Such a kite made intentionally without a tail would be a fighter kite, unstable but maneuverable. There is no reason there could not be somebody flying fighters in Ecuador, but if there is nobody has told me about it!

 

[Mendel]

Picture of kite being flown near Guayaquil, Ecuador

Great work!

I thought the "appendages" at the bottom looked like the bits that have the strings attached.

The tail might be hidden behind the body of the kite, given the high vantage point of the observer; or it might be made from transparent plastic?

I expect that the claim of the object appearing and disappearing suddenly is going to contradict the kite or balloon/bin bag explanations.

 

[taurusclover21]

 

[Ann K]

How do you see that?



This looks worse than the Calvine photo. Or Patagonia.

Why was the photographer taking a series of pictures of the forest?

I can't see it in the close-up image you posted either. Go back to @PublicStranger 's post where he first shows it, the second image. (I don't know what will happen if I just post my screen shot, because it may or may not change the resolution.) The logo on the nearest side looks like six characters, or possibly four characters, then a dash, then a final character which looks like a 6.

Here's my screenshot on an iPad, which tells me it's 2360 x 1640.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Such a kite made intentionally without a tail would be a fighter kite, unstable but maneuverable. There is no reason there could not be somebody flying fighters in Ecuador, but if there is nobody has told me about it!

Seriously everyone, what other site has a resident kite expert?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Is this the "low resolution" version? I think he's saying there will be an article later?

Tentative ID: a butterfly of the genus Adelpha

Head to our left, abdomen to our right. Left wing closer to camera. Right wing farther.

If this were in only one frame of a quick series, it makes sense that it is something small and close to the camera. A butterfly that close would move out of frame quickly, even though not traveling very fast.

A photo of one individual of one species of genus Adelpha. There's considerable variation between species and between individuals within a species. Those white stripes look interesting though.


In this low resolution photo, note that the white stripe nearest the camera is broken into segments. Reminiscent of the stripes on the wing of the above butterfly. Might just be artifacts, but seems interesting.

Remember the "South Texas Thing": https://www.metabunk.org/threads/south-texas-thing-strange-object-on-path-butterfly.12712/

That one fooled the heck out of me. I thought it was a sheep. This time I'm going with butterfly.

 

[JMartJr]

Tentative ID: a butterfly of the genus Adelpha

That's VERY interesting. I'm not sure you've nailed it, but then I am also not sure you have not!

If there was a trace of the orange in the UFO pic, that might tip the balance -- but possibly some of them don't have much/any orange?

Going off to google Adelpha and other butterflies of Ecuador!

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Do all individuals of all species have orange? I'm sure there's a lot of variation.

 

[sigmops]

Just a reminder that according to the initial post allegedly there are before and after photos along with their metadata that demonstrate how short lived this object was. Kite or butterfly may be replaced with beetle or flies depending on the inter-photo capture times.

UAPMax has stated they are working on an article


Source: https://twitter.com/UFOS_UAPS/status/1706829791783952813

 

[JMartJr]

Just a reminder that according to the initial post allegedly there are before and after photos along with their metadata that demonstrate how short lived this object was.

Fair enough, and if/when we see that it might rule some of these possibilities out. But until then, it's worth working on some ideas.

Do all individuals of species have orange?

Dunno, but I found this one, no orange:

Tagged as Pedaliodes peucestas from Ecuador.
Source: https://www.prairiehaven.com/?p=7044 , about a fifth of the way down the page.

There are several Pedaliodes species, many with white marks. IF the UFO is a butterfly, it looks to me like the white patches would be out along the outer margins of the wings a bit more. Unless I am envisioning things incorrectly?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Pedaliodes peucestas with wings up.

 

[NorCal Dave]

If this were in only one frame of a quick series, it makes sense that it is something small and close to the camera. A butterfly that close would move out of frame quickly, even though not traveling very fast

You're an old school camera guy Mr. Wolf. How far from the camera would you think the butterfly would have to be as it's a bit out of focus while the close up ferns are in focus?

My initial thought is that if someone were shooting a landscape and wanted the foreground in focus they would use a large depth of field setting, meaning the butterfly would be in focus if close to the camera like the ferns. But, a large depth of field setting might mean a slower shutter speed, rendering the butterfly a bit out of focus due to movement.

Interesting.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Species Adelpha basiloides



In silhouette against a bright background the wings would be dark and the white stripes would be translucent. The orange hue (really a kind of brown) might not be noticeable in silhouette. It might be washed out and look white.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

You're an old school camera guy Mr. Wolf. How far from the camera would you think the butterfly would have to be as it's a bit out of focus while the close up ferns are in focus?

My initial thought is that if someone were shooting a landscape and wanted the foreground in focus they would use a large depth of field setting, meaning the butterfly would be in focus if close to the camera like the ferns. But, a large depth of field setting might mean a slower shutter speed, rendering the butterfly a bit out of focus due to movement.

Interesting.

Without knowing the focal length of the lens and the size of the sensor there's insufficient data for a meaningful analysis, Captain.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

My impression is that this cropped photo was taken with a medium lens sort of focused on those plants...

A crappy photo.

With the poor resolution and the unknown way it was cropped, though, it's pretty hard to tell.

If it is a butterfly, I'd think it's closer than those plants. But there's not just plane of focus to think of. There's resolution and motion blur from the lateral motion of the bug, and the motion of the wings flapping.

 

[NoParty]

I do fully expect to be epically underwhelmed when the breathlessly-described pic
is finally revealed...

Okay, I can't pretend that this nothing burger is a surprise.

But, if this pic just showed up randomly on the internet, I think my reaction would've been
along the lines of: "Hmmm...what is that? Another helium balloon?
I sure don't know, but it's a pretty safe bet it's not aliens..." In other words, no big deal.

But instead, I feel like I was promised delivery of a 2024 Maserati Quattroporte,
but instead got a 1999 Ford Focus...with warped brake rotors...towed to my driveway.

 

[AmberRobot]

Okay, I can't pretend that this nothing burger is a surprise.

But, if this pic just showed up randomly on the internet, I think my reaction would've been
along the lines of: "Hmmm...what is that? Another helium balloon?
I sure don't know, but it's a pretty safe bet it's not aliens..." In other words, no big deal.

But instead, I feel like I was promised delivery of a 2024 Maserati Quattroporte,
but instead got a 1999 Ford Focus...with warped brake rotors...towed to my driveway.

It’s still more interesting than a dot.

 

[Easy Muffin]

Anyone else notice that small triangular-looking bit? Doesn't seem like it's part of the canopy.
In combination with the faint outline of two ropes/cords/wires trailing from the dark blob I get the impression this is one object being dragged along by the other.

 

[Mendel]

Anyone else notice that small triangular-looking bit? Doesn't seem like it's part of the canopy.
In combination with the faint outline of two ropes/cords/wires trailing from the dark blob I get the impression this is one object being dragged along by the other.

That's going to become clearer with the other sequence pictures.

I had looked at parachutes, they can have pretty strange shapes while they're opening, but couldn't find anything that'd be attached to it if it is one.

 

[FatPhil]

Those are arrows!

Are you saying the UFO's spraypainting air-graffiti in order to draw attention to itself - that's even more needy than the ones that merely flash lights? Great photo to capture that air-graffiti before it dissipated, though.

Anyway, nice of him to have posted a doctored image in order to ensure any suspicion of it being a doctored image can be dismissed with a "duh!". (This applies to his (c) watermarked one too.)

/sarc, obviously.

 

[FatPhil]

But I'm not sure that the image is a photo of an object that was actually there at all; it seems to me that the "UAP" sits in a roughly square-shaped area whose edges resemble the artefacts present from crude graphic file manipulation.

The lower and left edges are most prominent (I'm not ruling out pareidolia or misinterpretation on my part, though).

This is the strongest possibilities presently, IMHO. Where can the original image be found - and by original, I mean the straight-from-the-camera uncropped one? That's the only sensible image to do pixel-peeping on - if they won't let anyone have that, they don't want anyone to do pixel-peeping. (OK, lossless crop does exist, but if they're not explicitly mentioning use of it, they probably didn't use it, because it's exactly the thing you would mention using in order to stave off predictable comments like mine.)