July 4, 2004 (documentation replaced 2/16/2010)
Joseph P. Skipper
J. P. Skipper can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org
I have a few comments that I want to express before we get into this report’s evidence. The images in this report demonstrate evidence that some may eventually find disturbing, not so much in the visual imaging itself, but rather via growing eventual awareness of the implications that arise from such evidence. Many will not be so affected but some will be in an accumulative effect.
The problem is that first we begin to consider from previously reported evidence here that there may very well be a considerable highly advanced civilization presence on what we’ve always thought of as our lifeless Moon and that is not our own. If that isn’t enough of a stunner, now we may have to actually seriously consider real evidence that the physical Moon itself may be something quite different than what we’ve all grown up thinking it to be and as it has been previously officially reported to us to be.
Some may eventually have problems handling this as their psychology finds it just too fantastic, too far outside what they consider the acceptable norm, and therefore rejectable. Further, others at the opposite end of the spectrum already deeply immersed in paranoid psychologies and stories may try to use this evidence to support and confirm already established theories. For those of you trying to figure out what to believe, just don’t become overly concerned about this evidence and its implications.
Remember that the Moon so nearby overhead has for many of the ages of Man here on Earth been a familiar influence on our lives all through known history without being perceived as a threat or risk of some kind. If we are only now waking up to a long established truth of a more complex reality involving the Moon, this is a function of an awakening process going on inside our own heads not to be confused with or interpreted as any new increased real risk external to us.
So regardless of what some others may say or try to make out of this evidence, just remember that what ever the real Moon truth is, rationally we Earth humans have done just fine and flourished so close to its influence for at least many hundreds and thousands of years. That this will some how change just because we suddenly may be becoming more aware of the presence of a greater long standing Moon reality and complexity has no rational reasonable logic to it. Our long favorable past experience with the Moon is undeniable historical hard evidence. Never forget that evidential fact when others may wish to twist this information to feed their own ends and psychologies.
The bottom line is, don’t allow yourself to be stampeded into emotional reactions by yourself or by others.
In the above first image, what you are looking at are many rigidly uniform very straight vertical and parallel bands on the Moon’s surface. What ever these bands are, you should first recognize that they are all without exception oriented south to north on the Moon as well as uniformly, evenly and precisely separated the exact same distance from one band across horizontally to the next band. In this Clementine imaging, they are best seen at and appear to be the most exposed at the Moon’s equator visibly tapering away into nothing in the upper and lower hemispheres.
The bands are the most visible in the mid equatorial region around the Moon’s surface girth and they appear to become increasingly buried beneath the surface as they extend further away into the global northern and southern hemispheres away from the equator toward the Polar regions. However, just how far they extend away from the equatorial region on the surface is visually difficult to determine. Why? Because the entire Clementine Moon imaging is visually a sea of a great many different types and levels of image tampering applications and obfuscation techniques covering and hiding evidence and creating false illusions as to terrain detail in the process and essentially covering and obscuring most of the Moon’s entire surface as well as these bands.
The net result is that we can only visually see disrupted sections of these bands and even then that view is still compromised by image tampering. For example, what you see in the above first image is actually a very distant view where we are seeing only every other band because the bands in the center between the visible ones have been effectively covered up by image tampering, at least in the first image’s official 100% view. This will become increasing apparent as more visual evidence in this report unfolds.
There is also one other piece of strong evidence in this scene pointed out with the red arrow and label. It is obviously a geometric rectangular structure demonstrating sharp uniform right angles and highly suggestive of a elevated building top and/or a walled compound area containing evidence that has been visually covered up by the pervasive image tampering on its top area. Remember, this is a very distant scene and such a structure would therefore have to be very much larger than the visual impression of a normal size building given in this imaging where all sense of scale size reference is lost in a sea of image tampering.
Take special note to of the light color smaller area projecting off the mid area of the left end of the structure and located right up against it. As you can see, there appears to be arrow on it pointing to our right toward the structure. Remember that such an arrow in such a location could only be meant to be seen from the above implying artificial flight ability. Does it say land here?
In the above second image with its closer view, you can see that the rectangular structure apparently had some objects on its top surface but these have been covered and smoothed over by some image tampering coordinated color wise to the structure’s lighter color. Why didn’t the large dark field of tampering mimicking darker Mare areas on the Moon it sits in just simply cover over this object? Frankly, I can’t say for certain why it occasionally does this with an object or two in some scenes while effectively covering everything else up of similar geometric shapes.
Could it be a flaw or blip in the programming? What I suspect is that the automated AI programming in the presence of too much geometric form evidence over too much of a broad area and working on balancing percentages gets overwhelmed with the need to leave some real detail out so that the broad blur/smudge tampering field isn’t so obvious and drawing attention to itself? However, could it also be intervention by someone wishing to provide some occasional evidence clues for future researchers going through this evidence with a closer more objective look? If intervention, by whom? Could it be one of our own or someone else entirely doing this?
The rectangular structure was one of the main reasons for my choice of presenting this particular scene along with the bands. The bands are identifiable but not well displayed here in this scene. Part of that is because I optimized the rectangular structure in the very dark area and that came at the expense of lightening the already light color area a little too much, which tends to obscure detail.
Still, even in this scene, you can clearly see that the bands are ground based detail buried in and enmeshed in the other ground level detail as opposed to digital imaging splice line artifacts. The tiny specks also seen in some of the imaging here in this report representing normal size evidence as I have reported on previously, confirms that this is a very distantly seen scene resolution wise. Further, the CLIB form indicates that the resolution here is 1 pixel = 1 kilometer in the official 100% views. If this is anywhere close to truth, then that means that this is indeed a very distant view and the size of any objects seen are much larger than they may first appear to us.
That in turn means that the rectangular structure is a incredibly large object. It also means that the true width of these bands is considerable to the point of being gigantic and far too much to qualify as thin digital imaging junction splice line artifacts. Add to that the fact the surface texture patterns seen on each band differ from any other nearby bands and are unique only to that band. That simple fact would fly right in the face of any contention that these bands are associated digital image splice line processing artifacts that could be expected to be more uniform and repeating in their patterns.
Note to how the sea of smudge image tampering crosses over and covers areas of the bands hiding them and parts of them from view UNDER these applications. This again demonstrates very obviously that this is true ground based detail not to be confused with digital imaging artifacts, image mosaic junction splice lines, or the image tampering applications themselves.
I refer to this here because I anticipate that the official take on these bands will be that they are digital imaging strip splice line artifacts as the Clementine craft made its south to north orbital path and shifted over west only 2.3 degrees per each next orbit. Such a explanation may have worked fairly well with the very distant Clementine global imaging such as the first two images shown in my report #066 titled „The Clandestine Moon: An Overview“ where the south to north imaging strip splice lines converging on the Polar regions can be seen. But, here in this closer imaging, we have the separation of this true ground based banding evidence from the digital imaging orbital path artifact evidence revealed.
You can also appreciate why I suspect that one of the primary reasons they set up this particular camera south to north orbital path process to start with was an attempt to deal with and confuse this banding issue by the camera path tracking to the bands. When the south to north „lines“ are noticed at the more distant official global or individual imaging resolution, the ready made dismissal explanation that these are digital imaging strip junction splice lines based on the camera’s orbital path is ready and waiting. However, to work successfully this depends on a certain naiveté as to official credibility and begins to fall apart under closer more careful objective examination such as in the image evidence you see here.
The above third image demonstrates the equatorial banding again at the largest 1 pixel = 1 kilometer official resolution. Here all the banding lines are more or less visible where every other one was covered by image tampering in the above first and second images in this report. I say more or less visible because the image tampering is very thickly applied obscuring most of the length of each band.
Even so, note that in a horizontal swath across the middle of the image from side to side there are short sections of light color more solid appearing bands visible. Look close and note that these visible sections actually represent every other band. However, it isn’t just that the darker bands between the every other lighter color more visible ones are covered up, it is also that these bands are bit different from the more visible ones. Where the lighter color more visible every other bands appear to have more light reflective solid surfaces, the less visible every other bands have a more open network of right angle lines associated with them. This is typical and can be seen better in the next fourth closer view image below.
Also, in this third more distant image with its wider field of view, please note that there is a visual slight distortion of the bands to our right. This irregularity is real, right on the equator, and not an optical illusion. It is important and will be explored in my next report rather than here. But, I’ve brought it to your attention here to point out that this irregularity demonstrates that this is true ground detail effect and such a slight bulge or wiggle would obviously not be possible with the straight uniform orbital path of the Clementine craft or its cameras imaging survey path over this planetary body’s surface.
Before leaving the third image evidence, note the two darker color geometric rectangular and square forms pointed out with the two red arrows. These objects have been thoroughly covered over by image tampering. I can’t say for sure what these are but certainly their sharp right angle geometry speaks more of likely artificiality than anything like natural geology in the terrain. Something very large and artificial has apparently been thoroughly covered over here by image tampering mapping precisely to their outlines.
Note on the larger top one where smudge tampering like a irregular cloud has been applied over the top of it. This is clearly evidence of the precise object specific outline mapping type darker image tampering being digitally applied at one level and the more random slightly lighter color more diffuse image tampering being applied over the same area and on top of it in another level. This conclusively demonstrates tampering on top of tampering in levels. This is typical in the official Clementine Moon surface imaging producing mostly a visual meaningless jumble and why so little can be seen of the true Moon’s surface.
The point is that the whole of the Moon’s surface is mostly obscured by this type of thing. How well educated scientists with with strings of PhDs and big careers being paid to do this work and considered professionals and experts can look at such imaging and not see any of this is just beyond incredible.
In the above fourth image closer view, we can better see the differences between the every other one more solid surface appearing light reflecting banding and the every other one open network of lines appearing darker banding between them. In fact, please note that this open network of lines banding evidence, including parallel lines, is the same as in the last image in my previous report #069 titled „Moon Miscellaneous Structures“ and typical of these every other bands.
Unfortunately, I had to lighten this scene a fair amount to properly show the normally darker open network of line banding detail. This came at the expense of too much light saturation on the more solid appearing light color and light reflecting band sections partially obscuring some of their detail. It is often not easy striking a proper balance between these different types of evidence appearing in the same image under differing lighting and color conditions.
More multiple images with differing lighting conditions would solve this but also take up to much file size room in a report like this on the Web and cut out other images that need to also be seen. Although my reporting may be more in depth than many of you may be used to in surfing the Web, the subject matter in most of my reports are necessarily brief relative to what it would take to properly explore this kind of evidence in the depth it needs in absolute terms.
In the above fifth image, now we are dealing visually with only the solid surface appearing every other light color and light reflective bands. This time there is no visible rectangular structure evidence and the visible open network of lines banding evidence as been essentially covered over by the image tampering, so we don’t have to make as many visual compromises in taking a better look at the more light reflective and solid appearing type of bands.
That’s why I’ve chosen this particular scene for presentation to you. The fifth image above demonstrates the wide angle context official resolution view while the closer view sixth image below provides the best examination of these particular type of bands in this report.
As you can see in the above sixth image, the solid appearing surface light color light reflective bands are shown at their best relatively speaking even though still heavily compromised by image tampering in absolute terms. Note that each band is thicker and wider in its upper visible portion and more narrow and tapering in its lower portion. Unfortunately, the image tampering applications are so thick that one can’t be sure whether this visual effect is something physically real with the bands on the ground or an illusion created by the tampering applications cover them. The latter is certainly true, at least to a significant extent.
Note that these poorly seen rows of artificial structures of some kind do not give the impression of buildings so much as of giant solid, sectional, possibly contoured, appearing reinforced alternating clamping system structures. Note how precisely horizontally distance separated one vertical row is from the other forming a clear definitive rigidly uniform south/north north/south orientation and precisely spaced apart pattern. So, not only does each of the individual bands speak clearly of artificiality, so to does the over all pattern of the many bands.
It is very difficult to regard this as anything less than conclusive definitive proof of massive scale artificiality present on the Moon and on a colossal scale. Certainly there is no chance that this evidence can be confused with natural Moon terrain geology or Clementine orbital path survey imaging factors. But, beyond that, what exactly does it mean? That is of course the BIG question that this evidence alone can not quite answer without getting into more subjective speculation.
Certainly this kind of artificial banding on such a massive global scale around such a large planetary body as the Moon demonstrates a incredibly high technology well beyond our own. If we can have confidence in the scientific dating of the age of the Moon, then we are talking about such high technology dating back into antiquity possibly long before the age of Man here on planet Earth with all the implications for humanity that may come with that concept.
What purpose do these bands fill? Are they to reinforce a true planetary body that may have in ancient times been exposed to more violent and unstable Earth influences and the Moon was regarded by someone as a more acceptable settlement target back then worthy of protective measures? Perhaps even with an atmospheric envelope similar to Earth’s?
We on Earth perceive and judge things based on our own experiences and familiar frames of reference and tend to assume that any one else will have similar outlooks. In other words, our perceptions tend to be heavily influenced by our assumptions. That kind of extrapolation from personal and accumulative experience might work for us fairly well here on Earth where we contend only with ourselves but it isn’t very conducive to putting oneself in the shoes of someone else not from this world.
For example, we love our world but the Earth environment that has produced our populations is unique when compared to other planetary environments. We have a very thick atmospheric envelope that could be consider too heavy and poisonous (too much oxygen can be very lethal even to us) for comfort by other standards. Further, Earth is a relatively small world with a minimal even smaller amount of land mass exposed out of its 70% water coverage. Add to that a fairly severe gravity well that could easily be considered crushing to others from lighter gravity environments.
The point that I’m trying to make is that highly technologically advanced space travelers, now or in ancient times, as hard as it might be for us to accept, might see Earth as a beautiful looking but too hostile environment to be attractive for serious direct settlement considerations. The lighter gravity nearby Moon and a little more distant Mars with its much greater exposed land areas could for example have been viewed as more attractive settlement targets, especially considering that any traveler’s high level of technology sufficient enough to produce the artificiality evidence we see here on the Moon could have made up for most problems associated with these environments.
So, could the Moon be an artificially reinforced but otherwise natural planetary body? Or, could it be an essentially artificial body exterior coated with a planetary earth crust layer as insulation? Could it be or have been a space traveling world ship of some kind as others have speculated about for years? Is the Moon actually some kind of colossal hollow artificially constructed space vessel that came to permanent rest in our Solar System parked next to this planet? Is it the original source of human or humanoid life in this system or just one example of the variety of advanced intelligent life out there?
If it is actually a craft of some kind, that would explain some things about the Moon. For example, it could explain why the far side is more heavily cratered indicating that this could have been the leading front side of the round vessel facing the passage direction. It could explain why the thicker sediment areas identified as darker color Mares by us are so prevalent on the near side as this may have been the lee side of the passage direction. It could also explain why the first sounding experiments on the Moon’s surface discovered that the Moon resounded from deep within like a bell or tuning fork. All of that is of course speculation but it is now at least speculation based a little more on evidence than pure subjective supposition.
Another question is could the Moon be a great repository of advanced knowledge and technology? It is logical to anticipate that based on the type of evidence we are seeing here but are the originators long gone or is the Moon currently actively occupied by someone? That cannot be directly extrapolated from this image tampering crippled severely limited satellite imaging evidence but it can be better extrapolated from other broader evidence considerations.
For example, there is the presence of such a massive amount of image tampering in the Clementine imaging. Remember, this is evidence to that can’t be ignored. Obviously they are not doing this just to waste their time and our money. The massive degree of this tampering demonstrates that there is a great deal on the Moon to hide and, as the evidence presented here at this web site demonstrates, a lot of it is on a colossal scale. Further, their choice of camera orbital path coinciding with the bands tells us that they knew about the bands and what they would be having to deal with while the Clementine mission was still in its planning stages. That demonstrates prior knowledge dating back in time long before the 1994 Clementine mission at least into the 1970s.
It is now 10 years later after the Clementine mission and still with little apparent perceived interest publicly on our leadership’s part in returning to the Moon or in what may be there. Before that, there was little publicly demonstrated interest on their part in returning to the Moon since the 1970s even though the military’s Clementine mission planning indicates that they had prior information of something very anomalous there. This is all evidence to, evidence of intentionally avoiding the Moon and what ever is there.
When you add all this and previously reported here evidence up, it logically and clearly points to someone in our society secretly knowing very well that something highly anomalous is on the Moon and, not only trying to hide it from the public, but also essentially carefully avoiding the place altogether, except possibly for secret covert missions unknown to the public. If the Moon was free of intelligent life as we are led to believe, then why publicly avoid the place? The fact that we are avoiding the Moon, at least publicly, logically tends to indicate that it may be currently occupied and by someone able to defend their interests there that no one here wants to offend or mess with.
Does all of this seem just too fantastic and too complex to you to be true and therefore it must be the musings of some crackpot or fruitcake? Well, all I can say is that each of us must choose whether we will go with the perceived comfort of established belief systems or objectively follow evidence to its conclusion, even if it winds up offending our belief systems. This is a right of passage we must all individually make on our own and no one can do it for us.
As for me, since I am evidence oriented, it is becoming increasingly clear to me from the steadily accumulating evidence that we live in a environment far more complex than originally believed and that we are not alone now and may have never been.
DOCUMENTATION (added 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 the past 16 years, the links immediately below access the unaltered version 1.5 originals downloaded by this researcher in 2004 and now made available here.
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 key. Remember that any coordinate numbers in the Moon’s southern hemisphere must be preceded by a minus sign.
Report 1st & 2nd images of bands & a rectangular structure with an arrow on it distant & closer views: At the above link on the form provided enter 0 and in the Longitude box and 318 in the Longitude box and then hit your enter or return key.
Report 3rd & 4th images of bands distant & closer views: At the above link on the form provided enter 1 and in the Latitude box 140in the Longitude box and then hit your enter or return key.
Report 5th & 6th images of more bands distant & closer views: At the above link on the form provided enter –5 and in the Latitude box and 335 in the Longitude box and then hit your enter or return key.
Joseph P. Skipper, Investigator