|
by Steve Troy 2002 from MoonAnomalies Website
It would eventually lead him to a plethora of remarkable discoveries in this region --- discoveries that have changed the way we see the Moon today.
Background on Central Bay
To date, there have been 12 different unique versions of this frame found, each taken at different times, and like a fingerprint, each showing subtle progressive changes from frame to frame.
Each of them shows extraordinary lunar arcologies, artifacts and anomalous geometry.
NSSDC pledged at that time that the continuing investigation would have access to the best possible data.
Discrepancies, for example, still remain concerning the recording of
scale and location in photographic catalogs, differing statistics in
NASA publications on lunar nomenclature, as well as
conspicuously absent or difficult to interpret frame numbers Apollo
mission photo maps. Through some real digging however, many of the
unlisted photograph locations have been found through our lunar
work, and not surprisingly, negatives accessed from NSSDC
of these ambiguously listed locations have revealed stunning
evidence of artificiality.
Some of Hoagland’s 4822 anomalies were seen on 4819, but the stunning scattering of sunlight off of astonishing glass structures such as The Castle seen on 4822 wasn’t evident on 4819 due to different sun and phase angles. There wasn’t any seen on frame 4820 either, which I also ordered. However, I wanted to compare them both, particularly the areas around the border and horizon. The oblique views of both 4819 and 4820 were taken seconds apart and show similar features.
To date, a legion of anomalies has been discovered on the 4800 series. Ukert, the crater that holds a special decoded geometric and hyperdimensional relationship to Cydonia on Mars, is seen obliquely on many photos in the series.
As I scrutinized the border areas and looked at the horizon, sky, and maria areas of the Bay, my attention became focused on a unique structure: an isolated pyramid-like structure out in the middle of Central Bay that I call the Triesnecker Pyramid. The feature sits adjacent to and just north of 26 km. Triesnecker crater. For comparison, the pyramid and the area around it are well resolved on both 4819 and 4820.
Enough of the ‘pyramid’ was shown here for me to see that a greater part of the northwest side of it was gone. After viewing this frame, I wondered if I was indeed seeing a lunar ‘pyramid.’
However, from looking at both oblique as well as the LO vertical view, there is enough left of three distinct base lines to define its undeniable pyramidal shape. I suspect that the missing portion of this feature has either collapsed or has been hit and destroyed by meteoric impact.
I have found that one discovery will lead to another if one is persistent. One of the things that I have regularly done is to search the surrounding lunar terrain when discovering a geometric signal. Looking at close-ups of the terrain around the pyramid, I discovered MORE geometry both on it as well as next to it.
In addition to the ones seen across and around the ‘pyramid’, they are seen on the ‘pyramid.’ In my last posted piece, The Hidden Side - Part One, I discussed the arches seen on the flanks of far side Chaplygin crater.
Studying sectional photographs where these structures’ configurations repeated themselves and how they fit into the terrain. It is obvious that incessant meteoric rain has left them in a dilapidated state, but enough of the incredible geometry is left intact to easily distinguish them apart from the traditional geological model that identify and interpret the area as, ‘hummocky material, swarms of irresolvable secondary craters, ejecta fragments, and volcanic ash.” (USGS, Mare Vaporum Quadrangle, Map I-548, LAC 59, Don E. Wilhelms, 1968)
It is a picture of a large semi-permanent base where authors speculated that the lunar surface stay-times would accommodate 12 men for periods of a year or more. The doors on the photograph of the mound look remarkably like the entry-ways to the mounds at proposed System P, however the Triesnecker mound doors are larger and there are more than one.
If the spacing of the ‘doors’ in the mound at the Triesnecker
hadn’t have been so evenly spaced and lined up around the base, and
if the mound’s location hadn’t have been so unusually placed next to
a smaller crater, I wouldn’t have noticed it at all. Could it be
that a ‘System P’ has already been integrated into the
lunar landscape from a prior era’s lunar exploration? Can it be that
NASA has known this and that this is just another part of
their duplicitousness concerning what we know is there?
In it, Hoagland states:
Detailed discussion on the
content of this extensive piece and of
the Clementine data in general is complex and too
detailed to discuss to any extent here. Suffice to say, the history
behind this frame and subsequent discovery regarding it has been
truly revelatory. Frame APP172.JPG was anonymously
“leaked” on the internet and after a few days, it mysteriously
disappeared. However it was downloaded and studied before this
happened. It revealed diverse and stunning redundant lunar geometry
of intelligent design in the area of Sinus Medii,
Hyginus Rille, and -- of Triesnecker crater.
Since the length and width of APP172.JPG is significantly larger (562 by 522 miles), this mosaic has to represent almost 300,000 sq. miles of lunar surface. So it is known that about 500 individual Clementine NIR images were composited together to produce APP172.JPG. The Mars Mission (now Enterprise Mission) then created an overlay identifying the geometric features seen in this infrared image with key surface features photographed by visible light cameras.
But two other figures from his paper really cinch the Triesnecker geometry mentioned thus far on 4819 and 4820 (right photo: "click" to enlarge)
In the Clementine Paper, Carl Sagan is quoted saying:
This description has been used to describe the Earth alone. From the APP172.JPG and Apollo data investigations at Triesnecker (which corroborate each other), as well as numerous other lunar studies done and reported on by this as well as other investigations, this description can now be equally applied to our sister planet. We have now found pyramids on the Moon, and Mars.
Are they related to terrestrial pyramids? How
long has NASA really known about these and other
artifacts on these planets? The accumulated photographic evidence of
artificial structures extends back before Apollo ever went to the
Moon and --- even before the first Viking photographs were taken
of the Face on Mars.
As Hoagland has said:
Since the early 1990’s we have found them, time and time again on the photographs that NASA has taken.
Perhaps an open return to the Moon is the only way to adequately address the many questions raised by our findings. In the meantime, we feel it is a responsibility and duty to continue to report on what the photographs tell us until the day we do, or until the ones within NASA that know... come clean.
|
Early in
Richard
Hoagland’s lunar investigation, he discovered a ‘geometrically
square shape’ on Apollo 10 frame 4819
located very near Ukert crater in Sinus Medii.
From his years of grappling with the Cydonia geometry
trying to sift the signals from the noise of Martian
mesas and dunes, this rectilinear arrangement of hills and
parallel lines was a definitive anomalous lunar signal. 
During Hoagland’s
subsequent visit to the NSSDC in Greenbelt, MD, he
not only asked archive director Dr. Joe King why there
was more than one version of 4822 when only one single frame was
listed as existing (a deliberate misrepresentation), but he also
presented assembled specific evidence supporting lunar artifacts
for this and other frames. 
Upon seeing this
mound with ‘doors’, I sensed that I had seen this “picture”
somewhere before in my research. My mind recalled a 1968
NASA
study called the Proceedings of the Working Group on
Extraterrestrial Resources. It was compiled by technically
trained personnel from NASA, U.S. Air Force
and Navy,
U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Geological Survey,
and the
Army Corps of Engineers. 
