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

Z.W. Wolf said:
New mention of the Orb on Sunday, 10/08.

https://x.com/UFOS_UAPS/status/1711160436966437190?s=20


This implies that UAPMax has not yet been given a higher resolution version. What does preliminary data mean? That sounds as if it's a fancy way of saying the low-resolution image. Or the info he got when he talked to... someone? Or... what? What does "assessment" mean? He's still analyzing the low-res image?



This comes from a post which is a list of updates on previous issues. It's unclear whether the videos are related to the Fernando Cornejo-Würfl Orb, or to some other issue.

It remains unclear why this is taking so long, and what "continue working with the person" means. Who is "the person"? Why so much "work"?

Could it be that he's simply getting no reply from Fernando Cornejo-Würfl? I haven't.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it looks like a lot of vague claims, in hopes of obscuring the reality that he's got nothing, and never really did.

My uninformed guess, as to "why this is taking so long," cynically leans on the expectation that the longer this nothing
takes, the smaller the pool of people still paying attention...to remind him of how dumb and/or dishonest
his early breathless proclamations were...
 
NoParty said:
My uninformed guess, as to "why this is taking so long," cynically leans on the expectation that the longer this nothing
takes, the smaller the pool of people still paying attention...to remind him of how dumb and/or dishonest
his early breathless proclamations were...
Click to expand...
Even more cynically: So far, we've seen the first three of the stages of evidence-belief: Excitement/hype, attacking critics, and silence. Next up is stage four: "I still believe in it, but I'm moving on to other things."
 
I think that "Personal C0ffee" is a sock puppet account. Just an opinion. I can't point to any proof. But after 20 years of experience on MBs and such... my Spidey sense is tingling.


Source: https://twitter.com/edwardcurrent/status/1709016238351860198


Personal C0ffee is all over this thread on the Edward Current Twitter Account. There was more info on this thread, but Personal C0ffee blocked his original post, and all the responses. So my point about atmospheric scattering is gone. There was also a discussion about whether there are visible butterflies sitting in the plants in the foreground. Current cited them as additional butterflies, but I expressed my doubts. I redirected the discussion to the main points: whether this is an unintended forced perspective photo and the color temperature of the white stripes on the orb/butterfly. Just before the block, Personal C0ffee had granted that the size and distance of objects on a 2D photo can be deceptive or ambiguous. I speculate that those points were hemming Personal C0ffee in too much and he blocked this content. An M.O. I'd argue.

And now UAPMax makes it known in his latest post that he thinks the objects in the plants are trash not weeds. But... he seems to be responding to the (blocked section) of the Ed Current Twitter thread. Mixed with the point I made here about the astronaut. There was no discussion about that point on the UAPMax account... that I've seen. So where did that counter-assertion come from?

It's also quite a coincidence that in this new UAPMax Twitter account post that UAPMax replies to Personal C0ffee one minute later. Check out the back and forth nature of UAPMax and Personal C0ffee in general.
 
Last edited:
My feeling is the white parts are from a structure down the ridge behind the grass somewhat the leftmost "edge" seems straight and defined.

Something like roughly like this

1697031068227.png
 
External Quote:
Tomorrow you'll have the full proof of a 100% confirmed, authentic orb doing EXACTLY what I reported. Open, extending the appendages.
Why didn't the picture(s) mentioned above get released at the same time as the one we're familiar with?
It can't take that long to learn how to use photo-editing software. ;)

PublicStranger first showed us UAPMax's claims on this now-closed thread,
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ua...-photo-of-orb-captured-by-photographer.13197/
External Quote:
'UAPMax.com' claims to be in possession of 'the single best orb picture ever recorded...'

Here's what UAPMax wrote at the time, my comments in orange:

sep22.JPG



It seemed clear there was one photo of the "orb", and UAPMax would also supply "before" and "after" photos of the scene.

Astonishingly, some people weren't totally convinced by UAPMax's photo, and we didn't get to see the extended appendages either. Fortunately UAPMax has another "...single best orb picture ever recorded".

Also from UAPMax's 22nd September post,

2.JPG


As well as the absent appendages, we didn't see the promised laser systems or a "field" created by the orb in the first "best orb picture [singular] ever" photo, so presumably we'll get to see those in the 2nd "best orb picture [singular] ever" photo, in less than 24 hours.

I want to see the laser systems. If we don't see unambiguous evidence of lasers in the photo UAPMax says he'll post tomorrow, maybe someone should ask him to check to see if he's got a 3rd "best orb picture ever" photo.
 
MyMatesBrainwashed said:
I couldn't help thinking of a butterfly's appendages too.

Do butterflies pollenate? Cos if they do they can create fields 'n' all.
Click to expand...
External Quote:
Birds and insects are critical pollinators; in fact, more than 80 percent of land plants are pollinated by animals such as butterflies. Pollen sticks to the bodies of pollinators when they feed on nectar, a sugary fluid produced by flowering plants to attract pollinators.
 
jarlrmai said:
My feeling is the white parts are from a structure down the ridge behind the grass somewhat the leftmost "edge" seems straight and defined.

Something like roughly like this

View attachment 63393
Click to expand...
I think perhaps you're connecting dots that are not definite enough to put much confidence in. Looking at the photo, that left edge is definitely not a straight line. It looks more like a small gnarled dead branch lying in the grass. It has a portion at the end that bends straight upward, and a side twig that comes off toward the lower right.

Edit to add: I take that back, now that the higher resolution photo has surfaced. Thanks, @Edward Current !
 
Last edited:
jarlrmai said:
My feeling is the white parts are from a structure down the ridge behind the grass somewhat the leftmost "edge" seems straight and defined.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure this is correct -- but...

Going back to the possible location location:
sigmops said:
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
Click to expand...
and searching for a structure that matches might help nail it down. I have not found one that I really like, this here is the closest so far...|
Capture.JPG

https://www.google.com/maps/@-0.738...ooRELCmFxaJZP8ig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu

but the distant hills "skyline" does not seem to match, and the big fern-like plants are conspicuous by their total absence...

Will look around more tonight.
 
JMartJr said:
I'm not sure this is correct -- but...

Going back to the possible location location:

and searching for a structure that matches might help nail it down. I have not found one that I really like, this here is the closest so far...|
View attachment 63397
https://www.google.com/maps/@-0.738...ooRELCmFxaJZP8ig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu

but the distant hills "skyline" does not seem to match, and the big fern-like plants are conspicuous by their total absence...

Will look around more tonight.
Click to expand...


Ecuador_butterfly_streetview_comparison.png

I may be wrong but I've attached a screenshot with colored lines showing how I believe the hill shown in the Streetview location is the same as the twitter photo.

Also circled what I think to be a fern in the nearby grass, although the frond doesn't quite match.

The street view imagery is from 2015 so I think its safe to assume that some of the plants have changed. Including the taller, nearby palm trees do not seem present in the photo.

I assume that the photographer got out of their car and was closer to the grass, allowing a different vantage point that allowed the building's roof to appear in the foliage.
 
Last edited:
sigmops said:
I may be wrong but I've attached a screenshot with colored lines showing how I believe the hill shown in the Streetview location is the same as the twitter photo.
Click to expand...
You may be right -- I may be trying to find distant peaks and things that are in fact cloud shadows, in which case I'll never do it! I do note that when I follow the road uphill, I find more ferns in greater numbers, without going far enough uphill to expect a huge ecological difference, so more or fewer ferns in that spot over the years (or within the seasons of a year) would not shock me. And there may be a couple of fern fronds turned sort of "side on" to the camera in the Google image. So I'm happy with the fernage.

If there were a few of the broadleaf plants that are among the grasses in the "orb" pic also in the street view pic, I'd be happier, but they may be seasonal.

Side note ...
If one turns left in Google Streetview and clicks a few times (towards the big electrical tower) one will find... cows.

External Quote:
Where the conditions are suitable, conspicuous insects such as butterflies commonly form aggregations on wet soil, dung or carrion. From the fluids they obtain nutrients such as salts and amino acids
Link to: "Why do butterflies feed on cow dung?"

The quoted bit is about all it has to say, but that's enough. I refrained from posting pictures of butterflies enjoying their cow poop in case any of you might be eating. :eek: But cows in the area make butterflies not unexpected...

Edited to fix link.
 
UAPMax has posted the article with his analysis:

https://uapmax.com/the-best-ufo-orb-photo-you-decide/

First, if he is indeed in possession of a higher resolution photo of the orb, he doesn't seem to be sharing it in the article. Disappointing, but not surprising.

Most of the article seems to go towards proving that the photo is authentic and unaltered, which I don't think was ever in serious doubt. He does at the end try to prove that the object is large and far away, relying on a third-party analysis that apparently claims that "reflections" recovered from the surface of the orb prove that it is A) metallic, and B) large and far away, given that the supposed reflections "accurately correspond" to the regions of the sky and ground at the proposed distance from the camera. Here is the relevant portions of the analysis:
External Quote:

  1. By remapping the input level curves of the image, we can recover much
    more information from the body of the object, and reflections of the
    surrounding landscape become visible on the body of the object.
  2. The object is highly reflective, and chromaticity of reflections
    in subregions of the body of the object was compared to corresponding
    regions of the surrounding landscape and sky.
  3. The chromaticity information present in the reflections
    accurately correspond to expected values for all of the regions they
    reflect, both in the landscape and the sky.
  4. The reflections on the body accurately correspond to the
    lighting situation in the scene at the time of capture.
  5. Furthermore, the luminosity component of the reflections also
    match what would be expected from a highly reflective object, both in
    the parts reflecting the sky and the ground.
  6. In short, the reflections are physically accurate and 100%
    consistent with reality.
[...]

  1. The recovered reflections also significantly improves the accuracy at
    which we can physically locate the object in space. Initial rough
    estimates follows:
    – The object is located at a distance of between 500 and 900 meters
    – The diameter of the object is between 3.5 and 6.2 meters.
    – The above is assuming that the photo was taken with the 26mm-
    equivalent lens of the iPhone 13 Pro (which is indicated in the
    metadata).
  2. The physical dimensions are still subject to a lot of uncertainty,
    since I have not yet been able to obtain up-to-date and accurate
    topographical data and ortophotography from the Ecuadorian Instituto
    Geográfico Militar. Once I have that data, I should be able to narrow
    it down significantly.
  3. It is already clear from the luminosity and chromaticity data
    that the object is located in the cloud-covered zone between the viewer
    and the first ridge.
  4. It is also highly unlikely that it is less than 500 meters from
    the camera, due to the reflections of the terrain below. Better
    geospatial data will be able help improve the location accuracy.
    – Taking the above into consideration, it is not possible that the
    object is a nearby small feature, such as a ball or balloon.
Even the possibility that accurate "reflections" could be recovered from such a low-quality image, let alone used to prove distance, seems incredibly dubious to me, but there it is. Also, UAPMax does not provide images of the supposed reflections that were recovered during this photo analysis procedure.

He also just shared this photo with me in a twitter/X reply, supposedly showing the reflections:

F8M-VwGX0AAxvMc.jpeg


I'm having a hard time understanding how these few pixels can be identified as a "reflection", let alone the specific reflection of specific features at a specific distance, but maybe someone here with more optics knowledge can clarify.
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Osmo said:
UAPMax has posted the article with his analysis:

https://uapmax.com/the-best-ufo-orb-photo-you-decide/
Click to expand...
External Quote:
As we begin the forensic dive into a photo given to UAPMAX.com from Fernando we will start with some obvious explanations that have been fully ruled out. Drones. We don't want to clutter this exploration with excessive non-explanations. but want to show that certain things were ruled out. Here is a link to the four types of drones used in both commercial and hobby endeavors.
Then goes on to point out that spherical drones exist.

He misses this one that seems pre-destined to end up on Metabunk as a UFO sighting some say:
Article:
Cleo Robotics from Boston created what they call the next generation of unmanned drones. The design is unique and has two rotor blades, one placed on top of the other. The blades are covered and concealed behind a rugged cover. This generates the illusion that the drone moves with an invisible force.

Dronut X1 comes with a 4k camera, Light Detection and Ranging LIDAR for positioning, and LED lights to fly in low light or complete dark.

231-3.jpg

uuijk.jpg
 
Article:
gps_img_direction_ref — True North
gps_img_direction — 149.8968659
gps_dest_bearing_ref — True North
gps_dest_bearing — 149.8968659

gps_altitude — 979.3 m Above Sea Level
gps_latitude — 0 deg 44′ 17.17″ S
gps_longitude — 77 deg 30′ 54.05″ W
gps_position — 0 deg 44′ 17.17″ S, 77 deg 30′ 54.05″ W

image_size — 2268×4032
fov — 69.4 deg
hyperfocal_distance — 3.29 m


External Quote:
Asked If it MIGHT be a butterfly: That's an interesting path, and one I think needs at least some investigation and consideration. I highly doubt it though, unless we can somehow find butterflies in Ecuador made of polished chrome. I'm not a biologist, but I doubt that to be very common anywhere My initial chrominance analysis is pointing towards the object having a highly reflective surface.
 
Z.W. Wolf said:
I think that "Personal C0ffee" is a sock puppet account. Just an opinion. I can't point to any proof. But after 20 years of experience on MBs and such... my Spidey sense is tingling.
Click to expand...
Could be one of the other men working on the project, Juan Feria or Mark Qvist. (No "full chain of custody" in the article.)

UAPmax's "editor chief" doesn't give his name. It might be Stephen.

My personal experience is that sock puppet call-outs not based on data or clear evidence tend to be mistakes.
 
Last edited:
 
Last edited:
The original photo should be shared so any analysis can be repeated. I have severe doubts about this analysis anyway, the demo images sho wmodification from the twitter images. Share the original photo if you want this analysis to be taken seriously in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Osmo said:
Even the possibility that accurate "reflections" could be recovered from such a low-quality image, let alone used to prove distance, seems incredibly dubious to me, but there it is. Also, UAPMax does not provide images of the supposed reflections that were recovered during this photo analysis procedure.

He also just shared this photo with me in a twitter/X reply, supposedly showing the reflections:

View attachment 63401

I'm having a hard time understanding how these few pixels can be identified as a "reflection", let alone the specific reflection of specific features at a specific distance, but maybe someone here with more optics knowledge can clarify.
Click to expand...
External Quote:
Input levels remapped to recover reflections of the landscape below.
So he played around in Photoshop and all of a sudden all the black pixels started becoming another color?
metabunkbutterfly.png

You can't magically recover reflections which weren't there before.
 
Miss VocalCord said:
External Quote:
Input levels remapped to recover reflections of the landscape below.
So he played around in Photoshop and all of a sudden all the black pixels started becoming another color?
View attachment 63405
You can't magically recover reflections which weren't there before.
Click to expand...
I'm unclear on what the evidence value is. Butterfly wings reflect light, too.
 
Mendel said:
I'm unclear on what the evidence value is. Butterfly wings reflect light, too.
Click to expand...
They are trying to claim it is some kind of metal, reflecting the trees below it:

External Quote:
Asked If it MIGHT be a butterfly: That's an interesting path, and one I think needs at least some investigation and consideration. I highly doubt it though, unless we can somehow find butterflies in Ecuador made of polished chrome. I'm not a biologist, but I doubt that to be very common anywhere My initial chrominance analysis is pointing towards the object having a highly reflective surface.
 
Miss VocalCord said:
They are trying to claim it is some kind of metal, reflecting the trees below it:

External Quote:
Asked If it MIGHT be a butterfly: That's an interesting path, and one I think needs at least some investigation and consideration. I highly doubt it though, unless we can somehow find butterflies in Ecuador made of polished chrome. I'm not a biologist, but I doubt that to be very common anywhere My initial chrominance analysis is pointing towards the object having a highly reflective surface.
Click to expand...
I was wondering why "chrome" was mentioned as it has nothing to do with chrominance. A mirror-like chrome surface reflecting the landscape below wouldn't show up as black, but as green, same as the trees being mirrored.
 
Still no idea what it is but I'm fairly confident it is neither a sphere (orb) nor is it metallic (reflective).

But I do like that someone who can identify lasers and appendages from pixels can't be more accurate than "trash" for other objects in the scene.

Pretty sure it isn't trash either. Does the Ecuadorian rainforest have a trash problem?

Is there any evidence of anyone actually taking this guy seriously?
 
1. Butterfly animation

Building on the Cosmic Osmo's butterfly concept, I made a crude animation where it flaps its wings. Super basic but now I definitely can't un-see it being a butterfly. I posted it to twitter but he blocked me



Here is the butterfly that Cosmic Osmo suggested in their comment which fits the appearance:

1697099295101.png




2. Full size image:

In the article "The Best UFO Orb Photo? You Decide." the best photo is at the very bottom. The photo is embedded at 1068px wide. But you can edit the URL to get the full version at 2262x1686. I am not sure if there is an even better quality version available if you contact the author directly.

Here is the full size image:

https://i0.wp.com/uapmax.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/fernando.png
or
https://uapmax.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/fernando.png
or
fernando (1).jpg
 
Mendel said:
I was wondering why "chrome" was mentioned as it has nothing to do with chrominance. A mirror-like chrome surface reflecting the landscape below wouldn't show up as black, but as green, same as the trees being mirrored.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. So in all the images shared so far the object was mostly black; however the image shared with with Cosmic Osmo all of a sudden the color has changed. And this color change is the biggest part of their analysis:
External Quote:

  • 6 By remapping the input level curves of the image, we can recover much
    more information from the body of the object, and reflections of the
    surrounding landscape become visible on the body of the object.
  • 7 The object is highly reflective, and chromaticity of reflections
    in subregions of the body of the object was compared to corresponding
    regions of the surrounding landscape and sky.
  • 8 The chromaticity information present in the reflections
    accurately correspond to expected values for all of the regions they
    reflect, both in the landscape and the sky.
  • 9 The reflections on the body accurately correspond to the
    lighting situation in the scene at the time of capture.
  • 10 Furthermore, the luminosity component of the reflections also
    match what would be expected from a highly reflective object, both in
    the parts reflecting the sky and the ground.
  • 11 In short, the reflections are physically accurate and 100%
    consistent with reality.
  • .....
  • 13 The recovered reflections also significantly improves the accuracy at
    which we can physically locate the object in space. Initial rough
    estimates follows:
    – The object is located at a distance of between 500 and 900 meters
    – The diameter of the object is between 3.5 and 6.2 meters.
    – The above is assuming that the photo was taken with the 26mm-
    equivalent lens of the iPhone 13 Pro (which is indicated in the
    metadata).
  • .....
  • 15 It is already clear from the luminosity and chromaticity data
    that the object is located in the cloud-covered zone between the viewer
    and the first ridge.
  • 16 It is also highly unlikely that it is less than 500 meters from
    the camera, due to the reflections of the terrain below. Better
    geospatial data will be able help improve the location accuracy.
    – Taking the above into consideration, it is not possible that the
    object is a nearby small feature, such as a ball or balloon.
So they cranked up the levels and all of a sudden all the magic appears. Makes me curious to see the original hi res image, but not curious enough to ask for it. :)
 
"the-best-ufo-orb-photo-you-decide" winds me up.

Tis hard to decide without the photo.

It really should be "the-best-ufo-orb-photo-trust-me-bro".

Does no one ever consider the shade they're throwing on all their other photographs with statements like this one?
 
Miss VocalCord said:
View attachment 63409
Here a quick test on one of the images where you can magically let the reflections appear by playing with color levels.
Click to expand...
I wonder if we're looking at a compression artifact here. "Black" looks pretty much the same as "black with a shade of green" to the human eye, and the algorithm might've decided to not encode a different shade to save space.

And there are some "pitch black" pixels, should we be seeing these if it's all reflective? Or is this edge enhancement at work?
 
MyMatesBrainwashed said:
"the-best-ufo-orb-photo-you-decide" winds me up.

Tis hard to decide without the photo.

It really should be "the-best-ufo-orb-photo-trust-me-bro".

Does no one ever consider the shade they're throwing on all their other photographs with statements like this one?
Click to expand...
True Believers have the idea that as long as ufo/uaps are in the media, it all is okay. And as the aimed audience is gullible as *bleep*, they get away with all of this.
 
Mendel said:
I wonder if we're looking at a compression artifact here. "Black" looks pretty much the same as "black with a shade of green" to the human eye, and the algorithm might've decided to not encode a different shade to save space.

And there are some "pitch black" pixels, should we be seeing these if it's all reflective? Or is this edge enhancement at work?
Click to expand...
To take a real good look one would like to have the original photo.
I did some color picking on the photo I used for the color level/curves video and there is some green and blue in the black pixels. More or less randomly distributed in the area. It has more blue then green though.
So it seems like there is some color in the black, and cranking the levels/curves will make the differences bigger.
 
jarlrmai said:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/0°44'17.2"S+77°30'54.1"W/@-0.7380974,-77.5175888,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d-0.7381028!4d-77.5150139?entry=ttu

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@-0.7381009,-77.514957,3a,75y,156.77h,81.74t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sn9iE9nooRELCmFxaJZP8ig!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=n9iE9nooRELCmFxaJZP8ig&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&w=203&h=100&yaw=307.86612&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu

This is the location as given by the GPS which matches the location @sigmops found
Click to expand...
Jarlrmai, you may know already, but if you look back up the road in your google street link, you see an orb in the sky?
My screengrab.
Jarlrmai's link:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@-0.7381009,-77.514957,3a,75y,156.77h,81.74t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sn9iE9nooRELCmFxaJZP8ig!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=n9iE9nooRELCmFxaJZP8ig&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&w=203&h=100&yaw=307.86612&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu
1697109753353.jpeg
 
Miss VocalCord said:
View attachment 63409
Here a quick test on one of the images where you can magically let the reflections appear by playing with color levels.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. The problem with that "demonstration" is that it's made the stuff that was supposedly being reflected significantly lighter too. Which means the levels will need to be set even higher in order to reflect, pun intended, that change. And by so doing, making the background even lighter. Logically, he probably shouldn't stop until it's just an all-white image.

I feel Poe's Law has begun to kick in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PublicStranger
  • Locked
''UAP researcher'' to release clear smoking gun photo of Orb captured by photographer
2
Replies
50
Views
4K
Landru
Landru
NorCal Dave
Claim: The CIA Blocked the Transfer of Meta-materials From Crashed UFOs
Replies
6
Views
489
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
Mick West
Statement by AARO Head Sean Kirkpatrick on the HOC UAP Hearing
2 3 4
Replies
127
Views
21K
Don Kielty
D
NorCal Dave
Claim: A UFO crashed in 1933 Italy and the US Recovered it
Replies
34
Views
7K
NorCal Dave
NorCal Dave
cybe
Aulis.com - Stanley Kubrick and Apollo by Mary Bennett and David S. Percy: Part One - DEBUNKED
Replies
13
Views
4K
cybe
cybe

Latest posts

Back
Top