Dienstag, 7. September 2021

Spell Breakers

During a short flight between Stockholm and Berlin recently, I did what I always do when up in the air, I listened to a podcast. One of my go to-pods the last couple of years is called Rune Soup by Gordon White. In this particular episode he engaged in quite a lengthy chat with a chap named Rhyd Wildermuth, of whom I had never heard of before but definitively earned a spot on my radar.

The episode, titled Politics as Religion: Ressentiment and Identitarianism, is from mid June this year and is a meta-discussion about politics - what it is and what it isn't, etc.. The amount of highly sophisticated perspectives the two gentlemen share with the listener are really staggering, so I recommend anyone who has the least bit of interest in the topic, be it ideology, philosophy or current affairs, to give it a listen.

What stuck with me the most though, were three simple examples, on how to disarm three of the most toxic spells of today's lunacy. They casually dropped them at the end of the show, and as of hearing them utter the sentences, they immediately struck me as both being highly potent as well as being easy-as-cake.

Therefore, let me share with you, three magnificent responses to three common declarations - declarations which in most cases only serve to assert power over you and the world in which you dwell (the reason why I call them spells).

Montag, 30. August 2021

5 Reasons NASA Sucks

In a day and age were everybody and his mother are wearing NASA T-Shirts - living in a European metropolis I see them more or less daily on every body from nerdy kids to grandmas - wouldn't it be reasonable to stop for a minute and ask ourselves, 'What kind of agency is this anyway?'.

Not only seen on regular Joe's.

I think so, and because nobody else seems to care, I feel obliged to share my thoughts on what I feel is anything but an honorable association. Frankly, I don't care for NASA at all; in fact, my blood starts to boil every time I see someone who unsuspectingly do free PR for them as they prance around in their €1 Primark shirt. 

Walt Disney and Wernher von Braun the ex SS-Officer who later became a NASA hot shot.
It should come as no surprise that these two got a long.

Why? You might ask. I will tell you why. Rest assured, there are reasons a plenty (besides cancelling the Moon program or making a high ranking ex-Nazi their spokesperson) to cause certain caution whenever the logo shows up; however, the following five are the most egregious. 

5. The Golden Record

Back in 1977, NASA came to the conclusion that the satellites Voyager 1 and 2, both destined for the outer reaches of our Solar system, should carry with them a couple of LPs featuring the sounds of planet Earth. So they gave a team the task of putting together a music playlist that would be inscribed on one of the records. Needless to say, the selection could've been more varied. Especially considering it was the late 70's. 

I really can't quarrel about the traditional folk representation, but as far as the rest goes a good third of the tracks is western classical music, Beethoven even gets two tracks and Bach three (!). Of course, the whole thing was never meant to be taken seriously, predominantly serving as a PR stunt, but it still jerks me that the only tracks that wasn't in the classical or indigenous folk genre, was Johnny B. Goode, a blues and a jazz track. 

Yeah yeah, royalties and whatnot, but I mean, come on, throw some Kraftwerk or King Crismson on that b ... 

4. Dissing Cydonia

The year was 1976 and the Viking 1 probe had just completed a lap around Mars. NASA held a press conference showcasing its progress, in which they presented an image containing a stone mesa eerily reminiscent of a humanoid face. 

Frame 35A72

They laughed it off as a trick of shadow and light, blaming the particular positions of the sun and the probe during the time the picture was taken. They even claimed to have another photo supporting their explanation. But they didn't show it, because it didn't exist.

Several years later, two guys stumble upon a second photo that was taken a month after the first one, showing the same features, despite a change of conditions. (For more detailed info about the Face, check out this article I wrote a few years back)

Frame 70A13

Cydonia is the name of the region in which the possible monument is situated. A closer look at topographic photos from the area shows several interesting geographical objects in close proximity to the face. Among the more interesting ones are the two 5-sided "pyramids". 

To make a long story short.

Anyway, there was good reason to get excited, as the plan was to land the Viking 2 module in Cydonia not too long after. Unfortunately someone deemed the landing spot too risky and therefore changed it to a place far away. 50 years and a truckload of rovers later, not a single one has even tried to check it out. 

Just a big goddamn tease.

3. Losing Stuff

When I tell people that we have lost the technology to go to the Moon, they roll their eyes and go on to explain that the reason we haven't gone back since the early 70's, is simply because it was too expensive. Assuming this being true, it merely explains why we stopped going. 

However, the fact of the matter is that public announcements have confirmed that the tech used by the Apollo missions indeed has been lost. Meaning that even if we wanted to recreate the space shuttles used by Armstrong and Co., we couldn't. 

Here's Don Pettit, a NASA Astronaut, confirming the tech demise.

This wouldn't be so noteworthy, if our space faring tech was just as good, if not considerably better, today. But it isn't even close. And I would need to see a lot more, than billionaires pretending that the mid-layer of our atmosphere is outer cosmos, until I'm convinced that the know-how hasn't disappeared a long with the nuts and bolts

As if that wasn't enough, the original Apollo 11 telemetry tapes, i.e. the raw Moon footage Houston got before transmitting it to the world, doesn't exist anymore. According to themselves it was erased or taped over. 

What kind of headline is that anyway?
And who has ever claimed this to be a mystery?

In this extremely convoluted article on NASA's official website, called Not-Unsolved Mysteries: The Lost Apollo 11 Tapes, they give the impression that all is fine, nothing is amiss; though if one reads it carefully, they 

i) do admit that they lost the original tapes.

ii) but they found footage in a CBS News archive showing what Houston transmitted, ergo

iii) no Moon footage has been lost.

thus spinning the original query into something else, then pretending that a solution has been satisfactory given. Alas, the proof is in the pudding. According to this report, called: The Apollo 11 Telemetry Data Recordings: A Final Report (again, from their own website) they state: 

Probably ...

No? Arguably the most significant video data in history ... Gone... 

From: Not-Unsolved Mysteries: The Lost Apollo 11 Tapes

Can you really blame people for questioning if we ever went there?

2. False Pretenses

One of the main arguments for sending unmanned vehicles to Mars has always been to look for clues that might tell us if life once existed there. That's the reason why many of the rovers have been placed on what's suspected to be dried out lake beds and such - because as the story goes, the first life forms on Earth manifested in water. 

Potential megalithic structures aside, one would think that fossilized algae or other rudimentary organisms would qualify as highly interesting to any of the robo-missions. 

One would think that the following photo (Sol 034), taken by the Opportunity rover in 2004, on a rock with what appears to be crinoids, would spark some kind of cautious examination. 

Microscopic Imager: Sol 034
Click here for the original images.

I mean, if they were really serious about this 'looking for signs of life' business ...

Click here for the original images.

Instead, they activated Opportunity's Rock Abrasion Tool (a.k.a. RAT), so that they could grind down every single trace of the formations. Taking into account that the RAT is very slow, and the fact that the post-pictures were taken approximately 3,5 hours after the first ones, one have to conclude that they didn't waste any time before getting down to business. 

In the screenshot above, once again taken from NASA, the mission is clearly stated. When looking at the official results, Opportunity only gets credit for finding "signs of water and conditions for life".

It's clear that the Opportunity Sol 034 images tell a different story: either of suppression of evidence, or grave incompetence. Regardless of which, because of the RAT farce, possible alien fossils accompanied by a considerable amount of NASA's credibility, went up in smoke.

1. Perseverance, Ingenuity and Variations on a Theme

The latest addition in the line of Mars rovers was put there earlier this year, it's called Perseverance and in one of my favorite clips of 2021 you can see how the agency collaborated with newly elected Biden, for this hilarious PR stunt. 

Anyway, this rover has landed nearby what scientists have concluded must be a dried out river bed (surprise...), and therefore a great spot to look for traces of ancient martian life. It goes without saying that they once again managed to chose a landing spot not even close to Cydonia. 

This time its not only bigger, but comes with a slightly higher resolution camera than the previous models, and its very own drone, called Ingenuity (which by the way has a price tag of 80 million USD). Since its take off it has been busy sending us weekly in flight videos looking like this:  

Scouting. In black and white...

Keeping in mind the previous points made in this post (#2 and #4 in particular), when videos like See Perseverance's latest rover tracks & Mars 'litter' pics or Sounds of driving on Mars! Perseverance makes first-ever recording pop up in my feed, I can't help but to shake my head at how low the level is. And to top it all off, people get all flabbergasted by this dog and pony show. 

Some samples of the flabbiest show in our Solar system.

Because when it comes down to it, that's what it is. Nothing more than lame distractions. Sure, I won't deny the technical expertise that fodders these type of missions. Surely the engineering teams deserve their fair share of respect. Then again, this isn't about the technology per se, instead it's about the latest of a long line of rovers on Mars, which so far has done nothing that the others didn't do, i.e. taking pictures of sand ... and rocks. 

Taken by the Viking 2 lander, later half of the 70's.

By Opportunity, May 3, 2018

Curiosity, Feb 14, 2014

Perseverance, August 26, 2021

No matter how much they try to hype up the extreme importance of these missions (mostly through arguments regarding future human colonization or insight into how life arose on Earth), the curriculum is there for everybody to see, and so far it hasn't produced anything even remotely overwhelming. At least not to the public.

Just look at this list of "Top Science Findings" they present. Water (rather "signs of Water") is listed three times! Even four if you count "Right Conditions for Life" which is all about water as well. I mean really, haven't the space probes already confirmed all of the below and more since decades back?

Bread and Circuses

Thank you for putting food on our plates ...

Judging from the latest NASA Goddard Youtube-uploads [link1][link2], which are all about the agency's crucial role in monitoring crop production - as if humankind hasn't been fully competent the last ten thousand years give or take - it's easy to get the impression they are exceptionally important. 

Kind of like when Volkswagen used the slogan "We Drive Diversity" at the UEFA EURO this summer. Is it really true though, or are we just victims of dynamic marketing strategies?

The bottom line is, that at the time of this writing the biggest thing in space travel are private billionaires who can't even leave the upper atmosphere and remote controlled robots producing an endless stream of rock pictures. Considering we supposedly had people walking the Moon's surface 50 years ago, NASA's main course at the moment is under cooked technological de-evolution, served with a side dish of stone cold deceit. 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, sucks. 

Big time. 

Sonntag, 6. Juni 2021

Chocolate Fuzzy Balls

The Cloud That Didn't Care

Black Holes have been a running theme in this blog the last few years, and I have given many examples of observations which have contradicted the understanding of how they are supposed to work. Funny enough, I have have never mentioned perhaps the most striking instance of a BH behaving badly: namely, the G2 debacle. 

In 2006 astronomers discovered a huge dusty cloud in the vicinity of Sagittarius A*, also known as Milky Way's galactic center, which as we all know is assumed to be a super massive BH. As the years went by, the gas cloud, named G2, was seen drifting closer and closer to the center; and this naturally got the scientific world very excited. 

Because according to the theories the cloud would get ripped a part and sucked into the hole, or something like that. But lo and behold, when it finally arrived at its destination in mid 2014, the scientists found themselves rather dumbstruck as they watched it cruise through the abyss completely intact. 

G2 giving zero fucks.
Source: space.com

Some tried to explain it away by suggesting that it was a case of false identification, that the cloud was in reality something else, or at least contained one (or two!) huge stars that held it together with their gravity. However, realizing that they thereby confessed to - in one way or another - being incompetent, the incident was largely ignored, and very soon business continued as usual. 

Enter, the Fuzzy Ball

However, earlier this week a bunch of articles popped up on several science news-sites, proposing a radically different explanation to the old mystery. Here's a couple of screenshots taken from phys.org, livescience.com and space.com 

From livescience.com

From phys.org.

Apparently, an Italian research team recently published a paper in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, claiming that they have gathered proof that Sagittarius A* maybe isn't what we think, but instead a "fuzzy ball of dark matter" (I kid you not, that is exactly how they put it). 

The team put together a computer simulation of our galactic center. In one of them they simulated the traditional singularity and in another one they replaced it with a fluffy ball of dark matter. 

Of course, nobody knows what dark matter is, so the team took the liberty of constructing it out of so called "darkinos". A particle that so far resides in a purely hypothetical realm and therefore has the very practical advantage of having whatever properties one ascribes to it. Here's a quote from the livescience article:

[...] The team of astrophysicists, led by Eduar Antonio Becerra-Vergara of the International Center for Relativistic Astrophysics in Italy, found that if they replaced the supermassive black hole with a ball of darkinos, and those darkino particles had the right mass and velocity, they could replicate all the observed motion of the S-stars. In some cases, their model could do even better than the vanilla black hole calculations at matching the observed orbits. 
But that result doesn't mean much. The black hole model is exceedingly simple: You just need to plug in two numbers, the black hole mass and spin, to predict how the S-stars should behave. But the darkino model has many more parameters, allowing for more fine-tuning, and the researchers found the best possible combination of darkino properties. [...] (My bold)

In short: they use a computer simulation, throw in object X including a few extra parameters. Then continue to tweak its properties as they see fit until they have more harmonious results. 

That's some serious science for ya'll. 

Shots fired

Although I welcome the fact that someone in the scientism establishment finally entertains the idea that the object in the the middle of our galaxy might not be a black hole after all, I have to say that it's a little disappointing to see that they want to replace it with more Standard model woo woo. 

But be that as it may, there is good reason to see this as positive news. Not only does G2 get some well deserved spotlight again, but apparently some people in the astrophysics departments have a hard time letting it go as well. 

The fact that they try to use the deeply problematic dark matter as a band-aid in this case could be interpreted as a sign of desperation. In doing so, they unintentionally call into question some fundamental aspects of the very same model they try to save; and as icing on the cake, they are directly poo-pooing the last years Nobel Prize in Physics. How, you might ask. Well let me end with a quote from the 2020 Nobel committee's press release.

Using the world’s largest telescopes, Genzel and Ghez developed methods to see through the huge clouds of interstellar gas and dust to the centre of the Milky Way. Stretching the limits of technology, they refined new techniques to compensate for distortions caused by the Earth’s atmosphere, building unique instruments and committing themselves to long-term research. Their pioneering work has given us the most convincing evidence yet of a supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way. [Source] (My bold)





Montag, 24. Mai 2021

The Sudden UFO Threat

Since roughly 2017, a group going under the name TTSA (starring Tom DeLonge, Christopher Mellon and Robert Bigelow among others), has been pushing the idea of the reality of UFO's and Pentagons involvement with them, through different major news outlets. 

It started with the New York Times, in which whistle blowers both disclosed that Pentagon had a secret program with the purpose of monitoring these flying objects, and later, in the summer of 2020, that they even possessed crash debris of “off-world vehicles not made on this earth.”. [LINK]

Since then it has been somewhat quiet, but last week things started cooking again. In a period of a few days some serious spotlight was put on the topic again. Here's the most noteworthy ones

60 Minutes



Fox News

Even ex-president Obama came out of the woodworks to give his take on the phenomenon

Now with the exception of Obama's statement, the rest of the clips emphasize the potential threat of these unknown vehicles, or UAP's (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon), as they prefer to call them. In one segment they're even thought of as Chinese or Russian technology. 

They also have in common that they treat the subject as if it is something relatively new, even though that it is painstakingly clear for anyone who has done the slightest bit of research*, that the UFO phenomenon has been with us for at least the beginning of the 20th century, and likely far longer than so - if not since the very beginning. 

Anyway, if they were at threat to us, they sure are taking their sweet time to make a move. 

What also bothers me is the quality of these leaked videos. I mean amateurs have captured way better footage with hand held cameras as far back as the 90's. In fact they don't look more impressive than the grainy UFO videos from the NASA missions in the 80's. [LINK]

The question therefore remains: what the hell is this sudden push to get us wary about UFO's all about? There's no reason to feel threatened, but nevertheless this is how they choose the frame it. 

As I mentioned in the beginning, the group that got the ball rolling, TTSA (To The Stars Academy) is practically run by the Bigelow group. [LINK] Yes, the multi-billionaire Robert Bigelow. 

As a spokesperson for this group we see Christopher Mellon, who's quite experienced, according to Wikipedia he was.

"former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and later for Security and Information Operations. He formerly served as the Staff Director of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence."

Perhaps one should also mention that the Mellon family is one of the wealthiest families in American history, only rivaled by the likes of Rockefeller, DuPont, Ford etc..[LINK]

In other words, there is Big Money behind this apparent disclosure. Looking at history and using common sense, Big Money has seldom (read: never) had the common mans best interest at heart. 

Of course the general public doesn't really care about UFO's, and the question is when they really will.

They would probably have to start threatening us for real, or seemingly so. 

[*]I recommend reading a book by any of following authors: Stanton Friedman, Jacques Vallee, Timothy Good, Donald Keyhoe or Richard Dolan, to name a few. 

Donnerstag, 15. April 2021

Time Captives


Back in 2016, I wrote a Swedish blog post in which I addressed the severe lack of philosophical competence in modern science, and as the Nobel Prize in physics 2020 demonstrated, the situation, unfortunately, hasn't improved much in the last five years. 

Out of curiosity I read through the 21 page background paper, by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. As I have already invested a lot of time* digging into the chicanery going on in particle physics and cosmology, it didn't come as a surprise that the powers that be continues to re-enforce the model which has been promoted for almost a hundred years. 

The prize was split: one part going to two astronomers for cosmological observations, and one part going to Roger Penrose, for, as the Nobel Prize committee put it: "the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity"

In this post I'm going to focus on the philosophical aspects of Mr. Penrose's theoretical discoveries. The so called Penrose diagrams, together with certain paragraphs from the committees paper, will serve as the objects of interest. 

My conclusions will also serve as fodder for a deeper critique concerning the intellectual and existential prison brought upon us by the old world of classic European imperialism. 

Diving into Darkness

I will now quote text and pictures from the paper followed by my own comments. 

Comment: I mentioned in my post The Hole Story, that the concept of time as well as space are both abstract ideas, which to this date have no physical definition. One can ascribe them a number and put them into an equation, but as they are not physically understood, one has to wonder how meaningful a term like [fabric of space-time] is, and how one can be sure that they (time, space) can exist independently of each other, as depicted in above diagram. The term [singularity] is also not clearly defined in any tangible sense. 

Please note the description "Inside [...] the radial direction is time-like". 
Q: Exactly what is time-like

"To visualize space-time, Penrose introduced a technique using conformal transformations (Penrose 1963). Such transformations can change the scale but they always retain angles. This means that points infinitely far away in space, and events in the infinite past or future, can be brought in from infinity to fit inside a diagram of finite size. [...] Such diagrams are called Penrose diagrams, and they are indispensable tools in the study of curved space-times"

 "The study of curved space-times" ... One has to wonder as to the nature of this research. Not only do they study the bendable aspects of an abstract, but they're also certain that there are many of these space-time-fabrics; which by the way, the diagram/figure above fails to consider, as it clearly shows space and time as existing separate from each other. 

Worth noting is the spear-like form of the singularity, and of course the intriguing phenomenon referred to as [trapped surface]**

Comment: My favorite for last. Now take a good look at this diagram and contemplate just for a minute the definition of the term [past] and [future]. The simplest way to explain them is: set of events happening before or after a certain point in time. This means that both of them have an end and/or starting point. 

Q: How can one in any meaningful way talk about an infinite finite set of events? 

One could just as well make the case for sweet salt or dry rain. The absurdity of it all only gets underlined by the illustration, showing both infinites as finite lines. 

Q: How do you distinguish two infinite measures of time from each other and where does infinite present fit into the diagram?

Also, please note the description "time runs upwards". 

Before moving on, here's the last sentence of the paper in question. I urge you to read it slowly and think about it for a moment.

If you feel the first sentence is opaque, here it is, in plain English: 

How much A actually match the predictions of B is unknown. 

This implies that the predictions of B are murky and that even though they award a Nobel Prize for A matches B, they admit that, in the end, it could be of insignificant importance, further accentuating the limited practical aspects of the discovery. 

In regards to the last sentence: Very humble indeed.

Widening the Scope

So how come there's no reaction from philosophers and physicists alike? How come they get away with murder? I would speculate that the problem is a deeply rooted cultural one, in which we (mainly modern western society) have been conditioned to think of time in a very specific way, mainly: that it can exist as a separate object and that it is linear with pre-, now and post-qualities - perhaps that it even has a direction.

Because we are so used to think of time in this way, we accept the ideas above, as we think we grasp the gist of them. Or so we fool ourselves to think. Because if one's understanding is fundamentally flawed, everything that follows will inevitably be contaminated. 

In reality, this way of thinking about time is very new. Following the enlightenment and the deconstruction of the grand Cosmos as nothing more than a gigantic clockwork. In the spirit of that era, the British empire invented Greenwich Mean Time in 1675, which still serves as the standard reference time globally.   

Time Zones, in their brilliant splendor. 

Imagine Sumerian or Aboriginal culture concocting something similar ...  To give some extra food for thought I'm going to give a last example of a completely unrelated field that has been compromised because of  this messed up notion.

Our current environmental narrative tells us that we are (almost) out of time if we want to preserve some fuzzy ideal state of being for our planet as we head into the coming ages.

Hardly do many realize that by stipulating it in this way, we apply our artificial time concept on nature itself, which in turn becomes, in our confused understanding, an object of far lesser eminence than what is due. 

Regardless of the man-made mechanisms actual effect on our heavenly sphere - the framework in which we view the problem, obfuscates most if not all positive potential to the outcome. Climate doesn't have an ultimate way of being; in fact, we can safely deduce from looking at the Earths history, that climate is ever changing and cyclical in nature. In every moment unique. 

There is no secret that not only the ancients, but many humans of today, has viewed and continues to view time in a very similar fashion. In this light our present time conception looks more and more - to paraphrase the author and thinker Gordon White - like a bad spell. 

With this in mind - not to mention being obsessed by what we have done and what we should do - there's no wonder we are stuck in a state of junk science, reckless solutionism and, ultimately, spiritual inertia. 


Sonntag, 5. Juli 2020



With the exception of the Sun, our Moon is probably the object of our skies that we take for granted the most. But in comparison to the Sun, which is a fairly common type of star in the observable universe, our Moon is not only unique, but perplexingly unique.

This article will first and foremost focus on the factual aspects of our heavenly neighbor, as they alone quite clearly demonstrate the anomalous nature of it. Because it further adds to the mystery, and because it's fun, a couple of images of intriguing objects will be featured at the end.


In spite of the many manned and unmanned space expeditions, we still don't understand how it originated. The main hypothesis is, that it is a piece of Earth that broke off in an ancient collision with another heavenly body.

Artist rendering of how the giant impact hypothesis might have looked like.
Image credit: Joe Tucciarone

Rest assured, this is merely a hypothesis which despite its many problems - the main one being the different composition of volatile elements in the planetary crusts [LINK1] [LINK2] - it still is the most favored idea in mainstream astronomy.

Of course the scientific establishment would never ever consider an artificial origin, even though there exist compelling evidence which might suggest the possibility of our Moon being a construct. Without jumping to conclusions, let us examine the facts as they are being presented to us by our space agencies.

Odd ball out

Our Moon is very different from the rest of the moons in our solar system, which in Mars' case either tend to be small, uneven rocks, or, looking at Jupiter and Saturn, the size of small planets.

The Moon, being bigger than Pluto, is the fifth biggest satellite in our solar system. As bodies of this magnitude are only seen around gas giants, and with Earth as the one exception, it is by far the biggest moon compared to the size of the planet.

It's 27% the size (circumference) of the Earth, thus making the ratio 1:4. As a comparison the ratio between Io and Jupiter is roughly 1:5000.

Earth, Moon and Ceres, scale comparison.
Image credit: wikipedia

By the way: its size in percentage, ~27.3% (of Earth's circumference) [LINK], matches its revolution period around the planet of 27.3 days very neatly.

Because of its big nature, it's sometimes referred to as our "secondary planet"; however, as big as it may be, it only holds a meek 1.2% percent of the Earths mass. That means that one would need roughly 81 of them to reach the same weight.

This suggests that our Moon either is extremely porous or hollow. To better understand the physical make-up, Apollo astronauts set up seismometers on the surface during their missions. Over 12 000 so called 'Moonquakes' were recorded up until 1977.

Apollo 11 astronauts conducting seismic experiments.
Image credit: NASA

A part from the expected vibrations caused by meteorites, the data surprisingly revealed that most of the moonquakes occurred very deep underground, much deeper than on Earth. More striking, however, was the fact that they occurred every 27 days, like clockwork.

In fact, the dean of science journalism, Walter Sullivan of the New York Times, described it as being as unlikely as having the stock market rise/fall on the same date every month.*

The only explanation so far is to ascribe the regularity to the monthly tidal stresses, though we have never detected anything similar on Earth - A definite consensus as to the nature of this remarkable phenomenon remains to be reached.

Different types of moonquakes registered on seismometers.
Image credit: NASA

Even stranger, the seismic data also recorded 28 shallow quakes. Reaching up to 5.5 on the Richter scale they would've definitively been felt by any astronaut standing on the surface. This type of activity is usually explained by the friction created by tectonic plates, but the Moon doesn't have them, so their nature are still unclear.

To top it all off Apollo 12 deliberately smashed a lunar probe into the surface to study the seismic effect it would have. To their astonishment, the Moon kept reverberating for nearly an hour. As Clive R. Neal, associate professor of civil engineering and geological sciences, describes it on nasa.gov "it was ringing like a bell." [LINK]

Impact site of the Saturn rocket booster - deliberately
smashed into the Moon by the Apollo 13 mission.
Image credit: NASA

A similar experiment was done by Apollo 13 with the Saturn rocket booster, this time creating a much bigger collision resulting in a 7 minute build up to a peak with a reverberation lasting 3 hours and 20 minutes. [LINK] It is worth mentioning that even the biggest quakes on Earth stops shaking after a couple of minutes.

About a year ago, an article on phys.org made a big splash proclaiming to have detected a gigantic "metallic anomaly" residing under the surface of the biggest moon crater. In some instances it was even referred to as a "deep structure". Whether it's just remnants from a meteorite, as they speculate, or something else, is still up for debate.

Artist rendering of Earth's magnetosphere shielding us from solar winds.
Image credit: NASA

On another note: generally speaking only planets and suns have a strong enough magnetic field to shield them from solar and cosmic radiation; but in 1999 NASA's Lunar Prospector satellite forced us to rethink this idea.

Diagram showing the magnetic anomaly.
Image credit: NASA

It was on a mission to map the magnetosphere of our neighbor, when it strangely enough found a small area (10 km) capable of generating a local magnetic field with enough power to shield radiation, thus making it the smallest magnetosphere ever to be found.

Except for these "magnetic rocks" (NASA's explanation), only cosmic bodies the size of planets have been recorded to generate such type of fields. [LINK] Do note that Mars, Venus and Pluto all lack them.

Against all odds

Perhaps the most astonishing characteristics of our heavenly neighbor are the ones we observe with our naked eyes from the surface of the Earth.

Most people don't realize it, but the Moon actualy mimics the movements of our Sun very closely, and would one just take the time to observe the heavens from the same spot on a regular basis, one would find that the full Moon is at its highest and brightest in midwinter, when the Sun is at its lowest and dimmest, and the reverse is true for midsummer.

One would also find that at each spring and autumn equinox, the Sun and the Moon rise and set at the same proximity in our sky. To demonstrate this remarkable coincidence, have a look at these pictures I've borrowed from the book Who built the Moon?**:

The Moon and Sun set at the opposite lanes in the sky at midwinter, whereas the process is reversed in midsummer.

At the autumn and spring equinox, they "sync up" and set at the same place.

The Moon mimics the Sun.
Image credit: J.C. Casado

In my opinion  the most striking of all the Moon peculiarities is the fact that it is 400 times smaller than the Sun, but by some inconceivably unlikely randomness, is placed exactly 400 times closer.

This of course means that it is the exact same size as the Sun from our point of view, which results in the occasional total solar eclipse.

The wondrous unlikelihood that allows for this event to take place often gets overshadowed (no pun intended) by the sheer awesomeness of the happening itself. But if one simply takes a couple of minutes to ponder what it really implies, perhaps one would also realize that this probably doesn't take place on any other planet in the whole galaxy, nor anywhere nearby.

Ultra HD photo of the solar eclipse. The Sun's corona looking like it belongs to the Moon.
Image credit: hdr-astrophotography.com

One i a zillion coincidence, or a signature by ancient architects? To use a quote from Deep Space Nine: I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen everyday. But I don't trust coincidences.

Anomalies, Structures, Photos

Trust me when I say that there exist a plethora of footage featuring anomalous objects on and in the vicinity of the Moon. Although I am almost perversely fascinated by whistle blower accounts mentioning NASA airbrushing out alien buildings/domes from the photos taken by their satellites [LINK, LINK2], or by astronauts allegedly spilling the beans in regards to what they saw on the surface [LINKLINK2]. I will here stick to a handful of the, in my opinion, best photographs.

The Moon Rocket

In this picture, take by either Armstrong/Aldrin on the Apollo 11 mission, we see a close up of what looks like a rocket shaped object with an exhaust flame.

As usually is the case with NASA, images featuring anomalies of this kind either gets the silent treatment or at best, are explained away as being smudge on the camera lens, problems with image processing etc.

I can only encourage the reader to take a closer look at the original picture on NASA's homepage (the "missile" can be found to the upper left) and contemplate if for yourself.

III-84M "The Shard"

Richard C. Hoagland is mostly known for his ground breaking book The Monuments on Mars, in which he analyzes Mars anomalies in meticulous detail. But he also gets credit for discovering some pretty amazing objects on the the Moon.

The best one is to be found on a picture taken in 1967 by Lunar Orbiter 3 called called "III-84M". Zoomed in, a tower of some kind, dubbed "The Shard", seems to be casting a long shadow in an otherwise barren landscape.

So far the only "debunking" I've come over stems from rationalwiki, where they say: "Lunar Orbiter used a wet film development process, and there are splatters all over its imagery as a consequence (fluids + zero-g = random messes).".

Of course it can't be entirely ruled out that we are seeing "a random mess of splatter", but in light of the similar findings captured on other parts, by other missions, it smells of a cop-out. The original photo can be viewed here.

ZOND-3, the Soviet Moon probe (1965)

In one of the first pictures ever of the backside of the Moon, taken by the Russian space probe ZOND-3, a most peculiar towering structure can be seen.

If this indeed is some kind of tower, it has to be several miles high. I've really tried to find any explanations as to the nature of it, alas to no avail.

Air brushed Department of Defense images

In 2004, a researcher named J.P. Skipper made some astonishing findings when scrutinizing the pictures taken during the US military (BMDO) project called Clementine. The picture above is just one of several in which one clearly can see tall objects blurred out.

No official comment has ever been given as to why these images have been edited, perhaps because it's too hard to explain them away as mere random processing artifacts. Though it is hard to imagine that these ones simply fell through the cracks. A deliberate soft-leak seems more likely.

The Department of Defense has since then taken down the website with the originals. However, the homepage has been archived by J.P. Skipper; you'll find it, a long with many other findings of high interest, here.


In 2000 NASA sent a probe on a mission to crash into the Moon's surface. The results were somewhat unexpected and maybe it was because they didn't disclose the whole truth on why they chose the spot they did.

The public video feed of the event was a travesty in so far that you can't really see anything but blurry pixels. But in one of the pictures taken from NASA controls, an interesting observation can be made.

Does it look natural to you?

If one looks closer at this image of two NASA employees, we see that the area in which the probe crashed seemingly features a non-natural structure. Perhaps it's just pareidolia, but one has to wonder if this picture isn't in fact another soft disclosure of some sorts. The original full size image can be found on NASA's homepage right here.

The Aristarchus Crater

Aristarchus crater.
Image credit: Mike's Astroimagery UK

Ever since man began pointing telescopes at our Moon, the Aristarchus crater has been a source of an inexplicable glow. For 350+ years now, we have descriptions of a blue fluorescent light at times surrounding the crater.

Transient lunar phenomena i.e. random changing of light/color of a certain lunar area is well known albeit not fully understood. And the Aristarchus crater is the spot which have the most activity.

Notice that it seem to have a geometric structure?
Image credit: Credit: USGS/US Navy/Clementine Spacecraft

So far, the only suggestion that has been seriously proposed is that the coloration might have something to do with radon 222 outgassing. A colorless nuclear gas. If that's the case, there sure seems to be a lot of it, in many colors, as this list of observations, from John Lear's great website, evidently suggests:

1650  Aristarchus  "Red Hill." Mons Porphyrites  Hevelius  B.A.A. Lunar Sec. Circa. 1967, 2, No 8
1784  Aristarchus  Nebulous bright spot of light  Schroter  Schroter 1791
1785  Aristarchus  Nebulous bright spot of light  Schroter  Schroter 1791
1786 Dec 24  Aristarchus  Extraordinarily bright  Schroter  Schroter 1791
1787 May 19-20  Aristarchus  Extraordinarily bright  von Bruhl  Bode 1790; Schroter 1791; Herschel 1912
1788 Apr 9  Aristarchus; 1 hr  Extraordinarily bright  Bode  Bode 1792b
1788 Apr 9-11  Aristarchus  Bright spot 26" N of crater rim  Schroter, Bode  Schroter 1789, 1791, 1792a, 1792b
1788 Sep 26  Near Aristarchus; 30 min  Bright spot 26" N of main crater  Schroter  Rozier 1788, 1792; Schroter 1791
1788 Dec 2, 5:35 am  Aristarchus  Extraordinarily bright, like star  Schroter  Schroter 1791
1824 May 1  Near Aristarchus  Blinking light, 9th to 10th mag.. on dark side  Gobel  Gobel 1826
1824 Oct 18  Aristarchus, vicinity  Mingling of all kinds of colors in small spots in the W and NW of Aristarchus  Gruithuisen  Gruithuisen 1824; Fauth 1899
1825 Apr 22  Aristarchus and vicinity  Periodic illumination  Argelander, Gobel  Argelander 1826, Gobel 1826
1866 Jun 10  Aristarchus  Star like light  Tempel  Denning, Tel.Work p.121
1866 Jun 14-16  Aristarchus, vicinity  Reddish yellow  Tempel  Tempel 1867
1866  Dark side  Bright spots  Hodgson  Hodgson 1866
1867 Apr 9, 19h30m - 21h00m  Aristarchus, vicinity; 1 hr 30 min  Bright spot on dark side, 7th mag., becoming fainter after 20h15m UT  Elger  Elger 1868
1867 Apr 12, 07h30m - 08h30m  Aristarchus, vicinity; 1 hr  Bright spot on dark side, 7th mag..  Elger  Webb 1962
1867 May 6-7  Aristarchus; at least several hours each night  Left side of crater, very bright luminous point, appearing like a volcano  Flammarion  Flammarion 1884
1867 May 7  Aristarchus, vicinity  Reddish yellow, beacon like light  Tempel  Tempel 1867; Astr. Reg. 1868
1884 Nov 29, 19h00m - 21h00m  Aristarchus; 2 hr  Nebulous at center; elsewhere features well defined  Hislop  Sirius 1885
1889 Jul 12, ~20h52m  Aristarchus  During lunar eclipse, brilliance in surrounding gloom was striking  Krueger  Krueger 1889; Fisher 1924
1891 May 23, ~18h20m  Aristarchus region  Lunar eclipse, half hour before end of totality, Aristarchus and region immediately N of it became conspicuous and increased in brightness from that time on  W.E. Jackson  Jackson 1890-91; Fisher 1924
1931  Aristarchus  Bluish glare  Goodacre, Molesworth  Goodacre 1931
1949 Oct 7, ~02h54m  Aristarchus  Abnormally bright during lunar eclipse  G.Brown, Hare  Contrib. by Moore
1949 Nov 3, 01h06m  Aristarchus  Blue glare, base inner W wall  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967
1950 Jun 27, 02h30m  Aristarchus  Blue glare, base inner W wall  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967
1950 Jun 27  Herodotus  Bright point in crater  Bartlett  Strol. Astr. 1962
1950 Jun 28, 03h27m  Aristarchus  Blue glare, rim of W wall  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967
1950 Jun 29, 05h30m  Aristarchus  Strong bluish glare; E, SE wall  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967
1950 Jul 26, 02h52m  Aristarchus  Blue glare, base inner W wall  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967
1950 Jul 31, 04h50m  Aristarchus  Violet glare, E, NE rim  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967
1950 Aug 28, 04h25m  Aristarchus  Intense blue violet glare; E wall bright spot, E, NE rim  Bartlett  Bartlett 1967

Luna 13, anomalous objects

In December 1966, Luna 13, an unmanned Russian space probe, became the third space craft to successfully land on the Moon. The first pictures it took features two objects that to this day no one has been able to explain.

This is part of the original photo that the Luna 13 took shortly after touch down. In it one can see two peculiar objects. Here they are isolated and magnified:

The most logical explanation, that they are parts of either the Luna 13 lander or some other man made probe hasn't been proven. In fact, the thorough research that has been done has had no success in matching them to anything of ours.

So, what are they doing there? Experts are still asking this very question.
The original photo can be found here.


Now, with most of the facts on the table, wouldn't it at least be fair to entertain the idea that our Moon might not entirely be the natural object our space agencies wants us to believe? I think so, and I also think that, without making any definitive conclusions, it's safe to say that it is a very anomalous object in and of itself.

What really lurks on its surface remains a secret for now, but amidst the rocks and lunar dust, surely there's something out of the ordinary there, wouldn't you think? Perhaps we will get some answers in a few years when SpaceX begins to go there.

Until then, let's at least keep an open mind.

Lights out.


Pictures (when not directly linked):
1st image: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/images.seattleastro.org/app/events/images/893/medium/Picture1.jpg?1566000549
Gif-animation from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G10m2ZZRH4U

* p.46, Das UFO Dossier, Jim Marrs, 1998

** Who Built the Moon?, Adam Butler, Christopher Knight, 2005