UFOs: Extraterrestrial telemetry probes are monitoring planet Earth

 

The manifestation of flying objects in the skies over planet Earth continues unabated. Proof of this are the photos and videos showing them flying alone or in the company of classic 'flying saucers'. The star performer is always the Mexican Juanito Juan, but no less interesting are the videos recorded in England by an anonymous witness and those taken in Sardinia by Graziano Corrias and Rossella Piano, to name but a few. As always, this article was written in collaboration with Sante Pagano, who proved to be a real talent in the use of image analysis software. Therefore, the second part of this work will present Sante's reports on the analysis of the various photos presented in this article... Continue reading the article edited by P.G. Caria at LINK

SANTE PAGANO'S ANALYSES

Sphere Analysis

Sardinia 13.08.2022

The first image we are going to analyse was received directly from Pier Giorgio Caria. The photo was taken in Sardinia on 13 August 2022. According to our analysis, the photo is genuine and the object cannot be identified with anything conventional.

The document in question contains all the metadata, except that relating to geolocation, as it was not authorised by the owner of the device. It states that the photo was taken on 13 August 2022 at 21:09 by an 'iPhone 12' using the device's DOUBLE REAR CAMERA.

The author reports that the document is part of a MULTIPLE SEQUENCE OF PHOTOGRAPHIC SHOTS and that the object in question is present in only one of them. We can therefore rule out the possibility that it is a bird, given the shape of the object and the fact that it would have shown clear signs of movement. It would also most likely have appeared in at least one other shot. We can also rule out the possibility of it being a midge, as the object shows that it is at approximately the SAME DISTANCE as between the camera and THE ROCKS VISIBLE IN THE PHOTO, AND IS THEREFORE MUCH BIGGER THAN ANY INSECT. This was confirmed by the analysis of the EDGES, which were as sharp and thick as the rocks.

The same assessment is confirmed by the QUANTITY OF LIGHT ABSORBED AND REFLECTED, which should vary according to the distance of the object from the light. The sphere and the rocks show that they reflect the same amount of sunlight, while the spherical object in the foreground and lower left reflects much less.

The unidentified object also, although it appears to be dark in colour, is most likely made of REFLECTIVE MATERIAL, so much so that we can see a REFLECTION on its surface, which could refer to the rocks below.

The object also shows that it is truly integrated into the environmental context, since it interacts with the light of the sun, now setting, in the same way as all the other landmarks. It also ABSORBS AND REFLECTS the SAME QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF LIGHT, in fact on the left side you can see the pinkish colour of the setting sun, while the right side presents a colour between green and litht blue.

Finally, the ELA CHECK. This excludes the possibility of differences in compression levels between the various objects in the photograph, thus confirming the veracity of the document. To reach this conclusion, we carried out 3 DIFFERENT ELA EXAMINATIONS.

1. On the original image. It can be clearly seen that there is no difference in the compression ratio.
2. On the original image, to which a disc-shaped object created in CGI has been added (marked with an arrow). Here the compression difference is very clear, in fact the CGI object appears very bright white.
3. On the original image, to which a disc-shaped object created in CGI has been added, but with a similar level of compression to the rest of the image (indicated by an arrow). Here the difference in compression, although not so obvious to the untrained eye, is there, albeit minimal. However, there are other elements that we can detect that prove that the image has been processed. In fact, we can notice the presence of certain traces left by this passage. These are called “rainbow marks”, and they are particular red and blue spots (some of them circled in green) that are present in certain areas of the document.

By brightening the image, these details become more apparent:

Analysis UFO wheel with spheres
Juanito Juan, MEXICO 7.2023

The following photo was taken by Juanito Juan at the end of July 2023. Unfortunately, we were not able to retrieve the original version, so we do not have the photo's metadata, but by performing some specific analysis we were able to come to a fairly reliable conclusion.

Let's start by saying that the photo is truly unique. In fact, an object with this structural morphology has never been seen before. It is, in fact, a DISCOIDAL OBJECT with a hole in the centre and internally formed by ten notched spokes.

We recreated the object using computer graphics to better appreciate its details. Of course, we had to use a bit of imagination in certain parts of the structure, as the disc is almost entirely in shadow and does not allow for an optimal assessment of its morphology. Here is the reproduction made thanks to the collaboration of our friend Ramon Corrado.

The object is accompanied by four spheres, all of which appear to be of metallic material. The five objects reflect the sunlight and prove to be of fair size as the reflection is very small compared to the shadowed area, a detail that is more pronounced in the disc-shaped object, which is considerably larger than the four spheres. One of the spheres also has a different colour reflection from the others, tending towards pink, probably due to a particular structural characteristic of the material it is made of.

As we said, we do not have the metadata of the photo available, but an initial analysis using an ELA test showed no digital manipulation of the photo. The image is unfortunately of rather low quality: JPEG at 81%.

However, just because it is of low quality does not mean that you cannot tell if something has been changed. Error Level Analysis (ELA) should have all objects at approximately the same colour. If something is bright white, it means that it was the last thing to be modified, as it has a higher potential error level than the rest of the image. None of this was detected in the test, as can be seen in the three images below.

1. Normal ELA test.
2. ELA test with image varied in contrast, brightness and gamma correction to bring out certain details.
3. ELA test with high error parameter to detect and highlight other details.

Pixel analysis also confirms that the objects were actually present in the environment at the time the image was captured, and that they appear to blend in with their surroundings. Furthermore, there are no overly sharp or contrasting edges, and no artefacts from image compression.

The clone test showed no significant similarities between the spheres. It is therefore very unlikely that the objects were created using CGI.

This hypothesis is confirmed by the conformation of the pixels that make up the spheres. In fact, each sphere has a completely different pixellation from the others. We can therefore rule out the possibility that the disc was also reproduced using computer graphics, since the characteristics of the spheres are similar.

The consistency of the objects' response to absorbed and reflected light is also excellent. We can see this thanks to the colour spectrum test, although unfortunately the lack of reference points does not allow a complete and exhaustive evaluation. The result is most evident when we insert the CGI disc (marked with an arrow) into the original image. The spheres and the original disc, unlike the CGI object, take on the same colouring as the surrounding area, especially around the edges.

However, even here it can be seen that the object is truly embedded in the context as it interacts with the environment by releasing information around its body. Indeed, an object manually inserted into an image would not have this kind of pixilation, which is characteristic of a body that is truly interacting with its environment.

Finally, Luminance Gradient Analysis. This tool analyses the changes in brightness along the x and y axes of the image. The classic use is to look at how different parts of the image are illuminated to find anomalies. Parts of the image that are at a similar angle (to the light source) and under the same illumination should have a similar colour. Another parameter is edge control. Similar edges should have similar gradients. If the shades on one edge are significantly sharper than the rest, this is a sign that the image may have been copied and pasted. This analysis also helps to detect image “noise” and compression artefacts quite well. No anomalies are found in this analysis. The colours shown, based on the illumination to which the objects are exposed, are quite similar. The edges have the same degree of shading. No compression artefacts were found either.

The analysis of the main component also showed no compression artefacts. Here, the analysis performed on the original object is juxtaposed with the analysis performed on a digitally created object, so that we can observe one of the ways in which compression artefacts can occur. On the left is the analysis performed on the disc, in the middle is the analysis performed on the sphere, and on the right is the analysis performed on the CGI object, with the artefacts indicated by the arrows.

Unfortunately, the lack of reference points, the low image quality and the poor illumination of the objects did not allow further analysis, but from what was analysed we can safely conclude that no traces of tampering were found.

Analysis discoidal object with spheres
Juanito Juan, MEXICO 29.8.2023

It was in August 2022 that Pier Giorgio Caria began to take an interest in Juanito Juan's case, and we have been studying it ever since. So far, nothing has provided us with any evidence against the authenticity of this case, even though we have not been able to obtain the original documents and have always had to rely on material downloaded from Juanito's social channels, especially Facebook.

In fact, getting hold of material downloaded directly from the recording device means having access to a whole series of data that help to certify the absolute authenticity of a given video or photographic material. We are talking about metadata.

Today we are presenting three very interesting photos of UFOs, precisely because they contain this invaluable information, which has helped us to reach a more reliable verdict on the Juanito Juan contact case. Well, this process of analysis that we are about to present to you has also contributed to the authenticity of this very important story of contact between a human being and civilisations not of this Earth.

The three photos in question, according to Juanito Juan in a post published the day after the happening, were taken on 29 August 2023. They show a disc-shaped object followed by some spheres. All the objects appear to be made of metallic material.

Analysis of the metadata of the three photos confirms that they were taken on the morning of 29 August 2023, exactly between 12:48 and 12:52, with a 'Panasonic DMC-LX10' camera. This is a camera that Juanito Juan had already used for other photo shoots and which, as he explains in a special video, was given to him by Jaime Maussan towards the end of June that year.

In the video, Juanito Juan can be seen using and presenting the camera in question. An internet search confirmed that it was indeed the model in question:

Below is the text found in the metadata or EXIF of Juanito Juan's photos dated 29/8/2023:

The photographs we are talking about are, as we have said, a total of three, and they show a disc-shaped object surrounded by some spheres:

The photos were obviously taken at three different times, and follow a chronological sequence that coincides with the naming of the files received, which also corresponds to the naming that 'Panasonic' cameras automatically assign to the shots taken.

Shot P1000288 (1) was taken at 10:48:26.
Shot P1000289 (2) was taken at 10:49:59.
Shot P1000290 (3) was taken at 10:52:45.

Furthermore, no metadata was found that would indicate that the photos had been manipulated in any way, such as Photoshop. In conclusion, the analysis of the metadata confirms the authenticity of the photographs.

WHAT IS METADATA?

Metadata provides information on how the file was generated and managed.

This information can be used to identify whether video or photographic documents came directly from a digital camera, whether they have been processed by an editing programme or altered to convey misleading information. The main data to look for therefore are the make and model of the camera, any software used, image size, date and time of the shot, and geolocation if authorised by the owner of the device.

Therefore, metadata are very important to be able to identify how an image was last generated, processed and saved. Yet, it may happen that these are intentionally altered in an attempt to deceive.

Fortunately, intentional deception is very rare. However, the alteration of metadata requires highly specialised tools and really important technical skills, and typical users do not have such requirements. It is a fact that applications that alter metadata usually also alter the image by re-saving or re-encoding, and this can be easily detected, even if the metadata appear to be accurate.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS

The object, as we said, is apparently metallic, as are the spheres. This one has a discoidal shape and a dome on top. Thanks to reference points such as trees, clouds, the ground, but especially the parked car, and using a special analysis programme, we were able to estimate its diameter, which is about 1.5 metres.

Edge analysis also confirmed that the objects were of a reasonable size. It is therefore not possible that they are simply models that have been thrown into the air and then photographed.

In fact, the edges appear to be thick and very well defined, and are very similar to those of the tree crowns below. The circumference of the crowns and the objects are therefore approximately the same size.

In the following image, we can see how edges behave in objects of different sizes, thanks to a practical example that I have created. We have an aeroplane (object 1), the same aeroplane reduced in size (object 3) and the spaceship (object 2) from Juanito Juan's first photograph. As can be seen, the edges of Object 1 are much less thin and generally more pronounced than those of Object 2, and this becomes even more apparent when the aeroplane is reduced in size (Object 3). Obviously, this assessment can only be considered reliable if there are known or visible reference points.

We were also able to estimate the heights reached by the objects, thanks to the programme mentioned above. As can be seen in the image below, the objects start at a very low height of about 100 metres above the ground, then drop to about 95 metres and rise again to a height of about 360 metres. The spheres, on the other hand, follow the disc in all its movements. First there are two of them, then there are three, and then reduce again to two.

Here is the movement of the objects in a GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION that represents them.

In the following images you will find reproductions of the objects using CGI (Computer Generated Imagery), produced thanks to the valuable collaboration of our friend Ramon Corrado. We created them to better understand the morphology of the objects and to get further feedback from the graphical analysis.

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS

Based on the ELA test, there was no difference between the compression levels of the images, so it is very unlikely that they were modified in post-production.

Below is the result of the test applied to one of the three original images (left), juxtaposed with an ELA test applied to the same CGI-modified image (right).

The huge difference in compression that would result from digital manipulation is clearly visible. The strongest evidence of this is the bright white of the trees and the strong purple colour taken on by the objects.

Examination of the clones also shows no graphic manipulation. In the image below, the test on the original photo (left) has been juxtaposed with the test on the CGI-modified photo (right). As can be seen in the original image, there are no relevant similarities between the two spheres. In the modified image, however, the test detects a complete similarity between the two spherical objects.

The verdict of this test is that each sphere has its own unique identity and information package, as confirmed by the spectrochromatic test. In fact, it can be seen that each sphere has a different pixel package from the others, and that each object reacts differently to absorbed and reflected light. The disc also proves to be good in context, as it reacts to light in a similar way to the spheres.

In fact, with a CGI object, the result would be quite different. As you can see in the image below, the pixelation of the objects is practically identical. Obviously there is a slight variation in the colour of the pixels depending on the distance from the sun.

In fact, when creating several objects with the same morphological and structural characteristics, the CGI programme simply tries to reproduce a different response to light depending on the distance from the light source, but does not provide customised and thus differentiated information packages between the various objects. In practice, it is as if the programme uses the same 'template' each time it creates a metal sphere, and this can also be deduced, as already mentioned, from the examination of clones above.

In conclusion, both the graphical analysis and, above all, the metadata showed that the documents are genuine and have not been manipulated in any way.

We now finally have definitive and tangible proof that the case of Juanito Juan is absolutely real.

Sante Pagano, 12th November 2023

Sante Pagano