6. Buildings of Bonkers
The next claim the film makes is that Apollo 8 took lots of pictures that show structures and buildings. It specifically mentions AS08-
And here is a close up of that area in the Apollo 8 photograph.
What they identify as parts of a building is in fact the rim of a shallow and much older Harkhebi J crater north of Giordano Bruno. Well, no-
And here are some other views, again steadfastly refusing to show any kind of structures or buildings, one from my own copy of ‘Moon Morphology’ the rest from online sources.
Chang-
Not content with this imaginary complex of buildings, the programme returns to this image later on to proclaim the existence of a ‘tower’. Here’s where it claims it is:
The same photos used above also show this area, so go look at them if you’re that keen, but below left the JAXA view from behind that crater -
No doubt Hoagland will argue that the USSR edited out these features when they scanned these images seeing as he claims to believe that they are in cahoots with the US in hiding features.
Neither feature appears in the relevant parts of Lunar Orbiter images or Chinese probe views::
There also seems to be no evidence of them in the later Zond 6 and 8 photographs, like these ones below.
Or even Apollo 8 images like this one.
To conclude this part we have two conclusions. Either Hoagland is correct and there is a mysterious 20 mile high tower and an enormous collapsed dome in 2 very poorly reproduced Zond 3 images that appears on no other versions of the images, no other Zond images, no lunar orbiter images and no Chinese images, or it’s just a product of very badly reproduced images.
8. Dome dismissal
The next item is one that is difficult to dismiss because the people making the claim are deliberately vague about the location of the alleged incident. According to the interviewee (Ken Johnston) NASA airbrushed out frames of a movie showing lights and a dome in an unnamed far side crater in an unnamed mission.
Although a later talking head mentions Apollo 14, no crater names are given nd the footage used is based on an Apollo 10 still image of Keeler crater. All we can do here then is discuss what the programme presents and assume they are being honest.
Ahem.
Here’s their view of Keeler compared with the Apollo 10 shot, one of several taken by Apollo 10 as seen in my personal copy of ‘Lunar photographs from Apollos 8, 10 and 11’ published in 1971.
The broadcast again goes back to an Apollo 8 image tp draw our attention to an alien built bridge and pipeline. It doesn’t identify which image, or where it is, but it doesn’t take too long to find out that it is on the south-
Luckily we don’t have to take their word for it, we can look for ourselves at what’s out there on other images. Here’s the same area viewed by Lunar Orbiter (below left) from my own book. Kaguya’s 3D GIS (below centre) and from China’s probe (below right).
The resolution is not the highest, but none of these images show any kind of structures standing proud of the surface. The lunar orbiter and Chinese images are correctly oriented with north to the top.
The best resolution comes from Kaguya’s actual images rather than the 3D rendering, and the best of this is shown below. Superimposed bottom left is the Apollo 8 image, and top left is an Apollo 17 image. It doesn’t contain all of the detail in the Apollo 8 image (for that you should look at AS17-
So, once you actually start to look carefully it becomes clear that far from these being artificial structures standing proud of the surface they are the product of shadows, natural ground undulations and an over-
7. Russian Ridicule
This is always a popular one, the so-
Hoagland picks an obscure and poor quality source of his images, but thankfully there are others, such as this one, that allow us to examine the claim more carefully.
The tower and dome do not seem to be present as clearly in other sources, but what we can say is that in the couple of minutes between the images Zond did not travel far enough for the supposedly 20 mile high tower to have disappeared, particularly as it was a ‘fly-
Hoagland’s own description and the distribution of the features on the photograph mean that the tower can only have been in either frame number 24 or 26, but it is not. It is also pretty obvious that the alleged dome should appear in the earlier frames, but it does not for example here is frame 19 compared with frame 28.
The crater containing the alleged domes and lights is the small dark one in the centre of each image below Keeler itself.
For all the apparent secrecy surrounding Keeler crater (if indeed that is the crater to which their interviewee is referring) there certainly are a lot of photographs of it, including some taken by Apollo 11, 13 and 17, and there is even video, such as this still from Apollo 11’s 16mm footage:
And naturally we have China and Japan’s views of the Keeler dome crater too:
Is this the crater they are discussing? Who knows, and frankly who cares -
9. Icarus Infamy
The next thing they make a big deal out of is a feature that someone has spotted in AS11-
Well that certainly looks pretty odd, and well done to the sharp-
The first thing we need to ask is ‘can it be found on any other images? The short answer is no, but there is a longer one that says ‘kind of’, which we’ll get to shortly. Below left is another Apollo 11 image AS11-
No sign of any spaceship in any of those, so what’s causing the appearance of a spaceship?
You get a bit more of a clue by looking at higher resolution Kaguya images and comparing them with the Apollo 11 one. Below right is the Kaguya view of the area, while below left is the Apollo 11 view, this time stretched to compensate for the oblique angle at which the image was taken.
If you pay careful attention to the Japanese image you can make out concentric rings around the central pair of ‘pig snout’ craters, and those rings are what is reproduced in the Apollo image. The photograph is not showing a UFO, it is showing the rings of an in shadow cater feature. That’s all. Everything else is inference, suggestion, and pareidolia.
10. Kepler Krap
Next up we have Kepler, another far side crater that has apparently been attracting ‘heated debate on the internet’ because it supposedly looks like it’s been strip-
Here’s their version of the image, the same view from my copy of ‘The moon as viewed by…’ and a close up of the Orbiter view.
So what are the specifics? The main claims are that the large square wall has been stripped clean by mining, that the crater floor is littered with building rubble, and that NASA released a later image that shows none of these features. They neglect to mention that the later image is Apollo 12, and they also neglect to mention the fact that other lunar orbiter images exist from above of Kepler that show no sign of anything artificial.
Something else they fail to mention is that the Apollo 12 photo is taken from a completely different angle, as shown below. On the left is the original Apollo image, on the right is Kepler crater from lunar orbiter. Both are stretched to compensate for the oblique angle. I’ve used arrows to identify the same features in each.
It also becomes much more obvious that the features in the crater bottom are not buildings, and far from the Apollo 12 photograph being ‘cleaned up’, they are the same in both. Far from being buildings, the are rocks and boulders produced during the crater’s formation.
Just to emphasise the point that they are the same, here we have the images from China (left), Japan (centre) and even India’s (partial) shot (right) of the same crater.
See any strip mining? Buildings? Of course not, only idiots can.
Let’s be even more certain and zoom right in on that strip mined wall in the Japanese and Indian images (China’s isn’t high res enough):
Die-
And we’ve run out of page again, so let’s move to part 3…