by Steve Troy
from MoonAnomalies Website
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
When I first saw this feature’s configuration on 4819 sectionals, it looked like it had a defined base area, much like the base of the 5-sided D&M Pyramid at Cydonia, however it wasn’t 5-sided. I looked for a possible 3-dimensional physical resemblance to the equilateral shape inside Ukert: a 2-dimensional image of a 3-dimensional tetrahedron. Yet there wasn’t a 3-sided similarity. From the 4819-20 oblique views, it roughly resembled the 4-sided Great Pyramid of Giza.
I say “roughly resembled” a 4-sided pyramid because initially, I wasn’t completely convinced that it was one. There was a sun-cast shadow that covered a good portion of it up, however this cast shadow did help to initially define its apparent shape. I searched the Apollo and Lunar Orbiter catalogs and indexes for more views of it, hoping to corroborate pyramidal-integrity. Looking closely one can see a roughly defined shadow traveling up to the vertex from the southwest corner and down the north side to the opposite corner. One half is darker than the other half.
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.
5 X 7” sectionals of 4819 show an astounding array of rectilinear, repetitive, and orthogonal structures just to the north side of the pyramid. They extend out in an east-west orientation onto Sinus Medii over a large area around Triesnecker. It would be impossible to show them all here. These structures are seen in better resolution on prints from the 4819 negative than the 4820, although the same ones can still be discerned on 4820. These structures seem to radiate out into the Bay from this general location.
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.
On the Triesnecker Pyramid there is a monumental arch built into the sunlit southeast side of the pyramid wall that looks remarkably like the “Trajan Arch” pointed out at Chaplygin on frame AS10-29-4180.
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)
Continuing to look at the pyramid, I came across a small mound positioned next to it. Zooming into prints, I identified 4 equally spaced arch-like shadows. They look like entryways or doors leading into the ‘mound’. They aren’t difficult to see even on a 5 X 7” sectional.
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.
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?
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.
After Hoagland had fitted the most obvious landmarks crater in APP172.JPG to key features on a portion of the official Apollo 16 Lunar Photography Index map (such as Hyginus Rille and Triesnecker), it was determined that this frame was a mosaic. The optical center of the frame is located about 10 degrees north.
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)
From looking at the undeniable results seen on this Clementine frame along with the visible geometry seen on Hasselblad sectionals of AS10-4819 and 4820, I believe that unequivocally, these data corroborate each other with respect to artificiality in this particular region of Central Bay on the Moon. What is seen on 4819 and 20 specifically corroborates the east to west orientation of the grid-like architecture seen on APP172.JPG.
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.
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.