Evidentially image issue-wise, the best
contrary arguments heard so far are over the actual shape of the hexagonal
South Massif, (due to it's left or west side being in shadow in most images
I've so far displayed), and whether Nansen is simply a shadow cast by a
depression's edge. Of course, the infrared images seem plain enough in
showing that South Massif is indeed hexagonal by revealing the shaded side.
From aerial contexts it is obvious Nansen is or was most likely a shelf-like
opening leading into it. Regardless, more input was needed, so I ordered a
couple of fresh photos of this area taken in different lighting.
This is AS15-M-1113, and is a mid res high sun mapping image. It shows the
entire location with the sun nearly vertical.
Note that the west side is seen clearly to fit the symmetry of the east side,
and the collapse of the southerly or back side becomes even more obvious. This
thing is old, and definitely fits the term "Anomaly". Click on images to see
full scale scans. There is no mistaking it for the
shape it still holds after many forgotten centuries. A product of the natural
cataclysmic past of the Moon? Even that doesn't discount what this may be. It
could have been a completely different type of cataclysm than we can imagine.
As nice as AS15-M-1113 is for context and lighting
differences, it is still rather low in the resolvability of fine features
department. What
I needed was another context,
with similar lighting but much higher resolution. This was solved by
obtaining vertical Hasselblad image AS17-150-23005, taken when the sun was approximately 50-60' above the horizon, shining
almost directly into Nansen.
In it, we see that the opening is linear, shelf like, and
has no shadow in front of it. Whatever it is, it is almost positively not
what we see in the sparse surface images of Nansen. Need I
remind that our guys stayed a whole extra EVA hour exploring here OFF TV
CAMERA and taking hardly any still photographs?
Note
the inordinate brightness of South Massif, which is evident in all photos
taken of it, either from the surface or orbit. Since this is a near vertical
image, it makes little difference from which direction it's observed. so
let's rotate the photo and get a good look into Nansen with our view
drawn in much closer. What this shows is an arching shelf with regularly
spaced dark openings into it.
It may well be filled in with slump from the
wasting Massif, but it is also possible that it could very well be the
way into this most anomalous of reputedly artificial structures. Was this
mission similar in type to A.C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey? Perhaps; we may never know in our lifetimes because the story we
were told was that they were hunting interesting rocks (Not that Anorthosite
isn't just wonderful). That's the story and they're sticking to it; it's now
over three decades since. Funny how in 2001, the finding of the anomaly was
as well first found in orbital photos, then by explorers, then promptly
covered up with a very believable cover story and secreted away.
Now let's contrast the above close-up with one from
the previously shown oblique image,
AS15-P-9297. Although this photo is not quite as clear as the above, the effect is
nevertheless the same: it shows an overhang, not a leading edge shadow from
the opposite side, not an albedo difference of slump materials. This is not a
half filled crater.
This
view is also enforced by the stunningly clear albeit lower sun angled
Panoramic camera image AS17-P-2309. The resolution
of the Itek Panoramic camera's images are unmatched by anything we've sent
to the moon before or since the Apollo missions. This is a fairly good
representative of what it could do at it's best.
They
apparently missed most of this cleft with the surface photography, because
nothing remotely like what we're seeing from above was captured on film below, though of course they
obviously did actually photograph some of Nansen.
How did they manage to go all the way to
the moon, drive all the way across Taurus-Littrow, get to the objective at the
base of South Massif,
explore, jump about with exclamations of wonder at what they were seeing, take photos, and never actually show what was down in the depths of
Nansen worth the journey there? I'll show you
It was done by
a trick of perspective. We know from Jack Schmitt's expert description that
Nansen is "anomalously deep", what is captured in the surface photos is not. There is a
reason for this. None of the surface photographs were taken from directly on Nansen's edge, and
in result, its actual depths are not recorded on film, but hidden by its sides.
Here are all the photos of this exact area taken
during the excursion, arranged in panoramas. Notice on each how the edge of
Nansen blocks the view down into it in both pans. If one didn't know better they
would assume that there is nothing special about it at all, just a rather
shallow ditch at the foot of South Massif
Now
we'll look at these fields of view from an overhead vantage point.
I've cut off all but the fields of
view directly over Nansen. We see the images that make these panoramas were both
taken from a distance back away from the edges, both above from the side of
South Massif, and below from the plain. The bottom and the ledge as seen from
orbit are likely right below what we can see. The TV camera caught much the same
view as the panorama taken from the plain. This issue would perhaps never have been
noticed had they simply stepped up to the side of the depression before clicking or
took a full picture of it on the edge directly across the plain from it. Perhaps
they simply could not.
This NASA graphic shows the
vantage point of each of these panoramic mosaics.
When
photographing a cleft, or any "anomalously deep depression", unless you are
standing directly on the edge of it and looking down you will not see the
bottom, if you are standing back from the sides you will more than likely
capture only a certain distance down into it, because your view will be blocked
by the cleft's perimeter.
It
is evident from the orbitals that the center of the trough is northward of the
overhang, which is at the bottom of the slope of South
Massif, inside the Nansen depression: and thus cannot be confirmed by the
non-bottom sighting panoramas.
What appears to be the center line of the trough
is a superposement; the edge of the side closest to the viewer blocks the
line of sight to the depths, it's edge in appearance makes a line across the middle of the
further slope opposite it. The stick man diagram
above gives a visualization of this description. A simple trick imposed by
perspective, which is used on both panoramas.
And
to think, all this without even mention of the numerous other anomalous objects on and
surrounding the massif. If you totally disqualify the entire notion of there
being a hole in South Massif, it still leaves many unanswered and unnoticed
oddities to be explored.
In order to
round this issue out more thoroughly, shall we once again look at this wonderful
anomaly called South Massif, but from a different vantage point
Part VI. Out the Backdoor
