http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...1/5382/1476/F1
The front and back versions look remarkably similar.

"Several processes have been proposed to explain the formation and
support mechanism of lunar mascons"

But why the hell there is a rush to explain and thus coat with ****
any further research on the reasons for their existence is beyond me.
Is it a sop to the likes of (for example -no particular merit in them
justifies the ad hominem attack) George and Skywise (mere palls of a
nebula who would I am sure, otherwise find this stuff interesting and
might get involved, if only it could be put to good use.)

The article I read leading to the above, notes that:

"Although mascons also exist on Mars, none have been found on Venus or
Earth; those two larger planets, however, have had an active tectonic
(geological) past that has drawn their crusts down into their
interiors several times in the past few billion years, homogenizing
the distribution of mass."

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...v_loworbit.htm

Cobblers written before Grace and Iris got off the ground perhaps? The
paper was written some 10 years ago.

The mascon that stretches from Britain and Norway to just off the
coast of Florida might not have such a large field in comparison to
the anomalies on the moon but they do serve their purpose.

Coupled with the negative vibes given off by the east Canadian shield
(one wonders if the magnetic poles are involved) their effect on the
planet's weather is very much in evidence to this thaumaturge.