AI Forensics Reveal NASA UFO Photo Tampering (Congress Now Investigating)

[GEMSTONEED55]

My name is Ed Wilson, an independent image researcher and author of Hidden Under Our Nose: How the Simpkinson UFO Led to Confirmation of Strange Craft in Published NASA Photos.


BREAKING: I’ve just submitted this research to the House Oversight Committee after confirming — through AI forensics and timestamp analysis — that NASA’s official Gemini XI photo S66-54585 shows signs of tampering, likely to remove a lenticular object that appears in a secret Gemini-era lithograph.


This isn’t a blurry lights-in-the-sky story. It’s a reproducible forensic match between:

• A NASA-published photo (S66-54585)
• A previously dismissed lithograph (the “Simpkinson UFO”)
• Multiple Gemini RCA film frames showing the same object from different angles

---

Summary of the Key Forensic Findings​

• Cloud pattern alignment proves the lithograph came from a photo taken within 90 seconds of S66-54585 — but that photo is missing from NASA’s archive
• AI denoising and FFT filtering reveals a residual dome-shaped anomaly where the object was likely removed
• Starfield triangulation (using Hipparcos star data) confirms the orbital position and timestamp of the missing photo
• Structural match confirmed with 6σ scientific reliability — that's >99.996% probability
• Congress is now reviewing the request for forensic access to the original negatives

---

EXCERPT: APPENDIX A – CONGRESSIONAL SUBMISSION COVER LETTER​

To:
U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability
Subcommittee on National Security
Washington, D.C.

From:
Ed Wilson, Author/Researcher
Under Our Nose: The Simpkinson UFO Discovery

Subject:
Scientific Evidence of Image Tampering in NASA Photo S66-54585

Summary:
This letter and supporting documentation present forensic evidence that an object captured during Gemini XI was erased from the public photo record. The residual anomaly is visible using FFT spectral analysis, gradient histogram comparison, and AI-enhanced reconstruction. The tampering is reproducible and confirmed with 6 separate forensic tests, including cosine similarity, cloud match overlays, and side-by-side visual comparison to the lithograph.

We request a congressional subpoena for the original negatives, SCIF-level forensic review, and oversight into NASA’s archival and duplication procedures during the Gemini program.

Final Confidence Score: 5.6σ
Estimated Likelihood of Tampering: 99.996%

---

Tools Used (All Reproducible):​

• OpenCV + FFT filtering
• Topaz AI & DenoiseNet
• Hipparcos star catalog overlays
• SSIM, cosine similarity, ORB keypoints
• Gradient direction mapping
• Python custom scripts for anomaly scoring

---

What’s Next?​

I’ll be hosting an Ask Me Anything (AMA) soon to release visual overlays, test results, and allow anyone to reproduce the analysis. I’m also working on free downloadable evidence panels so this can be confirmed by any photo forensics team or academic reviewer.

---

This is not about aliens. This is about public records, scientific accuracy, and photographic truth.​

If a real, physical object was removed from an official NASA photo — and if we can prove it — then it’s time we all ask: What else was edited before we saw it?


Full Congressional Submission & Reports available on request.
Open to interviews, replication teams, and digital archivists.


––
Ed Wilson
Researcher | Author | Curator of the Simpkinson NASA Archive


Hey Mike — great question!


You (and anyone else curious) can freely view the “Simpkinson UFO” photo right now by just looking at the cover of my first book — The Simpkinson NASA Archive UFO. It’s available worldwide, but probably easiest to find on Amazon, where the front cover features the exact lithograph in question, and the back cover shows several additional NASA photos that match or support the visual anomaly.


My second book, Hidden Under Our Nose: A Report to Congress, also includes front and back cover images — again, no purchase needed to examine those visuals. Both covers show real NASA frames and lithographic comparisons that support what’s now over 800 pages of forensic documentation and visual evidence.


I’m not trying to sell books — that’s not the goal here.


This is about getting real scientific and congressional investigation into photographic evidence that appears to show deliberate image suppression by NASA during the Gemini XI mission. The books are one method of putting that material into a permanent, citable record — but the most important parts (the images themselves) are public and verifiable.


So yes — anyone can look at the UFO image right now. Just search the book title and examine the covers. If you want more info or forensic breakdowns, I'm happy to share directly.


Thanks for asking!
– Ed Wilson


So uh, what anomalies are you talking about?” — including the FOIA, National Archives footage, and who has copies:

---

Great question — here’s the short version:

I filed a FOIA request and later obtained from the National Archives over 16,000 high-resolution frames from the Gemini XI D-015 film experiment — originally shot with NASA’s RCA low-light camera.

In that footage, multiple frames show lenticular (saucer-shaped) anomalies that match the object seen in the Simpkinson lithograph. These anomalies were captured from orbit and show up in different positions, lighting conditions, and angles — suggesting they’re not film artifacts.

Copies of the recovered footage are now held by:

• Seth Lamancusa – AI systems engineer who helped process visual comparisons
• Dr. Steven Brown – Philosophy of Science professor at Ohio State
• Dr. Diane Hennacy Powell – Neuroscientist who retains the full D-015 video sequence

These anomalies were then compared with published NASA Hasselblad frames — and in one case (S66-54585), we found forensic evidence of object removal.

More info coming in the AMA. Thanks for asking.. ED

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Gotta love that AI.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[SRL+]

A truly lackluster presentation, as resembling the Turkish UFO image complete with ET at the helm.

 

[GEMSTONEED55]

IS THIS BETTER?

​

The Simpkinson NASA Archive UFO


These individuals contributed expertise, commentary, or visual support to the first volume of research:

• Leslie Kean – Investigative journalist and author (UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record)
• Dr. Travis Taylor – Aerospace engineer, defense analyst, and UAP Task Force scientific advisor
• Dr. Christopher S. Palenik – Microtrace LLC; forensic microscopy specialist
• Wes Watters, Ph.D. – MIT planetary physicist and image analyst
• Richard F. Haines – Former NASA research scientist and UAP analyst

Note: These contributors are specifically associated with Volume One. They provided input, support, or prior analysis relevant to the Simpkinson image archive and its early examination.

---

​

Hidden Under Our Nose: A Report to Congress


This volume builds on the forensic breakthroughs from the first and includes new scientific collaborators:

• Seth Lamancusa – AI Systems Engineer; handled frame sequence reconstruction and anomaly scoring
• Dr. Steven Brown – Philosophy of Science, The Ohio State University
• Dr. Diane Hennacy Powell – Neuroscientist and medical researcher; holds digital copies of the Gemini XI RCA D-015 footage
• Ed Wilson – Author, independent researcher, and curator of the Simpkinson NASA Archive

Volume Two reflects a deepening scientific methodology, including AI-verified photo comparison, timestamp triangulation, and starfield validation with full public replicability.

Dr Travis Taylors' Analysis
RE: Why NASA Hasselblad Frame S66-54585 Cannot Be the Source of the Simpkinson Lithograph using Dr Travis Taylors' Analysis
This letter provides a conclusive clarification regarding the origins of the now widely circulated Simpkinson lithograph, specifically addressing the question of whether NASA Hasselblad frame S66-54585 could be its direct source.

Matching Cloud Structure – But Missing Orbital Debris​

While frame S66-54585 does match the lithograph’s cloud pattern—notably a rare and identifiable three-pronged formation near Earth’s limb—it fails a critical authenticity test: it does not contain the orbital debris visible in the upper-space region of the Simpkinson lithograph. These reflective flecks were previously circled and highlighted by Dr. Travis Taylor in his expert analysis- Included on page 555 of my first book, The Simpkinson NASA Archive UFO, is the image you see below—an annotated excerpt of the lithograph showing Dr. Taylor’s written observation and visual markings: Thus, if the lithograph depicts such debris—as confirmed by Dr. Taylor—any matching source frame must also contain it. The total absence of these flecks in S66-54585 disqualifies it as the lithograph's origin

TRAVELING AT ROUGHLY 5 MILES PER SECOND, THE GEMINI XI SPACECRAFT WOULD HAVE WITNESSED RAPIDLY SHIFTING CLOUD FORMATIONS — MAKING A PERFECT MATCH LIKE THAT IN THE SIMPKINSON LITHOGRAPH POSSIBLE ONLY WITHIN A 90-SECOND WINDOW OF S66-54585. SINCE NO SUCH FRAME EXISTS IN NASA’S OFFICIAL ARCHIVE, THE LITHOGRAPH MUST HAVE ORIGINATED FROM A MISSING OR NEVER-RELEASED PHOTOGRAPH.

 

[SRL+]

Is there a single clear image of this thing, because the latest images are not able to be viewed.

 

[GEMSTONEED55]

Hi — that’s a completely fair question, and I appreciate you asking it directly.


Yes, there are several clear images of the object, including side-by-side comparisons with NASA official frames, but I’m currently unable to send the full-resolution versions myself due to technical limitations.


Let me explain why:


The two primary sources of the clearest images are:

1. The D-015 RCA film footage from Gemini XI, which I received as 16,000+ high-resolution frames from the National Archives. These were professionally restored but are massive in size, and I personally lack the ability to download, host, or forward them without help.
2. The photo comparisons published in my books — which were not uploaded digitally but photographed by me with a phone camera just to make the covers publicly viewable. They’re not high quality, and I completely agree they’re insufficient for real analysis.

However — I’m in direct collaboration with two trusted colleagues:

• Dr. Steven Brown (Philosophy of Science, Ohio State)
• Seth Lamancusa (AI Systems Engineer)

They each possess the complete, high-quality image sets, and I will be meeting with them this week to deliver signed copies of the new book and work with them on next steps — including making selected clear frames public for analysis.


My sole goal here is not to sell the book — it’s to get this potential tampering independently verified using non-AI tools, ideally by experienced photo analysts or astrophotographers who can confirm (or refute) what I’ve found.


That said, I want to be transparent about the AI-based forensics I have used so far — because they’ve been incredibly revealing:


The forensic protocol I followed is modeled after the same toolchain used by Dr. Travis Taylor, Chief Scientist of the UAP Task Force. I’ve reviewed several of his copyrighted photo-analysis publications and confirmed that he relies heavily on ChatGPT-4-based forensic processing tools — particularly for edge analysis, cosine similarity scoring, and spectral anomaly detection as found in his 20 page analysis of the lithograph on page 515 of my first book.



Still, I fully agree that true independent verification should come from human experts, not AI alone — which is why I’ve submitted the findings to Congress and the White House for further investigation.


The packages were delivered to Washington today, though they must go through standard security processing before being reviewed.


If you're open to it, I’ll be happy to follow up once Dr. Brown and Seth and I coordinate on which images can be released for full public clarity — and when. Until then, I just wanted to thank you for your interest. You’re asking the right questions.


– Ed Wilson
Author, Hidden Under Our Nose
Researcher, Simpkinson NASA Archive Project