If you click on the photo above you will see the outline of what, some say, is a city square or at the least something that is out of place. For a better view I have included the cropped and magnified area of the photo below.

When I look at this area of the moon, I have to admit that I just don't see anything special. There are other areas of the moon that perk my interest much more. The photo below is from Apollo 10. It is of the crater Hyginus near Central Bay.

The photos are from AS10 - 31 - 4650 and represent, what I think is a very strange feature. I couldn't help but be fascinated by the formation that looks like it has wings. To me it looks something like my bad art below.

When others look at the photos above, they may see nothing for that is the nature of photographs. One person may see a face in a photo and the next sees just a pile of rocks or a hill. Many abnormalities that were supposedly found in moon photos were only found after the photos were processed over and over. As photos are processed over and over artifacts began to appear in the photos. Pixels get bigger and form block type objects. Parts of the photo may get dark or light, changing the shape of objects. Processed photos can sometimes be very dangerous to base scientific opinions on. They may be fun to look at and some simple processed photos such as those that are lightened or darkened a little or not magnified to the point of distortion, might even yield some useful facts. The problem is that many of the moon photos that claim to be important finds have been processed to death or magnified to the point that even if there was some sort of object detected, one would not be able to even detect the true shape.

I have taken a NASA photo AS10 - 32 - 4845 and subjected it to intensive photo processing. As each section was cropped more photo processing was applied.

This portion of the photo was magnified about six times and processed for contrast. Notice the square structure near the top.

Here is the second step. I have magnified the north tip of the structure a couple of more times and enhanced the contrast, changed the gamma and increased the brightness. You can almost see the square structure which I have enlarged.

I cropped more of the structure and reprocessed brightness, contrast, sharpness, color enhancement and gamma. I also applied a slight magnification. Notice how the shadows appeared causing shapes to appear. It would be very easy to see something in this photo that was never in the original. For example one might say that the objects on the left of the photo seem to be higher in elevation than those on the right side. This photo is so deformed that it might as well be the head of an ant which it resembles.

Photos that are treated this way and then used as evidence are useless. I think many of us have see those over processed photos of claimed abnormalities on the moon. Some are so enlarged, cropped and enlarged again and again that there is no way to tell what they really look like. One that comes to mind is a photo, of what is claimed to be a castle, that is hanging from a cable. Is it a victim of over processing? First of all, the thought of a castle hanging from a cable seems a little strange for an advanced civilization that made it to the moon, don't you think? Second, think of a photo that has been enlarged multiple times without a "cable" showing and must be enlarged tremendously so that "cable" can be seen. Could this be some sought of flaw in the process? Perhaps so, given the facts. If you want to see the so called castle, paste this address into your browser - http://www.mufor.org/moon/castlela.jpg If you want to see the "cable" holding it up, paste this address into your browser - http://www.mufor.org/moon/castwire.jpg

Please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that all the abnormalities that appear in photos don't really exist. What I am saying is that some people in their haste to find something of an alien nature in a moon photo are getting too aggressive with the photo processing. Anyone who uses these programs on a semi regular basis knows that they deform photos when too much processing is applied. Even common things like faces and landscapes can get so deformed that they look like alien artifacts. This is almost like forcing evidence to appear that didn't really exist.

Just one word to the wise, if you have to over process the photo to prove your point you have lost your point already.