A Discussion by the Lunascan Project List

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997
Re: Lunascan Directory #44, Ptolemaeus
Image: AS12-50-7431

Hi Fran,
In the past I have pointed all of my energies at proving the existance of
past intelligent civilizations on Mars.  To that extent, I have more than
enough photographic proof  to backup my claims.  I recently turned my
attentions to look at your pet project, The Moon Based Anomilies.
I believe I found proof that there is/was intelligent life on the Moon on one
of the photographs recently listed on your website. It is an Oblique Photo of
the Crater Ptolemaeus, taken on the Apollo 12 Mission.  The photo ID is
AS-12-150-7431. The area where I found evidence of past constrructions is
located in the lower SE Quadrant on the picture.

It shows a Pyramid Type Construction made of Mudular Blocks.  Next to it is a
partly conconcealed object that looks to me like a large wheel and Hub.  I
have identified these areas with captions and arrows.  I am attaching it as a
JPEG file to this document, for all to see.  Any and all comments are welcome.


(Note: The Apollo image number is AS12-50-7431 and can be found in the Section 44 Directory. Francis Ridge)

Date-Posted: 25-Nov-1997 17:22:32 -0500; at Fogelson.Tortuga
Subject: Re: Moon Xposed
To: Regarding the mail from AB

"Oblique Photo of the Crater Ptolemaeus, taken on the Apollo 12 Mission. The Photo ID is AS-12-150-7431. (s/b AS12-50-7431). The area where I found my evidence is located  in the SE Quadrant of that Pic.."

This image at is, to me, very reminiscent of Richard Hoagland's "Clementine Mosaic Analysis." The tie in is geometry. I don't know how much of the apparent "grid work" and other geometry which appears in the above image may be due to image processing, but there sure appears to be structure revealed, and not only in two dimensions. That is, part of the image can be seen (by me, anyway) to be layered and partially translucent. I refer to the upper right quadrant of the image in particular. Anyone, feel free to set me straight on my interpretation.

I urge anyone out there to obtain a copy of Hoagland's work (CMA). It is chock full of extremely interesting imagery and color plates and makes a case that a great deal of structure and geometry are born out in the "leaked" Clementine moasic.

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 23:48:26 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: What constitutes proof?

Hi to all,
In response to Keith Matthews posting on Nov. 26, 1997, I feel  encouraged
by some of his statements.  He wrote that as a scientist ( archeologist ) he
felt that he was qualified to recognise artificially constructed landforms
from an aerial perspective.   If he can make that statement , and I fully
agree with him, then I can certainly make a similar statement.
 I was a Professional Aerial Photographer, engaged in the science of
Photogrammetry for 20 years.  AS such, I not only flew photographic missions
to obtain the original pics. but later developed them, both B& W and Color,
but later printed them and assembled them into indexes, Mosaics,
Plannimetric/and or Topo Maps.  We provided high quality finished maps and
mosaics to private industry and some Govt. agencies.  During those 20 years I
probbaly handled , looked at. assembled. printed and reviewed at least 1/2
million aerial photos.  I became very adept as an Photo Interpreter.  This at
least should qualify me as an expert in viewing artificially constructed
landforms and objects from an aerial perspective.  So maybe when I see more
than the average person , it is because of my past experience.  Enough said.

Al Blitstein

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997
Subject: Re: Moon Xposed

Hi Fran,

The URL is the same:

I will be posting more evidence of Artificially Constructed Objects located at various locations on the Moon. I believe they are extremely ancient, and have been exposed by time. The question "What consists of Proof " was raised. If you find and can see an Object that we can recognise as something that had to be constructed by intelligent beings, that is Proof. I am referring to objects like: Beams and Chain-links, geometrically shaped constructions, Mechanical Devices, Protruding Cylinders, objects that could not have been designed or built naturally, that should indicate Proof that other civilizations exist and that we are not alone, and probably never have been alone. The programs like SETI that are waiting for a signal from space, never looked for Alien Existance close to home. It is on the Moon, and on Mars , for certain and I have abundant "proof" in the form of Photographic evidence. If it looks like a horse, smells like a horse, and can be recognised by others as a horse, it is probably a Horse! The evidence I have is /has been viewed by several Geologists, Construction Engineers, etc. Some of the replies I received at this web site , reveals a good deal of jealousy and an eagerness to downplay any evidence. I can understand this, Some people have agendas of their own. Some feel threatened by new knowledge about ourselves and our past. No one is trying to change anything, only trying to reveal the truth about our existance. I have also received very positive remarks, and wishes for continued success in what I am doing. In the interim, I am finding more evidence to backup my claims.

Best Regards to all,
Albert Blitstein

Saturday, 29 Nov 1997
From: Francis Ridge
          Coordinator, The Lunascan Project

Hi Albert & List Members,

These things need to be studied, along with legimate research of LTPs. However, I have seen no "indisputable proof" by anyone that any of the objects are of artificial design. Extreme blow-ups, for example, are full of artifacts, yours being no exception. Objects that look like artificial structures may not be what they appear at all. I'd love to have that type of evidence to show the world, but so far nobody has provided indisputable evidence. Now, to say there are some good possibilities and interesting features, that's a different thing entirely. This we have and that's what makes all this work worth doing. If you have indisputable proof, we'd all certainly like to see it and I would certainly welcome it and post it on our web site.

And, I'm no Mars Face expert, but some claim the original image, when processed properly, doesn't look anything like Hoagland's finished product. It all depends on who you talk to, but soon the controversey will be over. I lean heavily toward its artificial nature due to the location of other objects near it in Cydonia, plus my respect for others involved who say it is indicative of something other than natural. I have yet to see anything even close to this on the Moon, but we're just getting started.

Keep up the good work,

Francis Ridge
Coordinator, TLP

Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 07:34:37 -0600
From: slk <>
Subject: Re: What constitutes proof?

At 11:48 PM 11/29/97 -0500, Al Blitstein you wrote:

>I was a Professional Aerial Photographer, engaged in the science of
>Photogrammetry for 20 years.  AS such, I not only flew photographic missions
>to obtain the original pics. but later developed them, both B& W and Color,
>but later printed them and assembled them into indexes, Mosaics,
>Plannimetric/and or Topo Maps.

Hi Al & List Members,

Al, I guess what would be helpful would be for you to take the original
image (Apollo) and make a rectangle or box over the suspected area and post
that image as a small JPEG. Then do an enlargement of the suspected area,
but somewhere between the first and last image and post that. On the second
image show us the "red flag" before the image is so pixelized. In
otherwords, what made you suspect the area before you enlarged it? As a
control, pick an another area similar in terrain and do a blow-up there of
it, to compare an area of anomalies against a normal area.

We appreciate your expertise.

Francis Ridge
Coordinator, TLP

Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 12:53:54 -0600
From: slk <>
Subject: Re: What constitutes proof, more on...

At 12:00 PM 11/30/97 -0500, Milt wrote:

>         Isn't it interesting that -- aside from the SETI program and the
>cautionary approach seemingly adopted after the Brookings Report -- there has
>been so little "official" work done in this area.

If there is/was any "official" work on such things, the Brookings Institute
study explains very adequately why we do not know anything about it.

>         Isn't it interesting that the "conclusive" data needed to tip the
>scales in one direction or another -- and I'm including everything from the
>Cydonia images, to the Roswell incident, and to John Mack's account of the
>abduction "experience" -- always seems to be "just out of reach"...

The evidence is tainted by so much sloppy research and the attention given
to such research by the tabloids. I think there is evidence to consider,
but there is no indisputable proof by any means. Our research deals with
legimate study of the Moon and LTPs, along WITH the study of possible
artifacts. Many of our consultants feel there is strong evidence in certain
areas, but there is no proof.

>         Isn't it interesting that the profound questions raised by Cydonia,
>Roswell, John Mack, etc. [which, if these issues had been raised in the
>"mainstream" of science, would by this time be the centers of vast research
>programs!] have been all but ignored by the official establishment.

This has been the case all throughout the history of science. Don't let it
bother you. The truth will come out and the generation (and maybe this one)
will learn to live with it.

>         And, isn't it especially interesting that obtaining the next level
>of improved data -- which is the (1) logically demanded [under the
>established rules of scientific inquiry] by the "inclnclusive" data at hand,
>and (2) could "settle" the issue and [if in the affirmative] start a further
>round of more detailed investigation -- is always characterized by the
>reigning scientific establishment as "not interesting", "not a priority", or
>"too costly".

Just a lame excuse to avoid getting into messy issues. But let's face it,
some of us are making it extremely messy and embarrassing. When we see
artifacts everywhere we look, some is wrong with our methods. Now, I'm not
reffering to Al's work. But he does need better documentation. Al needs to
show us exactly where the alleged artifacts are located by placing a line
box over the Apollo image, then show us an image of less magnitude than his
final blow-up.

>         Al Blitstein's comments are, of course, extremely well taken in this
>respect.  The "evidence" of photo interpretation is routinely used to make
>life or death decisions about sending people out on dangerous bombing
>missions [to determine what are appropriate military targests and/or to avoid
>needless civilian deaths], to identify mineral resources and to make
>decisions involving the investment of millions of dollars to locate and
>recover these assets, or -- as in the case of the Cuban missle crisis -- to
>literally determine whether or not we will risk going to war.

The problem here is resolution. If you read Jon Floyd's (VGL) article
recently, we don't have that kind of resolution with these lunar images. If
we did we would have the answer. For example, with the Face on Mars, the
determination of its artificial reality will have to come from Mars Global

When I say we have no indisputable proof of artifacts on the Moon, I'm not
speaking as a skeptic. After 37 years of serious UFO investigation with
NICAP, MUFON, and CUFOS, I have no doubts about UFO reality. We're not
alone. But 95% of the "noise" is not indicative of an outside intelligence.
But that 5% most certainly is and for the Moon and Mars to be avoided and
not used this intelligence is simply hard for me to imagine. But look, I
have, and I still haven't found that type of evidence to be unquestionable
proof. The object we tracked near the Moon was probably artificial, but
whose is it?

Don't any of you give up. This is very interesting and exciting. Something
great will come of all this effort. Just be careful what you accept.

Francis Ridge
Coordinator, TLP

From: VestAJes <>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 18:52:25 EST
Subject: Re: "anomalies" in Alphonsus

In a message dated 97-12-18 16:14:32 EST, writes:

<< That's how many perceive us, Al. It has taken over 15 years to get LTP
 studies respectable. We must be very cautious and scientific in our efforts
 or no one will listen when we get something worthwhile. Right now we are
 getting help from a lot of people we never dreamed of. Let's show them we
 are not gullible and that we are searching for the truth.  >>

As another line of evidence regarding the Alphonsus Crater I ran a Clementine
check on the crater and I did note some rather unusual rilles and possible
dike formations. I have deliberately stayed away from the Ranger image to be
an honest broker and act in a sort of peer review mode when the case is
developed. When we finish this exercise, I will send you the images so you can
see what I was talking about.

Jon Floyd

From: Mike Lomax <>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 18:59:18 EST
Subject: Re: "anomalies" in Alphonsus

  Fran >>> Mike, you might want to get an original negative. What do you think
at this point? <<<

  I downloaded the image and I will play around with it later. I'll let you
know then. And thanks for the url and info.

  BTW, Bill was asking about LO3-85M, and the NSSDC site has the frame
available for download at:

  Thanks again for the info.


From: Bill63 <>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 00:50:12 EST
Subject: Re:  Re: "anomalies" in Alphonsus

In a message dated 12/18/97 9:16:46 PM, wrote:

<< BTW, Bill was asking about LO3-85M, and the NSSDC site has the frame
available for download at:

Thanks, Mike.  This is very cool.  Do you know if there is an index to figure
out what the rest of the image files are at

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 07:24:58 -0600
From: slk <>
Subject: Re: "anomalies" in Alphonsus

At 07:15 AM 12/19/97 -0500, Victor Kean wrote:
>    Lunascan members
>  "Tis the eye which 'sees', the brain which perceives..."
>  Surely these interpretations are similar to the Rochard 'ink blots'..What
>one man sees
>  as "anomalies" another will see as "Natural formations".
>  Can anyone be 100% *positive* until man actual inspects these locations ?

Hi Victor & List Members,

To a great extent what you say is true. In the case of the "anomalies" in
Alphonsus, I do not see any, at least in my images. I do, however, put a
lot of faith in the good works of the VGL boys and I will await their
report. First, you have what appear to be anomalies, then you check them
out with the best images. In the case of some of the monstrous structures
reported by Hoagland Earth-Based Telescopic Imaging could prove/disprove
such claims. Huge structures should present humongus shadows.

We'll report what others see in the images, then check them out. In the
process we'll explain why we feel we should accept or reject any claims.
Naturally we hope to find artifacts, but even those would be divided into
ancient or current. We may find both!

As far as general LTPs are concerned, there are over 1200 reports that
indicate the Moon is not a dead world. Very interesting.

We'll just have to do the best with what we have, the new technologies.
Some things will have to wait until man goes back to the Moon, either
physically or with new cameras. Unfortunately, the Lunar Prospector Mission
will be "blind". BTW, one of our members, David O. Darling (ALPO's LTP
Recorder) has been invited to the launch on Jan 5 and will be reporting
back to us.

Francis Ridge
Coordinator, TLP

 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). This mailing list is sponsored by
 Anomalous Images.