Alien Anomalies

Members Login
Post Info TOPIC: Moon ruins


Status: Offline
Posts: 94
RE: Moon ruins
Permalink Closed

Hello Xenon :)
I am not frustrated, but I want to know the truth about this link now smile.gif

If there is a virus you be sure to have my sincere apologies :)



Status: Offline
Posts: 673
Permalink Closed

Counter, I really do understand your frustration about me editing your links, but both mine and papas computers where attacked by clicking on a link at skippers guest book, I was lucky as my PC security stopped the attack in its tracks, sadly papa was not so fortunate.

Humanoids PC security identified a virus on the links, and the avast forum that I posted said how difficult it is to get rid of the thing,  I don't know if the links are infected because its my missus who does all the HTML, software, programming, etc , not 'me',  and as the wife is away until next week I could not take the chance of members and visitors being infected though our forum, besides the missus  would kill me if I broke her new computer.

Best wishes


-- Edited by Xenon on Saturday 19th of September 2009 09:47:23 PM


"Creating a fiction when stating a fact destroys the credibility of the truth one are trying to convey"


Status: Offline
Posts: 94
Permalink Closed

Hi all :)

Xenon, I understand your action and I don't blame you, but as I said, there is no virus on this website.

here is topic with discussion about this false alarm generated by iframe-o-fobic antiviruses (in French :) use File stat.php3, the one that was injected into webpage code is some old part of their stats software and is nothing dangerous. Administrator of explains, that Avast generates false alarm over some files.

You can check file by yourself viewing its source code:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
0: <P>1: <P>2: <P>3: <P>X: /

and that is it. Not much of a virus or malicious code visible to me. It is some old stats file on astrosurf. And nothing else.

As to the future postings and security we should start another topic and implement some rules as to posting links etc, as some of them may be indeed infected. There are online tools like: - online link scanner by AVG - addon to firefox - you can scan link before opening.

Avast is not the best antivirus on the market, I suggest use of NOD32 instead as it is one of the best of them.

I have some suggestions and simple advices how to avoid viruses, but I reckon it should be posted under different topic and in different category, and I will do it soon.

-- Edited by counter on Friday 18th of September 2009 10:04:31 PM



Status: Offline
Posts: 673
Permalink Closed

Humanoid wrote:

Hi Counter, the page contents you posted is really interesting but this site's server had definitely been hacked and malware inserted in their html code. Virus name is HTML:Iframe-gen, google it and you'll find some info on it. Apparently only Avast is able to detect it.

Humanoid You are correct, the links are infected, and only Avast seems to detect it, I did advise members to use caution when opening links

I am sorry to say that I have had to delete the links to stop cross infection, and I would advise members to re-scan their PC's (although using Avast would be prudent).

I also have to state that counter is in no way responsible for the hijacked links, and his standing and respect in this forum has not changed.


"Creating a fiction when stating a fact destroys the credibility of the truth one are trying to convey"


Status: Offline
Posts: 94
Permalink Closed

Hi Humanoid,
now i know where the problem is, but it is only false alarm generated by Avast. it warns you about IFRAMES and yes, I found this line at the end of the document code:

<IFRAME src='' scrolling=no width=0 height=0 align=center NAME='stats'>

that is just stats script they got installed on server and it is nothing suspicious or dangerous in this case :) They should make avast to detect only iframes with external reference, and not the one directing to internal server files. And, btw, switch to Linux. I am using ubuntu and have no probs whatsoever with seccurity, viruses and all this crap :)

-- Edited by counter on Friday 18th of September 2009 06:28:45 PM


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 335
Permalink Closed

Hi Counter, the page contents you posted is really interesting but this site's server had definitely been hacked and malware inserted in their html code. Virus name is HTML:Iframe-gen, google it and you'll find some info on it. Apparently only Avast is able to detect it.



Status: Offline
Posts: 94
Permalink Closed

And this is
Meta Research Bulletin (ISSN 1086-6590, USA)
March 15, 2000
Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.9-13.


Alexey V. Arkhipov
Institute of Radio Astronomy, 4 Krasnoznamennaya str., Kharkov, 61002, Ukraine


As a continuation of preliminary analysis of Clementine lunar images [2], an automated computer survey for ruin-like objects on the Moon has been executed. The finds are now classified and catalogued. It is shown that majority of these formations could be interpreted as collapsed subsurface cavities. Such local formations are puzzling from a  geological perspective, and seem promising candidates for archaeological objects. Besides, such subsurface cavities in polar regions could be interesting for other reasons, such as colonization of the Moon or as lava tubes.


Our thesis is that the Moon could be used as indicator of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) visits to our unique "alive" planet [1]. ETI, as well as NASA, could understand the  strategic significance of Moon-ports for interplanetary communications. That is why it is reasonable to search for alien artifacts (e.g. ETI bases of 0-4 Gyr age) on our satellite.
Various computer algorithms were proposed and tested for the archaeological reconnaissance of the Moon [2]. About 20,000 Clementine lunar orbital HIRES images have been processed, and a few ruin-like formations were found. Now the results of similar automated survey of all HIRES polar images (~80,000 files) are presented.


As in the preliminary search, the orbital images of high-resolution camera (HIRES, 9-30 m/pixel) of the Clementine space probe [3] were analysed. Only the polar lunar regions of ±75° to ±90° latitudes were processed in this survey because of their oblique lighting. Basic tests used for image selection are described in [2]. These are the preliminary fractal, rectangular, geological tests and the SAAM filter. Moreover, two new tests were added.
1. The false alarm probability was decreased by discarding of excessively shadowed images (shadow filter). If >5% of pixels are dimmer than 10% of the maximum brightness amplitude, that image was ignored. Files of <13 KB size were discarded too.
2. For filtering of shadow interference after the preliminary fractal test, the following "FREX" procedure was used. The fractal a-parameter (a measure of artificiality) was computed as in [2], but for only 1 of every 5 points to speed up the analysis of the images. The average linear regression relating a of the random image set and zenith angle of the Sun (Zsun) was calculated by this simple algorithm. If a of the image was lower than the a-Zsun regression minus 1/2 of its standard deviation, the image was selected.
In summary, the preliminary fractal test, shadow filter, FREX and rectangular tests selected ~5% of the images as interesting. The selected files were SAAM filtered and tested visually. About 97% of the selections were ignored after SAAM testing. The remaining 128 finds are catalogued (see Table I). Only 47 catalogued images were still selected after  the geological test. Their orientations are different (>10 deg.) from the significant directions of background lineaments (details in [2]). Finally, only 18 files of these 47 were selected as most interesting after the full fractal test for artificiality. Their a-factors are deviate from a-Zsun regression for 100 random images by more than 3 times of its standard deviation. Such images of top interest are marked by asterisks in Table I.
However, it is not reasonable to ignore other catalogued finds. Human activity, for example, correlates with geological lineaments (e.g. valleys, rivers, deposits around faults). That is why a negative result of geological test is not evidence of natural object; but a positive result would be an additional argument for POSSIBLE artificiality. Moreover, eroded objects could be of low contrast on images taken from orbit. Their fractal properties might be  insufficiently different from background. Hence, the fractal test could undervalue the find. That is why all finds in Table I are of potential interest for archaeological reconnaissance of the Moon.
The finds in the catalogue are described as systems of simple quasi-rectangular elements: d - depressions; f - furrows; h - quadrangle hills; p - rectangular pattern of craterlets; r - ridges. Thus, an abbreviation such as "dr" in the last column of  Table I means "a system with quasi-rectangular depression(s) and quasi-rectangular ridges". This method of description is convenient for morphological analysis.


There are two main types of ruin-like formations.
1. Quasi-rectangular patterns of depressions ("recdeps"). About 69% of ruin-like finds could be attributed to this type. Usually recdep is a cluster of rectangular depressions with rectangular ridges between them. This wafer pattern may be seen in the examples shown  in Fig. 1.

Figure 1
"Recdep" examples in evolutionary order: (a) LHD0316A.083; (b) LHD0470B.112; ( c ) LHD5443Q.291; (d) LHD5472Q.287; (e) LHD5661R.068.

Presumably, an isolated, single rectangular depression could be considered as an extreme form of recdep. Moreover, there are transitional forms from rectangular pattern of craterlets to recdep (e.g. Fig. 1b). So, recdeps in the Table I have descriptions with d, dr or p elements. The typical size of recdeps is ~1-3 km. The size of these rectangular depressions is 0.1-2 km. Quasi-rectangular patterns of depressions correlate with plain terrains (e.g., inter-crater space, or the bottom of the large-scale craters).
2. Quasi-rectangular lattices of lineaments ("reclats"). These comprise 30% of the  ruin-like formations here. A reclat is a complex of interlacing, broken ridges or furrows, which form the quasi-rectangular pattern (Fig. 2).

Figure 2
"Reclats" examples in evolutionary order: (a) LHD0558B.072; (b) LHD5559Q.279; ( c ) LHD6749R.318; (d) LHD6158R.320.

This morphological type is present in  Table I as complexes of r and/or f elements without d. These lineaments have a typical width of ~50 m and cover territory of ~1 km. Reclats correlate with slopes and hill tops, where the regolith layer must be thinnest. Apparently, what we see is subsurface structure rather than some organization of regolith.
Besides recdeps and reclats, quadrangle hills are worthy of separate  description. The hills are located in formations of both morphological types. The dimensions of such hills are 0.3-1 km. Usually the quadrangle hill has a craterlet on its top. Sometimes the top depression is so large  that the hill appears hollow (Fig. 3).

Figure 3
The hollow hill is bounded by a rectangular depression: a candidate for embankment (LHD5345Q.059).

The rectangular depressions around the hill on Fig. 3 are a rarity for the Moon, but they are common for man-made mounds on the Earth.


The origin of ruin-like formations could be reconstructed from images of various stages of their evolution.
Thus, the reconstruction of recdep evolution is shown in Fig. 1. The simplest, probably the first stage formation, is a regular pattern of craterlets (Fig. 1a). Apparently, this is  the collapse or regolith drainage into subsurface caverns. Expanding craterlets became angular. The rectangular lattice of ridges appears between them (Fig. 1b). The rectangular lineaments around such formation (Fig. 1c) show the regular and local nature of subsurface caverns. Such a cavern system is seen after its total collapse (Fig. 1d). The bottom collapses (Fig. 1e) and slope terraces [1] in rectangular depressions argue for several levels of caves.
The reclet evolution could be interpreted in terms of erosion too (Fig. 2). Apparently, the first (simplest) stage of reclet is the quasi-rectangular system of narrow furrows-cracks (Fig. 2a). The cracks expand (Fig. 2b) and transform into quasi-rectangular pattern of ridges (Fig. 2c). The Fig. 2d shows the quadrangle mesa-like hill surrounded by the ridge system (using the high-pass filter of Adobe Photoshop). Obviously, such ridges are a relatively stable aspect  of  the hill they reside on.
These rectangular systems of depressions and ridges are resemble terrestrial ruins. Recdeps and reclats are too localized and regularized for tectonic features or  jointing pattern of impacts. Subsurface, rectangular, multilevel caves are not known in lunar geology. However, they are usual considered in modern plans for lunar bases. The rectangular systems of ridges could be interpreted in terms of archaeology too. Of course, suggesting this possibility is not a form of evidence, but rather an argument for archaeological reconnaissance in situ.


The systematic survey for lunar ruin-like objects is realised. The results follow.
1. New ruin-like formations are found.
2. A catalogue of promising objects for archaeological reconnaissance of the Moon is compiled. Even if catalogued finds are natural, they are interesting examples of unusual lunar geology.
3. Catalogued rectangular systems of depressions and ridges (recdeps and reclats) are  landscape forms not described in other catalogues.
4. It is argued that recdep could be interpreted as a collapse of a subsurface system of caves. Such rectangular, multilevel caverns could be interesting for archaeology, geology and sites for lunar base.
Therefore, the archaeological reconnaissance of the Moon appears to be a viable, active,  interdiscipline field of science.


The author is grateful to Dr. Y.G.Shkuratov for access to the Clementine CDs. I also thank Dr. L.N.Litvinenko and Dr. T. Van Flandern for support.


1. A.V. Arkhipov, "Earth-Moon System as a Collector of Alien Artefacts", J. Brit. Interplanet. Soc., 51, 181-184 (1998).
2. A.V. Arkhipov, Preliminary Search For Ruin-Like Formations on the Moon, Meta Research Bulletin, 8, No. 4, 49-54.
3. DoD/NASA, "Mission to the Moon", Deep Space Program Science Experiment, Clementine EDR Image Archive. Vol. 1-88. Planetary Data System & Naval Research Laboratory,  Pasadena, 1995 (CDs).

Table. Catalogue of Ruin-Like Finds

Note: The central coordinates of images are in degrees. The last column contains the quasi-rectangular elements (see text for definitions).



| Longitude | Latitude |     File     | Elements |
|    deg.   |   deg.   |              |          |
11.05        89.16    LHD5814R.295      d
13.63        85.57    LHD5741R.295      d
16.08       -76.10    LHD0480B.030      f
* 20.03       -81.24    LHD0395A.160      p
20.69       -79.70    LHD0159B.293      dr
22.50        80.63    LHD5686R.160      r
25.38        75.50    LHB5443Q.291      prf
28.25       -76.50    LHD0132B.290      dr
* 28.35        79.10    LHD5502Q.290      f
31.16        80.78    LHD5833R.157      f
* 31.21        78.82    LHD5256Q.293      d
32.97        79.60    LHD5538Q.289      f
33.55        77.27    LHD5715Q.156      dr
33.57        77.05    LHD5713Q.156      dr
35.45        81.20    LHD5555R.289      rfd
37.00        77.58    LHD5472Q.287      pr
37.18        79.86    LHD5525Q.287      df
41.93       -82.88    LHD0280A.151      fd
43.09        86.94    LHD5724R.286      dr
44.05       -75.87    LHD0445B.151      r
51.34       -83.68    LHD0233A.147      f
* 53.95       -83.54    LHD0287A.146      rd
56.88        87.01    LHD5705R.282      dr
60.29        79.20    LHD5559Q.279      d
60.30        85.14    LHD5636R.280      p
108.97      -76.82    LHD0412B.127      rhf
109.85      -82.38    LHD0344A.126      d
113.40       82.50    LHD5350R.260      fdr
123.50       86.07    LHD5652R.126      df
124.55      -82.47    LHD0282A.121      d
128.05       80.00    LHD5375R.254      ?
128.25      -78.26    LHD0162B.253      f
128.41      -76.13    LHD0191B.253      r
128.83       82.91    LHD5459R.254      dr
130.26      -82.91    LHD0073A.252      d
130.33      -82.75    LHD0274A.119      rp
130.52       79.32    LHD4691Q.253      pf
130.71       80.68    LHD4722R.253      dr
131.20      -78.77    LHD0111B.252      dr
135.66       80.05    LHD4807R.251      ?
137.97      -84.74    LHD0276A.116      dr
139.41      -86.30    LHD0184A.115      f
145.91       77.84    LHD5288Q.247      f
148.00      -81.36    LHD0248A.113      f
148.41      -79.04    LHD0305B.113      d
149.69      -84.26    LHD0231A.112      f
150.71      -81.43    LHD0315A.112      rd
151.29      -77.99    LHD0415B.112      d
151.44      -76.24    LHD0470B.112      pr
154.36       83.95    LHD6979R.244      p
155.35       83.91    LHD5605R.112      dp
156.86       83.25    LHD5564R.243      f
159.68      -78.18    LHD0343B.109      pr
164.46       76.18    LHD4993Q.240      rf
164.51       81.34    LHD5173R.240      fd
166.93       89.03    LHD5643R.114      dr
167.15       80.91    LHD5286R.239      f
169.86       81.35    LHD5175R.238      d
169.87       79.18    LHD5107Q.238      dr
171.02      -81.44    LHD0095A.238      p
* 179.43       89.72    LHD5696R.248      fp
190.15      -77.39    LHD0469B.098      rf
191.53       83.32    LHD5417R.230      pr
* 191.54       83.21    LHD5416R.230      r
192.67      -80.56    LHD0308A.097      r
* 192.83      -81.40    LHD0096A.230      dr
* 192.90      -76.89    LHD0392B.097      f
197.24       89.46    LHD5611R.108      drf
200.20       78.82    LHD5279Q.227      dr
224.67      -76.57    LHD0421B.085      dr
224.72      -86.21    LHD0175A.083      r
229.10      -80.45    LHD0316A.083      p
230.32      -83.27    LHD0516A.082      pd
* 232.01      -76.20    LHD0210B.215      f
232.08       86.83    LHD5588R.217      fr
242.82       87.26    LHD5629R.214      df
243.37       82.05    LHD5628R.080      dr
244.03      -81.12    LHD0146A.210      d
244.99       85.05    LHD7605R.344      r
* 246.08       81.88    LHD7638R.343      fh
246.21      -82.25    LHD0142A.209      dr
* 250.58      -85.48    LHD0193A.073      r
251.14      -82.54    LHD0140A.207      r
251.65       79.76    LHD5397Q.209      f
254.56       79.99    LHD5250Q.208      f
254.65      -80.58    LHD0148A.206      r
258.78      -77.45    LHD0558B.072      f
* 261.17       86.87    LHD5466R.208      dr
* 266.18      -83.86    LHD0278A.068      r
266.42       86.58    LHD5492R.206      dr
268.33       87.79    LHD5595R.207      fp
* 269.63       85.11    LHD5650R.072      d
269.77       87.47    LHD5521R.206      dr
* 272.70       82.72    LHD5562R.202      r
273.41       79.55    LHD5545Q.069      d
273.56       79.74    LHD5547Q.069      d
281.47      -82.36    LHD0273A.063      fd
284.08       87.80    LHD5717R.202      dr
289.90      -80.94    LHD0149A.193      d
290.49       87.58    LHD5661R.068      d
291.22      -75.94    LHD0211B.193      d
292.29       77.16    LHD5116Q.194      d
292.30       77.07    LHD5110Q.194      d
293.74      -80.73    LHD0315A.059      p
296.28      -79.60    LHD0173B.191      dr
297.82       84.15    LHD5528R.193      dr
* 300.02       79.68    LHD5345Q.059      hd
300.98       80.42    LHD5441R.191      d
301.21       80.96    LHD5456R.191      dr
* 301.28       85.55    LHD6749R.318      r
301.55      -86.03    LHD0082A.320      h
301.58      -88.19    LHD0119A.052      r
* 306.10      -77.54    LHD0387B.055      dr
311.45       86.05    LHD6158R.320      rh
312.61       77.97    LHD5576Q.054      dr
312.73       78.18    LHD5578Q.054      dr
312.75       78.38    LHD5579Q.054      dr
314.96       77.38    LHD5307Q.053      dr
315.05       77.60    LHD5313Q.053      d
315.37       77.84    LHD5314Q.053      d
318.16       79.39    LHD5862Q.316      fdr
320.67       79.28    LHD5916Q.315      dr
323.28       86.62    LHD5574R.052      f
329.05      -78.41    LHD0362B.047      fd
338.05       86.90    LHD5972R.308      d
341.12       81.88    LHA3621R.307      dr
349.97       87.33    LHD5752R.303      pr
351.42       85.96    LHD5165R.171      r

(This web page produced for Alexey Arkhipov by Francis Ridge of  The Lunascan Project)


Please note this post was edited by admin

-- Edited by Xenon on Friday 18th of September 2009 06:32:41 PM



Status: Offline
Posts: 94
Permalink Closed

Below pasted source code of page:

Meta Research Bulletin (ISSN 1086-6590, USA)

December 15, 1999
Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.49-54.

Alexey V.Arkhipov
Institute of Radio Astronomy, 4 Krasnoznamennaya, Kharkov, 310002, Ukraine


The Moon is an indicator of possible alien visits to the Earth during past ~4 billion years. New computer algorithms are proposed and tested for the archaeological reconnaissance of our satellite. About  20,000 Clementine lunar orbital lunar images have been processed, and  a few ruin-like formations were found. According to a fractal analysis, some of these finds are different from the lunar surface on which they reside, and formally resemble terrestrial archaeological objects. At the least, the catalogued formations should be interesting as geological anomalies.


As it is argued [1,2] the Moon could be used as an indicator of  extraterrestrial intelligence visits to the Solar System. Therefore, it is necessary to ascertain  the indicator's condition REGARDLESS OF THE RESULT. Unfortunately, such studies are outside of the professional activity of selenologists (because of their orientation only to natural formations and processes) as well as archaeologists (because archaeology adheres to a pre-Copernican geocentric position). That is why the first archaeological reconnaissance of the Moon is realized only as a private project, SAAM: Search for Alien Artefacts on the Moon.
The SAAM Project  is developed since 1992. The justifications of lunar SETI, the wording of specific principles of lunar archaeology and the search for promising areas on  the  Moon were the first stage of the project (1992-95). Already  obtained results of lunar exploration (e.g. [1]) show that the search for alien artefacts on the Moon is a  promising  SETI-strategy, especially in the context of  lunar colonization plans. The aim of the second SAAM  stage  is  the search  for promising targets of lunar archaeological reconnaissance. The most probable to detect would be very ancient (age ~1-4 Gyr) analogies of proposed modern  lunar  bases.  Such long-term buildings should be under the lunar surface  for  protection from ionizing radiation and meteorites. Such super-ancient constructions could be eroded and detected as systems of low ridges and depressions, covered by regolith and craters.


It is more reasonable to use for SAAM the archaeological method (e.g. preliminary assumption of artifact existence) than the planetological "presumption of naturality". According to Dr. B.V.Andrianov (the Russian authority in aerial archaeology): "The main demasking sign of objects, whose origin on the terrain is due to human activity, is their geometric regular configuration (at rare exclusions)" [3]. Terrestrial  buildings,  as  a  rule,  have  rectangular outlines. Hence, it is reasonable  to  search  on  the lunar images for unusual  patterns of  rectangular  shape. The status of  such finds can not be higher than that artifact candidates. The true nature of the finds cannot be ascertained by the remote sensing only. According to archaeological practice, direct exploration (e.g. excavations) is an obligatory element of  the search. Hence, the finds of the SAAM Project cannot be discoveries; but SAAM is a precursor for inevitable archaeological reconnaissance of the Moon.
The lunar Clementine EDR Image Archive on CDs [4] was used for SAAM. The following  tests were proposed and used for the analysis of high-resolution camera (HIRES) data of the Clementine spacecraft.


As a rule, natural landscapes consist of self-similar details on various dimension scales. For example, lunar craters are similar at diameter of 0.1m to 104 m. By contrast, artificial constructions have some typical dimensions caused by size of their constructors. Hence, the artifacts might be recognized as details of unusually frequent size. The search for such dimension anomalies is an essence of the fractal method proposed by M.J.Carlotto and M.C.Stein [5]. Unfortunately that test is too slow for the express analysis of ~80,000  HIRES images because of so many calculations. That is why the simpler and faster algorithm is proposed here.
For this purpose, the probability distribution (M) of distances ( r ) between minima of  brightness along the lines of an image is constructed. In fact, M(r) is the distribution of the image detail's size. At long scales, this function could be approximated  by the fractal power law: M(r) ~ rn. As constructions have some typical size, the artifacts should increase the squared residuals of linear regression: log M(r)= n log r + C; where C is a constant. According to empirical results, M(r) of the HIRES images could be approximated by the power law  at rò5 pixels. That is why the regression is calculated in the interval of 5 ó ri ó 30 pixels (50m ó ri ó 900m) or up to 26 points.
In each of twelve test squares of 96x96 pixels of the image, the computer calculates the best n and C by least squares technique and the average of  the squared residuals:

nmax sk2 = (gk /nmax) S [ log M(ri) - n log ri - C]2, i=1

where: k is the number of test square; gk is the apparatus factor or average (s*/sk)2 from a lot of HIRES images (s* is sk in the center of image at gk=1); nmax is the number of used scales up to M(ri)=0. Then the average dispersion <s> is estimated from these regional squared residuals.
The analysis of 733  HIRES images (0.75mm-filter; the polar zones up to 75o-latitudes; 112-115 orbits) shows that  s distribution is  the classical Gaussian function. According to the Student's criterion for 12 estimations, if the inequality (sk -<s>) > 1.796 ( S(sk -<s>)2/11)1/2 is true in any test square, this area could be considered as anomalous with a probability of 0.95.


The rectangular test reveals the rectangular patterns of lineaments on the image of  lunar surface. For each pixel of the image, the probe point at  the distance of 6 pixels and position angle j is selected. Let N be the total number of such pairs, and n is the number of  pixel pairs, where bright accounts are equal. The function W(j)=n/N characterizes the anisotropy of the image. For the correction of the camera aberration, W(j) was divided by its average quantity, which is calculated for many images at same j. The computer finds maxima of the smoothed W(j) and the corresponding  jm angles. Obviously  jm  describes the orientations of lineament groups. If there is (90oñ10o)-differences between jm , the image is classified as interesting.


For the false alarm selection, the SAAM-transformation of the image was used for revealing indiscernible details of the lunar surface. This algorithm is very simple: The image is smoothed by the sliding window in a kind of circle with radius R, then the result of this procedure is subtracted from the initial image. Thus the pixels, which are brighter than the smoothed level, are considered as "white", and others are considered "black". This clipping permits us to see details of extremely low contrast as well as the high contrast features. Moreover, the large details (>R) of the image appear damped, and they do not interfere with  small-sized objects.


J. Fiebag [6] supposed that the parallelism of the formation with lineaments of its surroundings is the criterion for naturality of the object. Although the human activity correlates with geological lineaments (e.g. rivers), the conservative Fiebag test was applied to the lunar finds.
The lineament orientation of surroundings was estimated by the described rectangular test technique for the corresponding large-scale image from the ultraviolet-visible (UVVIS) camera. The UVVIS image cover 196 times the HIRES images' area with the same 0.75mm-filter. Only W(j)-peaks with statistical significance of  >0.9 were taken into account. If one of  the two directions of  the rectangular formation on a HIRES-image coincides (±10o) with any significant UVVIS direction, the object is not considered as interesting. This test rejects about 60% of finds.


The polar zones of ñ75o to ñ90o latitudes are most suitable for the SAAM because of oblique lighting. For the preliminary archaeological search of those zones, 20 CDs  were selected randomly from the Clementine EDR Image Archive [4]. About 20,000 files or ~25% of the polar HIRES data were analyzed. Only 32 images were selected as interesting after geological test.
There are three types of the finds:
(a)  Quasi-rectangular lattices of  leneaments;
(b)  Quasi-simmetrical, quasirectangular patterns of depressions;
(c) narrow and shallow depressions with smoothed bottom of quasi-simmetrical and quasi-rectangular outlines;

Figure 1
Arrowed rectangular 800x800m pattern on the hill is an example of lunar ruin-like formations (long.=301.11 deg.; lat.=85.59 deg.; Clementine image: LHD6749R.318).

An example of  picturesque ruin-like formations on a hill is shown in Fig. 1. The traditional explanations in terms of crossing of impact fault systems seem inadequate for such compact and closed formations. The Moon did not have  conditions (a thin crust above melted mantle) for Venus-like tessera terrains. So the origin of these anomalies is problematical. As a rule, lunar base projects would be expected to show the rectangular patterns of subsurface constructions [7-9]. Formally, such complexes could be classified as (a) and (b) patterns.  The (c)-type bands in Fig. 2 are a puzzle.  Theirs depth from shadows (~10 m) is about the average thickness of the regolith layer on the Moon. Theirs flat bottoms and geometry remind one of modern projects for lunar regolith mining (e.g. [10]). Some depressions of (b)-type could be interpreted in mining terms too.

Figure 2
The curious shallow depressions of ~8m-depth  and ~100m-width can be seen in the box after filtration of the image's fine structure, and again in the schematic at the top left (long.=28.31 deg.; lat.=79.11; Clementine image: LHD5502Q.290).

Of course, this visual impression  should be tested by some objective procedure. The modified fractal Carlotto-Stein method  was used for this purpose. First, the range of HIRES image brightness was increased linearly up to 256 gradations. Then convert the image into an intensity surface in a 3-D rectangular frame of coordinates (x and y are the pixel coordinates; z is its brightness). The Carlotto-Stein method [5] can be thought of as enclosing the image intensity surface in volume elements. These volume elements are cubes with a side of  2r; where r is the scale in terms of pixel coordinates or its brightness. Let Vr be the average minimal  volume of such elements enclosing an image intensity surface at some point. Then the surface area is Ar = Vr/2r. As a function of scale, Ar characterizes the size distribution of image details.  The fractal linear relation between log Ar and log r is a good approximation for natural landscapes. However, the self-similar fractals do not approximate artificial objects as a rule. That is why M.J. Carlotto and M.C. Stein used the average of the squared residuals e of the linear regression log Ar=blog r + g   as  a measure of artificiality.
Unfortunately, e depends on the number of pixels in an image. Therefore, it is difficult to compare different images. Moreover, the shadows increase e and generate false alarms. These problems could be resolved by the non-linear regression:

log Ar = a (log r)2 +blog r + g,

where the factor a is independent of  the image size. The shadows lead to a >0, but artificial objects have a <0.

Figure 3
The diagram of fractal properties of analyzed images: the random set of HIRES files (crosses), HIRES images of ruin-like formations (black squares), and aerospace photographs of terrestrial archaeological objects (opened squares).

This effect is shown in Fig. 3. There factors a and b are calculated for the random set of  HIRES images (crosses) and aerospace photographs of terrestrial archaeological objects (white squares). The fragments of images of the following archaeological sites were used in our analysis: Giza tombs in Egypt (KVR-1000 satellite) and El-Lejjun Roman legionary fortress, Jordan, (CORONA satellite) [11]; the Cerro Vidal trinchera , the Cerro Juanaquena trinchera and Pueblo She' in Galisteo Basin (New Mexico, aerial photographs [12]). The parameter a values for lunar ruin-like formations (black squares) is distributed between the geological background (crosses) and archaeological objects (opened squares). Some formations have a as low as the known archaeological sites.

Figure 4
The shadow effect for the parameter a of geological background (crosses) and ruin-like formations (black squares) on the Moon. The regression relating a of the random image set and zenith angle of the sun (Zsol) is shown as the dashed line. The adopted criterion for  target selection (regression - 3sa) is shown as the solid line.

The weak effect of  low sunlight could be seen in Fig. 4. At any zenith angle of the Sun (Zsol), the ruin-like formations have systematically lower a than the random set of HIRES images does. The average linear regression relating a of the random set and Zsol is shown as a dashed line. The standard deviation of the crosses from this regression is sa =0.0113. A minimal deviation of  3sa (solid line) is adopted as a formal criterion for the final selection. The selected objects on the Moon listed in Table I all have reasonable levels of archaeological interest.


It is shown that computerized archaeological reconnaissance of the Moon is practicable. The proposed methods can be used for more extensive lunar survey and for planetary SETI in general.
Formally, there are the ruin-like formations on the Moon. Of course, the ruin-like objects could be geological formations, but they could be archaeological objects too. This second possibility is so important, that it should not be ignored a priori. Thus, any hill is natural for geologist, but an archaeologist has the right to suspect the hill as a tumulus or ancient settlement. Only direct exploration of the Moon can decide between artificial or natural origin of these unusual lunar formations. Obviously ruin-like formations are interesting as geological anomalies, at the very least.


The author is very grateful to Dr. Y.G. Shkuratov for access to the Clementine's CDs. I also thank Dr. F.G. Graham, Dr. J. Fiebag, Dr. T. Van Flandern, Dr. L.N. Litvinenko and Dr. J. Strange for discussions and support.


1. A.V. Arkhipov and F.G. Graham, "Lunar SETI: A Justification", in The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) in the Optical Spectrum II, ed. S.A. Kingsley & G.A. Lemarchand, SPIE Proceedings, Vol. 2704, SPIE, Washington, 150-154, 1996.
2. A.V. Arkhipov, "Earth-Moon System as a Collector of Alien Artefacts", J. Brit. Interplanet. Soc., 51, 181-184 (1998).
3. B.V. Andrianov, Ancient irrigation systems of Aral Region. Nauka Publishing House, Moscow, 1969, p. 29.
4. DoD/NASA, "Mission to the Moon", Deep Space Program Science Experiment, Clementine EDR Image Archive. Vol. 1-88. Planetary Data System & Naval Research Laboratory,  Pasadena, 1995 (CDs).
5. M.J. Carlotto, M.C. Stein, "A Method for Searching for Artificial Objects on Planetary Surfaces", J. Brit. Interplanet. Soc., 43, 209-216, (1990).
6. J. Fiebag, Analyse tektonischer Richtungsmuster auf dem Mars. Kein Hinweise auf knstliche Strukturen in der sdlichen Cydonia-Region // Astronautik, Heft 1, 9-13, 47-48 (1990).
7. T.L. Stroup, "Lunar Bases of the 20th Century: What Might Have Been", J. Brit. Interplanet. Soc., 48, 3-10 (1995).
8. S. Matsumoto, T. Yoshida, K. Takagi, R.J. Sirko, M.B. Renton, J.W. McKee, "Lunar Base System Design", J. Brit. Interplanet. Soc., 48, 11-14 (1995).
9. W.Z. Sadeh and M.E. Criswell, "Inflatable Structures for a Lunar Base", J. Brit. Interplanet. Soc., 48, 33-38 (1995).
10. J. Sved, G.L. Kulcinski, G.H. Miley, "A Commercial Lunar Helium 3 Fusion Power Infrastructure", J. Brit. Interplanet. Soc., 48, 55-61 (1995).
11. M.J.F. Fowler, Examples of Satellite Images in Archaeological Application // URL:
12. J. Roney, Cerro de Trinchera Archeological Sites // The Aerial Archaeology.  Newsletter. Vol. 1, No. 1, 1998 /
URL: and She_in_shadow.html


Table I. Selected Ruin-Like Formations of the Moon

Longitude      Latitude    Type    Dimensions            Image                       Description
(deg.)           (deg.)                       (km)
________     _______    ____     _________     _____________      ____________________

28.04           -76.45          a          5.3 x 5.6        LHD0132B.290      separate group of
rectangular walls and
qadrangular hills

28.31            79.11          c          1.2 x 1.5         LHD5502Q.290      curious pattern of linear
and broken band
depressions of ~100m-
width and  ~8m-depth

31.06           78.84          c            0.3 x 1.3        LHD5256Q.293       rectangular zigzag band
of flat depression of

151.21         -76.24         b             0.8 x 0.8       LHD0470B.112       rectangular claster of

246.08          81.88         a              2.2 x 2.2       LHD7638R.343       rectangular walls of
100m-width  and the
box-like hill of

301.11         85.59        a-b            0.8 x 0.8       LHD6749R.318        complicated
rectangular  structure
on the top of a hill (Fig. 1)




Status: Offline
Posts: 94
Permalink Closed

Hi Humanoid, I checked source code of pages and I see no malicious javascript, active links or anything that would indicate virus presence.. In a fact these pages are so simple they have no style sheets whatsoever, it must have been written a good while ago.. Pure html. I don't know why your antivirus software is reacting like that.. Maybe it's something in their server's setting? Don't know. I had no problems with them anyway. Later I can post them pages here if you like.

-- Edited by counter on Friday 18th of September 2009 06:12:58 AM


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 335
Permalink Closed

Hi Counter, out of the three links you have given, the first works fine but the other two seem to contain some sort of html virus. Can you check them again please? Cheers mate smile

-- Edited by Humanoid on Thursday 17th of September 2009 10:13:13 PM



Status: Offline
Posts: 94
Permalink Closed

Analysis of Clementine lunar pictures in searching for artificial structures. Tens of possible locations discovered, very interesting article.

Please note this post was edited by admin

-- Edited by Xenon on Friday 18th of September 2009 06:33:47 PM

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to

Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard