A practical guide to the metadata that makes UAP photo and video evidence credible — EXIF for stills, container metadata for video, GPS stamps, and the chain-of-custody practices that distinguish real evidence from cropped social-media artefacts.
A UAP photograph or video file carries, by default, a substantial amount of information beyond the image itself. Camera model, lens, exposure settings, focal length, GPS coordinates, capture timestamp to the second, and sometimes orientation and altitude data are embedded in the file as metadata. Properly preserved, this metadata is the difference between a credible piece of evidence and an internet image whose provenance cannot be established.
This guide is the Council’s recommended practice for capturing, preserving, and verifying UAP footage metadata.
What this guide does NOT do
This guide does not establish that any specific UAP recording is authentic. Metadata can be forged, stripped, or altered; the presence of clean metadata is necessary but not sufficient for credibility. What this guide does is identify the metadata that, when present and consistent, raises a recording’s credibility, and the absence-or-inconsistency patterns that lower it.
What EXIF carries
EXIF (Exchangeable Image File Format) is the metadata standard for still images. A typical modern smartphone or camera writes the following at capture time:
- Camera make and model (e.g., “Sony”, “ILCE-7SM3” for an A7S III).
- Lens (model and focal length, sometimes serial number).
- Exposure settings — shutter speed, aperture, ISO.
- Date and time of capture, to the second, in local time and (sometimes) UTC.
- GPS coordinates if location services are enabled — latitude, longitude, altitude, GPS timestamp.
- Orientation (camera tilt and roll, if the camera has the relevant sensors).
- Color profile and resolution.
- Software if the file has been edited.
The full EXIF on a clean smartphone photo can run to 50+ fields. The credibility-significant subset is camera, time, GPS, and software.
What video container metadata carries
Video files (MP4, MOV, MKV) carry similar metadata at the container level — camera model, capture date and time, GPS, and (for some cameras) per-frame metadata that includes orientation, altitude, and even some flight-data information for action cameras like the GoPro HERO13 Black.
The GoPro HERO series in particular writes a “GoPro Metadata” stream alongside the video stream — this includes per-second GPS coordinates, altitude, accelerometer data, and orientation. A GoPro recording with this metadata stream intact is among the most-evidentiary forms of amateur UAP footage available, because the metadata is much harder to forge than the image data.
What “stripped metadata” looks like
When an image is uploaded to most social media platforms, copied through screen captures, or routed through messaging apps, the EXIF metadata is typically stripped. The resulting file may be visually identical to the original but carries no provenance information.
A file with no EXIF, no GPS, no camera model is a file that has been re-encoded somewhere in its history. It is not necessarily inauthentic, but it is not directly evidentiary in the way a clean original file is. The Council’s submission process specifically asks for the original file with metadata intact, not a screenshot or a re-shared version.
How to check EXIF on a file you have
Several tools, all free.
On a Mac: Right-click the image, choose “Get Info.” The detailed metadata is in the “More Info” section.
On Windows: Right-click, Properties, Details tab.
On Linux or any system: the command-line tool exiftool (Phil Harvey’s open-source utility) reads and displays the full metadata of any image or video file. Installation is straightforward; usage is exiftool filename.jpg and the output is comprehensive.
Online: several free EXIF-viewer websites (search “exif viewer online”). Be aware that uploading a file to a third-party service shares the metadata with that service, which may be a privacy concern for sensitive submissions.
What to record alongside the file
The Council’s recommended submission package for any UAP photograph or video includes, in addition to the original file:
- The observer’s notes describing the sighting (time, location, what they saw — see Field Guide FG-001).
- The chain of custody from camera to submission. “Captured on my Sony A7S III at 22:14 PDT on 23 April 2026 at the location stamped in EXIF; file copied directly from the camera SD card to my laptop and uploaded without modification.” That sentence, included with the file, addresses the question every reviewer asks.
- A description of any post-capture processing. If the file has been cropped, color-corrected, or stabilized, that should be disclosed and the original should be available alongside the processed version. The Council prefers original files; processed files are acceptable when the original is also available.
The chain-of-custody practice
A practical chain-of-custody discipline for any serious observer:
At capture time:
- The camera is in a known, recorded mode. The observer notes which device and which mode at the time of the sighting (in the field notebook — the Rite in the Rain notebook).
- GPS is enabled on the camera (or a Garmin GPSMAP 67 is recording the observer’s position separately and the timestamps can be cross-referenced).
- The camera’s clock is set to actual time (a common failure mode is camera clocks that are weeks or months off; this destroys the GPS-time correlation).
Immediately after capture:
- The SD card is removed and the file is copied to two destinations: a primary working copy and an archival copy that is not edited. The archival copy is the chain-of-custody original.
- The file is checksummed (a SHA-256 hash). The hash is the most-rigorous integrity check; if the file changes by a single bit, the hash changes. Recording the hash of the archival original at copy time is the strongest provenance practice available to amateurs.
- The notes from the field notebook are typed up alongside the file, with the camera/timestamp/GPS information transcribed for cross-reference.
At submission:
- The original file is submitted, along with the notes, the SHA-256 hash, and the chain-of-custody description.
- Any processed versions are submitted alongside the original, never instead of it.
This practice sounds elaborate; it takes about 10 minutes per session once it is routine.
What raises credibility
In the Council’s review process, the following patterns raise a submission’s credibility.
Clean EXIF/container metadata with consistent timestamps and GPS that match the reported observation context. A submission claiming a sighting at a specific Phoenix-AZ park at 22:14 MST on 23 April 2026, with EXIF showing camera capture at 22:14:32 MST and GPS coordinates within the park, is internally consistent and credible at the metadata level.
Multiple files from the same session with sequential timestamps. A single still photograph is weaker than a sequence of stills or a video clip; the sequence provides cross-reference for camera behavior and observer behavior across the sighting.
Cross-correlated metadata. If the camera GPS shows location A at time T, and the observer’s separate GPSMAP 67 also shows location A at time T (within GPS accuracy), the cross-correlation is meaningful. Independent GPS sources are stronger than a single GPS source.
Sound, when present. Audio tracks include their own metadata and capture environmental information (wind, ambient sound, observer comments) that is difficult to fabricate consistently with the visual evidence. Video with audio is generally more credible than video without.
A clear pan to a known reference object at some point in the recording. A pan to a recognizable landmark, building, or constellation anchors the recording in verifiable scene geometry.
What lowers credibility
Stripped metadata with no original-file substitute. The Council can review a metadata-stripped file but cannot use it as primary evidence; the lack of metadata may not indicate fabrication but does limit evidentiary value.
Heavy processing with no original available — color-grading, stabilization, AI upscaling, denoising. Any of these can be disclosed and is acceptable if the original is also provided. Without the original, the processed file is not directly evidentiary.
Inconsistent timestamps across cameras or between camera and observer notes. A camera EXIF showing a time substantially different from the observer’s reported sighting time is a flag — possibly a clock-set error (in which case the GPS timestamp can sometimes anchor the actual time), possibly a more serious issue.
Camera identity inconsistencies. A submission claiming a specific camera that has technical characteristics inconsistent with what the file shows is a flag. Different sensors produce different noise profiles, color science, and optical-flaw signatures; a technically capable reviewer can sometimes detect inconsistencies.
Source-untraceable files. Files that the submitter does not appear to have personally captured (forwarded social-media images, unattributed clips) are categorically less evidentiary than first-person captures.
Equipment and metadata quality
The cameras in the Council’s affiliate registry produce particularly clean metadata.
Sony Alpha 7S III — full-featured EXIF including GPS via smartphone-Bluetooth connection, lens-detection metadata, and color-profile information. The professional standard for night-sky videography.
GoPro HERO13 Black — the most-comprehensive amateur-camera metadata, including the per-second GPS-and-orientation stream. Particularly well-suited to UAP recording precisely because the metadata is so rich and verifiable.
SiOnyx Aurora Pro — built-in GPS and compass on every frame. Field-investigator standard for night-vision UAP recording. The Council’s verdict engine specifically prioritizes Aurora Pro footage for review.
The Garmin GPSMAP 67 is the recommended independent GPS source for cross-correlation. A camera GPS plus an independent handheld GPS is a credibility-raising combination.
Council recommended
- Sony Alpha 7S III — professional low-light camera with comprehensive metadata
- GoPro HERO13 Black — amateur camera with reference-grade metadata stream
- SiOnyx Aurora Pro — night-vision camera with built-in GPS-on-every-frame
- Garmin GPSMAP 67 — independent GPS source for cross-correlation
Related cases
- Case #00033 — Gimbal (2015) — modern military case where metadata-equivalent sensor data was central to the evidentiary record
- Case #00088 — USS Omaha “Go Fast” (2019) — multi-sensor case where metadata cross-correlation was decisive
- Case #00484 — Brazilian radar tapes (2026) — recent foreign-government release that illustrates how rich metadata makes historical recordings continue to be evidentiary