From: "Dunn, Steven J." <SDunn@logicon.com>
To: 'Fran Ridge' <slk@evansville.net>
Subject: TLPs
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 06:34:47 -0700

Fran:

Attended the meeting of our local astronomy club last night.  The program
was about real research that amateurs could do.  I was going to ask you if
you were aware of the ALPO TLP program, but I see you have a link on the
Lunascan site.

Also mentioned (and I looked at their site), September's _Sky and Telescope_
has an article that is very down on TLPs.  I have not seen it, but the
title, "The TLP Myth," probably says it all.

To use my favorite quote from _The Outlaw Josey Wales_, "Endeavor to
persevere."
 

Steve

Thanks LSJ. The fault of science as a discipline, it seems to me, is in the
bureacratic scheme of things. From my personal perspective of a
non-scientist looking in, once a gung-ho scientist jumps into the scientific
organization with both feet, he/she gets caught up in trying to keep up
appearances of legitimacy instead of groveling around in the trench trying
to find the dream of what could possibly be. The fallacy of doing this
regimental bureacracy two-step, at least to me, is that it stifles not only
creativity, but enhances the process of complacency or concept of, "it's not
a legitimate area to look into because we have a image to maintain for our
discipline of study." Bunch of hooey if ya ask me. Better to take a long,
hard and detailed look at something new before blowing it off than trying to
protect a dysfunctional elitist image maintence routine by ignoring the
unknown.

As a mediocre ufologist, I find it pathetic that the "Holy City of Science"
on many occasions (Condon Report, Robertson Panel, etc.) sat around jawing
at the conference table and proclaimed there is nothing to the "nuts and
bolts" UFO phenomena. I, for one, am certainly not impressed with the books,
theories and statements that come from the halls of science that proclaim
that the phenomena is nonsense...yet I am not stupid or ignorant and see
just how retarded this is; for not once has mainstream science taken either
the time, resources, manpower, databases, trace evidence, etc. for thorough
analysis over time in order to cement the mainstream position regarding the
phenomena of UFOs. Same obviously goes for LTP also.

Good science certainly does not flow along like sheep in the meadow. It's
done by rolling up the sleeves, putting on the glasses, developing the
equipment, gathering the available data and taking a long, hard, minute look
at what is or might be there before declaring "'tan't so." I've not seen
that "'tain't so'ism" in ufology and from what Lunascan and its members have
said over time, it hasn't happened in the TLP arena either. So, the only
conclusion I can come up with is that mainstream science is just a big con
game of image, personality and B.S. in most things.

I take this position based on the reality that if a scientist is a real
scientist, then it does not matter if their research is funded or not or
they belong to the greatest "boy's club" or institution in existence...it
does matter that looking into possibility and probability is more important
and will be done regardless. I have spent literally decades in bringing the
factuality of early ufological history to the forefront...I do it without
funding, grants or donations...I've even picked up aluminum cans to sell to
get money to purchase copies of documents from a FOIA request so I can find
the minute element of ufology I find exciting, important and necessary to
preserve for future generations. Hell, if I can do it, so can the
"scientist." My credentials? Isn't Dr. in front of my name or even my
university degrees...it's found in the body of knowledge I've put on the
table. I don't say, "'tain't so or 'tain't true." I lay the documents, etc.
on the table before I say 'tis or 'tisn't,  so everyone can see it, touch it
and study it. I'm not impressed by some scientists in name only...I'm
impressed when a scientist(s) have done their homework and say's to me,
"'tis or 'tisn't."

Lot's of excellent scientists out there. Just too few of them willing to go
where the data, evidence and possibilities lead them.

Man, bet I get inundated with emails from irrate scientists telling me I
haven't a clue. But, I do have a clue. It's common sense based on what I
have seen come from the mainstream of science in the last five decades.

Wendy

In a message dated 8/15/99 6:32:06 PM, slk@evansville.net writes:

<<Sure wish we could post the S&T article, but I doubt we'd get the OK. Not
that important though because we all know there's more going on there than
they want to admit.>>

Fran, it does not violate copyright laws if you post parts of the article in
a critique intermixed with your own responses to it. I think  the "fair use"
rule allows you to quote up to 100-word chunks of text at a time, followed by
your responses. You can quote  more than 100 words if each block of quoted
text is followed by your comments.

Lan

Hi everyone,

> The unobjective and nonprofessional article "The TLP Myth:
> A Brief for the Prosecution" (S&T, Sep. 1999, p.118-123)
> is a last drop. It's rather disinformation. Now S&T is
> too sceptical and selective magazine.
> I canceled my subscription.
>
> Alexey Arkhipov, PhD

I think Alexey you are being a little too sensitive about this. After
all it was only one article. Why not write a rebuttal and submit it for
publication or a letter to the editor expressing your dismay with the
one-sidedness of the article. Get some dialogue going on the subject. If
they refuse to publish then you can start spouting about their lack of
objectivity with some justification.

Where would astronomy be if every professional astronomer stopped
reading the Astrophysical Journal, just because somebody published a
paper in it that they disagreed with. There are always conflicting and
competing ideas in science, but that's where progress comes from.

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical. Personally, I always advise
people to be skeptical - better skeptical than gullible.

For my money Sky & Tel is still the best astronomy magazine on the
market and the only one most serious amateurs and profesionals can be
bothered with and I should know - I worked for two rival astronomy
magazines. This is exactly where your target audience should be. These
are the people whose opinions on the topic matter and they can be swayed
by intelligent and informed discussion.

These publications serve as a useful archive of our changing ideas about
the universe and provide a convenient forum for the exchange of ideas.
We just have to be shrewd enough to make the most of them. Blacklisting
S&T will not help the cause.

Cheers

Clare Williams
Astronomer & Assistant to the Director
Canberra Space Dome & Observatory

Hi Clare --

    As upset as I have been with Sheehan and Dobbin's article in the
September '99 issue of Sky & Telescope (and you may have seen some of my
comments about it posted on the list), I nevertheless think that you have
exactly the right attitude about all of this.  If nothing else, they have
rekindled interest in this topic, and it is now up to other researchers to
present the "Defense" side of the case -- as they (implicitly) seem to be
suggesting that we do.

    Also keep in mind that while I don't always agree with their editorial
position on everything [And I recently wrote them a scathing letter about
their shamefully biased "product review" of Meade's new DS telescopes.], Sky
& Telescope has provided a forum for dissenting views in the past -- most
notably their treatment of Halton Arp and his most unwelcome redshift data.
Twice in just over a decade (first, in January, 1988, and more recently in
the June, 1999 issue), they have presented extremely evenhanded accounts of
Arp's research and his efforts to get his research accepted within the
"mainstream" of contemporary astronomy.

    It would have been very easy indeed for S&T to simply not review Arp's
work -- thus insuring that most people would never have heard of it -- nor of
the alternative cosmologies which might come out of it.  [Note that Joe
Firmage has also recently cited Arp's work.  I wonder if this would have
happened without S&T's reviews?]

    Again, Clare, I think the proper response to this situation is just as
you said: to present the best evidence in a well written article in Sky &
Telescope.  Now, who is going to write it for us?   [And when is Francis
going to go on the radio and tell the world about Lunascan?!]

Clear Skies!

Milt Hays

Hi, folks:

     I agree with Clare.

     Is there somebody knowledgeable enough about the strongest TLP evidence
who can submit an article about it?  Certainly a factual letter soon,
followed up with an article with best evidence.  I will bet the letter is
published.  If S&T doesn't use the article, it can be submitted to another
magazine, UK Astronomy or US Astronomy, maybe.  If this can't be (or isn't)
done, maybe the S & T authors are justified.  Those interested and
knowledgeable in this subject, and I hope most folks on this list, must know
that the article very probably represented the prevailing view among most
professionals.  Just count the number of articles on TLPs in professional,
peer-reviewed journals in the last 20 years?

Clear skies,

Bob Young
State Museum of Pennsylvania Planetarium

To: lunascan@listbox.com
CC: slk@evansville.net
Subject: Arguments for TLP reality

Dear colleagues,

Thank you for your discussion on my e-mail "S&T anti-TLP attack"
of 8/20/99. Hoping, following thoughts and materials would be
useful for lunascan politics. This is not a manuscript for S&T.
This is a memorandum for Lunascan list.

Alexey Arkhipov
 

THE S&T MYTH: A BRIEF FOR THE PROSECUTION
Alexey V.Arkhipov, PhD

Historians W. Sheehan and T.Dobbins (S&T, September 1999, p.118-123)
dashingly "resolved" the old problem of TLPs. So, TLPs are the
"anachronism as the canals of Mars". What are their arguments?

1. Sheehan and Dobbins refute the violet haze in Alphonsus on October
   26, 1956.

Hence Dr. D. Alter and his supporters (e.g. famous planetologist
Prof. Zdenek Kopal) were idiots. The original Alter's photos are
omitted to exclude reader's examination!

2. According to anonymous "spectroscopists", Alphonsus TLP spectrogram
   of Dr. N.A.Kozyrev is "in fact a continuum that MIGHT be an artifact
   of faulty guiding".

However the W-E position of the slit and sharp decreasing of the
emission at wavelength >4740 A contradict this interpretation.
N.A.Kozyrev saw that brightening visually? It is ignored.
The G.Koiper's criticism of 1959 is mentioned. Nevertheless
it is silenced that G.Koiper reversed his opinion after visit
in Pulkovo and examination of original spectrum at 1960.
As experienced compromisers, Sheehan and Dobbins write:
"Doubts about Kozyrev's lunar spectra deepen when they are
considered in the context of some of this other spectrographic
"discoveries"". Well, then doubts about Kepler's laws must be
deepened in the context of some his mystical and astrological
"discoveries"!

3. Red spots on the Moon are "atmospheric prismatic dispersion"
   always.

Then very experienced observers (e.g.: USAF selenographes
J.Greenacre and E.Barr, famous observer Dr. P.Moor) are dilettantes,
but historians Sheehan and Dobbins are high authorities in
selenography. However, the director of Lowell Observatory,
Dr. J.S.Holl wrote (S&T, December 1963, p.317):
"Greenacre is a very cautious observer. He had long been sceptical
of reported changes on the lunar surface, and consequently found
it difficult at first to believe what he was seeing... Greenacre
estimates that he spent at least 50 hours studying the Aristarchus
neighborhood under conditions where he would have noticed  the
recently observed changes". So, who is a dilettante?

At October 30 (erroneously 23 October at Sheehan&Dobbins) , 1963,
J.Greenacre and E.Barr saw as 3 red spots in Aristachus faded
during 15 minutes - too shortly for "atmospheric prismatic
dispersion". Why are 3 spots only? A lot of dispersed details must
be seen. However these contradictions are ignored by S&T "experts"!

4. "Almost 3,000 hours of lunar surveillance were logged at
   Corralitos by 1968, when J.Allan Hynek... reported that "no
   localized lunar events were detected"".

Where were "atmospheric prismatic dispersion", turbulence and
clouds? According to the NASA "Lunar Transient Phenomena Catalog"
(1978), there were anomalous finds but classified as "atmospheric"
at Corralitos! The probability of TLP registration is a function
of discovery threshold. According to Sheehan&Dobbins logic, even
meteoroids are not fall on the Moon.

5. Many TLP reports are not confirmed, hence "TLP furor seems to
   have been the result of a lapse of critical judgment".

However many TLP reports were confirmed. There are objective
instrumental registrations of TLPs (see Appendix I). Sheehan and
Dobbins silence W.S.Cameron's  "Lunar Transient Phenomena Catalog"
(NASA, 1978). About 14 TLP photos, 20 spectrums, 18 photoelectrical
and 5 palarimetrical anomalies are mentioned there (see Appendix II).
This material is silenced by S&T experts.

6. "Following the Apollo program, an overwhelming consensus emerged
   that lunar volcanic activity ceased hundred of millions of years
   ago... Other explanations have been advanced... It is far easier
   to believe that misinterpretations of mundane atmospheric and
   instrumental effects are responsible".

There are geological arguments for practically modern (<100 m.y.)
degasation on the Moon [e.g.: Schultz P.H. The Moon: dead or alive
// LPI Techn. Rep., No. 91-03. Houston: Lunar and Planet. Inst.,
1991, P.45]. "Other explanations" are discarded without arguments
in S&T.

   CONCLUSIONS

1. "The TLP Myth..." is non-objective, unprofessional, tendentious
   article. This is not analytical matherial, rather one is anti-TLP
   propaganda.

2. W. Sheehan and T.Dobbins aspire to discredit and cancel TLP
   investigation. They are not interested in the truth and science.

3. S&T Editorials support Sheehan&Dobbins position (Their material
   is announced on S&T cover; according to S&T, only Moon atlas is
   valuable on Lunascan web-site [S&T, August 1999, p.73]).

4. Hence, it is useless to write new article or correspondences for
   TLPs to S&T.

   I know several persons (in USA and CIS) which wrote letters to
   "Sky and Telescope" magazine; and I personally wrote 4 e-mails.
   Nothing was published. You can write on TLPs with identical
   result. The good example of S&T politics is the distorted
   information on SETI: only classical signal searches (e.g.:
   S&T, December 1998, p. 44-48). Other propositions and experiments
   are ignored and silenced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX I

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ON INSTRUMENTAL TLP DETECTION

Dzhapiashvili V.P., Ksanfomaliti L.V. First results from observations
of the Moon by means of a polarimeter // The Moon. Symposium No.14
of the IAU, December 1960, Acad. Press. London-New York, 1962.

Anomalous polarisation in Aristarchus.

Yu.N.Lipsky, M.M.Pospergelis. Polarisation peculiarities of the
crater Aristarchus // Astronomicheskii Tsirkular (Astronomical
Circular, Moscow, in Rassian), 1966, September 26, No. 389, p.1-2.

June 21, 1964, 21h18m UT. Electronic polarimeter registered anomalous
orientation of polarization in Aristarchus (12 deg.-difference from
the background). Nothing anomalies during next 13 nights.

Petrova N.N. On possible interpretation of some variable bands of
lunar emission // Izvestiya Glavnoi astronomicheskoi observatorii
v Pulkove (Reports of Main Astronimical Observatory in Pulkovo,
in Russian), 1966, vol. 24, No. 4, p.91-95.

1963-64. Photoelectric spectral observations. Variable bands of
emission in spectrums of several lunar details.

Kozyrev N.A. A red spot inside the lunar crater Aristarchus observed
on April 1, 1969 // Astronomicheski Zhurnal ("Soviet Astronomy" in
English version), 1970, vol. 47, No.1, p.179-181.

April 1, 1969, 18h35m UT. Unusual spectrum was photographed on 2
plates from 8.

Sekiguchi N. An anomalous brightening of the lunar surface observed
on March 26, 1970 // Moon, 1971, vol.2, No.4, p.423-434.

March 26, 1970. Electrophotometer and polarimeter. Brightening of
0.2-0.3 mag. of Aristarchus region. Decreasing of B-V and polarisation.

Dzhapiashvili V.P. Concerning transient phenomenon in lunar crater
Posidonius // Astronomicheskiy Vestnik (in Russian; "Solar System
Research" in English version), 1972, vol.6, No.1, p.7-8.

July 3, 1952. Electropolarimeter. Sharp change of polarisation in
lunar crater Posidonius.

Hodges R.R., Hoffman J.H., Yeh T.T., Chang G.K. Orbital search for
lunar volcanism // J.Geophys. Res., 1972, vol. 77, No. 22,
p. 4079-4085.

Apollo 15. Mass spectrometer. Orbital increasing of the gas
concentration along ~200 km.

Kueveler G., Klem R. Sternwarte Passau photographierte raetselhafte
lichtfontaene // Sterne und Weltraum. 1972, No. 8-9, S.238.

April 25, 1972, 22h15m-22h19m30s UT. 5"-refractor. Several photos of
"light fountain" near Aristarchus at terminator.

Anoshkin V.A., Petrov G.G., Mench K.L. On a possibility of
observation from the Earth of meteorite falls on the Moon //
Astronomicheskiy Vestnik (in Russian; "Solar System Research"
in English version), 1978, vol.12, No.4, p.216-221.

A two-channel photoelectric detection system developed for this
purpose. Observation of 3 light flashes produced by meteorites
falling on the Moon.

Kolovos G., Seiradakis J.H., Varvoglis H., Avgoloupis S.
Photographic evidence of a short duration: strong flash from
the surface of the Moon // Icarus, 1988, vol.76, No. 3, 1988,
p.525-532.

Famous case. Observation.

Kolovos G., Seiradakis J.H., Varvoglis H., Avgoloupis S.
The origin of the Moon flash of May 23, 1985 // Icarus, 1992,
vol. 97, No.1, p.142-144.

Answer to critics.

Hunton D.M., Kozlowski R.W.H., Sprague A.L. A possible meteor shower
on the Moon // Geophys. Res. Lett., 1991, vol. 18, No.11,
p. 2101-2104.

CCD. October 12-14, 1990. Transient increasing of Na space density
at 80 deg. S latitude.

Arkhipov A.V. Making the photos of flashes on the Moon // Zemlia i
Vselennaya (Earth and Universe, Moscow, in Russian), 1991, No. 3,
p.76-78.

January 11, 1978, 15h30m UT. S.R.Izmailov (Kharkov Astronomical
Observatory) and V.V.Davidenko made 9 photos of the new Moon in
the main focus of 130mm-refractor (Karl Zeiss) with ~7s-intervals
at scale of 106 "/1mm. Photo No.1 is normal. Photo No.2 demonstrate
bright flash at terminator (66.5 deg. E and 29.0 deg. S) of 35"x40"
enveloped luminous nebula 180"x120". Photos No.3-5 show the fading
nebular at same location. Photos No.6-9 are normal. The nebular
was motionless relatively to the Moon, although the lunar motion
on the sky was 450". Original negatives are in my archives.
I know S.R.Izmailov since 1975.
     These photoes are send to Francis Ridge <slk@evansville.net>
for circulation.
 

Potter A.E., Zook H.A. Ground-based observations of a lunar dust
exosphere // Bull. Amer. Astron. Soc., 1992, vol.24, No.3, p.1020.

April and December 1991. CCD spectrometer. Brightening of blue part
of the spectrum near terminator.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX II

SUMMARY OF W.S.CAMERON'S LTP CATALOG (NASA, 1978)

TLP PHOTOES (No. event): 559, 653, 712, 734, 876, 872, 908, 1105,
                         1145, 1298, 1250, 1304, 1406, 1462.

TLP SPECTRUMS: 557, 560, 619, 621, 622, 703, 730, 743, 754-756,
               770, 895-899, 902, 1119, 1291.

TLP ELECTROPHOTOMETRY: 740-742, 757, 758, 761-763, 769, 772, 776,
                       779, 868, 1007, 1029, 1031, 1237, 1268.

TLP ELECTROPOLARIMETRY: 552, 643, 820, 1007, 1268.

Dear Professor Arkhipov,

    Thank you for your most thoughtful and carefully documented comments on
the Sky & Telescope anti-TLP piece.  Your appraisal of Sheehan & Dobbins'
article "'The TLP Myth...' is [a] non-objective, unprofessional, tendentious
article. This is not analytical material, rather one is anti-TLP propaganda."
is, sadly, quite accurate.

    That the editors of Sky and Telescope and the authors would sink to this
level should serve as a real "wake up call" that all is not well within both
science reporting and the scientific establishment itself.  Clearly, the
article is -- as you say -- so one-sided and tendentious as to raise the
hackles of any objective reader who is familiar with the history of this
subject (the problem being that many, if not most, Sky & Tel readers DON'T
know the history of TLP observations...).

    Without speculating on why the editors of Sky & Telescope have taken this
very curious stance (and, as I have previously noted, when they have
championed other "dissident" research such as Halton Arp's work on anomalous
red shifts), I do think that two approaches to a rebuttal are called for.

    First, despite your fears that any communicati>

Transfer interrupted!

    Secondly, we have been invited to appear on one or more national radio
programs to state OUR side of the TLP story to the public, thus bypassing Sky
& Tel's self imposed role as a "censor" of controversial ideas.

    In a recent conversation with Francis about preparing for a discussion of
TLPs on a radio show, it became clear that what is MOST needed at this point
is a list of well-documented events which can be presented to the listeners
-- with ALL of the pro & con evidence surrounding each event -- to give some
of the real flavor of what we are talking about to the audience.  The
presentation of the best, most credible evidence will go a long way toward
telling the real story of what's happening on the moon.

    What I am proposing, then, and explicitly asking for your help (and from
other list members) is to compile a "Top 10" list of most interesting and
best documented TLPs for Francis to present on the radio in the next few
weeks.  Your own research will probably be a major source for events for this
list, as well as the "classic" cases which Sheehan and Dobbins attempted to
discredit in their article.

    What are your nominations for the "best cases"?

Yours most sincerely,

Milt Hays, Jr.
Jacksonville, Florida, USA

At 01:17 PM 8/27/99 +0300, Alexey Arkhipov wrote:

>Dear colleagues,
>
>Thank you for your discussion on my e-mail "S&T anti-TLP attack"
>of 8/20/99. Hoping, following thoughts and materials would be
>useful for lunascan politics. This is not a manuscript for S&T.
>This is a memorandum for Lunascan list.

Dear Alexey,

I have to side with my colleague Milt Hayes (and probably most of the
active Lunascan list) when I say your rebuttal, THE S&T MYTH: A BRIEF FOR
THE PROSECUTION, is an excellent response to Historians W. Sheehan and
T.Dobbins (S&T, September 1999, p.118-123) article. I was afraid that there
would not be a proper and timely response, even though I realize that there
was no real need for a rush. The timely response has its benefits. It
clearly shows that it didn't take much preparation on your part to dispell
the unfounded truths they expounded.

As I told Milt Hayes just the other night, I'm relatively new in this
business and I've had no real experiences with LTPs. My interest was
captured a long time ago by a simple, but unexplained attraction, to the
Moon. However, I never had the necessary equipment to really do any good
with it. The advent of the video camera to replace the eye, and the VCR to
record what it saw, was what really fired me up in 1978 & 1979. It was also
at this time that I became keenly aware of what I now refer to as
"fastwalkers". It was not until the fall of 1995 that I decided to make a
special effort with the best equipment I could muster. I had no intention
of getting into emails or a web site. It turns out that The Lunascan
Project web site became a very useful tool for us AND to students all over
the world. I strongly disagree with S&T or anyone who suggests that the
only thing useful on the site is the Rukl Atlas charts. The 76 directories
catalog all the important NASA images according to sections is very useful
and educational.

My one question at this juncture that appears to signal something we all
missed is, what in the world was the reason for the S&T article in the
first place? Was there an irresponsible and embarrassing rash of LTPs being
reported that required these men to take this rediculous and indefenseable
stand? Surely it wasn't Hoagland's claims or the claims of others who have
discovered anomalies in NASA images. These are not LTPs. If real (and we of
TLP take no stand at this time) they were brief glimpses at permanent
artifacts. LTP, on the other hand, are "transient" and are indicative of an
active Moon.

There are 35 primary LTP targets under observation by the imaging teams of
The Lunascan Project worldwide:

FORMATION    SECTION    LTP COUNT

aristarchus      18 448
plato               03 114
plato               04 114
proclus            26 072
alphonsus        44 046
alphonsus        55 046
agrippa            34 034
herodotus        18 034
gassendi          52 033
mare crisium   26 027
mare crisiurn   27 027
mare orisium   37 027
mare crisiurn   38 027
schroters valle 18 025
copernicus      31 022
linne              23 019
grimaldi          39 018
atlas               15 017
kepler             30 017
eratosthenes    21 016
eratosthenes    32 016
tycho              64 016
picard             26 015
manilius          23 014
rnanilius          34 014
cobra head      18 013
rnenelaus        23 013
censorius        47 011
posidonius      14 011
theophilus       21 011
theophilus       32 011
mons piton     12 010
mons pico      11 008
schickard       62 008
archimedes    22 005

My/our thanks to Alexey for his superp rebuttal and to Milt's great
response to it. Let's keep the ball rolling and the cameras, as we image
the Moon in the days ahead.

Francis Ridge
Coordinator, The Lunascan Project

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:19:08 +0300
From: Institute of Radio Astronomy <rai@ira.kharkov.ua>
Organization: Institute of Radio Astronomy
Subject: TLP Photo for Lunascan List

Dear Fran,

I am sending the TLP Photo (attached to top of this web page) as the supplement to my
e-mail "Arguments for TLP reality" for Lunascan list.
Unfortunately I have  problems with Internet.
Sorry for my delay.

Alexey Arkhipov

CAPTION

January 11, 1978, 15h30m UT. S.R.Izmailov (Kharkov Astronomical
Observatory) and V.V.Davidenko made 9 photos of the new Moon in
the main focus of 130mm-refractor (Karl Zeiss) with ~7s-intervals
at scale of 106 "/1mm. Photo No.1 is normal. Photo No.2 demonstrate
bright flash at terminator (66.5 deg. E and 29.0 deg. S) of 35"x40"
enveloped luminous nebula 180"x120". Photos No.3-5 show the fading
nebular at same location. Photos No.6-9 are normal. The nebular was
motionless relatively to the Moon, although the lunar motion on the
sky was 450". Original negatives are in my archives.
I know S.R.Izmailov since 1975.

[Arkhipov A.V. Making the photos of flashes on the Moon //
Zemlia i Vselennaya (Earth and Universe, Moscow, in Russian), 1991,
No. 3, p.76-78.]

Alexey Arkhipov
Attachment Converted: "c:\0\Fran.jpg"

THE LUNASCAN PROJECT (TLP): An Earth-Based Telescopic Imaging (EBTI)
program using live and recorded CCD technology to document and record
Lunar Transient Phenomena (TLPs).

The Lunascan Project HomePage
http://www.evansville.net/~slk/lshomepage.html

The Project's Mission Statement :
http://www.evansville.net/~slk/miss.html