THE CRISIUM BRIDGE IS NOT FALLING DOWN
A REPLY TO LUNARANOMALIES.COM
Richard Smith
NOTE: The following is an effort to present an alternate point of view on a subject of great scientific importance. While acknowledging the significant contributions of Richard Hoagland to lunar anomalies research in 1994-1996, this writer is disappointed with progress since then, and feels the critical element of NASA fraud is not being sufficiently emphasized by most other researchers. NSSDC refers to NASA’s National Space Science Data Center in Greenbelt, MD.
Several years ago I contacted Steve Troy of Lunar Anomalies.com in order to share with him information on a lunar feature in western Mare Crisium that had the appearance of a very large bridge connecting the rim of Crisium with an off shore "island." The location is 50 degrees east longitude and 17 degrees north latitude. As in my previous piece on Cape Agarum (see "Targets of Opportunity"), I had been made aware of this feature through J. Swaney’s letter to Fate magazine in 1981. Although located reasonably close by, the bridge in question here is not the alleged object between Capes Lavinium and Olivium. For more on the infamous Crisium bridge controversy of 1953, see "O’Neill’s Bridge Remembered" in Sky & Telescope for January 1998.
The arrow in the Lunar Orbiter IV photo below points to the object in question, or at least one "version" of this object. The scale is on the order of several miles, so visual observations are relevant here, as in the case of Promontory Agarum on the east side of Crisium. I was surprised to learn from Lunar Anomalies that enlargements from L.O. IV 35 mm microfilm cannot produce anomalous signatures. Quite a statement not supported by the facts, and one that assumes lunar structures simply can’t measure miles across, a position inconsistent with Richard Hoagland’s own research!
Another point of contention with the Lunar Anomalies piece "Crisium Bridge is Falling Down" is procedural. Mr. Troy makes much of the necessity for analysis of sectional prints from NASA negatives. How this differs from analysis of sectionals from NASA prints using an optical magnifier or a modern, high quality scanner is beyond me. I invite comparison of the details circled in the photo below with his enlargement of the very same image. I can discern no meaningful difference. In the area covered by the left circle lies another critical piece of evidence supporting the NASA photo fraud model. I will have more on this later.
SECTIONAL ENLARGEMENT FROM LUNAR ORBITER IV, 192H3 NSSDC PRINT. VIEW IS FROM THE EAST LOOKING WEST.
What prompted my original communication was Mr. Troy’s discovery of a feature he calls "Malibu" on the north shore of Crisium. An area of geometric regularity was found on a massif in two Apollo photos. However, the highest resolution photo of the area, an Apollo 17 panoramic photo, failed to reveal any sign of Malibu. He expressed the view that the panoramic photo may have been altered. Here was a completely independent opinion pointing to what I am convinced has been done by NASA to the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 panoramic photos, the supposed "cream of the crop" in their archives.
As explained in "Crisium Bridge is Falling Down," several NASA photos show what I would call "versions" of this object. Admittedly, in a quick look at only these distant, lower resolution photos there is little to lead one to believe that we have anything other than an unusual geologic feature. However, the biggest problem lies with at least two Apollo 17 panoramic photos, 17-2259 and 2264 (stereo pair). It is my contention that it is simply impossible for these two photos to show what they show without their having been retouched.
Visual observations and telescopic photos at both early morning and late afternoon sun are unequivocal in showing a critical distinguishing detail which I assume led Steve Troy to label this object a "somewhat broken" shelf. It has two sections, a rounded east section and a west "bridge" extension. Both these elements are seen in direct sunlight and as shadow in Lick Observatory early morning photo L1 (solar co-longitude 329 degrees) and the Consolidated Lunar Atlas late afternoon photo C3 (solar co-longitude 120 degrees) on the web. Now, given the specific parameters of the stereo Apollo panoramic photos mentioned above (sun elevation at 33 degrees, near vertical position of the spacecraft over the site at 118 km, and a theoretical resolution of several feet), it boggles the mind that anyone can claim there is more here than a gray smudge.
SECTION OF APOLLO 17 PANORAMIC PHOTO 2259 SHOWING ABSENCE OF TRUE CRISIUM BRIDGE (ELLIPSE). STEREO COMPANION SENT TO FATE MAGAZINE WITH LETTER TO THE EDITOR (SEE FEBRUARY 1987 ISSUE).
Apollo 17 photos aren’t the only ones showing a disturbing inconsistency with reality. The unmanned Clementine image shown below reveals a similar pattern. Where the bridge crosses at the south end of the large black shadow there is only another gray smudge. If this is just a two part "broken shelf," why has a completely separate government agency (the Naval Research Lab) also removed it? In Richard Hoagland’s Planetary Horizons (Vol. 2, #6), we read the following description of the Clementine images:
". . . .the original 8-bit, 256-level greyscale had been reduced to 15 levels (!) -- making the images blurry and virtually lacking in detail! The internet versions are of the same execrable quality; we have acquired samples of both and neither are worth the disk space they are stored on." (p. 61)
CLEMENTINE SPACECRAFT PHOTO OF OFF SHORE "ISLAND" (ELLIPSE) AND LOCATION OF MISSING BRIDGE (ARROW).
The bridge area objects are so large that telescopic observations are way above the limit of resolution in good seeing (image steadiness). During my first views of this region two to three days after full moon, I found a thin, giant structure parallel to and immediately south of the bridge. Although this object is mostly gone from both my enlargement of 192H3 (left circle in first photo) and Mr. Troy’s enlargement, it does show up in 191H3 (digital Lunar Orbiter Photographic Atlas on the web) and in NSSDC Lunar Orbiter IV 35 mm microfilm (see below).
Yet, despite the NASA photographic evidence supporting my visual observations of this very large object, not a trace can be found in the best resolution Apollo 17 panoramic photos or the Clementine photo shown above.
Mr. Troy makes a concluding statement on the importance of having quality corroborative data to work with. I couldn’t agree more. But it is NASA who should be excoriated for faulty data. My purpose in contacting him was to seek collaboration, not to provide an exhaustive thesis! However, here are two more photo examples supporting my case. Years ago I acquired two Apollo 8 photos from the NSSDC, both of which showed all of Mare Crisium. I have strong reason to believe that both photos have been deliberately de-focused (compare with Lick Observatory photos L1/L2). A morning sun sectional enlargement of western Crisium is shown below (8-14-2888). In the bridge area (circled) are two indistinct blobs with shadows, representing our bi-sectional bridge. Although this pattern repeats in the other Apollo 8 photo, it is entirely missing in the Apollo 17 panoramic shown above, the Clementine photo, and the Lunar Orbiter photo shown below.
SECTIONAL ENLARGEMENT OF LUNAR ORBITER IV, 61 H2. MORNING SUN VIEW IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER PHOTOS WHERE EVERYTHING HAS BEEN WIPED CLEAN.
Conclusion
I have presented here a series of spacecraft photos of western Mare Crisium which are not only totally or partially inconsistent with visual observations and observatory photos, but aren’t even consistent among themselves. Why would those "in the know" eliminate a natural feature, a broken shelf, from the "best" lunar photography we have? The Crisium bridge won’t disappear, and thanks to digital technology, neither will NASA’s record of fraud and deception.
* * * * * * *
If you would like to contact the author, please send your comments to info@siriusresearchgroup.com and we will forward your email.
