Sunday, 11 September 2016

UFO News Article:
“The shocking truth behind the 10,000
animal mutilations in America’s heartland”


5 September 2016
(New York Post, New York City, New York)

The article (by Ben Mezrich) reports on Chuck Zukowski’s investigation into a 10 August 2010 Rush, Colorado, horse (two fully mature horses) mutilation case.

And in addition to that, one horse and one dog were found with unknown marks, according to the owner, Glenda.

Ben Mezrich chronicles the UFO/Animal Mutilation research work of Chuck Zukowski in the book, “The 37th Parallel: The Secret Truth Behind America’s UFO Highway.”

http://nypost.com/2016/09/05/the-shocking-truth-behind-the-10000-animal-mutilations-in-americas-heartland/



















Satellite photo of Rush, Colorado (tageo.com)
(tageo.com photo)

UFO News Article:
“The man who chases aliens on
‘America’s paranormal highway’ ”


4 September 2016
(New York Post, New York City, New York)

The article reports on the UFO/Animal Mutilation research work of Colorado Springs resident Chuck Zukowski.

http://nypost.com/2016/09/04/this-investigator-chases-aliens-along-americas-paranormal-highway/




UFO sightings and animal mutilation incidents along the 37 degree latitude line (Chuck Zukowski/OpenMinds.tv image)

Saturday, 10 September 2016

UFO News Article (Blog):
“Blurred lines, continued …”


By Billy Cox, 12 August 2016
(De Void, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Florida)

Billy Cox reports on the 25 April 2013 Aguadilla (Puerto Rico) UFO video (filmed by a DHC-8 Turboprop under the command of U.S. Customs and Border Protection).


Related post:

realtvufos.blogspot.com/2016/02/google-website-searches-focus-on-de.html


(3.bp.blogspot.com/maestroviejodespierta2.com image)

UFO Article (Blog):
“The National Archives of Australia keeps
coming up with previously unknown UAP files!”


By Keith Basterfield, 28 August 2016
(UFOs – scientific research, Campbelltown,
New South Wales, Australia)

Quote from the article:
“The file is NAA file series J229, control symbol 5/13/AIR, barcode 21290309, with an interesting date range of 1956-1966. The file is held in the Brisbane office of the NAA and its current status is ‘Not yet examined.’ It’s title is simply ‘Sighting of Unidentified Objects.’ It originated with RAAF No. 10 Squadron, based at Edinburgh, South Australia. Why it is held in Brisbane is a mystery to me.”

http://ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-national-archives-of-australia.html



(wikimedia.org image)

UFO Article (Blog):
“Significant Discovery Of US Military
Records Highlighting ‘UFO Problem’
During The Vietnam War – Part 1”


By Paul Dean, 29 August 2016
(UFOs – Documenting The Evidence, Melbourne, Australia)

Quote from the article (the text in italics comes from U.S. military documents):
“The question, which I have grappled with previously, is a one of terminology. Is the term ‘UFO’ a ‘catchall’ for anything unknown and flying? One would ask, why wouldn’t military personal simply use terminology like ‘unknown helicopter’ or ‘unidentified aircraft’ or ‘suspected flak’? The fact of the matter is, they often did. Interestingly though, these more routine terms occurred alongside with, and distinct from, the term ‘UFO.’ But, without more information, we just don’t quite know what fits into the ‘UFO’ basket and what doesn’t. It has been argued that ‘UFOs’ reported during the Vietnam War must have all been North Vietnamese helicopters. With this in mind, it is worth highlighting a United States Army ‘Daily Journal’ entry which was found in the records of the 23rd Infantry Division’s Chu Lai Defense Command. Dated January the 6th, 1969, it says:

‘Twr 72 rpts object flying into their area about 700m infront of them, AZ 310°. Object came in slow over the ASP & landed. When object moves it has a glowing light. It is about 15 – 20 ft across. It is shaped like a big egg. Control twr rpts their radar did not pick anything up. Object also does not seem to have any sound to it when it moves.’

‘During Feb, there were 173 Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) Sightings.’

‘During Mar, there were 190 UFO Sightings.’

On Page 27, there is another entry regarding UFOs, and it applies to the month of April, 1969. It is important here to note that there appears to be a mistake in the author’s text. Instead of correctly listing April as the time period being discussed, they have written March. As I said above, March had already been covered with its apparent 190 sightings. To quote exactly, it states:

‘During Mar, there were 46 UFO Sightings.’

‘During the entire reporting period, concerted efforts were made to identify UFOs. Further discussion of these efforts is precluded by the classification of this report.’

‘Current action on UFOs was initiated in Nov 68 when the 4th Inf Div requested a Restricted Flying Area/Defense Identification Zone in order to aid in the identification of unidentified flying objects. In early Jan 69, a message was received from COMUSMACV directing that HAWK acquisition radars would be furnished by the 6th Bn 56th Arty, to aid in UFO detection and identification. On or about 25 Jan the following radars were received accompanied by operating personnel: (1) Pulse Acquisition Radar; (2) Continual Wave Acquisition Radar; and (3) Illumination Radar. These were placed in operation the night of 31 Jan with the radar CP located at LZ Oasis. The Air Force provided a liaison officer at the CP. Presently, the Air Force and the 4th Inf Div are gathering data for analysis; the Air Force will not grant engagement clearance while objects are in the air as positive identification as hostile has yet to be determined.’

‘Another facet of target identification involved confirming the many visual, radar, and infrared sightings. No ‘hard evidence’ such as photographs or wreckage was obtained. On three successive August nights, RF–4s flew a total of 12 sorties against 34 radar–plotted UFO targets. The photos showed no helicopters despite several runs which, according to the radar, passed directly over the targets. On 28 August, an RF–4C using photo flash cartridges ran controlled tests to photograph a friendly helicopter at night. Of 38 exposed frames made on four passes, only two frames showed the helicopter. The summary of results to the 7AF Command Section said…’

‘This test confirms previous opinion by DOCR that chances of photographing one of the UFOs in the DMZ is extremely remote… …Even the two successful exposures required last minute flight correction by a DOCR representative riding in the lead helicopter.’

‘Two special projects were established to observe the UFOs from Con Thien, the highest hill in the eastern DMZ area. The primary mission of project HAVE FEAR did not concern the helicopter reports, but this Air Force Weapons Laboratory project had laser range finders and night observation devices (NOD) that offered some chance of identifying the sightings. HAVE FEAR personnel saw red lights and got video blips. The UFOs usually traveled at speeds from 30 to 80 mph at altitudes from 1,200 to 1,600 feet. After several days of tracking, the red blinking lights would extinguish when under HAVE FEAR surveillance. The project ran from 4–12 August 1968 and resumed from 18–31 August.’

‘In mid-August, HAVE FEAR was joined by Project LETHAL CHASER, which used manpack radar. From 18 August through 3 September 1968, the several observation systems conducted a joint, integrated search that also employed Waterboy radar. The criteria for a valid track included the UFO being within 11 miles of Con Thien, being unidentified by Jazzy Control, having a track of at least two minutes duration, and traveling at less than 180 mph. This joint effort got 67 valid tracks, but no conclusive identifications.

By late August, the helicopter situation dwindled away into occasional sightings and little new technical data. Several times the peculiarities of the tracks and the lack of confirmation where expected (such as from troops in the plotted area) defied adequate explanation. The 7AF Commander decided the results could not justify continuing the projects and MACV concurred.’

As we can see, there are a number of endnotes in the above text. Endnotes 132 and 135 are listed as a document titled ‘Msg, 7AF to COMUSMACV, ‘Summary Report of UFOs in DMZ,’ 19 Sep 68. Endnote 133, is listed as ‘Memo, Col Michael J. Quirk, DOC, 7AF, ‘Test–Night Photo of Helicopters,’ undated (About 30 Aug 68).’ Endnote 134 is listed as ‘Msg, Det 1, 620th TCS to 7AF, ‘HAVE FEAR,’ 25 Aug 68; (S/NF) Memo, ‘Intelligence Annex (Enemy Helicopters),’ undated (Late Aug 68).’ This leaves no doubt that the information conveyed in these pages was gleaned directly from raw, established USAF authority.

‘An additional function mentioned in this report was that of monitoring UFO reports. Information was relayed from forward observation posts through counter-battery intelligence channels to the FSCC, where the liaison team gathered all necessary information into the proper format and passed it on to the appropriate air defense agencies.’



































(3.bp.blogspot.com/
ufos-documenting-the-evidence.blogspot.com image)

Thursday, 8 September 2016

UFO Article (Blog):
“Finally, US Air Force Records Discovered
Confirming UFO Activity During The Striking
Of The HMAS Hobart – Part 2”


By Paul Dean, 18 August 2016
(UFOs – Documenting The Evidence, Melbourne, Australia)

HMAS Hobart was attacked by a United States Air Force F–4 Phantom Fighter-Bomber on 17 June 1968.

Quote from the article:
“Of course, no serious research project falls back on a single document. Anyone who knows my work will be well aware that I ceaselessly bring forth more, and more, and more, unseen government UFO records to the table. In this Part 2, I aim to present new, or barely known, records which relate to the HMAS Hobart incident. Moreover, there may be, unsurprisingly, a great deal more still–classified records relating to the incident that we simply do not have access to.

An important question which must be asked is that of terminology. Is the use of the term ‘UFO,’ when used in Vietnam–era military records, merely a ‘catchall’ for anything which is airborne and simply unknown to the observer? It would be easy to assume such is the case. However, time and time again we see the term ‘UFO,’ or ‘Unidentified Flying Object’ as distinctly referenced alongside terms like ‘unidentified aircraft,’ ‘unknown aircraft’ and the like.

Another (USMC) ‘Command Chronology’ publication makes reference to ongoing UFO activity in the precise vicinity of where HMAS Hobart was patrolling, and only two nights beforehand. Titled ‘III Marine Amphibious Force, Air Ground Team, Command Chronology, June 1968,’ it was printed by Headquarters, III Marine Amphibious Force, Military Assistance Command on the 9th of August, 1968. Originally classified ‘SECRET,’ and only downgraded to ‘UNCLASSIFIED’ in 2014, it is held, among thousands of similar publications, at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in Washington DC. In a chapter titled ‘Intelligence,’ there is this curious statement on Page 17:

‘During the late evening hours of 15 June approximately 15 unidentified aircraft, believed to be enemy helicopters, were reportedly sighted in the DMZ area.  Since that time there have been numerous sightings, both visual and by radar, of unidentified, slow–moving UFO’s in the DMZ area and seaward toward Tiger Island.  No hard evidence of these aircraft has yet been received.’

So, even this USMC historical record – which was authored by utilising raw and classified records – states that ‘unidentified aircraft’ on the 15th of June were only ‘believed’ to be enemy helicopters. Beyond that, ‘numerous sightings’ – seen both visually and on radar – of ‘unidentified, slow–moving UFO’s’ around Tiger Island obviously were of concern. The date–range of these sightings, of course, lead right up to the accidental missile strike on HMAS Hobart.”

http://ufos-documenting-the-evidence.blogspot.com/2016/08/finally-us-air-force-records-discovered_18.html















HMAS Hobart attack map (project1947.com)
(project1947.com image)

UFO Article (Blog):
“Finally, US Air Force Records Discovered
Confirming UFO Activity During The Striking
Of The HMAS Hobart – Part 1”


By Paul Dean, 11 August 2016
(UFOs – Documenting The Evidence, Melbourne, Australia)

HMAS Hobart was attacked by a United States Air Force F–4 Phantom Fighter-Bomber on 17 June 1968.

Quote from the article:
“The report that mentions the HMAS Hobart is titled ‘Project CHECO South East Asia Report: Air War In The DMZ September 1967 – June 1968.’ It was produced by the 7th Air Force’s (7AF) Directorate of Tactical Evaluation, Headquarters, Pacific Air Forces (HQ PACAF), and was published on the 1st of August, 1969. Signed off by Col. Warren H. Peterson, the report was originally classified SECRET/AIR FORCE EYES ONLY, the report was only declassified on the 17th of August, 2006. In relation to the HMAS Hobart and UFO’s, on pages forty–five and forty–six it states:

‘The several direct hits or near misses on friendly vessels by the Air Force missiles obviously raised the question of what went wrong with target acquisition. The pilots, based on their radar and visual sightings, fired at what they thought were helicopters. The joint service conference on the UFO problem took note of one possibility…’

This passage ends with an endnote, namely, number ‘128.’ The next passage of text is a quote taken directly from raw USAF records, and it states:

‘It is important to note that only in the case of the Hobart were the recorded targets in close proximity to ships. It is possible that targets fired on were airborne and that missiles subsequently [were] guided on the stronger radar return from ships in the vicinity.’ 

So what can we take from this? The fact that USAF attempted to make sense of these elusive ‘visual, radar, and infrared sightings,’ by organising the photographing of them, is something that we scarcely see in the established official record. The statement ‘…On three successive August nights, RF–4s flew a total of 12 sorties against 34 radar–plotted UFO targets’ demonstrates clearly the urgency of the situation. The statement about the ‘…chances of photographing one of the UFOs in the DMZ is extremely remote…’ indicates that a fair degree of discussion must have taken place over the matter. If that is not enough, note the passage of text which states ‘…two special projects were established to observe the UFOs….’ There is no question that something odd was going on. To use the frowned–upon term ‘UFO’ so readily implies that US forces had few clues as to what they were visually witnessing and plotting on radar systems. Also, as I mentioned at the beginning of this entry, the term ‘UFO’ is utilised as distinct from terms like ‘hostile aircraft,’ ‘flak,’ ‘rocket barrage,’ ‘formation of planes’ and so forth.”


Wikipedia article: “HMAS Hobart (D 39)”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Hobart_(D_39)

Quote from the Wikipedia article:
“HMAS Hobart (D 39) was a Perth class guided missile destroyer of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN).”











HMAS Hobart in California, 1992 (wikimedia.org)
(wikimedia.org photo)

UFO Newsletter Issue:
“AFU Newsletter”


No. 37 – January 1992 - December 1993
(Archives for UFO Research (AFU), Norrköping, Sweden)

Source: Archives For the Unexplained (AFU), Norrköping, Sweden

The newsletter contains the article (written by Clas Svahn) titled “Security police investigates ‘cigar’ sighting.”

Quote from the above mentioned article (Page 4):
“UFO sightings in broad daylight involving several witnesses are not common. However, such an incident took place at Håknäs, 40 km south of Umeå in the north of Sweden, in the autumn of 1991 (25 August 1991). As long as the investigation is in process, the witnesses must remain anonymous. This is one of many cases where representatives of the Swedish security police (SÄPO) have been ordered, by the milltary forces, to investigate a UFO sighting.

Sources: Telephone interviews with two of the witnesses on March 2, 1992, several conversations with the security department at the infantry regiment and with the security police officer.”























Map of Sweden (and most of Scandinavia) (lib.utexas.edu)
(lib.utexas.edu image)

Wednesday, 7 September 2016

UFO Article (Blog):
“Spain: CIA Document Discloses
Possible UFO Sighting in Barcelona”


19 August 2016
(Inexplicata.blogspot.com)

The CIA document is titled “FLYING SAUCERS IN SPAIN AND NORTH AFRICA.”

http://inexplicata.blogspot.com/2016/08/spain-cia-document-discloses-possible.html













(wikimedia.org image)

Tuesday, 6 September 2016

Google Searches:
Focus On UFOs In Venezuela


(Government of Venezuela Websites) (Search term: OVNI) (All)

(Government of Venezuela Websites) (OVNIs) (All)

(OVNI Venezuela Gobierno (Government)) (All)

(OVNI Venezuela site:ve) (All)

(OVNIs Venezuela site:ve) (All)

(OVNI site:com.ve) (All)

(OVNIs site:com.ve) (All)

(OVNI site:net.ve) (All)

(OVNIs En Venezuela) (All)

(OVNIs En Venezuela) (Videos)

(OVNI Noticias Venezuela site:ve) (All)

(OVNI Noticias Venezuela) (All)

(OVNI Noticias Venezuela) (Videos)

(OVNI Programa TV Venezuela) (Videos)

(UFOs In Venezuela) (All)

(UFOs In Venezuela) (Videos)
























Map of Venezuela (lib.utexas.edu)
(lib.utexas.edu image)

Monday, 5 September 2016

UFO News Article:
“Pentagon’s G-2 On Trail of Saucers”


6 July 1947
(The News (unknown U.S. newspaper))

(Project Blue Book, U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.)

Source: Fold3.com, Lindon, Utah

The whole article:
“Army intelligence has begun the job of digging out the facts on the outburst of ‘flying saucers’ reported flitting over widespread parts of the nation, but to date remains completely mystified.

The News learned that the saucers are definitely not connected with any U.S. experimental military project.

A War Department source revealed that the G-2 section (Intelligence) went to work a year ago on reports of other strange objects flying around the skies and came to the conclusionnever fully verifiedthat they were meteorites of some description.

But the reputable witnesses who have reported seeing the saucers in the last few days have given rise to growing concern at the Pentagon.

Intelligence agents in the field have been instructed to examine eyewitnesses and make every effort to determine the cause of the strange events.”


https://www.fold3.com/image/9669148

Related post:

realtvufos.blogspot.com/2016/06/ufo-news-articles-articles-reporting-on.html







The Pentagon (2008), Arlington, Virginia
(wikimedia.org photo)

Sunday, 4 September 2016

UFO News Article:
“Brick Township’s UFO triggered Air Force probe”


28 August 2016
(Asbury Park Press, Neptune City, New Jersey)

The article reports on the 1966 United States UFO wave and U.S. Air Force veteran James Novello’s 27 March 1966 Brick Township, New Jersey, UFO sighting.



















Map of Brick Township in Ocean County, New Jersey (wikimedia.org(wikimedia.org image)

Saturday, 3 September 2016

UFO Article:
“My UFOs and Nukes Documentary:
The Debunkers Remain Oddly Silent”


By Robert L. Hastings, 1 September 2016
(The UFO Chronicles, 3 September 2016)

Quote from the article:
“Given that the film presents several authenticated documents and on-camera interviews with vetted military witnesses, all discussing the reality of the decades-long UFO-Nukes Connection, perhaps the skeptics have finally realized the futility of their unceasing efforts to debunk the UFO-nukes link.

Nah, that can’t be it. This crowd will never admit—even to themselves—that their misguided, weak arguments are now untenable. Maybe they are just lying low, realizing that they have nothing to gain by critiquing the film, in light of the overwhelming evidence it presents. (Now that I have written this article, look for some of them to claim that they didn’t want to pay five bucks to support my ‘nonsense,’ which gives them a convenient excuse not to comment.)

Regardless, after five months online, the documentary has received near-unanimous praise from persons living all over the planet. And the audience is growing ever larger by the week, now far surpassing the number of readers who tackled my 600-page book. In short, things are moving in the right direction, in terms of public education, which is my overarching goal.”

http://www.theufochronicles.com/2016/09/my-ufos-and-nukes-documentary-debunkers.html


















(2.bp.blogspot.com/theufochronicles.com image)

Friday, 2 September 2016

UFO Case Directory (TRACECAT):
“Category 6, Physical Traces
‘Ghost Rocket’ Crashes Into Lake
July 19, 1946
Lake Kolmjarv (Kölmjärv), Sweden”


(NICAP.org)

The whole UFO case report:
Fran Ridge:
July 19, 1946; Lake Kolmjarv, Sweden
11:45 a.m. Knut Lindbäck (38) and his maid Beda Persson (18) were involved in hay-making. Both were working by the leaning shores of Lake Kölmjärv. It was almost noon, and the sun was broiling hot. All of a sudden a humming sound was heard from the sky. Knut looked up since he thought it was an airplane. Instead, he spotted a rocket-like device diving towards the lake. In the company of Beda he watched the two meters long, ashen-gray projectile falling into the water about 1.5 km away, near the south-western shore of the lake. A tall column of water emerged and was soon followed by yet another cascade. That it was a solid object of that he was sure. The object was two meters long and had a snub nose, while the stern was pointed. He thought there were a few small wing-like protrusions on the side, but he wasn’t sure. Everything happened so quickly. The length of the water pillar was ‘a few meters’ according to the first newswire report cabled to all Swedish newspapers. From contemporary news items it is further evident that there was no light on, or from, the object. The Swedish news agency TT reported that the two prime witnesses had heard no explosions, however, Lindbäck told Dagens Nyheter that ‘there was a smashing sound, but this was probably from the water thrown up.’ The magnitude of the crash is underlined, however, by yet another witness (located in 1984) who was standing by the northern shore of the lake, just a couple of hundred meters from the site of impact. Frideborg Tagebo, 14 years old in 1946, remembers everything clearly. [See more detailed report below] (Carl Feindt)”

http://www.nicap.org/460719sweden_dir.htm





















Satellite photo of Lake Kölmjärv, Sweden (tageo.com)
(tageo.com photo)

Swedish Government UFO Documents:
“Index of /Downloads/UFO reports/
Scandinavia/GR translations/
46-07-19 Kölmjärv rocket crash”


Source: Archives For the Unexplained (AFU), Norrköping, Sweden

The Lake Kölmjärv, Sweden, UFO incident occurred on 19 July 1946, at 11:45 a.m.


Lake Kölmjärv (Mapcarta.com):

http://mapcarta.com/13555830

Related post:

realtvufos.blogspot.com












“Swedish Air Force officer Karl-Gösta Bartoll searches for a ‘ghost rocket’ seen to crash into Lake Kölmjärv on July 19, 1946.” (Wikipedia text) (wikimedia.org(wikimedia.org photo)

Thursday, 1 September 2016

Wednesday, 31 August 2016

UFO Paper:
“The Swedish ‘Ghost Rocket’ Crisis of 1946”


By Robert E. Bartholomew, Anders Liljegren and Clas Svahn

Source: Archives For the Unexplained (AFU), Norrköping, Sweden

Quote from the document:
“Between early May and September 30th, 1946, a widespread panic occurred across Sweden as tens of thousands of citizens reported observations of phantom missiles. This led to the widespread folk theory that remote-controlled German V-rockets confiscated by the Soviets at the close of World War II, were being test-fired as a form of political intimidation, or a prelude to an invasion. Despite the widely publicized views of Swedish and foreign politicians, military officials, newspaper editors and scientists supporting the rocket’s reality, and voluminous press reports often treating their existence as factual, no concrete physical evidence was ever found. By the episode’s end, Swedish military investigators concluded that most observations were of meteors and related celestial phenomena, and of those unexplained, none were V-rockets.

Active American assistance supplied to Sweden during the ghost bomb crisis, reflected their concern over the Soviet’s long-range missile deployment capacity given the widespread conviction that they would soon develop atomic weaponry. American aerial warfare expert General James Doolittle flew to Sweden, discussing the sightings with Swedish Air Force commanders on August 21st, the same day it was reported that Swedish officials had approached Great Britain about buying radar equipment to track the ‘rockets,’ as British radar experts reportedly visited Sweden to provide first-hand evaluations of radar investigations. Curiously, a British intelligence report (‘Investigation of missile activity in Scandinavia,’ dated September 9) bears no evidence of such a visit. Most of the data in this report is from Norway, and nothing is said about radar sightings or analysis thereof. The radar cases that have been documented in the Defense Staff Archives, are not impressive and could be judged as such by competent Swedish Air Force personnel. Meanwhile phantom rockets were occasionally sighted during the episode in other Scandinavian countries, and to a lesser extent in Europe, but none matched the Swedish reports in terms of volume and social reaction.

On October 10th, the Defense Staff announced the results of its four-month investigation. It concluded that 80 percent of approximately 1,000 reports were attributable to ‘celestial phenomena,’ and of the remainder that were unexplainable, there was no conclusive evidence that any were V-type rockets or other objects of foreign-government origin.”



















The Coat of Arms of the Swedish Armed Forces (wikimedia.org)
(wikimedia.org image)

Tuesday, 30 August 2016

UFO News Article (Google Search):
“Spökraket jagades i bil genom Roslagen”
(“Ghost rocket chased in car through Roslagen”)


28 May 1946
(Aftonbladet, Stockholm, Sweden)

Source: Archives For the Unexplained (AFU), Norrköping, Sweden

The cylindrical shaped, unknown object was sighted on 25 May 1946, at 6:30 p.m.


NOTE: Copy and paste the text into Google Translate to get an understandable translation.

The article (Swedish text) is presented in the book, UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry (Page 12).

Wikipedia article: “Roslagen”:


Quote from the Wikipedia article:
“Roslagen is the name of the coastal areas of Uppland province in Sweden, which also constitutes the northern part of the Stockholm archipelago.”

Related post:

realtvufos.blogspot.com























The Roslagen areas are shown in yellow (wikimedia.org)
(wikimedia.org image)