Ancient Aliens on the Moon (35 page)

The “Jupiter 2” in a mountainside hanger?

The Beach House.

As if all this wasn’t enough, I saved the weirdest for last.

If you let your eyes keep travelling along this frame from left to right at the same level as the beach house, they will come upon something that simply is too weird to even contemplate, but yet it is there. It’s another head.

Sitting on what may be an artificial shelf at roughly the same level as the Saucer and the Malibu beach house is this enormous, human looking head. A metal shelf or platform extends to the left and a huge portion of it is exposed and casting a shadow down the mountainside. The “head” looks much like “Data’s Head” from Shorty crater, but is more on a scale of the statues at Easter Island. Whether it’s truly an artifact of some kind or simply an oddly symmetrical boulder with 2 eyes, brow ridges, a nose and what may be mouth is, I suppose, debatable. But after what you’ve already seen on this photo do you really have any doubts? Also, just behind the “Head” are a series of regularly spaced “struts” emerging from the ground.

Head shaped object sitting on mountainside next to an artificial platform. Note Stonehenge-like, evenly spaced struts just behind the “Head.”

The Drill.

The last object I’ll make note of, and the one I’m most fascinated with (because it’s the most obviously artificial) I call the “Drill.”

Sweeping across the terrain and connecting to a mountainside, this long tubular object terminates in a bright white head that looks like something out of a Roto-rooter commercial. The shadow cast by the tube extends from right to left until it is partially buried under some raised ground. The raised ground has a very block like, industrial look to it, and it is probably some kind of maintenance facility for whatever is inside the tube structure. The tube then emerges on the other side and connects to the mountain with what look to be a complex series of tubes and straps. A close-up of the head of the drill shows it is extremely complex—and undeniably artificial.

The only question is what exactly, it’s doing there, and what exactly the Ancient Aliens were drilling for.

The Drill head. Note multiple attachment points to the mountain.

Which brings us, finally, back to the Ziggurat. I could go on and on showing you more astounding structures in this and accompanying images, but I think the point is made: There once was a massive, Ancient Alien base on the far side of the Moon near the crater Daedalus. But I still can’t get past the Ziggurat. So I started playing with the official NASA version of AS11-38-5564. In looking closely at the side-by-side comparisons, I just couldn’t shake the idea that something was wrong. Given everything else on this image, I was now convinced that someone at NASA had fooled around with the image. But how?

Then I saw it. And I understood.

In close-up I couldn’t see it except for the V-shaped ramps in front. The walls, the central temple and the dome shaped top simply weren’t there. But as I loaded different versions of the image through my windows browser, I began to notice something odd. In the thumbnails of the area, I
could
see the Ziggurat, almost fully formed. Huh?

Then I figured out why this made sense. The human eye, especially when dealing with grayscale images like these, needs
contrast
to ascertain detail. Without it, we are virtually powerless to make sense of visual images.

Comparison of the original Ziggurat and contrast stretched version of NASA data.

So was that it then? Was the Ziggurat after all just a contrast artifact of the enhancement process caused by an overzealous anomaly hunter?

No. No way.

Comparison of the original Ziggurat and contrast stretched version of NASA data.

For one thing, the original source file just had too much detail. After working with the “official” version of AS11-38-5564,1 had to reduce it very significantly to get it to look anything at all like the Ziggurat. Even then, there were several things out of place on the official version, features in different positions, which led me to conclude that it had been altered to obscure the details of the Ziggurat.

What probably happened is that when this image hit the web, somebody at NASA said “Holy crap! There’s a pyramid on this photo!” and proceeded to add shadows, reduce contrast, introduce noise and generally futz with the picture. This is certainly not unprecedented. Anyone who has read
Dark Mission
knows about the skullduggery that went along with images of the Face on Mars. Satisfied I had found something quite special, I passed the Ziggurat on to my co-author on
Dark Mission
, Richard C. Hoagland. He quickly recognized the importance of the data and went on George Noory’s
Coast to Coast AM
program with it on the night of July 20
^th
, 2012 (yeah, that date) and talked about it in the news segment. The reaction from our critics was typical and predictable.

The usual suspects immediately claimed that Hoagland had “hoaxed” the image or that it was a “fraud,” and if it wasn’t a fraud, then his inability to see it as a fraud was proof he was either a “liar” or “incompetent.” The chief purveyor of this nonsense was somebody named Stuart Robbins, on his blog. Robbins has a long history of false and utterly silly accusations against me and Mr. Hoagland, and frequently teams up with someone calling himself “Expat” to attack us within hours of anything we post. “Expat” in fact has made a habit of stalking my radio appearances to ask me in-depth questions along the lines of “are you still beating your wife?”

Now in terms of Mr. Robbins “analysis” of the images, I will simply say that it leaves a lot to be desired. Let me also state that I am no Photoshop expert, like he claims to be, and lack the artistic talent to create anything like Daedalus Ziggurat. I found the image, posted by someone else, period. I enhanced it as best I could and passed it on to Richard for his opinion. I had no idea he would talk about it on
Coast.

Now I do know enough about image enhancement to know a few things that are relevant. First, because both “as1120pyramid20smallue2.jpg” and the currently posted NASA image are jpegs, they have quality issues and are not truly ideal as research quality documents. In order to do a proper analysis, anyone accusing Mr. Hoagland or myself of fraud would have to obtain a research quality original of AS11-38-5564 and do a high-resolution scan of it under controlled conditions. Neither Mr. Robbins nor the other self-appointed defenders of true science have done so. In fact, all they are doing is comparing one lossy jpeg document of dubious origin to another. Then, based only on their irrational bias toward NASA and against myself and Mr. Hoagland, they are jumping to the conclusion(s) that we are “frauds” or “incompetents.” As I will soon demonstrate, we are neither.

One of the main arguments that Mr. Robbins made on his blog that he cites as proof that we have “drawn in” the Ziggurat is that the image presented by Hoagland has a lot of “noise” in it. Since he was working with Hoagland’s enhancement of my enhancement, I guess we can cut him some slack on that. Or not.

The reason there is more noise in the original Ziggurat image is that it was probably scanned from an original and then enlarged, processed, and then reduced for publishing on the web. This is easy to see by the fact that it has a 72 Dots Per Inch resolution, which is standard for the web. This has the effect of making it a bit noisier, but also easier to upload and download from the internet. There is nothing nefarious or questionable about this. In fact, the “Save for Web” tool in Photoshop
automatically
changes the document resolution from say, 300 DPI (the resolution of AS11-38-5564 on the LPI website image) to 72 DPI. This alone will induce noise at deep levels of the image, and contrary to Mr. Robbins assertion, is indicative of nothing except his desire to deceive his readers into thinking there’s something unusual about it. Jpeg’s are always noisy. It’s as simple as that.

One other point here, the Ziggurat, which is miles across in the master image, is way beyond limits of resolution where noise could be a problem. All of the visible features plenty big enough to resolve, even on a lossy jpeg.

Of course, if your intent is to deceive your readers into buying into your own petty biases and jealousy’s against people that are more important than you are, you go the extra mile, don’t you? What Mr. Robbins didn’t tell you is that a large chunk of the “noise” that appears in the image he “processed” was deliberately induced—by him.