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 each image. The object is 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. It confirmed my initial
hypothesis with very little doubt. Any known 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: 2026-09-26
Charles
Kuss
