UFO IN HERMOSO VALLEY ON 15 NOVEMBER 2023: Analyses

 

On 15 November 2023, Juanito Juan had taken a beautiful photo of a classic 'flying saucer' silhouetted sharply above his home in the clear sky of Valle Hermoso.

The recording was featured in this article: https://piergiorgiocaria.it/blog/20-novembre-2023-nuovo-eccezionale-filmato-ufo-di-juanito-juan/

The production of ufological material by Juan Manuel Sánchez is truly intense, both in terms of photographs and films, and has certainly established itself as the most important case in the world today. Here is Sante Pagano's precise analysis of this extraordinary photographic document.

P.G. Caria

JUANITO JUAN 15 November 2023

Analysis conducted by Sante Pagano

The analysis of the following photo is presented next:

The object in question is disc-shaped with a dome at the top, which appears to be made of a metal-like material, perhaps translucent and with reflective properties, as is the lower part of the structure, which appears to be made of a different material as the reflections are of lower intensity.

The disc is positioned at a reasonable height; it has not been possible to carry out more detailed checks, but the image nevertheless provides sufficient information to allow us to verify its authenticity or otherwise.

METADATA ANALYSIS

As I explained in the previous article, the header of an image file contains a lot of information about the image itself (metadata) in a format called EXIF (Exchangeable Image File Format). The EXIF specification defines fields that are common to most manufacturers, as well as custom fields that are difficult to decipher. A modern device can store a variety of information within the metadata, such as: data containing detailed information associated with digital photos, camera manufacturer and model, information related to the date and time the file was created and saved, information about image characteristics (resolution in pixels, colour depth, etc.), shooting settings (shutter speed, aperture, flash, focal length, etc.), GPS coordinates, device serial number, and more.

The document in question contains all the main or EXIF metadata, except for the geolocation metadata, because the owner has not activated this feature on the device. The metadata shows that the photo was taken on 15 November 2023 at 13:03:24 using a Panasonic DMC-LX10  camera, and also includes all the settings used by the device to take the photo, such as ISO, aperture, etc.

The presence of this information is a very important aspect, because we are talking about several dozen parameters that are very difficult to falsify, since they would have to be adjusted one by one according to the characteristics assumed by the photo and calibrated against each other. If this were the case, there would still be a trace of the application used to modify them. In this case, no trace of the use of editing applications was found.

I also carried out a thumbnail analysis in the metadata, using the so-called 'Thumbnail Analysis': this analysis tool shows the hidden thumbnail in the original image, if there is one.

The thumbnail can reveal details of the original image or the camera used to take it. It is basically a thumbnail of the photo, a small preview that is displayed on the camera's LCD screen and in the file managers of various operating systems.

Below is a snapshot of how thumbnails appear in the photo and video gallery of a camera, in this case a Panasonic camera:

The presence of the thumbnail is a very important piece of data, as this file can only be generated by the capturing device and is therefore an important certification that the photo taken actually came from a camera. It is important to note that it is not possible to manually add a thumbnail to the metadata. 

Furthermore, and especially when it is present, it is possible to analyse it and compare it with the original image to check for any anomalies or inconsistencies between the two: the so-called "thumbnail analysis" mentioned above.

The analysis shows that the original image (Figure 1) is a perfect match for the thumbnail extracted from the metadata (Figure 2):

Obviously, because the thumbnail is highly compressed, it consists of very few pixels (160 x 120 px), with a resolution of only 72 DPI (pixels/inch). The original image is 5472 x 3648 px and has a resolution of 180 DPI.  The UFO, which has only a few pixels, is not visible in the thumbnail. This is because, in order to perform such a strong compression (from 5472 x 3648 px to 160 x 120 px), the camera software has to remove several pixels. To do this, I compared the thumbnail extracted from the metadata with a specially created thumbnail of the original photo, which was then compressed to the above values. Basically, I recreated a thumbnail to check how the original photo should look and how reliable it was.

The analysis shows that the recreated thumbnail (image 1) is a perfect match to the original (image 2). It contains the same pixels, so it retains the same detail and lacks the same graphics packages. For example, the spaceship and other landmarks are not visible in the recreated thumbnail:

Here is an example of what happens when you edit a photo in Photoshop while preserving the original metadata: at first glance, the presence of metadata might lead you to conclude that the image came straight from the camera. However, the mere presence of metadata is not enough to certify the authenticity of a photo; metadata should always be analysed in depth, as it can reveal a lot of information. For example, it can help us to understand if the photo has been processed by an editing application. It is important to note that such a trace cannot be edited or deleted unless we delete all the metadata.

In the following example, a specially edited image (Figure 1) was taken and analysed. As we can see, the thumbnail (Figure 2) is present in the metadata, revealing what the original image looked like before the digital changes were made:

Here are the same images with the main differences made via Photoshop circled:

In addition, the creation and modification dates do not coincide. This means that after the photo was created, it was saved again after being edited:

Finally, we see the trace of the editing application used to manipulate the photo:

These are just a few of the various parameters to be taken into account in order to certify the authenticity of a document.

Finally, I carried out a detailed analysis of other photos taken by third parties with the same camera used by Juanito Juan, a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10.. This is now the camera he uses most, so I felt it was necessary to study it in the best possible way for the future shots Juanito will take. Once this has been done, we will have absolute certainty that his photos are really taken with this device, and I will be able to make a comparison each time between the metadata of the new photos that arrive and those usually taken with this camera.

Among the various photos taken, I report one that can be accessed via this LINK. For copyright reasons, I cannot quote the image directly, but those who wish to check it themselves can easily do so via the link above.

I report some of the most important metadata analysed. For obvious reasons of space, it is not possible for me to list them all, but it is important to emphasise that the verification was also carried out for the so-called 'strings' codes and the 'quantisation table', which is unique to each recording device:

From this analysis, I was able to conclude that the metadata displayed in Juanito's photo document is exactly the same as that normally reproduced by this type of camera.

As you can see, the metadata also includes the thumbnail. These data confirm another fundamental aspect: this type of camera always generates a thumbnail, as we can see in the photo presented in this article:

Conclusion based on metadata analysis

•       The presence of a thumbnail confirms that the photo came from a camera.
•         The thumbnail matches the original image.
•         The metadata does not indicate the use of an editing application.
•         The date of creation matches the date of editing.
•         The metadata reported in the photo document matches the metadata normally  generated by this camera model.

According to the metadata analysis, the photo is genuine and has not been edited or modified.

 GRAPHICAL ANALYSES

ELA testing

There are no particular anomalies. The compression levels are identical and there are no significant differences that would indicate a modification made by editing software. The object also has no sharp or defined edges, but fits perfectly into the graphic context. In fact, the shape of the pixels and the colouring adopted by the disc are the same as those of the power lines and the chimney of the house:

There are also no abnormal artefacts in the overall image that would suggest graphic intervention in post-production, such as the typical 'rainbow effect'.

Principal component analysis with colour projection

The graphic coherence of the disc in relation to its surroundings is even better understood here, as it fits perfectly into the graphic context without showing any clear signs of separation:

Here is what would happen if we were to analyse a retouched photo to which a fake object has been added:

Noise analysis 

The pixels are consistent in colour, size and arrangement and are well placed within the graphic context. There is no particularly pronounced border that creates a discontinuity with the rest. The colours of the pixelation are congruent with the overall colour scheme:

Level scanning 

This tool allows you to quickly scroll through the histogram of an image and magnify the contrast of certain brightness levels. The purpose of this tool is to make the edges of objects introduced into the graphic context by copying and pasting more visible. In practice, it is used to search for traces of discontinuities in the image:

This test also allows us to see how objects interact with light, particularly when they reflect it. If we find the presence of some characteristic artefacts around the perimeter of an object, then it was most likely present when it was photographed, as it interacts with the light information it receives at that moment.

If we look at the analysis of the disc, we can indeed see this typical pixelation. This effect can also be seen in other landmarks, such as the chimney:

In order to make these artefacts more visible to the untrained eye, I have included below a version where the colour curve has been varied to better highlight the detail under examination:

This phenomenon does not occur with graphically added objects. These, if subjected to this type of analysis, would appear graphically discontinuous, with sharp edges and well separated from the graphic context.

 

Principal component analysis by luminance gradient 

This analysis allows us to see more clearly that the edges are not well defined, that the object is correctly integrated into the graphic context and that it has a correct continuity with the surrounding space:

Edge analysis 

Edge analysis helps to analyse other very important details of the object, namely the characterisation of the edges: we can see that the edges are poorly defined and particularly thick:

This tells us that the object is quite far from the camera lens and is of a reasonable size. An analytical comparison and estimation suggests that the object has a diameter of around one metre, which can be best understood by comparing it with certain reference points such as the chimney and the pylon. Furthermore, the colours expressed by the edges of the disc, which respond to certain parameters according to the light, take on the same hues as the other reference points, in a way that is consistent with the arrangement in space:

This analysis confirms that the object is real, of a reasonable size, at a certain distance from the camera and at a good height. All these details rule out the possibility that it is a model thrown into the air or a small object hanging on a wire and positioned at a short distance from the lens.

 

Disc size analysis

Using a specific forensic analysis application, I estimated the size of the flying saucer by measuring its diameter. In order to do this, I provided the application with a number of reference points, such as the dimensions of the chimney, which must necessarily conform to standardised architectural guidelines. I therefore used these references to make assessments and define approximate measurements:

Following these evaluations and the calculations carried out by the application, I was able to confirm the estimate of the size of the disc made by the edge analysis and the fact that it was not a model, but an object suspended in the air with a diameter of approximately 1.50 metres:

Analysis of the light reflection on the structure of the object 

The reflection is present at three points on the surface of the object. They correspond to its position relative to the Sun and its orientation in space:

We can still conclude that the object must be quite large if we look at the largest of the three reflections (yellow arrow):

An object such as a small model thrown into the air would show a much larger reflection. The same would obviously apply to a model hanging from a string, which would be at a shorter distance from the camera anyway. Such a short distance between the object and the camera would be easy to detect, and the thread, even if digitally removed, would leave a clear trace in the analysis.

 

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 

The photograph examined appears to be genuine according to the results of all the analyses carried out. No anomalies or traces of manipulation have been found.

 

Sante Pagano, 5 January 2024