JUANITO JUAN, UFOs and mysterious communications

 

Edited by Pier Giorgio Caria

On the 31st of December 2023, for us Italians it was already the 1st of January 2024, Juanito Juan published a post in which he presented a photo taken on the same day. The text of the post is quite mysterious, here is the translation: "TODAY, THE LAST DAY OF THE YEAR, IT WAS 6.37PM ... A BEING TELLS ME TO GO OUT INTO THE STREET BECAUSE THERE WAS A SPACESHIP ABOVE MY HOUSE ... AND I HAVE PROOF OF WHAT I AM TELLING YOU AND WHAT HE TOLD ME".

I phoned Juanito to try to understand the mystery, and he went even further, telling me that the same person had called him later and told him exactly how he was dressed at the time of the photograph, and even the gestures he was making. Juanito himself was astonished and told me: “The only thing I can think of is that this person was on board the disc I photographed, I see no other explanation”.

Is there a case of mass contact like the "Amicizia case” in Mexico?? We will see if more information emerges in the future. The photo is exceptional, despite the fact that the disc is very small in the snapshot, but thanks to the fact that we have the original from Juanito, we can obtain enlargements that maintain a certain quality:

Next is another enlargement showing the dome above the disc and the lighter bronze colour compared to the hull colour:

This exceptional photograph of Juanito Juan was also examined by Sante Pagano and you can read his conclusions below.

Pier Giorgio Caria

18th January 2024

ADAMSKYAN FLYING DISC - Juanito Juan

31st December 2023

Edited by Sante Pagano

OBSERVATIONAL ANALYSIS

In the photographic document in question, the presence of an unidentified flying saucer-like object of the 'Adamskian' type is noted.

The upper part of the object consists of a dome of apparently translucent or metallic material. It also has a discoidal body in the lower part of apparently metallic material. The object is brownish/bronze coloured.

The body in question is also suspended in the air at a discreet height, considering that it appears to hover above the cables visible on the right-hand side of the photograph. These, along with the clouds, seem to be the only reference points present, so no accurate comparative analysis is possible.

The object is very similar to the one photographed by Juanito Juan himself on 15th of November 2023. Here is the link to the analysis of the photo in question: LINK

METADATA ANALYSIS

The file name corresponds to the unique identifier usually generated by the Panasonic processor and more specifically by this camera model.

The photo in question contains all the EXIF data. An analysis of this data shows that it has not been tampered with and contains all the information necessary for a reliable and complete analysis.

According to the metadata, the photo was taken on 31 December 2023 at 18:47:14.

There is also no sign of any graphic manipulation. In fact, as mentioned above, the metadata is complete and all the creation and modification dates match:

Camera Source Identification
Once again, a Panasonic DMC-LX10 was used for the shoot, a camera that has been extensively reviewed in previous articles. In fact, this is the main camera that Juanito Juan has been using recently.

The 'marker' metadata is also all there. Their absence, even partially, would indicate some kind of alteration of the document. These markers are used to indicate the type of data inserted into the file and have a length of 2 bytes. Markers can be of two types: stand-alone, which contain no data beyond the two bytes of the marker itself, and those that do not fall into this category, which are immediately followed by a two-byte value indicating the number of bytes of data the marker contains.

I then proceeded to evaluate the marker data, including specifically APP1 and APP2.

 
These markers record the application used to process the images during compression, and analysis of them does not reveal the use of any editing software:

Camera Source Identification

Once again, a Panasonic DMC-LX10 was used for the shoot, a camera that has been extensively reviewed in previous articles. In fact, this is the main camera that Juanito Juan has been using recently.

 
The 'marker' metadata is also all there. Their absence, even partially, would indicate some kind of alteration of the document. These markers are used to indicate the type of data inserted into the file and have a length of 2 bytes. Markers can be of two types: stand-alone, which contain no data beyond the two bytes of the marker itself, and those that do not fall into this category, which are immediately followed by a two-byte value indicating the number of bytes of data the marker contains.

I then proceeded to evaluate the marker data, including specifically APP1 and APP2.

 
These markers record the application used to process the images during compression, and analysis of them does not reveal the use of any editing software:

Finally, there is a unique number associated with the camera used, which is accurate, and a thumbnail of the image. The presence of these two pieces of information indicates the authenticity of the shot:

Thumbnail Analysis 
The thumbnail is present and matches the photo. No obvious signs of tampering.

ICC+ analysis 
This test does not reveal an embedding profile. This confirms that the photo has not been processed by editing applications.

Histogram analysis 
No particular anomaly is detected. The graph is consistent with the graphical parameters of the shot and there are no suspicious curves or peaks.

Hidden pixels

There are no hidden pixels. Again, from this test, it does not appear that the image has undergone any particular graphical alteration:

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS

E.L.A. test

The E.L.A. test showed no differences in compression between levels. There were also no anomalous artefacts to highlight the graphical changes made; the test was carried out in two different execution modes. Both gave negative results:

LIGHT ANALYSIS

The object has a light reflection on the upper canopy due to the sunlight illuminating it. The small size of the reflection indicates that the object is large and not a model or a small object thrown into the air:

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF LIGHT

Luminance gradient
The luminance gradient evaluates the ratio between the intensity of light emitted by a source in the direction of the observer and the apparent area of the emitting surface as seen by the observer.
 
This test also confirmed an effective match with the reference points visible in the photo. Looking at the cables, they show that they are affected by the same amount and quality of light as the object, also depending on their orientation in space:

Colour Curve Variation

The histogram variation test indicates a good interaction between the object and its surroundings. This means that the object was present when it was captured, that it actually varies in synchrony with its surroundings and the reference points present, and that it has a similar and consistent colour:

Pixel analysis
The pixels appear to be consistent in both morphology and colouring, and fit appropriately into the graphic context. This is evident from several tests:

Edge analysis
The edges are not too sharp and pronounced, but blend in perfectly with the graphic context surrounding the object, demonstrating that it is well integrated into the digital image. The thickness is not too great, which confirms that the object is not small, like a model thrown into the air:

Component analysis by decomposition

This test analyses and identifies the integration and coherence of a layer in a graphical context, helping to identify elements made up of different digital characterisations, and therefore of different graphical resolutions. This test confirms a good integration of the object in the digital table:

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

The photograph examined appears to be genuine according to the results of all the analyses carried out. No anomaly or trace of tampering was found.

 

Sante Pagano
8th January 2024