KEPLER – PART TWO
By STEVE TROY
My first Kepler report revealed what I believe to be artificial surface and crystalline structures in and around Kepler crater. Mike and I both agree that it is important to note that in the Kepler reports and in most other reports done thus far on this site, the actual raw, analog data and enlargements are superior in resolution than digitally scanned images. Whenever possible, refer to prints from negatives. ALL of the anomalies discussed can be seen on the raw data.
It has been about a year since the Hubble telescope imaged the moon. With suspicious reflection, it remains synchronistic to me that the area STSCI chose to photograph and release was the area between Kepler and Copernicus. This region was chosen out of any other area on the nearside.
Fig. 1
A large part of my 6-year investigation has been exactly N-NE and SE of Kepler. (See, By the Way….On Hubble, on this website). Of course, Hortensius is an area I shared with Mike before Kepler. It is in the general region in the SE quadrant of the released Hubble lunar image. (Why THIS test area, STSCI?) It is also interesting, apart from Hubble, when I think back a half a year and discovered that about 15 of the 44 areas of the moon where I’ve found and plotted anomalies (on the near-side alone) were investigated by NASA as proposed lunar resource and geologic reconnaissance sites for future detailed study and sample return missions as late as 1988. I studied these site areas THREE YEARS AFTER I had located and studied anomalies in many of those sites seen in Lunar Orbiter and Apollo photography, including Hortensius, which is one of those sites.1 Hortensius, for example, is a proposed science site to study and characterize vent and flow systems, eruption and emplacement styles, the origin of volcanic landforms including the natural domes and small basaltic shield volcanoes there.2 I think someone was there long ago doing just that. (See Hortensius reports)
Indeed, the stratigraphy of the "Hubble-region" including Kepler is unique. The visual proof of both geology and anomaly is evident in photography taken by Clementine, Apollo, and Lunar Orbiter long before November 1998. The Kepler Rampart (report one) was discussed with a geologist (who still reviews the data), as was much of the flank structure. I wanted to look as far around the flank area of Kepler on available photography before going to Kepler A and B and then north. On III162M, the east flank is visible to the right side of the image but it lies at an angle where clarity isn’t the best. I ordered the H3 frame for the series from NSSDC, hoping to get a better view of this flank. The east flank on H3 isn’t quite as bright as the same area on 162M and it revealed similar remarkable geometry as seen on 162M. (See fig. 2)
Fig. 2a (click on thumbnail for larger image)
Fig. 2b
After printing the H3, I searched catalogs and maps for corroborative data from other missions and ordered Apollo 12 frame 7445 (AS12-52-7445). It shows a frontal view of Kepler’s east flank as well as the whole crater. The Rampart seen on 162M wasn’t visible due to shadow. AS12-52-7445 was taken with the 250mm Hasselblad looking NW. Principal point is 8.1N, 38.3W taken at medium sun with a camera tilt of 60-65 degrees. The negative for the photo looked different than others I’d received. After printing it I saw that the image (and negative) were ‘light-struck". It was bright and hazy and ALL crater definition was gone. I decided to hold onto it rather than send it back. I reordered the same negative from Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, so I could compare quality before making any decisions. There is an excellent clear picture of this frame in Wilhelm’s, To A Rocky Moon3 so I knew there had to be a good negative somewhere! I got the Houston version and it was focused and clear. I marked off areas for print sectionals. My interest was the east flank area. After printing 7445, I was astonished to find what I thought I had seen on 162H3: ANOTHER RAMPART STRUCTURE IDENTICAL TO THE RAMPART SEEN ON 162M. It sits about the same distance from the east rim as the 162M Rampart is from the south rim, and there is similar orthogonal stacking around it. I suspect that there may be similar Rampart structures on the north and west sides of Kepler. One can see, as discussed in my first report, evidence of the possibility of one on the west side by looking at the geometric organization above the major interior crater slump (terrace) on the west side on 162M. Another idea is that these Ramparts could have been enormous support-footings for domical truss configurations of rebar that may have extended OVER Kepler. This ‘biosphere’ configuration would have covered an immense area as it does in the rebar material at Sinus Medii investigated by Hoagland.
Fig 3a
Fig.3b
The two Ramparts and their placements amaze me. In traditional models, the Ramparts would be called megablocks. Some will still call them that despite alternative findings. Lunar geologists tell us that coarse radial structures of ejecta blankets of large craters such as Kepler indicate displacements of large amounts of material from the crater. Late derived material from near the wall is lobbed or pushed out at low velocities and land near the rim. These are "megablocks." Unlike them, the first material ejected attains highest velocities and is last to hit the surface farthest from the crater. There is crushing and shearing of the material on impact with arrested cataclastic flow of banded material within the crater after settling. Megablocks ejected late may cause dikes of glass, which are injected along the fractures, et cetera.
I studied this and asked myself how TWO ‘megablocks’ having the SAME rectilinear configuration with aligned walls at right angles, be located at two precise points of the lunar compass on the east and south sides of a crater, and remain unique with this shape apart from ALL other structure adjacent to them? Unless, they AREN’T ‘megablocks!’
Looking carefully at enlargements of the middle and foreground of AS12-7445 one can discern areas of ‘vertical crystalline’ about 20-30km out from the east flank toward Kepler A and B. Contrast prints made in series from dark to light of this area will reveal them through a good loupe.
I naively surmised early in my studies that structural anomalies I discovered not only at Kepler, but other areas, were relegated to Copernican regions. Most of the anomalies until Kepler had, in fact, been found in these regions. But Kepler A and B aren’t Copernican craters. And there are some interesting observations to be made there. I found another AS12 image that photographed both A and B obliquely at low sun, again with the 250mm Hasselblad. Principal point of AS12-51-7577 is 7.5N, 36W with a tilt of 55-60 degrees to the north. The sun IS very low and the camera angle is higher above Kepler A and B than in the LO162M frame.
Fig. 4a (click on thumbnail for larger version)
Fig. 4b (click on thumbnail for larger version)
On the 162M close-up (fig.4) of Kepler A and B there is an arrowed area pointing to a small, hazy point visible on the print. This hazy point is ALSO SEEN next to it on AS12-7577 (fig.4). The casual observer wouldn’t routinely catch this on 162M because it almost blends into the sunlit terrain. Yet it does stand out AND ABOVE the surface. I’ve learned to look for these cloudy, hazy areas on lunar photography. In a hard lunar vacuum they shouldn’t exist, particularly when the surrounding terrain is visibly clear and sharp! On AS12-7577 the ‘haze point’ lies just into the left margin of the full frame print and looks like a cottonball; not a scientific term, but nevertheless an accurate description. I do not believe lunar science can explain it in the context of its immediate environment or after looking at enlargements of it! And it is not a defect in the film; it is definitely a part of the image.
On LOIII 84M, Hoagland found the Shard and the Tower. The Tower resembles a hazy area above the lunar horizon in the sky totally unrelated to the pre-exposed reseau patterns on the film. It too, is part of the image and with enhancement, it was shown to have incredible internal structure and integrity foreign to lunar study. The "Cottonball" seen on both 162M and AS12-7577 is miniscule compared to the Tower, however I believe it is a similar object. When it was enlarged off the AS12 negative (about an inch by an inch area) into 5 X 7 contrast prints IT REVEALS ITS INTERNAL GEOMETRIC DEFINITION WITHOUT ENHANCEMENT and yet looks transparent. Its probably a mile or so ABOVE the surface yet is very small compared to 11KM Kepler A, which lies adjacent to it. ITS LOCATION IS IDENTICAL IN DISTANCE AND POSITION FROM KEPLER A IN BOTH 162M and AS12-7577!
Fig. 5
I suspect that this is made of the same material as the Minidome (see report one) and that it is a remnant or part of a possible "biosphere" that used to be much larger.
Its interesting that Kepler A and B, two relatively small, obscure craters, were photographed. Knowing what some insiders at NASA realized about Kepler could have made Kepler A and B photographic objectives for this mission. Directly on the east rim of Kepler A there are geometric organizations that fit into the natural lineaments. Some is vertical hard structure. Throughout the UPPER portion of the full frame (also on AS12-51-7576) there are "gauzy, hazy areas" as well. The surface structure can be seen through it but what is seen through the haze does NOT look ‘lunar." I ordered a color version of AS12-7577 from LPI, Houston because I wanted to see them in lunar color.
Fig 6 (click on thumbnail for larger version)
These areas look different from the surrounding terrain. I made enlargements when I received it and saw stacked geometric pattern that looked like buildings and towers. They fit into and around the natural patterns and look like they were built into them and all four or five of these areas looked like they were in a ‘fog.’ One fellow researcher said they reminded him of stadiums. Off the south rim of Kepler A, there is a "sunray-crater" for lack of a better description. Its about 700 feet wide having wagon wheel-like spokes that extend out in a radial pattern about three crater widths. Kepler B (taken in sequence on AS12-51-7576) also has an interesting canal-shaped formation extending out from a small rim craterlet. There is a trough or tube that leads from this crater INTO the flank itself.
| |
 |
|
Concentric and radial trends are commonly present in studies of impact craters, and grid and lineament patterns DO conjugate to sun direction.4 The strongest trends are seen in low sun like in the AS12-7577 image. I acknowledge this. The traditional model recognizes that lineaments tend to be symmetrical about the sun direction and recognition of this pattern suggests a lunar grid idea of structure features – perhaps fractures – that might be globally controlled.5 Many artifacts do look artificial yet are natural. The key is in the REPETITIVE GEOMETRY seen in the artifacts that are not natural. NASA conducted experiments with a powder similar to reflective gypsum that were designed to demonstrate the effect of bright sun reflecting on a hummocky lunar surface with little or no diffuse light in the shadows. Results showed that grazing light enhanced detectability.6 However, there was no mention of hazy, amorphous cloudy lunar structure in the midst of clear sharp structure around it!
The advantage in researching prints from negatives is one can develop ENLARGEMENTS to look deep into the levels between fractures and lineaments and radial trends. Anomalies can then, with knowledge of lunar formation, be discerned from the noise. I believe the astronauts must have seen many of these artifacts. There should NOT be ‘gauzy, foggy’ areas on the moon at the sun angle of AS12-7577 in a hard lunar vacuum. Smaller craters found around large ones like Kepler A and B occur so frequently that shadows from them can also form clusters and lineament patterns which make the geometry hard to see. Yet one CAN still detect the signals.
Other corroborative data will be looked at in the next report that will back up the anomalies seen on AS12-51-7577 and III 162M. I’ll look at a dome over another regional Procellarum crater. STAY TUNED!
FOOTNOTES
1 NASA CP- 3070, Geoscience and a Lunar Base, pp. 31-33
2 Report on Workshop/ Methodology for Evaluating Lunar Resource Sites, NASA, Feb, 1981, P.54
3 Wilhelms, Don To A Rocky Moon, A Geologist's History of Lunar Exploration, Arizona Press, 1993
4 NASA, SP-289, Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report, pp.25-58 through 25-62.
5 Ibid, Lineaments That Are Artifacts of Lighting, p.25-59.
6 Ibid, Crater Shadow Effects At Low Sun, p. 25-92
:: 
:: 
::
