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

[MonkeeSage]

Another butterfly species native to Ecuador with a similar color pattern:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliconius_sapho

 

[FatPhil]

Another butterfly species native to Ecuador with a similar color pattern:

Images like this are moving the butterfly hypothesis steadily higher on my list - I've just bumped from "hmmm, not really seeing it" to "hmmm, yeah, I can kinda see that" - good finds!

 

[Ann K]

Anyone else notice that small triangular-looking bit? Doesn't seem like it's part of the canopy.

I think it's just a small building in the trees.

 

[JMartJr]

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.

Wing flapping may be to some extent optional:

Source video: https://youtu.be/V4i-SvPu5Kk


I had no idea that (at least some species of) butterflies could do this.

 

[JMartJr]

Quick check -- this is what I am seeing when considering the Butterfly Hypothesis:

(To the limit of my skills drawing in photoshop...)

Is that what others who are considering it a butterfly are thinking, in terms of orientation and pose, roughly?

 

[Nullxata]

Quick check -- this is what I am seeing when considering the Butterfly Hypothesis:

(To the limit of my skills drawing in photoshop...)

Is that what others who are considering it a butterfly are thinking, in terms of orientation and pose, roughly?

That's pretty much spot on to what I see after gazing at it during a few sips of tea. Butterfly hypothesis has moved to the top of my list, especially considering that during my work we've seen, (because of a very stopped down wide angle lens) unintentional forced perspectives of "huge" human-sized flying insects next to the onscreen talent.

 

[Easy Muffin]

I think it's just a small building in the trees.

Yes that's quite possible too if a little out of the way for my liking . Well I suppose it could be something like a fire lookout tower. Be interesting to see the other photos.

 

[jarlrmai]

Quick check -- this is what I am seeing when considering the Butterfly Hypothesis:

(To the limit of my skills drawing in photoshop...)

Is that what others who are considering it a butterfly are thinking, in terms of orientation and pose, roughly?

That's what I see too

But it's probably more wing than your sketch in my opinion. Butterfly bodies are slim

 

[SuppaCoup]

I think it's most likely a butterfly. Is this the most detailed version of the image that he has?

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Wing flapping may be to some extent optional:

Source video: https://youtu.be/V4i-SvPu5Kk


I had no idea that (at least some species of) butterflies could do this.

When the wings are that far up, it can't be gliding. The wings must be in the upstroke or down-stroke of a flap.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Quick check -- this is what I am seeing when considering the Butterfly Hypothesis:

(To the limit of my skills drawing in photoshop...)

Is that what others who are considering it a butterfly are thinking, in terms of orientation and pose, roughly?

I don't think it's in perfect profile though. It's flying on a path a bit oblique to the plane of the sensor. The bug is rotated a bit. The head is turned away a bit, and the abdomen is turned a bit toward the camera.

 

[MapperGuy]

Quick check -- this is what I am seeing when considering the Butterfly Hypothesis:

(To the limit of my skills drawing in photoshop...)

Is that what others who are considering it a butterfly are thinking, in terms of orientation and pose, roughly?

Butterfly seems like a likely candidate. The lower light band is on the bottom of the near wing, the brighter band is on the top of the far wing. One is directly lit by the sun and the other is not, hence the difference in brightness.

The plants directly in front of the camera are in direct sunlight, but the closest foliage beyond them is in a clouds shadow, so the "orb" is either very close or over that more distant foliage which also in sunlight.

 

[Ann K]

When the wings are that far up, it can't be gliding. The wings must be in the upstroke or down-stroke of a flap.

From an article I found: it won't let me cut and paste so here's a screen grab.
https://www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/preserve/museums/files/Monarch Glider Activity_0.pdf

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

From an article I found: it won't let me cut and paste so here's a screen grab.
https://www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/preserve/museums/files/Monarch Glider Activity_0.pdf

Let me put it another way. Ability to glide granted. However we can tell from a still photo when the butterfly could be gliding and when it couldn't be gliding... at that moment.

The wings of the butterfly in the photo are at an acute angle. That means it's in the midst of a flap. In a glide the wings must be at an oblique angle. With the wings held at an acute angle like that, there would be no lift.

 

[NoParty]

Have we been given EXIF info on this game-changing photo?

Am I the only one who was a bit surprised to see the holy grail document, from a genuine "photographer"

looking like a cellphone pic?

 

[JMartJr]

The wings of the butterfly in the photo are at an acute angle. That means it's in the midst of a flap. In a glide the wings must be at an oblique angle. With the wings held at an acute angle like that, there would be no lift.

I have absolutely no idea, but I am wondering -- would a butterfly ever descend in a glide (or avoid ascending in a updraft, I guess) by raising it's wings? It would seem a viable technique, but do they ever actually DO it?

 

[AmberRobot]

Have we been given EXIF info on this game-changing photo?

Am I the only one who was a bit surprised to see the holy grail document, from a genuine "photographer"

looking like a cellphone pic?

and why, from a genuine photographer, would there be only one photo?

 

[Ann K]

Let me put it another way. Ability to glide granted. However we can tell from a still photo when the butterfly could be gliding and when it couldn't be gliding... at that moment.

The wings of the butterfly in the photo are at an acute angle. That means it's in the midst of a flap. In a glide the wings must be at an oblique angle. With the wings held at an acute angle like that, there would be no lift.

I guess I'm confused: there are a lot of different butterflies in the clip from @JMartJr to which I refer. I suppose you must be talking about the orb-that-is-maybe-a-butterfly.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

The Butterfly with white stripes whose legs are laser cannons.

 

[Mendel]

and why, from a genuine photographer, would there be only one photo?

The claim is that there are at least 3 photos: the "orb", and the pictures before and after in that sequence.

 

[Mendel]

UAPmax uses AI graphics:

Source: https://twitter.com/ufos_uaps/status/1706166144204149065


apparently we're talking about starlings? or perhaps every debunker is one of us?

Source: https://twitter.com/ufos_uaps/status/1707088167927463945


the compression artefacts show there's a portal, and there are more arrows:

Source: https://twitter.com/ufos_uaps/status/1706817472660160570



Source: https://twitter.com/ufos_uaps/status/1706814175216099383

 

[Mendel]

Here is the photo

Where did you find it?

 

[jarlrmai]

I've been looking for candidate species, there many butterfly species and many of them are in South America.

One that might fit (black with white wing stripes visible from below and above.

https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/342628-Pedaliodes-palaepolis

 

[SuppaCoup]

UAPmax uses AI graphics:

Source: https://twitter.com/ufos_uaps/status/1706166144204149065


apparently we're talking about starlings? or perhaps every debunker is one of us?

Source: https://twitter.com/ufos_uaps/status/1707088167927463945


the compression artefacts show there's a portal, and there are more arrows:

Source: https://twitter.com/ufos_uaps/status/1706817472660160570



Source: https://twitter.com/ufos_uaps/status/1706814175216099383

the sheer vitriol mick inspires in these people's hearts by politely disagreeing with them...
It's very telling he's laying someone opining on twitter about this being a bird at our feet, not a single person here suggested that. I doubt he's ever actually been here.

 

[humphreysjim]

Where did you find it?

I added him on twitter and he posted it there. He does not seem interested in debating what this is - he will block anyone who suggests it's anything other than alien tech.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Anyone any idea on how "the pixels indicate this is not an artifact, but actual"?

Just looks very artifacty to me.

 

[Ravi]

the sheer vitriol mick inspires in these people's hearts by politely disagreeing with them...
It's very telling he's laying someone opining on twitter about this being a bird at our feet, not a single person here suggested that. I doubt he's ever actually been here.

It is the typical reaction you can expect from a channel like that.
How can we take these channels serious, if we get replies like that? I sure as hell don't.
To me they are all grifters and/or attention seekers, no exception.

 

[jarlrmai]

They indicate a jpeg macroblock artifact as far as I can tell. But when you are trying to convince people of strange things it's often a done thing to claim things are actually other things without evidence and definitely not the actual thing.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_macroblocking_effect_(JPEG).png

 

[Ravi]

They indicate a jpeg macroblock artifact as far as I can tell. But when you are trying to convince people of strange things it's often a done thing to claim things are actually other things without evidence and definitely not the actual thing.

This. They happily introduce things like wormholes, warping and portals. Very handy bullshit to convince gullible ones indeed.

 

[Ravi]

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).

Similarly, the "object's" right edge and top egde are almost perfectly aligned to the XY pixel rows. Looks like something has been pasted in the image to me.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Looking at Fernando Cornejo Wurfl's work there must be a better quality photo somewhere.

Dude takes some lovely photographs.

 

[jarlrmai]

Similarly, the "object's" right edge and top egde are almost perfectly aligned to the XY pixel rows. Looks like something has been pasted in the image to me.

JPEG uses macroblocks in 16x16 pixel grids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroblock

From what I can see the object is within 4 16x16 pixel macroblocks, 32x32 pixels

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Anyone any idea how to get such bad quality from the image with Fernando Cornejo Wurfl's name on to the ones that are being studied?

What settings do I need to be messing with? I scale it but it never looks as bad as some of them.

 

[Mendel]

Anyone any idea how to get such bad quality from the image with Fernando Cornejo Wurfl's name on to the ones that are being studied?

What settings do I need to be messing with? I scale it but it never looks as bad as some of them.

just compress it more?

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Source: https://twitter.com/ufos_uaps/status/1706814175216099383

I am stunned that this image is 540x1199.

The best quality photo we have access to is 400×721.

 

[Mendel]

I am stunned that this image is 540x1199.

The best quality photo we have access to is 400×721.

888×1600 for the watermarked picture
721×1600 for the phone screenshot

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

888×1600 for the watermarked picture
721×1600 for the phone screenshot

I agree. Not sure where my 400×721 came from.

Doesn't change that the artifacts in the 540x1199 "crop" don't exist in the better quality images.

 

[jarlrmai]

any sort sharpening/contrast adjustment up will start to show jpeg artifacts more

 

[Ann K]

The claim is that there are at least 3 photos: the "orb", and the pictures before and after in that sequence.

The "claim" was also that we would be so blown away by this wonderful, best-ever, super-duper photo (that we'd see tomorrow ...er, in a couple of days ...any day now) that we'd all instantly become Believers in the Cult of the Orb. I'm not sure that my heart can take the excitement that two additional photos of an orb-less landscape would provide us.

 

[AmberRobot]

The claim is that there are at least 3 photos: the "orb", and the pictures before and after in that sequence.

So then where are those photos? They show no “orb” in them? How far apart in time were they taken?

if this were an actual thing seen by a photographer who pulled up his camera and took a picture I would expect there to be more than a single image

Instead, this would seem more consistent with someone looking through a series of photos they took and seeing something unusual in one of them after the fact.

Which means it would be unlikely that there was an actual big thing flying by that was the subject of the photograph. Lends more credence to something small flitting through the camera’s field of view for a quick moment.