by: J P Skipper
You should know that very significant changes in the 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: 05/12/2004: Moon Tower Evidence
Report 068: 05/28/2004: More Massive Moon Objects
Report 069: 06/14/2004: Moon Miscellaneous Structures
Report 070: 07/04/2004: Moon Banding Evidence
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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment