 |
Keep your eye on the sky. Look up! Source: Pixabay by PhotoVision
eXtra-ordinary Cypress Hills Paranormal
High Strangeness
Maple Creek, SK UFO/UAP forensic investigation using
ChatGPT plus AI
July 6, 2025 10:07:08 AM
Experiencer and photographer: Charles Kuss
The following images show a possible UFO/UAP as a small white dot in the upper right of the image. The object was visible only in two images taken in rapid succession and must have appeared while the images were being taken. There was nothing in the sky to catch my attention, and I noticed the object only after reviewing the photos.
The object is moving diagonally up the image towards the top right corner of the image. It doesn’t appear to be a bird because, if you compare the two images, it moved quite a distance in less than a second. Enlarging the image shows something other than a bird (seagull or tern), dirt, a plane, a drone or a jet. No jet or plane noises were heard. It could be a high-altitude weather balloon or even a party balloon; however, the large distance travelled in less than a second dispels the notion that it’s a balloon of any kind. There was a moderate breeze. How far out the object was when it was photographed is difficult to estimate. At the time, it seemed more than a kilometre. The object profile does resemble a structure of some sort. A forensic look at the two images using ChatGPT Plus AI revealed something very striking. Detailed analysis and a summary can be found below.
 |
Image 9815 1st Ave and Lonsdale St Maple Creek, SK, looking NWW. |
 |
Enlargement (Max. 400X) of the object in image 9815. |
 |
Image 9816 |
 |
Enlargement (Max. 400X) of the object in image 9816. |
Summary and conclusion:
What’s in question in the two images isn’t the object, but the distance it travelled in such a short period of time (0.13 sec) between takes. The actual distance of the object from the photographer was difficult to determine, and at the time was estimated to be more than a kilometre. I misinformed ChatGPT of the wind speed. Going back to the weather history of that day, it was not a calm day; the wind was from the NW at 11-13 km/h, World Weather. According to ChatGPT, the difference in wind speed didn’t change the conclusion of the results. There was also the possibility of solar panel reflections from the ISS or China’s (Tiangong) space station. The ISS solar panel array is large enough to produce a possible noticeable daytime effect, but its orbital position timing was off, and an important statistic to keep in mind: at a distance of 380-400 km, it’s travelling at 7.7 km/s (27,600 km/h). Tiangong is too small to have a daytime visual effect, and its orbital position was also off. Initially, ChatGPT analyzed the object as a high-altitude weather balloon or even a party balloon, but as we shall see, it’s clearly not a balloon of any kind. Enlarging the object revealed it lacked a distinctive form, but it did rule out birds, aeroplanes, jets, flying objects and debris.
When ChatGPT asked for the full resolution of the original two images, the metadata of the images, and the make and model of the camera. The conclusion changed dramatically, and it confirmed my initial hypothesis with very little doubt. Man-made terrestrial and extra-terrestrial objects (satellites, space stations) can be ruled out. Celestial objects (planets, stars) can be ruled out. As mentioned before, it was difficult to determine the range of the object in the two images. A detailed systematic analysis of the object as we fan outwards revealed that at a range of 500 m, to cover the distance identified between the two images in 0.13 seconds, its speed would be approximately 1360 km/h; at a range of 1km, the speed would be 2,720 km/h; and at 380-400 km range, a staggering 290-300 km/s or 1.0-1.1 million km/h. Travelling at those speeds, we can rule out all possible candidates for the object, with only one exception: that it is an exotic electro-gravitic vehicle, either man-made or off-world. If we go with the testimonies from covert Military-Industrial-Complex whistleblowers interviewed by Dr. Steven Greer, the majority of the UFO/UAPs people see in the sky or have interacted with are man-made, and there is a 75-80% chance the object seen in the images was a man-made object.
9/20/2026 detailed forensic analysis report using ChatGPT Plus AI
The photographs were not approximately one second apart as originally thought. They were taken only 0.13 seconds apart [the camera was set to take two photos in rapid succession].
The Canon EXIF [EXIF or Exchangeable Image File Format. It is a standardised way of storing useful metadata in digital image files, and it holds a wealth of technical information about how the image was created, including the time and date it was taken, the camera and lens that was used, and the shooting settings-Canon website]. records IMG_9815 at 10:07:08.70 and IMG_9816 at 10:07:08.83. That is a measured interval of 0.13 s.
I [ChatGPT Plus] also registered the stationary background between the two original 5184 × 3888 images using more than 5,000 matching background features. That allows the object's movement to be separated from the small movement of the handheld camera.
Report on IMG_9815 and IMG_9816
These are unequivocally two different exposures, not duplicate copies of one image. The EXIF subsecond times differ, the camera viewpoint shifts slightly, clouds/background details correspond appropriately, and the bright object occupies substantially different positions.
The camera information in both originals is:
Parameter |
IMG_9815 |
IMG_9816 |
|---|---|---|
Camera |
Canon PowerShot SX540 HS |
Same |
Resolution |
5184 × 3888 |
Same |
Time |
10:07:08.70 |
10:07:08.83 |
Interval |
— |
0.13 seconds |
Focal length |
4.3 mm |
4.3 mm |
Exposure |
1/1000 s |
1/1000 s |
Aperture |
f/4.5 |
f/4.5 |
ISO |
80 |
80 |
1. The movement is real within the images
At full resolution, I [Chat GPT plus] locate the object's center at approximately:
IMG_9815:
x = 4246, y = 893
IMG_9816:
x = 4501, y = 488
Simply subtracting those isn't quite correct because the camera moved slightly.
I [ChatGPT Plus] therefore registered the second photograph against the first using the houses, trees and other stationary terrestrial features. The registration produced 5,166 inlier feature matches, which is an unusually strong basis for correcting the camera movement.
After that correction, the object moved approximately:
250
pixels to the right
400
pixels upward
for a resultant displacement of approximately:
472 pixels in 0.13 seconds.
That movement is vastly greater than our measurement uncertainty.
So I [ChatGPT Plus] am confident about this conclusion:
The bright object changed angular position significantly between the two independent exposures. It is not an apparent displacement caused simply by you moving the camera.
2. Angular movement
Using the SX540 HS lens at its recorded 4.3 mm focal length, the registered positions correspond to approximately:
5.6° of angular displacement
in only:
0.13 seconds
That corresponds to an average apparent angular rate of roughly:
43° per second
That's quite rapid.
This is a much stronger result than our earlier calculation based on your initial recollection of approximately one second.
3. What does that mean at 500+ metres?
This is where your observation that the object was definitely more than 500 m away becomes very important.
At 500 m, an angular displacement of ~5.6° corresponds to approximately 49 metres of transverse displacement.
But it accomplished that in only 0.13 seconds.
Therefore:
49 m ÷ 0.13 s ≈ 378 m/s
or approximately:
1,360 km/h (845 mph)
at 500 metres.
And 500 m is your minimum estimated distance.
Approximately:
Assumed range |
Transverse speed |
|---|---|
250 m |
~680 km/h |
500 m |
~1,360 km/h |
750 m |
~2,040 km/h |
1 km |
~2,720 km/h |
2 km |
~5,440 km/h |
5 km |
~13,600 km/h |
These figures should not be interpreted as a determination of the object's actual speed because the photographs cannot establish its range. They are the transverse speeds required if the corresponding range is correct.
But there's an important logical consequence:
Moving the object farther away does not solve the speed problem. It makes the required speed greater.
4. The balloon hypothesis
With the information we now have, an ordinary freely drifting balloon at 500+ metres is extremely difficult to reconcile with the measured angular motion.
At your stated minimum distance, it would require roughly 1,360 km/h transverse motion, not the ~100–200 km/h we were estimating when we thought the photographs were a second apart.
A passive balloon cannot independently generate that velocity. It would have to be carried by air moving at essentially that speed.
Consequently, given your conditions of:
more than 500 m distance + calm weather + 0.13-second interval,
an ordinary drifting balloon is not consistent with the measured motion.
If the distance assumption is wrong and the object was actually very close to the camera, a lightweight airborne object becomes much easier to explain. That's why range remains the biggest unresolved variable.
5. Bird/insect possibilities
The same distinction applies here.
A nearby insect can cross a large angular distance extraordinarily quickly without possessing extraordinary physical speed. That's always a serious possibility when examining a tiny unidentified object in a photograph.
However, you've told me that you judge the object to have been more than 500 m away. The images themselves cannot independently prove that range.
The full-resolution object also isn't a giant amorphous foreground blur. Its high-contrast portion is roughly 10–20 pixels across, depending on where we define its boundary, with a larger low-contrast halo.
At 1/1000 second, gross motion smearing is also substantially reduced.
I [ChatGPT Plus] therefore wouldn't claim from the images that this is an insect. Conversely, I [ChatGPT Plus] can't use the photographs to rule one out conclusively because we have no stereoscopic range measurement.
A bird at 500+ m encounters the same velocity problem as the balloon: the measured angular displacement would require an implausibly high bird velocity.
6. The object itself
The full-resolution originals reveal more than the reduced versions did, but there still isn't enough spatial information to identify a physical structure.
Using a reasonably strong brightness threshold, I [ChatGPT Plus] measure approximately:
IMG_9815:
~15 × 11 pixels
IMG_9816:
~18 × 15 pixels
The fainter brightness envelope is larger—roughly 20–30 pixels.
The second appearance is therefore somewhat broader than the first.
But I [ChatGPT Plus] don't regard that as reliable evidence that the physical object grew, approached the camera, or changed shape. We're still dealing with very few pixels. Atmospheric effects, focus, subpixel positioning, JPEG processing and orientation can all change the apparent footprint.
There's a particularly important point here:
We cannot legitimately reconstruct the object's actual shape.
There isn't enough information in 10–20 pixels to determine whether the source was spherical, disc-shaped, aircraft-shaped, irregular, etc. AI enhancement couldn't recover those missing details either—it would invent them.
So I [ChatGPT Plus] have made you a forensic rendering instead: it enlarges the actual pixels from each original photograph in two different ways, rather than imagining what the object might have looked like.
View the full-resolution forensic rendering
The upper pair is nearest-neighbour enlargement, so you're essentially looking at the actual camera pixels enlarged without invented intermediate detail. The lower pair uses bicubic interpolation simply to make the recorded brightness distribution easier to see.
7. What the lack of sound tells us
This is interesting but not decisive.
At the 500 m minimum distance, our inferred transverse speed is already around 378 m/s. That's around the speed-of-sound regime under ordinary atmospheric conditions.
If it really were a conventional physical craft travelling at that speed and sufficiently close, one might reasonably expect substantial acoustic effects.
But I would not conclude from the absence of sound that it therefore wasn't a conventional aircraft. Sound propagation, trajectory, altitude, background noise, where the object was relative to you, and the fact that you weren't consciously watching it all matter.
You also didn't notice the object until reviewing the photographs afterward, so you weren't specifically listening for a sound associated with it.
Thus:
“No sound” is an observation worth retaining in the report, not proof of a particular propulsion system or type of object.
8. What I [ChatGPT Plus] think we can establish from the evidence
There are several things I [ChatGPT Plus] consider high confidence now.
First: These are two separate photographs, IMG_9815 and IMG_9816, taken 0.13 seconds apart.
Second: The small bright object is present in a different location in each photograph.
Third: registering thousands of stationary background features shows that camera movement does not account for that displacement.
Fourth: the object's corrected angular displacement is approximately 5.6° in 0.13 seconds, or roughly 43°/second.
Fifth: if the object was genuinely at least 500 m away, its transverse speed was consequently on the order of 1,300–1,400 km/h or greater.
That fifth conclusion is conditional on the distance. The photographs give us angle extremely well; they do not give us range.
The most important unresolved question
Everything now hinges on distance.
There is a very large difference between:
“It looked like it was more than 500 m away [my estimate of the distance to keep ChatGPT happy since balloons came up]”
and “Independent geometry demonstrates that it was more than 500 m away.”
If we could establish the latter, these photographs would become considerably more interesting because the nearby-insect/nearby-debris explanation would largely disappear while the measured angular velocity would remain.
Given your recollection of calm conditions, no audible sound, and a distance beyond 500 m, I [ChatGPT Plus] would describe the object as unidentified from these two photographs. I [ChatGPT Plus] would not call it a balloon, bird, aircraft, drone, or anything more exotic because the pixels simply don't contain enough structural information to justify such an identification.
But the full-resolution analysis does establish something much stronger than we had before:
Whatever produced the two bright images changed its line of sight by about 5.6° in only 0.13 seconds. If it was more than 500 metres away, that corresponds to an exceptionally high transverse velocity.
And that is now based on the two original Canon files, their subsecond timestamps, their recorded focal length, and registration of the stationary scene—not the resized copies or an assumed one-second interval.
9/21/2026 3:39 PM
ME: I did misinform you about the wind, it was a light to moderate breeze from the NW 13Km/h, does that change anything?
No. It changes the balloon/wind comparison slightly, but it does not materially change the conclusions from the two photographs.
A 13 km/h NW breeze means that a freely drifting balloon could reasonably have a horizontal velocity on roughly that order, depending on the wind at its actual altitude. Ground-level wind also doesn't tell us exactly what the wind was doing hundreds of metres higher.
But compare that with what we measured from the photographs. The two exposures are 0.13 seconds apart, with approximately 5.6° of angular displacement. At your stated minimum range of 500 m, that corresponds to roughly 49 m of transverse movement in 0.13 s, or about 1,360 km/h. A 13 km/h wind would move a passive object only about 0.47 m during 0.13 seconds.
So at 500 m, the observed displacement is roughly 100 times greater than we'd expect from a balloon simply drifting at 13 km/h.
There is another useful way of looking at it. If an object were moving at only 13 km/h (3.6 m/s) and traversed the observed ~5.6° in 0.13 seconds, the geometry would place it only around 5 metres from the camera, not 500+ metres away. That's exactly the sort of geometry that could potentially fit a nearby lightweight object, insect, etc.—but not your stated observation that the object was more than 500 m distant.
The NW wind direction could potentially give us one additional test. If we can determine the camera's viewing direction when you took these photographs, we can compare the object's apparent direction of travel with the expected downwind direction. That could tell us whether its movement was even consistent with something passively carried by that NW breeze.
So I would amend the report from “calm conditions” to “light-to-moderate NW breeze, approximately 13 km/h.” I would not change the principal conclusion: if the object was genuinely ≥500 m distant, ordinary wind drift cannot account for the measured angular displacement.
9/21/2026 6:11 PM
ME: The images are pointing in a NWW direction. What are the chances it's the solar panels reflecting sunlight off the ISS or the Chinese space station?
It’s worth checking, but based on the measurements from your two originals, the ISS or Tiangong looks very unlikely.
The decisive issue is angular speed, not their enormous orbital speed. We measured the bright object's apparent displacement at about 5.6° in 0.13 s, or roughly 43° per second. The ISS is about 400 km up and travels about 7.7 km/s. NASA material gives an overhead angular motion on the order of ~1° per second, varying with pass geometry. Tiangong is in a broadly similar low-Earth orbit—roughly 380–400 km altitude and ~7.7 km/s—so it would have the same order of apparent motion.
So over 0.13 seconds, a space station would ordinarily move only around 0.1–0.2°, whereas the object in these photographs appears to move about 5.6°. That's roughly tens of times too much angular displacement for either station.
There's another strike against the ISS specifically: your photographs were taken at 10:07 AM in full daylight. NASA says the ISS is visible because it reflects sunlight, but normally isn't bright enough to be seen by the naked eye during daytime; normal viewing opportunities occur around dawn or dusk. A photograph can sometimes record something the eye misses, and a specular reflection can briefly brighten a satellite, so daylight alone doesn't absolutely rule out a satellite—but it makes the ISS explanation less natural.
The solar panels could indeed produce reflected sunlight. The ISS has very large solar arrays—NASA gives about 2,247 m² of array area. But a solar glint changes brightness, not the spacecraft's orbital angular velocity. A glint therefore can't explain the ~5.6° positional difference between these two frames if we're tracking the same object.
Your NWW viewing direction is potentially very useful, though. We have the date (July 6, 2025), time (10:07:08.70–08.83 AM), approximate viewing direction (NWW), and the camera evidence. If we establish the photograph's location closely enough, we can reconstruct where the ISS and Tiangong actually were in the sky at that exact second. That would let us rule them in or out geometrically rather than just saying they're unlikely from the angular speed.
ME: Can we do that?
Yes. We can do a proper historical orbital check against both the ISS (NORAD 25544) and Tiangong/Tianhe (NORAD 48274). Historical TLE archives contain orbital elements from the relevant period, so we can reconstruct where each station was at the moment your Canon recorded the photographs.
We already have nearly everything needed: July 6, 2025; 10:07:08.70 and 10:07:08.83 local time; 0.13-second separation; and approximately NWW camera direction. I just need the city/location where the photographs were taken, because the stations' azimuth and elevation depend on the observer's position on Earth. City-level location is sufficient for this test; I don't need your street address.
Once we have that, I'll compare the reconstructed azimuth, elevation, illumination and apparent movement of both stations against the bright object in IMG_9815 and IMG_9816. That should let us say quite definitively whether either station was anywhere near your camera's field of view at 10:07:08.
ME: Town location is Maple Creek, SK, Canada.
Yes. Maple Creek gives us a usable observing location: approximately 49.906° N, 109.48° W.
And I found a useful independent historical check. Published July 2025 observing predictions show that on July 6, 2025, the relevant ISS and Tiangong passes occurred during the overnight/early-morning hours. For example, Tiangong had a pass around 4:03–4:07 AM MDT, while ISS passes included approximately 1:00–1:03 AM and 4:15–4:20 AM MDT.
Your Canon photographs were taken at:
10:07:08.70 AM and 10:07:08.83 AM MDT
—that is roughly six hours after those morning passes.
This isn't yet a Maple-Creek-specific orbital propagation, so I don't want to overstate it. But it is already strong evidence that neither the ISS nor Tiangong was the photographed object. A low-Earth-orbit station completes an orbit in roughly 92–93 minutes; CelesTrak currently lists periods of about 92.95 minutes for ISS and 92.30 minutes for Tiangong. The stations therefore don't simply remain in the same part of the Saskatchewan sky for hours.
More importantly, our image measurement provides an independent incompatibility: the photographed object shifted approximately 5.6° in 0.13 seconds (~43°/s). A spacecraft hundreds of kilometres away in low Earth orbit cannot produce anything close to that apparent angular rate from Maple Creek. A solar-panel glint could make a station suddenly bright, but it cannot make its apparent position jump several degrees in 0.13 seconds.
So I think we can now put:
ISS — inconsistent with the observations
Tiangong
— inconsistent with the observations
rather than treating either as a leading explanation.
For a definitive historical reconstruction, the next step would be obtaining the archived orbital element sets nearest July 6, 2025 and propagating both objects to 16:07:08.70 UTC (10:07 MDT) from Maple Creek. Space-Track maintains historical GP/TLE data specifically for this purpose.
That's worth doing because we'd get actual azimuth and elevation for each station at the precise instant of IMG_9815/9816, rather than relying on nearby pass predictions.
At 380-400 km how fast would the object in the photograph be travelling?
Using the motion we've measured from the two original photographs—approximately 5.6° in 0.13 seconds—we can calculate it.
For an assumed slant distance RR, the transverse distance is approximately:
d=Rtan(5.6∘)d = R\tan(5.6^\circ)
At 380 km
380×tan(5.6∘)≈37.3 km380 \times \tan(5.6^\circ) \approx 37.3\text{ km}
in 0.13 seconds:
37.3/0.13≈287 km/s37.3 / 0.13 \approx 287\text{ km/s}
That's approximately 1,033,000 km/h (642,000 mph).
At 400 km
400×tan(5.6∘)≈39.2 km400 \times \tan(5.6^\circ) \approx 39.2\text{ km}
in 0.13 seconds:
39.2/0.13≈302 km/s39.2 / 0.13 \approx 302\text{ km/s}
or approximately 1,086,000 km/h (675,000 mph).
So if the object really were 380–400 km from the camera, the measured image motion would imply roughly:
290–300 km per second
≈ 1.0–1.1 million km/h
For comparison, the ISS travels only about 7.7 km/s (~27,600 km/h). The photographed object's inferred transverse velocity at that range would therefore be roughly 38–39 times the ISS's orbital velocity.
One qualification: 380–400 km is the stations' altitude, not necessarily their distance from you. Unless directly overhead, their slant range would be greater than their altitude—which would make the inferred velocity even higher.
So this reinforces the earlier conclusion: if our 5.6°/0.13-s measurement is correct, the object cannot plausibly be the ISS or Tiangong at orbital distance.
 |
ChatGPT’s rendering based on the images provided. |
 |
ChatGPT’s initial analysis without the original images, metadata and camera information. |
Created: 2025-07-19
Updated: 2026-09-22
Charles Kuss
