Robert Morningstar's hangars on the Moon don't exist

...and what's more, he can't even spell the word HANGAR correctly.

Last month, Morningstar published this pic in UFO Digest:

His caption was "Double Domed Structures situated in the Mare Imbrium found in 2 separate Lunar Orbiter photos"

Problem: This is NOT a Lunar Orbiter image. It's a frame from the mapping camera of Apollo 17.

Frame AS17-M-2444 to be precise

Problem: The foreground crater is not Euler but Pytheas.

On Far Out Radio, 8th May, he said that "the astronaut taking the pictures" kept it in view for several frames.

Problem: Morningstar doesn't understand what the mapping camera was. It was not pointed by an astronaut at all -- it was fixed in the SIM Bay of the Service Module and pointed wherever the spacecraft was pointed.

The feature he thinks is a pair of hangers [sic] is just a pair of mounds, as this image from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter at resolution about 200x better than the Apollo shot, shows. The mounds are at 24.06°W, 19.87°N.

There are nine zoom-in steps available, so inspect the site at your leisure, ATS-ers. See if there are any UFOs or aliens in there. Let me know what you find. Cheers.

In reality, they do exist no matter who posts what picture and I don't agree with your assesment of any photo's and especially not the so called experts.

But I've taken a NASA photo, and opened it in Gimp, and used the burn and dodge tools, and the photo was massively photoshopped.

The edge of the moon was faked, it wasn't where they took the photo, instead it was the edge of a huge crater, and there were smaller craters.

AND....just like my childhood memories of abductions and tubes on the moon, there were lots and lots of inner structures in the craters and tubes everywhere.

I would call that, an infestation. And I think some of the earth para military is partnered up with this, what I call the dark side group, too.

I'm not going to waste hours trying to find those links. Just suggest people take those older NASA pics and put them into photoshop and gimp and try their hand at dodge and burn.

Dodge was so good a tool that it took one of my dark inside photos, that was all black in the kitchen, and clearly showed the large fan on the kitchen table when I used it, so I know it works.

So be your own sleuth.

As for the newer photos, the HD quality. They do a kind of rendering that equalizes out the picture and throws away alot of evidence, so I suggest the older NASA photo's only in your own little experiments.

SURELY not? Realllyy? THEY DON'T EXIST!!

Well I never, maybe Jesus didn't come back from the otherside aswell?

You really do learn something new everyday.

originally posted by: Unity_99
As for the newer photos, the HD quality. They do a kind of rendering that equalizes out the picture and throws away alot of evidence, so I suggest the older NASA photo's only in your own little experiments.

So, let's see... you prefer a 42-year-old image at about 200 m/px over a modern image at 0.5 m/px. That says to me that you're really not interested in the truth.

originally posted by: Unity_99

But I've taken a NASA photo, and opened it in Gimp, and used the burn and dodge tools, and the photo was massively photoshopped.

No, You've taken a scan of a NASA photo and opened it up in an image editing program. Try getting an original.

PS The actual lunar orbiter image of that area is here

www.lpi.usra.edu...

and you can also see those mounds on magazine 139 of Apollo 17's Hasselblad images, try AS17-139-21290 and the ones that follow.

Once you load up high res scans of the images and not the badly reproduced ones, you can see they are not artificial structures at all, and are typical of many such features found on the moon.

a reply to: Unity_99

My friend, do you understand the full madness of what you are suggesting?

I do not mean to cause offense, but I think you need to realise you sound delusional.

Suggesting that just because pictures and posts show something inst there which you claim to exist, you deny them.

If a doctor heard this he would suggest you are self-deluding, possibly mad.

Ingo Swann saw them, and the government officials who questioned him on remote viewing got really mad. I guess that's why his original paperback costs hundreds of pounds. Probably just because it's an original

originally posted by: Unity_99
As for the newer photos, the HD quality. They do a kind of rendering that equalizes out the picture and throws away alot of evidence, so I suggest the older NASA photo's only in your own little experiments.

Who is this "they" of which you speak? The graduate students at Arizona State University who do the data processing?

This is a serious selenological investigation. The idea that a lot of evidence is "thrown away" has no credibility whatsoever.

a reply to: Asertus

Swing and a miss!

a reply to: [post=17906804]Asertus[/po

People just don't understand. Comedy anymore.

The idea that a lot of evidence is "thrown away" has no credibility whatsoever.

Tell that to Karl Wolfe.

originally posted by: sparrowstail
Tell that to Karl Wolfe.

Do you have any evidence that Karl Wolfe was ever the victim of data suppression by Arizona State University? I know of none.

Absent such evidence, WTF WOULD BE THE POINT of telling him????

a reply to: sparrowstail
Is that the Carl Wolfe who said he saw Moon bases on Lunar Orbiter images in 1965?
Is that the Carl Wolfe who didn't seem to know that the first Lunar Orbiter mission was not until late 1966?

This Carl Wolfe?
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Phage

Com'on Phage

I suppose nothing at Nasa, or within the government has ever been compartmentalized? Is it not possible that Lunar orbiter activity could have started earlier unbeknownst to the public? Could not any discrepancy's in the time line be because of the differences between what is known at a crypto clearance and what is told to the public?
You speak as if NASA is forthcoming and transparent with all its programs, schedules, and what they know, when plenty of testimonials exist that demonstrate otherwise.
Why is it so hard to believe that some were in the know, whiles others were not. have you seen the levels of security above top secret? There are plenty of reasons to believe that Karl was temporarily brought into a compartmentalized circle for his expertise from the engineering side of things.

The link to the ACT-REACT map in the OP seems to be hosed.

Here it is again

Thats because he got the location of the hangers wrong. Look at google moon.Zoom down to the bottom of the moon in the center of the black crater on the bottom of the moon. The entrance to the underground base on the moon is there you can see light streaming out from both sides of the entrace. And its not ours. Now you know why we never went back. Were not welcome there.

originally posted by: Unity_99
In reality, they do exist no matter who posts what picture and I don't agree with your assesment of any photo's and especially not the so called experts.

But I've taken a NASA photo, and opened it in Gimp, and used the burn and dodge tools, and the photo was massively photoshopped.

The edge of the moon was faked, it wasn't where they took the photo, instead it was the edge of a huge crater, and there were smaller craters.

AND....just like my childhood memories of abductions and tubes on the moon, there were lots and lots of inner structures in the craters and tubes everywhere.

I would call that, an infestation. And I think some of the earth para military is partnered up with this, what I call the dark side group, too.

I'm not going to waste hours trying to find those links. Just suggest people take those older NASA pics and put them into photoshop and gimp and try their hand at dodge and burn.

Dodge was so good a tool that it took one of my dark inside photos, that was all black in the kitchen, and clearly showed the large fan on the kitchen table when I used it, so I know it works.

So be your own sleuth.

As for the newer photos, the HD quality. They do a kind of rendering that equalizes out the picture and throws away alot of evidence, so I suggest the older NASA photo's only in your own little experiments.

How advanced using 8 BIT per colour channel software (gimp) when you could be using 16 bit colour!!!!( photoshop and others) If you don't KNOW the difference and what it means to images just ask!!!!

a reply to: Unity_99

There was no photo shop or computer graphics of any kind when the original photos were taken. Seriously there is nothing on the moon but what we Earthlings put there. If you still think childhood nightmares are real you have some growing up to do yet. Sorry.

We're not welcomed there. WTF ITS OUR MOON. Who the hell are they to say we're not welcomed there. H reply to: texasyeti