Aliens on the Moon

There are many people, including mainstream Western scientists, who have pointed out numerous highly strange and irregular things about the moon.

A few years ago David Icke brought the book 'Who Built The Moon?' by Chris Knight and Alan Butler to attention, and concluded that the moon is an unnatural object that has been placed there for some reason - possibly as a broadcasting station.

Icke further linked the moon to Saturn, and theorized that the "Matrix" in which we live is actually a program originally broadcast by Saturn and amplified by the moon.

Going back to the book Who Built The Moon by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler They give a description about the book and it is this

'Despite the fact that the Moon is almost certainly 4.6 billion years old, we will demonstrate

beyond all reasonable doubt that Earth’s Moon cannot be a natural object. And then we shall

explain in detail how the agency that manufactured the Moon left a series of detailed messages of

what had been done and for whom it had been undertaken'

So it is worth reading if you want a more detailed version of what the Moon is.

A man going by the name of Crrow777 has filmed some astonishing footage of the moon in the video below.

He caught something which he dubbed the "lunar wave" going across the surface of the moon, from bottom to top as it appeared on his camera.

This lunar wave has the appearance of a line that moves across a computer screen during a reset. It looks digital, electronic or holographic. Yet, how could that possibly be true if the moon were just a natural satellite of Earth, made from rock?

Of course, many skeptics and naysayers have criticized his findings and claimed the lunar wave must be a result of his recording equipment, and not local to the moon itself.

However, as Crrow shows in the video, by adjusting various layers, colors and lighting, you can see that the wave actually occurred on or above the moon's surface, and has nothing to do with his camera.

The implications are staggering.

I conclude from this that the lunar wave is showing us at least 2 possibilities (and maybe more):

1.The moon's true surface is being cloaked by some kind of advanced holographic technology, to hide things below, probably bases, structures and evidence of extraterrestrial life on the lunar surface; or

2.The moon itself is holographic. It has no solid physical existence, but is rather a projection of light, a hologram made to look 3-dimensional.





This smuggled Project Blue Book film(below) reveals definitive proof of alien on Moon. Shot during 2 minute radio silence period of Apollo 11 mission. Neil Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin witnessed this incident shortly after landing Apollo 11 on the moon. At the time this happened, the live television broadcast was interrupted for two minutes due to a claimed “overheated camera”.

This is a 16mm film recording of the original live video transmission, sent directly to the US government but blocked from public broadcast. The film was recently smuggled from an undisclosed government location.



Below the 5 most mysterious photos caught by NASA on the moon.







Thirteen “orbs” erupt from the Moon.

In September, 2012, a noted astronomer released

footage that on the face of it seems to support the idea the Moon may be hollow. This is a direct

quote:

“While filming the Moon on September the 15th 2012 with my telescope and Canon EOS

600D I spotted 13 orbs probably starting from a secret alien moonbase.



Astronaut Scott Carpenter. “At no time when the astronauts were in space were they alone. There was a constant surveillance by UFOs"
Scott Carpenter had a long and illustrious career. In 1962, 
he was only the second American astronaut to circle the Earth.


Professor: What really happened out of Apollo 11?

Buzz Aldrin: An amazing thing, even though we have always known of this possibility. The fact is that they (aliens) have ordered us to turn away! .

Professor: What do you mean “warned to move away”?

Buzz Aldrin: I can not go into details, there are structures on the Moon, and not ours. I can only say that their ships were far superior to ours both in size and technology. Wow if you were big! … And menacing!

Professor: But NASA also sent to the moon missions after Apollo 11 ….

Buzz Aldrin: Naturally, NASA had already announced at that time, and could not risk panic on Earth .


According to the American ufologist Vladimir Azhazha, “Buzz Aldrin said to Mission Control that two large unknown objects were watching him and Aldrin after landing on the moon. But this message was never heard by the public, because NASA censored it. “But a 2006 video interview made astronaut Buzz Aldrin, it is analyzed the footage of the meeting between the Apollo 11:02 UFO. This was just one of many “encounters” with aliens, duration the journey to the moon.

It should also add that for some time circulating on the Internet an audio file that contains the conversation between the astronauts and control center in Houston, captured from various terrestrial radio stations frequency ultra-fast, before NASA suppressed in the telecast that illustrated the ‘ arrival of Apollo XI on the moon (NASA despite assertions to the contrary, there was in fact a slight shift between the real-Apollo NASA communications and those relayed to the world).

Here is the full text:

Astronaut 1: But what is that?

Astronaut 2: Do you have an explanation?

Houston: Do not worry, stick to the program!

Astronaut 1: My God, it’s amazing, that’s great, do not you could ever imagine!

Houston: We know this, go to the other side!

Astronaut 1: What the hell is that? It’s amazing …… God … but what is it? So, you tell me?

Houston: Change frequency, use Tango, Tango!

Astronaut 1: Then it is a form of life, that one!

Houston: Change frequency.

Houston: Use Tango Bravo, Bravo Tango, choose Jezebel, Jezebel!

Astronaut: …… yes! Matutto … .. this is incredible!

Houston: Switch on Bravo Tango, Tango Bravo!

At this point the connection is broken.


UFO filmed crossing over the moon for 1 minute.




Astronauts Frank Borman and Astronaut James Lovell

At the end of 1965, these two 
astronauts were performing a Gemini mission when they witnessed a UFO. This took place on only 
their second orbit of Earth. When Astronaut Borman radioed in what he was seeing, Mission Control 
at Cape Kennedy questioned the validity of his observations, and pointedly wondered if what Borman 
was seeing was their own booster rocket. 
Borman countered this condescending question by saying the booster was in sight, but what he 
was viewing was not the booster. Although we have no pictures of this event (at least, none that were 
publicly released), the transcript is public. 
In it, Borman clearly states that it is (1) not the booster he and Lovell are viewing, (2) it is an 
unidentified object (and he was a trained observer, so for him not to be able to identify it, tells us 
something), and (3) there was more than one object. Another important point here; both astronauts 
saw these “bogeys.” Furthermore, NASA has not publicly commented to any extent on this sighting, 
had almost nothing to say about it at all. Why?


This is supposedly a video (below)of an alien female found in a abandoned spacecraft on the moon by the 
Apollo 20 astronauts in 1972 which NASA say was cancelled. But do we really believe them.




Below a video supposedly shot by Neil Armstrong in 1969






Below is a brief list of some of the more prominent moon anomalies which have been discovered:



Fact 1 : Far Side of the Moon
The first thing to know about the Moon, the one causing the most problems for the
average person, that trips them up the most, is one face of the Moon is always towards the Earth.
This means from Earth we can’t see the other side of the Moon. This other side has been
commonly known as the “dark side of the Moon.” This is a common fallacy and just wrong. Probably,
this idea of a dark side of the moon is due at least in part to the music band, Pink Floyd, and their
Dark Side of the Moon album, which was such a hit at one time.
Still, in reality this term is a misnomer, because it is not the dark side, a side of the Moon
permanently wrapped in night, as it were. All sides of the Moon get sunlight, just as the Earth does.
The Moon does have a day and night, with the daytime, as well as the nighttime, each being about
fourteen of our days in length. One full day on the Moon is about twenty-eight days here on Earth.
Roughly this is the equivalent of one month (one “moonth” as it was once known).
During that time, as daylight moves slowly across the surface of the Moon, we see it as phases
of the Moon in the night sky, as more or less area of the surface of our neighbor is lit by sunlight, with
the Moon waxing (becoming full), and waning (reducing to a new Moon).
Therefore, the term, “far side,” of the Moon is much more appropriate rather than “dark side.”
There is a reason why we stress the far side of the Moon here, and it’s another one of those
“mysteries” we wish to discuss later on, one concerning the thickness of the crust there.
However, because we only see one face of the Moon, the one always facing our Earth, this
meant that for most of the time we’ve been on this planet, humans simply didn’t know what the far
side of the Moon looked like. It was never revealed to us. So in a sense it was “dark,” but dark as in
us having no knowledge of it.
Thanks to photographs from various NASA missions to our nearest neighbor, and those from
satellites launched by other nations, in the last decades we think we have developed a good idea of what the far side of the Moon does look like. I say “think,” because there is a big question about those 
photographs. 


Fact 2 : No Volcanoes
Oddity of no volcanoes. The maria on the Moon, those large dark “seas” of lunar material are 
supposed to be from magma, molten rock. Yet, there seem to be no volcanoes on the Moon. There 
should be at least long-extinct ones if the Moon ever had a molten core. 
How could there have been these vast fields of lava (magma) upwelling from a molten interior, 
but not a single volcano anywhere on the Moon as a side effect of such vast geologic activity, as 
well? And to date, no volcanoes have been discovered on the Moon. This is a major oddity, and a 
very strange one. 
Also, how do we account for the Moon’s relatively young age compared to that of the Earth? 
Right now, scientists simply can’t account for this. Oh, there are a plethora of theories, but none of 
them really seems to make any sense yet. Something is definitely wrong with the theory if this is so. 


Fact 3 : Hollow Moon?
The website BibliotecaPleyades has an article from Ronald Regehr which states: 
"The moon's mean density is 3.34 gm/cm3 (3.34 times an equal volume of water) whereas the Earth's is 5.5. What does this mean? 
In 1962, NASA scientist Dr. Gordon MacDonald stated, 
"If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere." 
Nobel chemist Dr. Harold Urey suggested the moon's reduced density is because of large areas inside the moon where is "simply a cavity." 
MIT's Dr. Sean C. Solomon wrote, 
"the Lunar Orbiter experiments vastly improved our knowledge of the moon's gravitational field… indicating the frightening possibility that the moon might be hollow." 
More information about the hollow Moon theory . It was first recognized with the lunar Landers, and once having done their job, having been 
allowed to crash back onto the surface of the Moon. The result of these crashes was a phenomenon 
known as “resonance.” 
In simpler words and wholly unexpectedly, the Moon rang like the proverbial “bell.” (And bells 
are hollow.) Actually, some resonance is to be expected. Even when solid rock is struck, it tends to 
vibrate, but not like this! 
This “resonance” or ringing went on for a very long time. On November 20, 1969, which was 
the first time, the Moon “rang” for over an hour! Subsequently, when a portion of the Apollo 13 
rocket, the third stage, struck the lunar surface, the Moon rang again, this time for over three hours! A 
ringing bell, indeed. 
The vibrations went as deep as 25 miles. Lunar seismographs, left on the Moon to record 
seismographic events, such as possible moonquakes, recorded this. This vibrating implies there could 
well be no lunar core at all. 


Fact 4 : Moon is too Big
Considering the Earth's size and magnetic field, it is quite unlikely to have a satellite at all, but if it were to have one, we could expect it to be something in the vicinity of 30 miles round. 
For instance, Mars' 2 moons, Phobos and Deimos, have diameters of 13 and 4 miles respectively. 
Yet, the Moon's diameter is around 2160 miles - bigger than Pluto - and more than 1/4 of the Earth's diameter! 


Fact 5 : Moon Measurements
The Moon's diameter is 400 times smaller than that of the Sun, and is 400 times closer to the Earth than the Sun - meaning the Moon neatly and exactly blocks out the Sun during a solar eclipse! 
What are the chances of this? 
The Moon blocks the Sun's disk so precisely during a solar eclipse that the Sun's corona can be studied, without which much of Einstein's work would not have been confirmed. 
Isaac Asimov described this as being "the most unlikely of coincidences". 
A one second arc of the Moon's rotation is exactly equal to 100 megalithic yards. Coincidence? 


Fact 6 : Moon's Round Orbit
This isn’t a small one, either. There is the oddity of the orbit of the Moon 
around the Earth. It is almost perfectly circular. Why is this strange? Well, almost all orbits of planets 
are elliptical, being sort of a slightly squashed circle in shape. 
Even planets found orbiting other star systems, and we have found at least a couple thousand of 
those already so far, have elliptical orbits. So, in other words, the Moon is not only in a strange orbit 
by our solar system’s standards, but it’s even strange for any other solar system, as well, apparently. 
Why is this so? Again, there are many theories, but none seem to adequately explain it well. 
There are flaws, big ones, inherent in all of them. 
So something has to “make” a 
planet or Moon take up a circular orbit. For the Moon to have such a one is an incredible oddity in 
itself and would have required real precision to achieve. So is this really just by chance, a 
coincidence. The number of coincidences at this point with regard to the Moon do act to stretch one’s 
credulity. 


Fact 7 : Moon's Wobble
Because of the nature of the orbit, the Moon‘s 
center of gravity does not align with its geometric center. It is off by some 6,000 feet, well over a 
mile (1,828.8 meters, approximately). 
What does this mean? Well, by all rights, the Moon should have a pronounced wobble as a result 
of this fact. Yet, amazingly, it doesn’t. And this causes a slight bulge, and where is that bulge? Well, it 
is on the far side of the Moon. 
To date, no wobble of the Moon has ever been seen. If the Moon is hollow, that would account 
for this state of affairs. “Something” in the interior could be offset, thus correcting for any such 
possible wobble. 
In his book Alien Agenda, Jim Marrs quotes this interesting idea from science writer William Roy Sheldon: 
"It is important to remember that something had to put the moon at or near its present circular pattern around the earth. 
Just as an Apollo spacecraft circling the Earth every ninety minutes, while one hundred and sixty kilometers high, has to have a velocity of roughly twenty-nine thousand kilometers per hour to stay in orbit, so something has to give the moon the precisely required velocity for its weight and altitude. 
The point - and it is one seldom noted in considering the origin of the moon - is that it is extremely unlikely that any object would just stumble into the right combination of factors required to stay in orbit. ‘Something' had to put the moon at its altitude, on its course and at its speed. 
The question is: what was that something?" 
What do all these moon anomalies real tell us about the object we call Luna? 
In short, the moon violates so many known laws of physics and so many expectations of what is normal, that it is easier to explain the non-existence of the moon than its existence. 
In this light, Irwin Shapiro of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics stated, 
"The best explanation for the moon is observational error - the Moon doesn't exist." 
The moon is perfectly positioned to give us the type of world we live in. Is this just a cosmic coincidence? 


Fact 8 : Helium on The Moon
Unlike on Earth, there is, apparently, a great deal of Helium 3 
on the Moon. Helium 3 is simply helium molecules made up of three atoms of Helium, but again, this 
is a rarity on the Earth. 
Estimates indicate there may be as much or even more than 1,100,000 tons of Helium 3 on the 
Moon. This is a phenomenal amount, but it has incredible implications. You see, Helium 3 is the ideal 
fuel for fusion power, which is even now in its later stages of development, with some real success in 
that endeavor being achieved in just the last few years. 
As a fuel, about 100 tons of Helium 3 would supply all of us on Earth with enough energy for an 
entire year. So if we do develop successful fusion power plants, the demand for Helium 3 will be 
great. And the Moon would be the best available source of such fuel and in great quantities. 
But maybe, we aren’t the first to discover the Moon as being a great source of this fuel? Some 
claim, and even show photographs to back such statements, that there were once (and could still be) 
alien mining operations on the surface of the Moon. Were they mining for Helium 3? 


Is The Moon Hollow?

Well, now that we’ve established the basic facts of the Moon, and have had a look at all the 
oddities, strange things involving our neighboring world, there follows the next question we must 
wonder about as a matter of course. That is, could the Moon actually be hollow? It sounds like an 
incredible question, we know, but there is some real basis for it being a fact, if only because of the 
oddities and some other evidence. 
Yes, there are questions about that “evidence” but then there are some major questions about 
every theory of the Moon’s origin, as well, as we’ve shown, but that doesn’t stop countless scientists 
and seemingly endless television shows from propounding them as if they were fact, even now. 
However, the Hollow Moon Theory seems to answer more questions than it raises, unlike the other 
origin theories. 
For instance, we’re betting anyone with an interest in this subject has seen at least one television 
show that shows a mars-sized planet (Theia) colliding with Earth to produce the Moon. Often, this 
“theory” is cited more as a fact, a given, than just what it really is, and that is a theory with some real 
problems attached to it. 
Now, let’s discuss some other much more controversial theories of the Moon’s origin, different 
ones most scientists (but not all), dismiss, or would like to dismiss out of hand. 
The Spaceship Moon Theory. This is probably the first, or at least one of the first real theories 
where the idea is discussed the Moon may not be what it seems to be, that it may, in fact, be hollow. 
This theory, which is often also referred to as the Vasin-Shcherbakov Theory, postulates the Moon 
may not actually be a satellite of Earth, at least not a natural one. 
Messrs. Michael Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, who at the time of the formulation of this 
theory were members in good standing of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, first proposed this idea in 
Is the Moon the Creation of Intelligence, an article they wrote in July of 1970. 
They developed the theory the Moon was an unnatural thing. They said it could well be a 
worldlet that had been hollowed out by aliens, ones obviously having a far superior technology to 
ours. They went on to say the aliens may well have used such technologies to make the center of the 
Moon molten and then removed this liquid magma by ejecting it onto the surface of the Moon. 
The result? The Moon would be a hollow shell, with a rocky and natural-looking exterior, 
except for those large areas of solidified magma, which we see as maria today. 
They further proposed the inner shell would be made of metal, for added structural support. At 
some point after this was done, our Moon was then moved into such a nearly perfect, circular orbit 
around the Earth for reasons unknown. 
Besides citing the maria as the exudate of the liquefied interior of the Moon, they also pointed to 
the craters on the Moon, particularly the larger ones, as another indication of their Spaceship Moon 
theory. 
You see, despite some of the Moon’s craters being truly massive in area, they are all very 
shallow, at least the larger ones are. If formed from meteors and asteroids colliding with the Moon, 
these scientists argued this would not be the case. The craters should be much deeper. 
Instead, again, they’re shallow and relatively flat in their centers. In some cases, the bottoms of 
the craters are even convex in shape, bulging slightly. They use this as further evidence the craters 
could not have been formed as thought by meteor impacts in the way believed by most astronomers. 
Is this a credible idea? Well, it does seem on the Moon the smaller craters do have depths 
proportionate to their area in size. Their interiors are proportionately deep to their diameters, in other 
words. However, as the two scientists argued, this doesn’t seem to be true of larger craters on the 
Moon. Why? 
How does one account for this disturbing discrepancy? Well, the authors say this is so because 
the smaller craters were actually created by meteor impacts, which burrow their way into the surface 
of the Moon. However, the two Russian scientists claim this layer is only about some five miles deep. 
The larger impact craters, which should have impacted more deeply, were stopped by the inner 
hull, the metal one supposedly manufactured by the aliens. This, the two scientists say, would account 
for the shallowness of the larger craters. Despite the size of the striking object, it’s speed, and force, 
the inner “hull” of the Moon deflected it back out, thus causing the results we see only with the larger 
craters in the form of flat and shallow centers. So although they are the results of impacts, they 
weren’t “allowed” to penetrate as deeply as they should, and thus the shallow interiors of the larger 
craters. 
They have a point. If what they argue is true, it would, indeed, account for the shallowness of 
larger craters, versus the more proportional depths of the smaller ones. The bigger meteors simply 
couldn’t get past the inner hull. The smaller impacts never drove that deeply into the Moon’s rocky 
surface to reach the inner hull, so their depth is “normal.” 
Also part of their theory is the thickness of the inner “steel” hull. They say that below the rocky 
outer layer of the Moon, the metal one might then be as much as 20 miles thick. Inside of this would 
be an open space, which could be used for any purpose or purposes. They also say it might well 
contain an atmosphere. 
Furthermore, both men also used the evidence of the composition of the material on the surface 
of the Moon. They pointed out that Titanium, Zirconium and Chromium make up a larger part of that 
material than on Earth, which makes it considerably different in detail from the materials on the crust 
of the Earth. 
So as much alike as the isotopic ratio and makeup of the Moon’s material to the Earth’s mantle 
material is, there are significant differences still. The scientists went even further. They said some 
rocks found on the Moon date farther back than any found on Earth, itself. What does this mean? Well, 
it must mean the Moon would then be older than the Earth, formed before it did… or the Moon was 
created before the Earth was by “someone.” 
Also, Apollo 17 brought back some dust samples, which were composed of orange glass 
spherules (tiny spheres), along with fragments of other minerals. The particles are quite small and 
range in size from 20 microns to 45 microns. What’s more, and quite differently than Apollo 11 
material brought back, the orange samples were highly and unaccountably wealthy in zinc content. 
What was the standard explanation for this by mainstream scientists? They say the material 
probably originated from volcanoes. Although, and despite a number of actual Moon landings by 
NASA, no volcanoes, active or extinct, have ever been discovered. 
Whether any ever existed on the Moon is a matter for conjecture. So if not volcanoes, from 
where did this “dust” then come? 
By these pieces of evidence, and others, Alexander and Michael argued the Moon might have 
been created before the Earth (again, citing the older age of some Moon rocks than any found on 
Earth), and so had a different origin. 
They weren’t alone in this belief. In his 1975 book Our Mysterious Moon, author Don Wilson 
listed a series of facts he believed acted as supporting evidence for the idea of a hollow Moon. 
Nor was he alone in this. Author George H Leonard in his book Someone Else Is on the Moon, 
published in 1976, included a series of NASA photos purportedly showing large and artificiallooking 
structures on the Moon. He believed some of these structures might be huge pieces of 
machinery. 
Do most other mainstream scientists discount this theory? Of course, they do. For one thing, they 
claim the disparity in the age of some rocks from the Moon versus the lesser age of those on Earth is 
due to tectonic activity on our planet. Rocks are “recycled” on Earth, and this accounts for the 
disparity. Being all recycled by now, they are simply younger. 
This is a plausible idea, but is it correct? Again, we simply don’t know. It’s just as much a 
theory at the moment as the Hollow Moon Theory is. However, to date, none seem to be able to 
account for the orange “dust” samples and their origin, or why they should be so heavy in zinc 
content. Also, none seem able to account for the difference in the amount of Chromium, Titanium and 
Zirconium between lunar surface samples of rocks and those of rocks on Earth. 
A steady stream of ancient 
and more recent sightings of strange events have, and continue even now, to occur on the Moon, 
including “pulses of light,” “beacons,” “flashes,” “streaks,” “beams,” “tracks,” etc. Again, so many of 
these sightings are there, NASA has coined the term of Transient Lunar Phenomena for them. 
What could account for so many different types of events as these on a supposedly dead world? 
If aliens did inhabit the interior of the Moon, and were coming and going in space-going vessels, or 
occasionally (for whatever reason(s)) making excursions out on the surface, perhaps even with bases 
there, then this would account for all such strange “transient lunar phenomena.” In fact, it is the only 
explanation that seems to cover all types of such phenomena, since no other theory can account for all 
the diverse types of anomalous events seen on the Moon over the centuries. Just that one theory does, 
that the Moon is hollow and may have inhabitants. 


So we aren’t just talking about just a few oddities here, but many and 
major ones, at that. What’s more, combined with the claims of the two Russian scientists, something 
far stranger, far more bizarre does seem to be a distinct possibility. Again, perhaps it’s because the 
Moon may be hollow. 
Even if the Moon isn’t, at the very least, something very weird is going on with our neighbor, 
something for which no current theories can account. And if it isn’t hollow, then how do we explain 
all these things, these “oddities?” At present, scientists simply can’t, not in any other way. 
However, if the Moon had been created artificially or altered and then placed in orbit around 
our world, many or all of these questions would be answered. The Hollow Moon theory seems to 
answer more questions than any other theory of the Moon’s origin we have at present. In short, it 
seems the best fit as an explanation for the origin of our Moon precisely because it answers the most 
questions. 


Dr. Gordon MacDonald, a NASA scientist, declared that: 
“If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that the data require that the interior of the 
Moon is more like a hollow than a homogeneous sphere.” 
Werner von Braun, called the Father of American Rocketry by many, stated in Popular Science 
in a 1970 article, How Apollo 13 Will Probe the Moon's Interior. He discussed the idea that when 
the main section of the Apollo 12 was allowed to impact the Moon that, 
“The astounding result of that crash: The Moon rang like a bell for nearly an hour, 
indicating some strange and unearthly underground structure.” 


Evidence Of Structures on the Moon

The Shard. 
In a photograph, Lunar Orbiter frame LO-III-84-M is a somewhat over exposed 
picture. Photographed from about 250 miles away, the picture is of an object that has since become 
known simply as the “shard.” 
This is a rather curious photograph. A closer examination of the picture, and using some 
enhancement, clearly shows that whatever this is, it is casting a shadow onto the lunar surface, and the 
shadow is in the right direction, given the origin of the lighting in the photograph. This means that it 
probably is actually something on the Moon and not just an optical illusion. Illusions don’t cast 
shadows. Just what is it? Nobody seems to be sure. 



The Tower

This is an object situated just behind the shard. If it is an actual structure, and not 
just another abnormality, then it stands some seven miles in height! As outlandish as such a thing 
would seem to be, and it is something we simply can’t accomplish on Earth, because of our heavier 
gravity making the engineering of such structures impossible, such would be conceivable on the  Moon. 
With only one-sixth the gravity of Earth, on the Moon, such an engineering feat is feasible. With 
enhancements, the tower shows an internal “cellular” structure. The shard, too, using similar 
enhancements, shows the same thing. 
Of course, because of the poor quality of the photograph, NASA has concluded that if this isn’t 
just a flaw in the development of the picture, then perhaps it is another outgassing. The question is an 
outgassing of what? Again, the Moon is supposed to be a dead world, with many scientists believing 
the core has to be solid, and so there being no tectonic or volcanic activity. Moreover, if it isn’t an 
outgassing and just a flaw in the film, then it is incredible NASA would use such low-grade, poor 
quality of film for such expensive missions to have so many flaws. This would seem to be unlikely. 
What’s more, astronauts found no sign of geysers, vents, or anything that might cause or allow 
for such outgassing. Neither do high-resolution photographs of the Moon’s surface, taken since then, 
show anything of this nature. 
Furthermore, there aren’t the usual side effects of such a thing, as is any sort of blotchiness, 
speckling, or bespattered areas or regions that one would normally associate with such an outgassing. 
Under enhancement, the object looks solid, as if “weathered” by meteor strikes over a long period of 
time. 
And unlike the photograph of the shard, other pictures taken years later by other missions also 
show the tower. This would make it seem all the more likely the shard was a real object, as well, and 
not just an anomaly or a “gas.” 


The Castle

From the photograph, AS10-32-4822, taken on an Apollo mission, one can see a 
very strange structure. In the photograph, which is unenhanced by the way, one can clearly see 
sections composing the structure. This object is floating approximately around three miles above the 
lunar surface! 
Photographic anomalies simply don’t explain this away, nor does the concept of outgassing. So 
just what is it? Well, it clearly looks artificial. Also, it’s huge. Whatever it is, it does not seem to be 
manmade, not in the human sense of the term. Subsequent pictures show the Castle at different angles, 
which adds to the idea that this is a real, three-dimensional object, and not just some weird 
photographic illusion. 
There is something else about these photographs, as well. Whatever this thing is, the Castle, it 
looks entirely artificial, and hardly natural in either shape or design. This is no asteroid somehow 
magically floating a few miles above the surface of the Moon. And there’s more. If one looks closely 
at the shape and design of the Castle, one notices marked similarities to the shard and tower in its 
design. 


The Paperclip

Then there is the matter of the “paperclip,” as Mr. Hoagland calls it. He thinks it may 
be a type of antenna, since the thing resembles some of those on Earth in its shape. Furthermore, the 
“paperclip” appears to be at the top of a long supporting pole. Whatever the paperclip actually is, it 
does not appear to be a natural feature of the Moon at all. What’s more, given the dimensions of the 
area and its relative size in the picture to those dimensions, the paperclip is very large, huge indeed, 
on the order of a tall building as in, say, New York. 


Circular Base

Then there is the photo, Frame AS15-87-11697 taken on an Apollo 
mission which shows a circular “base” on the Moon, with outlying structures, and even some sort of a 
spoke-like object radiating out from the central tower. The shadow of the tower at the center is in line 
with shadows of all the craters in the photograph. What’s more, this is an official NASA photo and 
can be found displayed on their website. 
Furthermore, NASA removed the high resolution versions from its site, so they now have only 
the lower resolution one, but it is still very clear, even so. However, the original high resolution 
picture can be found at a private website, where it was posted before the high resolution original was 
removed from NASA’s main site. 


So one can readily see when it comes to photographic evidence there seems to be a lot of it. These photos are from Nasa's own website. 

Do remember one more thing. If some of the photos seem “fuzzy,” and indeterminate, this 
is because the only versions still available are low-resolution ones. NASA, for some reason, either 
has “blacked out” the higher resolution versions or removed them entirely in many cases. 
So as always one must ask the question, why? Why did they 
do this, leave only the lowest resolution versions of such photos available to the public? Are they, in 
fact, trying to hide something by doing such a thing? Otherwise, why not make the much higher 
resolution photos available otherwise? 
They are all by law in the public domain… supposedly. They did appear originally, but then 
when various members of the public and media started noticing strange things in some of those 
pictures, suddenly, the higher-resolutions ones were no longer available. Just why is this? To date, we 
have no answer to this question from NASA. However, it does make one suspicious. How could it not? 
If there is nothing “there” to be seen, why not just post them and be done with it?