M32-19980915.zip — Andromeda's satellite, a radio telescope, and seven creepy JPEGs.

[glib09]

Here's the result of running the photos through some specialized neural networks (no generative fill used — just restoration based on the original pixels, colorization, and virtual lighting).

Don't read too much into the colors, though — those are just generated based on residual brightness values, not actual spectral data. Point is, the geometry is real.

The outcome — there are clearly some mangled, wrecked details in the images.

If this is a fake, someone really went out of their way to pull it off...

— Greg.

 

[glib09]

One more thing — I took a crack at restoring photo 7. Same rules: no generative fill, no "creative" upscaling. Just working with what's actually there in the pixels.

And well... here she is. An alien girl.

The compression artifacts (banding, smearing) are still there — that's just the nature of the original 8-bit images from the archive. The only way to remove them would be generative methods, but that would alter the original image beyond recognition.

— Greg.

 

[glib09]

I'm not claiming anything here. What follows is just my personal thoughts — trying to make sense of what we're seeing.

I went back and checked the actual dimensions of that area in 4.JPEG:

It's 74 pixels wide. 60 pixels tall.

Let that sink in for a second. The original image is blurry, low-contrast, black and white. At that resolution, those "details" we've been staring at for days? They're not details. They're noise. You can't tell what's what. You can't even tell if there's anything there.

And yet — when we run it through enhancement tools that strictly reconstruct based on original pixels? Suddenly we see ...

No sane hoaxer would do this.

Think about it. If you're faking a UFO crash in 1999, you're not thinking: "I'll model intricate stress fractures and hull deformations... and then I'll hide them in a blurry 74×60 pixel region where absolutely nobody will ever see them."

You make something that looks good at first glance. You put the "detail" where people can actually see it. You don't bury it in visual noise and hope someone, 25 years later, accidentally circles it on a forum — and then another person runs it through AI restoration just out of curiosity.

The only reason we're seeing any of this is because och1236 had a sharp eye and circled something that looked "off." And even then, without proper processing, it was just a blob.

This isn't how fakes work.

— Greg.

 

[och1236]

glib09, thank you for your work enlarging this section. Now it's all becoming clear to me too – these are clearly man-made objects. For some reason, they remind me of some kind of mining equipment... Although it could be anything, a chassis or an engine part...

 

[och1236]

I noticed something else in the third photo. There's a spot of light, as if it were a beam illuminating the area. Yes, it could just be interference (there are smaller ones in this photo), but still... Maybe we'll be able to detect something, maybe an astronaut or some kind of automated drone? Then we can imagine the scale of the object in the photo... But I'm not sure we'll be able to make anything out.

 

[glib09]

och1236, first off — thank you. Seriously. That kind of attention to detail doesn't come from software or filters — it comes from a sharp eye.

So yeah. This one's on you.

Please keep looking. Keep circling things that look "off." Keep questioning what you're seeing. Because if there's more buried in these photos — and I'm starting to think there is — you're the one most likely to spot it. I'll keep running stuff through tools on my end. Talk soon.

I'll try to take a closer look at that lit-up spot in the next few days. But here's another thought: what if it's not interference at all? What if it's just light coming through a breach in the structure? We might not even be able to see the breach itself — just the light spilling through. And if that's the case... that tells us something about scale too. But the problem is, that area is a complete mess of compression artifacts. It's buried deep in the shadow side, and that whole region is just a few pixels. Honestly, I'm not optimistic we'll be able to pull anything useful out of it. But I'll try.

— Greg.

 

[glib09]

So a friend of mine — the one who actually knows how to read this stuff — ran the RAW file through a custom parser he threw together. He sent me back this HTML report: M32-19980915-0142_plots_report.html.

Here's what's in it, plain and simple.

The parser scans the file looking for MarkIV VLBI frame headers. MarkIV is an old data format used by radio telescopes back in the 90s. Think of it like a blueprint: it says "here's where the sync word goes, here's the station ID, here's a timestamp, and here's the actual signal data."

The report shows 12 blocks (frames) that the parser found. Each one starts with the same sync word — 0x1078. That's consistent. It's exactly what you'd expect if the file is structurally sound. No corruption, no mismatch.

Then there are fields labeled "Station" and "Time1 / Time2." And yeah — they look weird. Station IDs show up as things like ;H, ?p, Rn. Not exactly standard observatory codes. And the timestamps? One of them is 1436817608.

So here's the thing — and this is important: in raw VLBI data, those fields don't have to store actual clock time or real observatory names. They're just slots. You can put whatever you want in them. Frame counters. Internal tick counts. Custom identifiers. Whatever the recording system felt like writing at the moment. So seeing "odd" values here doesn't mean the data is fake. It just means whoever set up the recording wasn't using standard human-readable labels. Or the parser is reading the bytes slightly wrong — expecting one format, finding another.

The real story is in the plots. Each page in the report has image. That's a visualization of the signal inside that block. That's what raw radio telemetry looks like when you just plot it as pixels. No interpretation yet — just raw signal, block by block.

So bottom line: the report shows that the RAW file is structured. It has headers. It has consistent sync words. It has 12 identifiable frames. Whatever those frames contain — whether it's noise, calibration tones, or something else — the container itself is real.

That's all I've got for now. No conclusions. Just data.

My friend took another look at that preview image — the tiny PCX file that just looks like random white dots on black. His initial take was that it's a raw bit visualization. But now he's not so sure. Turns out — and I didn't catch this earlier — when he did the first analysis, he kinda cross-referenced the preview with the RAW file. Like, he overlayed them. Used the preview as a mask to search for matching patterns in the signal. And that's how he landed on that specific block we talked about. But now he's second-guessing that whole approach. Here's the problem: if you go looking for a pattern using the preview itself, you might find it even if it's not really there. The data is noisy. The preview is tiny. You could be picking up a coincidence. A statistical ghost. He's not saying it's wrong — just that the method might've been circular.

So yeah. That earlier interpretation? Might need a rethink. He said he wants to dig into it more. I'll let you know what he finds.

— Greg.

 

[glib09]

So my friend... he took both files (the RAW and the preview PCX) and converted them into byte distribution graphs. Not bitmaps, not signal plots, but actual byte-by-byte distribution maps. The idea was to see if the preview matches any specific block in the RAW.

And yeah — at first glance, we got a hit. The preview seemed to line up with an entire block in the RAW. But here's the thing — that was a mistake. A misinterpretation.

What's actually happening is way more interesting.

When we zoom in and compare fragment by fragment, the preview doesn't match one continuous block. Instead, different fragments of the preview match different, non-consecutive sections of the RAW byte distribution. It's like the preview was assembled from pieces scattered across the file.

I've attached an example — a structural breakdown of one fragment showing how it aligns with a specific RAW region. And the full CSV is there too, with every fragment mapped to its best match.



Here's what I'm starting to think: the preview isn't a direct bitmap of one chunk of RAW data. It's more like a visual summary — a collage of multiple RAW fragments stitched together into a single image. Maybe someone back in '99 took key sections of the data, the parts that looked "off," and compiled them visually. Like a diagnostic image. A fingerprint of the anomalous signal.

Still digging. But this changes things.

— Greg.

 

[glib09]

I converted that RAW file to audio. Just took the raw data and turned it into sound.

And yeah — it's exactly what you'd expect from a radio telescope recording. Mostly static. That warm, hissy background noise you get when a dish is just listening to the sky.

But here's the thing — buried in that noise, there are these stretches of... not-noise. Moments where the static just drops. Goes quiet. And when you listen closely, those quiet stretches aren't random. They form a pattern.

I went back and looked at the whole file in context, and here's what I'm starting to think: the entire RAW file isn't a continuous observation with occasional signals. It's the opposite. It's one continuous signal — a chunk of something the telescope was locked onto — with short bursts of background noise on either side.

Think about it. Most of the file is this structured, non-random audio. The noise is just at the beginning and end. Like someone started recording when they found something interesting, and stopped when it was over.

Still digging. More soon.

— Greg.

 

[glib09]

So I spent some time with photo 5 — the corridor shot. Out of all of them, this one cleaned up the best. Ran it through some restoration tools, nothing too aggressive, just enough to pull out details without inventing things.

Came out pretty clear.

That thing och1236 circled — the "piece of rebar" sticking out? I'm looking at it now, and I don't think it's rebar. It looks like a power cable. Three thick conductors twisted together. You see that in high-current industrial stuff. Not something you'd find in a natural formation or a random rubble pile.

And the walls. Look at the edges around the damage. That's not cracking. That's melt. The metal didn't break — it flowed. You can see the rim where it cooled. That's consistent with something that got hit with a focused energy weapon. Laser, plasma, whatever. Not an explosion. Explosions leave shrapnel. This looks like someone cut through it.

So yeah. Metal walls, twisted power cables, and clean melt marks. This isn't a cave. This is a hull.

Not claiming anything, as usual. Just pointing out what I'm seeing.

Still digging.

— Greg.

 

[och1236]

glib09, as you asked, I will carefully look at these photos, looking for small details.
I've already looked at photo 7. Initially, I wanted to highlight the details I noticed, but forgive me, out of respect for this creature, I won't; anyone with a keen eye will notice everything. Briefly: the right side (relative to the alien) of the sarcophagus is damaged, and the transparent lid at the top is severely damaged, revealing cracks in the thick-walled material (glass? similar?). The creature's body has a number of injuries, which only reinforced my belief that it is essentially a half-shrunken mummy. In short, it's not alive; it's not suspended animation...

Despite her alien, distinctly unearthly appearance, she has a rather attractive female body. And yes, her breasts are simply hard padded cups, which is why they're so well preserved. So why does she look so much like us? Or maybe it's us who look like them...?

 

[Double Nought Spy]

"She" looks like something you might find in Walmart. This wouldn't be the first...

This is an interesting thread, but it looks like the speculation is going wild. Or maybe two of our newest members are having us on.

 

[och1236]

"She" looks like something you might find in Walmart. This wouldn't be the first...

Yes, anything is possible; it could, of course, be a mannequin or a doll. But personally, I view all the photographs in the context of the overall story. There are many interesting facts here that, for me personally, indicate that it's not a fake.

I'm not the thread's author, but I'm interested in exploring this. Of course, I can't technically do what glib09 does, but I can see the story in a figurative sense. That's what I'm sharing, and maybe I'll also look at the photos carefully.

 

[The shadow]

I decided to take a look at. This one.

This hallway is a man made hall
Evidence 1

We have clear cinder block walls.
Evidence 2
More cinder blocks definitely earth and man mafe

 

[glib09]

Double Nought Spy, you make a fair point. Skepticism is healthy, especially in a place like this. And trust me, I share more of it than maybe comes across. I'm not married to any of this being "real." But here's the thing that keeps me digging — if this were a hoax, it's the most inconvenient hoax I've ever seen.

If you're going to fake something in 1999, you don't build a puzzle. You build a headline. You make it obvious. You put the alien front and center, you make the ship look sleek and unmistakable. You don't bury the "evidence" inside a 74x60 pixel blob of noise and hope that 25 years later, someone with a sharp eye circles it on a forum, and then another person runs it through some random AI tool just to see what happens.

The pieces of this archive don't fit together neatly. You've got one set of data that screams "legitimate 90s radio astronomy" — the VLBI headers, the DOS timestamps, the MarkIV frame structure. And then you've got these photos that look like garbage, except when you actually look at them...

It's messy. It's ambiguous. It's inconvenient. And that, honestly, is what makes it hard for me to just write off. If it's a fake, someone went to an absurd amount of trouble to make it look confusing and boring for two decades before anyone even noticed. That's a weird kind of commitment.

Anyway, just my two cents. Like I keep saying — I'm not claiming anything. Just following the data where it leads.

— Greg.

 

[glib09]

The shadow, first off — thank you. Seriously. It means a lot that you're taking the time to really look at these images instead of just scrolling past. That's how things get spotted.

And you're right to call out the cinder blocks. At first glance, the repeating pattern does look like some kind of masonry. I see exactly...

But here's what's bothering me when I zoom in on the edges — especially where the material is broken. Concrete doesn't do this. Concrete fractures. It cracks, it crumbles, it leaves sharp, angular edges. What I'm seeing here looks different. Those edges aren't just broken — they're foamed. Like the material hit a temperature where it didn't just melt, but actually boiled. You get that vesicular, bubbled texture when something is heated past its melting point to the point of outgassing.

And that's the part I can't square. Even if this is a terrestrial structure — some kind of bunker or industrial site — I don't know what kind of event leaves concrete looking boiled. Normal collapses don't do that. Fires don't do that. Even most explosions don't leave that kind of thermal signature on the edges of broken walls.

So yeah. The shape says "cinder blocks." But the material behavior says something else entirely. I don't know what to make of that yet.

— Greg.

 

[glib09]

So I spent some time with it. Ran it through everything I had — contrast stretching, frequency analysis, even tried some of those AI enhancement tools just to see if anything would resolve.

And... nothing. There's just not enough there.

The area you circled is tiny — literally just a handful of pixels. Compression artifacts. Random sensor grain. I noticed the exact same kind of "blips" show up elsewhere in the photo. They're just on the sunlit side, so they blend in. You don't notice them because your eye expects to see variations in brightness there. But they're the same size, same shape, same random distribution.

So yeah. I think this one's just interference. A trick of light and compression. Wish I had better news, but that's how it goes sometimes.
Keep looking. I'll keep digging.

— Greg.

 

[Double Nought Spy]

Double Nought Spy, you make a fair point. Skepticism is healthy, especially in a place like this. And trust me, I share more of it than maybe comes across. I'm not married to any of this being "real." But here's the thing that keeps me digging — if this were a hoax, it's the most inconvenient hoax I've ever seen.

If you're going to fake something in 1999, you don't build a puzzle. You build a headline. You make it obvious. You put the alien front and center, you make the ship look sleek and unmistakable. You don't bury the "evidence" inside a 74x60 pixel blob of noise and hope that 25 years later, someone with a sharp eye circles it on a forum, and then another person runs it through some random AI tool just to see what happens.

The pieces of this archive don't fit together neatly. You've got one set of data that screams "legitimate 90s radio astronomy" — the VLBI headers, the DOS timestamps, the MarkIV frame structure. And then you've got these photos that look like garbage, except when you actually look at them...

It's messy. It's ambiguous. It's inconvenient. And that, honestly, is what makes it hard for me to just write off. If it's a fake, someone went to an absurd amount of trouble to make it look confusing and boring for two decades before anyone even noticed. That's a weird kind of commitment.

Anyway, just my two cents. Like I keep saying — I'm not claiming anything. Just following the data where it leads.

— Greg.

Aren't the jpegs just sitting there in the mysterious download?

We have next to zero information here, to work with. What makes you so sure this was done in 1998? We have no way to verify any of that. If you have the ability, maybe with a little help from your friends, to tease this stuff out of the mysterious download, then someone like you could have built it last month.

 

[The shadow]

The problem is there is no providence for the photos. No dates or information about them

 

[The shadow]

Ok first there is no way you can tell how big this is.it could be a Barbie doll or something bigger the face seems off. Lips are definitely modified. In every report the grey are sexless.here we have a female alien note the shattered capsule but no glass inside.