It has been reported time and time again that there are structures on the Moon that were created by intelligent life forms. Artificial Objects On The Moon
revised to include previously blacked-out data 9 June 1004.
From: Dr. Bruce Cornetgeologist and paleontologist27 Tower Hill Ave.Red Bank, NJ 07701RE: Interpretation of anomalous structures on the moon, based on evidence shown to me by Richard C. Hoagland on 24 April, 28 April, 7 May, and 11 May, 1994, and discussions of said evidence with Hoagland.
Areas of interest: Central area and southwestern area og Sinus Medii, center of moon disk; Mare Crisium, northwest area of moon disk.
DATA: All photographs at same scale.
Lunar Orbiter, February 1967
Original negative from National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC) at Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD: III-84M of “Shard” and “Tower” on southwest side of Sinus Medii from 30 miles altitude, taken by 3″ camera objective (film developed on board satellite; scanned with 6.5 mu dot scanner;images transmitted, reconstructed, and reassembled at NASA). Horizon at 256 miles; “Shard” and “Tower” about 230 and 200 miles distance from camera, respectively; resolution of Shard and Tower calculated at about 70 and 60 meters, respectively. Orientation of this photograph 45 degrees south of Apollo 10; photographs AS10-32-4854, AS10-32-4855, and AS10-32-4856.
Surveyor 6, November 1967
One of seven photographs published in NASA Technical Report 32-1262 (NAS7-100), entitled: Surveyor 6 Mission Report, part III. television data; published by JPL at Cal. Tech., August 15, 1968. View angle of photograph westfrom western part of Sinus Medii, showing refraction of intense light from Sun(beads are image of photosphere) by surface material on horizon.
Apollo 10, May 1969
NASA catalog SP-232: AS10-32-4822, AS10-32-4854, AS10-32-4855, and AS10-32-4856of Sinus Medii from 70 miles in orbit, taken by hand held Hasselblad camera. Photographs 4854-56 looking west at terminator (lunar surface sunrise line)from above eastern side of Sinus Medii; photograph 4822 looking northeastacross Ukert crater in the most intensively photographed northern edge of Sinus Medii (this photograph intentionally blacked out on catalog).
The Lunar Orbiter photograph and the three sequential photographs AS10-32-4854 – 56 taken from the Apollo spacecraft all show the “Tower” (and “Shard”) in the southwestern area of Sinus Medii from different angles and different perspectives. The Surveyor 6 photograph shows anomalous geometric structures above the ground, like those associated with the tower extending north of the “Tower” for about a hundred miles. The censored Apollo 10 photograph near Ukert crater shows anomalous geometric structures extending on the ground extending for tens of miles over an area the size of the Los Angeles basin. All of these unnatural structures appear to have sustained varying degrees of damage from meteorite and micrometeorite impact. Small impact craters (1-2miles), for example, exist within the anomalous area near Ukert, and clearly post-date the anomalies. Recognition of such damage is important in understanding and interpreting the nature and time sequence in the origin of these structures.
Apollo 16, June 1972
NASA photograph AS16-121-19438, looking northwest from above the eastern edge of Mare Crisium and across Mare Tranquilitatus form 70 miles altitude.
Ukert is a crater-like feature that displays a circumscribed equilateral triangle at full Moon (Noon local time) in its center. I agree with Hoagland’s interpretation that this triangle is not natural, because the sides of the “crater” are much brighter only opposite the sides of this triangle. The apices or angles of the triangle intersect the darkest three areas of the “crater” rim, while the brightest three areas of the rim are opposite the sides of the triangle. In addition, the brightest parts of the rim are midway between the apices of the triangle, and are at 120 degrees orientation from one another. If a line is drawn from the centers of each bright area across the triangle to the opposing angle, the lines will exactly bisect each angle. Such regular geometry is not a natural feature of any terrain, either on Earth or on the Moon. Furthermore, the symbolism of an equilateral triangle within a circle is a two dimensional representation of atetrahedral pyramid within a sphere. Tetrahedral geometry is the primary message encoded in the geometry of the Cydonia complex on Mars (Hoagland, 1992; McDaniel, 1993).
The Shard is an obvious structure which rises above the Moon’s surfaceby more than a mile. Its overall irregular spindly shape (containing a regulargeometric pattern) with constricted nodes and swollen internodes, if natural,has got to be a wonder of the Universe. No known natural process can explain such a structure. Computer enhancement with about 190 feet (60 meters) resolution shows an irregular outline with more reflective and less reflective surfaces. The amount of sunlight reflecting from parts of the Shard indicates a composition inconsistent with that of most natural substances. Only crystal facets and glass can reflect that much light (polished metallic surfaces are unnatural). Single crystals the size of city blocks are currently unknown. I concur with Hoagland that the Shard may be a highly eroded remnant of some sort of artificial structure made of glass-like material. Other larger structures and their reflectivity in the area support this theory.
The Tower represents an enigma of the highest magnitude because it rises more than five miles above the surface of the Moon, and has been photographed from five different angles and two different altitudes (from 30 miles altitude, and from 70 miles altitude at three different distances). In all four photographs the same structure is visible and can be viewed from two different sides. The Tower exists in front of and to the left of the Shard in the Lunar Orbiter III-84M photograph. The distance from the Tower and the camera is estimated at about 200 miles, while the distance of the Shard beyond the Tower is estimated at about 230 miles. The top of the Tower has a very ordered cubic geometry, and appears to be composed of regular cubes (similar in size) joined together to form a very large cube with an estimated width of over one mile! There is apparent damage to the outline and surface of this megacube, because many cubic spaces or indentations occur over its surface (these spaces are 50 to 60 times larger than pixel size, and their shapes are not controlled by the rectangular shape of the pixel). A narrow columnar structure connects this cube with the surface of the Moon. The columnar support is at least three miles tall, and tapers towards its base. The taper may be in part due to perspective, if the Tower is oriented at an angle and is leaning towards the camera. The leaning Tower may be part of a larger more transparent structure, which is also inclined.
Surrounding the Tower are faint indications of additional light-reflecting material. The amount of light coming from this material is very small compared with the amount of light reflected off the lunar surface. In order to make it visible, the surface of the Moon has to be over-exposed on the photograph. The pattern that becomes visible above the moon’s surface is not caused by the scan lines that make up the Lunar Orbiter photography. The scan lines can be seen clearly, and are oriented at different angles from the orientation of patterns in the sky. The regular cubic and/or rectangular nature of this pattern, and indications of radiating structures that connect the Tower with the surface indicate that material of low light reflectivity exists above the Moon’s surface over a large area measured in hundreds of miles. The irregular splotchy reflection from some of this aerial material may be due to meteorite and projectile damage over millions of years. Its highly transparent nature (bright stars can be seen behind and through this material)indicates either an open grid with cubic spaces or glass-like material held together by some sort of structural grid or a combination of both. Other photographs described below confirm the size and extent of this grid-like construction.
THE SKY GRID
The Surveyor 6 photograph of the Sun’s corona at the horizon (Photograph published in NASA Technical Report 32-1262) is a view just to the north of the Tower (less than 100 miles). Total image was recorded in primary data, and variations in image reproduction are due to processing differences.Two major anomalies are apparent in this photograph: 1) sunlight at the surface of the Moon is refracted towards the camera and appears as elongate beads of bright light on top of the horizon (JPL measurements indicate light saturation for the camera was reached in these beads); 2) a regular cubic pattern of horizontal benches appears above the surface, and extends nearly as high as the view in the photograph to an altitude of several miles. Due to the angle of incidence of backlit sunlight from the Sun, which was located below the horizon, the visibility of the pattern above the surface decreases with increasing angular reflection from the center of the Sun. This means that whatever was causing the reflection and refraction above the Moon’s surface is geometrically dependent on the Sun’s position below the Moon’s horizon, and is therefore not likely an artifact of imaging, reproduction, or processing. Six additional pictures of this horizon were taken within 90 minutes, and if available (obtainable) will provide additional data for further analysis.
The bright beads of light on the surface decrease or become non-continuous laterally along the horizon. This anomalous beading was explained by NASA as diffraction by fine dust suspended above the surface. No such suspended dust was found by the Apollo astronauts, and an alternative hypothesis is warranted. I agree with Hoagland’s interpretation that:a) the light is refraction, and b) the intense concentration of light is likely caused by glass imaging the Sun from beyond the horizon. It is unlikely that the material causing this phenomenon is natural dust or glass tectites on the surface, which are largely opaque to only partly transparent. The glass refracting the light has to be nearly transparent to transmit so much light to such a height above the surface, particularly if the refracting material has any depth to it. It may represent the basal more intact part of a superstructure that is apparent above the surface. Because of less damage, and more massive glass support structures at the base (visible in some photographsas a hierarchy of stacked glass arches, each with expanded bases), more light is conducted and focussed there as a series of glass lenses. Simple reflection can be ruled out as an explanation for the beads because of the position of the Sun below the horizon.
The three Apollo 10 photographs showing the Tower in the distance also show the grid structure from above. These photographs were taken at three different distances from the Tower as the Apollo spacecraft moved towards the Tower. Within the sky above the horizon and around the Tower a regular grid pattern emerges with proper contrast control. This grid pattern appears to bethree-dimensional, and is expressed as dark lines with random points of reflection around those lines. The grid appears to be some sort of support structure, perhaps formed from a metallic rebar. The reflective material associated with it is cubic and hexagonal in design, but incomplete. With different attitudes or angles of sight, different areas of the grid structure become illuminated or reflective, implying that angle of incidence is important. I agree with Hoagland’s interpretation of this material as remnant portions of the glass structure, which still remains attached and suspended above the Moon’s surface on a metallic cross support structure. The Tower, by contrast, is visible in all three photographs, because there is much more glass remaining than on the suspended grid structure around the Tower. Even from different angles and distances in these photographs, the top of the Tower appears as a giant cube made up of smaller cubic and hexagonal objects.
There is no way to get around this evidence once it becomes apparent.Altering the contrast of the Moon’s surface can make this faint structure disappear, but such photographic manipulation (of NASA catalogs) will not invalidate it. The evidence that Hoagland has brought to light may assail one’s sensibilities because of its magnitude and artificial implication, but it cannot be dismissed or ignored. It is there and it must be explained.
THE CITY COMPLEX NEAR UKERT
Photograph AS10-32-4822 in NASA catalog SP-232 is blacked out, along with several other photographs. When it was ordered, the image was of high quality, contrary to what was implied by it being blacked out in the catalog. Instead of a poor photograph, the image shows features near Ukert crater that defy conventional explanation. A linear dome-shaped hill runs diagonally across the photograph. To the north of that hill a large area exists with regularly aligned rows of structure. Within this anomalous area more than a dozen small craters can be seen that modify the landscape. From a distance the regular rows appear like benches. On Earth such a feature would be interpreted as the pattern produced by the eroded edges of layered rocks that dip below the surface. But on the Moon there have been no physical processes that can account for such a regular geologic structure. Furthermore, rills and wrinkles on the surface of a cooling magma outflow do not form such a regular pattern, as is evident in so many mare on the Moon. And this anomalous pattern has definite boundaries beyond which it is absent.
Upon magnification, this anomalous pattern begins to take on a different character: Rectangular features exist along the rows, with many having gaps between them. In addition, thin spires project up from the surface in several places along some rows. Upon further magnification some of the rectangular structures take on a form like buildings and skyscrapers. Resolution at high magnification (for the image I saw) is not good enough to resolve more than the outlines of possible buildings. The whole area resembles what one might expect for a city the size of Los Angeles that had been abandoned and left to decay for centuries. The crater impacts and constant barrage from micrometeorites over millions of years would have provided an abrasive force as damaging as our weather and earthquakes on Earth over centuries or even decades.
I agree with Hoagland that someone or some group within NASA deliberately concealed this picture in the catalog because of its content, and that this area may contain one of several city complexes that were built under an enormous glass dome within Sinus Medi. The sheer implications of such massive structures on the Moon, if verified by an open and honest visit by astronauts to the Moon, would cause man to rethink many ideas and question many beliefs about other intelligent life in the Universe. Clearly, such structures are well beyond our current technologies, and rank with the Pyramids and Sphinx on Earth, and with the Cydonia complex and its humanoid face on Mars, as major mysteries of our Solar System.
THE DOME OVER MARE CRISIUM
Further evidence for such massive constructs on the Moon can be found in Mare Crisium. The photograph that Hoagland showed me of that area (NASA photograph 1) has a strange set of large, concentric, circular light patterns within the mare. To one side an enormous spire or tower rises from the surface within the perimeter of these light circles. Magnification of thearea around this spire shows cubic patterns like those around the Tower in Sinus Medii. Numerous holes of various size can be detected within this cubic pattern, probably caused by meteorites. Around the edges of these holes I can see layers of light-reflecting cubic glass-like material and suggestions of strands of rebar support. Below this cover on the ground there is more structure, which can be detected under some of the larger holes. There is an unusual interference pattern below the cubic pattern as well. None of these patterns can be explained as normal or natural. I interpret the major cubic pattern as reflections off rebar and micrometeorite-frosted glass of the dome that covers most of Mare Crisium. I interpret the pattern below the dome as possibly caused by artificial structures on the surface of the Moon, such as the city-like construct near Ukert, and the concentric circles of light over the surface of Mare Crisium as light reflection and refraction through the remaining portions of the glass dome.
I support Hoagland’s interpretation that the anomalous patterns in photographs from Sinus Medii and Mare Crisium cannot be explained as natural. I further support his interpretation that these patterns above the surface are caused by enormous structures of artificial origin, structures that may represent the remains of glass domes that were built to cover, protect, and provide a life-support environment for habitable structures on the surface.
Clearly, further independent investigation and analysis by experts is warranted. There is also a relevant need to press the Pentagon into releasingall 1.5 million Clementine photographs immediately and without censorship.
Dr. Bruce Cornet
May 15, 1994
Dr. Bruce Cornet has a B.A. in biology, M.S. in botany, and Ph.D. in geology and palynology. He has 17 referred publications in international journals and two coauthored books on Mesozoic plant evolution and geology. He has over 15 years experience in the oil industry, which includes basin analysis from geologic, gravity, magnetic, and topographic maps and aerial photographs, and extensive experience in structural analysis and subsurface mapping using seismic data and well logs; and 22 years experience in analyzing the relative age and geothermal maturity of palynomorphs and kerogen extracted from rocks.In 1981-1982 as president of Geminoil, Inc. he lead the first exploration effort to find commercial hydrocarbons in rift basins of Virginia and Maryland. He is also an integral part of a geologic team at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (Columbia Univ.) which has recovered and analyzed for Milankovich cyclicity over 22,000 feet of core from the Newark basin of new Jersey.