• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

More Moon Stuff

I'm not sure of the region in Don's photo, or if that is the photo Bara used in his book, however, the argument against satellite dishes on the moon is a good one, and that is that stationary lunar orbits are impossible.

Craters can look like domes and dishes, especially in the lower resolution high contrast photographs. I can't see anything like a satellite dish in Dons photo. As in most of these anomalous objects in old lunar photos, the matter of scale comes into play. That is a photo of a very large region, any feature that might appear to be a dish or hut would be incredibly huge, miles across.
i think the problem is that far too much mythology has been built up about the moon like it's some kind of loch ness monster that has its own life because of the promoters and speculators like Penetration. what is the factual reality about the moon and the access to imagery that we currently have online? are we not getting a full and complete picture of what was seen, and if not, just what kind of percentage is absent?

what's missing from here: Lunar Images?

sometimes i feel that some of this discussion is as speculative as the 9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate, that draws conclusions from misperceptions.

as much as i like a good mystery, i don't think i've seen any image or read anything, yet that convinces me of aliens on the moon more than what i've seen of the loch ness monster. in fact, if i had to choose between the two, i'd go for nessie, nods @Goggs Mackay, but i don't have much hope in her carcass ever washing up on the loch's shores anytime soon so...
Allan Sturm

Vito Saccheri

Jim Sylvan

Donna Teitz Hare

Decker on The Art Bell Show

Nick Redfern (Nasa)

For those that haven't, I'd recommend listening in full to this selection of Dark Matters Radio (DMR). Even if you have, they are wonderful to revisit, so many details, expertly hosted, these shows include some of the best Paranormal radio moments I've ever heard. They cover all bases (no pun intended) and points made in this thread.
No tumble weeds....gotta give it time for answers, considering work, timezones etc!

I have read 'Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon' and I believe it was a pdf online. There is an online of UFO literature, mostly of dead authors so no copyright probs. I forget it at the mo but a google search should bring it up. It's where I downloaded Capt. Ruppelt's book and a few others.

I found many of the arguments fascinating and even without this book, science does admit many problems explaining many features of the moon - it's creation, capture, inner structure, age, geology - you don't even have to bring anything 'ET' or artificial up and it is already full of mysteries that I think are intentionally ignored. Cos if science was taking a long, hard look, I think 'science' in general would be frightened by the implications, same as with UFOs.

Moon Formation - Closer to Answers but Still Undecided

Not so sure we need to be frightened by either theory, and I haven't
seen anything definitive and strange in any of the
Moon surface photos.
Last edited:
Listening to last Friday's show now.

I disagree that there aren't any good images of the moon available.
There are thousands of high resolution images of the moon available on the Internet from NASA and other sources. The LROC browser has some phenomenal photos. All the photos that were in the Lunar Planetary Observatory when Vito went there are available to us now with a click. As an aside: Vito was either mistaken or had been lied to about how the orbiters worked. I researched this and he could not have seen thousands of photos taken by the landers. Each one could only take less than 300 photographs a piece. None of them could zoom much less "decide" to zoom.

My contention is that strange things do exist in lunar photographs. However, my finding has been that they are usually old and very poor resolution photographs sometimes mistaken for being of a higher resolution. Every anomalous object I've looked at with the exception of "the spire" cannot be found in other more high resolution photographs. The spire does seem to visible in the LROC browser as the video Don referenced mentions (if its the one I'm thinking of.)

If someone thinks something is strange in a photo they have to get the answers to some very important questions before they can really say anything about it:
Where did the photo come from? Is it original, altered, cropped? Can the original be found?
How was it taken? Orbiter, space craft, or earth based observatory? What were the conditions and camera settings?
What is the resolution? How big of an object will I be able to see?
What is the scale? What is the size of the thing I'm looking at in this photo?
Can I find other photographs of that region? Does the object appear in other photos?

Otherwise about all you can say is, "Gee, that looks strange."
Here is a link to a bit I did on the Ranger 7 "sketch" from "Somebody Else is On the Freak'n Moon."
Follow the links I provide to look at the incredibly poor photo Leonard made his sketch from. It may bring to mind nameless's comment.

I just checked the link to the original photo and it's broken. I'll have to dig for the hi-rez of A199 later. The round photo next to the sketch is taken from the Ranger 7 A199 hi-rez photo. So that should give you an idea of the poor quality and low resolution of the original.
Last edited:
Giant Marble Harvests Energy from Sun and Moon

Giant Marble Harvests Energy from Sun and Moon : Discovery NewsGiant Marble Harvests Energy from Sun and Moon : Discovery News
I took a look at the Clementine data.

The "hi-res" camera was only 288 by 384 pixels!

So if that is good enough for you (and they say it resolves to 7-20 meters per pixel depending on altitude), you can download any of the "hi-res" images you want at the following web site:
Clementine Online Data Volumes

As an example, clicking on the following provides the database for 5 orbits.
Index of /archive/clem1-l_e_y-a_b_u_h_l_n-2-edr-v1.0/cl_0001

This tab provides all the data you need to know where on the Moon (latitude and longitude of the corners and the center point) and when the images for all these 5 orbits, including a reference to exactly where the raw image data is in the directory. Note that this file is ~17 Meg, 20194 images of which 6557 are "hi-res".

This provides a label of the columns of data for the imgindx.tab data.

Examining the imbindx.tab file, the first line is a HIRES image :"LHD00001A.032". It shows that the raw data is at the directory titled "LUN032/LHXXXXXX/LHXXXXXA/".

So you can save it to your computer.

This is the raw, compressed data.You must uncompress it to use it.

If you look at,
Index of /archive/clem1-l_e_y-a_b_u_h_l_n-2-edr-v1.0/cl_0001/software
they have a variety of software you can use. Sadly, this software is "old" (2008). I have a newer PC and it doesn't work anymore because I have a different number of bits in my operating system (64 instead of 32 bit). But, they have source C code for the adventurous. There are Mac codes too I have not tried. Seems like alot of hassle, but if you have an old computer in the closet or have the energy to compile the C code, you too can view the good ole Clementine "Hi-Res" images.

Personally, I prefer LRO data.
Thanks Don! Moon anomalies (no Hoaxland) are my go-to when I'm burnt out on UFO's. Hey SLVA, THAT is a great book, best thrift store buy in a long time :)
Well Hoaxland is back on DMR ... lol ... If Art Bell could get away with it, so can Don ( who refers to him as "Dick" throughout the episode ).
Last edited:
Well Hoaxland is back on DMR ... lol ... If Art Bell could get away with it, so can Don ( who refers to him as "Dick" throughout the episode ).

Randall, do you have a point to make or is this simply your way of tweaking me? I have known DICK Hoagland for 30 years. If you were simply attempting to be shitty ... well buddy, you managed that well. If you don't like who I have on as a guest ... don't freaken listen ... but I don't need your cheap shots which is exactly what you just did.

Randall, do you have a point to make or is this simply your way of tweaking me? I have known DICK Hoagland for 30 years. If you were simply attempting to be shitty ... well buddy, you managed that well. If you don't like who I have on as a guest ... don't freaken listen ... but I don't need your cheap shots which is exactly what you just did.

You taking him seriously (Hoagland not Randall) questions your credibility.