The purpose of these pages is fourfold:


    For many, the story of the strange-looking crater pairs began with the presentation by Richard Hoagland at Ohio State University on June 2, 1994.  These were shown in and around the Lunar crater Murchison.  From the Lunar Orbiter 3 high-resolution frames 85H1-3, Hoagland showed pair after pair of craters, each of the same size and all aligned at nearly the same orientation, each with a dividing wall separating them.  To anyone familiar with lunar geology , these features are not explainable in a natural context on the surface of the Moon.  It seemed that Hoagland indeed had clear proof of some remnants of artificial structures on the surface of the Moon.

    It was with this impression that I left the five-hour presentation that night.

    The impression stayed with me for quite some time even though some friends of mine had obtained the 8X10 negatives and  were convinced the doubles  were merely the result of a slight blurring caused by movement of the camera as the frames were exposed.

    I finally obtained the negatives myself, and after less than ten minutes of examination under a 10X magnifier I was convinced that the doubles were indeed the result of motion blur.  My own experience at examining Lunar Orbiter photographs made this conclusion inescapable. Simply put, the images should have been much sharper than they were, and there was obvious smearing in the same direction the "doubles" were aligned.

    That was the end of the matter. Or so I thought.

    Later there was talk of yet more of these doubles, and in other locations, mainly near the crater Hortensius.  I visited a web page devoted to these new doubles and was not surprised to see the same sort of blurring as seen in the LO3-85H series.  There was mention of things like "girders", "support members sticking out from the now collapsed skin" and "glass-like remnants", but nowhere was the possibility of motion blur discussed.  Indeed, there was no discussion at all of the possibility that the doubles might be anything but true features on the surface of the Moon.

    More recently, as arguments rose to counter the 'artificial structure' scenario, new pages appeared claiming to 'prove' the doubles could not possibly be the result of motion blur.  The authors insist that motion blur is "not a remotely plausible explanation", yet they go on to acknowledge that motion blur was a known problem on the mission in question.  It is difficult to understand this reasoning.

    In my own examination of these crater pairs I will try to address the pertinent points in the following pages.

The Imaging System           The Case For Artificiality            The Test