proof of its artificial nature.
A closer look at the photo shows that it is not some sort of photographic defect, either. The readily-apparent shadow it was casting across the lunar surface is consistent with the local geography on which the Shard was sitting. In addition, the shadow was also consistent with the time of the month, the Lunar Orbiter camera angle, and the actual sun-angle illuminating the object when the image was initially acquired in mid-February 1967. It was this shadow, more than any other single aspect of this object, which solidified the Shard’s reality as an extremely anomalous, potentially manufactured lunar structure.
Close-up of the Shard showing semi-transparent internal structure.
There were other, crucial clues that the Shard was, in fact, a real object–still standing upright against gravity on the lunar surface. One was its alignment with the local vertical rather than with the grain of the Lunar Orbiter film; the second, was a highly geometric internal organization. But what was it made of? The whole thing seemed to shimmer in the light like some impossible Crystal Tower of the Moon.
The striking geometric pattern was composed of a repeating, complex, internal crystalline geometry, visible all throughout the object. Additional enhancements revealed this regular, internal pattern was made up of highly reflective and possibly hexagonal geometric compartments, greatly damaged but still visible. The overall impression one was left with was that of a once-much-larger, complex, crystalline, artificial object now extremely eroded by eons of meteorite impact processes.
Ultra close-up of the top of the Shard.
Since it is virtually impossible to argue with the shadow cast by the Shard, and since the object’s very existence (therefore established) argues forcefully for its artificiality, some critics have looked to alternate explanations for its presence on LO-III-84M. It has been suggested, for instance, that the Shard may be a transient out-gassing event, luckily captured by the Lunar Orbiter camera. But, the absence of any diffusion or spray around the Shard’s sharply defined edges and all that obvious internal geometry works heavily against this explanation.
But there was an even more compelling argument favoring the Shard’s reality, to be made right from the same LO-III-84M frame: the striking presence of “the Tower”…
The Tower
Just to the left of the Shard in the Lunar Orbiter frame LO-III-84M lies what at first appeared to be a faint smudge on the image. However, on close inspection and under additional enhancement, it quickly became obvious that this is a second glass-like anomaly in the same frame. Christened “The Tower” by Hoagland because of its immense size compared to the Shard, the Tower appears to be rising from a point over the horizon, making it at least 260 miles from the camera and more than 7 miles high! Like the Shard, it is aligned with the local vertical rather than the camera or the film grain, and there are even hints of guy-wire like filaments holding the immense structure up.
But could there be another explanation? Maybe it was a comet, or a star or even a far distant nebula or galaxy? The comet idea was quickly discarded when a quick check found no comets of any significance passing through the solar system in February, 1967. As to the possibility of it being a star, nebula or distant galaxy, those possibilities were also put to rest rather easily.
NASA’s published data on Orbiter photography showed that the f-stop setting for this image was 5.6, the shutter speed 1/100th of a second. Simultaneously capturing the bright lunar landscape and a faint background interstellar nebula on the same photograph, with those specific camera settings, on this type of slow-speed, fine-grained film, would be technically impossible. If the camera aperture was held open long enough to capture such an incredibly faint object, the brilliant, sunlit lunar landscape
A closer look at the photo shows that it is not some sort of photographic defect, either. The readily-apparent shadow it was casting across the lunar surface is consistent with the local geography on which the Shard was sitting. In addition, the shadow was also consistent with the time of the month, the Lunar Orbiter camera angle, and the actual sun-angle illuminating the object when the image was initially acquired in mid-February 1967. It was this shadow, more than any other single aspect of this object, which solidified the Shard’s reality as an extremely anomalous, potentially manufactured lunar structure.
Close-up of the Shard showing semi-transparent internal structure.
There were other, crucial clues that the Shard was, in fact, a real object–still standing upright against gravity on the lunar surface. One was its alignment with the local vertical rather than with the grain of the Lunar Orbiter film; the second, was a highly geometric internal organization. But what was it made of? The whole thing seemed to shimmer in the light like some impossible Crystal Tower of the Moon.
The striking geometric pattern was composed of a repeating, complex, internal crystalline geometry, visible all throughout the object. Additional enhancements revealed this regular, internal pattern was made up of highly reflective and possibly hexagonal geometric compartments, greatly damaged but still visible. The overall impression one was left with was that of a once-much-larger, complex, crystalline, artificial object now extremely eroded by eons of meteorite impact processes.
Ultra close-up of the top of the Shard.
Since it is virtually impossible to argue with the shadow cast by the Shard, and since the object’s very existence (therefore established) argues forcefully for its artificiality, some critics have looked to alternate explanations for its presence on LO-III-84M. It has been suggested, for instance, that the Shard may be a transient out-gassing event, luckily captured by the Lunar Orbiter camera. But, the absence of any diffusion or spray around the Shard’s sharply defined edges and all that obvious internal geometry works heavily against this explanation.
But there was an even more compelling argument favoring the Shard’s reality, to be made right from the same LO-III-84M frame: the striking presence of “the Tower”…
The Tower
Just to the left of the Shard in the Lunar Orbiter frame LO-III-84M lies what at first appeared to be a faint smudge on the image. However, on close inspection and under additional enhancement, it quickly became obvious that this is a second glass-like anomaly in the same frame. Christened “The Tower” by Hoagland because of its immense size compared to the Shard, the Tower appears to be rising from a point over the horizon, making it at least 260 miles from the camera and more than 7 miles high! Like the Shard, it is aligned with the local vertical rather than the camera or the film grain, and there are even hints of guy-wire like filaments holding the immense structure up.
But could there be another explanation? Maybe it was a comet, or a star or even a far distant nebula or galaxy? The comet idea was quickly discarded when a quick check found no comets of any significance passing through the solar system in February, 1967. As to the possibility of it being a star, nebula or distant galaxy, those possibilities were also put to rest rather easily.
NASA’s published data on Orbiter photography showed that the f-stop setting for this image was 5.6, the shutter speed 1/100th of a second. Simultaneously capturing the bright lunar landscape and a faint background interstellar nebula on the same photograph, with those specific camera settings, on this type of slow-speed, fine-grained film, would be technically impossible. If the camera aperture was held open long enough to capture such an incredibly faint object, the brilliant, sunlit lunar landscape
Similar Books
