would have been completely blown out. With these possibilities eliminated, the other mundane explanation, that the feature was merely a photographic blemish, was also eliminated through independent analysis by photographic experts at a photo lab in New York.
The bottom line, whatever the Tower was, it had to be local, to the Moon at least.
Analysis of the Tower itself showed it was more than a mile across and was an estimated distance of at least 300 miles from Lunar Orbiter when the image was taken. Just like the Shard, the top of the Tower itself appeared to be composed of dozens of smaller cubical (and/or hexagonal) sub-structures. And these were clearly not artifacts of the enhancement process either. The smallest of these cubes visible on frame III-84M measured at least 50 times the size of the individual computer pixels of the imaging enhancements.
The Tower (left) and the Shard (right).
The Tower (close-up).
In other sections of the image, long, vertical transitions created by apparent refraction-effects could also be traced, as if portions of the background object were being viewed through a heavily-distorting medium, located much closer to the spacecraft. The Tower also appeared to taper towards that surface, and simultaneously, to be leaning in a southerly direction in the photograph. This obvious departure from the local vertical (similar to the internal details in the Shard) could be directly connected with the distance of this object from the Lunar Orbiter cruising thirty miles above the Moon, looking downward toward the lunar horizon. A real object, connected with the surface by an actual vertical tower, could indeed appear to lean, if (a) it was located closer to the spacecraft than the Shard, or (b) was in the process of slowly tipping over from the effects of constant meteor erosion, across literally millions of years.
The Tower (enhanced).
The Tower viewed from the side in Apollo image AS10-32-4856.
Not only is all this patently absurd within any current (or proposed) natural geologic model of the lunar surface, it totally supports the concept that the Tower/Shard are nothing but remaining fragments of a once far-larger, also clearly artificial structure. This structure, because of its transparent nature, was apparently once composed of something like glass, and, attached to some kind of darker, vertical structural framework.
After confirming the existence of the Tower from another photograph taken by the Apollo 10 mission, it became obvious that there was some kind of transparent, glass-like structure over large swaths of the Sinus Medii region. But how could such a structure survive on the lunar surface for so long? Isn’t it dangerous to build glass houses in places where people throw stones (like the Moon)?
That question is actually easy to answer: all materials, including glass-based minerals like quartz silica, take on different properties in the hard, cold vacuum of space than they do on Earth. One of the most abundant substances of this world is water; in liquid, gaseous or solid form. Space however, has an appalling lack of water, so much so that it can be easily stated that water is one of the least available resources in the vast expanse of emptiness we call space.
As it turns out, this is one of the qualities of the vacuum that makes glass not just a desirable, but an ideal material for building structures on an airless world like our Moon. Glass on Earth is well known to have little tensile strength, meaning it doesn’t stretch easily because it is brittle and will not withstand even a very weak impact from a hard object. When you throw a baseball at a glass window, it fractures and cracks easily and with little resistance. However, if you attempt to crush a glass sphere, you’ll find that it has a great deal of strength under compression stresses.
The reason for these properties on Earth is that it is pretty much impossible to extract the water from glass as it is forming.
The bottom line, whatever the Tower was, it had to be local, to the Moon at least.
Analysis of the Tower itself showed it was more than a mile across and was an estimated distance of at least 300 miles from Lunar Orbiter when the image was taken. Just like the Shard, the top of the Tower itself appeared to be composed of dozens of smaller cubical (and/or hexagonal) sub-structures. And these were clearly not artifacts of the enhancement process either. The smallest of these cubes visible on frame III-84M measured at least 50 times the size of the individual computer pixels of the imaging enhancements.
The Tower (left) and the Shard (right).
The Tower (close-up).
In other sections of the image, long, vertical transitions created by apparent refraction-effects could also be traced, as if portions of the background object were being viewed through a heavily-distorting medium, located much closer to the spacecraft. The Tower also appeared to taper towards that surface, and simultaneously, to be leaning in a southerly direction in the photograph. This obvious departure from the local vertical (similar to the internal details in the Shard) could be directly connected with the distance of this object from the Lunar Orbiter cruising thirty miles above the Moon, looking downward toward the lunar horizon. A real object, connected with the surface by an actual vertical tower, could indeed appear to lean, if (a) it was located closer to the spacecraft than the Shard, or (b) was in the process of slowly tipping over from the effects of constant meteor erosion, across literally millions of years.
The Tower (enhanced).
The Tower viewed from the side in Apollo image AS10-32-4856.
Not only is all this patently absurd within any current (or proposed) natural geologic model of the lunar surface, it totally supports the concept that the Tower/Shard are nothing but remaining fragments of a once far-larger, also clearly artificial structure. This structure, because of its transparent nature, was apparently once composed of something like glass, and, attached to some kind of darker, vertical structural framework.
After confirming the existence of the Tower from another photograph taken by the Apollo 10 mission, it became obvious that there was some kind of transparent, glass-like structure over large swaths of the Sinus Medii region. But how could such a structure survive on the lunar surface for so long? Isn’t it dangerous to build glass houses in places where people throw stones (like the Moon)?
That question is actually easy to answer: all materials, including glass-based minerals like quartz silica, take on different properties in the hard, cold vacuum of space than they do on Earth. One of the most abundant substances of this world is water; in liquid, gaseous or solid form. Space however, has an appalling lack of water, so much so that it can be easily stated that water is one of the least available resources in the vast expanse of emptiness we call space.
As it turns out, this is one of the qualities of the vacuum that makes glass not just a desirable, but an ideal material for building structures on an airless world like our Moon. Glass on Earth is well known to have little tensile strength, meaning it doesn’t stretch easily because it is brittle and will not withstand even a very weak impact from a hard object. When you throw a baseball at a glass window, it fractures and cracks easily and with little resistance. However, if you attempt to crush a glass sphere, you’ll find that it has a great deal of strength under compression stresses.
The reason for these properties on Earth is that it is pretty much impossible to extract the water from glass as it is forming.
Similar Books
