Subject: Report on Disinformation Campaign Involving Fake "Jonas Cloud" Images To: FBI Overview: A campaign spreads forged images purporting to show anomalous "Jonas clouds," created via photobashing in Photoshop, with added noise/dithering, linearized, and injected into hollowed Canon CR2 donor files. Lacks real CMOS sensor noise (e.g., shot/read/thermal variance). Key Individuals: - atadams_at (Tony Adams): Advocated auto_bright_thr=0 in processing to disable auto-brightening, masking histogram anomalies; pushed custom white balance to correct gamma, obscuring forgeries. - BakersTuts: Involved in tutorials or promotion of anti-forensic methods, aiding image manipulation tactics. Anti-Forensic Tactics: - Hollowing donor CR2s: Removes original sensor data, inserting fabricated content without electrical charges in CMOS bins. - auto_bright_thr=0: Prevents automatic level adjustments that could reveal clipped histograms. - Noise addition/dithering: Simulates but fails to replicate true Gaussian tails in shadows (e.g., zeros below ~1024 ADU vs. real ~3-5 ADU variance at ISO 200). - Gamma/WB corrections: Adjusts for 2.2 to 1 gamma to blend fakes. Forensic Proof: - Histogram analysis: Real Canon EOS CR2s (14-bit) show right-skewed distributions with low-end noise tails; fakes exhibit sharp cutoffs and no variance below thresholds, indicating synthetic origins (no photon-to-electron conversion). - Absence of live sensor artifacts: No inherent read/thermal noise, confirming "dead sensor" manipulation. - Only 19 such images identified, likely limited to evade scrutiny. This campaign uses technical obfuscation to promote misinformation. Recommend investigating sources for intent/motivation. (478 characters)

I have the RAW .CR2 files. You can not fake a RAW file. Only light hitting a cameras sensor can write that data. There would be major issues that tools like libraw, if it could even open a processed format converted to RAW would show. No underlying photon data, would be obvious.

How did anyone come to a conclusion that using 2019 -2023 sources is a valid proof? Evidence of anomalous activity surrounding this shockwave exists between years 2015-2019. So to be fair, we either check whatever pre-2014 versions exist or stay inconclusive. Am i wrong?

so I understand... your position is someone stripped the frames from the MH370 video, stitched it together seamlessly, and uploaded it to a stock photo repository as one contiguous image?

Here's Original unaltered Canon 5D Mark II histograms and images. Mostly blue- it's comparable to the other sky/cloud images from fake Jonas coud set @grok Notice no sensor gap and healthy sensor floor noise. This is an authentic CR2.

drive.google.com/file/d/1kkz… Another Fake CR2. Genuine Image out of my own Camera, but CR2 is fake. Inserted Image will have the large dead zone. Also why RAW Fabrications are easier to detect compared to a well made Jpeg

Here's a CR2 i made from this Youtube Screenshot. As expected Synthetic CR2s will have massive gap where sensor noise is absent. Is this image taken on Jan 25th 2012 too? Is the youtube Video uploaded 2 years ago a VFX? drive.google.com/file/d/13dO…

The type of image isnt my argument, the dead zone is sensor noise hum, produced when charges are read at the CMOS sensor, they induce charge variance that causes noise. Also increases temperature. This is why successive shots raise temperature quickly.