Leaked Government Photo Shows ‘Motionless, Cube-Shaped’ UFO

a reply to: neformore

Similar has happened with the Nimitz videos.

People seem to forget that these crews are the best of the best.

But they are human beings and not perfect.

There is such thing as 'friendly fire' incidents that proves they aren't perfect. Not forgetting Fravor was so incompetent that he forgot to turn his camera on during history's most important UFO incident. Plus of course we hear these guys are "Trained observers". Can anyone point me to a manual that details what observational training military pilots are given to identify unidentified flying objects? Because this F18 WSO seems more interested in taking a snap with a smartphone than dealing with something that may be a threat in his nation's airspace.


Alll that aside this has been covered elsewhere for days.

A high res version of the photo is available archived here : archive.vn...

When zoomed in on it the object appears to look nothing like a cube but a balloon.



Isaac Koi and others believe it looks similar to a batman balloon.

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: gortex

The picture also look manipulated, if you zoom in the edges of the thing is blurry like someone used photoshop and tried to hide it by blurring out the edges. There are also some white lines around the zoomed in picture that is not in the large version - proof that it is manipulated. If you have the raw image then I would consider it, now it´s obviously tampered with imo.

By "blurry", if you mean the pixelated look around the object, then that could be from a compression artifact, also called a blocking artifact.

This type of image artifact can result from jpg compression. When an image is made into a jpg -- and any compression at all is involved -- the jpg algorithm needs to make some educated guesses about what color a pixel should be. The algorithm uses information from neighboring pixels to do so. It also does this in 8-pizel X 8-pixel blocks. These artifacts become most noticeable around objects in the foreground against a homogenous-colored background, such as the leaves against the homogenous sky in the image below.

Zoom into this image to the area where the leaves are against the sky and you will see similar compression artifacts. The leaves and sky are really there, but compression creates the pixelated halo around the leaves as seen against the sky:



I'm not saying the image in the OP is anything otherworldly; I'm just saying it might really be there, and the pixelated halo around it is just a natural jpg compression artifact.

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: gortex

How would that thing even fly, there´s no wings. lol.

Case closed.

Lol and at the same time 'Errrrrr you stillliving in the 20thC MM'

These things in our skies have somewhat moved on from wings and jet engines

In addition to which the footage clearly shows the sides to be the same. Whatever that thing flying through our skies it's certainly no shopping bag

The article about this photograph is also very confusing.

1. Descriptions of the object are contradictory.

...described as an “unidentified silver ‘cube-shaped’ object” encountered by military pilots as it hovered motionlessly over the ocean.

It is obviously not a 'cube shaped object'

2. The location is in question

They asked an expert about it being a dropsonde.

He said;

“Dropsonde are dropped into hurricanes over water, not over military bases,” Hock added. “

The report says the obect "hovered motionlessly over the ocean". No mention of it being over a military base???


3. We have claims that the picture does not depict a balloon.

...all three officials we spoke with seemed dismissive of the idea that it depicts a balloon.

But it does look like a balloon. Maybe the three officials were Col. Ray Charles, General Stevie Wonder and Marshall Andrea Bocelli?


4. The date the photo was taken is in question

...officials with the DoD...confirmed that the leaked image is the same photo provided in a 2018 intelligence position report issued by the UAPTF.

But the EXIF data says the picture was created on March 4th 2019???

5. The picture is allegedly a photo of a photo?

The metadata for the photo we shared relates to someone taking a picture of a picture with their cellphone. The actual photo that was included in the report had differing metadata

Twitter archived

I don't know how large the original photo must have been to have taken a picture with that level of clarity?

6. Is the object really there in the photo?

It could be a fake or a joke that somehow got passed around. We don't really know yet. There are already copies of a lower resolution blurred version of it that have been around since at least May 2020 apparently.

Honestly, the only real cubes I ever saw....were these



And of course these real earthly cubes....go without saying



Can a Block Head also be a Government Cube? Hmmmm

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Photo was manipulated by Pentagon they kept the full Rez version not for release for now. I feel the bag theory is a good one, but just a simple explanation for something less simple. I have been flying over open ocean and seen plastic garbage bags at 30k feet. Only thing is at 450kts IAS you do not have time to pull out camera. Also I would suspect they got a got track and then lock on it to find it. To me this is interesting. Military folks don't go around shooting photos of floating garbage bags and then claim they saw a UFO it's just too risky and if you want to go DNIF this is how to do it.

L

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: neformore

Similar has happened with the Nimitz videos.

People seem to forget that these crews are the best of the best.

But they are human beings and not perfect.

There is such thing as 'friendly fire' incidents that proves they aren't perfect. Not forgetting Fravor was so incompetent that he forgot to turn his camera on during history's most important UFO incident. Plus of course we hear these guys are "Trained observers". Can anyone point me to a manual that details what observational training military pilots are given to identify unidentified flying objects? Because this F18 WSO seems more interested in taking a snap with a smartphone than dealing with something that may be a threat in his nation's airspace.


Alll that aside this has been covered elsewhere for days.

A high res version of the photo is available archived here : archive.vn...

When zoomed in on it the object appears to look nothing like a cube but a balloon.

Isaac Koi and others believe it looks similar to a batman balloon.

The “balloon” would have to be massive, given the distance from the object. Possibly the size of the aircraft the pilot is in.

I don’t think it’s a balloon.

a reply to: PurpleFox

The “balloon” would have to be massive, given the distance from the object....

How did you ascertain the distance between the plane and the object?

Maybe they should start using peg toys for military flight aptitude tests.

a reply to: mirageman

How did you ascertain the distance between the plane and the object?

It's small so it's far away , simple logic.

Do we have any evidence that the picture shown in this thread is the real one?
It sure does not match the description.

What’s lacking still... is the immediate implementation and deployment of sensors pods and or the use of mounted hi res 4K etc. standard photography and standard video cameras. Yes there are other formats EO, IR, etc.....but I’m talking basic simple shots and video in place of using camera phones.

So far...this is a sensor (shown below) not fully deployed, I assume, to all or most Navy and Air Force squadrons.

Below that, is a camera type that also should be used for the standard photography and standard videos I’m speaking of.....this type of cameras can be revised to be military graded and poded.

originally posted by: RMFX1
This has already been covered. It's Batman party balloon.

EDIT: And by the way, in what world does that even remotely resemble a cube?

And surely no pilot actually thought that was a craft. What kind of sh!t are they trying to pull on the public? If people don’t see the absolute ridiculousness with the whole Tom Delonge fiasco, and this? They aren’t very smart or they want to believe so badly that they’re delusional. The more interesting question is WHY is this being put out there?

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: gortex

How would that thing even fly, there´s no wings. lol.

Case closed.

You never heard of a Flying Body?




files.abovetopsecret.com...

and this from 1950's Britain,

Short's SC1 VTOL, similar profile



files.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: smurfy

The "object" was standing still according to the OP, a flying body require some kind of motion to generate lift.

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: smurfy

The "object" was standing still according to the OP, a flying body require some kind of motion to generate lift.

IF an object is standing still (hovering in place) ... wouldn’t you as a pilot fly orbits around the object and spend more time shooting pictures and or videoing it?

What’s the worst that can happen other than the object (occupants?) see you as a threat and takes you out, or starts to and flies away from you at an incredible speed, or disappears (cloak?).....

There’s no closer approach to the object to investigate here (that we know of, as of yet)...even when an opportunity to do so makes itself available.

There is obviously some confusion as to what are the actual "leaked" images. It appears to have been done on purpose to confuse and obfuscate, but the question is was it done officially or is it the work of a motivated prankster?

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: smurfy

The "object" was standing still according to the OP, a flying body require some kind of motion to generate lift.

IF an object is standing still (hovering in place) ... wouldn’t you as a pilot fly orbits around the object and spend more time shooting pictures and or videoing it?.

That would certainly suggest that it was not considered to be worth the time and jet fuel to get a better look at it, so it was probably mundane. Also probably not the images of tic-tacs and "cubes within orbs" (or was it the other way around?) that have been mentioned.

a reply to: PurpleFox

Even though the enlargement is greatly depreciated, the light and shade on the front surface looks about right for the tonal areas on the Batman balloon.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: mirageman

How did you ascertain the distance between the plane and the object?

It's small so it's far away , simple logic.

Come on, I could make the same picture in minutes with some stock fighter jet photo and picture a plastic bag. Do you have any evidence this is even a real picture?