The JPG algorithm is using blocks and rows of similar colour to reduce space (spatial colour data). But with large "single" colour areas (sky, air, etc) it may show up. The higher the compression used, the worse it gets.Does anyone know what would cause all the weird sky artifacts that are in the low resolution images?
View attachment 63514
The low resolution image'(s) sky are littered with these and I'm just wondering if anyone knows what would produce those artifacts assuming they aren't in the original?
Hey guys! long time lurker, first time poster.
I, like many of you, could just not "unsee" the butterfly once it was pointed out. But I was having a hard time imagining how exactly the butterfly would have had to have been positioned in space in order to recreate the image that we saw. In particular, I wasn't sure the size and positioning of the white bands displayed on the wings of any of the previously identified candidate species would actually fit the image.
Then I realized this would be tremendously easy to recreate in real life. So I just pulled up an image of Adelpha Epione with its wings spread:
![]()
Then I printed it out on a piece of paper (actually two pieces that I pasted together so I had the front and back), cut it out, and folded it in the middle. Then I stuck the cap from a pen on it to simulate the body — imperfect I know, but enough to get in the ballpark. All told it took about five minutes, and I had an accurate real-life model of Adelpha Epione to photograph.
After another minute or so of positioning and a tiny bit of double-sided tape, I snapped a pic, which I then saved as a low-quality jpeg a few times to degrade the quality to simulate the pixellated UAP photo.
This is what I ended up with. It's not a perfect match, but I'm confident I could get even closer if I'd spent more than a minute fiddling with positioning and camera angles. By my eye it's close enough that I think we can put this one to bed:
![]()
Note that you can even see the distictive banding within the white bars on the "UAP".
Interestingly, in order to recreate the shot as closely as possible I had to position the wings far more "open" than I'd assumed, which also solved the problem of the black tips of the wings seeming to long in the wings-spread photos of the butterfly — because the wings are actually spread fairly wide, the perspective foreshortening makes the wingtips match the UAP image fairly closely. I think mine may have been slightly too open, as you can see the white bar on the wing closest to the camera is a bit thinner than the image. Again, five more minutes fiddling with positioning and camera angles could probably get an even closer match.
Here's a picture of the setup from another angle, untouched from the position it was in in my re-creation photo:
![]()
Considering that this is an extremely probable position to photograph a butterfly in, and that this particular species of butterfly is described as "extremely common and widespread" in the exact area the photo was taken, I think we can put this to bed. If someone wants to attempt to re-package this and post to UAPMax on Twitter, be my guest!
I was looking at the foliage in the foreground of this image to see if there were any "roosting" (I don't know the right word) butterflies, of any type (but of course hoping to find a dark one with light wing bars).
I don't think I saw any "probable" butterflies. Maybe some "possibles" (arrowed), but just as likely they're flowers, or a bit of pareidolia on my part. Talking of which, the one on the right might be a butterfly on a grass stem, or it might be the black-and-white head of a small bipedal cat draped in a black cloak.
![]()
![]()
Pretty sure this can be improved upon, but it kinda works for me.
focus_distance_range - 0.28 – 0.72 m
The old school definition of focusing distance
@Z.W. Wolf, post #25, naming the correct genuswhen someone suggested butterfly
Don't forget @John J. who first threw the possibility of a butterfly in post #14!@Z.W. Wolf, post #25, naming the correct genus
Or a black bin bag. Or a dark, waxy leaf catching the sun. Maybe even a butterfly or day moth...
Speaking of which, were the other two pictures ever released? I think that I understand correctly that they are supposed to be shots before and after the butterfly, which I guess would establish that it moved into and out of frame in the time between the first and last shot. So not hugely important, other than one can't help wondering why they would not be released.he withholding of the original "smoking gun" image file (of a butterfly !!!) is an excellent example of the "UFO researcher" paradox, i.e. failing to reconcile the simultaneous hypocrisy of arguing for transparency and disclosure,
you could try to buy them from Mr WülflUnless, of course, it turns out that the butterfly has landed on a bush in one of them, or other butterflies are seen. But whatever they show, since it was promised they'd be released, they ought to be
As of 4 Sep 2024, Mr Sprague continued to believe the butterfly is an "orb", and reposted a dubious video of a "sphere" claiming it as an identical object, (fake or real) which can apparently "open" when a laser is aimed at it ???
User UAPMax.com, @UFOS-UAPS on Twitter.External Quote:
The photo will have a sequence attached with the original meta data. So, photo shot before the orb, photo of orb, photo after orb. You will see how fast it appeared and disappeared.
You will see the appendages exiting the orb, you will see the field it is creating.
... ...
You're going to see the laser systems I discussed. You're going to see the field it creates and you'll see the orb.
... ...
Share this. Hold me accountable.
Unless the "laser systems" were actively projecting visible laser beams, it's difficult to understand how the claimant identified them as such. He never indicated what part of theExternal Quote:
OK. I disagree... ...Immense speed or direct portal travel... ...Arms or appendages extending. Same laser systems I reported on