The Reality Gap Part 3
The Real Story of Tracy’s Rock
“The CIA will do things and you won’t know how they did it.” ~Senator Daniel Moynihan, 1994
In 1977 an amateur astronomer by the name of George Leonard published a book entitled – Somebody Else Is on the Moon. (See photo left) This is the book which had gotten engineer Vito Sacherri interested in contacting NASA Houston (Johnson Space Center) and after persistence had led to viewing uncensored lunar photos in a subterranean library as stated in Part 2. Leonard lived near Greenbelt Maryland and had visited the National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC) many times to look at the large printed photos NASA kept in ‘tubs’ outside available for public examination. In his book George Leonard stated that had received guidance as to where and what to look for from a NASA scientist who wished to remain anonymous. Leonard made many interesting claims concerning lunar discoveries some of which were later supported by Vito Sacherri’s testimony. One significant observation was that numerous near side craters had adjacent markings with large Greek letters. Leonard consulted with mining engineers who told him that what appeared as alterations inside and around the crater terrains were consistent with terrestrial industrial mining operations. Leonard speculated that the Greek letters identified crater ownership.
However intriguing, most of the photographic plates reproduced in Leonard’s book were of insufficient resolution and a disappointment. However, a claim supported by one plate though really did stand out. It was a crop of lo5 h168-2. The image was taken by Lunar Orbiter 5 over Vitello crater on August 17th 1967 (See photo below- labeling and magnified inset added)
NASA claims the following- The ‘Boulder’- “has rolled and slid down a slope and left a trail on the Moon’s surface. This is within the crater Vitello, and demonstrates the small role that such processes, called gravity wasting, have on the lunar surface.” Gravity wasting according to NASA theory is the result of heating and cooling, expansion and contraction combined with gravity forces moving a boulder downslope.
NASA’s description that the ‘Boulder’ has rolled and slid downhill is a lie and they well know it. The ‘Boulder’ has actually moved uphill from inside a depression or minor crater and stopped its movement well beyond the rim as did a lesser sized object which came out from inside an adjacent minor crater travelling uphill and continuing well past the rim. The trail left behind the major object is somewhat repetitive, track like, and machine made in appearance. What you are likely looking at is two mechanical objects that had been traveling across the lunar regolith. NASA’s explanation/theory of gravity wasting in describing what is going on here is complete nonsense as is another one of their ‘Cover Theories’ called “Instant Rock.” Peddling the contrived theories in conjunction with low quality, altered photos are integral to deceiving the public.
As with much Apollo imagery NASA relies on the public’s ignorance of actual camera capabilities. The fixed resolution of the available ‘Boulder’ in the lo5 h168-2 image is purposely denuded. NASA estimates the larger ‘boulder’ (object) to be 75 feet in width. Upon magnification the object itself appears obscured by possible reflectivity of the object’s surface but just as likely due to airbrushing a ‘bright spot’ representing it as reflectivity. Certainly, NASA has a much more precise version of this frame in their possession.
NASA chose the Apollo 17 Expedition location after extensive review of an orbital photo reconnaissance of the Taurus Littrow Valley previously made by Apollo 15. One of the major considerations for choosing this location was the observed over two hundred distinct sets of ‘Boulder Tracks’ in the area.
Five years after the above-discussed Lunar Orbiter image (lo5 h168-2) was taken and transmitted back to Earth, NASA would send a two-man team to the lunar surface, in part, to investigate just such an occurrence up close. It would become known as Tracy’s Rock.
On arriving at the Taurus Littrow Landing Site and upon exiting the Lunar Excursion Module a particularly large ‘boulder’ along with its prominent ‘trail’ could easily be seen on the slopes of the North Massif above the valley floor. In the #20694 Collage the Dark Boulder appears above and to the far left of Mission Commander Gene Cernan with two black arrows pointing it out in that Hasselblad frame. (See Collage in Part 1) This boulder is also visible in the labeled version of AS17-134-20429 as seen in Part 2. Multiple photos were taken of what NASA describes as the ‘Dark Boulder’ and its trail from the valley floor along with a number of other ‘boulders’ and their trails on the slopes on the 4600 foot North Massif using the modified Hasselblad EL Medium Format Camera with a 500mm telephoto lens from three separate locations. Labeled as #26 in Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report- Figure 8-15 (see below)
In the images of what NASA describes as the Dark Boulder the trail is seen as largely uniform, fairly diamond shaped, repetitive imprints, and not at all consistent with a boulder rolling and sliding over time down the slope but entirely consistent in appearance with a machine-made track. The object itself has been ‘blurred’ but is symmetric in appearance. (See labeled photo AS17-144-21991 crop below)
The shadow of the Dark Boulder is inconsistent with other objects in the vicinity. This inconsistency of shadow length and or direction was a fairly common error found in the alterations. Keep in mind the actual film which NASA is withholding is easily magnified and would depict the object crystal clear.
Also, the trail of Tracy’s Rock is labeled as “h” in the above FIGURE 8-15.
In the publicly available direct film scan medium resolution images (from the NASA History Office circa 2004) a second boulder or object clearly appears as being smooth, rounded, and grey in color. (Reference photo 21255) This medium resolution frame had been purposefully processed slightly out of focus to obfuscate detail of the object. This is confirmed by the fixed Roseau Grid being blurred. I had included in my film order to the NSSDC in 2004 multiple frames of this second ‘boulder’ and its trail which were seen as identical to the high-resolution versions available online from the NASA History Office in 2004.
What was found was that in the high-resolution version of the exact same frame (AS17- 139-21255) the smooth grey in appearance object became irregular and discolored. The gray object had been altered (airbrushed) to appear as a boulder) Again, the object’s appearance had been altered to look like a rock. (HR version is on left in side-by- side comparison below) Note the grainy appearance of the magnified ‘HR’ crop on the left indicating that the purported High-Resolution version is a scan of a printed photograph and not a direct film scan as the more accurate right-hand crop was.
Further confirmation of tampering and manipulation of this particular frame is evidenced by comparing the fiducials in the crops below. In the medium resolution version, the fiducials are faint and washed out indicating it was processed out of focus. In the purported high-resolution version, the fiducials are sharp having been ‘re-drawn in’ during the alteration process. Note also how washed out or indistinct the boulder trail appears in both images. (Below)
In 1979, six years after the Apollo program ended, a retired Maurice Chatelain (The Chief Electrical Engineer for North American Aviation who oversaw the design, construction, and implementation of the Apollo communications network) published a book with the audacious title – Our Ancestors Came from Outer Space.
Chatelain stated the reason for writing the book was that he had always been interested in archeology and now had the time to devote to the subject. His book covered a number of interesting finds supporting the book title and thesis. One object that Chatelain had particularly stressed was the Antikythera Mechanism or Rhodes Calculator. The device had been among numerous items recovered from a sunken Roman merchant ship laden with statuary that had gone down off the Island of Rhodes almost 2000 years prior. The ship’s discovery was made by Greek sponge divers in 1900 with salvage operations beginning in 1901. At first, the item was an unrecognizable clump but appeared to be the remains of some unknown device. Detailed analysis performed over fifty years later found that the object had been a complex celestial calculator containing reduction gears not thought to have been developed for another approximately 1500 years. (See photo right)
Antikythera Mechanism, Fragment A – National Museum of Archaeology in Athens (above)
Chatelain had commented that objects found on the moon may be unrecognizable due to “unknown processes.” He had purposefully used the Rhodes Calculator as an example.
In around 2005 I had read a firsthand report coming out of the second Iraq invasion. What the observer stated was that in a street battle between Iraqis and Western forces he saw an Abrams type tank modified with a strange turret go past towards a full-sized bus behind which fire from opposing forces was coming. He then saw some kind of a plasma beam shoot from the tank turret engulfing the bus. The witness reported that when the smoke cleared the approximate 40-foot-long bus had shrunken in size to twisted wreckage about 8 feet in length. Other reports of exotic weapons speak of metal crumbling to the touch after exposure.
So, as if it weren’t bad enough, in addition to the previously discussed methods used by NASA to censor objects in lunar images, when evaluating them one had to also consider the possible effects of high technological weaponry as well as prolonged exposure to essentially unfiltered solar radiation. Why? Because through very careful review of the available Apollo imagery there is substantial reason to conclude that the advanced surface installation in the Taurus Littrow Valley was attacked and largely destroyed sometime in the distant past. And, the violent event(s) on the Lunar surface may have been widespread and not merely limited to the Taurus Littrow Valley.
Hidden In Plain Sight
On December 13,1972 explorers Harrison Schmitt and Gene Cernan arrived at Geology Station 6 during the third and final EVA of their expedition. Officially they were there to perform a geotechnical reconnaissance as part of an investigation of what NASA described as “A large split boulder” that through Gravity Wasting had found its way to near the bottom of the North Massif above the valley floor. As per NASA lore, while taking a soil sample from the dust cover on top of Fragment 1 Mission Commander Gene Cernan had scribbled his daughter Tracy’s name, on the surface. The object had then after become known as Tracy’s Rock.
Below is an official NASA image of the Station 6 Boulder- (Fragment 1 is the large portion closest to Harrison Schmitt in the lower left of the frame.)
It is a mosaic of frames AS17-140-21493 and 21496. This photo was the most requested Apollo image of all time according to the National Space Science Data Center. The first time I saw it was in 1973 while looking through an issue of National Geographic. I had studied it for some time and even then, something seemed off about it. As you will come to understand, the image is an illusion. It is not what astronauts Schmitt and Cernan saw. It is not what the camera recorded.
Schmitt and Cernan took more photographs of and about this Station 6 split boulder than any other object in all of the Apollo surface missions. The photo is one of NASA’s crown jewels of publicly available lunar images. The fact is, many of the photos taken from different locations of this ‘large split boulder’ don’t line up. They don’t reconcile. And, when scrutinized, NASA’s Tracy’s Rock story falls apart. By now the reader should at least suspect as to what NASA has grossly misrepresented and concealed for over 50 years.
Which brings us to Richard Feynman (Nobel Laureate, Physics,1965) who stated-
“The exception tests the rule.” Or, put another way. “The exception proves that the rule is wrong.” That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.”
Not wishing to alienate or bore the reader, a certain amount of attention to detail, which some will find tedious, is required to understand the discoveries. We can begin with NASA’s Gravity Wasting theory which has already been shown to be a sham as applied to their interpretations of lo5 h168-2.
Again, the Station 6 official story of course is that over time a large split boulder through heating and cooling, expansion and contraction along with gravity forces found its way down from the mid slopes of the 7000-foot North Massif coming to rest on the lower slopes just above the valley floor. NASA even throws in meteor impact or moonquakes as a possible initiating factor.
If this were the case, we would then expect the trail to trend downslope roughly perpendicular to the fairly uniform contours as most of the other labeled objects in Figure 8-15. However, this is not what is clearly documented in multiple NASA photos. What we see instead is the Station 6 boulder trail moving across the massif trending with the contours at roughly a 35-degree angle which is consistent with a self-propelled machine. (As seen in Figure 8-15, “h” from the Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report above) Not so curiously, we do not see, nor are ever shown, detailed images of the tracks made by the Station 6 ‘Boulder.’
NASA describes photo AS17-141-21573 as the Rover approaching Station 6. (See labeled image below)
The frame documents multiple inconsistences:
It shows the Station 6 boulder well on the valley floor far from the slope break of the North Massif towards the West end. This being obviously the wrong location for Station 6 which is said to be on the lower slopes of the Massif and rests towards the East end as per Figure 8-15. The boulder fragments starting with #1 are facing towards the west in the opposite direction as they should. The sun lit side faces towards the North with shadows trending South. Fragment 4 (The large object to the right in the upper crops) looks completely different than in other photos. An additional boulder at the rear of Fragment 2 is clearly seen in different positions. (Graphic based on AS17-141-21573 and 74 digitized film scans courtesy Keith Laney)
At Station 6 in comparing the view of the object (Fragments 1 and 2) upslope from both the North and South, NASA’s presentation (as with the approach) again falls apart as seen in the labeled graphic below. With very little study the observer will conclude that in no way do the two images reconcile. Some of the more evident inconsistencies are arrowed and numbered.
- The north image shows a protruding surface dim but visible. The south image in the same area is totally shaded.
- Another sunlit protrusion area seen in the image taken from the north is missing in the south view.
- Area 3 in the north view is in full shade while in the object’s surface in the south view is discernible.
- The slope and shape of the outline of the rear surface of Fragment 2 in the two views are very different.
- Based upon the north image view of this area, as seen from the south should be partially if not fully obstructed.
- The shadow being cast upon the ground in the north view is grossly inconsistent with what is seen in the south view which only a miraculous arrangement of surface relief in the immediate area could explain.
- Compare the area between Fragments 1 and 2 with that as seen in the Downslope Comparison 21438. *(Where the yellow “1” is in 21495)
Figure 6-14 from the Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report (right) is a diagram of the purported Station 6 boulder including sample locations. Note the approximate 3-foot gap between Fragments1 and 2.
Figure 6-116 Planametric map of station 6 (below right) shows both photo and 15 sample locations. Note the boulder track location.
The next censored image comparison of the remains of the Station 6 forty-five foot long Lunar Walker which NASA has disguised as a boulder comes from an obscure publication once available online from the NASA History Office entitled Apollo Expeditions to the Moon. Chapter 14 written by the astronaut in the photo, Harrison Schmitt contains still another mosaic version of Tracy’s Rock as seen from upslope. In this earlier cruder version however, NASA commits a major error. When comparing it to the official HR version we will first look at a prominent area emanating from Fragment 2 labeled as Area A in the graphic below. The difference is striking. Area A as seen in the isolated crop on the left is mechanical in appearance. The same Area A on the right crop from the official NASA image demonstrates a valuable lesson on what is really going on with space imagery.
Area A isolates and documents the existence a corroded mechanical member which would have functioned as one of four ‘legs’ of the Lunar Walker. The outline of the upper portion of the second (rear) upslope leg is seen to the right of Area A (Arrowed)
The forward end or front of the Lunar Walker is obviously what NASA labels as “Fragment 1 of their Boulder.’ This is where the humanoid operator(s) would likely be positioned. If their technology was not that all advanced from where the public understands we are in this present day there would have probably been visor or windshield like affair on the front.
Let’s take a look in the above images. You say it’s not there? Why can’t you see it?… Because that area in the photo was altered.
In the image labeled Tracy’s Rock Fragment 1 (right) compare the two crops at the top. The red oval outlined area on the left has been obfuscated by painting a blob of rock over this area. This is proven by looking at the right-hand crop of the same area shown in a subsequent frame where the fake rock facing is missing.
Directly below the top left crop is a blue tinted crop derived from what NASA described as a medium resolution direct film scan. It is an alteration as well but appears as an earlier, cruder version of the same image. You can actually resolve the individual airbrush strokes blocking out this area. (Blue arrow points out a pronounced brush line.) The sprayed-on blob of fake rock on the right-hand side of the area in the medium resolution version is much less refined as compared in the so called High Resolution version as seen above it.
Finally, in the far lower right-hand image the graphic shows yet another frame crop of the same view shield area (As seen in 21475HR). In this image the right side of the windshield area has no sprayed-on rock agreeing with that which is seen in 21482. On the left side, the technician takes further artistic freedom by painting in three small boulders in this area projecting out far enough that they had their own fake shadows. The view of the downslope visor area is significantly different in appearance than in all other frames.
Before we leave Fragment 1 and move downslope, I recommend we closely examine one small but very interesting area. The specific area is highlighted Left appearing in all versions of frame 21496. When again comparing the earlier medium resolution direct film scan with the present official version (as with the above ‘windshield area’) there is an obvious difference, with the medium resolution film scan version more accurate. As seen in the lower res version it appears to be some kind of access or service plate that, over time, has detached and moved out of its original position in a shaped or keyed opening. Material appearing as tubing or wiring (seen as white) emanates from the back side. Further study of the area shows a single long wire or tube projecting out of the opening on the right side and extending well past the access plate. Once it passes the plate line its color transitions from white to blue blending in with the surface. The official or purported High Resolution version (right) has obviously been obscured with the opening now indistinct, the wiring and tubing flattened to appear as -part of the surface beneath the dust cover. The plate itself has now been blended into the dust. The long wire or tubing on the right has disappeared. The photographic alteration is now complete, almost…
To put a cherry on top of this specific instance of fraud NASA then decides to give an account of this area in the Preliminary Science Report as follows- “furrows made with sample bag held in Gene’s right hand” The wires or tubing coming out of the opening are now “furrows” made by a sample bag. Note- the astronaut in the photo holding the gnomon is Harrison Schmitt. -(See a17-21496lbl label detailNASA first right image)
Ask yourself this question- If NASA’s labeled detail account (below left) is correct, then why does the ground directly below or to the right or left of the ‘furrow’ area appear “undisturbed.” Where are Gene Cernan’s boot prints?
As for the “area disturbed by Gene’s left hand” this may well be just cover for another manipulated and censored area. 22 (See a17-21496lbl label detailNASA below)
One last thing. And, as if this weren’t enough, NASA also provides another labeled photo of “furrows made by sample bag” but this time they depict Fragment 1 with the dustcover and ‘furrows on the downslope side. (See detail above right) Compare the two details.
Moving downslope to the South side or what NASA describes as the “sunlit” face of the object we will next look at Fragments 2-3 (Refer to Figure 6-116 Planimetric Map)
Even with extensive image manipulation, the downslope side on Fragment 2 should conform to the upslope view to some degree. Below is graphic labeled Tracy’s Rock Downslope comparison. The top left is official image as per NASA – AS17-140-21438 “Station 6. Sunlit face of Fragment 2” The small boulder to the extreme left is purportedly Fragment 3. Fragment 1 is nowhere to be seen. This is obviously a substitute boulder When I downloaded the Medium Resolution frames (Blue tinted) circa 2004 the NASA History Office specifically represented them as being direct scans of the original film. Looking at the bottom center of the image just below the blue lettering you will see the number 23 ink stamped. This indicates the image may be a scan but derived from an image of a printed photograph and certainly not the original film. The number is some sort of grading stamp. The image to the top right purports to show Cernan standing in front of Fragment 2 with Fragment 1 to the right. The bottom left 23 image purports to show Fragments 2 and 3 as viewed from the west. The bottom right image shows yet ‘another’ Fragment 2 and 3 as seen from upslope. There are several other frames purporting to show a downslope view of this area. None conform. None of the photos align with each other or the upslope images. All are obviously of somewhere else, are altered, or both. 21438 purporting to show “Fragment 2” is an especial example of the blatant fraud. Yet this farcical account has stood for 50 years. Once the reader understands Tracy’s Rock, NASA’s charade is over.
To further clarify the inconsistencies two more comparisons of the purported 1 and 2 rock fragments are made in the graphics below.
I think the reader will conclude that the point has been proven and see no need at this time to examine the conflicting positions of Fragment 4-5 as represented in various manifestations as it is just more of the same.
We can now with confidence pronounce NASA’s Tracy’s Rock story a Dead Horse.
One last thing. Before we leave Station 6 and move to Station 2 at Nansen Crater we will look closer at a final image. It is AS17-141-21608HR. (As seen in the upper right in the Tracy’s Rock Downslope Comparison collage above and to the left)
NASA states- “This is a before photo of the gnomon location and the light-colored inclusions visible in Fragment 1 on the right-hand side of the image. Fragment 2 is beyond Gene.” This photo is of good clarity more consistent with a 70mm film image. It may have been taken at Station 6 but is not part of Tracy’s Rock.
It shows Mission Commander, Gene Cernan posing for a picture. The gnomon (which has a color scale attached to the forward leg and an 18 inch or 30.5-centimeter vertical rod for scale) is in the center of the frame. Cernan is not facing the camera but rather looking toward the area in front of the gnomon where we see two large rocks. (Circled in red) Consistent to their training, the photo composition indicates Schmitt and Cernan are documenting a significant find. Based upon my understanding of the manipulation of the Apollo imagery the two circled areas are almost certainly their focus and have been altered/painted to appear as ‘natural rock’ as well as likely the surface of Fragments 1 and 2.
To close, your attention is directed to an odd detail; the reflection in Cernan’s helmet as shown in the 21608HR.crop with inset. (Right)
It documents the figure of a third individual, watching as the photo was taken. Note: the figure in the reflection who should be Harrison Schmitt would be facing the subject (Cernan) with his hand on his bracketed Hasselblad Camera handle if he were the one taking the photo in the reflection. He is not. There is no camera. Additionally, the astronaut backpack and pressure suit front appear inconsistent with US gear.
That’s right. They weren’t alone!
Also, significantly, looking at the rest of the helmet reflection whatever is seen does not agree with that which is seen in the main photo.
For comparison, a graphic based upon AS12-49-7278HR (Below Left) shows Apollo 12 Astronaut Alan Bean posing for a picture . Astronaut Charles Conrad taking the photograph can clearly be seen facing the subject with his left hand on the camera handle/trigger in the helmet reflection. The below graphic (Right) is for additional reference.
