Hoagland's Android Head on Moon

There are those of you familiar with Richard C. Hoagland's space research and his deep interest in the planets within our own solar system. Often it is tied to the coverup of life within our planets and moons (glass towers on the moon, the face on mars. etc.).

For those of you unfamiliar with Richard C. Hoagland, you can check out his website at The Enterprise Mission.

Richard has recently unveiled a photo that looks like the head of humanlike metal object as well as many other machinelike structures within a crater called Shorty, roughly 100 meters across. During the moon landing. Schmitt and Cernan (2 US astronauts) were to collect samples of the area when they discovered some orange looking clay as well as some interesting artificats left behind.

I will include some photos from the site, but suggest that you read the whole article as well. Hoagland will also be featured on Coasttocoastam.com radio tonight while discussing some other discoveries.

Data's Head







I would be interested to hear what John Lear thinks about this mission and what it found.

Zorgon, you too, you seem to have pretty good eyes for these things.



[edit on 10/17/2006 by infinite8]

Is it just me or is the site down ?

Links aren't loading for me either...

The site is just being bombarded at the moment because Richard Hoagland is currently speaking live on Coast to Coast AM. You can see a photo of the head on Coast to Coast AM currently and then check back to the other links a bit later.

Thats will do it evertytime !!!!!!,

Being a streamlink member cannot wait to hear tonights Coast

You know when the US Gov first stated that we were going back to the moon I felt it was to cover up something.. It was when China and I believe Japan stated they were building ships to take them to the moon and then wham.. the U.S. announces it's going to the moon! Why the quick change? Here we have been going to Mars and Jupiter and all of sudden we are back in the game with the moon? Strange??

However this to me would be the most significant find I can think of and yet they only devote an hour on coast to coast for it? Not only that.. why the delay in getting the other negatives and photos out?

Richard C Hoaglund is full of dog poop everyone knows it except Richard.

Originally posted by infinite8






To see what they were really after go to keithlaney.net and scroll down to "A Hidden Mission for Apollo 17?" Its a long read, take your time.

www.coasttocoastam.com...

Although i am not know to be a debunker if you look to the right of the so called head you will see a can of soda.

LOL

Thanks for commenting John. I think the whole Apollo 17 mission is quite fascinating. Its amazing to read the astronauts transcripts and see the cover up coming through. Its almost as if they wanted to leave a hint.

Its a shame they couldn't seem to find the entrance they were looking for, or did they?

John did you get a chance to see the photo of the head? I know this was only day 2 of the mission, but it seems quite fascinating that they found oxidized orange terra (atmosphere?), machine parts, and structures. It certainly doesn't seem coincidental that they explored this region. It seems as though they just stunmbled upon some extra goodies on their way to the pyramid.

Those colors are actually red. Glad you said that as a sceptic. Makes you wonder what red shaped metal is doing on the moon. Don't think its a Coke can, though I'm sure their marketing guys would love that.

Save image blow it up.Soda can or beverage can of some type.

Dont get me wrong i love a good conspiracy as much as the next guy but this is just a plan old moon rock !!!.





And that was the nail in the coffen.

The sad thing about this was that I actually stayed up to listen to this b.s., I think Hoagland has lost his mind, hell put a "face" on any rock so he can get a little attention.

I listened to the show and i have to say, this time, that fourth picture is without doubt the head of a robot.

wth?

Wow. No wonder they are scrambling to head back...what? to pick it up?

I hate to think what Hoagland would discover were he ever to look at a boulder filed on Iceland .......

The 4th picture does look odd, partly because of the red band on it. Out of context, impossible to say. But mostly I see rocks.

Edit: looking at the bigger picture it's clear to me it's just another rock ....

btw does he really think it's C3P0 on the Moon? Or just another similar looking droid?

[edit on 17-10-2006 by Essan]

Well...seeing these pictures...my bet is that all these colors (from red to blue) are in fact the lens' chromatic aberrations.




Here's an example (taken with a Konica-Minolta DiMAGE Z6 camera)

A cropped portion from the orginal frame


And a magnified portion where you can see the chromatic aberration I'm talking about

I dont know whats wrong with that hoagland guy. Is he a charlatan or just a wishful thinker..maybe a bit of both? Either way. I think that some of the photos he examines as "evidence" are intriguing, like the glass tubes on mars, etc, but most if the rocks that he says are "skulls" and other things are just pure hogwash in my opinion. At times I feel hes not only an embarrassment to the "UFO comminty", but also a threat to it. Disinfo?

Originally posted by infinite8







My question would be "Why are we looking at a supposed robot head when what we want to see is Nansen?"

Could this be a diversionary tactic? Could the government be saying, "OK, you got us, there are people on the moon but they are only robots! Robots don't need air fortunately because there is no air on the moon!"

The trouble with interpreting images is that we all have a slightly different visual perspective driven by the definitions we've created over our lives in our minds. Beginning in WW 2 photo recon interpretation was a highly skilled field and analists often had to make educated guesses as to what they were looking at.

As a wild example, they had to be pretty certain a blob in a photo was indeed a V-1 launch rail instead of a mechanics' hydraulic lift in a motor pool. Most of what ultimately led to correct interpretations was comparison of identifyable, surrounding objects and their relative scale to shadows cast.

Frustratingly, imagery from heavenly bodies' surfaces don't possess any of the comparable references we find on Earth. For those and more reasons these and similar images are open for interpretation with myriad definitions.