Recommended Free Tools
iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
A striking satellite image is not self-authenticating. To assess a claim about a military facility, preserve the image and its source, independently match the location, verify the capture date for the specific area, compare suitable imagery from other dates, and separate what the pixels show from what you infer about activity or intent.
1. Preserve the image and record where it came from
Start with the clearest available copy of the image. Keep the original file or an unmarked copy when possible; avoid relying only on a cropped, annotated, compressed, or reposted version. Record the platform or provider, any identified satellite or sensor, the stated capture date and time, the area or coordinates, and any processing or edits disclosed by the publisher.
Keep a record of the image’s source and the steps you use to assess it. The Justice and Accountability Unit’s Collection Protocol describes documenting imagery sources, geolocation, corroboration, and analytical work. This helps others distinguish the source image from later edits and follow how you reached a conclusion.
2. Confirm the location using several landmarks
Locate the scene independently rather than accepting a caption or pin. Look for a combination of durable features, such as runway geometry, road junctions, coastlines, rivers, terrain, field boundaries, and the layout of buildings. A single similar-looking road or building is weak evidence; several matching features provide a stronger location check.
Record the coordinates and the reference imagery or map you used. A match can establish where the pixels depict, but it does not by itself establish who controls the site, what occurred there, or whether a visible feature is military equipment. NASA’s guidance on interpreting satellite images also stresses reading image features in context rather than in isolation.
3. Verify the date for the exact area
A date displayed by a map viewer is a clue, not necessarily the capture date of every part of the image on screen. Historical map products can be mosaics or strips assembled from imagery acquired on different days. Check the imagery covering the target itself, and look for a provider preview or source record that identifies its acquisition date. Bellingcat’s guide to verifying Google Earth image dates explains why the displayed date may not describe the specific area being examined.
Rank #2
- Identify the area under review. Note the coordinates or mark the precise facility and surrounding features.
- Inspect the relevant imagery layer. Check whether the viewer provides source, acquisition, or preview details for that area rather than relying only on a general map label.
- Compare imagery from before and after the claimed date. Look for the same persistent features in separately dated scenes. A comparison can reveal whether the claimed date is plausible, but only if the scenes actually cover the same ground.
- Record uncertainty. If the platform does not establish a date for the target area, describe the date as unverified rather than treating the viewer label as conclusive.
4. Compare scenes without mistaking conditions for change
Align the same location in images from different dates and compare stable details: road lines, field boundaries, soil patterns, building footprints, and other persistent features. Consider whether apparent differences could instead result from season, vegetation, lighting, haze, clouds, or shadows.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchIn a 2015 investigation of Russian Ministry of Defence imagery concerning MH17, Bellingcat compared field and soil patterns with dated Google Earth imagery. It concluded that the claimed dates for the images it examined were inconsistent with comparison scenes and reported digital alteration in one image. That is a case-specific finding, not evidence that all official or commercial satellite imagery is manipulated. See the Bellingcat reference analysis for the comparison and its conclusions.
5. Describe what is visible before interpreting it
Resolution determines the level of detail an image can support. At one scale, it may show broad site layout or construction changes; it may not resolve enough detail to identify a small object or distinguish similar equipment. Clouds, haze, shadows, color, and surrounding context also affect interpretation. NASA notes that cloud and mountain shadows can be mistaken for dark surface features, and recommends checking other images and context.
Use language that matches the evidence. For example, describe a “vehicle-shaped object,” “new construction,” or “disturbed ground” if that is all the image establishes. Claims about an exact equipment type, unit identity, operator, intent, or operational status require additional evidence; do not present them as direct observations from pixels that cannot resolve those details.
6. Corroborate consequential claims
Compare the image with independent material, such as other dated imagery, documents, eyewitness accounts, or reputable reporting. Record which sources support the claim and which disagree. If a search finds no usable corroboration, document that too rather than implying that confirmation exists.
The Justice and Accountability Unit’s Collection Protocol describes documenting sources, analysis, corroboration, and unsuccessful searches. When presenting a conclusion, explain what the imagery supports, what it does not establish, and any uncertainty about provenance, date, coverage, or interpretation.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What to check when comparing imagery sources
| Comparison point | What to assess |
|---|---|
| Capture date | How confidently the date applies to the target area itself, not just the viewer or mosaic. |
| Resolution and coverage | Whether the source resolves the feature being discussed and covers the full area of interest. |
| Provenance | Whether the provider, capture time, original image, and processing history are attributable or documented. |
| Scene comparability | Whether season, lighting, clouds, haze, shadows, and vegetation could explain apparent differences. |
| Revisit cadence and latency | How often the area may be imaged and how long imagery may take to become available. Neither guarantees a cloud-free or timely view. |
| Independent corroboration | Whether separate imagery or other credible evidence supports the same interpretation. |
Satellite products may not be current, and coverage or resolution can vary, including around sensitive facilities. A missing, blurred, or low-resolution feature on one platform is not proof that the feature is absent on the ground. Bellingcat’s overview of maps and satellites discusses imagery freshness, revisit frequency, latency, and coverage limits.
Can shadows verify a location or capture time?
Shadow direction and length can help narrow possible locations or times, but they are supporting evidence rather than a standalone authentication method. The result depends on reliable timing and measurements, camera perspective, and ground conditions. Bellingcat’s 2024 guide to using shadows to geolocate images outlines this approach and its dependencies.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
