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

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657 WTF ITS OUR MOON. H reply to: texasyeti

How can you be so sure? Who knows how we or the moon came to be.

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.

I thought the forum motto was "Deny Ignorance", not "Defiantly Embrace Ignorance".

Robert Morningstar produced a labeled version of the Apollo 17 image, which he's still calling a Lunar Orbiter image. Here it is. Seven craters are named.



Now we can all play a little crater game. It's called "How many of Morningstar's crater names are correct?"

a reply to: Asertus

Good grief how much more wrong can you get??!!

Seeing as we have a contributor who places such reliance on actual photographs and not those nasty NASA scans, here is a photograph of an actual lunar orbiter image of Copernicus crater. It's my own, and it's next to my 10" tablet for a size comparison.

See if you can spot the difference between the one labelled as Copernicus above.

You are wrong

originally posted by: Asertus
...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.

The alleged hangars are actually in 5 different mapping camera frames (and one partial that I've left out).

Just for fun here's an animation of Apollo 17 flying over them:

a reply to: sparrowstail

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?

Can you name any NASA moon launch that was NOT public knowledge at the time?

Yeah, NASA are really concealing the details of the Lunar Orbiter program: history.nasa.gov...

Here's the press release they put out in 1966 for the second LO mission. All public knowledge.

www.scribd.com...


You seriously think they could have launched a secret one earlier without anyone noticing? Yeah, good luck with that. Quite a few people in several countries were watching what was going on in space pretty closely in the 1960s. You don't just launch a probe to the moon without anyone spotting it!

originally posted by: sparrowstail
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?

Well the race to the moon was a technological race between America and the Soviet Union; we'd be foolish to do a secret moon mission and give an overt Russian moon mission a chance to be first. Hell, there's a bunch of people that believe the US hired Stanley Kubrick to fake the first moon landing just so we could say we got there first.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
The alleged hangars are actually in 5 different mapping camera frames (and one partial that I've left out).

Just for fun here's an animation of Apollo 17 flying over them:

The link to the LROC imagery in the opening post was broken, so here it is again.

A wider view (note the scale of these "hangars"). The view is more or less upside-down compared to the Apollo 17 GIF above:


And successive zooms, down to 50cm per pixel level, showing that they are nothing but crater-covered hills:

originally posted by: Asertus
...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.

Mr Morningstar is in the pantheon occupied by such luminaries as Fred Steckling and his son, Richard Hoagland and his rear-looking buddy Mike Bara, and a host of other wishful thinkers that confirm that not all is sharp and clear to them. They get their erroneous opinions based on low resolution and blurry photos which are devoid of critical details so their opinion are valueless and should not be entertained. Since I've been a lunar anomaly researcher since the early 1980s and I've dealt with almost all of the failed claimants.

When I see these types of erroneous and empty claims the first thing I think of is why do these individual think that they are making discoveries when if real those discoveries would have been made by the first people seeing those images which would have been NASA photo technicians and I doubt that if real the photos would have been made public. There are many examples here on ATS of claims of structures that when seen in other photos from other angles or better resolution always show natural features and the lighting of those features give different views some of which are mistaken by people who want to see what is not really there. Truth is not always in the eye of the beholder but of those who pursue using logic, common sense and reason.

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.

Some ATS members seem to live waiting for the thread that will allow them to spew bs not associated with the thread topic. Unsubstantiated opinions and dubious achievements. What you need to do is reply with photos before and after your enhancement to give your opinion validity. Words alone just doesn't cut it.

originally posted by: CallYourBluff
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

Some questionable individuals are always brought in to the conversation and treated as being capable of providing irrefutable evidence based on their notoriety. Ingo Swann is a joke and no one will ever prove otherwise. He has no mystic talents and all he has going for him are the gullible.

I am betting the farm that Swann didn't see diddley and his claims of remote viewing are just bs as no irrefutable evidence has ever been produced by him or individuals associated with him. No one can see what is not in front of them, Nostradamus or not. His books sell, so what? Stanton Friedman's books sell and they're full of bs which the gullible gobble up.

Evidence speaks, words do not.

originally posted by: sparrowstail
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.

A very good conspiracy-type reply devoid of evidence to support opinion expressed.

originally posted by: texasyeti
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.

Amazing reply! Where do you get your knowledge and why do you accept it as the last word and why do you not provide irrefutable evidence? Enlighten us, please.

originally posted by: draknoir2

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.

I thought the forum motto was "Deny Ignorance", not "Defiantly Embrace Ignorance".

If your assumption was correct, neither ATS nor any other forum dealing with similar topics would exist mainly because the majority of humans are gullible and logic is in short supply. So, while ATS members may be nice people, when it comes to judgment niceness is not a factor. The main factor affecting replies is the replier's belief system most are slaves to.