Alien technology on the moon - Clementine's Secrets - This video offers a short preview

reply to post by 1967sander

There are ways to hide data inside images you do not know anything about. There are ways to reveal hidden data in photos you know nothing about. In fact you know nothing at all of what "they" are really capable of. Just believe what "they" teach and tell you. I go my own way and soon hopefully you will start to see things in a different way.

Are you implying that NASA routinely publishes steganographic images? And that you possess the proper algorithms to decrypt them? Or are you simply making vague, unsubstantiated claims again?

Originally posted by 1967sander
There are ways to hide data inside images you do not know anything about.

Probably.

There are ways to reveal hidden data in photos you know nothing about.

If they are related to the ways to hide data inside images that I do not know, then you are right. If you are talking about seeing what was on an image before it was blurred or changed in any way you are probably wrong.

In fact you know nothing at all of what "they" are really capable of.

And you know nothing of what I do really know.

Just believe what "they" teach and tell you.

Nah, I always prefer to learn by myself, that's how I learned English and assembler programming.

I go my own way and soon hopefully you will start to see things in a different way.

Thanks, I guess, because it sounds like your intentions are good. I hope you start seeing things in a different way too.

Originally posted by ArMaP

ArMaP: It amazes me how some members disrespect you, one of sanest minds on this forum. I admire and applaud your easy manner in the way you handle "problem" members. And you are to be congratulated for your improvement with your English, I see positive changes. You "sound" like a native!

As I have witnessed time and time again, I can not trust most of the things that come out of the official channels. Starting from media, politicians or some "space" institutions. I sincerely doubt that they are telling us the truth every time. It doesn't work that way. The info is always filtered, weather you want to accept it or not. Things that might "upset" the public, might not get to the front page, or not at all. There are always agendas. Sometimes personal, other times collective. Sometimes even from a misguided desire to protect the fragile public mind...and it is fragile I must admit.

NASA has lost credibility long time ago, at least with me. I wouldn't trust them to provide a picture of a sunny day...

As for the subject at hand...those smudges looks pretty suspicious. If it was data loss...wouldn't it be more ordered? As in those black squares someone posted earlier? I think that if it were data loss, would it be in a such irregular shape like those smudges are? I'm definately not a specialist in a photography. Just thinking...

I'm must say I don't see anything concrete in the OP video...only a different smudge from the original one. I am however hoping the next ones (if there are any) will show at least what's behind a smudge...be it only a mountain. I am a bit skeptical about the size, if it is an artificial object (a drill). For what kind of drilling would such a large drill be used?
Considering it's size, you could drill a hole the size of a city (my city to be exact).

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

NASA has lost credibility long time ago, at least with me. I wouldn't trust them to provide a picture of a sunny day.....

Well, yeah, whatever. Sorry your ability to see reality is clouded by internet ignorance (and probably crappy public schools and parents who didn't stress education in the home while you were growing).

But I have to ask......you might not see the humor in this post....but you say that NASA has lost all credibility with you a long time ago. An organization filled with thousands of VERY smart people, and backed up by private contractors that employ thousands of even smarter people. But for some reason, you think that NASA has less credibility than say....your average internet moron who is "exposing" them? SERIOUSLY?!?!?!?!? How does your mind work? I mean, I know bucking "the man" is the "cool thing" and growing up being fed modern forms of fiction seems to have eradicated actual thought........but seriously?

I'm trying to figure this out, can you please direct me to sources that pass the test of even a moderate grade school education that would convince me that the average conspiracy enthusiast or idiotic "youtube superstar" is able to bust this "thing" wide open?

Now please keep this in mind, if you come back and tell me that you believe this crap because that is what you WANT to believe, but lack the education or knowledge to refute the idiotic crap you have been sold, then don't bother. The world is already screwed up because of religious fanatics, and there isn't much difference between them and some conspiracy nuts.

Real conspiracies exist. But thanks to the modern phenom of willful ignorance, they can go on without serious security because the whole topic has been clouded by total idiocy.

Originally posted by MainLineThis
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

 

NASA has lost credibility long time ago, at least with me. I wouldn't trust them to provide a picture of a sunny day.....

Well, yeah, whatever. Sorry your ability to see reality is clouded by internet ignorance (and probably crappy public schools and parents who didn't stress education in the home while you were growing).

wow...a lot of assumptions on your part...good luck with that.

But I have to ask......you might not see the humor in this post....but you say that NASA has lost all credibility with you a long time ago. An organization filled with thousands of VERY smart people, and backed up by private contractors that employ thousands of even smarter people. But for some reason, you think that NASA has less credibility than say....your average internet moron who is "exposing" them? SERIOUSLY?!?!?!?!? How does your mind work? I mean, I know bucking "the man" is the "cool thing" and growing up being fed modern forms of fiction seems to have eradicated actual thought........but seriously?

I have a number of reasons why I don't trust...NASA...for example...but this isn't the thread for it. I would be glad to provide you with my opinion, and an evidence or two of a NASA lie...if you insist.

So you are calling OP an average internet moron? If you wish man...I'm merely expressing my opinion concerning the smudges and why I'm not so incline to immidiately trust what's been fed to the public. Call me a moron also than...

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFlySo you are calling OP an average internet moron?

Quite a few of us here actually understand what's going on in those images. But the die hard fanatics don't want to listen.

And no one is calling the OP "an average internet moron". He hasn't reached average yet, as can be seen from his previous "enlightening" posts.

I'm afraid the only thing I see in the images and video are: pixels that are being manipulated.

I do not see any coherent object in the results at all.

It's quite possible that the "want" or "need" to see something there can make someone actually see something that others do not.

Those that do not feel that there is anything secret on the Moon will most likely not see anything special, while those that are absolutely sure that there are (aliens, secret bases, take your pick) special things on the Moon will indeed be able to see something. Whether it's there or not, simply because they have this overwhelming need to believe that there is something there (or that NASA is hiding something, or that the USN has a secret fleet, again take your pick).

To be fair, you also have those that are so closed minded that they will never be open to the possibility of something being true or strange. It goes against everything that they believe in, and I think this makes them a little bit too closed minded, even if the material is presented in a good manner, leaving the question open.

That said, I think you should re-do your presentation. Do what has been suggested, and use the original pictures, and not a stitched mosaic. If there is something really there, then the originals will have your "smudge" too.

Don't present something and say: "This is absolute proof!" because that can really turn off a lot of people that might be "fence sitters", and will really will bring out those that will be a lot more closed minded about things.

Be willing to debate what you have, and to accept other's input. No one is absolutely right about everything, and people can be wrong about many things. So keep that in mind when you put something forth on here: You might be right, but you could also be wrong.

Unless it's a original image that is crystal clear, with no manipulationn of a "Grey" alien holding up a sign that says "Help! Stuck here with stupid humans on their secret base! Need ride home!"

Now THAT would be good to see!

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
As for the subject at hand...those smudges looks pretty suspicious. If it was data loss...wouldn't it be more ordered? As in those black squares someone posted earlier? I think that if it were data loss, would it be in a such irregular shape like those smudges are? I'm definately not a specialist in a photography. Just thinking...

From what I have seen, all those smudges in version 1.5 of the Clementine browser (now offline) corresponded to specific photos. Also, the Clementine browser used a large map from which we could select a smaller section to be zoomed in. The way it worked (according to the people that made it) was that it got the coordinates of the area we wanted and looked for the right photos on disk. The photos were fetched from disk and arranged in a mosaic done when the page was sent back to the browser of the person using the site.

When a photo was missing, the way the software worked, it tried to adjust the surrounding area to the missing photo, creating that smudge.

To me, a programmer, that was what it looks like, and their explanation looks correct.

Unfortunately, version 1.5 was replaced by version 2.0, so we cannot see those smudges any more.

Thanks for the explanation. Think I saw that one already, on another post. Since I don't understand the technical side of it (meaning I have no way of knowing does the explanation make sense)...any old explanation would do.

I feel the need to maybe explain why i taket what Nasa says about the smudges, with a grain of salt...

Let's say for the sake of the argument, that there is something strange on the moon, and that those smudges really hide that strange, and let's again assume that that strange thing maybe suggests that somebody was or is there. Would we have been told about it? Or would it be told to few, on a "need to know" basis?

I would like your opinion on that hypothesis, if you please.


The man said previously...about thousands of very smart people working in NASA. I agree...there are surely pretty smart and good people working there. But they are certainly not authorised to speak to the public about what they think or work on. All important info is tunneled hierarchically to the top brass and they decide what is for the public.

It is a well documented fact, that private agendas precede any public interest...a number of historic facts would confirm that statement. Was the war in Vietnam in public interest? Is any war? Yet they are fought...simple men die, politicians and war profitters get rich of it. That is a fact...we can stick our heads in the sand...but it does not change it.

Going by this reasoning...no...I don't trust them...because thousands of people who work/die decide on nothing.

Sorry for the slightly off topic post...

The fact of the matter is, when it comes to revelations of alien life, president Bill Clinton couldn't hold back on announcing possible martian life found on ALH 84001. That claim is now seriously disputed. That he jumped at the chance is somewhat at odds with 'They' (whomever 'They' may be) holding back information.

A total logical inconsistency, me thinks.

reply to post by BagBing


Extraordinary claims are often made, and later retracted. Anyway, a sign of a possible fossilized microbial life on a rock is only groundbreaking for a certain science circles, certainly not the same for the public view. It has gone virtually unnoticed. It was a rather small headline for a week... I don't consider that an evidence of them being straightforward about everything. In all fairness, if they knew in advance that it wasn't what was claimed, they could have easily released it, knowing it would fail under science scrutiny. That way they get to keep their credibility of an intent to disclose any info.

Can we agree that there are black projects? Projects the public is not aware of ? Or is that science fiction?
If there are...why are they secret, covert...black? Why the people who fund these black projects, through taxes, can't have access to that which they payed for? Why is information that should be available through FOIA, redacted, blacked out, erased or destroyed? Why are JFK files still not fully disclosed to the public viewing? Apparently it will be so until 2017, if I have my info correct. To whom does this serve? The public?

If truth needs hiding, somebody is doing something that they shouldn't be doing. But, it's easy to hide criminal behaviour of those who control us....you just stick a "national security" sticker on it, and call it a day. And if they recite FOIA...you just black out the parts that you don't want seen.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by BagBing
The fact of the matter is, when it comes to revelations of alien life, president Bill Clinton couldn't hold back on announcing possible martian life found on ALH 84001. That claim is now seriously disputed. That he jumped at the chance is somewhat at odds with 'They' (whomever 'They' may be) holding back information.

A total logical inconsistency, me thinks.

That all depends on what the definition of IS is.

From what I gather, that word is not clearly defined for Billy.

reply to post by bobw927


well...that is something...

If this video that the man is showing is really from the orbiter...than, in my opinion...there is something there that is artificial. Although clarity is not great...but it is much better than the first video.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
If this video that the man is showing is really from the orbiter...than, in my opinion...there is something there that is artificial.

It's not, the original photos are available but ignored, as usual.

reply to post by ArMaP


Sorry to be asking this...can you explain to me what is the source of his photos? Which source was available first for public viewing ?

thanks
Mario

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
Sorry to be asking this...can you explain to me what is the source of his photos?

The image used in the video on the opening post is from the Clementine Lunar Image Browser 1.5, unfortunately not available any more.

The image from the video posted by bobw927 is from Google Earth/Moon.

Which source was available first for public viewing ?

I don't really know, but using Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, the oldest version of the Clementine Lunar Image Browser page is from September 9, 1999. The page exists on the Wayback machine, but it doesn't work as it did originally, as usual in pages that are created on the fly.

They also have a page where they explain how the system worked (it was not as I said), here.

As all that was for version 1.5 and they had a version 1.1 before that (and apparently a 1.0 before that), that page must be older than that, but probably with a different address.

The oldest version in the Wayback Machine of the source page of the original Clementine images I posted on page 2 is from 2003.

I hope that helps and that I haven't made things more confusing than they were before.

Edit: I found 1996 version of the page from where people could get the original images, here.

reply to post by 1967sander


Also the youtube video/movie "Moon Rising" is really good, you can also find it via torrent. Has alot of great ufologists in it and a ton of amazing clementine photos.

reply to post by MainLineThis


NASA is an offshoot of the Department of Defense... their bylaws state that they answer to the DoD only, and NOT the public. So kudos to you for jumping on someone who speaks the obvious, NASA is telling the truth roughly 50% of the time, and the DoD itself lies even more than that. You would have to be a moron to believe everything agencies like DoD spoonfeed you, considering they're responsible for missing trillions of dollars in their own budget past decade and nobody knows where it went supposedly... even considering all of the private contractor money, and more than likely drug money they receive from the big banks. Ever seen the Rumsfeld video where he's getting questioned about the missing money? It's laughable. If you really believe the public interest is in the best interest of NASA and the DoD, then you are drinking too much flouride water.