Subscribe to TimeLeftUpdate To My Square Craters Paper
From my archives addressing the discrepancy of Clementine and Lunar Orbiter square craters photos. See my Square Crater article on this website.
=========
On Thursday, July 12, 2001 at 5:33AM Lou Gershman wrote:
I have all the original photos you sent me. The two (below in your latest e-mail) look the same.
“ejd” are the initials of Eric J. (?) Douglas. The “ftd” is interesting because “FTD” at Wright-Patt changed names back in 1991 to AFFTC (Air Force Foreign Technology Center – not to be confused with Air Force Flight Test Center ast Edwards AFB). But it confused a bunch of folks – so the name was changed immediately to FASTC (Foreign Air & Space Technology Center). That lasted a short while – until 1992, when it was changed again to NAIC (National Air Intelligence Center).
That’s what is still is today. And all their e-mails have a “naic.af.mil”at the end. That rules out the old FTD (Foreign Technology Division).
===============
I finally got around to chasing down the guy who sent me the clearly doctored photo of the small crater in my “Square Craters” paper.
Here’s the e-mail he sent to me when he clarified which crater it was that appeared in the Clementine image he sent me. (I couldn’t recognize it because of the alterations he, or someone had made in it)
My question to you:
If “ejd” is his initials (Eric Douglass), does “ftd” stand for “foreign technology division”? If so, “Division” of what? Wright Pat? And what would they be doing responding to my persistent inquiries about “those sqaure craters” to the Clementine web site? And is “interpath” a gov’t service?
Hope you can contribute to this without pushing any limits. I’ll insert the photos also, just to refresh your memory.
Note: Recall that I measured the height of the east wall at about 4,600 ft.!
===============
On Thursday, February 21, 2001 at 6:03PM Bill Haynes writes:
Hello Eric Douglass:
Are you still there?
And will you respond to my comments, attached below?
I’m having difficulties attaching the images referred to in the body of my attached message, but you have access to my web site that still displays the original paper and images, and surely still have access to the “altered” image you sent to me.
That my original message of 22 Jan sent to you was not rejected by the e-mail system tells me that the address was still active then.
So, defend yourself and explain how that “wall” disappeared between Lunar Orbiter and Clementine?
Regards,
Bill Haynes
(NOTE: No response was ever received)
==================
(REF ARTICLE: JUNE, 2001)
After completing the original website and finally getting it up, I decided to see whether I could find images of the same region of the Moon on the Clementine website.
Clementine was a modern lunar orbiter launched by the Naval Research Laboratory, ostensibly to test new instruments with applications to unspecified U S Navy weapons systems. The project was a success, and drew great attention, not just because it produced literally millions of new images of the entire lunar surface, but because it did so for a fraction of the costs such projects usually consume.
Clementine advertised that all of its lunar images were available on its website, but when I tried to use their web tools to access high latitude lunar images, I was unsuccessful. After numerous attempts, I finally downloaded some polar views, but they were low angle views with severe distortion and little detail.
I e-mailed the web site manager and inquired why I was having such difficulty, and requested assistance in accessing the region where the “square depressions” were. I identified it by reference to the nearby crater Hermite, also called out in the original image in the Lunar Orbiter book. We exchanged several e-mails and the Clementine web managers discussed it among themselves with copies to me.
Finally I received an image purportedly of the region of interest and showing a view that I did not recognize. After inquiry, the person who sent it explained that it was of the small square crater in the original Lunar Orbiter pictures that I had researched.
When I re-examined the image he had sent to me I realized that this was so, except that the entire west wall of the crater had been replaced by a relatively level area with scattered small craters. That caused the crater to lose all resemblance to squareness, and destroyed my analysis and its relation to the two larger craters.
Well, I was faced with a new conundrum:
If the new image was valid, much of my analysis was destroyed. On the other hand, the Clementine image was of lower quality than the Lunar Orbiter images.
My source had said that it would be difficult to provide images of the two larger craters, for reasons he did not really explain.
There were two possibilities:
1) The original image had simply been wrong and the west wall was a photo artifact not representative of the true conditions.
2) The west wall had collapsed and sustained a number of meteor impacts between the Lunar Orbiter photography and the Clementine mission.
Neither of these options would hold up under careful scrutiny.
The Lunar orbiter images were superior to the Clementine photos, showed greater detail and were otherwise in agreement with the originals; that is, no pattern of differences was detectable except for that west wall. If the west wall had indeed collapsed and been replaced by a new crater field, that would constitute a really amazing phenomenon in itself. In fact, it was impossible. If, as a result of seismic action, the wall had indeed, collapsed, the presence of a number of fairly large craters, all the result of highly targeted new impacts occurring between the two orbiter missions and all within that small area was simply a ridiculous premise.
A third possibility existed; the new image was a fake and was a result of deliberate re-touching to dissuade me from my efforts to publicize what I had discovered!
To check that out, I magnified the area in question eight fold. The result revealed what appears to me to be a rather crude example of computer retouching. In fact the image shows a fairly clearly defined shape with three of its boundaries clearly distinguishable, and even its western boundary discernible.
In short, my correspondent was trying to mislead me and discredit my efforts.
Now I am faced with a real mystery that is as fascinating as the original. Who was this person, what was his motive and why such a crude effort? It even occurred to me that the crudity of the effort was deliberate, in order to signal me that it was a fake, and thereby to encourage further investigation on my part.
Well, that’s what I am challenging anyone who visits this site to consider. Is what I have postulated in the original paper so disturbing to someone, or some group, that they went to this much trouble to try to discourage me from further efforts?
What do you who read this think?
Please let me know, as it is no longer just a question of the “ancient visitor” theory. It is now also a question of the “modern conspirator” theory. Here are the two crater images in question, showing the “paste over” that blotted out the west wall taken from the Clementine image.
Please let me hear from you. Tell me what I may have overlooked or where my reasoning is faulty.
William E. Haynes 2 June 2001.
===============
On Sunday, September 26, 1999 at 11:40PM Eric Douglass wrote:
On your LO photo there were three craters. Between the two upper ones is a small double crater. This is the double crater in the upper left of the Clementine image I sent you. Thus, it doesn’t show the upper two square craters (this was in the seam and would require some time for me to produce), but does show the third lower one (toward the bottom right; flat floor, multiple small craters in the floor).
Happy hunting,
Eric Douglass