jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Great, however sharing the photo as is with metadata intact is what we need to check it ourselves. It's very easy to do this, reluctance to do so is a classic sign of not being honest about wanting a full investigation.
The Pentyrch UFO Encounter
- Thread starter flarkey
- Start date
Great, however sharing the photo as is with metadata intact is what we need to check it ourselves. It's very easy to do this, reluctance to do so is a classic sign of not being honest about wanting a full investigation.
Could be underground cables, could be in the path of a RF transmission line, eg a microwave link, or could be something as simple as a mobile phone in someone's pocket. Knowing the frequency of the EM field could help with identifying the cause, but I dont think the meter used provides this.
mad_hatter_87
Member
I may have read that the this meter is tuned for 50-60hz. For obvious reasons. That doesn't mean that is what was detected, but just a note. Also, only magnetic field was registered. Electric was not. I'll have to brush up, but that is unusual is it not?
I'm asking what specifics you would you like to know about metadata. I can MAYBE get the info, but I doubt it will be publicly posted.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
I want the file itself so I can interrogate the metadata myself. I know what I'm looking for.
I can't make it any clearer than that, getting select parts of the metadata by request is not conducive to an open investigation, share the evidence.
mad_hatter_87
Member
Sir, I am not the new witness. I am only relaying to you what I understand about the reluctance to publicize everything. Some people will have access to the metadata, but it won't go public.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Ah well they join the ranks of other people who hindered investigation of the very thing they purportedly seek to solve, seemingly for no reason.
mad_hatter_87
Member
That's not a very thorough analysis. Let's be patient. More is coming, I'm pretty sure of it.
deirdre
Senior Member.
if their actual street address is discoverable in the data, that is a good reason. There are a lot of whack jobs on the internet that like to harass people for the LOLs of it.
edit add: that said, if they are already manipulating the photos the exif data is attached to... doesnt bode well for sincerity.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Honestly I have no idea what they did, I think they either wanted to show or wanted to look like they were showing metadata from the UFO photo, so they seemingly took a screenshot of the photo on the phone at home and showed that metadata via another screenshot inadvertently doxing themselves and not realising it.
Give the competence shown so far I don't think they would be think to or be able to manipulate the EXIF data and it does cast some doubt on the whole endeavour.
All they need to do is post the JPG/s of the UFO on google drive, it's not rocket science.
Alas like a lot of these investigations they don't want to take the easy route with sharing the evidence, which does point to some level of deception.
mad_hatter_87
Member
It's not deception. That's one thing I do know. These folks ARE NOT technical, they don't manipulate things. The witness that took these photos doesn't really want anything to do with it.
They brightened the photo of the "orbs", and included the original unbrightened version. That is not deception.
We should assume the photos are real, taken with a phone, on Feb 26th, near the incident.
So, can we assume that and go ahead and try to figure out what these pics represent?
Maybe we can get the EXIF, but I'm not sure. I'm trying my best to be an intermediary, but I'm getting some pushback.
Thank you for your patience with the witnesses.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Literally doing nothing to the original photograph and posting it on g drive is all they need do, I am as technical as all hell and that will help me best find out what they represent. When people do not do this simple stuff it makes me wonder if they don't want things looked at to closely.
deirdre
Senior Member.
which one is that?
And yet they are using EMF meters and Geiger counters in their argument for the appearance and shoot-down of an inter-dimensional craft over a Welsh village?
Can we even trust their readings, let alone their rationale and argument?
Easy Muffin
Senior Member.
From the last couple of pages I get the impression they went out in the field with some pre-conceived ideas, waved their entry-level meters at random things without really knowing what they were doing, fiddled with the dials until the display showed a nice large number, then took it as further evidence for whatever it is they think happened.
I'm not even entirely sure what the point of this was in the first place? Even if these readings are true, what's the significance of a slightly elevated magnetic field strength?
I'm not even entirely sure what the point of this was in the first place? Even if these readings are true, what's the significance of a slightly elevated magnetic field strength?
I think their logic is..."UFOs are unexplained, therefore anything unexplained must be caused by UFOs". Its just a rehash of the line 'God moves in mysterious ways'.
I recently found this video, that shows almost everything that the witness claims she saw. You can even see pyramid craft emerging from the darkness as it enters our dimension.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K8A6E-J5HQ
mad_hatter_87
Member
No. The readings are just supplementary info that show (to someone who looked very deep) that they aren't good with science... but they also aren't lying. I would have been convinced that maybe the witness saw something that she seriously misinterpreted..... but the red/green deals in the pic make me wonder.
The unbrightened picture was included with the brightened picture, on my post at least. The original looks more "orbish" to me, bc its clearly an opaque object that isn't putting off much light, if any (doesn't look like lights to me)
If this picture evidence is considered with the other witness accounts, and some of the more solid evidence (large explosion in the middle of nowhere), then I think it's totally possible that something very unusual happened.
Hopefully the video will clear things up, if it ever is released.
BTW, the radiation readings were up to 0.20mR/h (really), this is twice background, and showed the highest at bald patch. The EMF readings up to 1uT- I really have not figured out what that could be. The levels aren't required to be high for the account to be real. That's something that everyone needs to realize, including witnesses lol.
Since the pictures dropped, I have had 5 people say that they have seen something similar to the red/green orbs... from different areas of the world.
There are very strange things in this universe, we can't put an investigation aside because the people reporting on it aren't good at science. At the very least, Caz routinely has "ball lightning" floating around, and films it. This alone interests me greatly. Ball lightning is just a mainstream attempt at describing an "orb".
mad_hatter_87
Member
*made a typo* - The radiation was up to 0.20uSv/h, not mR/h. (actually was a bit more, 0.25uSv/h or so)
That's double(ish) background, and only at bald spot. Doesn't seem to have dropped much, either. That says nil about initial level. Just can't know all that much from Alabama with very little data, with somewhat poor communication. The beta shield on their DP66 is missing, so that makes that meter read higher. They didn't do that on purpose. The other meter is correct, I assume.
Their KKMoon EMF meter works correctly, as well.
Just some clarification.
That's double(ish) background, and only at bald spot. Doesn't seem to have dropped much, either. That says nil about initial level. Just can't know all that much from Alabama with very little data, with somewhat poor communication. The beta shield on their DP66 is missing, so that makes that meter read higher. They didn't do that on purpose. The other meter is correct, I assume.
Their KKMoon EMF meter works correctly, as well.
Just some clarification.
Easy Muffin
Senior Member.
They aren't but it goes to show that the witnesses have a tendency to throw any number of things onto their pile of evidence, no matter how far-fetched. Anything they state as fact needs to be viewed through that lens imo, especially since the woman shows a propensity to jump to wild conclusions based on the flimsiest pieces of data.
mad_hatter_87
Member
Oh my....
mad_hatter_87
Member
Personalities are mixing!
JMartJr
Senior Member.
But note that attemppted monetization of a piece of video or some pictures says nothing about whether or not they are genuine. If I happened to take some video of Zorgnax from Omicron Persei 9 landing in my backyard and walking around taking botanical samples from the roses, I'd probably see if anybody would give me a few bucks for it. Even if it were genuine.Somehow, it always comes down to money.
mad_hatter_87
Member
I think people may be misunderstanding what is happening. Caz feels like the person that found the new witness is trying to take all the credit for exposing this case. She is the person that has been through the most with this. She obviously believes this to be true, she wouldn't go through all of it otherwise.
What she is saying is that if the new witness would contact her, then they can do something with "procedes". She feels that the person that found the second witness is trying to profit from it, and she feels that's immoral.
She is a fiery lady! I think they will start working together again. I hope so anyways.
Caz doesn't feel the witnesses images are fake. She just wants the EXIF, just like you guys.
What she is saying is that if the new witness would contact her, then they can do something with "procedes". She feels that the person that found the second witness is trying to profit from it, and she feels that's immoral.
She is a fiery lady! I think they will start working together again. I hope so anyways.
Caz doesn't feel the witnesses images are fake. She just wants the EXIF, just like you guys.
Fin
Member
In 2018 Caz posted this image on her facebook. The red "X" and blue line are mine. If memory serves, the picture was taken by a neighbour of hers. She said the lens flare was an orb and the triangle ufo was real. The lens flare is lens flare, which I demonstrated politely to her, and the triangle is a half-hearted, very obvious photoshop addition.
Perhaps she was being pranked by that neighbour with this particular pic? She was adamant in defending it (both the lens flare and the obvious photoshopped triangle) and I eventually had to give up trying to discuss it with her...
Best of luck!
Perhaps she was being pranked by that neighbour with this particular pic? She was adamant in defending it (both the lens flare and the obvious photoshopped triangle) and I eventually had to give up trying to discuss it with her...
Best of luck!
Mendel
Senior Member.
military and commercial aircraft usually have a radar altimeter, it uses a weak radar signal to find out how far below the ground is. This radar is not focused like a laser beam, so it should be detectable even if the aircraft is not straight overhead.
aircraft also continuously radio data in a general downward direction.
I'm not surprised that a sensitive all-band EMF meter can detect this.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Hiya! Two quick things:
First up, it might help to demonstrate that the "orb" is internal lens reflection by showing that if you boost the contrast and brightness of the image, the other two street lights also have such reflections. Picture below. (I agreed that's what it was, but was puzzled by why the other two similarly bright lights didn't also get reflected -- the answer is, they did! Oddly, the intersection of the lines between the reflections and lights is displaced a bit from the center of the image, which based on my limited understanding of such things indicates that either the picture has been cropped very slightly or possibly something is off-kilter in the camera -- perhaps some camera-knowledgeable person could speak to the later possibility? IF cropped, one would be inclined to wonder why...)
Second, a question -- Can you expound a bit on what you see that shows the triangle of lights to be a photoshop? Certainly it could very easily be a photoshop, but I'm not seeing anything that makes that obvious to me, other than my not believing in triangle UFOs! My disbelief is not evidence of anything, though, and there are some number of other things that MIGHT make for a triangle of lights in the sky.
Thanks!
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Re the triangle Photoshop.
Just out of the bag the 3 corner 'lights' on the triangle are identical just resized, also they would need to be bright to be seen but they exhibit non of the glare/bloom aberrations of the other bright lights in the scene. Also when brightened they exhibit a different noise pattern in a rectangle around them.
I'm sure aliens can make their craft look exactly like it was poorly comped on though.
Just out of the bag the 3 corner 'lights' on the triangle are identical just resized, also they would need to be bright to be seen but they exhibit non of the glare/bloom aberrations of the other bright lights in the scene. Also when brightened they exhibit a different noise pattern in a rectangle around them.
I'm sure aliens can make their craft look exactly like it was poorly comped on though.
Last edited:
JMartJr
Senior Member.
I am certainly not wanting to be the guy who defends that picture as real, but for the sake of discussion:
I might make the same claim about the three streetlights. Except that I believe streetlights exist, so I'm not suspicious about them. But with the "UFO," the same sort of light in three places are going to look pretty similar, yeah? Are they "identical? I don't think so, at least when I blow them up to the same size, the one from the right looks to have a bit less bright are along the lower edge. That COULD be an artifact of shrinking them down and then blowing two of them partway up again...
Other things are seen in the picture that are not glaringly bright lights -- for example, the lighted window just below the nearest streetlight. Some things are seen that are not lights at all. I'm not sure I can agree that only bright glaring lights could be seen in this pic.
I see what you are refering to there, but when I brighten up the image I see that same effect elsewhere -- for example:
A similar thing is happening around the internal reflection of the streetlight. And:
Looks to me like it is also happening around two of the distant streetlights or porch lights back there -- more obviously on one than the other -- and even along the roof lines of the houses back there as well. (Finding "anomalies" like that around the UFO are less probative if they are also found elsewhere in the picture, unless we want to claim the source also photoshopped in some street lighting and a camera flare, and possibly some roofs, as well.)
Quite possibly, but I'm not sure that would be necessary to explain this image!
It might well be photoshopped -- I'd kinda lean towards thinking that it is -- or it might be some actual lights reflecting in a pain of glass between us and the sky out there (with the note that it looks like the window is open so it would require ANOTHER sheet of glass in there, which starts to get hoaxy again but by a different technique) or it might conceivably be actual lights seen out the window. While it may be shopped, I don't think it is fair yet to say that this is definitely the case.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
I see what you mean about the noise factor more likely that is down to the JPG compression then
Re the glare thing, I mean I guess the lights on the UFO could be dimmer non point light sources like the house windows but now we are getting into "it could a be UFO that looks like exactly like 4 red/white circles pasted into phone photo with 3 of the stretched to oblongs" territory.
We start needing the actual raw photo off the phone with EXIF data etc and so we can do better analysis, adjust white balance to more natural to see what shade the "UFO" lights actually are etc
Other aspects would be the phone not aimed at the triangle, more photos taken as you would expect someone to rapidly take as many shots as they could, of course this can all be explained by them being "in shock etc."
Re the glare thing, I mean I guess the lights on the UFO could be dimmer non point light sources like the house windows but now we are getting into "it could a be UFO that looks like exactly like 4 red/white circles pasted into phone photo with 3 of the stretched to oblongs" territory.
We start needing the actual raw photo off the phone with EXIF data etc and so we can do better analysis, adjust white balance to more natural to see what shade the "UFO" lights actually are etc
Other aspects would be the phone not aimed at the triangle, more photos taken as you would expect someone to rapidly take as many shots as they could, of course this can all be explained by them being "in shock etc."
JMartJr
Senior Member.
'Twould be nice.
There's now a website dedicated to this event...
http://www.thepentyrchincident.com/
There's also a book on its way - should be available on Amazon next week and apparently it's very much 'evidence based'. Can't wait to read it.
http://www.thepentyrchincident.com/
There's also a book on its way - should be available on Amazon next week and apparently it's very much 'evidence based'. Can't wait to read it.
Fin
Member
Light sources just don't look like that in photographs. Look at the real lights. Our triangle lights have not one or two, but ALL the hallmarks of a bad, "shopped" on addition, as explained by others already. The central part of each white area should be brighter. The lack of any halo. The soft edges. The fact the colours are completely unaffected by all the light pollution from the nearby streetlights, etc, I have experience enough in both photoshop and photography to see that these issues aren't just some sort of coincidence. They stand out like a sore thumb.
Also the way the triangle has been stretched to fit the perspective of the photo has affected the lights so they don't actually look round, they look very FLAT. This is a classic noob error I have made myself in the past myself in photoshop. In fact it's one of the reasons I eventually took up 3D!!
I made this in 2007 after a close encounter with 2 unambiguously low and triangle shaped aircraft. I used photoshop. Notice how because of the way I had to stretch the triangles I had made in 2D, the lights have a kind of flat appearance.
Same thing after learning 3D
Last edited:
If one has access to the original photo (digital only!), you can use fotoforensics website to analyse it. Youll get direct visual evidence of tampering. Ive used it a few times (when a friend of mine was worried he was being Catfished : He Was).
There's now a book available...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B09DMP6...7ThUw7zOcljCto35PafdYMvcxAwLPaBBhyQUeXiW3McjI
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B09DMP6...7ThUw7zOcljCto35PafdYMvcxAwLPaBBhyQUeXiW3McjI
Just found these two videos debunking the Pentyrch non-event from 2 years ago. They pretty much follow the explanations in this thread.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVxK-uZKrCo
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQijGyzHqTQ
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVxK-uZKrCo
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQijGyzHqTQ
J
johne1618
Guest
If the event was just due to a military exercise then I don't understand why there was a massive explosion in woodland near enough to the Royal Glamorgan Hospital to shake it to it's foundations and fill it with pungent smoke. Also it seems than 60 ft trees had their trunks roughly chopped in half and somehow bleached a pale color rather than being charred. Seems very strange to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ann K
Senior Member.
Agreed, absolutely. The opening statement by the witness referred to an "interdimensional craft", which, no matter what on earth she might have meant by that cryptic description, signalled to me that she is fluent in woo.
Ann K
Senior Member.
Zooming in on the photo shows a different grain size to the noise around the triangle lights, and each of those lights has that different grain size in a conspicuous sharp-edged rectangle around it. Is that indicative of photoshop? I don't know enough about the artefacts produced by photography, so I'm looking for more knowledgeable commentary.
Similar threads
