In my opinion, this new evidence of the bands on the Moon’s surface is too important in its implications to leave it to just my previous #070 report titled “Moon Banding Evidence.” So, I’m including this second report with yet more of this type of evidence from different Moon locations to provide more exposure in emphasizing this type of incredible evidence, its significance, and to demonstrate that the previous report #070 banding evidence limited sampling isn’t some kind of fluke or aberration in the Moon satellite imaging.
At their stated resolution of 1-pixel = 1-km, the above first image is the official closest view. It is difficult to tell because of all the obscuring tampering covering up all size frames of reference natural geology but this is still a relatively distant view provided in the military’s Clementine official science data. Because the official imaging is out of focus and a bit fuzzy, the only thing I’ve done in these images is to clarify the view with some mild color and sharpening. In the normal fairly poor fuzzy official view, these many vertical lines might well be confused (no doubt by intent) with the Clementine camera orbital path narrow strip imaging junction (joining) lines where the craft moved over laterally 2.5 degrees on each subsequent orbital pass.
As I’ve stated in my previous #070 report, I suspect one of the purposes of this choice of orbital path was to match the orientation of the true ground based band evidence they already knew was there. Why?
Because they knew that, while any automated computerized image tampering obfuscation tactics they would use would be largely effective, they would not be perfect and the overall band patterns would still be visible printing through the mapping tampering applications as the map aspect of the tampering software maps and conforms to their elevated shapes and an explanation would have to be ready and waiting for that. It is anticipated that their explanation would be that these are digital camera imaging artifact lines where the many digital individual images are joined together in a mosaic to form a long south to north pole oriented strip and these long strips would then be joined together and these “lines” would be the unfortunate result.
However, with clarity enhancement to partially defeat the official fuzzy quality as part of the obfuscation tactic of the official imaging as released, you can clearly see that this is not really the case. Once there is a better less occluded view as seen here, you can clearly see the individual differences between the bands. Also, note that it is only every other band that is solid appearing with a light reflective color while every other band in between is a darker color with an open network appearance of short parallel straight and right angle lines. It is quite obvious that these close and uniformly spaced bands are ground based phenomena and not even remotely to be confused with digital imaging artifacts.
As further evidence of this, look very closely at each band in the above first image. Note that each band, whether the lighter color solid or the darker color open network appearing type, is completely unique with its own special pattern and characteristics and that this unique pattern is definitely not repeated in nearby bands. This characteristic of the individuality of each band alone precludes imaging artifacts and their natural repeating uniformity as being a factor.
Also, note how the otherwise straight darker open network type bands also swell in an arc deflecting to the right just a little in sections of their length deflecting well out of the camera’s straight orbital flight path. Digital imaging junction lines would be expected to be much more uniformly straight and not like this at all.
As ground based phenomena, is this lateral deflection to the side a function of terrain based geology such as a change in height of the terrain? The answer is no. This is in reality an illusion created by the image tampering applications placement on these bands creating wider appearing spots down their length. As confirmation of the true straight quality of all of the bands, note that the lighter color every other band types right beside them are still arrow straight down their length denying any ground irregularities as being a factor.
Remember to that, although the individual bands appear narrow here in this official very distant view, they are in reality very wide and thick. The official resolution statistics say that the official imaging used here is 1-pixel equals 1-kilometer. If true, that makes each band very wide/thick indeed at as much as several kilometers across. That’s really huge! Obviously, that simple fact alone would preclude digital imaging artifacts as a factor where imaging splice lines would be expected to be so thin as to be nearly invisible.
In fact, this can be confirmed by examination of the joining of the Clementine images near the either of the polar regions where more imaging angle is involved and therefore more distortion reveals the repeated presence of the true imaging splice lines as very faint thin lines just as one might expect them to be and much further apart than these bands. The last image in this report demonstrates this evidence to confirm.
In such digital satellite imaging, splice lines that are actually visible and identifiable at the official resolution are sometimes a function of imaging poor terrain offset edge matching or much more often dissimilar false terrain textures due to differences in tampering applications than anything else. Otherwise, they are usually not visible at all except under very substantial magnification. The telling point is these broad thick bands bear not the slightest resemblance to imaging splice lines.
Finally, there is the abundant and great variety of imaging tampering applications and their impact to consider. They are so thick and universally applied in this Clementine imaging that they create a sea of meaningless jumble of false illusion detail out of the terrain so that little actual Moon surface detail is visible at all. Except for some band outline print through, the thick bands are mostly covered over and obscured by this tampering jumble. Only short sections of the bands total length are visible while the great bulk of each band length is covered over. The image tampering applications also tends to give the bands a false illusion of tapering at the visible ends that isn’t real.
Also, very close examination reveals that the bands are for the most part covered up UNDER these applications with only their vague outlines then printing through from underneath the mapping applications. The fact that they are covered up by and under this blanket of tampering applications implies that the bands are real ground based phenomena detail and are not themselves digitally created illusions. It would be hard to imagine the point in going to all the trouble of artificially creating so many bands, including even their unique individual appearance patterns, and then turning around and covering up most of that tampering work with more tampering work with only a little bit showing through here and there as seen here in the universal tampering fields.
I suspect that we see these small portions of the bands left out of the tampering only because the automated map tampering software is programmed, probably based on percentages of coverage, to leave some true but minor amount of terrain detail out within the tampering field on the theory that there will be too little of the total anomalous evidence left out to be recognizable. A little true detail left out breaks up the otherwise featureless tampering field so that it doesn’t draw as much attention to itself. That strategy probably works reasonably okay on small to larger finite patches of anomalous evidence but doesn’t work nearly as well on the same kind evidence that covers a broad massive area as is the case here.
In such a scenario, the only thing available to leave out is critical identifiable material. For example, here the tampering is effective because it has essentially destroyed almost all geometric evidence including that on the bands themselves, especially the darker color open network looking bands. But, the darker mapping applications there still left some lighter color edges out that are forming the straight lines that you see. Further, the overall pattern is still too pronounced and still too much in evidence. Fortunately for you and I, this demonstrates that no technological solution is ever perfect, particular in the face of the massive scale of evidence to be obscured and so compromise is the name of the game.
But, this “… in the face of massive scale of evidence …” concept brings up other considerations. Remember, the image tampering is evidence to and it is on a massive scale literally obliterating most of the visuals of the entire Moon surface. Does the implications of that escape you?
Likewise, if the image tampering is to be effective enough in keeping secrets, it is must be due in part to the technology and in part with its roots in our human psychology. Remember, this evidence you are seeing here has been around since 1994 for many years and seen by a great many scientists and other researchers but has never to my knowledge been seriously questioned or this aspect of the evidence brought forward. It is only now beginning to come into some conscious awareness. One has to ask why?
The above second image shows a portion of the same scene in the first image but with a closer 200% zoom view. The 200% zoom factor is about all we can get out of the official Clementine imaging before too much blur and imaging artifacts begin to be a visual factor.
As you can clearly see and as has been pointing out in previous reporting, smooth smudge image tampering covers most of this scene destroying most of the band’s visuals with only parts of the banding seen. Further, even on most of what little of the rest can be seen, the tampering fields invade it covering most everything. Even so, although the tampering has mapped to this evidence and covered the center area volumes of each rectangular object or structure, it has left the lighter color edges out demonstrating the many right angle geometric pattern characteristics of this evidence.
It is these many obvious straight and right angle rectangular patterns left out of the tampering applications that shouts obvious artificiality. It is so incredibly obvious and revealing to the point that there can be no mistake about it. There is not the slightest chance that rigid uniformly repeating hard evidential patterns like this can be confused with Moon natural terrain topography. Likewise, there is not the slightest chance that this hard visual evidence could be confused with digital imaging artifacts of any kind.
The next four images just show different band locations on the Moon’s surface. First there is the official distant view and then with a 200% closer view of the same scene repeating the presentation style of the two images above. Since they represent just more evidence of the same phenomena, I’ll just let the images speak for themselves and add my two cents onto the end,
If you were looking at these scenes in the official science data imaging such as the above fifth image and only with its more fuzzy view unlike the sharpened one above, it is understandable to some extent to see how many researching this evidence and accepting official information on it at face value might assume that all these many vertical south to north lines are the junction lines joining digital image strips in a mosaic greater whole, just as I’m sure was the intended misdirection. If one doesn’t look very close, this illusion is more intact in this official resolution view but then falls apart in the closer views.
As you can see in the above sixth image, when one looks closer, the illusion does start falling apart and a different reality begins to assert itself. One where it is easier to see the thickly applied universal featureless smudge tampering in the spaces between the bands and how this crosses over onto the bands. If it were not for the software’s mistake that the tampering applications on the band structures only map to the edge of each structure leaving a very thin more light reflective strip at the edge of each structure out forming what appears to be a line, the illusion goal might be complete.
Just in case anyone may require proof of what the Clementine true image strip boundary edges actually look like, I’ve included the above seventh image even though it is going to bog down the loading of this report on dial-up connections. Remember, this is the exact same resolution as in my first, third, and fifth images above drawn from the same science data and directly comparable to each other.
Please note the very fine image junction lines as pointed out with my short green arrows above as compared to the thick band lines with their highly individualistic characteristics seen elsewhere in this report. Please also take special note of the total broad width of this image and the fact that you could place many adjacent band lines within this one strip. Obviously, the true Clementine survey image strip boundary lines have nothing what so ever to do with the band lines.
The fact is that we are seeing these fine image junction lines for several reasons. One minor reason is that this location at Latitude 70º N. and 0º Longitude is very near the transition point where the satellite begins to mover further away from the Moon’s surface over the in this case the North Polar region, the camera swath starts converging to a point in the North Polar region typical of the Clementine imaging, and distortion of the surface begins to play a bit of a role. Second and also relatively minor, there is some slight mismatching of the terrain at the edges.
However, the most dominant reason by far is the mismatch in tampering applications between the strips involved. For example, note that the tampering applications in the upper left of the scene are darker to the left side of the line than on the right side. I might point out that this also demonstrates the presence of the tampering applications to.
If an original official image view is out of focus and fuzzy, as is the case in the official imaging, it is reasonable to expect an automatic desire response on the part of imaging experts right away to correct this. After all, trained scientists dealing with satellite imaging are all trained and knowledgeable enough to bring this evidence into clearer focus in a graphics program just as I have done here. Once this is done, even in the more distant official resolution imaging, the multitude of short arrow straight geometric lines, often in close parallel and at right angle counter to the camera orbital path, are distinctly visible just as you can clearly see here in this report’s first, third and fifth images.
If we can see it so readily, then clearly they should be able to see it to. One would think that such initial insight alone offers and even forces a real leap forward in perception of evidence at the very least being questionable and at the most out right suggesting artificiality. That initial perception would logically fuel excitement and then the compelling need to investigate closer revealing more and more anomalous information just as you seen here. The very basic 200% closer zoom sharper imaging you see here in my second, fourth and sixth images, is hard evidence that logically just reinforces the perception of artificiality even more and not an impression that there is nothing worthy of closer investigation. So what is going on here with these people?
Likewise, look at my first six images here carefully in their whole context. Note that there is hardly any visual aspect within these images that even remotely resembles natural terrain geology on the Moon or any planetary body for that matter. That’s because most all of the detail here, other than parts of some of the band lines, is a variety of image tampering applications applied at different resolution levels and in multiple layers creating false artificial digital detail. The result is a mixed jumble of little real at all. There is a lot of detail but almost none of it is geological terrain. Please note that even craters on the known heavily cratered Moon surface are visually compromised and mostly hidden beneath these applications and very conspicuous by their absence. I would call that a major clue! Yet, how can professionals fail to see this?
That this is not perceived by others and especially our best scientists is very strange to the point of even being absurd, highly suspicious and disturbing. Are we witnessing some basic quirk in human behavior here where we see only what we are conditioned to see and unable to see anything that deviates from that conditioning? If it is conditioning, is this self induced, manipulated from without, or some combination of both?
Why can’t at least some these highly educated people just once in a while think outside the “box” and reevaluate rather than everyone just following everyone else in the all too well beaten seductively familiar and comfortable paths? Certainly the building process upon previously gained OBJECTIVE information is historically how man’s knowledge base is advanced but that also assumes sound accurate objective information input to start with which of course is often not the case in an imperfect environment with imperfect people. So we must always be alert to avoid inaccurate information getting in to start with and we must always be ready and willing to objectively reevaluate to make sure that we are really on the reality track with our information.
So you see, this isn’t just a evolving and revealing story about the possible presence of civilizations other than our own around us past and/or present and some incredibly advanced technology, it is also a evolving and revealing story about ourselves as a people and the choices we make and/or fail to make. Are we just about fears and resisting truth that brings change or we also about meeting change and destiny head on and aggressively? The choice and responsibility is ours individually and collectively. We succeed or fail on our own merit.
DOCUMENTATION (replaced 2/16/2010)
The military’s Clementine Lunar Browser (CLIB) version 1.5 has been “retired” and the new “improved” version 2.0 data that replaces it now conveniently (for secrecy) does not contain the discovery evidence presented here in this report and it appears that those former discovery sites have been altered in the 2.0 data to sanitize them away. Therefore, to facilitate verification and prove that the anomalous discoveries were in fact in the older 1.5 science data and part of it for 16 years, the links immediately below access the unaltered version 1.5 originals downloaded by this researcher in 2004 and now parked on this website.
Since the general terrain around these discovery sites can still be identified in the new 2.0 data despite changes, you can compare the old 1.5 versus the new 2.0 sites and see the sanitization for yourself. Even though this may be historically consistent with past secrecy treatment of anomalous Moon evidence, I see this foolishness 16 years later military move targeting these anomalous discoveries as particularly offensive, arrogant, and of very poor judgment. Worse it demonstrates a serious disconnect with and disregard for the American people who paid for this and who’s sole property it is. However, you must decide for yourself.
http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementine/clib: This link accesses the Clementine Lunar Image Browser (CLIB) version 2.0 noting that version 1.5 data is now no longer available. There one can search the official military Clementine science data based via either the graphical interface or Moon latitude and longitude coordinates. When using those coordinates below highlighted in green, just enter them in the appropriate coordinate boxes and hit your return or enter key. Remember that coordinate numbers in the southern hemisphere must be preceded by a minus sign.
Report 1st & 2nd images of bands distant & closer: At the above link on the form provided enter 0 in the Latitude box and 160 in the Longitude box and then hit your enter or return key.
Report 3rd & 4th images of bands distant & closer: At the above link on the form provided enter 0 in the Latitude box and 120 in the Longitude box and then hit your enter key.
Report 5th & 6th images of bands distant & closer: At the above link on the form provided enter 0 in the Latitude box and 100 in the Longitude box and then hit your enter key. Note this evidence is in the southern hemisphere.
Report 7th image of the massive blocky squared low profile structure: At the above link on the form provided enter 70 in the Latitude box and 0 in the Longitude box and then hit your enter key. Note that this evidence is in the southern hemisphere.