Clear and undeniable evidence of image manipulation by Jonas De Ro, known for his cloud brushes and visual effects (VFX). The acceptance of such deceitful practices reflects the decaying ethical standards of our society.

I hate to admit it, but AF makes a great point. The 4- day-old anonymous Reddit account who “recognized” the cloud images from the Textures website is definitely sus. Textures’ API is wack and doesn’t prove anything one way or the other. They offered no proof the photos existed prior to 2014. Jonas’ images are clearly contested, but Textures refuses to share their logs. They refuse to share anything actually, except to an elite few. We are supposed to blindly trust them. And blindly trust Jonas (the known photobasher who specializes in clouds). I hate this topic and UFOlogy in general so much. Liars, grifters, and dishonest hoaxers.

For anyone navigating sensitive topics, following this advice is the only way to drive past the noise and gain actual traction.

I want to apologize once again to @arwenevenstarr_ for sharing an edited file without verification, wrongly claiming it came from a vetted source, and for how I handled the situation afterward. I also want to be clear that @arwenevenstarr_ acted in good faith and with integrity. She has consistently shown fairness and care for the truth, and she should never have been pulled into this. I should have taken responsibility more clearly and sooner, and I regret the confusion and stress my actions caused.

For clarity, i dont know why anyone needs to edit the initial frames and introduce a mismatch between frame 4 and 5. This is odd.

I want to publicly apologize to Arwen. I made the mistake of forwarding a fabricated file without verifying it first, and I take full responsibility for that. I’m truly sorry. For clarity: if any editing had been done, frames 5 and onward wouldn’t need to be mismatched since they came from one file. If someone edited only the initial frames, there wouldn’t be a mismatch between frames 4 and 5.

To all debunkers/scammers overlords making a living out of planted fakes and disinformation contracts (MW). This pyromania shockwave, Jonas fake image scam is too obvious, throwing more debunkers at me isnt going to fix it. Hopefully your next scam is well thought through. Do better next time, i know you will. This one's exposed.

Pyromania debunker scam. Why are they so desperate to make these videos disappear? How strongly do they believe the videos are real that they go this far, planting evidence and scrubbing anything that could expose the fraud? The debunker scammers inserted a static satellite video background into the initial progressive shockwave frames. A frozen background inside a dynamic blast wave is a dead giveaway. It is crude manipulation and it exposes the scam instantly.

Check how scammers lie to protect their manipulated assets. Their entire effort for years is dedicated on making these videos disappear.

Your wild woody frame is fake. someone has added a pixelated mask of the gorgon stare zap on top of it in red pixels. left image is your faked image, right image is same frame taken from wild woody video, both brightened 150%. @ashtonforbes

@adams_at claims he only uses Pond5 2009. I asked why his "Original Frame 4", differs from his linked Pond5 pond5.com/stock-footage/item… (archive 05/21) Instead of responding, he made false claims about me & blocked me. was he caught with deceptive images? I think so. convo in thread

A great post to start digging into scammer debunker tactics and planted evidences.

The planted fake jonas image set. Yes we have the hard proof they're fake. Most proof that's visual is already on my profile. Legit PRNU results show no two images from this set match (as in sourced from a camera) Proof jonas images were made outside the camera, around Dec 2015 and inserted into a dummy CR2 using libcraw2 is available upon meeting conditions of release.

Is Bill Panagouleas running the new Pond5 Pyromania account? Did he modify the Shockwave file currently being hosted? Is Peter Kuran (VCE, Inc) aware that someone has altered his Shockwave effect?

What’s troubling is not 3I/ATLAS itself it’s the disconnect between public messaging and institutional behavior. On the public side, 3I/ATLAS is downplayed as routine, unremarkable, and fully understood. Anomalies like the persistent sunward jet are barely mentioned, if at all, in official briefings. The narrative is: nothing to see here. Behind the curtain, - however, we see planetary-defense exercises scaling up, international coordination drills being run, and contingency frameworks quietly stress-tested. Those two realities do not align. If the object is truly benign and fully explained, then transparency should increase not decrease. If the behavior is anomalous but low-risk, the public still deserves clear disclosure of what is known, what is uncertain, and what is being modeled. Ignoring anomalies doesn’t make science safer. It makes it incomplete. History shows that progress comes from confronting what doesn’t fit not burying it to preserve confidence. Planning defense while publicly minimizing curiosity erodes trust, whether the object is dangerous or not. The issue is no longer “Is 3I/ATLAS a threat?” The issue is why open scientific discussion stops exactly where the questions begin. Preparedness should be transparent. Science should be honest. And anomalies should never be treated as public-relations problems.

If anyone's still interested in VCE's and scammer shockwave- here's some more research.

RT @arwenevenstarr_: He blocked me because I used his own logic against him. Too bad, I thought we were friends. Anyway, according to thi…