bridge

CONTACT INFORMATION:

MICHAEL BARA lunaranomalies@mn.rr.com
STEVE TROY malibu0406@yahoo.com

Note - we are not able to respond to all e-mails, but we will read them

Web Hosting by

Crisium Bridge is Falling Down
by
Steve Troy

Mark-up print showing features in the Mare Crisium Region

Early in July, I received a phone call from a lunar anomaly investigator who will remain anonymous due to his wish to remain that way. He called me to address interest in analogous findings between the work I did with the ‘Malibu’ archology in northern Crisium and with his interest in a "bridge" located on the west shore of Crisium within the ray system of Proclus crater. He said the bridge connected a promontory slope that made contact with another onshore unit. He then sent data for me to look at and told me that he wanted our lunar team to have it to analyze. Shortly thereafter, I got it in the mail. He went into a brief history of this feature and explained his information.

His description stated that this object was seen as early as 1950 and seems to appear and disappear. He said that James Oberg, a NASA scientist had explained this away as sunlight from the setting sun passing between the promontories and falling on higher land therefore creating the illusion of a bridge, which he didn’t agree with. The investigator claimed to have seen it with his 8" Newtonian reflector.

He then stated that he had exhaustively searched NASA microfiche and microfilm catalogs from Goddard/NSSDC to understand available Lunar Orbiter coverage. He centered on LOIV 191 and 192H photos and compared them to AS172259 and 2264 panoramic photos and said that the AS17 photos had been altered because the bridge, visible in the LO microfilm was not visible in the pans. He said further, that, "the object is virtually gone in IV192 available today." Also used in his analysis was AS16-121-19438.

I decided to evaluate his data in the context of possible artificiality and began, as I do with my data, using a geologic approach. In the traditional model, the immediate area of the ‘bridge’ reflects rugged blocky terra, somewhat similar to the AS17 site at Littrow. Albedo is variable due to the irregular terrain, which shows slopes to be brighter in different light. These contact other units in the form of steep, straight scarps. Formation hypothesis reflects possible tectonic rejuvenation where the basement material around the rim of Crisium uplifted along fractures during basin formation. There is thin ejecta-mantling. THE SLOPES ARE STEEP AND SMOOTH AS SEEN AT LUNAR ORBITER IV SCALE. Proclus crater ray material overlays much of the ‘bridge’ region. (I am suspect of rays in many areas, but won’t go into that right now.) I am, as a rule, hesitant to agree with NASA’s geologic interpretations without investigating them. However, as a result of doing just that, I will have to agree with James Oberg’s analysis of the ‘bridge’.

MY ANALYSIS OF HIS DATA

I will start by saying that I believe there is NO connection whatsoever between the bridge and Malibu. First of all, in any qualitative research into lunar anomalies, NEGATIVES must be examined. The earlier the generation the better. It disturbed me initially when this investigator told me that he had relied mainly on microfilm and a few prints. There is a wealth of lunar archival material available that he didn’t tap into. If he could have, he would have been able to more accurately assess his data.

As with all microfilm, (of which I have 4 missions of) it does not resolve for purposes of serious, intricate research. I use it to reference for 8X10 negatives. Budgetary constraints are not a reason for not doing thorough work. Negatives are quite a bit more expensive, but like the old adage goes, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence!" One cannot afford NOT to examine them particularly in the field of lunar anomalies. Examining microfilm for anomalies really complicates things for the purposes of accuracy in dealing with the identification of artificiality, particularly with LOIV microfilm, which was taken from a higher altitude than all other missions. A 1500 mile altitude LOIV microfilm image from an H-frame (hi res frame) enlarged, is STILL a 1500 mile altitude enlargement and cannot show anomalous signature. Of course, Ukert crater in Sinus Medii can be seen from earth during full moon - - over 240,000 miles away, but this anomaly is singularly unique in its message to us.

Other data that shows the bridge region are AS15 metric photos 0955, 0375-0380, 0820-0823, and 0546-0550. AS15 Hasselblads show Magazine 94-12833-37, 12783-85, and 12781. AS17 pans show 2688-95 and 2260-65. These are all covering the bridge region. AS17 metrics: 1788-90, 2070-73. I saw the bridge area on my Malibu discovery frame; AS11-42-6223 One can see the natural shelf in this photograph.

Enlargements marked and printed from decent 8 X 10 negatives is a method I use for discerning suspect areas. All pictures mentioned in his data to me were ordered in negative form from NSSDC/Goddard and analyzed this way. Before I received them from Goddard and while I looked at this investigators data, I suspected that if his ‘bridge’ was not visible in other corroborative data, which was his claim, that it might be crystalline (see Crisium Dome reports on this site) which doesn’t exhibit the same visual characteristics as, say, the Kepler ramparts. (Reports to come soon) His claim again, was that this objects were seen in early LO microfilm and NOT visible in today’s versions from Goddard. MALIBU HAS GEOMETRIC DEFINITION. THE BRIDGE DOES NOT. That was a key observation from my analysis. I examined it in prints from negatives from different light, from different angles, from different mission photography.

The AS16-121-19438 referred to in his letter is indeed the frame that Richard Hoagland discovered the Crisium Spire. It is a TEC photo (trans-earth-coast). I ordered it forgetting that I already had it in my files from previous research back in 1995. Interestingly, after receiving it again, I saw that it looked very DIFFERENT from the one I’d received back then! It was clearer and showed much more area. There was also interesting light "fall-off" in the region of Hoagland’s spire; reminiscent of the suspicious light fall-off of the AS10 4820’s series of photos of Sinus Medii fame….the "Venetian-blind effect." Upon examining the ‘bridge’, the advantage of having negatives over print copies became evident. The bridge is natural and is a connecting shelf. There is no geometry or suspicious nature to this feature.

While reviewing the reel of AS16 microfilm of the Hasselblad data for that mission, I also ordered 121-19432, which was of even better quality in negative form. Here one can see the bridge as in 19438. Sun angles were relatively high in both 19432 and 19438. On the LOIV microfilm, the angle was low.
AS17 metric photos 0290 and 0293 were ordered. They showed the bridge in opposite light than seen in the IV 192H photo, and is similar to the lighting of the AS17 pans he claimed were altered to erase the bridge. Here, one can see the shelf that is somewhat broken. The geology of the region of the bridge I believe is accurate.
In his correspondence to me he included a photocopy of AS17 pan 2259 showing the absence of the bridge. I pose that due to the angle and light of the frame, the viewer is directly overhead and the light as in the AS17 metrics disperses the shadows away. The shelf can still be vaguely seen in its broken state. Again, light here is different than in IV192H3 and although it’s difficult to see the shelf, it still can be discerned.
LOIV 192H3 was the most conclusive to the natural hypothesis in identifying the bridge as natural. The investigator had sent me his LOIV 191H3, which is practically the same as the 192H3. I had copies made of his microfilm: 5 X 7 prints. I already knew what to expect but ran the prints anyway. I received the IV192H3 negative from Goddard and had enlarged prints made of the area. The negative-prints speak for themselves. The bridge can be seen to be what it is described as in the stratigraphic model.

Click on images for full size versions

I didn’t initiate the investigation on his material to disprove the ‘bridge’ data. I was genuinely interested. It was a lesson learned in the importance of having quality corroborative data to work with as well as having at least a basic working knowledge of lunar geology and nomenclature. I hope the investigator who shared this data with us will not be discouraged in further pursuing anomaly information. But do it with negatives. There are good ones left.