Background

On October 26, 2018, this case was submitted to The Black Vault. It was assigned to TBV Investigations’ research Jeremy Enfinger for analysis.

Witness Testimony

The witness/photographer submitted the following information:

I was picking my grandchildren up from elementary school when I noticed everybody looking up in the sky I too looked up there and saw what I saw on the photos. The sighting date listed above (in the initial report) is wrong it was in 2014 I believe it was April. I couldn’t change sighting date on your program.

The sighting was reported to have occurred near the intersection of Thornton Rd. and Estate Dr. in Stockton, California around (or near) April of 2014. Four photos were submitted of an anomaly in the sky witnessed by multiple people (appearing in some of the photos).

The Evidence

The Analysis

Metadata analysis indicates the images are the original files, and EXIF metadata was able to be extracted. The image was taken from a Samsung SGH-T599N (5 MP) at a resolution of 1920 x 2560 pixels, using automatic exposure control with ISO 50, an exposure time of 1/2915 sec and an F-stop of 2.7. With the jpeg quality being 97%, there is no indication that the image file has been compressed. The flash was not utilized.

The time stamp on the metadata indicates it was taken May 9, 2014 at 14:14 hours. Due to initial research, no photo manipulation techniques were employed.

Initial impressions indicated the photo was not manipulated, and no evidence of motion was present when comparing images. There were, however, subtle changes in appearance around the periphery of the anomaly which caused me to consider some sort of meteorological or atmospheric disturbance.

After retrieving the metadata, multiple Google searches for “UFO Stockton, California, 2014” and “Clouds in Stockton, California, 2014” for the months of April and May of that year yielded several results. Image results were found that matched the appearance in these images and multiple news article links varied in headlines from May 9 to include “UFO sightings” to descriptions of cloud formations that can cause this kind of appearance.

Conclusion

After consulting the numerous articles citing this phenomenon, it can be summarized as a “Hole Punch Cloud”, which appears as a large, circular gap that usually appears in cirrocumulus or altocumulus clouds. Also called a “fallstreak hole”, it can happen when moisture in a cloud is at a temperature that’s below freezing, but the moisture itself is isn’t actually frozen. According to the Huffington Post, these formations can also be caused by aircraft passing through certain types of clouds.

References

Here was a FOX 40 submitted photograph from the same timeframe:

The Huffington Post also ran a story about it:

Also CBS Sacramento was another resource that covered it:

YouTube user MrPhath posted a video of it as well:

Original Metadata Information

Each photo was submitted to Fotoforensics, but for the purpose of this report, I will only include the link to one as the JPEG quality and metadata are corroborated in comparison.

Photo #1 Metadata (from FotoForensics): http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=d6040af2eb054b5764d749de34163b5000b459b0.1704869

JPEG last saved at 97% quality (estimated).

Quality determined from the quantization tables that encoded the JPEG:

JPEG Q0: Luminance

JPEG Q1: Chrominance

The post UFO Photographed in the Clouds over Stockton, California first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO Photographed in the Clouds over Stockton, California appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

On May 11, 2018, this case was submitted to The Black Vault. It was assigned to TBV Investigations’ researcher Jeremy Enfinger for analysis.

Witness Testimony

The photographer submitted the following information:

“This is not a UFO sighting, but I heard you also take possible ghost sightings….

I took these pictures when I visited The Stanley Hotel. The first was taken on the 4th floor, which was an attic 100 years ago where female employees, children, and nannies stayed. I was taking a picture of the guy seated on the chair and then noticed a figure turning the corner when I looked at the photo later. I thought the figure somewhat resembled a woman in an old nanny uniform.

The second photo was taken of the building directly across from The Stanley Hotel. If you look closely, you can see a figure in the window. People have said it looks devilish. I don’t know the history of that building.

Attached (submitted) are 4 photos – the 2 originals, and then the enhanced versions to draw attention to the figures in each one.”

The Evidence

The following was submitted by the witness:

Original Photographs

Altered Photographs

The Interview

by Jeremy Enfinger, TBV Investigations

On June 12, 2018, TBV Investigations team member Jeremy Enfinger conducted an interview with the photographer.

Witness was attending a grounds tour with a group of approximately 20 guests while there to attend a wedding. The tour was not necessarily focused on the paranormal, but elements of the tour included some of the reported phenomena that reportedly occur there. It also included a history of the hotel, and did not guarantee guests would experience anything paranormal. The room that inspired the writing of the Stephen King novel, the Shining was a part of the tour as well.

She was able to retrieve the camera during the interview and matched the model number verbally with what was noted on the metadata analysis. Images were imported from the SD card to a computer, then sent directly from there to The Black Vault. She stated she did not change the settings on the camera at any time. The files were submitted in order to obtain some feedback about the images.

Additional Background

The photos were not submitted to the Stanley Hotel by the photographer, and permission was given to forward these photos to some colleagues for second and third opinions.

Photo #1 – specific details: This photograph was reportedly taken of the male on the left, who the photographer knows personally. She noted he had “checked out” during the tour, and the woman on the right was, indeed, part of the group taking the tour, though the photographer did not know her personally. She did not believe the camera was in motion during the taking of the photo, but believes the woman had been walking fast to catch up with the group.

The woman in the background was noticed later at night after completion of the tour. The photographer did not remember seeing anyone in the background physically turning the corner. This was reportedly taken on the 4th floor, but the witness wasn’t sure of the exact room number they were nearest. The witness mentioned being told on the tour that this section of the hotel was where children had been kept under the supervision of nannies. She was also able to recall that they were near the reportedly most-haunted room (per the tour).

The photographer’s impression of this photo was that the figure in the background appeared to be female wearing dated clothing, similar to that of a nanny.

Motion blur present in a majority of photo #1.

Photo #2 – specific details: The building and the backdrop prompted this photo, and it was noted that haunted tours included this building. Approximately half an hour elapsed between photo 1 and this photo. The photographer does believe it’s possible this could be a photo of a living person. She indicated family members brought the irregular shape of the figure in the window to her attention, mentioning it had an “eerie” appearance, not being able to see any facial features.

It was mentioned that other tours were going on at the time this was taken, and weddings are scheduled at this location (and may have been going on during her tour), which could explain the vest that appears to be visible. They did not remember seeing any people in the window, however, she admitted they were fairly far away from the building at the time the photo was exposed.

Witness states people who viewed the photo described the figure as having a “demonic” outline. Though she didn’t recognize this at first, she thought the photo had an elongated face with horns after it was pointed out to her.

The Analysis

Metadata analysis indicates the images are the original files, and EXIF metadata was able to be extracted. The image was taken from a Samsung Model SL202 (10 MP) at a resolution of 3648 x 2736 pixels, using automatic exposure control with ISO 200, an exposure time of 1/45 sec and an F-stop of 2.8 and (for photo #2) ISO 100, 1/250 sec and F-stop of 4.0. With the jpeg quality for both images being 88%, there is no indication that the image file has been compressed, though it may have been taken on lower resolutions settings than the maximum for that model. The flash was auto-fired during the first exposure exposure (indoors) and did not fire for photo #2 (outdoors).

The time stamp on the metadata indicates photo #1 was taken 11/21/2009 at 14:04 hours. Photo #2’s metadata indicate the photo was taken the same day at 14:33 hours, which corroborates the witness’s report that both photos were taken on a walking tour of the Stanley hotel and the grounds (estimated approximately 20-30 minutes apart).

Several photo manipulation techniques were employed in attempts to better visualize the anomalies in each photo, including:

• Contrast enhancement
• Zoom
• Inversion
• Sharpening
• saturation/color adjustment
• levels/balancing
• Error level analysis

Initial impressions of Photo #1: At first glance, I believed the anomaly of interest lied within the shadow of the woman frame right, believing first off that this was simply motion blur. After zooming in, I noticed a figure in the background adjacent to the shadow. My impression was that this was a female walking around the corner, noting a black dress and possibly barefoot. No facial features could be identified. Also of note was the lack of appearance of a shadow projected by this individual on the wall behind them.

Second opinion of Photo #1: Professional Photographer and fellow investigator, Craig Owens was consulted. He pointed out the low quality of this photograph mentioning he would typically reject it right off for this reason alone. Second, he noted the shadow like figure in back could be someone moving in the background. The camera flash does not reach that long a distance, which is evidenced by the blurriness of the overhead lights and the opacity of the woman’s arm closest to the wall (Notice how you can see the wall through it?).

To him, it looked like it could be a short guy, dressed in a dark short sleeve t-shirt and matching shorts down to his knees, walking around the corner of the hallway. He also points out the light reflection in the framed picture to the right of the woman? The reflected light doesn’t even fit in the frame. You also see ghosting of the picture frame itself. This suggests camera movement.

Additional notes include the overhead lights hanging down so low (and at an odd angle) at the far end of the hall… the top rectangle in the door at the far end of the hallway also has an odd appearance. He suspects a possible double exposure. To Craig, it almost looked as though Photo #1 was taken from the other side of a window or plate glass door. That could, in part, explain why the flash range is limited. It might also explain all the crazy distortions including the overhead lights that appear to drop lower and lower.

Third opinion of Photo #1: Fellow paranormal investigator, Nicole Schuck was also consulted. She states “The first one looks like low flash blur setting since she’s quite blurry herself. To me it looks like a guy in the background with modern clothes coming from around the corner and is ducking out from one of the rooms. It’s built like a male with a large torso and smaller arms, he’s got those dreaded long shorts that come down to the mid shin with potential sandals since I see a bare foot of some kind.”

Initial impression of Photo #2: Without context, I am positive someone is in the window frame in this photo. I didn’t necessarily recognize any demonic or malformed appearance, and strived to understand what might be interpreted as “horns” by others viewing the photo, but was unable to derive that possibility myself. I definitely believe the photo is authentic, however I would not lean toward believing this is paranormal. The context of the interview further solidifies my opinion about this photo.

Second opinion on Photo #2 (by Nicole Schuck): Nicole believes the second photo definitely looks like a man in the window with a old fashioned shirt and vest however, it’s possible for this to be a case of pareidolia. She notes he looks like he’s a bit smaller in scale than what he should be. Second, if you look at the tree to the left, you see that the tree’s reflection could be hitting the window and upon closer observation this could be the trees branches (as a possible alternate explanation).

Conclusion: For photo #1, I think it may be up for debate whether we are seeing a male or female person in the background. When I asked for additional opinions about this photo, I did not include the back-story and/or any context. The fact that both people I showed this photo to saw a male in the background was interesting. Comparing that to the photographer’s impression that it was female wearing dated nanny clothing, followed by the tour guide’s description of nannies being on that wing of the hotel could be suggestive. Having seen a female myself, but only after reading the photographer’s account and opinion that she saw a female, could also be suggestive on my part. I’m glad I sought additional opinions for this very reason.

There is enough blur and distortion in the photo to reasonably assume there could be camera motion during the exposure. The lack of shadow produced by the person in the background can easily be explained by the limitation of the flash range and/or if the light sources within the hallway are too dim to allow capturing of a shadow during the exposure.

With all of the post-processing effects attempted, we still do not improve much on the quality of the photo, therefore I cannot deem this to be evidence of anything paranormal. It was most likely another person walking in the background. Even though the witness didn’t necessarily recall anyone walking back there, the fact that the figure was pointed out hours after the exposure was taken would make this difficult to recall with certainty.

For photo #2, I believe this was easier to decide on it not being paranormal. While the figure in the window appears to be wearing a formal shirt and vest, it cannot be ignored that this was taken at a significant distance from the building, and the fact that this is a wedding venue being used the same day requires us to consider this as most likely non-paranormal… at least with the evidence at hand.

As always, I welcome any additional feedback and/or analysis to further consider information not included here.

The post Ghosts Appear in Multiple Photographs from the Stanley Hotel first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Ghosts Appear in Multiple Photographs from the Stanley Hotel appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

On October 22, 2016, this case was submitted to The Black Vault.  The photographer, submitted the following information:

“This picture was taken by my wife with a digital camera and tells me there was nobody around or behind when the photo was taken. She was also sat with 3 other people facing me that says the same.

I showed this pic to the hotel a few weeks after and they tell me of ghost activity in the hotel. I had the pic examined by a photographer that also says a ghost. I’m the one in the middle.

It was taken at the Holiday Inn, Leicester, built over a Roman garrison

Have any ideas on this?”

The case was turned over to TBV Investigations team member Jeremy Enfinger for analysis, who specializes in claims of ghost activity.

The Analysis

Metadata analysis indicates the image is the original file, however, EXIF metadata was not able to be extracted. The image was taken from a Samsung Model DV300, DV300F, or DV305F at the model’s maximum resolution of 4608 x 3456 pixels, using automatic exposure control with ISO 400, an exposure time of 1/8 sec and an F-stop of 2.5. With the jpeg quality being 94%, there is no indication that the image file has been compressed. The flash was fired during this exposure as well.

The time stamp on the metadata differs from the approximate date reported. According to the individual submitting the photo, it was taken around Christmas, 2015. The metadata indicates it was taken February 15, 2012 at 2:36 p.m. It should be noted, however, that if the camera owner did not set the time/date in the camera settings prior to this exposure, the metadata would not necessarily display accurate “modify date” information. It should also be noted that presence of Christmas decorations in the photo corroborates the individual’s report.

The Interview

After writing the initial report, on January 20, 2018, TBV Investigations team member Jeremy Enfinger conducted an interview with Shaun, the man who submitted the photograph.  He will be sending the actual camera to TBV Investigations for further testing, with hopes to try and reproduce the image using a multitude of settings and lighting situations, attempting to emulate the original setting.

Testing will be posted once it is completed.

General Observations

Aside from the Christmas decorations previously mentioned, ELA (error level analysis) shows similarities in texture of the anomaly with the background and close resemblance to some of the articles of clothing in the foreground. This similarity in texture implies there was no digital alteration of the photo in the area of interest around and including the anomaly. There is also stark contrast between the anomaly and light sources from within the field of view, and it blocks the light from the lamp (frame left), indicating the anomaly has mass and opacity through the clearly-visualized portions.

No notable indications of time/date found within the photograph. There’s a bottle of Whispering Hills Californian Chardonnay which began bottling in 2010, but no year is visible in the photo.

While the two men in the foreground (middle and left) have minimal red-eye effect from the flash, the man on right has moderate red-eye in the photo indicating his pupils were pointed directly toward the flash compared to the other two men in the foreground. The amount of red-eye for the anomaly is severe and more easily notable at a glance. This is inconsistent with the red-eye pattern of the men, and would typically indicate the subject would either be closer to the flash or looking more directly at the flash, neither of which seems to be the case give the direction it seems to be facing and physical location in the room, leaving some question about how this was accomplished. However, when examining the reflection of the flash in each of the subjects’ eyes, the angle of reflection is consistent with the men in the foreground and the anomaly, suggesting physical presence during the flash consistent with the angle/location of the photographer.

The anomaly does not possess the same RGB color values, and this section of the image appears to be desaturated compared to the rest of the photo, though some color is present. There is motion blur in a horizontal pattern surrounding the anomaly, but clear facial features are seen within the anomaly without motion. Initial observation was to suspect digital manipulation, but metadata contradicts this suspicion. It is possible to manipulate the metadata, but it would need to be intentionally done and knowledge of how to do this is not common.

Light reflection patterns are consistent in the anomaly compared to that of subjects in the foreground, however, there are shadows present at the edges of the anomaly that are not present with subjects in the foreground, indicating a discrepancy in how the room light interacts with the anomaly. Parts of the anatomy cannot be seen posterior to the facial anatomy, and appear transparent where the background is clearly visualized where anatomical features should be seen.

Conclusion

At first glance, my opinion was that this photo visibly appears to be digitally edited, however, there is evidence to suggest that the anomalous figure was in the room during the exposure. If it was hoaxed, someone would have had to go through great lengths to modify the metadata on the original image following photomanipulation, which generally would show on the ELA analysis and/or reduce the quality post-compression. Or someone found a way to take a photograph of a doctored photo/sample, which would possess accurate metadata, though I found no evidence of this.

Additionally, it’s possible that someone may have walked into the frame during exposure. With a 1/8 second exposure, a blur effect might be possible depending on how fast that person would be walking, but the blur should be consistent throughout the image of that person, not only in certain areas. It would also not explain the desaturation in color of the anomaly.

I would recommend further testing of the camera to include the features “split shot”, “motion photo” and “artistic brush”. It is possible the effects appreciated may have been added by mistake. I was not able to test this model of camera myself.

Given the red-eye appearance, the desaturation of the anomaly, the blurred edges (and clear facial features), the resemblance to Photoshop’s clone tool effect, and shadow discrepancies, there are enough indications to suspect some level of alteration. The problem is I can’t seem to find any evidence of manipulation given the data available. It is my opinion that this photo is authentic, however, I am unable to explain the anomaly or its features.

Currently, the photograph is with other photo analysts for evaluation, and results will be posted.

The Photograph

The Full Photo

Cropped and Zoomed:

Additional Analysis

Research image analyst Kenn Raymond, owner of VDI Spectral Art, decided to do his own independent analysis on the photograph above.  We were very intrigued by Kenn’s findings, because after extensive analysis, Kenn concluded the image to be an unknown, but did find a possible clue (as of 5/17/18 is still being researched) that shows the metadata lists the “number of images” as 2, indicating a possible double exposure.

https://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/VDI-Spectral-Art.pdf

Additional details will be added, when available.

Replication?

Some visitors to The Black Vault are now submitting what they believe, are examples of this photo being replicated.

Below, you will find a few. Did they solve this case for you? Or does this prove the exact effect is still not achieved? Post your comments below.

Submission #1

Al Jacinto II on The Black Vault Fan Page on Facebook, posted the following photographs as “proof” that the image in question, is not a ghost (Image captions are quotes from Mr. Jacinto):

It should be pointed out that another comment made by Al Jacinto II stated:

“Thanks…but ghosts are unreal ha ha ha ha”

In other words – the agenda would simply be to debunk, and not offer a truly unbiased test to reproduce the result.

Submission #2

Reddit user extremesalmon submitted the following photograph, after seeing the above case:

Meta Data

The post Ghost Captured on Photograph, taken in Leicester, United Kingdom first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Ghost Captured on Photograph, taken in Leicester, United Kingdom appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

The following case was submitted to The Black Vault / TBV Investigations on March 14, 2018. It was assigned to TBV Investigation’s researcher Jeremy Enfinger for analysis.

Witness Testimony

The following is the original witness testimony submitted to The Black Vault by the witness (unedited):

“First two pictures September 19, 2016 was of something I saw for the lack of better words and up disintegrating this is why I thought it was but not sure.

The second picture I sent was on September 1, 2016 eight object in the sky I could not explain and was there for several moments. Video I took and sent to you was on November 7, 2016 between the trees I saw the light that I could not explain and was moving I thought away from me . I zoomed in to try and get it closer I hope the video you can see.

Dave”

The Evidence

September 19, 2016 Photographs

September 1, 2016 Photograph

November 7, 2016 Video

The Analysis

by Jeremy Enfinger, TBV Investigations

The witness has been quick to respond to additional questions I’ve presented. It was determined that the direction faced was West, which is important having seen the object descend below the tree line in the video. It was estimated (by the witness) that the object appeared about 1.5 kilometers away, but the rate of speed could not be determined.

As always, the goals with this kind of investigation is to determine possible alternative explanations for the evidence being presented, which may or may not always corroborate the witness’ experiences, however, it is not necessarily performed in attempt to discredit the witness.

During the course of the interview, the witness supplied additional photographs:

The witness also stated with the submission of these new photographs:

“Did not make a sound it was approximately 1 1/2 km from us and at that distance I can hear Jets or commercial plane at this distance. I was in the military for four years so I’ve heard planes helicopters other various things in the sky this was not it. I don’t think in good confidence I could tell you the speed of the object. Couldn’t see any form but hear is another pic of same object and you can see a jet and stream above it.”

Evidence Analysis

Photo #1 Analysis

Photo #2 Analysis

Photo #3 Analysis

Photo #4 Analysis

Multiple photo post-processing enhancement techniques were used in attempt to gain more detail of the object such as:

• Zoom
• Various filters
• Inversion
• Color enhancement
• Brightness
• Contrast
• Sharpen

In addition, the photos were uploaded to Fotoforensics.com where ELA analysis was completed, metadata reviewed, and compression analysis was performed.

All of the photos submitted depict the object brightly illuminated, however, it was difficult to determine any significant structural details with all of the enhancements made. You will notice a shadow effect appearing on some of the sharpened images, however, that shadow does not correlate with the placement of the sun over the horizon and is most likely a result of too much sharpness being applied by the filter as it does not show up in any other image adjustments.

ELA does not suggest any manipulation of the photos, and no evidence was found that these images had been compressed or adjusted in any way. The metadata confirms the witness’s time and date report.

Possible explanations

Airplane – I initially thought this could be a plane, but the fact that the object is moving away from the witness is key. Normally an airplane would have a bright light on the nose of the plane, rather than the tail. No blinking lights were observed, and only the single bright light is seen which doesn’t seem to vary in luminescence value. The lights on a plane would vary in intensity relative to the position of the witness as the plane travels, and you would typically see running lights as well. Given the fact that the object descends to the West relatively close to the witness, and the nearest airport is over 300 miles away in that general direction, it is unlikely this is a plane.

Helicopter – for the same reasons the plane could be ruled out (no running lights), it is feasible that the object could be a helicopter based on appearance alone. A helicopter with a spotlight could produce a similar appearance, however, the details concerning the direction of travel reduce this as a possibility. A spotlight would need to be constantly pointing in the direction of the witness to maintain its luminescence values as well. In addition, the witness claimed the object didn’t make any noise, which would rule out the possibility of a helicopter. I had considered the possibility of a helicopter landing on a helipad of a hospital as well, but it should be noted that the nearest hospital near that direction is St. Mary’s General, which is more North-West than directly West, and is approximately 23 kilometers away.

Drone – There have been some brilliant LCD lights affixed to drones in some reports. Given the close proximity, a drone could not be 100% ruled out, however, they tend to be very noisy as well. It is unclear how much distance the object may have traveled throughout the entire witness experience, but drones typically have a very short range, but some high-end models have a range of up to 7-10 kilometers.

Conclusion

Several details were considered given the object’s appearance, direction of travel and luminescence. The fact that no airports are nearby and the object made no sound, it is reasonable to rule out any known aircraft or drone. The consistent light brightness is also unusual when considering known aircraft.

A search of known flight paths was conducted and none were able to be found with low altitude or within such close proximity of the witness. An additional search for UFO reports in the area during the time of the witness report also yielded no results.

The photos and video also, unfortunately, did not produce much detail of the object itself.

At this time, the nature of the object remains unexplained.

The post UFOs over Cambridge, Ontario, Canada – September & November 2016 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFOs over Cambridge, Ontario, Canada – September & November 2016 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

The witness to these encounters, which would like to remain anonymous, submitted multiple videos and photographs of alleged alien encounters.

Although the first encounter was originally published without investigation, and was archived on The Black Vault for information purposes, TBV Investigations’ Jeremy Enfinger took over investigation when additional information was submitted by the witness.

Below, you will find the breakdown of Jeremy’s investigation.

Investigator’s Commentary

Communication with the witness thus far has been strictly written, mostly via email. I have not yet had the opportunity to have a conversation to discuss witness experiences such as hearing footsteps in his room, his potential abduction experience, or his physical evidence of a surgical procedure.

As always, the goals with this kind of investigation is to determine possible alternative explanations for the evidence being presented, which may or may not always corroborate the witness’s experiences, however, it is not necessarily performed in attempt to discredit the witness.

The Evidence & Analysis

Special interest has been given to the following photographic and video evidence as reported by the witness:

“02:30 AM – first recording shows something like time gate (black blinking hole near my windows – it could be a car but I have Venetian blind closed on windows – there isnt see anything).”

Time Gate: This video displays an effect that appears like some flickering lights near the window as initially reported, but also shows the same effect on top of a shelf on the left side of the screen. I have a 4-second clip capturing the anomaly, which I play 6 times at 3 different magnification levels (clip is played twice for each magnification), starting with the full-screen video, and including both the anomaly in the window and the top of the shelf where the effect is seen.

You can definitely see a light anomaly in this video over the window. This happens to be originated in the same exact spot in the window that the #5 photo of the alien head in the window can be seen (this will be important to consider when viewing possible explanations of that image). You can also see some pixelation and possible light on the book stand screen left accompanying each pulse of light in the window. It’s most likely a reflection of the light coming through the window due to the timing in the frames coinciding with the presence and illumination of the window anomaly.

The source appears to be coming from outside the window, as no visible light source was caught within the room, at least within the frame of the video. As future evidence analysis will display, there is a street outside with cars parked on the side, so car headlights, brake lights and/or blinkers could not be ruled out.

“… Next video I woke up and I had bad feeling like there is someone with me in the room – I started taking photos – this one what I send you captured grey head (in the video you can see me in the bed taking photos)”

The initial photograph submitted of the grey head beside the bed was incredibly blurry, and video analysis was performed after the initial analysis of the still photo submitted from the witness’s cell phone. A side-by-side comparison of the video angle with the still photo was made. Thankfully, the video displays the moment when the still photo was taken, and the cell phone camera angle could further be evaluated for strength of evidence.

Comparison photo of original photo and video angle at the moment the cell photo was exposed (includes flash firing). The blurry quality of the photo itself provides little useful evidence.

As you can see in the video screen capture, we do not see an alien head. i believe what he is referring to is one of the pillows there, and have attempted to analyze line of site from his camera lens to objects seen in the photo below:

Object #1 looks like the left corner of the blue pillow seen in the video shot (with dresser handles above it and to the right). Object #2 shows the star’s close relationship to the other points 3 and 4. Object #3 is another corner of the same blue pillow. And object #4 (the “alien head”) is the edge of the other pillow with blue, gray and black – colored patterns, which happen to be similar colors when you think of the typical alien grey.

To further corroborate that the blurry image is that of a pillow, you can compare the outline of blurred objects in the foreground of the original image to the shadow outline as seen from the perspective of the video still-shot when the camera flash fired. Even though the angle of the cell phone camera and the video camera vary, the shape similarity between the outline of the pillows themselves and the shadow are significantly similar.

“03:31 AM -next video is pretty strange donut object (like dust) but its moving like I have tornado in my room – never seen this before “

Several dust particles are seen in this clip at different regions throughout the frame. This is a common misnomer for many paranormal investigators who believe they are seeing “orbs” of ghosts, but the visual appearance is caused by the IR light reflecting in dust as it travels through the air in the room.

Note the “donut” appearance the dust particle travels in near the end of this clip. Other dust particles prior to this happen to be travelling in a straight line or slight curvature, however, this one seems to make circles and changes directions erratically. Also note that prior to this particular dust particle appears and behaves this way, the witness moves around in bed immediately preceding this. This is another indicator that it is dust, and it could be reacting to slight wind variations in the room, or could have even been ejected from a resting place on a surface in the room, into the air by the witness’s movements.

Photograph of alien head in window

The witness provided several of his own photos to analyze this specific picture, however, and while the appearance at first glance resembles the head of an alien grey at face value, other possibilities must be considered.

The object does not appear to be a reflection of anything within the room, which was my first thought in considering alternative explanations, and also considering the photo was taken at night, it would make it more difficult to see anything outside, unless there were another light-source outside that would allow visualization in the dark.

Since no reflective surface could be identified within the room opposite the camera angle to the window, consideration of something outside the window was the next possibility. There are two distinct possibilities I considered.

First, the witness was asked to provide several recreation photographs of the camera angle in the original photo. Once several of those were viewed, the witness was then asked for his address.

It can be confirmed from Google Maps that the window is on the second story of his apartment building, but more importantly a few other pertinent details like the location of vehicles on the street opposite the window, as well as several street lights that could provide a light source at night to make objects visible through his window.

When comparing the zoomed in original photo of the alien head in the window to the recreated photos, it appears that several close, but not exact camera angles were provided. The same van shows up in three of the images, and some different cars do as well.

One possibility is the “eyes” of the “alien” could be visually created by windows of a vehicle that is not fully visible within the frame of the window.

I was also able to check the google maps link, and there is ample street lighting outside the witness’s flat. While it’s possible the object viewed through the window is either windows of a parked car, you can also see some trash cans surrounded by a low wall. It’s also possible these trash cans could have been rearranged slightly (from the configuration seen in Google Maps) to resemble the alien head. The curved black lids would compose the “alien’s” eyes and the stone wall surrounding the cans could possibly make up the “face”, with the corner making the “nose”.

Further analysis of the recreated photos were completed with special attention to the potential light sources available. Details from Google Maps and comparison to the original photo indicated several inconsistent angles in the recreated photos.

I believe the angles for the two recreated images above are not accurate. Need to move the camera to the left still. Notice the height of the street lights. Google Street maps only gave me limited ability to move left/right, but I believe I can demonstrate the street light he shows in his recreations is the wrong one. If he moves his camera to the left, you’ll see a taller light (screen right) outside the window and possibly the trash cans that are appearing to look like an alien face.

While these confirm the presence of ample lighting required to visualize something through the witness’s window at night, they also allowed for a greater ability to approximate the location of a car or possibly the trash cans outside the window at night, and further validate that the “alien head” could be one of these two things, which are similar in appearance.

Alien head beside bed (video and witness screen capture from video analyzed)

I was unable to visualize any movement or manifestation of the alien head from any of the videos, so I cannot provide the exact video he believes this shows up in (a total of six clips were submitted). I am posting various screenshots for comparison. A lot of manipulation was needed to visualize anything. The “alien” visualized could possibly be a mottled effect (image graininess) produced by low signal to noise ratio that accompanies low-light images, which is multiplied when attempting to enhance images or change the raw data that was captured. I personally was not able to visualize any distinguishable shapes, so a possible explanation for the witness seeing an alien could be visual matrixing.

At some point in the near future, I would like to further this investigation to include an interactive interview regarding the witness’s abduction experience. He maintains that he is not 100% certain that the experience happened, but that some physical effects after the experience served as evidence that something, in face, was done to him on a surgical level.

Conclusion

After viewing the possible alternative explanations to the evidence above, I would like to invite the readers to compose their own opinions. Without speaking to the witness first-hand, I would like to reserve my own conclusions until a later time.

The post Alleged Alien Encounters in Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic – A Detailed Analysis first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Alleged Alien Encounters in Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic – A Detailed Analysis appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

The following case was submitted to The Black Vault / TBV Investigations.  The witness submitted the following testimony:

Witness Testimony

“I was randomly shooting the moon with my Canon SX60HS which can zoom into craters on the moon. I had it on auto, no particular settings other than 3 shot burst.

I did not see the object when I clicked the shutter, it was only later when looking over the images of the day. What I captured I kept to myself, a few friends and family. Posted it to fb twice for some opinions later on.
It was only recently that I decided to throw it out there and get some real ideas on what, who and where this came from.

Thanks for your help,
NAME REMOVED

** I have added all of the pictured captured in the 3 burst. The times in exif data reflect this.
– image with object IMG_6440
– images without objects IMG_6441, IMG_6442

** I have added the photo to a video and blown it up here

Note from The Black Vault: The video was removed to withhold the witnesses identity. It only was a blow up of the below photographs, so all REAL evidence is maintained in this case file. For reference, here is a blow up of the object (with is a screen shot from the video).

The Evidence

The following photographs were submitted for analysis:

The Analysis

by Michael Kelly, TBV Investigations

After conducting a series of thorough photo forensic methods, a number of discrepancies were found in the photographs submitted by the witness.

We list only a few of the examples, though more can be found in the metadata using sophisticated photography software. These examples are sufficient to support our conclusion, and we feel that adding even more additional (and technical) evidence would only assist future digital manipulation of a “UFO” photograph.

Problem #1

The 3-shot burst mode is not indicated in the time stamp nor the metadata which indicates each shot was separated by a few seconds and not fractions of a second as would be the case in burst mode.

Image time stamps

• 19:15:09
• 19:15:12
• 19:15:20

It is noted that when the witness was asked about this, they submitted the following, and changed the original submission:

“Yep you are right in that they possibly weren’t the pictures I snapped in the burst, I have always assumed they were as I was going from memory out shooting. They were certainly part of the same group of images which I had shot in the burst, however they may have been just straight shots as well.”

Problem #2

The changing position of the moon in the photographs indicates that the camera was being held or pointed in different directions on a tripod. The witness confirmed in follow-up communications that the camera was being held.

When comparing all three images pixel for pixel, the moon in each image is identical.

With a change of position of the camera, the moon should have slight variations in each photograph. The fact that it does not suggests that the images were digitally modified, copying the same image of the moon into all three photographs.

Problem #3

Camera sensors create a high frequency noise pattern over an entire image.

In this photograph the moon and sky have this pattern, but the dot does not.

The fact that the dot does not have this pattern suggests that it was digitally inserted into the image.

Problem #4

Through investigation, the witness was found on Facebook using only publicly available information. Recent (public) posts include one of his own Photoshop works with a hidden “easter egg” that he inserted, wherein he invites his friends to attempt to find it.

Other posts highlight his Photoshop skills, along with his web  and graphics design career.

It is for this (and other) reasons we decided to strip the name of the “witness” off this report, and post it as Anonymous.

Conclusion

These photographs do not stand up to digital scrutiny and therefore must be labeled fraudulent.

There is additional information which TBV Investigations has left off this report.  We feel the above information is more than enough to support this conclusion, and we do not aim to enhance digital manipulation techniques.

Witness Responds to Digital Manipulation Claim

Note from The Black Vault: In the interest of fairness, the witness responded to our report prior to it being published. They felt the need to respond, and we offered to post their responses here, unedited.

This is what they submitted:

Let me address your points as we go.

TBV Investigations Final Response

In addition to the above statement, the witness submitted a video.  We assume by their description, they did not want it shared publicly, so we respect that and have not published it. However, we are going to respond, and ultimately leave it for all of the readers of this case to decide.

The following is from a third party consultant to TBV Investigations. Their ability for image analysis is highly credible.  We have withheld their identity (unless they give us permission later) to thwart future hoax submissions on who we call upon for help.  Their information below is very detailed, and can speak for itself.  Also, the analyst below did view the video (per the witnesses request to show to our analysts). The time codes referenced are irrelevant since the original response video by the witness is not show, but the analysis is self explanatory.

Regarding his video:
1. At 2:40, he correctly interprets the ELA result as being uniform. However, he draws an incorrect conclusion at 2:40 when he says that a resave would have removed the white noise. The white noise only gets removed if the picture is a low quality. His picture, as I previously noted, does not appear to be low quality.

2. At 5:15, he shows his camera roll.
This does not identify the pictures as being original — only that he has them in the same directory.

There’s also something interesting:
At 5:25, the camera roll shows many moon pictures: 6440-6448, but we only have 6440-6442.
Picture 6444, 6445, 6446, and 6447 were visibly altered:
6444 was cropped to a square (his canon doesn’t do that), recolored to a teal, and strong vignetting was added. 4665 had different color alterations. Similarly, 6446, 6447, and 6448 were all visibly altered. And this is easy to see from the thumbnail images.

This means that the known moon pictures (6440-6442) are sitting in a directory next to other pictures that were definitely altered.

3. At 5:38: Viewing metadata from Windows Properties literally proves nothing. In particular, Windows metadata viewer displays fields that do not exist in the file, and omits fields that do exist. See: http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?%2Farchives%2F712-Metadata-Tools-of-the-Trade.html 

By the same means, at 6:35, he claims that the Microsoft property tab for “Previous Versions” says it was never resaved. However, that only applies to using Microsoft to edit pictures and retain revisioning. Again, it literally proves nothing.

4. At 6:55, he zooms in to show no photo manipulation. But again, this proves nothing.

5. At 7:20, he shows that the Microsoft properties for the created and modified dates match his claim and have not been edited. However, this just shows the metadata fields. (And it is my claim that the metadata was replaced.)

Now, let’s compare his counter-argument with my original findings:

Finding #1: Burst mode — alright, he admits he was wrong. We can look past this part.

Finding #2: The pictures show the same moon at the exact same orientation relative to the camera. Yet, the moon’s position changed relative to the camera. So he somehow managed to change the angle of the view of the moon, repositioning the moon in the frame, and still kept the exact same moon orientation.

This is a fun experiment to try at home: Hold the camera and take 3 pictures of a distant object — each 3 seconds apart. Then align the pictures on the object. The orientation should change. A very small object (only a few pixels in the frame) may appear to keep the orientation. A very large object, like the moon taking up 20% of the frame, should change orientation a little. Even though it is only a little different, this should be a visible difference when you overlay the two pictures and view the difference.

Then try the same experiment using a tripod — be sure the move the camera on the tripod a little so the object is not in the same relative location between frames. Again, it will change orientation.

And yet, he someone managed to take 3 pictures that all have the moon with the exact same orientation.

Here’s a difference-overlay of 6440 and 6442 (11 seconds apart): http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=4a3d92dcda18e048a36bea4871c2b34948246585.2346289&fmt=orig
– There is blue sky that exists in 6442 and not 6440 — visible due to aligning the moons.
– The UFO stands out because it doesn’t exist in 6442.
– There’s a tiny fraction of misalignment along one edge of the moon — likely due to scaling.
However, if the moon were rotated even one degree, then we should start seeing that reddish difference edge over most of the moon’s edge and most of the moon’s high-contrast features. We’re just not seeing that.

Even more interesting: Save the difference picture, bring it up in Gimp or Photoshop, and apply a histogram equalization to it. If you apply a histogram equalization to the difference picture, then you can see (1) moon features stand out along JPEG compression differences (expected), and (2) there is a dark swath through the moon that goes through both pictures. That dark swath should be a lighting artifact (like a lens flare), but it is in the same place in both pictures, even though the camera “moved” relative to the moon.

There’s one other thing that bothers me (and makes me chuckle):
In 6440, there is no motion blur. So the object is traveling slower than the shutter speed.
A few seconds later, in 6441, it is gone. So a UFO flew into view, sat still for a photo, and then vanished. In order to vanish, it would have to travel more than half the width of the frame in 3 seconds. Assuming it is far away and not in front of the lens, that would require a very fast speed.

Now, I’m not claiming that a real extra terrestrial UFO couldn’t travel really fast, but this seems like an amazing coincidence that he photographed it at the brief moment that it came to a stop.

Or maybe cloaking? Again — amazing coincidence that he photographed it right at the moment when it was about to put up the cloak.

Of course, if it were a blur from an insect that this close the the camera, then that would explain the really fast relative movement.

Regarding his written comments:

Accepted by MUFON? Good for him. MUFON didn’t contact me about this picture. Had they contacted me, I would have told them the same things I told you.

“#4 – The fact I post Graphics on social media is kind of moot, I am a web designer…”
Note: You hadn’t told me his name, but I got it from his youtube video.
This goes toward skillset. He clearly is capable of doing photo manipulation. This is evident in many of his pubic galleries. For example, his art gallery (LINK REMOVED TO WITHHOLD IDENTITY OF WITNESS) includes a collection of real, altered, and edited photos.

What do you think? Post your comments below! 

Special Thanks

TBV Investigations team members Jeremy Enfinger, Jim Kerr, and James Clarkson all contributed to this report and analysis.

Raw Metadata

Image 2

Image 3

The post UFO Appears Over Cornwall, Ontario Canada, While Witness Photographs Moon first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO Appears Over Cornwall, Ontario Canada, While Witness Photographs Moon appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

The following UFO report was submitted to The Black Vault / TBV Investigations on December 19, 2017.  It was assigned to Jeremy Enfinger, TBV Investigations. 

Witness Testimony

The following was the original report submitted by the witness:

“On estimated date of Aug 5, 2008, at 4:05 AM, I walked onto the front porch to get some fresh air. Sitting at the East bannister and looking directly over my porch portico at about a 60 degree angle-from-horizontal to the West, I observed a circle of light grow from a pinpoint to about the size of a quarter held at arms length in the span of around three seconds.

The light was bright but did not hurt my eyes. I glanced quickly to my right and saw shadows from bushes barely visible on the ground from the bright light. It was still dark and no moon was visible from my position. The bright ring of light blinked out and I could see a pinpoint of light in the center of what-had-been the circle of light that appeared to be as bright as a magnitude three star.

It was stationary for approximately 5-8 seconds, then began moving in a South-Westerly direction, gaining speed until it shot out of sight faster than the eye could follow. From start to finish the sighting seemed to last about three-to-four minutes.

Note: the date and time is only an estimation, with the time being more accurate; I did not write the date and time down after the observation.”

The Analysis

Additional dialogue with the witness indicated the exact date and time were not remembered. The morning light was not yet visible at the time of the sighting, and no moon reflection was appreciated. The object was witnessed WNW of Oak Hill, West Virginia.

Since the sighting was reported to be on or around August 5, 2008. the National UFO Reporting Center was referenced for reports near that time. Although no exact matches were identified, the following three reports possessed similar appearances, though the exact times/locations were subject to some inconsistencies:

• “UFO or some sort of object flying over Oak Hill, WV” – reported 9/23/08 at 0830
• “Unidentified object appeared to be following contrail of jet airplane” – reported 9/18/08 at 1840 (doesn’t match the time of day, and location is North of you, but witness does not specify direction seen)
• “UFO vanishes within seconds after observing for 10 minutes upon aircraft approach!” – reported 8/13/08 at 0040 (reported about 30 miles from you in Summersville, but they do not specify direction seen)

Two airports in the Northwest direction from the witness’s location during the sighting exist. Island airport is the closest near the direction the object was visualized, followed by Yeager airport, home to 130th Airlift Wing of the West Virginia Air National Guard (composed primarily of C-130s).

Witness testimony indicated no moonlight was visible during the sighting, and while the date and time were estimated, the position of the moon could be verified on the estimated date at 4.61 degrees South (latitude) and it was in Waxing Crescent Moon phase, illuminating 18%, which would explain the lack of visibility by the witness.

Possible Explanations

Due to the proximity of the airports and their locations in comparison to the witness’s vantage point, commercial aircraft and/or military aircraft must be considered.However, the rate of speed observed by the witness would not indicate aircraft known to the public.

Conclusion

Stars, planets, satellites and the International Space Station can be ruled out due to the changing position of the object from being stationary to accelerating at high speeds.

The object remains to be unidentified.

However, due to the amount of time that has elapsed since the event, the estimation of date and time of the sighting, and the lack of visual evidence, this case holds no “conclusion” and is archived here for reference or for possible future corroborating witness testimony.

The post UFO over Oak Hill, West Virginia – Approximately 2008 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO over Oak Hill, West Virginia – Approximately 2008 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

The following case was submitted to The Black Vault on February 18, 2018. The case was assigned to TBV Investigations team member Jeremy Enfinger for investigation.

Witness Testimony

According to the witness:

“Sighting occurred while filming my cat while my now ex girlfriend and I were temporarily living at her grandmother’s house while she was in a nursing home.

We were having a stupid conversation about cats and how awful it sounds when they have sex. lol. While we were filming and talking a bright blue object shoots across the screen from right to left.

It appears that the cat sees the object out of frame and then follows the object as it crosses though the frame. I have had people on reddit who believe that this is the reflection from the cats eye. This is not a possibility for one, because in the frame by frame breakdown of the object, there is a visible timing difference between them.

Also there is a visible figure of something inside of the object.

The highest visibility being in 2-3 of the frames.”

The Evidence

The Video

The anomaly occurs at 1:25 into the video, towards the end.

Frame by Frame Breakdown

Filtering and Cropping

Introduction

by Jeremy Enfinger, TBV Investigations

A video was submitted by a witness depicting an indoor video of the witness’s cat sitting on a bed when a blue object enters the frame and moves right to left rapidly across the screen.

According to the witness, the cat “follows the object as it crosses through the frame”. Two individuals were in the room (including the witness) at the time of the occurrence and did not report visibly seeing the object in front of the camera. A female notices the object when viewing the video screen and comments accordingly.

This sighting occurred 12/2/2011 around 1:30 a.m. in Apple Valley, Minnesota.

The Analysis

The witness claims to have a very clean home with no bugs or excessive dust, and a normal temperature at the time the video was taken. Also submitted with the video were frame-by-frame still shots of the object, as well as images with a negative filter and an x-ray filter.

Further discussion with the witness revealed there was a wall behind the camera with no windows or light sources.

Screen right (where the object enters the view) contains the kitchen area of the home and a television is on and can be seen on some frames of the video screen left.

Color analysis was performed on the original video file.

Results included similar color schemes coming from the television screen left and in the reflecting light on the curtains behind the cat.

This hue from the television screen is not an exact match, but very close to the color of the object passing through the frame.

However, there is a tissue box in the upper right-hand corner of the screen that softly reflex the same color as the object passing through.

In addition, the cat’s eyes are reflecting the same color as well.

The object itself was magnified and sharpened in analysis. Considering the object’s path (right to left) and speed, one would expect considerable motion blur in the direction of travel with less motion blur on the top and bottom of the object, but this was not observed. All edges of the object were considerably blurry.

There are few reflective surfaces in the video frame, so spatial confirmation of an object between the camera lens and the cat could not be verified.

Some basic internet research was performed into the visual acuity of cats, under the witness’s assumption that the cat’s eyes were following the object in the video (link provided to the witness: http://www.businessinsider.com/pictures-of-how-cats-see-the-world-2013-10). Cats have some advantages and disadvantages compared to human vision. For example, they see far better in low-light conditions, but they can only clearly see about 20 feet in front of them regardless of the lighting conditions.

In addition, multiple YouTube videos were viewed showing eye shine from cats at night as well to identify some similarities and differences when comparing with the submitted video.

Possible Explanations

Bug or Dust Particle

After the initial analysis, the fact that the object was blurred on all edges indicated it could be a very small object which is out of focus. A bug or a dust particle close to the lens could explain its blurry appearance, as well as the blue hue being emitted from reflected light. Since the witness(es) were not able to see the object with their own eyes at the time of the filming, we must conclude that the object was either too small to be seen or the anomaly is some form of artifact. The visual spectrum of the human eye is typically better than a camera’s unless you have modified it for IR or full-spectrum viewing.

Given the fact that the cat’s head moves at the same time the object passes through the frame, it would be more likely that the object is a dust particle. Cat behavior typically involves giving chase to bugs, or at least undivided attention if a bug is nearby and detected. Once the object passes by the screen, the cat does not appear to continue watching a “flight path”, but instead turns its head toward the television seeming uninterested. If this is a dust particle, we must consider whether or not the timing of the cat’s head turning could be coincidental in relationship to the object passing through the frame.

Cat Eye Reflection

Another possibility considered was a visual artifact. A secondary source was consulted by Nicole Shuck, who has many years of experience in paranormal investigation, as well as photo and video review, specifically of wildlife and hunting footage, as well as cryptozoological investigations. It was her opinion that the artifact was most likely produced by a lens flare from the cat’s eyes reflecting the light from the television. The hue of the TV closely matches the hue of the eye shine, as well as the shades seen on the curtains and the tissue box. Eye shine can be seen from various angles, and if this is a lens flare caused by the eye shine, it would explain the appearance of the cat following an object when really, the cat is causing the anomaly by moving its head, sending a reflection toward the camera lens.

YouTube video search results show a variety of lens flares produced by cats’ eyes in low-light conditions. While some vary in appearance to the submitted video, there are a few which appear similar. Lighting conditions would need to be reproduced exactly to reproduce this effect, and it was suggested that the witness attempt to re-create the scenario with similar conditions to see if the anomaly happens again.

Conclusion

While this clip was definitely interesting, it can be explained best by the lens flare theory. Given that the cat moves his head at the same time the object passes through the frame, it could easily cause this effect on a camera. No paranormal activity was reported, and this appears to be an isolated event.

The next best theory would be a dust particle causing the anomaly, but this would need to include a coincidental movement of the cat’s head to align with the object as it passes through the frame.

While there’s no way to be 100% certain about this conclusion, repeat testing was recommended to re-create the anomaly.

One thing is for certain though; cats’ eyes are stunning to look at in low light!

The post Unknown Orb / Object Appears in Video While Taking Video of Cat first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Unknown Orb / Object Appears in Video While Taking Video of Cat appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.