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

Looks like it's in a macroblock so more artifacts from edits/resizes etc.

It's why seeing the original image is so key, it has the least artifacts from processing.
Does anyone know what would cause all the weird sky artifacts that are in the low resolution images?


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?
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.
I am absolutely not the right biologist for trying to clear up the nomenclature of butterfly wings, but I'll give it a try:

The "spaces" between veins on the wings are not all called cells, the cell is a specific type space on the insect wing. Many insects, such as bees and dragonflies have several cells prominently showing and the shape, number and colour of these are often used in identification. AFAIK, butterflies only have one cell space (at least just one that you can see), so it seems to often just be called "the cell" in their case, though I've seen it further specified as the discal cell on some diagrams.

Now, when it comes to the rest of the spaces or areas on the wing it can get a little bit confusing. If you look at the spaces delineated by the veins, they are simply called spaces, and numbered after the lowest numbered vein that surrounds it. But, you can also look at it from the position relative to the different margins and angles, in which case you have designations such as these (picture from Butterflies of Singapore): 1697498428017.jpeg

Which you then further designate as "bands", "spots" and "patches" depending on position size and shape. And finally you can go into even more detail as is done in this paper on the butterfly Cacyreus marshalli and I fully admit to losing concentration at that point of detailed description but I suppose it is useful when you have to differentiate between all those species.

Finally, I would like to note that the Adelpha genus seems to be notorious for being hard to identify even for expert entomologists, but if people want to keep on going down that rabbit hole, the University of Florida has published an overview of the genus by Keith Willmott online, except for the pictures for some reason. Also, it's from 2003, so there has been taxonomical updates, new species discovered since then etc. But seriously, it's a fool's errand to try to get a conclusive match to the species level from something that was originally maybe 30x30 pixels. Adelpha as a genus seems like a good, maybe even likely match, but Ecuador has ~3000 species of butterflies, a few hundreds not even described yet. Of course, someone (I'm too tired right now) could email the details of the when and where together with the photo to Willmott or Hall of the Butterflies of Ecuador project and ask their opinion. It's a long shot, but if anyone would be able to identify it, it's one of them.