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.

The following video was posted to LiveLeak, but a person just taking a video of the “Super Moon.” In the process of doing so, they captured either two objects, or one, casting a shadow on the lunar surface.

The Video

Witness Testimony

Possible Explanations

Having such an extreme zoom on the surface of the moon, is going to blur out anything relatively close to the camera lens.

However, this will not rule out either a satellite above Earth’s atmosphere, or quite possible a lunar probe in orbit around the moon.

Other Super Moon Sightings

Black Vault user LookNowTV submitted the following video. Rich, from LooknowTV, analyzed multiple videos that were captured the night of the Super Moon. 

It was submitted here, and is used with permission.

Please note: The opinions represented on this video are that of Rick from LookNowTV. 

The description posted on YouTube was: 

5 Best UFO SUPERMOON Sightings Caught On Camera! A few days ago everyone was out recording video of the Supermoon. I wanted to take at some of the best most credible UFO Supermoon videos. I also wanted to talked about the UFO Supermoon video that went viral fast thanks to online Tabloid attention. Let’s take a closer look!

What do YOU think? Comment below.

The post UFO Seen Over Lunar Surface – During Filming of the “Super Moon” first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO Seen Over Lunar Surface – During Filming of the “Super Moon” appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

I have been researching the Moon and Mars for many years.  It has already been proven that NASA covers strange areas with blurry blocks or out of focus images.  There are also numerous  X  marking on the Moon’s surface.  At first I thought it was markings on the film but this is not the case.

 These  X  markings are on the surface all have a Three-D effect.  I am not sure what the reason is for these markings but we should find out in the near future.  The secret is finding the best Moon and Mars web site from NASA and other sources.  Even Google Mars and Moon are great sources.  Having the patience to scan a very hi definition image is also the secret.

Some images may take hours to scan and investigate.  There are hundreds of objects that I have discovered but I only keep the best images that really look like something alien.

The top header image is the moon base I discovered on the Moon.  The date was  9-14-12 when I found this very strange image.  If you download the free google earth , you can then go to google Mars and the Moon.

The post Moon Base? first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Moon Base? appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

At about 24 minutes into his recording, multiple mysterious objects appears to be flying above the sun — which shocked even him. Well versed in astronomy, he could not quite pin point what these objects were.

I have edited the video to only the UFO sighting and a little beyond to give some context.  Note, when the video starts, he comments that the object “is huge”. He is only referencing the sunspot. Keep watching for the UFO that will appear a few seconds later.

The complete 1 hour presentation that aired live originally can be viewed here:

The post UFO Appears During Live Broadcast of Partial Solar Eclipse, October 23, 2014 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO Appears During Live Broadcast of Partial Solar Eclipse, October 23, 2014 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

What are we looking at? What appears to be multiple cylindrical shaped objects were photographed by the Apollo 9 astronauts while photographing the moon.  Plain and simple, if these are actual “objects” they are HUGE by the looks of it.  What could they be? They do not appear to be artifacts on the film/photo itself.  Add your feedback below.

Original Source at NASA for this photo.

The post Giant Cylindrical Objects Photographed on Apollo 9 Mission first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Giant Cylindrical Objects Photographed on Apollo 9 Mission appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

As you can see 4 orbs coming from the right.

3 of them landing on the moon ( propable moonbase ) and one orb is stopping for a moment then flys away.

Filmed April 2012 with Canon EOS 600D and Skymaster 1200mm focal length telescope.

The post Giant UFO Fleet Landing on Moon? first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Giant UFO Fleet Landing on Moon? appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Official NASA Caption: LRV Floor? Sunstruck.

Official NASA Label: AS17-135-20680HR

What are we looking at? This photograph is from the official NASA archives of Apollo 17.  In the official index of Apollo 17 photographs, available for download below, you will find that this photograph is listed as a “blank” photograph.

However, when looking at the photo, you can clearly see it isn’t blank. What appears to be a pyramid shaped object, or structure, appears faintly in the background.  What also adds to the legitimacy of the photograph, is there is a blurry, out of focus “foreground object.” This supports the theory this is a legitimate photograph (not a “blank” photo as NASA suggests) and that there could possibly be a structure captured on film.

What do you think? Post your comments and theories below.

Original NASA Source: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-135-20680HR.jpg

Possible explanation? While looking at other photos in the sequence, it appears this could have been a bad photo of the floor of the lunar module.

On the same magazine this photo was taken, there are other “pyramid shaped” angles that may resemble a pyramid in a poor photo.

Please reference these photos:

The post Pyramid Shaped Structure in Apollo 17 Photograph? first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post Pyramid Shaped Structure in Apollo 17 Photograph? appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.