MORE MOON EVIDENCE-4

Report #152

November 30, 2008

 

Here we go with more Moon evidence again. The problem with evidence from this source hanging so close right over our heads every night is that the bulk of the imaging evidence dates back into the 1960s. Those 1960s efforts were in turn the outgrowth of World War II leadership loss of innocence in the 1940s when it came to the question of alien presence along with the development of the atomic age and the polarization of sides in the Cold War right after the World War II.

Competition between East and West was fierce during the Cold War while national pride and confidence in leadership issues were at stake all around. As the space race began and while school children were being trained to take cover under desks and tables in the event of a nuclear blast in their territory, let's face it, initially the Russians were first and leading the way time after time beating the USA to the technology punch in spite of the fact that the West got the chief German scientists after World War II and Russia got the leftovers. Here in the USA the old USSR leadership was perceived as some of the most ruthless people on the planet killing many millions and comparable to Hitler himself. I personally lived through this time as a kid developing into a young man.

However, there is a difference in the matter of perception as well as who is doing the perceiving in those more simple times. Here in the USA populations, academics, scientists, the media, and the great bulk of congressional leaders saw this space race as a matter of pride and achievement in technology. However, while some more hidden inside leaders saw it this way as well, they also saw it primarily as a race to achieve alien contact and advantage in a ruthless global power struggle where national survival itself hung in the balance. It was this environment and perception that bred and initiated the secrecy that we now live with to this day.

Why? Because emotional populations uncontrolled and undirected are the worst possible scenario from a leadership point of view. For example, if Americans get really angry at the "sneak" attack on Pearl Harbor and flood into the military to "make things right" as they saw it and the doves in Congress quickly convert to hawks freeing money for war, that is perceived as a good thing first directed at Germany and then Japan. In fact it might even have been a "directed" thing.

On the other hand, alien presence of unknown agenda that can't be denied scaring the crap out of entire populations who then demand of their leaders that this be "fixed" in some way when no one has a clue what to do about it is understandably not perceived by them as a good thing. That's because the next step is the hunt for those that may be better able and that means current leadership heads rolling and loss of too much control at minimum.

All of this means that anxiety is very high and that of course leads to extremes, compromises and secrecy. As a boy I remember when the Sputnik satellite first went up. Immediately on the heels of this, there was a newspaper story with a "leaked" photo showing a secret warehouse full of many satellites and the theme of the story was that we Americans were already there development wise but that we wanted to take a slower more careful approach. As a older boy, I thought yea careful is good! In other words, I bought right into it. Later as a man exercising good old hind sight and remembering all those satellites pictured in large numbers, I thought what a dummy I was to have bought into that obvious load of crapolla!

The point is that once the deceit and secrecy starts in order to cover one's tracks and preserve one's position, then there's no end to it unless of course one is willing to pay the prices that will be forthcoming. So it becomes a never ending stream of secrecy upon secrecy and the web of it gets more and more convoluted. Worse, it corrupts everyone as it becomes entrenched into the culture and future generations who never know anything but this and tend to take it granted without question. In other words, it becomes institutionalized as a psychologically accepted norm.

This is the atmosphere the 1960s Moon science data exists in and what has influenced it. Obviously the obfuscation technology of the 1960s and 1970s would be poorer than it is in more recent times and that guarantees old mistakes. It also started out as film moving to digital media technology and that too is mistake prone and particularly trying to get all the data together scattered all over the place over the years. These "mistakes" have been dealt with many times both as film, as digital material not admitted to at the time, and then openly as digital material in more recent times. So the data winds up being a nightmare of different "fix" intrusions so that it is hard to tell what is real and what is not and that means that all of it must be approached very cautiously.

With all that said, following is some of the most obvious evidence of image tampering and incompetence in doing it in the Moon science data for anyone to see. It may be old hat for some but an eye opener for many others that may be inclined to not believe that such consistent manipulation patterns could really exist in the data well beyond the scope of mere incompetence. As for you in the secrecy crowd, rest easy as this is all just part of the process of awakening to truth and starting to deal with it.

The above two panorama thumbnail images are from the Apollo 17 mission to the Moon. The above first JSC2007e045384 image as labeled is suppose to be of the landing site with the landing module seen in color on the far right. The second JSC2004e52772 image below it as labeled is suppose to be of the ALSEP Station location on this mission. First note that the background horizon lines and hills are essentially identical as are the focal width of the scenes and the backgrounds they encompass. Even though these are small narrow thumbnail size, do you see anything wrong with these two scenes or perhaps I should say do you see a whole raft of things wrong with these two comparison scenes?

First note that the landing module visible on the right in the first image is not present in the second image of the same location and some other kind of equipment is there in its place. Remember, while the equipment in the second image can no doubt be disassembled and moved, the Lander in the first image can't. The Lander should be there in the second image and yet now you see the it and now you don't. Telling isn't it.

Now in the first image note the hill and its shape in the background behind and to the right of the Lander. Note also the shadow thrown on the ground to the right by the landing module. Note its direction and its shape. Now move your attention all the way over to the left side of this same first image. Note the shape of the hill there and the shadow in the foreground below the hill. Note that, even though the hill is only partially seen on the left, they are in fact the same as on the right side of the image as is the shadow. In other words, the scene of the right side of the image is replicated on the left side minus the Lander's presence even as the Lander shadow is present. Closer looks in the 3rd and 4th images below will demonstrate this more conclusively.

However, before we leave these above panorama thumbnail images, look on the left side of the second image and compare the background hill with the background hill on the right side of the image. Once again note that they are the same as on the right and as in the first image on both sides. Now on the left side of the second image just below the hill, note the presence of a group of large rocks there. Note that these rocks are not replicated on the right nor are they present in the first image of the same left location. Once again, telling isn't it.

These are just the most gross and most obvious flaws in these two panorama images created by incompetent image tampering. If you begin to look closer in the enlarged image there are many other smaller flaws involving geological terrain features that should not be changing in the scenes but are.

Then there are the shadows that are many times all wrong and in conflict with each other. Some of this can perhaps be explained by astronauts taking these images at different times during the Moon's day with different sun angles but most definitely not all of it. Remember that the panorama images are made up of a number of different smaller images. Regardless, the most telling evidence of course is terrain fixed features and the lander fixed in place being in a spot in one image and not being in the same spot in another image and same scenes being replicated on both side of an image strip.

.

The above third, fourth, and fifth images demonstrate closer views of the far left and right scenes in the first panorama thumbnail image and the far left scene from the 2nd image. I'm including the 3rd and 4th images here to make sure you understand conclusively that these scenes on each far side of this one panorama JSC2007e045384 image are duplicates of each other with the most obvious duplicated features pointed out with yellow arrows. The 5th image from the JSC2004e52772 panorama is included to demonstrate that the scene in the more level terrain immediately below the hill on the left changes from a relatively empty terrain with the Lander shadow duplicated in it as in the upper 3rd image to a group of large rocks in it in the lower 5th image.

So does this inspire trust in you for the official Moon science data? If this doesn't quite do it for you, then below is some more of this same kind of manipulated evidence for your absorption.

The above sixth and seventh images are basically of the same same scene as confirmed by the hill outlines in the background on the horizon line. A closer look confirms that the 6th image is a ever so slightly closer view and the 7th image is a slightly pulled back more distant view but still the same. Do any flaws between these comparison images jump out at you?

As you can quickly see, by far the most obvious flaw is the very large rock that is in the 6th image but not in the 7th image. This rock should have appeared between the left and right yellow arrows in the 7th image but isn't there. A little further to the right is a large visually washed out rock pointed out by the yellow arrow. Note that it also isn't in the upper 6th image. The question then becomes is this lone rock the same one in the 6th image but just slightly moved to the right a bit?

.

As you can see in the above eighth closer view of the rock in the 6th panorama image comparing it to the ninth closer view of the distant rock in the 7th panorama image, they just are not the same. So this is a case of major size rocks or boulders appearing and disappearing in the same locations in these official science data scenes. There is other lesser evidence in these scenes doing this as well but the most gross and obvious evidence should be enough to tell you what you need to know. Any of this giving you any pause as yet?

The above tenth Apollo 16 panorama JSC2007e045381 thumbnail image provides the context scene in which the evidence appears and the two evidence site locations are pointed out by the two yellow arrows. Note that this duplicated evidence is a little more subtle in that it involves smaller terrain features rather than large obvious objects. The two images below will provide a closer look at these two duplicated sites.

...................................................

The two 11th and 12th images above demonstrate closer views of the duplicated image tampering areas within the JSC2007e045381 panorama strip. The 11th image demonstrates the duplicated site on the left and the 12th image the duplicated site on the right. The multiple yellow arrows point out just a few of the most obvious duplicated terrain features but not all in each site.

As you can see in this and previous reporting, there is plenty of evidence of image tampering in this old 1960s Moon data and this may barely be scratching the surface. After all, only when the tampering evidence is grossly incompetent and very obvious involving very large appearing and disappearing objects does it lend itself to discovery and more readily come to our attention. Even though it seems I've presented a fairly good amount of it here and in previous reporting, likely only a tiny portion of the tampering is so obvious with the bulk being much more subtle going without detection.

The fact is that I could go on and on with this type of reporting but, although some may think differently, I actually do restrain myself considerably relative to the massive amount of tampering evidence there is like this. I find this type of reporting both boring and unpleasant and try to avoid it until I think you should be exposed to it.

The presentation of some of it is necessary if you are to get a grasp of how convoluted and difficult it is to research this data and how untrustworthy it is to draw conclusions from. That state of affairs may be embarrassing to the secrecy crowd when it is revealed, as is happening here, but it is ultimately acceptable to them because ambiguity in the data makes truth very hard to determine and ignorance for you and I on this material is their goal ever how it is achieved.

DOCUMENTATION

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollopanoramas/pans/?pan=JSC2007e045384: This link takes you to the JSC2007e045384 Apollo 17 panorama science data image that is the source of my 1st, 3rd, and 4th report images.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollopanoramas/pans/?pan=JSC2004e52772: This link takes you to the JSC2004e52772 Apollo 17 panorama science data image that is the source of my 2nd and 5th report images.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollopanoramas/pans/?pan=JSC2007e045387: This link takes you to the JSC2007e045387 Apollo 17 panorama science data image that is the source of my 6th and 8th report images.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollopanoramas/pans/?pan=JSC2004e52775: This link takes you to the JSC2004e52775 Apollo 17 panorama science data image that is the source of my 7th and 9th report images.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollopanoramas/pans/?pan=JSC2007e045381: This link takes you to the JSC2007e045381 Apollo 17 panorama science data image that is the source of my 10th, 11th, and 12th report images.

, Investigator