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

[sigmops]

Based on the google maps navigation screenshot provided in this tweet that shows where the car was along its journey:


Source: https://twitter.com/UFOS_UAPS/status/1706473537186226590



I think this may be the approximate vantage point from where the photo was taken based on the distant mountain on the right, the ferns in the nearby grass and the metal roof of the building building lower down the hill which becomes visible one streetview step further

https://www.google.com/maps/@-0.738...QAeiy_74_pe2wYsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu

Streetview imagery is from 2015 so much could have changed over the years. Surely there are other spots where this photo may have been taken but it might be a good approximate start if investigating the location is helpful.

 

[JMartJr]

Just a note for future photographers who capture a stunning UFO image and feel the need to watermark it -- maybe don't have the watermark obscure part of the object.

 

[jarlrmai]

I think this species is the best fit I've found so far Adelpha Epione agilla

http://www.sangay.eu/en/fiche-papil.../001-Limenitini/001-Adelpha/425-epione/agilla

 

[Eburacum]

That is a very good fit - the photo even has a slightly darker stripe on the left-hand side, as if it were the underside of a wing in shadow.

I'm a bit perturbed about the lack of a distinct head on the object in the photo, however - most photos of butterflies show the head more clearly than this. When can we expect the other photos in this sequence?

 

[Ravi]

UAPmax claimed to have the raw images:

Not sure we get to see the compressed variant.
If the guy is a photographer, surely he would know how to give us the BMP version.

 

[jarlrmai]

UAPmax claimed to have the raw images:

View attachment 62999

Not sure we get to see the compressed variant.
If the guy is a photographer, surely he would know how to give us the BMP version.

I think it was almost certainly taken with a phone. The FOV looks very phone camera to me. But an original file with metadata will reveal all

Digital cameras produce either bespoke raw files or jpeg or both depending on configuration at the time.

People often call original files from the camera or phone cameras 'raw' files even when they are not sensor data but just a straight jpeg from the device.

Phone operating systems often make you work a little to get the original jpeg, default sharing mechanisms and social media sometimes resize, recompress or remove metadata to protect your privacy and reduce load on the bandwidth/storage of the sharing mechanisms.

 

[tobigtofool]

Is this the larger, raw image?

https://x.com/UFOS_UAPS/status/1707269441002635639?s=20

 

[JMartJr]

It has worse resolution on the object than earlier versions! Or am I not downloading it properly?

Also:

Metabunk. It's a butterfly. Um. OK. That's a big ass butterfly... BTW geniuses on meta bunk. That's a house below. That makes your butterfly about 20 meters across.

Alternatively, that's some blades of grass below. That makes the butterfly a few cm across. That's a normal-sized ass butterfly.

 

[Nemon]

For me it was striking that the image effect with the given depth of field does not fit a telephoto shot, where the small flying object, be it a butterfly, is so large in the image. Now, on the basis of the whole image, this contradiction resolves itself.

 

[jarlrmai]

Yeah this image shows that the other image was a crop, but this image is much lower overall resolution. SO there is still a full resolution original jpeg etc to be shared.

Share the original from the device jpeg/raw with exif image on mediafire etc. We already know the location so there's nothing to dox anyone here.

Also given this image is the full frame, it's much more likely the object was noticed after the fact.

And again small/far away and hyperfocal distance seem to be foreign concepts to the alien spaceship inclined.

 

[sigmops]

Source: https://twitter.com/UFOS_UAPS/status/1707478075632407035


UAPMax says:

I'm also under a legal agreement that I can't share the originals. I can do all the forensic work and share that data. I don't own the rights to the original.

Not sure how much more detail we should expect from future posts from them about this.

https://nitter.net/UFOS_UAPS/status/1707478075632407035

 

[SuppaCoup]

Source: https://twitter.com/UFOS_UAPS/status/1707478075632407035


UAPMax says:

I'm not that excited that someone who thinks jpeg artifacts are evidence of alcubierre drive operation and doesn't seem to grasp that the object could be close and small rather than far away and large is going to perform "forensic work" on this image.
And I find the comment about not being allowed legally to share the HD original incredibly weird. Why on earth wouldn't the photographer allow that? Has anyone reached out to him?

 

[jarlrmai]

Great a person who has no idea what hyperfocal distance is gonna be doing all the "forensics"

Looks like a phone to me, portrait mode and 16:9 that image is weirdly 1279x720 which is 1 pixel line short on the the long side of good old 1280x720 (16:9)

 

[Nullxata]

Since the butterfly is apparently not in the cloud's shadow, wouldn't that mean that the butterfly is normal-sized and close OR comically huge and far away?

The image really feels like a phone pic to me. Why is the resolution even worse? The metadata isn't much help. And yeah, 720x1279 is, odd.

 

[Mendel]

Could someone ask Würfl what agency these pictures are registered with? Then we/Mick could simply obtain them there.

 

[sigmops]

Since the butterfly is apparently not in the cloud's shadow, wouldn't that mean that the butterfly is normal-sized and close OR comically huge and far away?

Atmospheric haze would preclude this thing being comically huge and far.

Dark objects visually begin to blend with the atmosphere the more distant they are from the observer, this is because there is simply more and more molecules in the atmosphere between them. Those molecules scatter the sun's light and brightens them up (also slightly darkens bright objects). Various factors like humidity, dust or smoke can change this to a greater or lesser extent.

The trees just on the other side of the building's roof (just beyond the grass) have very little blue in their shadows but you can see that the shadows of the trees past them begin to be slightly blue, and more and more so as the distance increases. The object in question has a nearly black shadow. By extension that means it cant be much further than those trees on the far side of the building.

Since those trees might be roughly 5 meters wide (?) this object cant be more than a fraction of that. UAPMax was told by the photographer that the object was approximately 20meters in width. That seems impossible just by taking into account the lack of haze that is applied to the object.

 

[Mendel]

Not sure how much more detail we should expect from future posts from them about this.

We should demand full disclosure! Maybe we can get Graves on it?

 

[Mendel]

I'm almost ready to bet that when (if?) the other two pictures get released, we're going to be able to identify the butterfly on them.
They don't show any "orb", why not let us have those original files?

 

[tobigtofool]

Source: https://twitter.com/UFOS_UAPS/status/1707478075632407035

Legal agreement?

I'm really getting tired of UFOlogists using beurocracy to dance around showing off their earth shattering news while they opine about the pentagon keeping secrets.

 

[Dan Burt]

Maybe they will release the "more gooder" pictures on Tuesday? That's when all the really juicy political stuff gets promised to be released.

 

[SuppaCoup]

I don't have a twitter account, could someone please point out that the atmospheric haze missing falsifies the object being far away to UAPMax? I know there was talk of spinning this off into a separate discussion thread, but I think we're more or less done here.

 

[sigmops]

I don't have a twitter account, could someone please point out that the atmospheric haze missing falsifies the object being far away to UAPMax? I know there was talk of spinning this off into a separate discussion thread, but I think we're more or less done here.

I was blocked for suggesting it.

Heres another account that mentions the same and you can see UAPMax's reaction

https://nitter.net/UFOS_UAPS/status/1707512325828223037#m

Have to imagine they were blocked as well

No dissent of his brands content is tolerated

 

[NorCal Dave]

Just to play around, I took the photo from post #129 by @jarlrmai then just copied it repeatedly with the settings on low in an attempt to degrade the photo to see what it looked like compared to the orb:

Obviously the pixelation is different as I was starting with a better photo of just the butterfly, not a tiny butterfly in the middle of a larger photo, and the orientation is a bit different, but....

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

It has worse resolution on the object than earlier versions! Or am I not downloading it properly?

Also:
View attachment 63002

Metabunk. It's a butterfly. Um. OK. That's a big ass butterfly... BTW geniuses on meta bunk. That's a house below. That makes your butterfly about 20 meters across.

Alternatively, that's some blades of grass below. That makes the butterfly a few cm across. That's a normal-sized ass butterfly.

Dear Mr. UAPMax,

 

[SuppaCoup]

I was blocked for suggesting it.

Heres another account that mentions the same and you can see UAPMax's reaction

https://nitter.net/UFOS_UAPS/status/1707512325828223037#m

Have to imagine they were blocked as well

No dissent of his brands content is tolerated

I love that he just baldly says "no it isn't" in this response to that same account and makes no effort to engage with the observation. Also he calls that account "fake" when a quick look over shows it is over 3 years old and posts detailed replies to people frequently.

 

[tobigtofool]

Just to play around, I took the photo from post #129 by @jarlrmai then just copied it repeatedly with the settings on low in an attempt to degrade the photo to see what it looked like compared to the orb:

View attachment 63005 View attachment 63006 View attachment 63007

Obviously the pixelation is different as I was starting with a better photo of just the butterfly, not a tiny butterfly in the middle of a larger photo, and the orientation is a bit different, but....

So, I totally think it's a butterfly, but to play devils advocate, the white stripe is similar, but not the same, the shapes of the wings are drastically different, with the (uapfly)'s being swept back, and pointed, where the possible match is vertical and much more circular.

The feet on the butterfly do create a pretty stark pair of triangles, and I believe that could be legs with compression, I could also not be convinced.

Other than those 2 things I think it's 1:1 a match for a butterfly.

 

[NoParty]

HOW TO HAVE A SPECTACULAR, SENSATIONAL ENTITY, IN TWO EASY STEPS!

STEP ONE: Boldly & loudly declare that you have in your possession something utterly fantastical, & beyond all human explanation.

STEP TWO: Block anyone & everyone who posts a more likely, yet prosaic explanation.

 

[tobigtofool]

So, I totally think it's a butterfly, but to play devils advocate, the white stripe is similar, but not the same, the shapes of the wings are drastically different, with the (uapfly)'s being swept back, and pointed, where the possible match is vertical and much more circular.

The feet on the butterfly do create a pretty stark pair of triangles, and I believe that could be legs with compression, I could also not be convinced.

Other than those 2 things I think it's 1:1 a match for a butterfly.

I went through some videos and do see that pointed shape is something youll see with at least some types, I couldn't find a video of the butterfly with the white stripes flying.. though he was standing in one of them!

one of the things I noticed the most was I none of the ones I was looking at seemed to have the legs visible at all which makes me want more for the leg blurs we see in the picture in question.

Also at the very end of this video found this little cutie that is circled in the bottom right of the screenshot, it was the 1 buttefly i saw that didn't have a smooth arch at its bottom, that is more like the UAP photo.

I also think it's worth comparing none of the angles I saw in the videos really struck out to me as like, "that looks exactly like it." The head seems bigger in general on the confirmed butterfly's. (perhaps after posting these screenshots I will see them more side by side and think that). (annnnd it does, it really looks like a butterfly. I think if we could find a video of a flying white stripe one we'd see it has a body like the one circled, and not a smooth strong body line)

And last but not least wow, butterflies are strange creatures! Weird. I never thought about it much but seeing them interact in the wild, it's so weird! I think we did find an alien!


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiFdh_nXx54

 

[John J.]

STEP ONE: Boldly & loudly declare that you have in your possession something utterly fantastical, & beyond all human explanation.

STEP TWO: Block anyone & everyone who posts a more likely, yet prosaic explanation.

One wonders how the "believers" would react if we did actually establish two-way communication with an extraterrestrial intelligence (which I think is rather unlikely anytime soon, but who knows).
Suppose the ETI denied being responsible for the Ecuador 'orb', Roswell, black triangles etc. etc. etc. and volunteered that they were sure that no other ETI's had visited Earth in the recent past.

I'm not sure that the most vociferous UFO enthusiasts would actually be all that happy.
Think of the overnight collapse in clicks/ views/"likes" (and book/ film sales) they'd experience.
And most- perhaps all- would have absolutely nothing of value to add to the historic dialogue.
Maybe they'd simply weave a new narrative, a conspiracy theory involving the (real) ETs.
But I suspect that some "believers", in a tiny part of their consciousness, dread contact ever being established.

 

[JMartJr]

but to play devils advocate, the white stripe is similar, but not the same, the shapes of the wings are drastically different, with the (uapfly)'s being swept back, and pointed, where the possible match is vertical and much more circular.

Fair points, to argue the other side:

So far, around 24,000 species of butterflies have been described in the world and, of these, 4,000 have been recorded in Ecuador.

https://secretgardenecuador.com/posts/butterflies-in-ecuador/

Of course they aren't all, or even mostly, dark with white wing bars. But the examples we have seen in this thread so far are pretty unlikely to be all the potential matches. And that's before considering individual variation, and perspective depending on exact viewing angle.

As to the legs, I'm seeing a LOT of variation in how they carry their legs while flying. When they are about to land (which is when most pictures seem to be made, presumably focus on the flower and wait for the butterfly...) the legs are of course extended. But particularly when in transit, as it were, they sometimes tuck the legs up pretty tight to the body, for example....

 

[NorCal Dave]

So, I totally think it's a butterfly, but to play devils advocate, the white stripe is similar, but not the same, the shapes of the wings are drastically different, with the (uapfly)'s being swept back, and pointed, where the possible match is vertical and much more circular.

The feet on the butterfly do create a pretty stark pair of triangles, and I believe that could be legs with compression, I could also not be convinced.

Other than those 2 things I think it's 1:1 a match for a butterfly.

Yeah, it's always a problem trying to recreate what someone captured at a moment in time, even if it was faked. In this case IF it's a butterfly one would likely need a video of the same species flying along, preferably from multiple angles.

Having that, one would need to capture the butterfly just as the wings are at the right point and from just the right angle. Having done that, one then needs the butterfly to be a very small part of a much larger photo, such that when zoomed in it becomes the pixelated image we now see. Most of the legs, head and antenna don't resolve due the small size of the critter relative to the overall photo. In this case the low resolution works to the poster's claims, as the pixelation creates some sort of "field" or wormhole type thing.

I think there is a misconception among some people that a photo captures EVERYTHING in complete detail even if it's a small part of a larger photo. One need simply zoom in and see what's there.

I don't expect little exercises like this convince this guy or his followers of anything. It's just to show that a photo of a common butterfly from that part of the world in low resolution kinda looks like the "orb".

 

[RTM]

One wonders how the "believers" would react if we did actually establish two-way communication with an extraterrestrial intelligence (which I think is rather unlikely anytime soon, but who knows).
Suppose the ETI denied being responsible for the Ecuador 'orb', Roswell, black triangles etc. etc. etc. and volunteered that they were sure that no other ETI's had visited Earth in the recent past.

I'm not sure that the most vociferous UFO enthusiasts would actually be all that happy.
Think of the overnight collapse in clicks/ views/"likes" (and book/ film sales) they'd experience.
And most- perhaps all- would have absolutely nothing of value to add to the historic dialogue.
Maybe they'd simply weave a new narrative, a conspiracy theory involving the (real) ETs.
But I suspect that some "believers", in a tiny part of their consciousness, dread contact ever being established.

They'd accuse those aliens of being on the conspiracy, crisis aliens if you will.

 

[Mendel]

They'd accuse those aliens of being on the conspiracy, crisis aliens if you will.

One wonders if there's any overlap between ufo believers and moon landing deniers.

 

[SuppaCoup]

I came here for the debunking, but i'm staying for the pretty pictures of butterflies. What adorable little animate bits of stained glass they are!

 

[tobigtofool]

I came here for the debunking, but i'm staying for the pretty pictures of butterflies. What adorable little animate bits of stained glass they are!

There was a great part in the youtube video where a small moth lands on a big ones wing and it swats him off like "aye get off"...

 

[captancourgette]

Dear Mr. UAPMax,

Nice pictures, usually ppl just post a link to the father ted instructional video about perspective.

Metabunk should have a top 10 lamest 'unexplained' media each year. This is surely in the running for the top 10 of 2023 along with the Chile aliens.

 

[PublicStranger]

Much more likely to be a balloon than a butterfly imo. Could of course be something close to the camera but I'd probably go for it being an artefact of the camera before I would say butterfly. Looks uncannily like a helmet, you can get mylar balloons in this shape.

We could also be looking at a chinese lantern, although an oddly shaped one, perhaps damaged?One shaped in this fashion perhaps?

 

[jarlrmai]

I still think butterfly, the shape and the position and segmentation of the white bars just screams butterfly to me.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

The "orb" in the 720x1279 image we have now is even less defined than in any other image seen.

No way you can get the stripes seen in other images from that.

Something stinks.

 

[Ann K]

I came here for the debunking, but i'm staying for the pretty pictures of butterflies. What adorable little animate bits of stained glass they are!

I found one in exactly the position of the photo, but, as is often the way with internet searches, I can't find it now. It was in Ecuador and had the wing stripes ...but I knew it wasn't the species pictured because it was a Glasswing butterfly. Yes, seriously, they have ones in which the wing is almost completely clear in portions. Here, for your viewing pleasure: