by Jeff Rense
Computer Enhancements by Liz
Stories of 'intelligent artifacts' and
'bases' on the far side of the moon have been lurking in the shadows
for decades since the Apollo years. A number of independent lunar
researchers have been laboriously going through countless NASA
photographs and, to some, it appears that the long wait for
verification of these rumors just might getting closer. If that
turns out to be the case, confirmation might come not from an
official NASA revelation or U.S. Military disclosure but from the
independent study of striking anomalies in the Lobachevsky Crater,
for example, as imaged by Apollo 16 and by the U.S. Navy's recent
Clementine moon mapping mission.
Tired of hearing those stories of 'intelligent artifacts' and
'bases' on the far side of the moon that have been lurking in the
shadows in the decades since the Apollo years? Well, it appears that
the long wait for verification of these rumors just might be
over.... and, if so, confirmation will not have come from an official
NASA revelation or U.S. Military disclosure but from independent
study of striking anomalies in the Lobachevsky Crater as imaged by
Apollo 16 and by the U.S. Navy's recent Clementine moon mapping
American researcher Steve Wingate was the first person to bring
world attention to the anomaly in the far side Lobachevsky Crater by
posting the old Apollo 16 photograph and several new views from the
recent Clementine mapping mission to the Lunascan Mailing List. Even
more recently, eminent German geologist and science writer Dr.
Johannes Fiebag confirmed Wingate's discovery of an "unusual and
possibly artificial structure" on the mysterious far side of the
moon as shown in the 25 year old NASA Apollo 16 orbital photograph,
Dr. Fiebag, highly-respected, is the author of two
recent books: "Mars - Planet Des Lebens", Econ-Publisher, Düsseldorf
1996; and "Mission Pathfinder", (Econ Publisher, Düsseldorf 1997).
Below is the original NASA Apollo 16 photograph which we will now
examine in extraordinary detail.
Upon examination of the photograph, it
was apparent that both Steve Wingate and then Dr. Fiebag's claims
about the Apollo 16 photograph of the Lobachevsky Crater merited
immediate closer examination. The picture was sent to graphics
analyst Liz Edwards at IWonder Productions for enhancement and
further analysis. Her work quickly underscored the fact that there
are indeed some bizarre anomalies in the photograph, in fact there
(Ms. Edwards' most recently exposed what appears to be
a tiny missile in a photograph of a New York sunset at the exact
time of the TWA 800 tragedy.)
Ms. Edwards made it clear that her multi-stage
"enhancement process takes the image to its most critical viewing
size without distorting the objects in question." Below, is her
first enhancement of the NASA Apollo 16 photograph...
This first enhancement (above) is
remarkable in itself in that there are apparently four clearly
strange and unusual 'objects' or anomalies in the Lobachevsky
Item "A" demonstrates a strange white rectangular shape
along the ridge of the crater rim and includes an unusual shadow
below and to its right.
Item "B" appears to be a spectacular 'spire'
soaring perhaps hundreds of meters straight up from the lunar
surface and standing next to what appears to be a rectangular
shadowed hole or depression running from its base out to the right.
Item "C" smaller but odd, sits in the bottom of the small valley or
ravine below the crater rim.
Item "D" is set apart from the other
objects and projects an extraordinary and bright reflective surface.
Here is Ms. Edwards' close-up
enhancement of three of the subject areas.
Item "A", the ridge-top on the left, draws immediate attention
because of its stunning line-up of round protuberances. These appear
to be an integral part of the white colored area or cap on top of
the ridge. These black, holed objects are lined-up in such a way as
to provoke images of large 'ventilation' or exhaust stacks as might
be seen on an ocean liner or large industrial plant...only much
larger. These objects seem anything but a trick of light and shadow.
A spectacular formation. Evidence of volcanism? Part of a major
project or operation? What is it?
Item "B" presents what appears to be a dazzling image rising
straight up from the lunar surface many hundreds of feet into the
void of space. Are we witnessing this tower-like object being hit by
the sun's rays and appearing to be thereby illuminated....as one
would expect a piece of crystal to do if struck by the sun in this
fashion? Or, is the entire 'tower' simply some type of photographic
anomaly? If real, it is a stunning artifact...a crystal lunar
obelisk? A construct of ET technology somehow linked to the bizarre
ridge-top 'vent' pipes above on the crater rim? A part of a mining or
excavation operation directly related to the dark, shadowed surface
depression next to it?
Item "C", at the bottom of the ravine below the ridge, smaller, but
seemingly also rising up out of the lunar soil to pose mute
questions that we can only ponder.
Maximum Object Enhancement
Item "A". Again, this is an absolutely
stunning display of
A long series of ridge-top holes or openings or
What are they?
Evidence of ancient volcanism?
The results of
some type of post asteroid impact heat release?
intelligently devised and part of an operational base and
Funnels to carry some
gaseous emission out from deep
Almost like Lunar 'coral'. What do you think?
Item "B" presents itself as major
enigma. Think about it...
Item "C". Smaller 'spire' like item.
the way Dr. Fiebag has not openly described his discoveries as
necessarily representing an extraterrestrial artifact on the lunar
surface but makes it clear that he cannot rule that possibility out.
Item "D" is very much its own enigma.
Sitting well away from the other primary anomalies, this small item
puts out a distinct shadow and shape and has further been enhanced
by Ms. Edwards as displayed in the small inset in the lower right
corner of the picture. Again, what do you think??
Lobachevsky 'Excavation' or 'Shadow'
Recently Imaged By Clementine
Courtesy NASA and
Where is the 'tower' next to the
'excavation' in the recent Clementine photographs of Lobachevsky?
Was it simply a defect in the original Apollo 16 photograph? Hardly
Then where did it go?
Was it removed when it's task was
Analysis of the 'excavation' anomaly area suggests the
shape of the crater appears to have changed noticeably from the time
of the Apollo picture more than 20 years earlier.
apparently different lunar terrain texture have resulted from a
major excavation and/or mining operation which entered into the side
of the crater rim?
What do you think?
Or, is this dark area all just
a 'lava flow' as NASA states?
I was fascinated by the analysis of the Apollo 16 orbital
photograph, AS16/10075825 in your site. You invited comment, and
I would like to be critical without wishing to criticize, if you
At face value the Apollo picture does present some anomalous
features. The first question posed by the original picture is
whether the shadow of the 'spire' (object B) has been enhanced
(darkened) in that view, or is as originally imaged? It does
seem much darker than other shadows nearby. I take it that it is
this shadow which is referred to as being below and to the right
of object A.
The 'spire' is described as standing straight up, and I would
dispute that. The original photograph shows the lunar surface
sloping down to the left of the observer, and the enhancements
are likewise orientated. This means that the 'spire' (if real)
would be leaning at a considerable angle, possibly as much as
45º, to the observer's right. It would seem a remarkable
coincidence for such a structure to be photographed by hand with
its axis exactly aligned as seen. (Of course, it is also
possible that that is precisely what was done.)
In the enhancements, pixel streaking can be seen nearby, aligned
with the vertical axis of the picture, and parallel to the axis
of the 'spire'. This is particularly noticeable in your image
AREA_B.JPG. I would suggest that the 'spire' is an artifact of
the imaging or enhancement process. This could be very easily
tested by re-examining the image with the lunar horizon properly
orientated, and I would be interested to see the results of such
The same suggestion might be made of object C, which is also
parallel to the vertical axis of the photograph. In addition,
object C does not cast a shadow, and the apparent shadow of
object B is not very 'spire-like'. Both objects B and C appear
very bright, which is in itself curious. In my browser both
appeared white, where the surrounding highlights were yellowish.
Is the original shown in its natural color? If so this would
still make objects B and C interesting.
Object A is also interesting, but I think that the observer is
being misled by analysis of an 'object' seen at the limits of
resolution. Solar illumination seems to be coming from about 10
0'clock, and object A, on the sunward rim of the crater, would
seem to be facing almost direct into Sun, and receiving a lot of
light. I suggest that object A is a relatively flat face with a
locally high albedo. The 'vents', if you adopt my theory that we
are looking at selenology rather that an alien artifact, would
be a row of either ridge-top peaks or rock formations like
boulders. Unfortunately I have no idea what the final scale of
the picture AREA_A.JPG is, but at that enlargement we are
approaching a visual resolution limit. I propose that the
'vents' are shadows of a series of relatively small surface
features, which appear circular because of this resolution
limit. I'd expect aliens to dig more uniform holes, somehow.
Object D is also shown white on my browser, and again I ask
whether this is natural. In the original photograph, object D is
brighter than some nearby features, but there are other features
outside the crater which have higher albedos. Otherwise there is
nothing very distinguishing about object D. It is not very
enigmatic at all, really. Unfortunately, the inset maximum
enhancement of object D, in image AREA_D.JPG, is blank.
The Clementine images are unconvincing, at least on my browser.
It is not possible to locate common features in both old and new
images, and there is no detailed analysis.
In the analysis text there are many references as to what the
features might be, but one can only speculate about any
artificial origin, which makes questions like "Then where did
[the tower] go? Was it removed.." somewhat distracting. The
tower went nowhere, because it wasn't there to begin with.
Please don't be offended by my analysis. It was intended to be
skeptical (meaning doubting) but not meant to be a personal
attack, and you did invite comment.
I find the entire subject of the possible existence of (alien)
artifacts fascinating, but I feel that we often make too much
out of insufficient information.
Having said that, I must tell you that about 20 years ago I read
a book entitled "Someone Else is on Our Moon", with analyses of
Lunar Orbiter photos, which certainly seemed to show what the
author (unknown) described as mining drones. He described
several types, but I only remember 'T-drones' clearly. He was
quite convincing. I haven't seen the book since, and it doesn't
appear in the Amazon catalogue.
John R Nickolls