THE CASE FOR ARTIFICIALITY

A LOOK AT THE ARGUMENTS

    The primary argument that the crater pairs cannot be natural lies in their uniformity.  They are of the same size and aligned with each other in the images.  For a true feature in the surface of the Moon, this is a very strong argument. But are these features, as seen in the images, truly on the surface of the Moon, or might they be attributable to a quirk in a complicated experimental camera on only its third mission?

    As was shown in the discussion of the imaging system, it was very complex and prone to problems.  One of the known problems was with the motion compensation system.  This was severe in the first mission and reappeared on the third mission to a much lesser degree.  The motion compensation  system need be out of synchronization only the slightest bit to cause blurring of the high-res images.

    So what are the arguments against motion blur?

    SMEARING MUST BE IN THE DIRECTION OF THE SPACECRAFT MOTION - As was true with the motion compensation, the direction of travel, relative to the images, was horizontal, as can be seen above. The argument goes that all doubles must align exactly with the direction of the motion.  But some of the doubles are slightly out of alignment with the general trend of the other craters.  Though everything about these images indicates motion blur, this is one aspect that I found puzzling, too.  This is a 'common sense' assumption that does not take all variables into account, and is proven to be in error when subjected to a real-world test.

    THE TWO HALVES MUST BE ALIKE - Another erroneous 'common sense' assumption that I made myself.  But as with the above example, this does not allow for the variances in shading on the "leading" and "trailing" edge of the smear.  These differences are blended into the two halves in ways that vary from pair to pair, causing each "pair" to have a different appearance.  This, too, is demonstrated in the test.

      THE CENTRAL 'WALL' MUST MATCH ONE OF THE SIDE WALLS OF THE CRATER - This completely disregards the possibility of motion blur as the cause of the double craters.  If motion blur is the cause of these doubles, the two walls would overlap and combine, creating a 'divider' that matches neither of the originals.  This, too, is demonstrated in The Test.

    ALL FEATURES MUST SHOW THE SAME DEGREE OF SMEAR - Simply put, they do.

This image shows craters of various sizes, all smeared to the same degree.  The smaller ones look more like short trenches rather than double craters.  The larger crater marked with the "A" was too large to be doubled, but the beginnings of a 'dividing wall' can be seen near the middle.

The Case For Motion Blur              The Test

Author: MikeLomax@aol.com