by Steve Troy

from LunarAnomalies Website


Announcement of the Big One was posted on this site last June. This is the first of four reports that will discuss anomalies discovered in the region of and including Kepler. Since 1994 when I entered into this area of research, I have yet to find a region of the moon that is more enigmatic than the area around the late epoch Copernican crater, Kepler. It has been a primary center of interest and investigation since 1995. Located in Oceanus Procellarum, this 33 km. crater was considered as secondary site #26 for Lunar Orbiter III’s camera system in 1967. In March 1965, Copernicus crater to the east, Schroters Valley around Aristarchus to the northwest, and Kepler -–were all considered possible scientific targets of no apparent use to initial Apollo flights or to Surveyors.


Kepler LOIII162M became a very popular photo that has been reproduced in lunar monographs, books and atlases. This photo was taken at a lower sun angle than many obliques taken by the first two Orbiters. Lunar Orbiter IV shot a vertical view of Kepler on frame 138. III162M was taken from a 53 km. altitude at 1.77 lat, -40.17 long. With a tilt angle at 69 degrees, the principal point of the photo is 1.63 lat. and –41.87 long. Slant distance is 131 km. and the view is looking north-northwest toward Besssarion.1 Figure #1 shows a sectional or portion of the full frame.

Fig.1. Click on thumbnail for larger version

I’ve examined most every photo in the Lunar Orbiter and Apollo databases that are researchable for this vicinity. On full frame 162M one sees Kepler as well as Kepler A and B craters that lie adjacent to Kepler to the east. Kepler A is 11 km. and B is 7 km. in diameter. Kepler A appears fresh (LOIV138H) but is superimposed by Kepler secondaries and lacks observable ejecta. It therefore appears to be Eratosthenian or Upper Imbrian. Kepler B is said to be Imbrian due to its degradation. Both including Kepler are superimposed on Imbrium basin ejecta.2 After Procellarum flooded and after the Kepler and Copernicus impacts, their rays and secondaries produced NW to SE and NE to SW albedo changes in the mare. This isn’t evident on 162M but one can see the lineaments and patterns around Kepler that produce definitive changes in contrast.

It’s my usual practice to investigate traditional stratigraphic histories of regions I look at. So it was with Kepler. Looking at the LAC USGS map of Kepler,  3 one can see early pre-Orbiter telescopic interpretations of the Kepler area. The Kepler ray system is thought to be no more than a meter thick. The reflectivity is high with rim material. The ejecta material is thought to be crushed rock and large blocks that form hummocky layers 1-600 meters thick. There are a couple of large slumps, the one on the interior west wall being the largest. The talus slope is generally interpreted as partially sorted fragments ranging from dust to large blocks. Copernican era craters such as Kepler are said to have the highest thermal anomalies, deepest floors, and fewest superimposed craters that help indicate age.


Fig.2 Click on Thumbnail for larger version

Fig. 2 Markup version


Looking at an enlargement of the primary crater area one does see evidence of traditional geologic interpretation. There is a hummocky rim crest and subradial flank ridges with crushed, blocky rock, faults, fractures and lineaments. When the 1962 LAC map of Kepler was put together, the Lunar Orbiters had not yet flown to the moon and therefore they couldn’t map details. Many of the more current lunar geologic maps don’t even show what can be seen in the grey-scales of Lunar Orbiter pictures like III162M and details as small as the anomalies found there are too small to BE mapped very accurately. Within the traditional structuring, there is incredible REPETITIVE, GEOMETRIC STRUCTURE that I believe is artificial and that has been constructed.

To the east of the crater in framelets 272 and 273 going around the south to the west side, and out from the rim in this area onto the flank and out farther in spotty locations, there are areas seen that are out of the realm of lunar geology. There is architectural and structural orthogonal integrity all over this entire region. Even toward Kepler A and B, one can see complexes of these structures that are out of the path of further deposition and wasting. The walls of many of these are HIGHER than the natural terrain. One can look at a picture of Rome in 350AD and picture it in ruin with foundational elements intact. This resembles the flank area of Kepler. Straight horizontal and vertical walls conforming to the terrain (also seen off of SW Crisium) do NOT just appear on levels higher than the natural terrain with the geometric integrity that these have. Many of these ‘archologies’ off of the flank and out into the ejecta will be discussed in upcoming reports.

One procedure that helps me clarify areas such as this is to draw tracing overlays. It is not pure science, but it is interesting to step back after drawing and look at patterns that show suspect angularity, particularly where one sees repetitive angularity. I believe I am looking at lunar ruins wasted by constant meteoric rain through time.


A series of 8X10 enlargement photos were developed across framelets 272 and 273 and sent to Richard Hoagland in 1995. There is a geometric structure amidst this network of angularity that has haunted me since it’s discovery. When discussing the Kepler strip of 8 X 10’s with Richard, he excitedly asked me if I’d seen what was to the left of center of Kepler just over the rim onto the flank. We discussed this astonishing structure……a Signal in the noise. There is a concentric walled fortress in this flank area that looks like a construction from surrounding surface material.


It may have looked something like the Ziggurat at Ur, circ. 2100BC near the Persian Gulf but is now battered and in ruin. There are right angle concentric walls within walls and turret looking features on three of the corners. I call it THE RAMPART. To the left of the Rampart (west) there are two arched, quonset looking structures sitting side by side. They are brighter than the surrounding material. These are the "LONGHOUSES". They run into the flank of Kepler. The Rampart looks like a stadium and not a geologic ‘megablock’.

Click on Thumbnail for larger image
Fig. 4

The background and horizon areas of III162M also show interesting anomalies. The Rampart and much of the geometric angularities seen around the flank of Kepler look to be hard surface structure. Toward and around the horizon, one can see vertical glass and suspected crystalline material. I try to scrutinize high albedo whenever I examine photography, particularly when it overexposes the camera or when an area is markedly brighter than any other area of a picture. Sometimes this means getting into contrast enlargements of prints from negatives with a loupe over a light table.


There is a transparent MINI-DOME of suspected crystalline to the right of center frame in framelet #276. Its remarkable defining external boundary can be seen. It is symmetrical and transparent. To the right of this feature in the frame and across the mare, one can detect filamentary stringers rising vertically above the surface. Larger domes than the ‘mini-dome’ have been discovered across and above lunar horizons.4 The high albedo signature of some of these domes is due to light scattered off the surface of the glass. The Crisium Dome is an example of a larger dome. So is Richard’s Zond 3 Dome. As mentioned in my Crisium reports, I believe the phase and sun angles must be synchronized for the camera to be able to ‘catch’ them. They are ‘flash-units’ seen in a moment of such synchronization. I believe they are anomalous and are remnants of structure that once were much larger.

There have been lunar basing studies concerning lunar building materials for future lunar activity.5 Lunar soils have been considered in making GLASS and CERAMIC, and because the regolith contains no water which radically degrades glass, it has the structural integrity of steel in a lunar vacuum. I suspect someone has beaten us to this application. According to scientist Paul Spudis, glass made from processed soil could BE the steel for future lunar cities. 6 The glass seen in III162M and other photos to be discussed has already been utilized for this purpose and what we see now are remnants of what use to be.


There is enough of it left to be able to discern basic integrity. I have found a zig-zag type of foggy haze (glass) ABOVE the horizon directly over a well known Procellarum crater that is certainly not explained within the pages of ANY scientific or lunar paper ever written! Above the upper right horizon one can see a bit of a haze reminiscent of Hoagland’s TOWER seen on III84M. There is also a peculiar looking spire just off the horizon in this area.

Fig. 5

There is a sizable slump visible within the west rim of Kepler and the resulting terrace can be seen in this area of III162M. It looks to have been a clean break from the inner rim to the floor at the fracture point. On top of the terrace there is an interesting geometric organization. One of two things happened. Either this visible organization collapsed intact from its original position on the flank where it was originally with other geometric structure (which is unlikely), or it was constructed where it is now. In a conversation with a reputable geologist who saw this data, he made reference to the unusual structure right at the rim above the terrace structure and how anomalous this looked to him. Mike Bara mentioned a step pyramid-like structure about 8 km. to the west off the flank of Kepler. (see fig. #2) This too is unusual when seen with a loupe in enlargements. All of this can be seen on this raw analog photo.

The aforementioned RAMPART remains one of the most remarkable structures found to date by this researcher. The ziggurat configuration resembles a brick mountain with severe linearity, yet unworn by terrestrial weathering. The RAMPART has been worn and rounded by ‘incessant meteoric rain.’

As mentioned earlier, Kepler A and B are seen to the right of Kepler. In reports to follow, I’ll examine and discuss Kepler A and B anomalies, another Kepler image AS12-52-7445, and the "double-crater" controversy along with some people’s erroneous tests and arguments against their existence. The Procellarum crater with its remnant glass dome mentioned above will also be examined.

My interpretations and ideas of what I’ve found at Kepler are reflected in an introductory piece written on this site: Enigmatic Lunar Structure – Verification and Discovery. It would help the reader understand implications of the Kepler Arcologies if this paper was read. Stay tuned!



1 - NASA CR-984, Lunar Orbiter III Photography, Boeing Co., Feb, 1968
2 - NASA SP-469, Geology of the Terrestrial Planets, p.127
3 - USGS, Kepler Quadrangle, LAC 57, Map I-355, R.J.Hackman, 1962
4 - Hoagland, Richard C, The Moon Mars Connection: 2001 Revisited, VIDEO, Enterprise Mission
5 - NASA SP-428, Billingham, J, Space Resources and Space Settlements, 1979
6 - Sudis, Paul D, The Once and Future Moon, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1996, p.204-5