This second part of this report is about the so called “spires” on the Moon in old Lunar Orbiter data that is suppose to be free of censorship and found by someone else reporting HEREat the ATS (Above Top Secret) forum. The evidence of the spires as shown in my above 13th image is of the same scene shown at ATS but larger here. For the information of those following behind to confirm this evidence in the science data, the scene actually appears in two of the Lunar Orbiter 5 science data images lo5-125-h2a and lo5-126-h2d that overlap the same spot of terrain.
I was originally interested in this tall upright evidence because I thought it might shed some additional insight on my previous findings of very obvious tower looking objects hidden by image tampering on the Moon in previous Report #067 and Report #068. As it turns out, the confirmation may be there but still visually compromised.
There are four things of importance that I want to draw your attention to in the above image. That would be (1) the tall dark spires on the bottom left; (2) the small reflective blurry objects mixed among some of the tall dark spires suggesting building shapes; (3) the much smaller dark peaked objects very similar to the spires but much smaller in the foreground and far right; and (4) and the massive dark peaked area that looks like a dark hill in the upper left of the image.
Initially the most visually interest is of course in the tall slender and sharp pointed dark “spire” looking objects in the left mid area of the above image. These are very tall upright objects and they obviously are not natural. That guarantees that attention will be drawn to them. However, there is a glaring problem with them. Note also that not a one of the tall spires is throwing any kind of shadow of any length must less one commensurate with their shapes.
Note that this is also true of the smaller dark peaked objects as well as the massive hill like object. In fact this lack of shadow factor for tall and/or massive objects is common in the image strips possessing this type of evidence. Further, this type of evidence is always in rough mountainous terrain and never in the more level plain locations.
The above 14th image offers a closer view of the group of tallest spires and the objects among them in the 13th image. Because they do not throw any shadows at all, from our point of view, obviously these are not any kind of natural geological solids that we might be familiar with. Further, any type of artificially produced object we might be familiar with like any manufactured structure known to us would still block sunlight as a solid and still cast a shadow.
Even dark image tampering applications obscuring towers would still leave the question of where are the shadows? There should be a forest of them here or at least some residual of them because of the crowded conditions making it difficult to get image tampering applications adequately in among them. Further, the dark spires themselves do not seem to be shadows of invisible objects (we now know that invisibility is possible at our own technology level) as they are stiff and strait not conforming to the rough terrain irregularities around them as shadows would do.
The dull medium color dull non sunlight reflecting terrain on the left among the towers does look like image tampering applications conforming to lower level objects there. That could explain some of the lack of shadow detail on that side but not in the more light reflective terrain on the right portio of the tall spires location. The single yellow arrow does point out a cluster of objects that suggest more conventional to our eye building structures at that spot and there are others here as well but all still too blurry and indistinct to be sure of.
In other words, these tall spires are very mysterious evidence. I am not inclined to believe that they are created by image tampering where someone just forgot to include shadows. Why? Because look at the large number of them. In the decades later Clementine imaging, there are some huge towers hidden by tampering applications even more massive than this but not nearly as numerous as we see here in this earlier 1960s Lunar Orbiter imaging. So where’s the truth here?
Considering all the secrecy and manipulation in the science data here on Earth, I can’t answer that with any real confidence because the sources and the data they release to us just can’t be trusted. It doesn’t make much sense for our secrecy types to leave stronger evidence like this out for us to see. In my experience, it is inconsistent with their secrecy behavior to by intent leave something this eye catching out of their obfuscation tactics even to increase speculation, interest, and funding.
Likewise, all of this type of evidence occurs in mountainous very irregular terrain on the Moon and not out on the flat level terrain like the Moon’s mares. In that relatively level terrain it is much easier to develop carpeting false canvasses to blend in with and cover up the real terrain but that isn’t true here in this mountainous country where the spire evidence is located. There are just too many angles and irregularities making it much more difficult and expensive to deal with via carpeting image tampering.
So I can’t help but begin to wonder if we are looking at the real thing on this spire evidence? Could it be possible that we are looking at towers cloaked with a complete light absorbing technology material conforming to their shape that renders them visually featureless, very dark, and throwing no shadows? Could it be some material that doesn’t just block sunlight but absorbs it not allowing light to pass?
Remember that these Lunar Orbiter images were taken in August of 1967. To put this in perspective, this was during the time of the war in Vietnam and the Cold War and twenty years after the development of the Atomic bomb. Did you also know that this was the time of the “Outer SpaceTreaty” started in January of the same year and entered into force on October 10, 1967 just two months after this last Lunar Orbiter mission?
On the other hand, large massive areas like the dark hill in the top 13th image is just one example of a great many of these in this strip and others. Many are smaller but many are also much larger. Almost none are associated with where shadows have any right to be and so are not that. Frankly all of these appear to be image tampering applications covering much more massive size evidence than the spires. So, again, where is the truth here? Could this actually be some form of covert alien intervention image tampering?
The above 15th and 16th images are just a couple of samples of evidence that suggests fairly conventional size and shape structure evidence pointed out by the arrows. For those of you that wish to discover it for yourselves, the terrain in the lo5-126-h2d, lo5-125-h2a, lo5-200-h2d, lo5-200-h3d, lo5-200-h2a, and lo5-63-httop image strips that have this spire evidence in them are full of this kind of very suggestive but ultimately inconclusive evidence at the blurry edge of resolution.
I must admit that it is possible, even if improbable, that some of this we are looking at here may be the real thing. Just in case some of you may be thinking that some of these large dark areas are shadow, note that none of the evidence you see in this report are located where shadow should be. So this is a big clue that this is most definitetly not shadow.
Now I bring your attention back to the 13th image at the top of this report. Note the massive dark area immediately above the group of tallest spires. What ever it is, it too is not shadow. It appears on close inspection to be the same thing that is covering the dark tall spires and the smaller peaked objects. This more massive type dark area evidence is much more plentiful than the dark tall spires and small peaked objects combined. All of this is always associated with open rougher rocky terrain and never in the open level plain areas.
The bottom line is that there are facets of this evidence that conflict with each other. So much so that I’m sorry to say that I cannot make a call on it with any real satisfaction. You will have to decide on its merit for yourself. All I can say at this point is that you will have to make the call yourself in how you regard it.
After putting this report together but just before initial posting, a YouTube video titled “NASA: PROOF of image tampering” accessed below was just brought to my attention by a viewer. This video is 6:27 minutes long providing visual technical evidence as to how so much of the early days Lunar data has been manipulated. For example, it provides evidence into how the star fields have been purposefully removed from or blanked out in the Lunar imaging alluded to in my previous Report #150. The pace of the video is too quick, too brief, and too crowded because it is a teaser for a coming commercial work by Jose Escamilla that I had problems with but it is still informative.
However, what I want to really draw you attention to in this video is a frame at the exact 5.13 minute mark. It flashes by quick but you can pause the video to catch and hold the frame by using the slider elapsede time bar. In that frame you will see revealed the same kind of evidence that I am reporting on above apparently attempted to be hidden by over saturation glare. If this is true, then this is itself evidence of trying to obfuscate this type of evidence via different tacticals in the rough mountainous terrain as compared with the false layer tactics I’ve identified as being used in the data from the plains.
Obviously, if it is worthy of obfuscation by the secrecy crowd in this manner likely in other duplicate data images not in Professor Robinson’s collection, then this logically lends credence that the spire type evidence above may be real in the Moon terrain and that some of this data from Professor Robinson’s personal collection may actually reveal some truths along and along simply because the level of obfuscation in this particular data was less than complete and things where missed. This adds a whole new dimension to this report’s evidence.
If we assume for the moment that the evidence is real, then the shadow absence factor quickly starts leaning in favor of very advanced technology like a curtain that absorbs light not allowing it to pass or escape explaining the lack of shadows anywhere around the objects. If so, then we may be looking at some kind of self sustaining null field surrounding these objects and powering itself and these objects via light absorption energy and sustaining living and working conditions within the field. Something very crude just a little analogous here on Earth would be a dark solar cell.
If so, then I should point out that the tall narrow spires and the more numerous shorter squat smaller looking peaked dark objects are the minority evidence on the Moon. The massive dark areas, a sample of which is seen in the upper left area of the top 13th image, are by far the more numerous and major evidence. Further, many are much larger and even more massive. What could they be hiding what from our view?
Let’s face it, we may need to start preparing ourselves for a rude reality that we are not only not alone but not top dog in this sector of space. Further, we may have to face a reality that we are about as interesting to some advanced race(s) as jungle natives still living the tribal life are to us here on Earth.
Okay, we’ve examined the possibility of light absorbing evidence on the Moon, now the above 17th and 18th images demonstrate just a a couple of samples of a single very bright light source in the Moon terrain. Please note that this is a light generating source and not ground object reflectivity. Note the dispersion of the light making it distinct from ground reflectivity no matter how bright it may be. The anomaly always has the eliptical shape you see above, is never entirely round, and always appear alone by itself. I have no real explanation for this light source that I have high confidence in and so it too is a mystery.
You should know that at this point I have 16 image strips, including the two above, that this evidence appears in and expect that there will likely be more and the terrain texture is never the same in any of them. Further, there appears to be no pattern or consistency in what image strip this will appear in or whether the camera exposure is darker or brighter such as the two images you see above. So it is hard to pin this down as a camera or scanner flaw.
The only consistency that I can detect is that this always appears in the images of the terrain out in the level plains. So far in my research it has never appeared in rough irregular terrain such as that where the spire evidence is located.
However, with that said, here’s the exception evidenced in the above three 19th—21st images. The above upper left 19th image from the lo3-68-h3c strip is followed immediately in sequence by the upper right 20th image from the lo3-68-h3d strip. Both of these are the official views. Now take a look at the lower left 21st image, which is the lo3-68-h3d image flipped vertically and horizontally by me, and compare it with the upper left 19th image immediately above it.
As you will soon be able to discern in close comparison of these two one over the other images, the scenes are identical. Note that they are not only identical as to the light source and the context terrain features around it, the 19th and 21st image scenes are also identical as to its exact location on the horizontal band image separation line. What do you think the chances of that are in the 20th (and 21st) strip source image that is suppose to be taken subsequent to and independent of the 19th image strip?
Can you see how messed up the implications of this are? If the secrecy identified the light source as a camera, processing or scan artifact, one could counter that two different theoretically independent images in immediate sequence saw this same object in the terrain relegating the artifact argument to file 13. That would support that the light source is real in the terrain. However, as always, one ignores the image tampering factor at one’s peril. While one might win an argument against this being an induced camera, processing or scan artifact with the two images in sequence point, one could still be very wrong if one just attempted to ignore the image tampering factor.
Why? Because that identical band line and duplicated terrain features evidence suggests that at least a portion of what was in the first in sequence lo3-68-h3c image as a band was just flipped vertically and horizontally and installed in the next in sequence lo3-68-h3d strip. The flipping was suppose to cause enough visual confusion to disguise this. If the light source had not been included in the flipped version tending to focus this researcher’s investigation around it to uncover this, it would have without a doubt escaped detection.
I am reminded that most of the Moon Lunar Orbiter imaging of the terrain out on the more level plains we see here may well be false. So is this light source evidence some form of image tampering? If so, to what purpose? Could it be that the strategy was to introduce an anomaly like this that could not be ultimately resolved as to what it is to spark interest, speculation and debate? It could always later be identified officially as a camera flaw via misdirection after it had served its purpose. If so, that tactic likely failed because because the scientist and researchers of the 1960s and 1970s may have been too trusting and simply regarded this from the outset as some anomaly that is inexplicable or a camera or film flaw and dismissed it from thought.
Alternatively, could this be a true light source? For example one that is even more intense than it appears here and by the power of its original brightness it is coming through the top opaque obfuscation layer from the layer underneath now visually subdued by that top layer resulting in that slightly speckled light scattering look? Questions, questions, questions!
This is the problem with the older Moon imaging. Much of it as film was likely held back and what was selectively released has had a little of everything done to it over the years and generations before reaching the stage where it has been converted to digital media and made more publicly available. In fact it is a nightmare in trying to determine what is truth and what isn’t in this data and a complex minefield that can trap an unwary researcher into making incorrect assumptions and statements.
However, with all that caution stated, some of this older Moon evidence, both as to tampering and false information as well as the anomalies, is still very interesting and worth your knowing about it and considering it both in this report and future ones. One just has to be very careful about drawing conclusions from it or taking any hard positions on any evidence within it.
As for what I personally think, I suspect that this particular evidence is something in the original layer of the film that is printing through the top mostly false obfuscation layer only via its intensity as a very strong light generating source. This top layer is likely distorting what we see of the light source and effectively hiding original information associated with it so that only some of the light only gets through. I do suspect it represents an artificial light source but beyond that reasoning would be too much pure speculation.
For those determined to psychologically hang onto to the concept that this is just straight forward science data that has not been artificially manipulated like the mainstream scientists who have historically accepted it at face value, here’s my challenge. Under independent objective controls, feed this Moon science data into a super computer and have it all mapped in detail. When done, have several independent sources process the data for repetitions of data taking flipping and rotation obfuscation into consideration. I suspect you will find tons of data kicked out as being repetition thus conclusively verifying and proving massive image tampering. It is doable.
However, truthfully, although many will not agree with me, I do not really advocate this because it will just pin responsible people to the wall the focus of anger and blame. We don’t need that chewing on ourselves inward direction as there will be time for some of that fixing problems down the road. What we first need is the release of the real science data and the truth that all of this manipulation is hiding and start getting on with dealing with it.
Then we need the cooperation of and experience that the secrecy types have gained over all of these decades to help grease the mainstream adjusting process. After these processes are better in hand, then some focus can be turned backward to fix past problems and take into consideration who has helped and who has stood in the way of knowledge and tried to block it.
All report imaging here has been drawn from the large .tif image files available at each of the links below.
http://ser.sese.asu.edu/LO/lo5-126-h2d.html: This link accesses the official Lunar Orbiter V lo5-126-h2d science data image that is the source for my 13th, 14, and 15th report images. The tall spire evidence is in the upper left corner. The same evidence is also available in an overlapping view in the lo5-125-h2a image in the upper right corner.
http://ser.sese.asu.edu/LO/lo5-200-h2d.html: This link accesses the official Lunar Orbiter V lo5-200-h2d science data image that is the source for my 16th report image.
http://ser.sese.asu.edu/LO/lo3-46-h2d.html: This link accesses the official Lunar Orbiter III lo3-46-h2d science data image that is the source for my 17th report image.
http://ser.sese.asu.edu/LO/lo3-16-h2d.html: This link accesses the official Lunar Orbiter III lo3-16-h2d science data image that is the source for my 18th report image.
http://ser.sese.asu.edu/LO/lo3-68-h3c.html: This link accesses the official Lunar Orbiter III lo3-68-h3c science data image that is the source of my 19th report image.
http://ser.sese.asu.edu/LO/lo3-68-h3d.html: This link accesses the official Lunar Orbiter III lo3-68-h3d science data image that is the source of my 20th and 21st report images.