Richard C. Hoagland/Moon Artifacts Supporters: A Question or Two

I just reread Richard Hoagland and Mike Bara's Dark Mission and, just like the first time, found it to be a good read with compelling arguments and a pretty good selection of evidence. I'm left with a few questions though that I can't answer with some quick research.

Some Background. Hoagland and his Enterprise Mission support the theory that there are ancient artifacts on the moon and mars and possibly other planets and satellites. On the moon there are supposedly enormous glass domes supported by a darker rebar like skeleton. It's the claim that the domes are glass that raises the questions.

1) Assuming that there are glass domes on the moon, wouldn't they be visible from Earth under limited circumstances? Specifically, I'm talking about reflections, some light catching a structure just right and creating a 'bling' on the moon. My first thought was that the lights that have been forever seen on the moon could be reflections, but those lights are often said to move and wander across the moon's surface.

2) How big would a structure on the moon have to be to be visible from the Earth through a commercially available telescope. I'm aware that the object would have to be gigantic, but Hoagland is talking about gigantic structures. This seems to me to be the most important questions. If it would be possible to see the objects Hoagland claims are up there from Earth, then his conspiracy dissolves.

3) In doing a bit of research into this subject, I came across one of Hoagland's videos on youtube wherein he describes the prism/rainbow effect that would happen if a picture was taken on the surface of the moon with the dome remains refracting sunlight. One commenter of the video claimed the prism effect could be caused by the lens of the camera. While this seems unlikely to me (the effect would happen on a wide array of photos rather than only in a consistent set), it is one of those deceptively simple explanations that often pops up. Could a camera's lens create a prism effect?

That's it, I hope some of you can help clarify these points. I also recommend Dark Mission. Even if the claims seem absurd (and I'd imagine they would to most), Hoagland is by no means a crackpot; it's a good read.

Originally posted by avingard
Could a camera's lens create a prism effect?

...yep... dust, moisture, smudges on the lense can produce ghosts, orbs, rainbows, ufos (etc)...

...about the authors - are they of the persuasion that believe the moon has no rotation, so we never see the dark side and thats where this glass dome civilization is?...

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


No they aren't. Hoagland is widely enough known that if you google him you can find a quick summary of his theories.

My thoughts about the camera lens is that they would have been well enough constructed that any water droplets (unlikely on the moon) or smudges would have to be external and could be easily identified by their affect on photos in a series.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by avingard
Could a camera's lens create a prism effect?

...yep... dust, moisture, smudges on the lense can produce ghosts, orbs, rainbows, ufos (etc)...

...about the authors - are they of the persuasion that believe the moon has no rotation, so we never see the dark side and thats where this glass dome civilization is?...

No, they are not.

As to the lens being able to make prisms, yes, in the ways that wyn describes, and more.


However, one thing to bear in mind is that the astronauts taking the photos are trained to handle them, and in the conditions they were heading to. So I would think they'd be on the watch out for potential problems with the lenses.

Just my 2c there.

Those glass tunnels are pretty strange

reply to post by conar




Yea Hoagland also does a lot of research on mars and possible artifacts there. Those theories are less readily disprovable though.





And I agree with the poster above, I would think that the astronauts would be more than technically competent to recognize a defect in their camera that could cause a prism effect and correct it.




[edit on 24-7-2009 by avingard]