CONTACT INFORMATION:

MICHAEL BARA  lunaranomalies@mn.rr.com (Note - I am not able to respond to all e-mails, but I will read them -- MB)
COPYRIGHT © 2000 STEVE TROY malibu0406@yahoo.com

Web Hosting by

 Around the Cuspids

I first saw the Cuspids in an enlarged photo from an older lunar atlas acquired after an exhaustive book search in 1996. Zdenek Kopal’s classic, New Photographic Atlas of the Moon ¹was published shortly after Apollo 11’s landing and he used many photographs of Lunar Orbiter’s I-V and Apollo’s 8-10 from his personal collection as well as photography from NASA archives to illustrate it.

One of the frames in his book is not directly identified but has to be either II61H3 or 62H3. I suspect it is 61H3 because of the resolution that closely resembles the resolution evident on the 61H3 that I acquired later. Kopal’s shows an enlarged close-up view of the Cuspids.

Both the VGL and Lunascan Projects have both brought attention back to the Blair Cuspids. The alignment has fascinated me, and I recall a very, very long night over a light table even associating the alignment with Orion’s belt stars! It is interesting too, that the first lunar manned landing occurred not far from where they are.

Apart from and around the Cuspids there are some remarkable formations easily resolved in the Kopal photo. The studies done by VGL on the illumination-geometry and the shadows of the Cuspids aren’t as critical when looking at these other areas of which there are six or seven. They are located on relatively level terrain adjacent to the Cuspids.

FIG.1

One of the areas shows a rather large mound with 2-3, side-by-side indented cube- shaped holes, very un-crater-like and very near the Cuspids. Many others look like foundations and are seen around the Cuspids. These have GEOMETRIC integrity and right- angle interior patterns. They resemble some of the formations seen around the Kepler Rampart region but on a much smaller scale. These have also been found in photography of the south shore of Mare Crisium. (See Malibu reports). The ones seen in Kopal’s photo are larger or slightly larger than the base of Cuspid #5, which is near or on the framelet lines of 61H3 and 62H3.

FIG. 2
(Click on thumbnail for full size image)

After seeing Kopal’s photo, I ordered two sets of negatives, a set from NSSDC and a set from LPI, Houston. I wanted to be sure I had the best from both archives to see what I was seeing in Kopal’s shot. The 61H3 and 62H3 from Houston were better quality negatives so I had enlargements made from those.

The first thing I noticed were the framelet lines nearest the Cuspids on both negatives and how areas seemed to be cut out of the picture. What was even stranger was that the Kopal framelet line nearest the Cuspids was NOT the same as in the archive negatives from either NSSDC or LPI! The framelet in Kopal’s photo BISECTED Cuspid #5 IN HALF. Photos of the Cuspids reproduced in other lunar references I have also show Cuspid #5 cut in half by this framelet. I have been unable to obtain this particular photo, and am again unsure if this photo is 61H3 or 62H3. There is no caption for it except that it references Boeing-Langley. The resolution of the 61H3 is better than the 62H3, and that’s what makes me think it’s a 61H3. There is greater detail around the Cuspid spires. So, there are TWO versions of 61H3 (or 62H3?)

It is true that there were misaligned framelets on Lunar Orbiter photography. The framelet width of 61M (medium resolution frame) is 1.61km and width for the 61H is 0.208km. Considering the size of the spires in the Cuspid series this is still a sizable amount of real estate. Anomaly investigations can often be hindered by this error. Terrain and structure cut off by framelet-lines was really a problem for me when I examined the Hortensius III123M and H-frames. The framelet lines on the negatives used by the VGL study match those from the negatives I examined.

FIG. 3
(Click on thumbnail for full size image)

In other cases there is more than one version for a negative. The controversial LOIII 162H2 shows a .023km crater within the ray system of Kepler, SW of Maestlin R. I also saw this frame in the Kopal atlas after I’d examined a Houston negative of the frame and it is pictured in NASA’s, The Moon As Viewed By Lunar Orbiter.² The negative I got from Houston and Kopal’s version are DIFFERENT and have the framelet line nearest the crater crossing in different areas. Some information has been cut off (or altered?), and the suspicious information that is visible is therefore ambiguous.

FIG. 4
(Click on thumbnail for full size image)

61H3 and 62H3 were both sectional photography of Site IIP4 located just south of the eastern part of Rima Ariadaeus, including Ariadaeus B. For those who have studied partial photography specs and for those who haven’t, here are the photo parameters for II61 and II62 from Lunar Orbiter II Photography:³

II61 and II62 were both taken when the spacecraft was at 47 km. altitude. The lat/long of the spacecraft when 61 was taken is 4.83 and 15.46 degrees respectively. For 62, lat/long is 4.81 and 15.59 respectively. The principal ground point for both photos averages out at 4.82 latitude and 15.48 longitude. Slant distance is 49 km. for both, the sun azimuth was 91.25 degrees, and the emission angle about 1.5 degrees. The phase angle was 77.7 degrees, and the tilt angle for both averaged 1.4 degrees. Swing angle was 91.5 for each photo. An accurate map for the position of the Site IIP4 photography can be found in NASA’s, Guide To Lunar Orbiter Photographs.⁴

FIG.5

It is said that the exposure levels were generally good yet some of the photography was overexposed by UNKNOWN and uncertain local characteristics.⁵ I wonder if glass structure could play apart in the reason why. (Watch for Kepler 3)

According to the USGS map I-510, Julius Caesar quad by Wilhelm’s and Morris, the traditional-model sees this site in the Cayley Formation, a generally flat, smooth area. It’s interpretation points to volcanic material and RAY material around the Cuspids vicinity (NE of Ariadaeus B). Here there are streaks and patches radial to Copernican craters consisting of layers of fragmented rock created from both primary and secondary craters, perhaps dark bedrock. Could some of this fragmented material be Cuspid material? The Cuspid alignment doesn’t LOOK like the result of random fragmented rock, and the geometric, foundation-like patterns seen around the Cuspids certainly doesn’t look ‘random’!

Examining 61H3 with a loupe, I made sectional enlargements from the negative and saw similar patterns in them as I did on the Kopal image although they weren’t as defined and ‘crisp’. The left photo in fig.3 show the "Windows". Their alignment and cubical configuration are defined both in the Kopal photo and the Houston 61H3 photo from negative.

FIG.5

In addition to the 2 negatives in question, I had some custom work done, and ordered an 8X10 of the far right- middle of the frame 62H3, the area to the right of the Cuspids 62H3. Here there are numerous small spires and rock-cast shadows. Some are aligned in 2’s but most are scattered. None of them are as pronounced as the Blair Cuspids.

Just as Hoagland found many versions of Apollo 10-4822, the Sinus Medii "Castle" frame, I believe there are many Lunar Orbiters to be "discovered." I think there are some around that no one has seen except for privileged few. And like the Apollo’s, the ones publicly available are multi-generation and are nonspecific. If we could all be as lucky as Michael Light who just published the book, Full Moon,⁶ we would all be able to negotiate permission from NASA to take MASTERS offsite and scan them at film resolution. If we knew his withheld secrets of "getting in," we’d be able to not only find out more information about the Cuspids site, but many, many others investigated by researchers on this site as well as other lunar anomaly sites. It is a matter of science, investigation and doing the homework.

As seen by the photographs here, there is a serious issue to again be raised about the duplicitousness of NASA and the lack of disclosure regarding crucial photography taken over 35 years ago. I say ‘again’ because I’m obviously not the only one who has experienced this problem. Richard Hoagland in his lunar studies found several different versions of supposedly single hand-held frames acquired by Apollo astronauts in lunar orbit. For example, each undisclosed but discovered frame of AS10-32-4822 contains subtle changes from frame to frame that changes the geometry of the numerous artifacts seen in it. Each version was taken seconds apart yet NASA has represented only ONE VERSION of this photograph. So we know this duplicity occurred with Apollo.

Lunar Orbiter preceded Apollo to photograph landing sites and to map the moon. The fact that the proven duplicity also occurred with this program shows that it was going on then as well. Here, too, we have the problem of multiple versions of negatives. To jump forward to today’s continuing cloak of secrecy regarding suspect Mars photography and lack of it, and the refusal of NASA and its contractors to cooperate with the American public and scientists interested in it, further begs the question, "What the hell are they hiding?" They take the pictures, we pay for them, and they won’t show us. But things are changing. The times have changed. The Brookings Report may be alive and well today but people KNOW more today about what is going on than they did yesterday. It’s only a matter of time.