It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Moon Banding: NOT Photo stitching- Proof

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:14 PM
While perusing the excellent work of the Skipper site for info on moon anomalies, I noticed a subject that has not been discussed in detail here on ATS, at least as far as a search could determine.

The subject is Moon Banding, which is the evidence, clear and convincing, that the surface of the moon, at least in some areas, is replete with right angle and rectangular and square structures that alternate in regular and recognizable patterns.

Some people immediately repeat the old and unproven mantra that all we are seeing is where the strips of film are stiched together, but Skipper shows proof that this is NOT the case, and that what is shown, even through the obscuring technology, has NOTHING to do with film strips. It is totally different, and unless my vision and ability to discern is shot I believe that we are seeing real proof of an inhabited moon, whether now or in the past.

Take a look and see what you think. I see regular spaced patterns of right angle construction and buildings. The pictures of film stitching show only a faint blur where the strips connect, NOTHING like what is seen here. Chime in please.

Here is the second report, with outstanding evidence. You should read all the material before commenting. You should see report #1 and #2 to get the thrust of this thing. Unless someone can show photo's that duplicate the effects of film stitching AND have structure in them then qwe will see; until then I believe this stands as proof. Report 2:

Report #1:

Anyone reading all this material, and analyzing the photo's closely, surely will see the definite evidence of construction and patterned structures. Oinions?

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:24 PM
All you've proven is that those pictures were "banded".

There is still OVERWHELMING proof that other pictures have been "stiched".

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:54 PM
reply to post by richierich

That was discussed maybe two months ago.

And although that is not the result of joining the original photos, it is the result of joining the parts that make the larger image.

Something that big would be visible from Earth.

PS: If you are really interested in the Clementine photos do not use the Image Browser 1.5, use the newer version 2 (beta) or, even better, go to this page, from where you can download all Clementine images and see things for yourself, instead of relying on what people tell you.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 07:08 PM
reply to post by richierich
It's an interesting theory. Why obfuscate an image when you can simply omit it?

If 1 pixel= 1km then you can omit thin strips of obvious anomalies.

This photo 'stitching' doesn't make me feel right in my gut.

A game's afoot here.

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:04 PM
One thing that always confused me about "" is why do they uses such crappy pictures when the real pictures are actually of much better quality?

Here are the two pictures that were in the OP, but these ones are much more clear:

These pictures show clearly that the banding is caused by the stitching together of thin bands of images to create a larger image, just like NASA has explained. As Armap explained, this is due to the software used to create the images on the Clementine website (the Clementine Lunar Image Browser Version 1.5). Also, as Armap pointed out, if the Clementine Lunar Map Beta 2.0 software is used, this banding disappears.

So if the real photos from NASA are so much more clear, why does use pictures that are overly compressed and shaded with a "sepia" color. Why not just use the the pictures that are of a better quality rather than "sampling them down" so severely?

What is trying to hide? Or, more accurately, why ddo the people who run that website trying to fool us? Perhaps it's because those over-compressed/oversampled brown-shaded pictures look "more mysterious" than the real NASA photos.

Perhaps it's because of the money that and J.R. Skipper makes through advertisers, book sales, and donations to their website -- extra money they can make by posting disinformation and trying to pass it off as some "mystery".

[edit on 7/29/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:47 PM
...and to continue, why wouldn't not just use the photos from the new beta 2.0 website that has NO lines at all?

like these here (same photos as the ones in the OP, but in the resolution as they appears on the Clementine website):

The only reason I can think of that doesn't show us the REAL pictures is that the real pictures won't make them any money. They can make a lot more money by simply lying to us and printing disinformation on their website.

[edit on 7/30/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:11 AM
So you deniers did NOT read the whole thing...and you did NOt examine the banding closely. just repeating the same mistake is not a search for truth. These are NOt splices of film.

Skipper has many pics in this that show clearly, beyond dispute, that these are NOT film strips. LOOk for Pete's sake!!

The example shown in the article shows what film strips look like. They are NOt square and alternating back and forth. The pics posted aboce are LESS clear, by far...than the ones used by Skipper. I will try and get the pics here for all to see, since so many did not even bother to look at it before posting.

I am NOT blind..and I can discern right angles. Right angles are NOT created by placing film strips together. PLEASE go to the the article...and THEN chime in as to WHY simply placing film strips together would create right angles, squares,parallel lines alternating...I mean, come on!!

This is too easy to see if you will actually examine this. I KNOW I am not on the wrong track here and it is frustrating to see responses that ignore the facts, or tell me that this has been covered. It OBVIOUSLY has not been covered or so many people would not be jumping to the wrong conclusion so quickly.

These are NOT film strips ....Skipper shows us WHY it cannot be that...and if you READ what is written you will see that this has ZERO to do with film strips.

As far as the claim that this could be seen from earth....that simply is not true. The same could be said for the other large anomalies. This banding is evidence of construction, and cannot be compared to opther film strip joining.

Tell you what: If someone here can post pics that show film stitching that looks just like all this, then I will relent and admit defeat.

If, however, no one can post pics of film joining that does NOT look anything like the evidence seen in this case, then I can be assumed to be right.

So where are all the other joined film strips that look like the ones seen on Skippers site? Just ONE example will do, as long as it duplicates what is seen. You cannot do it.

Posting pics from further away and less clear proves NOTHING. Skippers pics are close enough to see detail. Film joining does NOT add these features.

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:42 AM

Originally posted by richierich
So you deniers did NOT read the whole thing...and you did NOt examine the banding closely. just repeating the same mistake is not a search for truth. These are NOt splices of film.

It's you who are not reading OUR replies.

You are right -- the banding is NOT separate pictures taken by the Clementine Probe that were spliced together. As Armap said in his post, the banding is due to the manner in which OLD software on the Clementine website displayed the images. The NEW software does not show banding when displaying the images.

What about the images I posted of the same pictures that Skipper posted that do NOT show any banding whatsoever? Please explain to me why the banding would not be visible on those pictures if the banding was "a real part of the moon"

[edit on 7/30/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:31 AM
Maybe this will help you see that the banding is not really part of the moon.

This shows the exact same images taken by Clementine. The top image is marsanomalyresearch's very badly compressed version of the images. The middle image is from the Clementine Lunar Image Browser imaging software (that's where got there picture from), and the bottom image is from the Clementine Lunar Map imaging software.

All of these photos used the EXACT SAME RAW IMAGES from the Clementine space probe. I still ask why does marsanomalyresearch feel that they need to overcompress/oversample their image -- and why do they always shade them with a "sepia" color.

posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 12:45 PM
I see NO ONE has found ANY example of joining strips of film together that show right angles and obvious repeating forms. Not ONE . It is easy to ignore obvious proof, by just assuming and refusing to study...but it is a FACT that there is NO example of this kind of evidence anywhere that replicates what is seen; stitching two film strips together may cause a slight blurring, but NOT squares and rectangles and obvious strructure. The pic's shown by the denier's are not good examples....go to the Skipper site and look at the Banding evidence, then find ONE example anywhere of film stitching causing such images, and you win! Just one...but sadly for the deniers no such evidence exists.

And for those of you that think that the NEW program was a help or better, read this:

Here is an explanation from Skipper about the " new" computer program that effectively blurs the pic's even more:

USA Navy Wipes Out Airbrushed Moon Lunar Images :

USA Navy has 'updated' its lunar images on the database to wipe out the obvious airbrushing seen from the 2004 images.

US Navy/DOD (Department of Defense) Clementine Moon science data has now happened that will negatively impact that data. Specifically to the anomalous evidence that I have reported on and that was previously in that data. In my opinion, truth already seriously compromised in the original version 1.5 data just took a blow with the advent of the new 2.0 data.

The Clementine original data was previously accessed by Clementine Browser version 1.5. Years ago in 2004 after my revelations drawn from the 1994 Clementine data noted in the 2004 Report #067–#071 links below, it was announced that there would be a new browser interface coming. It is now here as version 2.0 and negatively impacts the discoveries in the following 2004 reports.

•Report 067: Moon Tower Evidence .................... 05/12/2004
•Report 068: More Massive Moon Objects ........... 05/28/2004
•Report 069: Moon Miscellaneous Structures ...... 06/14/2004
•Report 070: Moon Banding Evidence ................ 07/04/2004
•Report 071: More Moon Banding Evidence ....... 08/08/2004

Since those above older reports and their revelations contained serious discoveries about what is apparently being hidden from the public as to what is on the Moon and we're dealing with the military mind set here, it can come as no real surprise at all that the original data, already intensely obfuscated, would be further and retroactively obfuscated to eliminate the last vestige of truth in it. Sadly, that is exactly what has happened in the new and "improved" version 2.0 data. The bottom line is that in my brief sampling of the new 2.0 data, the above report links discovery evidence is now essentially gone.

Expect the spin to be that the version 2.0 interface will be more user friendly. However, without any effective "help" function available on the site (as of the date I write this) to explain how to use the new 2.0 interface, only user trial and error experimentation can get this interface operational. Now to be fair they do say this is a beta version and that usually means that changes will be ongoing. You do have faith in that don't you? I doubt that improvements will be forthcoming unless my comments here sting them into some action. The best I can say about that is to make a rude noise or two.

Expect the spin to be that version 2.0 fixes the "camera and processing imaging artifacts and flaws" in version 1.5. Those artifacts and flaws would of course, as a suspicious person might expect, be the anomalous evidence I've reported on. In other words, the crude and flawed automated smudge image tampering tending to isolate on really large objects making them, even though still covered over, stand out significantly against the background terrain which itself is full of extensive smudge tampering treatments.

Expect the spin to also be that the new 2.0 interface is much more useful because it offers closer views of the Moon terrain than did version 1.5. Again, consider yourself hearing some more rude noises. The data has been completely and thoroughly sanitized of the previous discovery evidence arising from version 1.5. To do that fake detail has been added including in many ways out in the surrounding terrain around the anomaly sites. What a joke on us. What good does closer looks at fake detail do for the public and researchers unless you weren't aware of the before and after evidence comparison, didn't know the difference, and can operate on the ignorance is bliss principle?

However, it doesn't quite stop there. If that isn't enough obfuscation wise, as far as I can tell so far, when one saves a large image file out to one's hard drive for the purpose of more detailed examination, one quickly finds that what is saved out is only a small thumbnail size of the original. So good luck on being able to adequately examine anything in version 2.0! In other words, all the various changes seen so far translate to yet more obfuscation. It is so pathetically obvious and therefore so pathetically disgusting.

So what is one to do when it comes to verification of the old reported anomalous evidence? Is that capability now dead? Don't worry, anticipating this sanitizing likely to happen at some point due to the inconvenient pressure of the anomalous evidence, I have the original version 1.5 anomalous discovery evidence sites in my reports well documented. I've gone back through each of those above listed Reports #067–#071 and added the original version 1.5 source data that I had preserved so that you can access it within each of those old 2004 reports in the documentation section. When you see it, you'll know what I mean.

For those interested, I've confirmed that the surrounding terrain details in that 1.5 data can still be successfully matched well enough with the new altered terrain in the 2.0 new data to A-B compare 1.5 and 2.0 sites even though changes have been made. Just use the coordinates provided in each report. Via this verification process, you can then see for yourself the sanitization the Navy has done. In my opinion, the Navy has shot itself in the foot trying to eliminate anomalous evidence and preserve secrecy as to what may be on the Moon while at the same time telling us to trust them! If you believe that, then I've got a bridge currently residing in old London town I'd like to sell you at a bargain. I don't own it and have never seen it but I'm sure it will all just work out. Oops, more rude noises.

The real issues here at the moment isn't what is on the Moon as much as it is the public trust and the roles between the public and those they authorize to serve their interest. We all know and can accept that a certain measure of secrecy, including from one's on people, may be necessary and practical in a real world full of risks. However, this Navy and Department of Defense behavior in thoroughly sanitizing the Clementine data (for public consumption) after the fact of any anomalous truth at all is just going too far.

It speaks of high bold arrogance even for a military mind set and a dangerous disconnect with the population and welfare they are suppose to serve. That is the real problem, not what is on the Moon. This retroactive sanitizing is not just the wrong direction, IT IS CLEARLY THE WRONG DIRECTION. The bulk of the population wants a lessening of the secrecy and more truth not a tightening of the fist of control and a complete disregard for the public wishes and welfare. If there is something on the Moon so important and so worthy of sanitizing retroactively, then the public needs to know about it whether some of us want to know about it or not.

In trying to avoid strong public reactions and preserve what you have by keeping everyone but a few ignorant, you are creating and furthering ignorance and therefore the mechanism and monster that will guarantee an even stronger public reaction at the inevitable moment of truth. Remember, reality always prevails. Loosen the grip and more even tempered heads will gradually prevail. Tighten the grip to perceived intolerable levels as is being done with this Clementine 2.0 data in sanitizing it and you are setting yourself up for the very emotional reaction thing you are trying to avoid.

When the Navy Research Laboratory (NRL) responsible for implementing this Clementine 2.0 change recently won that award for super computing development and application, try not to see your role as just them or us and going only automatically and mindlessly for the public disconnect. You're not a bunch of blind non thinking robots here to do someone else's bidding or follow blindly in previous footsteps. That time is past. Sense the momentum that is building. Understand it. See yourself now as part of advancing public knowledge and welfare and make sure that the public sees the benefit to them.

After all the public paid for it and enabled it and the knowledge is legally theirs and was never exclusively yours. Partners have sympathy for each other's ups and downs whereas a constant diet of disconnect adversarial distrust usually comes to a bad end and especially for the ones doing the most slipping and sliding.

Loosen the grip on the space/Moon exploration secrecy, share, and begin a real measured transition in earnest rather than just give lip service to it with a few manipulated movies and sitcoms. A start would be to not fear the Clementine Version 1.5 data and its few examples of anomalous evidence so much. Retroactively sanitizing the 1.5 data is a very bad idea and move. It telegraphs perception of a fear adversarial mind set dominating you that will alienate you and cause you to fair poorly when truth comes. It causes the risk factor to go up for you in the future time line in doing this.

If loosening the secrecy is handled correctly, the public will see the benefit to them and be understanding of your gesture and can learn to work with you. Go in the opposite polarizing direction and sympathy will be in short supply as emotional reactions tend to prevail. Sympathy like retribution is an earned outcome and you would do well to understand that. The answer for all lies in balanced rational behavior, not fear.

Joseph P. Skipper, Investigator Source

Here is the link:

posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 01:17 PM

Originally posted by richierich
It is easy to ignore obvious proof, by just assuming and refusing to study...but it is a FACT that there is NO example of this kind of evidence anywhere that replicates what is seen; stitching two film strips together may cause a slight blurring, but NOT squares and rectangles and obvious strructure.
The problem is that the banding was not the result of a normal stitching, the stitching was made "on the fly", so to be faster it was almost useless on the first version.

On the second version it was better, but it created those blurred areas on areas for which it couldn't find a photo.

And while people, blinded by Skipper's words, look at the image browser, they ignore the original photos, that have been available all this time and that do not show those marks or blurred areas.

PS: you forgot to add the [‍ex] and [‍/ex] tags.


log in