Cole Squires

@UAPFilesPodcast Jimmy. If that was the unenhanced frame, then why was that the one you displayed in your video while he described the “original/unenhanced” images? And it’s perfectly clear that I’m taking the grey “orb” for comparison, not as the same incident. That shouldn’t be hard to follow.

There’s a basic mix up here, both in terms of Peter’s integrity (which you’re, again, questioning) and the difference between enhanced and unenhanced frames. You’ve taken an enhanced image and then applied comments that were clearly about the unenhanced footage. When he says he went back to the unenhanced version and it was still there—just less clear and only in a few frames—that’s a straightforward verification step. Nothing more. Instead, you’re showing the enhanced frame while quoting that, which is simply misleading. Then you bring in footage from a different event entirely—the grey object—when both Bledsoe and Peter are talking about the green orb. Not the same thing. The name rather gives it away. You’ve then used an out of focus clip of the grey object, tied it to the enhanced green orb footage, and linked that back to Peter’s explanation. That’s not analysis, it’s kinda stitching together a load of misunderstanding. And on top of that, you’ve thrown in an AI-upscaled image without showing the “prompt” or process. Again. All in all, it feels less like a timeline and more like a narrative assembled after the fact. Basically engagement farming.

Debunking @chrisbledsoeufo ’s “green orb with numbers”. #orb #ufo #chrisbledsoe #experiencer #debunked

@TheProjectUnity Dude, depending on the scope of the “Ancient Anomalies through History” presentation, I’ve got some original research on the Manuscript 512 story I could send you. Possible 1st century Berber-Roman contact with Brazil.

Projects i'm working on right now: - Ancient Technologies Episode 7 (Cusco City) - Ancient Britain Roadtrip with Jean-Luc - Ancient Anomalies through history presentation - A scientific examination of my UFO experiences - Ancient Psychoacoustic Architecture & Biophysics

@UAPFilesPodcast Oh, no…Chris/Peter ABSOLUTELY did it in a different way than I did. But the artifact was achieved by the same principles: AI “upscaling/enhancement/interpolation” introduces foreign data. And in the case of point-light bokehs, it always construes them as a sphere/orb.

@cole_squires Didn’t/couldn’t. Debatable. But happy to say someone else couldn’t do it unless they did it your way…which you couldn’t be bothered to do. Yet was replicateble 100% of the time. Makes less and less sense the more you explain it.

Just so I’m clear, the theory’s so far are: It looks a bit like when you put a circle of light through an AI filter. Therefore it must be AI that. - It’s a water droplet - It’s lens fair - It’s footage of a bubble from a kids bubble making toy. - It’s satalites - You can see a reflection of a person sitting down on a chair in it. Sounds super scientific. Of course there is digital enhancement, but that’s vastly different from asking AI to make it look cool. Everything is digital enhancement these days (aside from old school analog/The Cote UFO 😉). Your phones add a digital enhancement. Your DSLR adds digital enhancement. DaVinci, Premier Pro, CapCut…all of them. I’m pretty sure no one that’s taking swipes at Peter Osborne has ever watch his video explaining his process. And yet we all jump on him because some dude made an AI image that looks a bit like. One thing I can tell you for a fact is that he isn’t just whacking the raw footage through an AI filter. I don’t care what theory’s sound good. Or what sphere or ball shaped light source “looks a bit like” ingested in and out of GPT. That’s not a scientific rebuttal - aren’t we past that? Peter has explained a hundred times his process on both the UAP Files Podcast and Truth In Focus UFO YouTube channels. His work is closer to cleaning up VHS films from black and white days (his original area of expertise). He’s not an AI guy. Peter isn’t saying what the object is or what it represents. He’s just cleaning the best frames and stitching them back together. And it takes him days. Yes he’s smooths it out, that can have an “AI look” to it, but that’s not the full picture. I trust Peter a thousand times more than content creators looking for a bombshell for clicks by attacking the integrity of a decent bloke, having never watched his process. Hay, as long as we get them views though, right? I’ve watched him do it. I’ve filmed him doing it.

@UAPFilesPodcast Actually Jimmy, what has happened here is you have ignored (not rebutted) my responses to most of your assertions and simply restated your priors ad nauseam. I didn’t upscale a video because I literally couldn’t be bothered to download a suitable software for it.

This is hard work. Ok, this’ll be a long one, but it’s more for me and helping me with structuring my future video to cover this. You’ve listed various points in different parts of his thread, so to respond first to this video you’ve just linked. That’s my video. It’s my conversation. I know what he said. I spent several hours post-interview editing the video. His “post-enhancement” work isn’t the subject of debate. Look at my last few dozen replies to other people today. I make exactly that point about enhancements. Every digital sensor has artifacts and camera phones have built in AI, as does Premier Pro, DaVinci yada yada yada. Again let’s stick with one thing at a time. This conversation started with you taking a shot at Peter and his integrity around what is and isn’t “RAW”. You then accept that you “maybe” heard that from someone else and not Peter. OK, that’s fine, so do the right thing then? Despite this you haven’t retracted your video questioning the integrity of a good man’s name. I guess because most of your posts are sub 500 views and this one is over 65K. Is a viral video worth a man’s integrity? Kinda shows your integrity tbh. Then the second subject of this conversation is that putting an out of focus distant light through AI has the same result 100% of the time. That’s just not true. I’ve interviewed the world’s leading experts on this stuff and it’s simply nonesense. I did a whole video with literally the world’s lead in UAP data capture and he does a presentation of camera/sensor artifacts for the UAP Files Pod (S2|E47). He’s been on 3 times. I then provide you two examples where it didn’t have the same (or even close) result “every time”. And one of those examples, ironically, was from the video you provided me a link to. One that you didn’t you realise actually featured me. Did make me laugh. Then, to recreate the Bledsoe orb, which is by all accounts at least 340 miles away (most common debunk, which I’m not agreeing with or disagreeing with, is STARLINK satellites misidentified as orbs) - you film a street light 10-20 meters away from you. Slightly less than the 340 miles, but just only just. You also use a different camera at a different angle. He’s going way up (340 miles away/low earth orbit) and you’re filming close to horizontally in a fairly well lit street from that street light. Pretty scientific replication experiment so far. Then you run it though AI (presumable Gemini or GPT or Grok) and state you get the same result 100% of the time, but don’t show any of your work. Don’t show your prompt you used and we have to just trust you. Strangely, a load of people who are usually pretty vigilant, do take your word for it. And you provide no moving images upscaled. Why? Because your AI can’t. It’s really hard to do, isn’t it? That’s why you just showed stills in your video. Not upscale moving images. Because it’s really hard for AI to do that. Kind of evidence that…maybe that’s not what Peter is doing. The reason you won’t be able to show moving upscaled footage is because we’ll be able to compare it to the original and it’ll be all AI hallucination. Won’t match with an overlay of the original. Despite the Bledsoe (and Peter’s now enhancement) orb video being, well, a moving “video”, your experiment with a still image is apparently proof of recreation and repeatability. I then provide two examples where it doesn’t work and you now want to talk about something else, like asking me which video you should watch to see his process identifying that…you haven’t actually watched how he does his work prior to debunking and besmerching his name. Basic due diligence my man. I think that’s it’s, or didn’t miss anything.

@UAPFilesPodcast Well, I’m just a few minutes in and Peter is already describing how he “upscaled it to 4K” and then “put that version into an AI model” to clean it up… If it remains unclear to you how this introduces artifacts, I’m happy to jump on a call some time.

@UAPFilesPodcast Is this a good one to watch to get insight into his process of enhancement? youtu.be/e9AaBHVdj6A?si…

@UAPFilesPodcast @theblackvault If you can’t see the above referenced image for its exact parity with the other 3 examples shown between Bledsoe and myself, I can’t do anything for you. I strongly look forward to seeing your video.

One thing at a time dude. This one is an object in the sky. The debunkers say it’s a misidentified satellite Chris filmed. I don’t know why it is, but it’s a distant point of light he filmed during a sky watching event with various people with him. How can it be different from your AI upscale? My eyes tell me it doesn’t work 100% of the time. It’s ok to say you made a mistake brother. Remember, Peter is a good man. You were wrong about him lying and you’re wrong about the 100% of the time claim. So maybe delete it. It’s tarnishing a good man’s name. Have some integrity my man. Plus it will save me a whole day making a debunking Cole video 😂 because I have so many podcast waiting to be edited, I really don’t have the time.

“Shenanigorb”. 😂 Worth watching. Remember, a video circulated of Chris Bledsoe praising Jesus multiple times and bringing up someone’s deceased daughter all over a SpaceX launch. See this for what it is, and move on. It’s time.

@UAPFilesPodcast @stobing_ktkat23 This is the third, and final, time that I’ll correct you on what my video states. Never once called Peter a liar. I made another video at the time of the green orb and refrained from such an accusation then too. Because he seems earnest. Won’t be following this reaction further✌🏻

I make no comment on Bledsoe. I don’t know him, barely spoken to him other than the odd DM requesting an interview to ask him questions. Pete in the other hands is one of my closest friends. And I know how much of an expert he is in enhancing without “adding” pixels. Your video, which is going viral in the ufo space, calls him a liar. Even though you accept he isn’t now. Are you going to retract your video, or just not bothered?

Chris Bledsoe’s latest shenanigorb. #chrisbledsoe #peterosborne #orb #uap

@UAPFilesPodcast @stobing_ktkat23 Never said he was dishonest. I’ll thank you to not put words in my mouth, brother. I said don’t trust his usage of the words “raw/unedited” because he doesn’t know what they mean.

But if it’s AI then it should happen 100% of the time, right? That’s the basis of your claim he was initially dishonest and now just uniformed. I’ve now provided two examples of how that is not correct. I don’t think he is uninformed. I think he’s as close to an expert as you can get in the enhancement world and everyone else is confused with image enhancements due to an over reliance on AI thinking for them.

@UAPFilesPodcast @theblackvault Forgive the lack of clarity…When I say “point of light”, think “star” or “airplane lights” or “car lamp a half mile away”. And you’re right that this one is less luminous/reflective, but it’s also quite obviously the exact same artifact. Believe your eyes, brother.

You’ve said in your video that this happens 100% of the time. Are you now saying that it only works if you’re aiming at a point of light directly? I’m not sure what you mean. This image is a point of light. And it’s clearly being aimed at in order for the camera for capture it? You’ve also linked to Peter’s enhancement or of Chris Bledsoe’s “numbers orb”. Yet in that image enhanced by Peter it doesn’t have the effect you claim happens “100%” of the time. Peter’s enhancement 👇this was your link by the way. Doesn’t look much like your shiny AI image.

@UAPFilesPodcast @stobing_ktkat23 Crazy that I didn’t look at your name before sending that clip haha. Anyway, I have ZERO doubt that he’s a good man. He genuinely seems it. Just uninformed, as I stated at the end of my video. Bledsoe, however, I strongly suspect of being both dishonest AND uninformed.

@UAPFilesPodcast @stobing_ktkat23 He seems to be referring to the non-color enhanced photo (“no reductionism, just slo-mo”) as the original relevant frame. An interpolated slo-mo is not “original” footage. It’s also clear that AI-driven sharpening was already applied by that point. Not dishonest. Just uninformed.

@UAPFilesPodcast @theblackvault I’m not sure what was originally captured here, but it genuinely has to be a POINT of light to get the result demonstrated. Since my example was a light bulb, I captured it through foliage in the tree, reducing it to a point light—whose bokeh is heteterogeneous.

@cole_squires @theblackvault I see. Yeah didn’t work. Tried it twice. Once with multiple out of focus lights, and once with a single out of focus light source. You say it works EVERY time?

@UAPFilesPodcast Sorry. But it also doesn’t look like a point of light out of focus 🤷🏻‍♂️ What did you capture here?

For me it worked 0% of the time.

@UAPFilesPodcast @stobing_ktkat23 It’s very possible that I heard someone else attribute it as raw/unedited and accepted that Peter would make that assertion because he did so with the green orb in this interview with UAP Files Podcast starting at 01:48 youtu.be/GIgQPUDZVfE?si…

You claimed that Peter has claimed the enhanced images are raw? That doesn’t make an awful lot of sense. Chris takes the video, gives it to Peter to enhance…and you’re saying Peter is claiming once enhanced… the imagery is raw? Can you point me to where Peter says this is raw footage? I’m assuming you have that, considering it’s the basis for calling him a liar?

@UAPFilesPodcast @theblackvault I’ll tell you directly: I uploaded the photo of the out-of-focus light to an AI image generator with the prompt: “Can you up-res this photo for me?” It doesn’t matter how many times you do it. If you’re performing ANY upscaling—round bokeh in -> highly reflective orb out.

Accuracy matters, John. Cole is claiming this footage is “unedited” and that’s not been claimed by Peter Osborne who made the enhancements. The process Peter uses is to take every frame, choose the clearest, clean them, stitch them back together and show people what the end result looks like. This guy is taking some lens flare and throwing it through GPT and it looks similar. That isn’t scientific and we have zero idea how Cole made this explained in his short mockery video. I’ve sat with Peter and watched him work and it’s closer to VHS imagery restoration, which was his original skill.

@michellewysocki @TheProjectUnity @RyanDBledsoe It’d be one thing if this wasn’t the consistent outcome of upscaling on round bokehs. But the occurrence rate is 100%. Couldn’t possibly be what Osborne did with Bledsoe’s videos though, eh?

I’ve seen a bunch of ‘analyses’ by various people online-all different images of reflection (nice try) or now this one and let me tell you I have a feeling these guys couldn’t find a clit if it was infront of their face. Get offline, go see him yourself (not in a group of 1000s) and you’ll know (I did) and stop wasting your time circle debunking all day.

We’ve been getting a lot of questions about how dad made these videos! It’s actually quite simple. First, you humble your heart before God and the Holy Spirit. Then, you say a little prayer asking if they would be willing to give you a sign. Finally, you just point the camera up at the subject and record once it materializes! High definition camera recommended! “We will bring you cameras and witnesses to help you show the world”- The Lady

@savageorphan @TheProjectUnity @RyanDBledsoe You misunderstand. Jay has had orb experiences before, and he’s shared that publicly. At least one pretty dramatic experience, in fact. He’s not calling the phenomenon into question. He’s just saying the Bledsoes’ methodology of recording and “enhancing” yields meaningless images

A nuke? I dont think you understand either things. The Bledsoe video, the fake “debunk”, or even the scale differences between a nuke and a bombshell. Its easy to sit on the net and trash talk videos. Go out and humble yourself, ask for a sign with love in your heart. Cause skeptics see what fits their beliefs. Good luck

@stobing_ktkat23 Point to one of the videos posted by him or his crowd attendees that shows an object like this without “enhancement”.

@cole_squires He posts videos often, with crowds, on the beach, in open air. There is no comparison. You are wrong.