An Analysis of USS Trepang Encounter.
Trepang being launched at Groton, Connecticut, on 27 September 1969.
Background:
Early in 1971, following local operations out of her home port in Connecticut, the USS Trepang submarine set sail for the Arctic. From February 22 to March 22 she operated beneath the polar ice cap. Whilst conducting extensive tests for her weapons systems and scientific experiments on the 
ice cap itself, it is alleged she ‘accidently’ encountered several anomalous objects somewhere between Jan Mayen Island and Iceland. During the course of the encounter several photographs were taken through her periscope, recording the unfolding events. The Commanding Officer at the time of the said sighting was Admiral Dean Reynolds Sackett Jr. He was commissioned as the Commanding Officer of the Trepang (SSN-674) on August 14 1970 to December 7 1973.
FOREWORD.
I have attempted to make some chronological sense of the sequence of events from the images below which are said to have been taken during March 1971. The photos are taken from http://www.theblackvault.com/ case files and are the original high resolution images sent to Alex Mistretta, Investigator/Researcher, at mistretta1020@gmail.com.
fig 1
[There is nothing in the file metadata that indicates this file has been edited.]
As you can see from the above caption, I have conducted a scan of the image and looked for signs of editing. The file metadata showed nothing untoward. A visual inspection of the photo was equally unforthcoming. The image appears genuine. The question arises as to what the huge object actually represents. Is it an extra-terrestrial “mothership”, as some have claimed, or something entirely different?
Seeing this image reminded me of another photographic analysis case I had worked on. As it transpired, that single photo case turned out to have a rational explanation as, I believe, the above image does.
Red circle = Jan Mayen. Red arrow = Iceland.
As you will recall from the background details of this sighting the Trepang was situated between Jan Mayen Island and Iceland at the time of the encounter. it’s my contention that the above photograph shows an inverted superior mirage of the island itself. The following flipped, cleaned up and cropped image shows the object in an entirely different light. In it you will note what appears very much like shoreline breakers, and sparse vegetation (possibly tree canopies?).
A comparison example of a superior mirage
Please note the cut off line at the top of the mirage element of the ship, and that the whole vessel isn’t visible. Superior mirages are quite common in polar regions. A superior mirage can be right-side up or upside down, depending on the distance of the true object and the temperature gradient. Often the image appears as a distorted mixture of up and down parts.
Superior mirages can have a striking effect due to the Earth’s curvature. Were the Earth flat, light rays that bend down would soon hit the ground and only nearby objects would be affected. Since Earth is round, if their downward bending curve is about the same as the curvature of the Earth, light rays can travel large distances, even from beyond the horizon.
Moving on to the next image in my imagined sequence of events brings us to fig. 2. Here we see a cylindrical object low on the horizon. The attendant caption describes what was uncovered after a scan of the image.
fig.2
Pixels only match software editors, showing that it has most probably been altered.
A visual inspection of fig 2 shows disturbances in the pixilation pattern, suggesting the image has been tampered with. The vertical crosshair ‘ghosting’ in this image is most probably due to the submarine’s analog camera creating a double exposure. Multiple exposures are photographs in which two or more images are superimposed in a single frame (see fig 6 crosshairs).
fig. 3
Based on the pixels, this image could have been created with one of several software editors.
In fig. 3 we see what appears to be a triangular craft (possibly an early prototype stealth fighter). It is difficult to determine whether it is heading towards the sub or away from it in a nose dive toward the ocean. A visual inspection of the image shows no signs of it being photo shopped. The faint vertical periscope crosshair intersecting the object doesn’t show any signs of warping as it would had the object been added to the image, as the image below demonstrates.
In figure 4 we see the object in what appears to be a manoeuvre that would suggest it is vectoring away from the sub. Note the lack of periscope crosshairs in the image. This may be due to it having been cropped.
Cleaned up image
Original image/ fig 4
Pixels only match software editors
fig 5
There is nothing in the file metadata that indicates this file has been edited.
You will note in fig. 5 that the object appears to have a tail fin unlike that of fig 2, which suggests they are not the same object.
fig 6
There is nothing in the file metadata that indicates this file has been edited.
The above image (fig 6) shows the stricken object crashing into the ocean. To it’s left is a smaller object. It’s triangular configuration would suggest it is the aircraft seen in figures 3 and 4. Note the angle and orientation of the cylindrical object as it strikes the water.
fig. 7
There is nothing in the file metadata that indicates this file has been edited.
The change in the viewing perspective of figures 6 and 7 has changed dramatically. The tiny triangular object seen above the cylinder in fig 7 may be the aircraft mentioned earlier. If so, this image was taken from an entirely different view point, probably another submarine.
fig.8
There is nothing in the file metadata that indicates this file has been edited.
In images 7 and 8 you will note the dark, small funnel-like cloud that appears on the left of the photos. This would imply that both images belong to the same batch. In image 6 it is not visible. Nor is the heavy cloud cover from which it is projecting. This could be due to the possibility that the image was taken from a different angle in which the overcast is not visible i.e. from a different submarine.
fig 9
Photo edited with GD graphics.
Of all the above images this one is highly suspect. The image quality is far superior to the others and the pixilation pattern is not consistent throughout the image, particularly around the object. Note also there are no indications of the periscope crosshairs or range finder lines. Also, just above the ocean’s surface on the left is what appears to be an island landscape. It is unlikely to be Jan Mayen Island because as we learnt in image 2 the island was below the horizon and was only visible as a superior mirage.
We have seen from the foregoing that the Trepang was conducting not only a survey of the polar icecap but was also engaged in a weapons testing exercise. Research shows that it was common practice at the time for the military to use decommissioned balloons/Zeppelins as targets after stripping them of any external superstructures such as gondolas, etc. It is quite probable that the cylindrical object(s) seen in these images are of decommissioned balloons.
Given that they were testing “new weapons systems” at the time may account for what appears to be a stealth fighter. It is conceivable that images 3 and 4 could be that of an early prototype fighter being tested. Its design certainly fits in with many modern triangular-like stealth aircraft we know of today.
SUSPECT IMAGES.
There are 9 images in total. Of those 9, five show signs of digital manipulation to one degree or another. They are figures 2, 3, 4, and 9, the remaining showing no signs of manipulation whatsoever. Of those, figures 6, 7and 8 appear to have been taken from a different vantage point, possibly another submarine. Approximately one month earlier the submarine USS Skate was in the same region. Might images 6, 7 and 8 have been taken at that time by the USS Skate and subsequently added to the mix by some hoaxer? My recent research into the Skates whereabouts at the time would suggest it wasn’t in the Arctic at the time as the deployment list link above shows.
The so-called Trepang images themselves are contentious. When Admiral Sacket was approached by Steve Murillo, head of the UFO and Paranormal Research Society, he steered away from the UFO question saying, “I only saw ice” It could be argued, however, that he said that so as not to fall foul of his security oath.
David v Goliath.
How often have we heard or read about the superior technology employed by our extra-terrestrial visitors. Our fastest Jets can’t outrun them, and when and if they do manage to lock on to them with their weapons systems they are immediately shut down or the UFO becomes invisible, both on radar and to the naked eye. To suggest that these images show a bona fide extra-terrestrial craft being shot down using inferior terrestrial weaponry is about as believable as David killing Goliath with a stone. For this author, given the inconsistencies pointed out in this analysis, I find it more credible that an elaborate hoax was perpetrated by person or persons unknown.
© David Calvert 2016
Please note that at the bottom of each blog page there is a “Comments” box and a “Like” button, should you feel inclined to use them. Thank you.
2-brane. Resulting from M-theory equations, they are membrane-like structures consisting of from 1-11 dimensions. The idea is that these branes exists in an 11-dimensional space, and that they contain universes. According to this model our universe is a 3-brane. This 11-dimensional space is called the “bulk” in Brane cosmology.
In the aftermath of the Mothman sightings case in Point Pleasant, West Virginia, (a case of high strangeness in itself), John Keel, the author of ‘The Mothman Prophecies,’ met and interviewed a man named Woodrow Derenberger who related the following story to him. 
theory
invisible – even on higher magnification. How is this possible? Are we dealing with some advanced cloaking technology of an extraterrestrial or terrestrial stealth technology or is there a more mundane explanation? More on the latter possibility later. It seems highly improbable that an advanced race of extraterrestrials – who are apparently capable of interstellar travel – would use heat exhaust engines to power their spacecraft. Equally absurd is the idea that these might be terrestrial stealth aircraft possessing the technological ability to become invisible. What would be the point .. their contrails would give them away anyhow.
object’s contrail has an interruption pattern in it.The upper yellow line points out an appreciable gap in the contrail and the line just below it appears to show several staggered dots that follow, suggesting perhaps that the engine cut out and an attempt was made to restart it.
You can see quite clearly that the planes have blended in with the background sky. This is especially true if the sky is slightly hazy or if there is some low cloud layer. Moreover, contrails are formed by the condensation of the water vapour in the aircraft exhaust. They typically form above 30, 000 ft. As you will recall the 
witness said that the objects made no sound. The truth is, they were far too high for her to hear the engines.
.
Joseph Allen Hynek. A professor of Astronomy at North-western University, US, Hynek was employed in 1948 by the US Air Force to investigate UFO reports. As former head of Project Blue Book, he devised the following classification system, which has long been the ‘industry standard’. He initially divided UFO reports according to the distance from the observer – greater or less than 150 m. (500 ft.) – and then further subdivided these two sections into a total of six categories.
occultusregnum 