Background

The following case file report was written by TBV Investigations’ researcher Jim Kerr.

On October 28^th, 2018, at approx 4:23 am, Esteban Zavala posted a live video to Instagram showing what he stated to be 5 UFO’s hovering over the city of Rosarito, Baja California. It was a foggy early morning in Rosarita with multiple illuminated objects that appeared to be hovering approx 100 ft above the ground. Later that day Zavala posted the same Instagram video titled, “UFO’s Hovering in Rosarito 2018”, to his YouTube channel named Esteban Zavala, (refer to the link below under credits). Within hours, Zavala’s video footage went viral worldwide across the internet, re-posted on UFO YouTube channels, UFO Blogs, Facebook, Twitter and more.

On November 6, 2018, John Greenewald, creator of “The Black Vault,” shared with his team of UFO Investigators an article titled, “One of the best UFO sightings filmed lately” which included Zavala’s video footage. We all viewed the video and came to the unanimous conclusion that what Zavala videoed were in fact street lights.

Even though the objects in Zavala’s video had already been solved and determined as street lights, we at TBV Investigations are publishing this information not only to educate the public but for necessary archival reference material.  Our report is important documentation regarding how easy one can mistake street lights in foggy weather conditions for Flying Saucers, especially newly designed and installed circular LED street lights.

The Evidence

Witness Zavala’s written statement from his YouTube Channel.

“Today October 28, 2018, I witness 5 UFOs hovering over Rosarito, Baja California MX. At around 4:23 am I was driving back to San Diego, California with my grandmother. We were having a normal conversation when she suddenly went mute and all she could do was point at the sky. I look up and see 5 of these things hovering over homes and the beach. I pulled over and immediately went live on Instagram to avoid speculations of video editing and such. Share your thoughts.”

Investigative journalist, Ales Backman, is credited for determining these alleged Flying Saucers were new circular LED street lights recently installed for illuminating a recently constructed highway interchange along highway 1D.

Backman drove to Rosarito and videoed the location of the lights.

Backman’s video posted to YouTube Channel  concienciaradio.

Below you will find screenshots from Backman’s video showing the circular LED street lights. Note the lens flare of the light fixture in the first photo.

Conclusion

After watching Zavala’s complete unedited video on his YouTube Channel, I truly believe he and his mother believed they witnessed multiple UFO’s over the town of Rosarito, Baja California. It is important to note that they were not traveling on the main highway 1D but a side road in foggy weather conditions. Had they been driving along highway 1D, I believe they would have seen that the lights were in fact highway lights.

I find it very sad that so many so-called UFO researchers and individuals on social media capitalized and exploited this video footage claiming the objects were real Flying Saucers. The aforementioned is a real problem in Ufology today and casts s a bad light on legitimate researchers. It is our goal at TBV Investigations to inform and educate the public and to reduce the exploitation of misidentified UFO sightings.

Credits / Special Thanks

Investigative journalist, Ales Backman. Thank you for taking the time to drive to Rosarito, video the sighting location and reveal the truth.

https://concienciaradio.com/

The post “Flying Saucers” Sighted and Videoed Over Rosarito, Baja California – October 28, 2018 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post “Flying Saucers” Sighted and Videoed Over Rosarito, Baja California – October 28, 2018 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

The following case was submitted by witness John to The Black Vault / TBV Investigations on 07/03/2018 at 1:42 am and was assigned to TBV Investigations’ researcher Jim Kerr for investigation and analysis.

Witness Testimony

The following testimony was submitted by the witness:

“It was a cloudy Monday; I was going to take a break outside, when I spotted a light in the sky that moved, I took the opportunity to film it and take photos on the object. It moved before disappearing, disproving that it’s a meteor or asteroids. It had to be a UFO.

The photo and the video was taken in Ronneby, Blekinge County, Sweden.”

Witness Interview Conducted by Email on 08/15/2018 @ 11:52 pm

Q: What make, and model of camera or cell phone camera did you record the video and still photo?

A: I filmed the sighting with my Huawei Honor 8 lite, which had a built-in star track.

Q: Do you have additional still photos you can forward?

A: I didn’t have time to change the camera mode, because if I changed it, the object would’ve disappeared.
     I took a video so that It wouldn’t look like any star.

Q: What was the approx compass direction you were facing while filming?

A: I was facing southeast at 140°.

Q:  In your video, it appears you are inside a building behind a glass window, possibly inside a restaurant or store with the ambient sounds of conversations. The window is visible in front of the camera lens. Please set the stage as to what you were doing just before filming the UFO?

A: I was in my apartment, watching television, I wanted to take a look at the night sky, which is often. So I went to my window and noticed the object up there (it was shaped like a flying saucer, but for some reason, it was bright for my camera), but the camera didn’t capture the object in good quality, it was too bright for my camera.

Q: What drew your attention to this object?

A: The fact that it was moving, and that it didn’t resemble any known aircraft in Sweden, drew me into it.

Q:  Approx how long did you observe the object before filming?

A: I observed it for a full minute.

Q: Before your sighting did you have an interest in the UFO topic?

A: Yes, I had (and still have) an interest in the topic of UFOs.

Q: Is this the first UFO sighting you ever had?

A: Yes, this is my first UFO sighting.

Q:  Have you seen any UFO’s since this incident?

A: Yes mate, I did encounter another UFO at the same location before this incident.

Q: Were there other people in your presence that also observed this UFO? If so, describe their reactions or any statements they made. I don’t need their names.

A: There weren’t any people outside during that time.

Q: Just before or even days before seeing this UFO were you engaged in conversation with anyone about the topic of UFO’s? Note; (In many sightings witnesses were engaged in conversation about UFO’s before their sighting).

A: Check the above answer.

Q: If you were in a restaurant or business, please provide the name of the establishment or the cross streets of this location. Note; (this is important to eliminate any air traffic of flight patterns from local airports).

A: I wasn’t in a restaurant during that time, I was in my home.

The Evidence

The witness submitted two forms of visual evidence. A seven-second video clip with audio and a still photograph. Both were recorded using a Huawei Honor 8 lite cell phone.

The Analysis

by Jim Kerr, TBV Investigations

My Background as a UFO investigator began in 1973 after witnessing two illuminated disk-like objects that hovered, made right angle turns at high speed then ascended into the atmosphere at unbelievable speeds. In one sighting three USAF F-4 fighter jets arrived on the scene after the UFO shot up into the atmosphere. Since that time I became an amateur photographer, videographer and astronomer. Over the years I have archived many hours of video footage of jet aircraft during daylight and night in different weather and lighting conditions. Based on my experience I am aware of how aircraft in different lighting conditions can appear as a UFO, flying saucer, etc. Even in my photos and video, I captured objects that I initially believed were UFO’s, but after carefully analyzing the images with video editing software I determined them to be aircraft, birds, balloons, bugs, etc. Always keep in mind that even with the human eye can deceive us.

On 12/11/2017 at approx 2:00 pm Witness John related he went outside to take a break and observed a light in the sky that was moving. Using his cell phone, he took photos and video of the illuminated object before it disappeared. The witness believed it was not a meteor or asteroid and must have been a UFO.

On 08/15/2018, I conducted an email interview with the witness; There are minor inconsistencies from his original statement but nothing that affects the visual evidence presented in the photo and video submitted. Due to the passage of time, it is understandable that statement inconsistencies will occur. Refer to the witness’ statements under “Witness Testimony.”

Below is one witness statement that I will elaborate on later in my conclusions.

“I was in my apartment, watching television, I wanted to take a look at the night sky, which is often. So I went to my window and noticed the object up there (it was shaped like a flying saucer, but for some reason, it was bright for my camera), but the camera didn’t capture the object in good quality, it was too bright for my camera.”

I don’t know the witness’ exact location while filming within the city of Ronneby as he seemed reluctant to provide this information. Due to this, I am unable to determine his exact location while filming and his distance from the Ronneby Airport. Again, with the witness submitting photo and video, his location is not necessary to identify the object he filmed. Here is my analysis of that evidence:

Weather Information

Weather history searched on the weather website wunderground. The weather station is located at the Ronneby Air Base, Sweden.

Weather conditions at the time of the witness’ sighting; 34 deg, humidity 93%, wind 9 mph out of the NE, and mostly cloudy.

High temp 37 deg, low temp 29 deg, precipitation 0.24 inches, dew point 31 deg, average wind speed 12 mph, visibility 19 miles.

Surrounding Airports

Ronneby Airport is located approx 2.5 miles from Ronneby, Sweden. It is the 6th largest airport in Sweden and considered a Minor International Airport that handles approx 226,995 passengers per year. On the average, there are approx 16 incoming and outgoing flights per day.

Surrounding Military Installations

Blekinge Flygflottilj F17 Swedish Air Force Base, simply known as “F 17”, is located approx 0.62 miles from the Ronneby Airport. The base currently houses two squadrons of the multirole aircraft. A wing of the Swedish helicopter forces is also stationed at F17.

Additional information about Blekinge Flygflottilj F17:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_17_Kallinge

Astronomical Data

Searching the archives of Stellarium, (a planetarium software that shows exactly what you see when you look up at the stars), I found no celestial objects that could remotely account for what the witness observed. Below is historical astronomical data from Weather-Underground.

Summary and Conclusion

Based on the following I determined the illuminated object in the witness’ photo and video to be landing lights of an aircraft on approach to the Roddeby Airport. I used Sony Vegas video editing software to enlarge the object and adjusted the lighting and contrast in both the photo and video footage. The speed of the object along with it’s straight, steady flight path is consistent with aircraft on approach to an airport. The Ronneby Airport is located 2.5 miles from the town of Ronneby.

In my video analysis of the witness’ video, (see video analysis above), the aircraft’s white strobe light can be seen flashing intermittently within the brilliant landing lights. This is evident in the witness’ video footage. As an example, I videoed an aircraft at night with it’s landing light turned on. My footage also shows the intermittent flashing of the aircraft’s white strobe light that can be seen within the brilliant landing light. Both the witness’s video and my video are similar enough to conclude aircraft landing lights were what the witness observed, videoed and photographed.  

The witness made the statement;  “It was shaped like a flying saucer, but for some reason, it was bright for my camera, but the camera didn’t capture the object in good quality, it was too bright for my camera.” Based on my video analysis, adjusting the lighting and contrast, I observed no flying saucer associated with the aircraft landing lights. I have personally observed and videoed aircraft landing lights and as I stated earlier, they can be deceiving and can appear saucer-like in shape. Keep in mind that aircraft in the different light setting are often mistaken for Flying Saucers. Watch the analyzed video below for further details.

I want to thank the witness for sending TBV Investigations his UFO report and visual evidence. I hope this investigation will provide answers to those who witness lights in the sky and help identify UFO’s, Unidentified Flying Objects.

The post UFO over Ronneby, Blekinge County, Sweden – December 11, 2017 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO over Ronneby, Blekinge County, Sweden – December 11, 2017 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

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

The following case was submitted to The Black Vault / TBV Investigations. It originally came into the hotline, and was assigned to TBV Investigations’ researcher Richard Kidd for analysis.

Witness Testimony

The following was submitted by the witness:

“My neighbor Joe and I were enjoying several beers on my porch located in Carbondale, Pennsylvania. Shortly after midnight, we observed approx 6-7 LARGE Bright Orange Lights hovering in various formations over the homes across the street. These extremely bright objects seemed to appear and then slowly dim and disappear at will, and at certain times I personally could still see the objects themselves moving across the sky despite the lights being shut off.”

The Evidence

The Analysis

After contacting the witness regarding his sighting, the witness was reluctant to provide additional information other than that he had the video and the still photographs. I requested a detailed accounting of what he witnessed but, his account hasn’t as of yet arrived. I have contacted the witness 3 times since our first discussion and, the witness has not been forthcoming with any other information nor did he submit the video. 

An attempt was made to enhance the photograph above, but no additional details that were helpful could be determined.

Conclusion

I am recommending that this case be closed due to lack of evidence other that the photos that the witness has provided. 

The post UFOs over Carbondale, Pennsylvania – July 7, 2018 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFOs over Carbondale, Pennsylvania – July 7, 2018 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

The following case was submitted to The Black Vault / TBV Investigations on May 19, 2018. It was assigned to TBV Investigations’ researcher Michael Glenn for analysis.

Witness Testimony

The witness submitted the following report:

“At approximately 19:30 on May 17, 2018 I saw something extremely bright horizontal to the setting sun. I’ve seen sundogs before and have many photographs of them. This was no sundog. It hung in the air. It was huge. It had a shape. I ran inside and grabbed my phone and snapped a few shots. I also manipulated a couple of them and brought out what looks like a glowing cigar shape object of some kind. I took a few close ups and a couple of wide angles. I have to say I was amazed. I also caught a secondary object that looks geometrical with antennae protruding from the corners when you zoom in on one of the frames. Look at the photographs and you tell me what that is in the sky. Feel free to download and examine them for yourselves.”

The Evidence

The witness also submitted many photographs of the event in question. This took place over Jacksonville, NC. 

The Analysis

The image was examined using several filters, settings, and adjustments in Photoshop. The object appears to be part of the sky, and has its own brightness, equal to the sunlight. To the left of the large shape is a small, geometric object hanging in the sky. The pixelated nature of the image makes it impossible to tell for sure what we are looking at. The witness stated that the object was not noticed until examining the images later. The witness further states that the cloud shape hung there as the ones around it moved, dissipated. Some swirling can be seen in the image, but again, not definitive shapes. The event lasted ten minutes.

Image Analysis

Conclusion

It is impossible to draw a conclusion for the geometric shape hanging in the air to the left of the elliptical shape as the image is not clear enough. The elliptical shape could be described on first look as a Fallstreak hole (hole punch cloud), but the cloud type is not right for this phenomenon since Fallstreak holes occur in cirro and alto cumulus clouds. A search of images on Google turned up this example of a similar sky effect. This cloud feature is the only conclusion that can be drawn at this time as there is no discernible anomaly in the image.

The post UFO over Jacksonville, North Carolina – May 17, 2018 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO over Jacksonville, North Carolina – May 17, 2018 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

The following case was submitted to The Black Vault / TBV Investigations on May 3, 2018. It was assigned to TBV Investigations’ researcher Monica Salazar for Analysis.

Witness Testimony

The following was submitted by the witness:

“I woke at 1:25 am, this was several months ago, maybe now a year or more. When I woke I first looked at the clock because I hate waking up in the middle of the night on a weeknight when I work. Then I caught through a crack in my blinds a very bright light of which I thought was the moon. So I peeked through the blinds and the moon was super bright! Though I was mostly asleep I was compelled to get up and get my phone out of my purse and open my blinds in the middle of the night, which I would usually never do because of the fear of someone there looking in. Where I live it is pitch black on my street with no street lights. But I still got the phone and opened the blinds to take a picture of the moon.

From the time I spotted the “moon” and then turned and walked about three steps and then back, I was surprised to see how much it had moved in the sky, and though I was still half asleep my mind did pick up on that it was moving out of the sky extremely quick. I was able to shoot two pictures before it disappeared behind trees and the horizon. I then went back to bed, though my dog was sitting at my side looking towards my bedroom door shaking. It was odd and noticed. The next day I went to check out the pictures I had taken. In the first, it was an expected picture of what I thought was the moon, blurry from taking it with my phone. The second picture, however, was something else, something I can’t explain. It is the same thing, what I thought was the moon, but clearly, it is not. Has anyone seen anything like this before? The shapes are very interesting. This is posted on my Onstellar page as a post with both pictures.”

The Evidence

Additional Photographs of the Scene

The Analysis

By Monica Salazar, TBV Investigations

I emailed the witness a few times, she was very responsive, and she was able to provide additional pictures as requested. However, after several unanswered subsequent emails, I did attempt to phone the witness with no further contact.

My analysis is as follows to the best of my ability with the information given.

As the witness stated, she was woken up in the middle of the night to glowing lights outside her window. The witness also stated that it was odd for her to wake up at such a strange hour of the night. When analyzing the images provided by the witness you can clearly see a glowing white object. The images are a big grainy so it is hard to tell. The witness did state that she was zoomed in all the way 10x as her phone allowed her to.

One observation, is a similarity between the “striations” on the second photograph submitted, which coincide with the slats of the drop down blinds, and the vertical ‘string’ in the design of the blinds.   Here is a comparison image illustrating what may account for the pattern:

Also when speaking to the witness she stated the object was traveling at a slow speed headed west from what she believes is the south side.

In the images, you can see the object almost split, perhaps not all the way but you can clearly see a divisional pattern. At first glance, I believed this to be the mosquito net that most homes come with in every window. However, I did ask the witness to provide me with some daytime photos of the same window from the outside and the inside. From the images on the outside, you can see that there is nothing that would obstruct the camera in such a way that would create what was in the original images. In addition, the image from the inside it seems that the window this witness took the image from does not have mosquito net. At least not that I can tell from the images.

Meta Data

The data for the images are as follows:

• Resolution Unit: Inches
• File Size: 326409 bytes
• File DateTime: 08-Jul-2018 10:45:54
• Flash Used: No Flash
• Make: Apple
• Model: iPhone 5s
• xResolution: 72.00 (72/1) Inches
• yResolution: 72.00 (72/1) Inches
• Software: 8.4.1
• File Modified Date: 2015:08:25 01:34:29
• YCbCr Positioning: 1
• Exposure Time: 0.067 s (1/15) (1/15)
• F Number: f/2.2
• Exposure: program (auto)
• Iso Equiv: 2000
• Exif Version: 0221
• DateTime: 2015:08:25 01:34:29
• DateTime Digitized: 2015:08:25 01:34:29
• Component Config: Does Not Exists
• Aperture: 2.2000000587378
• brightness: 12030714.58 (4294965104/357)
• Exposure Bias: 0.00 (0/1)
• Metering Mode: Spot
• Focal Length: 4.15 (83/20)
• Maker Note: NOT IMPLEMENTED
• subSectionTimeOriginal: 278
• subSectionTimeDigtized: 278
• Flashpix Version: 0100
• Color Space: sRGB
• Width: 3264
• Height: 2448
• sensing: One-chip color area sensor
• Scene Type:
• Exposure Mode: Auto Exposure
• White Balance: 0
• Zoom Ratio: 5.00 (1224/245)
• Flength 35mm: 145
• Screen Capture Type: Standard
• Compress Scheme: JPEG compression (thumbnails only)
• Thumbnail: Yes
• Thumbnail Size: 6180 bytes
• IsColor: 1
• Process: 192
• Resolution: 3264×2448
• orientation: rotate 90
• Color: Color
• Jpeg Process: Baseline

Conclusion

The witness, to the extent of my communication with her, was very credible and cooperative; she seemed to be genuinely interested in what she had captured. She even submitted the images to Onstellar in hopes of getting a clear answer as to what she had captures.

I will not deny the images are great and intriguing yet, they are very grainy and blurry it is truly hard to tell. I will not dismiss the idea of the object she captured to be from out of this world but without further tangible evidence, I would have to classify it as: Undetermined due to insufficient evidence. 

The post UFO over Lithia Springs, Georgia – August 25, 2015 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO over Lithia Springs, Georgia – August 25, 2015 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

On June 3, 2018, a post appeared on Facebook that went viral. It was posted by Ashley Choney, the earliest post I could find when this case file was written, and it shows a photograph of a “UFO” or saucer-like craft on the back of a semi, followed by “20 police cars” as indicated by the witness.

The case was investigated by the creator of The Black Vault, John Greenewald, Jr.

Witness Testimony

The original Facebook posting, as published on June 3, 2018:

The Evidence

The only evidence was the photo updated. Here is the highest resolution available:

The Analysis

by John Greenewald, Jr., Founder of The Black Vault / Creator of TBV Investigations

There was something eerily familiar when I saw this photograph making it’s rounds. When I am writing this report, the post has had just about 20,000 shares, more than 7,000 likes and more than 3,000 comments. I recalled seeing a post nearly identical to this a few years back, and dug up a December 2011 video from YouTuber Alex Dieguez in the the same exact location as this new posting — specifically, Ponca City, Oklahoma.

In 2011, when this story and video first circulated, it too went viral. With thousands of shares and likes, it was unknown what was seen that day, but it sparked various news stories and newspaper articles.  That is, until Brooks McKinney, senior manager of public relations at Northrop Grumman, closed the mystery. He told Life’s Little Mysteries, a project by the popular LiveScience.com website, that the craft was a transport of the X-47B. According to Northrop Grumman:

“The X-47B is a tailless, strike fighter-sized unmanned aircraft developed by Northrop Grumman as part of the U.S. Navy’s Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) Carrier Demonstration program. Under a contract awarded in 2007, the company designed, produced and is currently flight testing two X-47B aircraft. In 2013, these aircraft were used to demonstrate the first ever carrier-based launches and recoveries by an autonomous, low-observable relevant unmanned aircraft. In April of 2015, the X-47B once again made aviation history by successfully conducting the first ever Autonomous Aerial Refueling (AAR) of an unmanned aircraft. AAR unlocks the full potential of what an unmanned surveillance, strike and reconnaissance system can do in support of the Navy. These historical demonstrations solidify the concept of future unmanned aircraft and proved that the X-47B can perform standard missions like aerial refueling and operate seamlessly with manned aircraft as part of the Carrier Air Wing.”

The source of this, was published on December 20, 2011, on the LiveScience.com website.

With the 2011 mystery solved, now we have the post again, or a similar one, in 2018.

What is interesting to note, is the fact that the truck transporting the craft, is nearly identical (or IS identical) in both make, model and color as the 2011 video.

I put a side by side comparison:

It is likely, that this is the X-47  being transported again by the same transport company using a nearly identical vehicle. Oddly, it is seen and photographed in the same exact city of Ponca City, Oklahoma.  Northrop does have facilities in Oklahoma City and an address in Ponca City, so the locale in relation to the “sighting” makes sense.

It should also be noted, that on June 3, 2018, the same day as the original post of this “saucer” craft, the following was posted by Trevor Macy, a reporter with KWCH Channel 12 in Witchita, Kansas:

Just spotted this South of Ark City. Any ideas what it is? pic.twitter.com/pH99h6q7tv

— Trevor Macy (@KWCHTrevor) June 3, 2018

Hard to tell if it is the same craft/truck, but again, you have a near identical make, model and color of the transport vehicle.

Others have also referenced an “orb” in the photograph. I believe this can also be explained fairly easily. Here is a screen shot of the orb, along with what should also be noted — power lines.

To the left of the photograph, you will see the “orb” referenced by many others posting and re-posting this photograph. This is touted as further proof this is some kind of alien spacecraft, as it has its own buddy following along.

However, I also pointed out power poles in the photograph. I believe by these, we can safely assume there are power lines running from pole to pole, and going off camera frame.  This ‘sphere’ is not a craft, but rather, is a visibility marker ball. These are often put on power lines to indicate to passing aircraft and helicopters, where the danger is if you fly too low. They mark the power lines not easily visible when flying an aircraft.

Here is a clear photograph of these markers:

Conclusion

Based on the evidence, this is likely simply a transport of the X-47B (or similar shaped craft) as talked about in 2011 by Northrop Grumman’s Public Relations Senior Manager.

This is aside from the fact that if it was anything involving a massive amount of secrecy, like an alien craft or back engineered technology, it would not be transported in the open on public highways in it’s actual form — but rather, it would be disguised, transported under the cover of darkness, or even transported in an open vehicle at all.

The “orb” that is often also cited as being in the photograph, is likely a visibility marking ball.

The post UFO Type Craft Seen Hauled on Large Semi Truck in Ponca City, Oklahoma first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO Type Craft Seen Hauled on Large Semi Truck in Ponca City, Oklahoma appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.

Background

The following case was submitted to The Black Vault / TBV Investigations on April 4, 2018. It was assigned to TBV Investigations’ researcher Michael Glenn for analysis.

Witness Testimony

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

“I was flying from Finland to Japan (Tokyo) and everybody was sleeping in airplane, lights was off. I took fast picture from airplane window, because of beautiful sunrise. Later I was checking out pictures which I have took and I saw these four blue dots and I don’t have any idea what those are. There wasn’t any lights like this inside of the airplane, so I don’t think those are any reflections from window. To me those “dots” UFO’S(?) looks they are far away, flying near atmosphere.

Maybe you guys can tell me what these are?”

The Evidence

The Analysis

by Michael Glenn, TBV Investigations

The image is taken from inside a lit aircraft, traveling at sunset. There are reflections in the window in the same general area as the objects of interest. After looking over aircraft window schematics, the likely reason for the lights in the sky is a double reflection from the dual pane windows. The lights are likely overhead lights from the airplane interior.

When zooming in the four dots are actually only two, repeated in the second pane of acrylic. The angle is consistent with lights that would be above the witness’ head. 

Conclusion

While other explanations are possible, the reflectivity of the windows is the most likely culprit in this situation.  It is noted that the witness believed no other lights were on in the cabin, but since they did not notice the lights when taking the photograph, they may have just as easily missed reading lights on from across the aisle. It should also be noted, depending on the direction of the camera, the lights in relation to the witness’ seat, etc., the lights could be on in a dark aircraft at a distance not noticeable to the witness, but were reflected in the window and captured on camera.

The following also illustrates where other likely reflection from inside the cabin reside.

The post UFO Seen From Airplane During Flight From Finland to Tokyo, Japan first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO Seen From Airplane During Flight From Finland to Tokyo, Japan 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 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 case was submitted to The Black Vault / TBV Investigations on January 11, 2018. It was assigned to TBV Investigations team member Rob Mercer for investigation.

Witness Testimony

The following was submitted by the witness in the original report submission:

“While viewing Orion I sighted and photographed 3 objects moving together.  8” Meade with Zwo cameras linke to Surface Pro laptop. Captured three objects. “

The Evidence

Video compilation of the photographs

Photograph Gallery

The Analysis

I spoke with the witness by telephone regarding his sighting report, he stated that while looking through the camera he noticed the three objects moving together and began taking photos. Between 5:49:06 and 5:49:48pm PST he captured 14 images, which he submitted.

By the time I contacted the witness, he had already done research on his own and discovered the Amazonas 3 satellite was passing in the same area at the time.

Though the three objects appear to move together as one, it is apparent that they are not one solid object. Stars can be seen between them as they move.

A search of the Stellarium database showed three satellites (Amazonas 3, Echostar 18, and Echostar 16) moving through the same area and direction of the sky at that time.

Corresponding Cases

No other reports of this event were found.

Conclusion

It is my belief that what the witness saw and captured in photos, were most likely the three mentioned satellites moving together.

Meta Data

Meta Data was submitted for each photo. The settings were the same, and are located below:

[ZWO ASI224MC]
Pan=0
Tilt=0
Output Format=AVI files (*.avi)
Binning=1
Capture Area=1304×976
Colour Space=RGB24
Temperature=20.2
Hardware Binning=Off
High Speed Mode=Off
Turbo USB=100(Auto)
Flip=None
Frame Rate Limit=Maximum
Gain=400
Exposure=1
Timestamp Frames=Off
White Bal (B)=95
White Bal (R)=52
Brightness=1
Gamma=50
Auto Exp Max Gain=400
Auto Exp Max Exp M S=30000
Auto Exp Target Brightness=100
Mono Bin=Off
Apply Flat=None
Subtract Dark=None
Display Brightness=1
Display Contrast=1
Display Gamma=1

The post UFO over Lindsay, California – January 11, 2018 first appeared on The Black Vault Case Files.

The post UFO over Lindsay, California – January 11, 2018 appeared first on The Black Vault Case Files.