EARTH COVERT FLYERS & AIRFIELDS-2

Report #165

July 26, 2009

In my 7/7/09 , which this report is a companion to, I covered too much different subject matter in a single report. I knew it at the time but chose to do incomplete reporting on the UFO evidence anyway. Why? Because I knew I would wind up talking extensively about image manipulation factors in a more complete report. I dislike that subject matter because I see so much of this, it is very involved, and it starts bending attention away from the important evidence and onto technical image manipulation issues.

However, this failure of mine to report fully left a technical opening with respect to the UFO craft evidence in that prior report for adversaries to later zero in on. Even though only a couple of viewers have picked up on this issue and brought it to my attention so far, more adversarial work can be expected in the future when the pressure of this work starts being felt in earnest and adversaries start cranking up their reactions looking for anything to argue about as a misdirection tactic. So in anticipation of that, here is some more of my two cents on the UFO and its shadow evidence for that potential future time.

You see, in order for the UFO and its shadow in the above Google Earth 1st image evidence to be an elevated flying object casting a shadow on the ground, it requires a sun position to be in the northeast relative to the UFO site causing the evidence to cast a southwest shadow as demonstrated in the official view and as pointed out by the slender blue arrows in the above 1st image here.

This evidence is in southwestern Nevada at roughly latitude 37º north. Since the sun is to the south of this latitude and not north of the 37º N. Latitude, then the UFO shadow could be considered impossible. You see the vulnerability and their opening.

The argument could then be made that the white reflective object is not a craft in the air at all but a reflective surface on the ground as is the dark area adjacent to it. In other words, regardless of the general look of the evidence, an apparently legitimate argument could be presented that it cannot be an elevated airborne object of any kind due to shadow impossibility.

If someone at that future time wished to accuse me of making wild and foolish claims, they could then point to that prior Report #164 as evidence by association of my "wild" and "irresponsible" reporting. The transparency factor of the dark area that is otherwise so consistent with ground shadow would then just be dismissed as generally strange and anomalous.

Now note the above 2nd image. This much wider field of view and more distant scene includes the UFO evidence site in the lower left corner as a very distant object and a single cloud casting a shadow in the top center of the image. Note that the cloud shadow position is north-by-northwest of the lone cloud and this would be more consistent with what one might expect from a true late morning southern sun position in the latitude 37º north locale.

When taken at purely face value, this nearby cloud and shadow evidence obviously reinforces any argument that what has been identified as UFO evidence is not an object in the air but actually discolorations on the ground and therefore ground effects. Why? Because this nearby cloud shadow supposedly demonstrates the sun's true southerly position making the UFO site dark area impossible to be a shadow in comparison. It is after all the most simple and innocent type of evidence as just a cloud and its shadow.

However, the key to such arguments is a matter of trust and taking the data as officially presented in Google Earth at face value. Do you trust Google Earth or more precisely those who supplied these images of the Area 51 area to Google Earth for display? It is the same with the space exploration imaging of other worlds like the Moon and Mars. If you do sufficiently trust the imaging sources, then you have your answer. In this particular case, you must assume that the object in question is not something in the air but something on the ground and, as such, not something anomalous. For so many it is a comfort thing in that their prior trust assumptions need not be disturbed.

As for me, I admittedly do not trust and, in my opinion, no investigator or researcher can do so and still be effective in getting at objective truth. Further, everything I've seen in the last nine years of researching the space exploration data has given me no reason to trust and, in fact, the exact opposite. From my point of view, truth is hard to come by in the space exploration data while obfuscation and misdirection is encountered in abundance. So, if you're willing, let's look a little closer at this UFO issue beyond just what someone has designed for us and wishes us to see.

Start by noting the gray color of the terrain in the above 2nd image. This gray area is a narrow strip relative to others in Google Earth with stronger color terrain on either side and you can see the edges of it on the right and left sides of the image. This strip look tends to imply that all of this gray color area is likely a single satellite imaging strip. Therefore, armed with that assumption, one can in theory safely anticipate that what is evident in one part of the "strip" can be counted on to be consistent in other parts.

However, even though this conclusion was made easy for viewers and researchers to accept, if you did assume this, then you need to think again. Someone is playing head games here with these different color variations meant to influence perception in this way. The gray "strip" area is actually a mosaic of many images and the color is just an artificial introduction that seems to be there only for manipulation of perception purposes to encourage such misdirection assumptions.

In the above 3rd image, I've just simply flipped the 1st image vertically and I've done nothing else to it except introduce some blue arrows representing the now changed sun angle. It was as simple as the single click of a button. Note that the sun angle shadow is now northwest relative to the white reflective object and this places the sun position in the southeast.

So now the sun is in the right position for the object to be elevated off the ground and the dark area to be a shadow on the ground. Now that wasn't hard at all was it.

Note in the above 1st and 3rd images that there is also what appears to be a dark tower in the center of a patch of ground disturbed area nearby the UFO also pointed out with blue sun direction arrows. The sun position is high and so any shadows thrown will be relatively short for ground based objects such as this. Note the dark area at the base of the tower as likely shadow.

Although smaller size evidence like this is very blurry here relative to the larger UFO object, note that it is very consistent as a shadow and that it matches the direction of the UFO shadow. The FBI might call this a clue if they weren't serving masters who would likely frown on such a truthful observation.

With respect to the flipping issue, the above 4th image provides a closer view of the UFO site as it is officially presented in Google Earth but with too much zoom factor so that everything is much more blurry. The little short blue arrows point out the the seam or splice lines near the UFO site running horizontally just south of it (below) and vertically a little further west (left) of it. The seams define an image mosaic section that includes the UFO site.

I could have increased the clarity to make these seam lines stand out more prominent but I think you can still see them just fine and I wanted you to see them as they appear in Google Earth should you attempt to replicate this zoom factor in that program and check this evidence out for yourself. This way you know what to look for and where. The truth is that some of this faint splice line evidence can even be seen back up in the 1st report image here.

At this zoom factor in Google Earth, these splice lines can be followed in a rectangular configuration around the site and they define the boundaries of the mosaic image section the UFO evidence is located in. I didn't have enough image room to show it here but the image mosaic section the UFO evidence is in extends north to a point just beyond the disturbed ground area where the dark tower is located and includes that evidence in the same image section. The fact that both evidence sites share the same image section reveals why the UFO and tower shadow agrees with the UFO shadow direction even if the Google Earth presentation is actually a flipped view.

In other words, in my opinion, someone flipped vertically just the mosaic image section that both the UFO and tower evidence are in. The reason was so that the UFO scene would appear to provide what could later be debunked as not a shadow at all because of the wrong sun position angle and this staged and baited trap was supplied to Google Earth for display and for researchers to find.

Now go back up to the 2nd image and take note of the diffuse nature of the lone cloud that is suppose to reinforce the debunking tactical. Note how dark and dense the cloud shadow on the ground is. Does this shadow seem real looking to you? Although the shadow shape is faithful to the cloud shape, it just doesn't otherwise look real to me but then I'm very suspicious.

In my opinion, there is no way that this diffuse cloud could throw such a dense shadow on the ground. Further, that shadow is on rough mountain surfaces with different surface angles and yet note that the shadow is unaffected by these surface angles. It looks very much like a too dense 2-dimensional application on a 3-dimensional background.

Further and tellingly, it is also the only cloud in a very wide area for hundreds of miles or kilometers. Isn't it convenient that this lone cloud is so proximate (not too close, not too far) to the UFO evidence site. Chance or intentional? That of course depends on your level of trust.

Now we come to the above 5th image and its cloud shadow evidence. This evidence in Utah is not otherwise associated with the UFO site evidence but it is important to and applies directly to the trust issue.

Note that this evidence area is in northeast Utah at latitude 39º north and well north of the UFO site's 37º north latitude. Note that the dark shadows to the west (left) of the clouds indicate a mid-morning eastern sun position but at 39º north latitude and this too is quite impossible. To be true, it would mean that the sun position would have to be far too far north roughly at latitude 39º north or well north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Note that the shadows are again too dense and again on mountainous rough terrain with different surface angles and yet once again the shadows are unaffected by those different surface angles. Once again they look like 2-dimensional applications on 3-dimentional backgrounds. Do you believe these clouds and their shadows are real and not false graphic creations?

Here's another point and why I chose this particular cloud evidence in this report. With this kind of cloud and shadow positioning and terrain, even if I flipped them vertically or horizontally or any combination thereof, the shadows will never become faithful to a southerly sun position and angle. To achieve that I would have to rotate the scene clockwise or counter clockwise. Further, if I did any of this kind of manipulation, unlike the conveniently blurry relatively level terrain background at the UFO site in Nevada that will show little evidence of flipping, the mountain background here would be badly altered and quickly reveal such alterations.

Let's face it, the cloud and shadow placements in the above 5th image, even as false information, was ineptly done. It is via this ineptness that truth as to the intentional manipulation is revealed rather than it being a simple error or processing mistakes. In other words, the clouds in the above 5th image are not alterations of existing evidence as is likely with the UFO site image section and its flipping. In fact, they are not real at all but entirely intentional graphic creations with the goal of manipulating perception.

Worse, remember that this is what only general populations like you and I see in Google Earth. This manipulation cannot be meant to fool the observations of foreign powers or enemies of the State. Major foreign powers have their own satellite images of this area and see the truth of what ever is hidden from us here. Therefore, the manipulation and secrecy here is targeted primarily at general populations using Google Earth, including our own here in the USA.

Does your level of trust tell you this just can't be? If so, maybe you should take another look at Report 161 titled "Google Earth and Trust" for more eye opener evidence on this subject of trust. After that, then take another more objective look at that lone single cloud and its shadow just north of the UFO site and consider its convenient lone presence with a bit more caution.

The above 6th and last image here shows a comparison of the position of the UFO site at latitude 37º north in Nevada and the three clouds site further northeast at latitude 39º north in Utah. This visually demonstrates that the Utah cloud shadow evidence should most definitely be from a southern sun but obviously isn't despite the difference in latitude being even further north than the Nevada UFO site.

Trust and truth are too often tricky issues and not good companions in programs like Google Earth. Such programs can be useful but only if you are taking everything in from it with grain of salt. A small measure of truth usually only comes when the target area and who ever owns or occupies it: (1) has no vested interest in what is revealed (example: a corn field); or (2) when someone thinks that we out here in the populations are too ignorant and/or dumb to figure the evidence out for what it really is; or (3) when mistakes in visual obfuscation tactics are made allowing a little truth to slip through.

In the case of the UFO site, a suspicious person might begin to think that the whole scene has been manipulated and staged and is a visual trap for the unwary viewer cruising the imaging of the Area 51 locale. Remember that Area 51 is the most famous well known unknown black operations site in the world and so a great many are going to be scrutinizing the site area. Knowing this, there is no way that military and/or black operations intelligence would have allowed this UFO visual in this area to be seen, regardless of who the craft may belong to, and it not be at the very least manipulated by them. It only becomes a question of what kind of obfuscation and manipulation it will be.

Since there are no details of the UFO craft to be seen (that is also likely intentional), I suspect they allowed it to stay knowing it would eventually be found in Google Earth. The shadow issue manipulation is there to provide plausible deniability and an escape hatch should the going get too hot over evidence like this in the public's mind. They can always just stonewall and claim the evidence is just ground effects. The single lone cloud was placed there along with its too dense artificial shadow to act as insurance that the ground effects conclusion will ultimately be the deciding factor for those with a greater trust level and that includes most of the bulk of the population.

Meanwhile, the evidence otherwise serves to titillate and increases interest without really revealing anything. In the shorter run, it is bait leading to a desired psychology and end. That end might be to eventually condescendingly discrediting researchers like myself if or when needed should too many in the population begin to take the evidence seriously. Even if it is actually an alien craft and not one of our own, it may still serve misdirection purposes. For example, it can act as a red herring warning for foreign powers giving them pause as they look at this and consider believing that Area 51 produces such superior advanced craft and propulsion systems and so you had better watch out.

Can't believe someone would be that slippery? In fact, such misdirection tactics are old ones used by governments. For example, in WWII the Allies developed a whole massed army of false equipment and personnel dummies in English fields. They were meant to be seen from the air by German pilots trying to convince the German high command via that observational feedback that the coming invasion force was stuck there while the real force was approaching at Normandy. Likewise Saddam Hussein in Iraq held enemies at bay with a relatively empty threat of weapons of mass destruction and the perceived willingness to use them.

This is why I don't like to do this type of reporting on this constant diet of secrecy and manipulation. It may be true that we in populations need to understand it better and some of you may even like it but I know I could do without it after having seen so much of this kind of thing in the science data. In reporting it requires me to dive deeper into the twisted psychology of the secrecy types and the reporting is long, intricate, and convoluted because the subject matter is intricate and convoluted. It may be necessary at times to raise public awareness but for me it is a distraction from more important issues.

If you found this type of supplemental reporting tedious and boring, I am sorry for that. However, it had to be done in order to counter to some extent their trying to spring this baited trap on this work in the future ahead. The only viable alternative would have been not to report on the UFO evidence at all to avoid the trap. However, that too would have served their purpose just as well.

I knowingly took the bait and reported because I believe that there is some important truth here with this low flying object casting a true shadow on the ground. On the other hand, I don't have to completely let them have their way in springing the trap in the future as they implement their built in countermeasure.

, Investigator