THE FLYING SPHERES AND JUANITO JUAN: a constant presence not of this world

 

Edited by Pier Giorgio Caria

The presence of flying spheres in the experiences of the Mexican contact person Juanito Juan is truly impressive, Sánchez's generation of photographs showing these peculiar means of extraterrestrial technology is unparalleled in the history of modern ufology. In this article we will present some of the best photos recently taken by Juanito. We will also include images showing small disc-shaped 'synchronisers' photographed by Juan Manuel and his wife Veronica outside the town of Valle Hermoso, a typical site of their sightings.

We begin with these images, which date back to 17 January 2024. On that day, Juanito went to an area where he had been told there had been numerous sightings. Juanito, accompanied by his wife Veronica, arrived at the site when, at a certain point, he noticed the presence of the flying object, took out his Samsung S23 Ultra mobile phone and took two photographs in quick succession. One at 15.59 and the other at 16.00, which we can see below:

See enlargements of these two photos below:

In the first photo we can see the disc as a section, while in the second we can see the lower part and notice that it has a structure similar to a wheel with spokes, a detail that we had already seen in a previous photo by Juanito Juan dated 28 July 2023, a memorable shot given the simultaneous presence of four other spheres that we will present in full shortly:

At 5.09pm, also on 17 January 2024, Juanito's wife, Veronica, sees a second object and, using a Panasonic DMC-LX10 camera, takes some pictures, of which we present the details of the best ones, this time a classic flying saucer:

On 9 February 2024, Juanito spotted metallic spheres in the sky near his home and took two pictures:

In the first photo, taken at 11.59, three metal spheres stand out clearly against the background of a large white cloud; in the second, taken at 12.01, only one metal sphere can be seen. See the enlarged detail of these two photographs:

By composing the two photos and reversing the time in which they were taken, we can appreciate the two different positions of the objects, which, however, were above the street where Juanito lives:

According to Sánchez's testimony, the objects often appear and disappear in very short moments, i.e. they do not come from anywhere, they just suddenly appear and disappear just as quickly. Another clear indication, if any were needed, that this is certainly not terrestrial technology.

On 2 March 2024, Juan Manuel Sánchez took another exceptional photo in which no less than five metallic spheres appeared clearly. The fantastic flying objects stand out sharply against a blue sky slightly shrouded in white fog. This photo adds to the already extraordinary collection of ufological material of the Mexican contactee. This makes Juanito Juan's case one of the most important in the history of modern ufology, an experience that further testifies to the real and tangible presence on Earth of advanced civilisations from other worlds. A fact that the whole of humanity will have to come to terms with in the near future:

Unfortunately, as is always the case, many people accuse these witnesses of creating false documentation for the sake of notoriety and/or money, and Juanito is no exception. Many accuse him of throwing metal balls into the air, alone or with accomplices, then photographing them and passing them off as sightings of extraterrestrial flying objects. In order to verify the baselessness of these accusations, I have given the original material presented so far to Sante Pagano to carry out the appropriate analysis and verification. Sante's work is of a very high standard and I leave it to his words to describe what has been done.

Pier Giorgio Caria
03 April 2024

SANTE PAGANO'S ANALYSIS OF PHOTOS OF EXTRATERRESTRIAL FLYING OBJECTS TAKEN BY JUANITO JUAN

Edited by Sante Pagano

Below are the analyses of the following two photographic documents taken by Juanito Juan on 9 February 2024:

They are positioned at a fair height above the ground in a partly cloudy sky, with the sun very high in the sky: this is evident from the presence of the reflection on the top of the objects and the time of the shot in the metadata.

These are silver coloured spherical objects made of a reflective, apparently metallic material. Three objects in the first photo and one object in the second.

The quality of the photos is significantly good, at 3000 x 4000 pixels.

The objects are particularly far away from the lens and therefore contain little information, but enough to make the right considerations and analyses.

The two photos show the spheres from two different angles. We can see this by superimposing the two documents with a few reference points:

METADATA ANALYSIS

The photos contain all the metadata showing that the photos were taken on 9 February 2024 at 11:59:22 and 12:01:51 respectively.

All the 'time stamps' match. The discrepancy of 6 hours with the 'composite dates' is normal, simply subtract the 6 hours identified at the end of the line to check congruence.

We also have the geolocation determined by the so-called 'MCC data', which does not provide the exact coordinates in detail, but still provides important information.

There is no evidence of any image editing software being used. It is clear from the metadata that the photo has only been processed by one piece of software, the photo production software built into the camera. There are also several codes that refer to the firmware used and the unique image code. These codes are an important signature as they identify the capture device and the absence of the use of editing applications.

ICC profile analysis

This analysis confirms that the images were taken by a 'Samsung' device. Again, there is no evidence of the use of photo retouching software. The profile is consistent with that normally generated by such a device.

Jpeg analysis %.

The quantization tables of these two images were compared with a significant number of other images generated by other 'Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra' phones. They all matched.

Thumbnail and preview analysis

The thumbnail and preview images are also available. Both contain the same graphical elements as the original photos.

SCENE EMULATION TESTS AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

On this occasion, in order to answer the insinuations of some who claim that Juanito would produce such images by throwing spherical objects of human origin into the air, we wanted to test whether this was indeed possible. Although we had already rejected this hypothesis on the basis of simple observational logic, we decided to produce and provide concrete and objective demonstrations of whether or not this was possible.

I therefore obtained silver spheres of various sizes and tried to reproduce the photographs taken by Juanito Juan, thanks to the invaluable contribution of several collaborators, including Nicola Piperis and Andrea De Rosa, whom I would like to thank for their great support.

Right from the start I realised that it was impossible to do this without the help of other people. In fact, to try to reproduce, for example, images in which there are 3 or more objects, you need the presence of at least 4 or 5 people.

Situation to be reproduced

In general, the objects filmed by Juanito Juan reached the maximum number of 5 objects present at the same time in a photo, reaching a height ranging from about 30 metres to about 360 metres. In addition to their considerable height, the objects were also much further forward than Juanito's position, which meant that Juanito would have needed third persons positioned further ahead of him to throw the spheres upwards to where they were later photographed.

All the photographs taken to establish these deductions were subjected to a preliminary general analysis and were found to be genuine under all possible parameters taken into consideration.

THE IMAGES MOST INVOLVED IN THESE ASSESSMENTS

Sighting of 9 February 2024

Maximum number of objects present: 3 objects

Diameter of objects: about 42 cm

Maximum height reached: about 44 metres

Estimated number of people required to recreate the scene: Minimum of 4 people.

Based on our tests

·        size and therefore weight of the objects too high;
·       impossible to throw the objects in the air at a height of about 45 metres;
·       the possibility of fraudulently reproducing this scene is absolutely zero.

Sighting of 17 January 2024

Number of objects present: 1 object

Diameter of object: about 1.30 m

Height: about 48 metres

Estimated number of people required to recreate the scene: Minimum of 2 people

Based on our test

• The size and therefore weight of the object is too high;
• It is impossible to throw the object in the air at a height of about 48 metres;
• The possibility of imitating this scene is absolutely zero.

Sighting of 29 August 2023

Number of objects present: 3

Diameter of smallest object: about 48 cm

Diameter of largest object: about 1.56 metres

Maximum height reached by the objects: about 359 m

Estimated number of people required to recreate the scene: at least 4 people

Based on our tests:

• Size and therefore weight of the largest object too high;
• Throwing the object into the air at a height of 360 m is impossible;
• The possibility of reproducing this scene is absolutely zero.

Sighting of 2 March 2024

This image will be presented later with the appropriate analysis of the case. This sighting is very interesting as it contains some truly astonishing details, which we will illustrate later, and makes an important contribution to the report on the possibility of it being fraudulent. Indeed, here we have a very large number of spheres present at the same time. These are also of a very large diameter and are positioned at a very considerable height. These factors, as I will show later, make any human simulation virtually impossible.

Number of objects present: 5
Diameter of the spherical objects visible in the air: about 1 metre
Maximum height reached by the objects: about 147 m
Estimated number of people required to recreate the scene: at least 6 people

Based on our tests:

• Size and therefore weight of the objects too high
• Impossible to throw the objects in the air at a height of 147 m;
• The possibility of faking this scene by throwing the spheres in the air is absolutely zero.

ATTEMPTS TO EMULATE THE SCENES PRESENTED

TEST NUMBER 1

Number of objects used: 1;

Type of object used: silver mirrored sphere;

Object material: Stainless steel;

Diameter of object: 5 cm;

Object weight: 20 grams;

Structure of object: empty inside;

Number of persons involved: 2;

Test result: The ball was thrown with the maximum possible force and reached a maximum height of approximately 12 metres.

Test result: NEGATIVE

Final considerations:

- The sphere is much smaller than those in Juanito Juan's photos;

- the height reached by the object is much lower than that of the objects in Juanito Juan's photographs.

Below is an image taken from the various photographs used for the simulation:

TEST NUMBER 2

Number of objects used: 1

Type of object used: silver mirrored sphere

Object material: stainless steel;

Diameter of object: 15 cm;

Object weight: 190 grams;

Structure of object: empty inside;

Number of persons involved: 2;

Test result: The sphere was thrown with the maximum possible force and reached a maximum height of approximately 10.5 metres.

Test result: NEGATIVE

Final considerations:
- The sphere is much smaller than those in Juanito Juan's photos;
- the height reached by the object is significantly lower than that of the objects in Juanito Juan's photographs.

Below is an image taken from the various photographs taken for the simulation:

TEST NUMBER 3

Number of objects used: 1
Type of object used: silver mirrored sphere
Object material: stainless steel;
Diameter of object: 15 cm;
Object weight: 190 grams;
Structure of object: empty inside;
Number of persons involved: 2;
Test result: The sphere was thrown with the maximum possible force and reached a maximum height of approximately 10.5 metres.
Test result: NEGATIVE

Final considerations:
- The sphere is much smaller than those in Juanito Juan's photos;
- the height reached by the object is significantly lower than that of the objects in Juanito Juan's photographs.

Below is an image taken from the various photographs taken for the simulation:

TEST NUMBER 4

General considerations: Throwing several objects at once by one person makes the simulation very difficult. Throwing more than one object would halve the throwing force for each object thrown, resulting in a lower height. For this reason, it is better to use additional helpers, one for each object.

Number of objects used: 3;
Type of objects: mirrored silver spheres;
Material of the objects: stainless steel;
Diameter of objects: 10, 15 and 25 cm;
Weight of objects: 50, 190 and 480 grams;
Number of people involved: 4;

Result of the test: The spheres were thrown with the maximum possible force and the sphere that flew the farthest reached a height of approximately 9 metres.

Test result: NEGATIVE.

 

Final considerations:
- The spheres are much smaller than those in Juanito Juan's photographs.
- The height reached by the objects is much lower than that of the objects in Juanito Juan's photographs.

Below is an image taken from the different images used for the simulation:

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR EMULATION TESTS

For the simulations, we used empty objects on the inside, assuming that if Juanito had used objects thrown into the air, he would also have used empty objects on the inside. In fact, an object filled from the inside would weigh much more and it would be even more difficult to reach significant heights.

Furthermore, the tests carried out showed that:

• The greater the weight of the object, the lower the height that can be reached from it, for the same launch force;
• The images of Juanito Juan show objects with dimensions and heights much higher than those reached by the spheres launched in the simulated tests.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE EMULATION TESTS

Let us now go into more detail and examine one of the largest spherical objects in Juanito's photos presented above, namely the object of 9 February 2024 with an estimated diameter of around 42 cm.

Unfortunately, we have not found any spheres larger than 25 cm in diameter on the market, but in order to make more detailed considerations, we can still obtain fairly accurate estimates through some mathematical calculations and logical deductions.

So, if we take the object of test number 3, which has reached a height of 9 metres, which will be X, and a weight of 480 grams, which will be X2, we will create a ratio in which Y1 is the approximate height that the object will have reached on 9 February 2024 and Y2 is the unknown representative of its weight.

Therefore:
X1 : X2 = Y1 : Y2

Therefore:
25 cm: 480 gr = 42 cm: Y 2

Y2 is therefore 806.4, i.e. a stainless steel object with a diameter of 42 cm, empty inside, weighs approximately 800 grams.

By analysing the data obtained from the various tests, we have defined that the greater the weight of an object, the lower the height it will reach when thrown into the air. It follows that an object of this size, launched by a man of average strength, would not exceed 10 metres in height, let alone, by logical deduction, ever reach 45 metres in height, as estimated in Juanito Juan's photo of 9 February 2024.

This was also demonstrated by launching an object weighing 800 g. The maximum height reached, using the same parameters as in the other tests, is around 8.5 metres.

Everything that has just been said and demonstrated by the physical emulation tests can also be confirmed by some mathematical calculations. This calculation will allow us to understand even better the impossibility of launching a spherical object weighing 800 grams and reaching a height of about 45 metres.

Having concluded that it is not possible to make such a throw with the average strength of a man, how much strength would be required? Or rather, how many men's strength would be required?

To answer this question, we need to consider the energy required to throw an object weighing 800 grams (0.8 kg) 45 metres. We can calculate this using the gravitational potential energy (Epg), which is expressed by the formula Eᵖᵍ = mgh, where m is the mass of the object in kilograms, g is the gravitational acceleration (about 9.81 m/s² at the Earth's surface), and h is the height in metres.

We will calculate the energy required and then discuss how this translates into 'how many men it takes to generate this force', assuming an average of how much energy one man can actually put into a throw, which can vary greatly depending on technique, strength, weight and volume of the object and other factors.

The energy required to throw a weight of 800 grams at a height of 45 metres is 353.16 joules.

In order to determine how much 'power', or more specifically human energy, is required, it is necessary to consider that an average man can generate a certain amount of energy in a single throw. This energy depends on many factors such as muscle strength, technique and efficiency of movement. There is no single value that can be easily applied, but to give an idea, a well-trained fist throw can generate around 2500 joules of energy, while less explosive actions generate much less.

If we consider an efficient throwing action, we can assume that a man can generate, say, 100 joules of energy in one throw (this value is purely hypothetical and varies greatly). Based on this estimate

Energy required / Energy per man = 353.16 / 100

So, based on a hypothetical estimate of 100 joules of energy that can be generated by one man in a throw, it would take the energy of about 3.53 men to throw a weight of 800 grams 45 metres. Since we cannot have a fraction of a person, we would round up to say that at least 4 people would be needed (given the hypothetical throwing energy per person). However, this is an oversimplification and, in reality, the efficiency of the launch and the ability to generate energy will vary greatly from person to person.

The fact remains that, as demonstrated in this mode, such a throw is simply not possible.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

There are other considerations to be made. Although we have shown that it is not possible to reproduce the scenes depicted by Juanito Juan, I would like to focus on another aspect which, although it would make the success of an imitation even more difficult, must nevertheless be taken into account.

We must bear in mind that whoever is taking the photograph must first give the person who is supposed to be throwing the object time to get out of the frame or to hide behind some kind of structure (houses or cars). In any case, even if the thrower does this as quickly as possible, the ball will begin its descent and it will not be possible to film it at its maximum height without actually filming the thrower in the frame. This is also what we found in our simulations.

Here are a few images from the various simulations for demonstration purposes:

Throwing 3 spheres simultaneously

25 cm sphere launch

Having made these considerations, we must add others that are obvious. Juanito Juan's possible accomplices could throw the objects by hiding behind any element that would allow them to do so with good efficiency, a house, cars, trees, walls, etc. They could also use some kind of spring-loaded device, such as a catapult, a spring cannon or some other suitable tool to launch the spheres. This would avoid the problem described above, but would introduce other difficulties, which could also be overcome if the number of images was small and if the objects in the images were always single. Increasing the number of objects in the photographs would increase the number of collaborators needed and the number of devices to be used, which would increase the risk of the scam being discovered, and after some time this would certainly happen, since the photographs are often taken near Juanito's house or, in any case, in the centre of Valle Hermoso. Unless the entire surrounding population agreed to participate in the deception, there would always be the unknown factor of strangers passing by. To be Machiavellian, it could be argued that lookouts could be used, but the whole thing would be so uncontrollable that it would be practically impossible to carry out with total security, also in view of the high number of photos taken during the day, when there is much more traffic than at night. In addition, there would have to be a continuous production of objects to be thrown into the air, of different shapes and sizes, and therefore, assuming the existence of ingenious launching machines, different types of devices for this purpose, depending on the type of object to be thrown into the air. All of this, I might add, would represent a considerable amount of work and financial commitment, but Juanito does not trade in this photographic material to profit from it. Moreover, the fallout of all these metal objects, especially those of considerable size, could cause damage to property, houses, cars, etc., and to people, in addition to the noise generated by their impact. In conclusion, we have not included in these analyses and considerations the various films on ufological subjects made by Junaito Juan, which would add even more technical difficulties to obtaining the results visible in the footage released to date by Juan Manuel Sánchez.

CONCLUSION

All the tests carried out in an attempt to reproduce the images reproduced by Juanito Juan have failed. Therefore, until proven otherwise, it is concluded that it is not possible to physically reproduce this type of ufological manifestation in a credible manner without the implementation of all the possible fraudulent actions hypothesised above and in total safety from detection. We therefore urge all critics to produce the necessary evidence that satisfies and negates the requirements of efficiency and security. Talk is cheap, but proving the allegations is another matter.

GRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SIGHTING OF 9 FEBRUARY 2024 PHOTOGRAPHED BY JUANITO JUAN

Size estimation by image reflection

As we can see in the image below, the smaller the object, the lower the chance that the device will be able to produce the reflection of the surrounding landscape on its surface with good quality and resolution. It should also be noted that the further away the object is from the camera, the less chance there is of seeing this reflection on the surface of the object. In this case, in the two images taken on 9 February 2024, although the objects are at a considerable height, they show a fairly clear reflected image of the environment below. This is due to the large size of the spheres and the resulting reflective surface. This analysis therefore confirms the estimated size of the object photographed by Juanito Juan on 9 February 2024, which is about 42 cm in diameter.

Estimating size by the reflection of light

As we have seen, and this confirms what we have always said, the larger an object is, the smaller the reflection of light on it will appear. Or better still, the larger the object, the smaller the area of the object's reflection compared to the area of its shadow. This test provides further confirmation of the considerable size of the object.

Size estimation by edge analysis 

Again, as has always been said and proven, the larger the object, the thinner and more defined its edges. This test also confirms that the size of the sphere reaches a diameter of approximately 42 cm.

Estimating dimensions by comparative analysis with reference points

To estimate the size of the sphere in this mode, it is necessary to look for reference objects of known dimensions, located approximately below the vertical, and then make estimates based on comparative analysis. In fact, it is not possible to accurately determine the distance of an object suspended in mid-air from a camera without identifiable reference points. Therefore, by taking the wheels of the two cars shown in the image below and carrying out a comparative analysis, it is shown and confirmed that the object has a diameter of approximately 42 cm. In fact, a car wheel has approximately the same diameter.

Clone analysis

The image containing the three spheres was subjected to a clone detection test. The test does not detect any cloning, except for a few false positives highlighted in pink in the electrical cables (circled in red). Each sphere therefore proves to be unique and not a clone or copy of the other. This detail is important because it is difficult to reproduce in a computer graphic reproduction.

Colour curve analysis

This test also confirmed what the clone test had shown. Indeed, each sphere contains a different information package. This suggests that the spheres are not a graphical representation. This test provides another important piece of data. The spheres, when compared to the other reference elements in the image, show that they react consistently to the light they receive.

Principal Component Analysis

This test analyses the various characteristics expressed by the graphic packages contained in the images, checks their coherence with respect to the graphic context and detects the presence of anomalies that may indicate traces of graphic manipulation by image editing and manipulation software.
 
Furthermore, while studying this tool, I realised that it helps to detect any anomalies, especially in images of particularly low resolution, precisely because it tends to synthesise the essential information contained. Therefore, by providing it with a particularly compressed version of the original image, we obtain a very interesting observation window on the entire graphic table.
 
On the basis of this test, I was able to certify the complete absence of any signs of manipulation in the images examined. This conclusion was further confirmed by other tests on the main component of these photographs. Among these, I report the two that provided the most significant results, namely the verification of the basic colour component and by differentiation.

Analysis of the primary colour component

This test revealed the excellent blending of the graphic packages.

Analysis of the colour component by differentiation

There is no evidence of the typical pixellation around the objects, which indicates that graphic manipulation has been carried out and can be defined as "cluster pixels". There is also no evidence of particularly sharp edges. The pixels are well integrated into the graphic fabric.

“Level Sweep” analysis

Objects are shown to respond appropriately to the light expressed by the light source, taking into account the environmental context.

ELA test

No differences in compression between layers or typical anomalies caused by any kind of graphic manipulation of the photos were detected.

GENERAL CONCLUDING CONSIDERATIONS

The photographs examined appear to be genuine according to the results of all the analyses carried out. No anomalies or signs of tampering were found.

ANALYSIS OF THE SIGHTING OF 2 MARCH 2024 PHOTOGRAPHED BY JUANITO JUAN

In the scene we see five spheres, apparently metallic and silvery in colour, floating in the air above a street in the town of Valle Hermoso.

IMAGE FORGERY IDENTIFICATION

This analysis is used to identify manipulations in an image that are intended to insert or remove some of the information content of an image.

- Image format: JPEG
Cameras rarely record in PNG or BMP format, but usually in formats such as JPEG, RAW or TIFF.

- Image size: 3000 x 4000 px
These must be within a certain range. Images that are too large or too small are suspect. In particular, it is important to check the image size supported by the specific camera model. In this case, the dimensions correspond to those that may be generated by the capture device.

- Capture device: Galaxy S23 Ultra

Understanding how a photo is created can be helpful in understanding all sorts of issues in Image Forensics.

- Fingerprints: present

Each photographic device generally has one or more fingerprints that uniquely characterise it at a statistical level and can be used to characterise digital photographs taken by another device of the same or different model.

- EXIF metadata, in particular 'Make' and 'Model' tags: present

- Compatibility of creation and modification dates stored in EXIF data with file system 'MAC' (Modified, Access, Creation) dates: compatible

- EXIF metadata number compatible with specific camera model: match

- Suspicious keywords in image metadata: absent

The presence of words such as 'Adobe Photoshop' or 'Lightroom' within the 'Software tag' is very suspicious and would indicate an a posteriori intervention to modify the image.

- Presence of 'secondary' images such as thumbnails and previews: both present

Almost all modern cameras store reduced versions of the main image. Such a device will usually produce a thumbnail and a preview image.

Below are some of the most important metadata captured.

Analysing the JPEG format

Different devices often store JPEG files with different settings. The main sources of variability are:
- Number and values of quantization tables;
- Huffman tables;
- Subsampling of chrominance channels.
 
The main differentiating factor is the variability of the quantization tables, which in practice determines the level of compression and image quality.

The JPEG quantization tables and Huffman codes were found to be compatible with each camera model.
Test result: no manipulation

Thumbnail and preview analysis

Images called thumbnails and previews in most modern devices are stored within the file containing the main image. It is possible to use these 'secondary' images to perform several types of analysis. Firstly, the absence of a thumbnail is most often considered a suspicious sign, but it can also be assessed as a characteristic of a particular camera model. In addition, the resolution of the thumbnail, its relationship to the main image and the possible presence of black bands are characteristics of specific models and can therefore be used in a comparative analysis.
 
Finally, a very useful analysis concerns the content of the thumbnail itself. If the content of the main image differs from that of the thumbnail (thumbnail mismatch), there are basically two reasons for this:
1) an attempt to hide one image within another;
2) an error in the photo editing software that did not update the thumbnail correctly when saving.
In this case, both are present and there are no suspicious signs of tampering.
Test result: no tampering

CONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE EVALUATION OF THE METADATA

No evidence of manipulation was found.

GENERAL ANALYSIS OF THE GRAPHIC COMPONENT

Analysis to identify generative AI

This new tool has been created because of the increasing presence on the web of applications capable of generating realistic images using artificial intelligence. Although, at least for the time being, it is relatively easy to identify an AI-generated image by identifying a few specific factors, tools of this type help to provide further confirmation of the result.

Test result: no manipulation

ELA test

ELA (Error Level Analysis), sometimes called JPEG Ghost, is a method of highlighting areas of an image that have been compressed differently. The basic idea of the technique is quite simple: recompress the analysed image in JPEG format (with a variable quality factor) and then calculate the difference with the resulting image. In this way, the regions that have been altered should stand out from the rest of the image because they are characterised by a different 'compression noise', i.e. a graphical trace that would indicate any alteration. ELA usually works well with a splicing or copy-paste strategy, where one image is pasted into another.

Test result: no tampering

Clone Analysis

Clone analysis does not highlight duplicate areas within the image. Keypoint algorithms identify some similar points (highlighted by pink dots), but it is easy to verify with visual analysis that these are false positives.

Test result: no manipulation

Colour Curve Analysis

This test shows that objects react to light in the same way as the other elements in the scene. This also confirms the result of the clone test, as they show their own uniqueness by reacting differently to light, given the different pixelations.
Test result: no manipulation

DETAILED ANALYSIS OF THE SCENE

Scene analysis techniques aim to examine the overall characteristics of the entire image, rather than interpreting statistics derived from a few pixel characteristics.The basic idea behind such analysis is that most manipulations contain some kind of error that is not visible to the naked eye, but can be detected by appropriate analysis. In fact, it is practically impossible to try to tamper with an image in such a way that the model of the scene respects all the physical lighting patterns of the scene and at the same time does not present any irregularities from the point of view of perspective and the shadows produced by the objects in it; unless the image has been completely realised in computer graphics.

Lighting Analysis

This category includes all the techniques used to study the lighting of a scene. They are very complex to carry out due to the complexity of the real world, which does not always allow the application of physical-mathematical models (single light source, simple geometric objects). Usually, one is limited to reproducing the analysed scene with rendering software and checking that the lighting is coherent in the different areas of the scene. A very simple technique is brightness gradient analysis, which allows us to better visualise certain inconsistencies in the image by creating a map in which the value of each pixel is linked to the direction and intensity of the light.

In this case, such a test provides a useful demonstration of adequate consistency in the response to light.

Reflection analysis

The spheres are very reflective and the good resolution of the image allows us to check that the reflection of the image imprinted on their surface is consistent.
 
The photo was taken in front of Juanito Juan's house. Since the location is known, it is possible to make a comparative analysis of the environment.
 
I then used Google Earth to locate the approximate position of the spheres and identify the landscape beneath them.

The image was then enhanced using an advanced graphic redefinition application and a comparative analysis was carried out between the reflection of the environment on the sphere and the surrounding environment. As can be seen in the following image, in the outermost part of the sphere we have the sky (highlighted in blue), in the lower part the grey of the road (highlighted in red), a black silhouette (highlighted in yellow) which can be traced by geometry and location to the pylon (pylon 2) and another square black area (highlighted in green) which can be traced by geometry and location to the roof of a house, probably the one in the photograph.

The result confirms the consistency of the reflection with the panorama below. In addition, and very importantly, each sphere expresses small differences in the reflected image caused by differences in angle to light, ground and position in the air.

Pixel analysis

The composition of the pixels does not reveal any significant differences in resolution. Their composition and arrangement is consistent compared to other reference points. This is observed by evaluating the main component subjected to different field evaluations.

Analysis of the edges

The edges are poorly defined and not very thick, which confirms the dimensions previously estimated, i.e. around 100 cm in diameter. In addition, they have a consistency that corresponds to a certain standard typical of a real object.

GENERAL CONCLUDING CONSIDERATIONS

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, 15/03/2024

.