Four Corners - Large Disk Seen From Private Plane at FL210 [Irrigation Circles]

[Giddierone]

the Copernicus image has a fuzzy left edge on the light circle

The only thing I was trying to demonstrate with this image is that the red boxed area, as it appears in the satellite image, needs to be warped a lot to make it fit Elizondo's photo. I wasn't paying attention to the "UFO" and upper part of the image, so it got distorted to become fuzzy. And again, I don't think the claim is that it's the same photo, just one based on the satellite image. The landscape only looked like that for a narrow window of a couple of weeks in 2017.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

But the shadows do not match. The patterns of vegetation seem to match, which indicates it's likely around the same date. But the photos are differently lit. Especially in the top 1/3 of the images. Here I've boosted the contrast a bit

View attachment 80033

And the Copernicus image has a fuzzy left edge on the light circle, and a different light region in the dark circle. These are not the same image. It is possible the Elizondo image was taken from a plane.

This is the "false color" version of the satellite map. The white circle actually has a very defined edge but it bleeds - which I think is visible on the UFO pic as well, but is hard to tell when that image quality is so grainy (red arrow) - and I'm guessing Lue won't be releasing a better image.

The light shape at the right matches in both pics (green arrow). The black circle does have a "missing" light patch at the top (blue arrow), but matches the splotches on the right (yellow arrow).

I feel like this is a case of "if you can't match every pixel, you haven't debunked it." If a satellite image was used, we don't know which version or what modifications were made so we'll never match every pixel especially given the UFO photo appears to be deliberately futzed up. @Giddierone has proven it doesn't come from the year the "pilot" claimed, so it's up to Elizondo to re-question his source to find out why he lied (or somehow misremembered seeing his UFO in 2021 not 2017)... and that's not going to happen either.

 

[Giddierone]

I feel like this is a case of "if you can't match every pixel, you haven't debunked it."

Ah, the Forbes "Butthole" defence.

 

[Mendel]

I feel like this is a case of "if you can't match every pixel, you haven't debunked it." If a satellite image was used, we don't know which version or what modifications were made so we'll never match every pixel especially given the UFO photo appears to be deliberately futzed up.

You had proposed an argument that some objects which have height look distorted in a way as if they didn't, and don't compare to e.g. Google Earth. If you can prove that Lue's photo must be a transformation of an overhead view, rather than a slant photo, then your case is proven.

Are the "splotches" on the dark circle vegetation or clouds? If they'te clouds, it would prove that this satellite image is the source.

The other big weird thing is would a pilot give a location 300 miles from the actual location? Who wrote the caption? It's so odd like it's "close" but not really close at the same time, the fact that it was near mostly featureless desert made brute force geolocation easier.

I kinda wish it had spun on for but before being found because more detail might have emerged about the "pilot" and the orginal photo.

It's ironic that the "disclosure" people habitually shroud the provenance and provenience of their own evidence in secrecy.

Charitably, we might assume that the flight originated or ended at Four Corners Regional Airport (KFMN) in Farmington and connected to a city, and Lue mistook that for the location of the photo.

I would also charitably assume that the pilot was flying over broken cloud, and that this precluded him from seeing other irrigation circles on this flight, but there's not a single cloud in this image, we don't have an accurate date to confirm the weather with, and you kinda need to fly a little more to get your pilot's licence in the first place.

But it's also possible that Lue was approached with, "Hi, I'm a pilot, have you seen this?" and got handed the photo, which was off the Internet, and not really taken by the pilot themself.

 

[Mick West]

I feel like this is a case of "if you can't match every pixel, you haven't debunked it."

I don't think it's quite that, but you were presenting it as if you found the original image, when it's more like you and @Giddierone found the correct month.

it's up to Elizondo to re-question his source to find out why he lied (or somehow misremembered seeing his UFO in 2021 not 2017)... and that's not going to happen either.

Yeah, I doubt we'll get any more on this case. But the 2021 date I think only comes from one mention in Elizondo's talk, where he says:

was taken in 2021 over the Four Corners region at an altitude approximately 21,000 feet, by a private pilot outside of his aircraft.

"21" occurs twice there, so it's possible he misspoke. FL210 is on the image, maybe 2021 got stuck in his mind.

I'm not trying to defend Elizondo. But I think it's better to avoid going all-in on accusations that might later be explained away. Yes, the data seems wrong - but is that Elizondo being lied to, or Elizondo making a mistake.

 

[Mendel]

I'm not trying to defend Elizondo. But I think it's better to avoid going all-in on accusations that might later be explained away. Yes, the data seems wrong - but is that Elizondo being lied to, or Elizondo making a mistake.

At best, it's Elizondo being careless with UFO evidence—again.

 

[Mick West]

From the Chris Mellon fan page on Facebook (seemingly not actually Chris Mellon), comes this nonsense.

Article:

When we're so easily perturbed by a single photo or apparent misstep, it gives bad actors—whether within government or outside it—a simple, repeatable playbook.
Disinformation no longer needs to be complex; it just needs to be well-timed. A single planted image within a volatile community can detonate like a landmine, sowing division, discrediting advocates, and setting the movement back months. If we allow ourselves to be destabilized so easily by something as simple as an image that turns out not to be what we thought it was, we hand the opposition the tools to stall progress indefinitely.

Judging by what we know now about the image in question, Lue was likely given the bad image on purpose. He—being a good person who leads from his heart, relying on his well-developed intuition, but without time to properly vet the image—used it in good faith, trusting the source. That, in itself, is not a mistake. That is integrity under fire. That is the risk of navigating a battlefield full of traps while trying to move the truth forward.

We're dealing with a layered, murky subject—one filled with cover stories, psy-ops, and decades of manipulation.
That means discernment is critical—but so are unity, flexibility, and the strength to keep moving when things don't go as planned.
Lue Elizondo, in the following video, also makes strong points about overreaction. A hostile community doesn't just fracture its own credibility—it also frightens potential whistleblowers from ever stepping forward.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/groups/chriskmellon/posts/1424554091893978/

 

[Mendel]

From the Chris Mellon fan page on Facebook

tl;dr: someone trolled Lue, but despite his "well-developed intuition", he fell for it—again.

Edit: And they somehow argue that it's ok to malign the person who gave Lue the photo, but to not be hostile to Lue, as that might "frighten whistleblowers". With that kind of reaction, would you ever give a photo of "I don't know what this is" to a UFOlogist, if you get blamed when they are wrong about it?

 

[Ravi]

tl;dr: someone trolled Lue, but despite his "well-developed intuition", he fell for it—again.

Edit: And they somehow argue that it's ok to malign the person who gave Lue the photo, but to not be hostile to Lue, as that might "frighten whistleblowers". With that kind of reaction, would you ever give a photo of "I don't know what this is" to a UFOlogist, if you get blamed when they are wrong about it?

Indeed.
"well developed intuition". That sentence almost made me spit out my coffee! If there is one thing Lue is lacking (well they all are not the best in critical thinking, but are good in creating word salads!), than it is intuition.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

I don't think it's quite that, but you were presenting it as if you found the original image, when it's more like you and @Giddierone found the correct month.


Yeah, I doubt we'll get any more on this case. But the 2021 date I think only comes from one mention in Elizondo's talk, where he says:

was taken in 2021 over the Four Corners region at an altitude approximately 21,000 feet, by a private pilot outside of his aircraft.

"21" occurs twice there, so it's possible he misspoke. FL210 is on the image, maybe 2021 got stuck in his mind.

I'm not trying to defend Elizondo. But I think it's better to avoid going all-in on accusations that might later be explained away. Yes, the data seems wrong - but is that Elizondo being lied to, or Elizondo making a mistake.

Skeptics who take the claim at face value will often run into this problem (when the claim turns out to be false due to someone fabricating something). Elizondo's story at face value makes no sense IMO because a pilot (allegedly his first-hand witness) would not mistake these circles on a flight across that region for a UFO.

Maybe he misspoke the year, but taking what he said at face value, he was wrong about the year. The frustration is that he's unlikely to go back to that source (as a truth-motivated researcher should do) to clear things up. The source is already upset and concerned (again, taking Elizondo's claim at face value) and Elizondo has no incentive to clarify things with him because it will put under scrutiny even more problems such as: Why is the photo B&W? How could the pilot on that flight path be fooled like that? In 4 years (or 8, if he "corrects" the error) why didn't the pilot try and find other explanations (even anonymously, to avoid the supposed fear of ridicule)?

If we don't take Elizondo's claim at face value, we could speculate that the source in the hallway at Congress got the photo from the actual pilot photographer, or that the source at Congress does not exist at all... etc. Multiple cans of worms that Elizondo is even less likely to open.
And Elizondo has proven he doesn't want to face any of that, given his record of presenting questionable and easily debunked photos and videos as "UAP" before bothering to rule out the mundane by some method... any method.

 

[Charlie Wiser]

From the Chris Mellon fan page on Facebook (seemingly not actually Chris Mellon), comes this nonsense.

...Lue was likely given the bad image on purpose. He—being a good person who leads from his heart, relying on his well-developed intuition, but without time to properly vet the image—used it in good faith, trusting the source.

The source gave him a bad image on purpose yet Elizondo (if we take his claim at face value) was in contact with the source afterwards in order to learn they were upset and concerned...? Make it make sense. This poster is three steps ahead of counter-intelligence wiz Lue Elizondo, and figured out the source was bad before Lue and his well-developed intuition did?

 

[Mendel]

Make it make sense. This poster is three steps ahead of counter-intelligence wiz Lue Elizondo, and figured out the source was bad before Lue and his well-developed intuition did?

Yes. Like his audience, Elizondo is a good person with a good heart and faith in people, and that's why he's easily taken advantage of. Or maybe they're projecting, and Lue isn't like that at all.

 

[Gaspa]

not to mention within the same few months

Maybe I'm not following your point, but...

The Sentinel satellite that takes these has images from about every 3-4 days since it began operations in, IIRC, 2017. Any photo taken by any person of pretty much any place on Earth would have been taken "within the same 3-4 days" of a satellite image that we can find in the Copernicus system.

 

[deirdre]

Why is the photo B&W?

because he shot with b&w film

How could the pilot on that flight path be fooled like that?

people here have given several reasons one could be fooled

In 4 years (or 8, if he "corrects" the error) why didn't the pilot try and find other explanations (even anonymously, to avoid the supposed fear of ridicule)?

because he didn't. most people arent debunkers. and many (or most) people wouldnt know how to research something even if they wanted to.


The bottom line is that the location has been identified and the silver 1000 foot ufo turned out to be a 2500 foot irrigation circle. Take the win.

There's no reason to oversell this one. I realize there are no websites anymore that stick to specific topics, ie: "what is the ufo in this picture"? and people are in the habit these days of assigning alleged/speculative motivations and psychoanalysis to every simple question...but seriously who cares? The claim of evidence is "here is a picture of a silver craft", the debunk is "no, it is an irrigation circle optical illusion. And here is the google earth proof." End of story.

 

[JMartJr]

because he didn't. most people arent debunkers. and many (or most) people wouldnt know how to research something even if they wanted to.

Certainly true in many cases -- but not relevant to THIS case, as it would not be possible to fly past these crop patterns, which are common, and be taken in for more than a moment by an optical illusion that only works for the right angle.

The bottom line is that the location has been identified and the silver 1000 foot ufo turned out to be a 2500 foot irrigation circle. Take the win.

Agreed. With the proviso that Mr. Elizondo seems to keep making this sort of unforced error, so the question of "why?" is going to be unavoidable. For the moment, I vote"Insufficient data, but keep an eye on it."

 

[deirdre]

Mr. Elizondo seems to keep making this sort of unforced error, so the question of "why?" is going to be unavoidable.

i hear you, it just seems every thread i click on does a deep dive into the "why" over and over and over. I guess for new readers who only read this one thread, it would be new information. I'm just missing the old MB format, so i'm cranky...ignore me.

 

[Giddierone]

Without knowing anything about the camera / lens used I'm struggling to see how the "UFO" can be seen from that angle while at the same time seeing the areas in the red boxes. The perspective in Elizondo's photo just seems impossible.

 

[Mick West]

Skeptics who take the claim at face value will often run into this problem (when the claim turns out to be false due to someone fabricating something). Elizondo's story at face value makes no sense IMO because a pilot (allegedly his first-hand witness) would not mistake these circles on a flight across that region for a UFO.

Maybe he misspoke the year, but taking what he said at face value, he was wrong about the year.

Who's taking it at face value? The story is obviously suspicious, but also lacking in detail. Attempting to fill in that detail without sufficient evidence creates an easy straw man for his supporters to use to deflect criticism.

All I'm saying here is that claiming to have found the exact satellite photo (or strongly giving that impression) will create a straw man, especially if the real origin of the photo is revealed as a photo from a plane.

 

[Mick West]

Without knowing anything about the camera / lens used I'm struggling to see how the "UFO" can be seen from that angle while at the same time seeing the areas in the red boxes. The perspective in Elizondo's photo just seems impossible. View attachment 80062

Like this:

https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?cu...azonaws.com/1/Four Corners/20250505_145232.js

 

[Ravi]

Without knowing anything about the camera / lens used I'm struggling to see how the "UFO" can be seen from that angle while at the same time seeing the areas in the red boxes. The perspective in Elizondo's photo just seems impossible.

I agree here. Lue's picture looks very "flat", ie. no perspective. This is inherent to satellite imagery (telecentric).

 

[Mick West]

I agree here. Lue's picture looks very "flat", ie. no perspective. This is inherent to satellite imagery (telecentric).

It's not, though, it has perspective, the correct perspective for a plane at 21,000 feet. See above

 

[NorCal Dave]

There's no reason to oversell this one. I realize there are no websites anymore that stick to specific topics, ie: "what is the ufo in this picture"? and people are in the habit these days of assigning alleged/speculative motivations and psychoanalysis to every simple question...but seriously who cares? The claim of evidence is "here is a picture of a silver craft", the debunk is "no, it is an irrigation circle optical illusion. And here is the google earth proof." End of story.

Not trying to make you more cranky . Just my thoughts.

If this were a photo shared on the r/ufos reddit thread, I would agree, but it's not. It's arguably one of the most important UFO personalities of the last 20 years once again presenting on Capitol Hill to government types. He is once again trying to influence policy. He and his cohorts, Melon, Puthoff, Stratton, et al are once again moving the goal posts. Having had ARRO established, he's back saying it's not enough, we need yet another government UFO program for civilian pilots now.

Given the history of AAWSAP and the fact that Grusch recently turned his UFO claims into a congressional staffer position, I think Elizondo and his cohorts are not only lobbying for more government UFO programs but likely angling to be involved in them. They missed out on ARRO, so now a push for a new civilian version.

And unlike a random "look at this UFO" post on reddit, when Elizondo presented this, he described what I would call a flying saucer, a big one:

00:44 It is a lenticular object, and when you look at the shadow being cast. It is significantly large. It is at an altitude of 21,000 feet. taken by a civilian pilot.

01:22 And the object, potentially is anywhere between 600 to 1000 feet in diameter. There's a particular object, and it is silver.

This was debunked within hours and since then Elizondo has only admitted that the photo wasn't what he was supposedly told it was. It's not his fault, it's the mean debunkers. Now we have the mean debunkers, or as Coulthart smugly says in his Ausie accent, "the bleeding debunkers", being blamed by Melon or someone on his fan site.

If this were a simple UFO photo from a random person on the internet, then yes, a simple debunk would have ended it. It's not. It was part of an attempt to influence policy, so there is a level of accountability.

 

[Ravi]

It's not, though, it has perspective, the correct perspective for a plane at 21,000 feet. See above

Good point.

 

[FastIndy]

Like this:
https://www.metabunk.org/sitrec/?custom=https://sitrec.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/1/Four Corners/20250505_145232.js

View attachment 80064

Just curious how/why the altitudes are set on this, Google Maps indicates ~5600ft of elevation. Looks like you're still getting to the same altitude total.

 

[jdog]

Not trying to make you more cranky . Just my thoughts.

If this were a photo shared on the r/ufos reddit thread, I would agree, but it's not. It's arguably one of the most important UFO personalities of the last 20 years once again presenting on Capitol Hill to government types. He is once again trying to influence policy. He and his cohorts, Melon, Puthoff, Stratton, et al are once again moving the goal posts. Having had ARRO established, he's back saying it's not enough, we need yet another government UFO program for civilian pilots now.
...
If this were a simple UFO photo from a random person on the internet, then yes, a simple debunk would have ended it. It's not. It was part of an attempt to influence policy, so there is a level of accountability.

I do wonder how much we're just bouncing the rubble critiquing the photo.

On the other hand, the circumstances under which Elizondo chose to impulsively present the image as evidence in a hearing do affect his overall credibility for recommending policy.

If "The person who shared that photograph with me right now is very upset and very concerned" about the blowback, then it sounds like Elizondo still thinks it was provided to him in good faith, which means he's very bad at reading images, very bad at judging sources, or both.

 

[Mendel]

bouncing the rubble

Article:

(military, informal) To bomb a target that has already been severely bombed, so that little further damage is possible.

Source: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/bounce_rubble

 

[Mick West]

Just curious how/why the altitudes are set on this, Google Maps indicates ~5600ft of elevation. Looks like you're still getting to the same altitude total.

It's a minor issue in Sitrec, if the camera is outside the terrain, it thinks the ground is at MSL

Expanding the terrain gives the correct altitude. This is only for a measure, not any of the actual geometry/physics.

Another minor issue is that FL210 is not exactly 21,000 feet. As it's based on air pressure, it varies with the weather by about +/- 500 feet, or more in extreme weather.

 

[Giddierone]

It's a minor issue in Sitrec, if the camera is outside the terrain, it thinks the ground is at MSL View attachment 80066

Expanding the terrain gives the correct altitude. This is only for a measure, not any of the actual geometry/physics.
View attachment 80067

Another minor issue is that FL210 is not exactly 21,000 feet. As it's based on air pressure, it varies with the weather by about +/- 500 feet, or more in extreme weather.

Does this explain why if you set the altitude to 18,000 it fits the Elizondo image better? At 21,000 the circles appear too circular. So maybe Elizondo also misspoke about the altitude?

 

[Kyle Ferriter]

Another question that believers never seem to care about is, "why would a UAP be doing this in the first place?"
For UAP insert a. Alien Space Craft, b. Interdimensional Visitor, c. Classified Military Operation, d. Unknown Foreign Adversary
What possible useful information could any of the above hope to gain from hovering over a corn field in broad daylight?
Zipping around an aircraft carrier strike group to collect electronic intelligence (ELINT) data? Okay maybe.
A corn field? Not so much.

Maybe their interplanetary vehicles can run on corn ethanol. /s

Charitably, we might assume that the flight originated or ended at Four Corners Regional Airport (KFMN) in Farmington and connected to a city, and Lue mistook that for the location of the photo.

This is a plausible theory to me.

I am also leaning towards the idea promoted by others here that the prior person in the provenance chain (who gave the photo to Elizondo), is not the person who took the photo or the person who originally obtained it from the person/entity (satellite) which took it. Rather than it being willful deceit by a pilot who took this photo with the intent to either mislead Elizondo and the public, or to discredit Elizondo. And so details were lost, such as what the real date and location was. It's possible the person who gave it to Elizondo said they are a pilot and they have this photo, and it was inferred that this meant the person took the photo while they were piloting even if that was not the case.

I personally usually lean towards laziness and sloppiness and error-prone processes as explanations in cases like this, rather than intentional and malicious deceit. Unless there's something that really indicates that. Many people also very deeply hold certain viewpoints and those beliefs affect their interpretations even beyond what other people who don't share those beliefs see as reasonable. Such as interpreting a '1' party balloon, or blurry insects, as credible footage of advanced alien spacecraft, and doing this over and over again even as similar past mistakes are pointed out.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I am also leaning towards the idea promoted by others here that the prior person in the provenance chain (who gave the photo to Elizondo), is not the person who took the photo or the person who originally obtained it from the person/entity (satellite) which took it. Rather than it being willful deceit by a pilot who took this photo with the intent to either mislead Elizondo and the public, or to discredit Elizondo.

Yeah but. That doesn't really line up with Elizondo's YouTube video explanation (post #164) that came out after the debunk. He clearly states the photo was provided to him by a private pilot:

00:17:

I was provided a photograph from a private pilot who had asked me, he was concerned that there was no real reporting mechanism, and we've known there was no real civilian reporting mechanism for private pilots to report UAP.

I guess one could argue it was a photograph FROM a pilot, and not the actual pilot himself. But then what's with the asking Elizondo about his concerns? The non-pilot providing the photo is "just asking for a pilot friend?"

He claims the pilot explained the context of the photo:

And he took a few moments and explained to me what he saw surrounding this photograph.

Then he indicates that he is still in contact with the pilot and he is "upset":

03:24:

But the person who shared that photograph with me right now is, is, is very upset and very concerned.

Assuming this is true, then either Elizondo talked to THE pilot that claims to have taken the photo, or someone obtained this photo and presented to him with a fake back story. Confusion about the actual elevation or location, maybe. Totally confused about who he was speaking to and continued to speak to, not so much.

 

[Gaspa]

Without knowing anything about the camera / lens used I'm struggling to see how the "UFO" can be seen from that angle while at the same time seeing the areas in the red boxes. The perspective in Elizondo's photo just seems impossible. View attachment 80062

Why wouldn't they be visible? Is there anything that would be obstructing the view? I went into Google Earth and checked the elevation, doesn't look like there are any obstructions.

 

[Giddierone]

Why wouldn't they be visible? Is there anything that would be obstructing the view? I went into Google Earth and checked the elevation, doesn't look like there are any obstructions.

View attachment 80089

I'm asking about the view from the air. I don't mean you can't see them at all, but the angle you could see them from. I still don't get why if you line up the two roads at right angles from Elizondo's image and with the terrain image so much of the surrounding landscape completely out of alignment. It looked to me like you'd have to have the camera at a lower altitude (lower than 21,000ft see #228) to make the circular fields appear elliptical rather than more circular, as you'd see when looking more straight down on them.
You can see how very different the foreground field is in this overlay, while the "UFO" is approximately the same size. So wondering what kind of lens could account for the difference.

 

[Ann K]

I'm asking about the view from the air. I don't mean you can't see them at all, but the angle you could see them from. I still don't get why if you line up the two roads at right angles from Elizondo's image and with the terrain image so much of the surrounding landscape completely out of alignment. It looked to me like you'd have to have the camera at a lower altitude (lower than 21,000ft see #228) to make the circular fields appear elliptical rather than more circular, as you'd see when looking more straight down on them.

I asked google earth if satellite images are used:

How images are collected

You can see a large collection of imagery in Google Earth, including satellite, aerial, 3D, and Street View images. Images are collected over time from providers and platforms. Images aren't in real time, so you won't see live changes.

Any airplane you care to name would be working at a lower altitude than a satellite image, so maybe that's the difference.

 

[Ravi]

I'm asking about the view from the air. I don't mean you can't see them at all, but the angle you could see them from. I still don't get why if you line up the two roads at right angles from Elizondo's image and with the terrain image so much of the surrounding landscape completely out of alignment. It looked to me like you'd have to have the camera at a lower altitude (lower than 21,000ft see #228) to make the circular fields appear elliptical rather than more circular, as you'd see when looking more straight down on them.
You can see how very different the foreground field is in this overlay, while the "UFO" is approximately the same size. So wondering what kind of lens could account for the difference.

A telephoto lens (long focal length).
Is it likely the pilot had a (big) telephoto lens on his camera.. A cell phone is more likely, which is distorting (barrel/cushion etc) the image quite a bit, as opposed to telephoto. But, I am keeping myself in the middle here.

 

[Giddierone]

A telephoto lens (long focal length).
Is it likely the pilot had a (big) telephoto lens on his camera.. A cell phone is more likely, which is distorting (barrel/cushion etc) the image quite a bit, as opposed to telephoto. But, I am keeping myself in the middle here.

I don't know. Telephoto would have a short depth of field and the focus seems deeper, like that of a wide angle action cam.

Elizondo said "It was taken by a, we have all the information on the camera," and was taken at "21,000 feet, by a private pilot outside of his aircraft."

Which is difficult to interpret. Does that mean he'll share the information on the camera? Seems this would be helpful in avoiding similar misidentifications. Does "outside" mean the camera was on the exterior of the plane, perhaps a GoPro or similar? Is that why we see no part of the plane?

Seems unlikely we'll ever get answers to these questions.

 

[Mendel]

Does this explain why if you set the altitude to 18,000 it fits the Elizondo image better? At 21,000 the circles appear too circular.

Measure it—yours are too flat. There's a small tilt with respect to the original, too.

Any airplane you care to name would be working at a lower altitude than a satellite image, so maybe that's the difference.

Google Earth is modeled after a space-based 3D scan of Earth, and that model is then painted with photos. Sitrec works the same way:

Article:

The default terrain source used by Metabunk Sitrec is a public domain EPSG:3857 tile source from MapZen that encodes elevation data [...] The second source seen in the example below is the National Map 3DEP GeoTIFF. This is a US only source that provides elevation data in GeoTIFF format.

Source: https://github.com/MickWest/sitrec/blob/main/docs/CustomTerrainSources.md

This means, at the scale we're looking at, any distortion results from atmospheric distortion (refraction) or camera distortion—or simply not having fiddled with it enough to find the exact same viewpoint as the original. The angles need to align, and then the result needs to be rotated and resized to match. That's a lot of parameters.

I think @Mick West simply set the observer altitude to 21,000 ft, then found the angle that made the circles look proportionally correct, and called it close enough. His sitrec picture would need to be rotated a very small amount to match perfectly, and I expect the distance to the circles could be fine-tuned while staying on the same sight line (or close to it).

If someone attempted this and found it impossible to get a closer match, we'd need to consider @Charlie Wiser's idea that the original "photo" was created from a flat satellitelite image, and not a 3D image or three-dimensional reality.

 

[jarlrmai]

At that distance it would probably be hyperfocal even on a telephoto, I think I worked out maybe 200mm FF equivalent, of course we have no idea if the photo has been cropped.

As usual the pilot/photo story doesn't quite add up, there's lots of oddness and points of questioning that might tease out flaws in the story.

In this case however I might feel the proper sceptical community response would be a moderate "open letter" addressed to "Lue's photo pilot and colleagues"

The letter could try to address the issues of giving your photos/sightings to people/groups who always seem to conclude it can't be anything other than aliens (good luck working your way around the phrasing there) and expecting any analysis, who knows your error might end with no analysis and being used to mislead congress!

It should perhaps express that saying you don't know and are not sure are fine, but the best way to get an answer isn't lock your photo behind any one group, but to release what you have publically with as much detail as you can and as has been shown, the crowd will provide the best possible answers and will show working.

I understand why some people might prefer to be behind a proxy

I'm sure @Mick West might be able to express my ramblings much more eloquently

 

[Mendel]

Elizondo said "It was taken by a, we have all the information on the camera," and was taken at "21,000 feet, by a private pilot outside of his aircraft."

Which is difficult to interpret. Does that mean he'll share the information on the camera? Seems this would be helpful in avoiding similar misidentifications. Does "outside" mean the camera was on the exterior of the plane, perhaps a GoPro or similar? Is that why we see no part of the plane?

Again, these are the "disclosure" people, disclosing nothing.

We're left to speculate:

P: "Hi Lue, I'm a pilot, look at this photo!"
Lue (thinks): This pilot took this photo.
Lue: "That looks great, did you take this?:
P: "Oh, I wasn't on the plane."
Lue (thinks): The pilot was outside the plane.
Lue: "Can you give me some context?"
P: "So, this was a flight out of 4 Corners airport to Chicago, and it was on flight level 210".
Lue remembers later that it was near Four Corners, and at 21,000 ft or maybe in 2021.
Lue: "Have you ever seen anything like this before?"​

etc.

We already know from Elizondo's AATIP tales that he doesn't appear to be in the habit of taking notes on the interviews he conducts.

 

[Giddierone]

Here's the Jan 2017 Satellite image as a KMZ file which can be opened in Google Earth Pro for anyone wanting to experiment with the alignment.

 

[Giddierone]

Measure it—yours are too flat.

See #228