(part 3 of Hoagland article)


Why deny?

Ross Bench picture

(*Click on the picture to get a larger example (153k): The independent researcher, Ross Bench, who works with computer images for a living, wants to reject Hoaglands photographic claims by this explanation)

Ross Bench photo 2 Ross Bench shows us another picture (to the right) where in the original photo you can see stars on the sky above the Moon. This shows, according to Bench, that there isn't anything at all, like debris or ruins of a glass-dome, as Hoagland claims.

Why would Mitchell deny that he has seen structures on the Moon when he, at the same time, reveals that he has proof of contact and exchange between some of the worlds leading governments and aliens? Mitchell also claims that he has been given verification that it was a UFO that came down in Roswell (both Mitchell and Bean lived in Roswell during the incident in 1947!). Hoagland belives that Mitchell denies it all because he doesn't want to lose his pension from NASA, which he would do if he told the truth, according to Hoagland.
But if you take the question in opposite - why would Hoagland claim these things if he knew it was a lie?
If you read Hoaglands coments regarding the presentation at the press-meeting about his "proof" you're soon to notice his fascination in the interest shown by the media. Or to take it a bit further and quote the rock-artist Frank Black:
- I think that people like that kind of invalidate themself by their extreme personality...
Well, this may or may not be true in Hoaglands case but I think it would be most strange if he would lay his reputation from the highly interesting Cydonia-thesis on the line for a lie. I think that Hoagland belives in his claims. The question is - are his methods to gain ground for this claims worth anything?
If you ask the independent researcher Ross Bench, then Hoagland is misinterpreting the results of his computerized pictures. As an example he shows the pictures above.

The tower

Photo of the tower by Apollo and Zond 3 Not all of Hoaglands claims is as easy to reject as pointing at scratches on negatives.
One of the most fascinating photos is of something Hoagland calls "the Tower", which rises 20 miles straight up from the Lunar surface.
This structure has been photographed by both American and Russian shuttles, and the possibility that it really exist is extremely high (if not definite). The structure and size of the tower speaks against the physics on the Moon as the surface is constantly bombarded with particles in something that could be described as a particle-shower, that crushes everything to dust and soft, smooth hills. As we have the atmosphere as protection here on earth, we don't get this universal bomb-shower. It would be totaly impossible for a "tower" 20 miles high to resist that bombardment on the Moon if it wasn't build to hold by living creatures. So what is it that we see??? And the fact that NASA don't consider this interesting makes the whole matter even more mystic.

What the eye wants to see...

L.A.-ruins on the Moon (*Picture: This picture is taken by Apollo 14 and shows, after Hoaglands computer-filtering, ruins of a town the size of Los Angeles - according to Hoagland)

Why haven't then Ken Johnston noticed this "things" during all the years he had these photos in his own private library?
Ken Johnston says that during the years he worked on these missions, things were to hectic to take a hold and contemplate anything at all. As soon as one Moon-mission was done they went straight on with the next one and finally all the pictures and all the other data was forgoten in every way. It wasn't until he met Hoagland that Johnston came to think of his own originals at home.
- The more and more I've been exposed to looking at the data, and realizing - actually without the aid of any kind of instrument, you can actually see some of the anomalies on just the raw fil and pictures itself.


More of the dubious kind


Bridge between butresses? Other anomalies that Hoagland points at is in my view more of the duboius kind, if you don't want to reject the whole case as dubious. As the picture where Hoagland claim to see a "bridge" between butresses (see photo up to the right). Another is the 10 mile high "shard" that seems to float above the surface. If NASAs explanation has any substance, which I think it has, this probably a scratch in the negative. And if you chose to accept NASAs explanation about scratches and dust, then you can dismiss most of Hoaglands claims (if you accept the anonymous person as a NASA employee as he stated). But is it the same elements that has caused the anomalies on the Russian photos?

Zond 3 / photo of dome? The Soviet shuttle Zond 3 took on July the 2th 1965, not only the picture of the "tower" that stands right up from the Lunar surface for 20 miles, but also a diffuse cloud on the horizon over something Hoagland claims is the remains of a glass-dome (see photo to the right) from a biospheric civilisation. As the athmosphere on the Moon is total vacum, a dust-cloud like that shouldn't be able to exist. But on the other hand - it could be shadows on a Moon-hill. But as the astronaut Al Warden on Apollo 15 said of the area in question:

(translation from swedish as I can't find the original statement again - my office is a mess... the editor)
- It's very strange how it reflects... from Proclus over Crisium. It's almost as flying over a cloud of haze and looking down through it.. It looks like there's something floating above it.

Al Warden was the leader of the Apollo 15-mission.

Another technician at NASA during Ken Johnstons employment was Marvin Czarnik. He was one of the constructors of Mercury and the Gemini-program.
When he saw Hoaglands claims of the Moon-anomalies in 1992 he formed an independent researchgroup called LARG (Lunar Artifacts Group). This group ordered the same frames from NASA as Hoagland had done and did the same process as Hoagland had done to compare the results, which matched. But in opposite to Hoagland who think this proves his thesis, I don't think it proves anything at all, except that the process can make these things "appear" from something that seems, by the eye, to be nothing but ordinary sky and scratches. If you take a close look on the 4822-picture, you will find a number of other "things" similar to the "castle" that Hoagland don't mention, that makes the "anomalies" he points at to be in line with NASA-explanation.
Hoagland also mention the Russian shuttle Zond 3 who had lift-off on July 20 1965 and took a sequence of 28 photos where the picture of the "tower" can be found. In the next photo the "tower" is gone as Zond 3 has advanced some distance and the "tower" is hidden behind the horizon (according to Hoagland). But that photo isn't the only remarkable photo from Zond 3 according to Hoagland and Ken Johnston.
They claim there is another picture which shows a massive "tower" which, according to Hoagland, points directly at the Moons center. That photos is told to be from the same sequence as the "glass-dome-haze"-photo (see photo above) but we haven't had the pleasure to see that photo yet...

On to part 4 of the article


Back to content menu

UFO-magazine nr2

All rights reserved to WUFOC and NÄRKONTAKT. If you reprint or quote any part of the content, you must give credit to: WUFOC, the free UFO-alternative on the Internet, http://www.tripnet.se/home/west/ufocentr.htm