PREFACE

"There was almost unanimous agreement that a surge in uniform limb to limb illumination near full moon indicated a loose, porous structure. On an exotic moon this might be spongy pumice, lacy concrete-like structures or loosely stacked fibers like toothpicks or tiddlywinks. Culinary comparisons were made with cotton candy, honeycomb, and Crackerjacks. Probably the favorite analogy was fairy castles like those of home aquariums but consisting of gently deposited loose dust barely adhering in the much discussed lunar vacuum. The safety of the lunar landing depended on the nature of the surface."¹

December of 1998 marked the thirtieth anniversary of Apollo 8. Before 1968 the moon held answers to questions and new knowledge to questions still investigated now. With the exception of a Japanese robotic mission in 1990 and the Clementine mission in 1994, the only mission to return to our sister planet since 1972 has been Lunar Prospector launched in 1997 that is providing data on lunar composition and lunar gravity field.

Today researchers both in and out of the space program continue to search our solar system for new discoveries including signals in the noise – evidence that may reveal the possibility that life may exist or has existed out there. Despite the fact that we’ve been to the moon and have accrued a wealth of knowledge about it, it remains an important target of study by astronomers and scientists who are revealing through scientific inquiry, many unexplained anomalies seen on many of the thousands of photographs taken by different camera systems and missions during the period in which it was extensively photographed.

My scientific inquiry is reflected in part, through initial reports posted on this site since mid 1997. The purpose of my research is to present not only verification of lunar anomalies that corroborate findings of other researchers but also the discovery of what I believe to be artificial lunar structures and patterns. These take the form of refractive filamentary structure above the lunar surface (see Crisium Dome report) as well as geometric, orthogonal, and redundantly repetitive structure on the surface. These of course suggest to me that we were not the first to visit the moon.

Both near and farside locations where these have been found were photographed by NASA manned and unmanned missions between 1966-72. Since 1994, my investigation has shifted directly to these missions. I have looked extensively at NASA 8X10 black and white and color negatives and the prints I’ve had made from them. Raw data has been accessed from NASA archives around the country. Prints have been closely examined and enlarged sectionals, and contrast prints processed with the assistance of a full service photographic facility. There has been NO computer enhancement or imaging performed on ANY of my initial discoveries and the anomalies can be seen on ALL the raw or analog data. Current work is being augmented toward possible geologic/stratigraphic continuity between the areas where structures have been found.

IT IS MY PURPOSE HERE, TO PRESENT TO THE PUBLIC THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS THAT LED ME INTO THIS REMARKABLE AREA OF STUDY. I HOPE THAT INTERESTED CITIZENRY SUCH AS MYSELF WILL ALSO BECOME MOTIVATED TO PURSUE THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT IS ON THE MOON. One only needs the interest, a basic knowledge of lunar nomenclature and a desire to seek the truth. The signals I’ve found have the potential to change outlooks about ourselves in a positive way and may help convince those that take up the search that we indeed have not been the sole repository of life in our immediate celestial environment.

 INTO THE DATA

 As an amateur astronomer, I have studied the moon for about thirteen years. The study has been primarily concerned with historical geology. I must say that I am not a licensed scientist. I am an artist educator and have taught both public school and college level art programs. I received my BA from the University of Iowa in 1968 and my BS from Southwest Minnesota State University in 1983. As an artist since childhood, I feel that I have developed the ability to SEE. Drawing what one thinks one sees is different than drawing what one REALLY sees, therefore drawing any subject of expression demands the STUDY of it prior to actual commitment with the drawing tool –or- before drawing conclusions about classifying what is seen on lunar photography. Although I have not looked at lunar photography as long as I have been drawing, I nevertheless have looked at enough of it to be convinced that what I’ve seen on much of it should NOT be there according to the traditional model of natural stratigraphy or geology.

When I entered this area of study in 1994, my geologic inquiry intensified. I have tried to approach what I have discovered from a geologic perspective. I have shared some of my findings with credentialed geologists who have found it enigmatic. I believe it is important to comparatively examine traditionally accepted science with areas that DON’T seem to fit within its parameters. I accept for the most part, the bigger-picture-principles regarding lunar evolution but have difficulty with traditional interpretations of smaller units within the time-lines such as crater morphology and terra (highland) formation. I’ve tried to push science into my interpretations and identification. There are areas on the moon that simply cannot be explained geologically.

Dr. Mark Carlotto is and has been a pivotal researcher investigating the Martian enigmas and has, in his investigation analyzed Martian terrain features extensively through photoclinometry, a method for determining the shape of a surface from a single image. ² I have adopted Carlotto’s definition of anomaly identification. They can have several attributes. They have internal organization or organization alone or next to an adjacent feature. There may or may not be geometric definition, and they can’t be explained geologically. Organization can be confirmed by seeing other views of it if possible. Before becoming familiar with other researchers in this area of study, I had discovered several anomalies that met these criteria but turned to there-has –to-be-a-reason-model. I didn’t know then what I was seeing. Traditional models even today cannot answer my questions about what I’ve found.

There are many features on the moon that are natural that look anomalous. They may sound foreign to the reader but such areas are well known and easily researchable if interest is there. There is the depression at the head of Rima Hadley near the Apollo 15 (AS15) site and the steep-walled "D" caldera in Mare Serenitatis in the foothills of Mt. Haemus. There is the Straight Wall now Rupes Recta in Mare Nubium and craters with double concentric rim walls like Hesiodus A at 29.4S, 8.5W which could be mistaken as an artificial cratering event. Ballistic ejecta from the Imbrium Basin impact have produced unusual blocky patterns across the highland areas of the moon. And then of course, there are the unexplained features that I as well as other researchers have not been able to explain, such as several anomalies discussed on this website.

As my geologic studies became more involved, I became familiar with natural lunar formations and studied many photographs. I accessed many lunar atlases and monographs studying bibliographies of every book and paper so that I could find other relevant information to pursue. Early on I remember writing to NSSDC Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD requesting information about obtaining Lunar Orbiter photographs that had been reproduced in one of my astronomy workbooks that related to an exercise in lunar feature classification. I received a voluminous catalog from them and this got me initially interested in many lunar missions ‘ photography. I decided that the Lunar Orbiter and early Apollo Hasselblad databases would be a place to start.

I looked at pictures and studied mission camera systems and spacecraft altitudes. I contacted the US Geological Service (USGS) in Denver ³ to order all of the 44 LAC (Lunar Aeronautical Charts) geologic quadrangles of the near and farside so I could start studying specific areas. Two essential maps are maps I-2276 and I-1218A of the near and farside respectively. They have markings identifying all of the features, and though these two aren’t geologic studies, they’re essential references needed in getting to know the moon. They good for referencing latitude and longitude coordinates for an area. I also ordered many lunar geologic papers from the USGS. They provided me with a long list of available lunar references.

Late in 1994 I was introduced to the work of Richard Hoagland and the investigation of the now, Enterprise Mission and to the Cydonia photos of Mars taken by Viking in 1976. I heard him speak on this as well as its connection to his seven-year lunar investigation. The Art Bell talk show, Coast-to-Coast AM was carrying Richard as a guest the first time I heard him. I was skeptical. Through the evening, I remembered some unusual things I’d seen on my photos and it seemed reminiscent of what he was describing.

He returned to the airways occasionally. In 1996, he with a host of reputable scientists both in and out of NASA confirmed this data to the Washington Press Corp in Washington DC. He was vehement about his lunar discoveries and so were the people that stood with him in questioning NASA’s lack of disclosure regarding lunar anomalies.

I learned of Professor Stanley V. McDaniel, an esteemed gentleman and author who was concerned with NASA’s apparent failure to fulfill its ethical and legal responsibility to the American public and the world. That summer, I attended a seminar in Sioux Falls, SD where I met Prof. McDaniel and had an opportunity to talk with him about many aspects of the Martian and lunar data. He was helpful in helping me locate other researchers doing work in this area.⁴

I purchased Hoagland’s book The Monuments of Mars⁵ along with his two-video set The Moon-Mars Connection⁶ I was interested in the process and method of his investigation into the lunar anomalies and understood the relationships between the Mars and Moon data. But it wasn’t just the data. It was the resolute dedication of all the researchers that was exhibited apart from and with Richard that challenged me to become interested in this area. They were all concerned with the convergence of the data and were tenacious about revealing it despite the ignorance of the "party-line" paradigm. They scientifically tested as they do now, the hypothesis of artificiality. I saw them then trying to unravel the mystery concerning NASA’s apparent dislocation from doing the homework. I definitely had my own questions and began wondering if something, sometime had gotten sidetracked.

I was curious and I ordered one of the frames mentioned in Richard’s studies, which was Lunar Orbiter III 84M. There were five missions for Lunar Orbiter (LO) that photographed the moon prior to Apollo. M is a designation for medium resolution. Inside of the parameters for the medium frame are 3 H-frames (H) or high resolution closeups. On 84M I saw the Shard that he had talked about, rising vertically into the sky in a place it should not be and having a shape it should not have due to the incessant meteoric rain that should have leveled it. I called Houston and asked them about it. They couldn’t give me a satisfactory reason for its existence. No one could. I was perplexed.

I remembered again some of the data I had ordered and examined before I had heard of any of these researchers. I had found some unusual filamentary spikes on some photography that I had ordered from Apollo 14 data and had put it away in a file drawer. I abstractly associated the Shard and what I had found. I knew that my filaments were part of the image and not a scratch on the negative. I retrieved them and had enlargements made. I then saw these spikes in a "different light".

Many of Hoagland’s discoveries take the form of anomalous crystalline ‘rebar’ and support structure that extend above the surface—remnants of structure once much larger but now degraded by wasting and meteoric impact. Studies have been conducted to show that lunar glass could today be used as a future building material on the moon and that in a lunar vacuum, it’d have the structural strength of steel. I suspected that what I had been seen on III84M and my data were one in the same type of structure but taking different form. I’d also seen much of this type structure on Hoagland’s Sinus Medii data. Such glass is seen to cause major brightening and optical changes on the lunar horizon on 16mm film as well as still Apollo oblique photography.

I felt myself being pulled into the investigation. I began ordering negatives rather than prints so that I could start making lower generation enlargements. Throughout the next several months I found several more suspect areas on other Lunar Orbiter images. I enlarged considerably small areas to bring out the areas. It helped to overexpose some of the prints. Contrast prints (from light to dark) made in series also helped in obtaining definition. Investigation became more time consuming using my lupe over the light table. It became habit to order the medium resolution frame first, and then ordering the H frame later if something looked suspicious. With the Apollo Hasselblad 70mm, there were no framelet lines as seen on the Lunar Orbiters.

I studied geologic areas of each suspect area and looked at maps, science reports and papers. I followed Richard’s lead and ordered many of the blank frames seen in early Apollo photo catalogs which turned out to be revealing. When I found an anomalous region, I would move to other photography of the same region that would corroborate. In order to do this I had to enlarge my database.

I ordered Apollo Photographic Indexes and Catalogs as well as most of the LO Contractor Reports having to do with everything about their missions including information on each site location and photo parameter. (Sources listed later) The early Apollo catalogs (SP publications) show smaller versions of the larger photos one can order from archives (listed later). Preliminary Science Reports were helpful in researching specific Apollo mission photo data, geology, astronaut observations, orbital studies, and scientific experiments of landing sites. A catalog listing of all NASA SP publications is available. I contacted Houston for further assistance in getting material that I couldn’t access from other sources, including footprint maps of all photography. Houston has an intra-library loan program that allows interested researchers to access pertinent data through their libraries. I used this extensively, copying the originals for my use again in finding corroborative photography from different missions. The archives have generally been helpful. I have received negatives of incredible quality.

Later on in my investigations, I ordered silver 16 and 35 mm microfilm of all the Hasselblad 70mm, metric mapping camera, and panoramic camera photography taken on Apollo 15-17. I got a good buy on a microfilm reader and bought a used one. Libraries also have them for public use. The cost of the film is miniscule. Of course, negatives must be ordered to really see anomalies but one can definitely get an idea where to go be having the film as work-copy resource. Microfilm is also available for LO mission photography.

Anomalous hard lunar geometric surface structure that I’ve found looks architectural. Ejecta from crater impact can occasionally look like this naturally. There was REPETITION however, in what I found. Geologists characterize ’hummocky’ lunar terrain as having "highly textured treebark-like " patterns indicative of downslope movement of material along crater terracing. I’m yet unfamiliar however, with natural patterns near or far from craters on both terra and maria that have redundantly repetitious right angles and triangular definition and even arches seen in groups. Architectural and foundation-type design has been found around many lunar craters that are near the limits of resolution well into the grey levels of sectional photo enlargements on both LO and Apollo photos. Many of these have and will be discussed in upcoming reports on this site.

Enlargements made from both Apollo and LO photography show anomalous structures out of the path of further deposition and wasting that have walls and buttresses higher than the natural terrain. Meteoric rain degrades them but straight walls within walls simply don’t appear on levels higher than the highest points of crater flanks which some of the ‘archologies’ I’ve found seem to do. I believe these are remnants of structures that used to be much larger and more defined.

I was accruing data and sensed an impass. I had data and didn’t know what to do with it. I hadn’t considered verification of what I was finding for I had started my study merely to find out for myself. I come from a relatively small community in the heart of grassroots America where such findings would either be rejected or ignored for the most part. In a generally conservative area like South Dakota, for people to believe there are artificial ruins on the moon, they would have to have it verified by God. I do believe there are those at NASA that aren’t aware of what these pictures show. The rank and file of NASA during Apollo was too busy getting the back-to-back missions off to the moon and didn’t have time to process every photograph the way I was processing them. Perhaps most of the rank and file today believe that the thousands of photographs taken have been examined by now. After all, they’re still publicly available after thirty years. Richard Hoagland once suggested, "If you want to hide something, sometimes you put it in plain sight – and sometimes you don’t." What came to my mind then was, "Don’t look for something – you just might find it!"

The problem of disclosure seems to go back to the infancy of our space program. The ones who are likely to be aware of the lunar and other planetary artifacts are ones who know of the Brookings Report. Written in 1959 by the Brookings Institution, it was titled, Proposed Studies of the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs and was delivered to the Chairman of NASA’s Committee on Long-Range Studies and to Congress. It suggested that data accrued through space exploration that would reveal artifacts of intelligent life- be withheld from the public for fear that society would disintegrate and cause scientific, psychological, and social upheaval. (available from Federal archives) Truth remains truth. I had seen enough so I sent some of my findings to Richard.

For the past four years I have shared 11 packages of lunar data with him. He has confirmed many enigmas seen in my analog material. I went to Phoenix in 1997 to meet him along with others involved with this and other mysteries who all came together there for two days of conference and seminar. Among them was Ken Johnston Sr., who spent many years at Boeing and NASA during Apollo. There was a researcher there who Richard asked me to join with in my research efforts. Mike Bara is interested in the lunar material and the political implications involved with the whole story concerning lack of disclosure. He has computer enhancement capabilities, and has further verified my data. For over a year now we have shared material and from the analog data I have sent to him, we have further studied and posted many individual and joint reports here on his fine website. To date I have found 44 anomalous lunar regions. We have much to process. And so it goes.

THE STATE OF THINGS

Research continues. I believe some of the knowledge gained since NASA’s inception has been found to be crucial information about our solar system – knowledge with non-trivial implications for all of us including the ones who have tried to hide it—knowledge that irregardless of ignorance continues to be tested, identified, decoded, and verified since we went to space. I am fortunate to be a part of the larger picture, rather than apart from it. I think I have found a piece of the puzzle.

I have learned that much of the knowledge gained contains mathematical solutions. Some is still hidden within it. Much has been decoded from examining Earth-analogs. From them we have discovered the science that has been weaved into them from our past. It’s relevant today. Some solutions are reflected in the laws that control planetary energies. Many quietly admit the existence of some of the visible manifestations while in their labs and archives, yet hesitate to acknowledge existence to their peers. Many see them as natural and believe that what we don’t yet understand is not unnatural but a part of the nature of discovery…..related in a mathematical purity.

As inquiry continues many of us search the yet hidden mathematical relationships and meanings between many terrestrial ancient monuments and temples. The creators of the lunar artifacts did not hide them from us. Perhaps there was the realization that one day we would discover them on our way out to the stars. Humanity who has the capacity to search and find FOR humanity and does not, deprives itself and all of us of the truth and of potential future. As a result humanity falls victim and is left in ignorance unable to expand and grow.

For the tenacious that want to know, who demand to know, the testing of data continues. This involves construction engineers, geologists, photo and computer imaging specialists, and others who continue to test. The non-random signatures of the lunar anomalies involves history and indicate to me that our historical record as we have known it, may very well need to be rewritten.

The Brookings Report is alive and well. Time is relative. In time the truth WILL be revealed. Like a child going through growing pains it will be a humbling experience to realize we have not been alone. The realization will make us grow and become proactive as we finally see ourselves. The data is undeniable. Pictures ARE worth a thousand words -- NASA took them.

 ARCHIVE SOURCES AND REFERENCE MATERIAL:

NASA DATA CENTER FOR AEROSPACE INFORMATION (CASI) 800 Elkridge Landing Road, Linthicum Heights, MD 20190 (catalogs and indices, technical and science reports, contractor reports, NASA atlases) help@sti.nasa.gov

NSSDC GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, CODE 633, Greenbelt, MD, 20771 (negatives, prints, catalog, and photographic data) request@nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov

LUNAR AND PLANETARY INSTITUTE, Request Services, PO Box 58424, Houston, TX, 77258 (negatives & prints, intra library loans, maps, catalog data)

NASA HISTORY ARCHIVE, 8221 Westchester Drive, Vienna, VA, 22182