UNDERSEA MYSTERY-5

Report 228

June 23, 2013

This report may chance alienating some viewers simply because they may begin to think that I'm indulging in too much pure speculation. If so, I'm sorry but I've thought about this while I was confined to rehab and I'm of the opinion that I should at least put this on the viewer radar again. If I'm wrong, that takes care of itself it but, if I'm right, the implications are serious. In my opinion, the latter potential out weights the former possibility.

Just what am I referring to? It's about my reporting on evidence of undersea mysteries in the really abyssal deep places in Earth's oceans as per my Report 224, Report 225, and Report 226. as gleaned from Google Earth. In other words, down where it is black dark, extremely cold, and with immense killing pressures that are so deadly to unprotected humans. Ii's an alien environment down where human survival even in a brief visit in these lowest levels of the oceans around the globe is embarked on only at extreme risk.

Did you know that billionaire Jeff Bezos founder and CEO at Amazon.com and exploration teams of his formation have been instrumental recently it is reported in developing and applying advanced technology of working ROVs (remotely operated vehicles) to recover 1969 Apollo 11 engines from Atlantic Ocean depths of about 3 miles or 14,000 feet down for which NASA has praised them. The point being that, if true, this stated working ROV depth puts his equipment within depth range of the evidence in most of my reports which had not previously been the case.

Such a team and its new working depth technology could in theory reach and verify the evidence sites I've been reporting on in the ocean's abyssal depths in Report 224, Report 225, and Report 226. The consideration has enough merit that I sent Jeff Bezos an email trying to stir up his interest in such a project. Of course I haven't heard back from him and don't expect to. He's a busy guy and this subject may seem too outlandish sounding for him to take seriously. Further, there would always be the question of one's associates of this kind of immense wealth and power level being honest and truthful with us on the results of the proposed project.

Also, the visual evidence in this particular report is admittedly not as stand alone obvious as some of the previously reported abyssal deep evidence. It consists only of what I suspect to be tracks on the sea floor where I believe something has been traveling along sucking up bottom sediment in an underwater surface mining operation and in doing so in its passage revealing visual rough bottom geological detail visually left behind in the cleaned tracks. The most likely scenario will be that some viewers will regard this evidence as simply survey electronic artifacts and who is trust worthy enough to say definitively yes or no?

For me, the track evidence here in this report is just an extension of the evidence in Report 224, Report 225, and Report 226. For example, the confluence of track evidence here in these abyssal sea floor depths between Antarctica and Australia are patterns consistent with explorations and surface mining operations following deposits of what ever it is they find so valuable on the sea floor as opposed to more organized survey grids and patterns our Earth people might produce. You may see it differently.

Note how the evidence visible to us here seems to have started out as long straight and narrow exploration tracks. However, note how they then converge into track concentration sites apparently requiring repetitive work in the fracture fault areas enlarging the areas into larger and larger patches. This look would be typical in a mechanized surface mining operation.

The traditional think inside the box types may wish to characterize this evidence as just another example of pathetic as usual giving in to his imagination and paranoia seeing plots and conspiracies where none exists and just has to make comments when he should keep quite. Just remember that it is the official visual evidence that is raising questions and not something of this researcher's creation or invention. You must make up your own mind what interpretations you find to be the most plausible and who you may trust.

Likewise, if obfuscation attempts are also a significant factor in the evidence and I report on it, I make no apologies for that. For example, in some of the above image closer views, the soft fuzzy surfaces could be unmined areas covered with normal sediment or they could be massive amounts of smudge image tampering hiding more extensive and telling evidence nearby. If intentional obfuscation is present, then the question of who could be doing it and why logically comes to mind and it becomes part of the reporting.

Could it be the usual secrecy crowd? Maybe but truthfully I'm hesitant to think that. In my experience they consistently do not want the general public to know anything or find out anything that might lead to raised awareness producing even more difficult to answer questions. For the sake of me, I just can't imagine them out of their own volition not covering up and leaving out the visual evidence in Report 224, Report 225, and Report 226 even if for no other reason than to take that opportunity to volunteer their own depreciating explanations and defuse the anticipated questioning. If they didn't, and it's pretty clear that they didn't, this suggests that someone else may be controlling this particular evidence in Google Earth including making certain it is information available to the public while still hiding the bulk of even more telling evidence.

If any of that's true, then someone else with a different unknown agenda has the greater power here and is manipulating us as well as the usual secrecy crowd. In other words, via this evidence we are given the opportunity to know something more than we thought we knew but only if we go to the trouble of opening our minds and obtaining it in the limited doses provided. I think this possibility is worth reporting on no matter how remote and ridiculous some may believe such speculation to be.

For example, what if the secrecy crowd we are familiar with so used to manipulating public perception is itself being manipulated and held in check by unfamiliar forces with unknown agendas that they have no answer for? Forces more ancient to this world than even the presence of human kind here? What if what the secrecy crowd we are familiar with is hiding is not that intelligent life other than our own exists in basic but that our secrecy crowd is powerless to control it or manipulate it?

Is this unstated vulnerability factor what the old Brooking's Report was really referring to when it comes to the bottom line of dire human social reaction to an actual alien presence? The Brooking's Report said that scientists would be the most adversely affected. Why? I suspect that "scientists" identified in the report was merely a tactical element designed to offend as few as possible. Those with the most to loose by their own perception and the furthermost to fall in finding out that they are not really in control would be the military/industry captains. In other words, our leaders

Can you imagine what it would be like internally for great leaders to learn that secret meetings in for example "The Grove" here in the USA supposedly deciding the fate of billions around the world were actually not secret and it developed that no one was going to give deference to their decisions any longer and their wealth was going to be redistributed to cover debt created by them? Which do you think would be the most freaked out? Would it be a scientist myopically buried in their projects or the captains so used to some serious ass kissing over everything he or she says or does now possibly coming to a halt?

Just look at the leadership terror caused by WikiLeaks and its potential revelations. Note who got upset and who didn't. The guy on the street finds it mildly interesting but leaders see it as a major emergency and a direct threat for obvious reasons. Again, ask yourself who finds such truths disturbing and who finds them more amusing than anything else as opposed to something to be very concerned about?

Yes I find some things in life disturbing. I find the bold success with which space exploration secrecy is routinely practiced in what is supposed to be a free society of, by, and for the people and the public's apparent lack of concern about it. Worse, it appears that each succeeding generation around the world seems to increasingly accept this as normal and acceptable. This in turn equates to those practicing it increasingly coming to the conclusion that there is no down side for them in practicing the spread of ignorance and so it continues increasing and unabated.

For example, a few days ago there was a short media piece lasting only about 6-8 seconds on Fox TV News that someone "claimed" to have found a "rat" on Mars. Of course they did not give a source credit and only showed a single picture that looked as though it had been cropped out of a image from my Report 227 or someone else's. Naturally the whole thing was passed off as laughable and of course they had the "rat" negative identifier that I never used in my reporting. I'm going to guess that it was likely picked up by them from a social media feed someone placed that was getting hits.

Since my website reporting on that also questioned whether the rodent evidence was really on Mars or not and thereby could be interpreted as indirectly questioning the credibility of the JPL and NASA's material, you can imagine why I was not surprised that no source credit was given that might have provided the public with potentially greater insight should someone have wished to further investigate. This is one way that information distribution is often controlled in the media and thereby public perception of it.

Now look more closely at the evidence in the above images. Note how there is sort of ridge pattern of material in the tracks that runs length way straight down the track system but that is not present in all the evidence. Note that it is set off to the side of center. Note how the smooth terrain evidence just outside the tracks comes right up to the edge of the track whereas similar looking evidence in and around the tracks in the evidence off of Saipan in Report 224 shows subtle texture differences including what appears to be likely discarded material piling up at the outside edges of the track in the smooth areas.

Could it be that this just represents the use of different type of mining equipment development over time by someone unknown to us leaving changed track footprints or might it mean that both the tracks and the smooth areas here in the open sea off of Antarctica represent graphics visual manipulation and, if so, by whom? Could it mean that the secrecy crowd is adopting a "if you can't beat them well then join them" type of defensive strategy leaving false evidence?

I don't know the answer to that but, if I can think of it as an alternative and raise the question now, you can bet that the secrecy types have thought of this as a strategy long ago. Further, others not us might just allow it in order to gauge human reaction other than than that of the secrecy crowd.

The bottom line is that this evidence is real and not natural. What ever it is, someone has intentionally created it in the abyssal depths. The question is was it created by chance as a byproduct of mining activity or is it a creation designed to manipulate perception? In any case, herein is some of the additional track evidence that I promised in prior reporting and the opportunity to evaluate evidence like this for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

, Investigator