Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Moonwalking? Strange Silhouette on Lunar Surface Goes Viral

We sure live in interesting times. Advances in the processing power of commercial computers, combined with faster Internet connections and freely available content provided by public institutions, have prompted the emergence of the armchair space researcher: Individuals who are willing to commit all their free time scouring through thousands of images released by Nasa, taken by the satellites surveying the distant surface of Mars, as well as our own pockmarked natural satellite, the Moon.

One such individual, who goes by the handle Jasenko on Youtube, found a rather puzzling anomaly by using Google Moon: Something that resembles a gigantic human silhouette, casting a shadow over the lunar terrain. The image was subsequently posted on a video clip, through the channel of a guy using the alias wowforreeel. As of today, the video has received more than a million views on Youtube.

wowoforreeel included the coordinates one can use in the Google Moon program to find the anomaly –27°34'26.35"N 19°36'4.75"W– and sure enough, after you type them it will take you to the location of the 'anomaly.'

But the first thing one realizes is that even with the total lack of scale, the distance marked by Google Moon would indicate this 'Man on the Moon' is impossibly large –hence why The Examiner decided to call it a 'Colossus'.

But the search of weird anomalies on the grainy archived photos released by Nasa goes way earlier than Google Moon, though: Ever since George Leonard published the book Somebody Else Is on the Moon in 1976 –which used to be nearly impossible to acquire, but now luckily a new reprinted version is available on Amazon [US] [UK]– the idea that artificial constructs which could be discarded remnants left behind by some advanced alien expedition (or maybe even by our own human ancestors, following the hypothesis of long lost civilizations that reached a technological level comparable or superior to ours) has captivated the imagination of many UFO enthusiasts.

Through the association of James Sylvan & Richard Hoagland, features known as 'the Shard', 'the Cube' and 'the Castle' were popularized on even a larger scale, just when the world wide web was starting to spread its tendrils across the Earth.

The 'Shard' The 'Cube' The 'Castle'

Unfortunately, Hoagland's more recent work has caused many to wonder whether all the 'anomalies' he keeps finding littering the surface of Mars, are actually the result of Pareidolia & the will to believe…

But another researcher who has been studying lunar phenomena for several decades is Don Ecker, former head of research for UFO magazine, which used to be run by him & his wife Vickie. Back in November of 1995, Don interviewed a man named Vito Sacchari on his long-running radio show UFOs Tonight, and who had a fascinating story to say: Sacchari was a petrochemical engineer, and back in 1979 his employers asked him to act as a chaperone for one of their business clients, a man working for an American firm conducting oil exploration in Venezuela, and take care of him while he was visiting them in Houston.

This man had read Leonard's book, and was very interested in finding out if there was any truth to it, so for the next 3 weeks he & Sacchari tried any trick they could come up with to try to gain access to the original Nasa lunar photos. According to Sacchari, their perseverance paid off, and what they ultimately found was, in every possible sense, out of this world:

Vito: The great majority of what we saw looked like excavation-type or construction activity. Coming from the petrochemical industry, we were familiar with building refineries. In the photos, there were pipelines, pipe fittings, what looked like construction equipment. I can’t say these were comparable to a bulldozer, but it was earth-moving, or moon-moving type of equipment. These things really were huge! The back of the photos had correlating data that would enable you to calculate the sizes of structures in the photos: height, sun angle and so forth. It was simple high school trigonometry to figure it out. But you can’t do that in your head! We didn’t have paper, pencils or calculators. We had to take Leonard’s word for the size of these things. We saw cracks in the lunar surface, like the Grand Canyon, with bridges spanning them, several miles apart. We saw large rectangular structures filling the insides of circular craters, that looked like they were under construction or very ancient. We saw pipelines running over crater rims.

Don Ecker: Were the craters named?

Vito: I believe so, but there were so many of them, and we couldn’t copy them down. I can’t remember from 16 years ago. Believe me, there was no way not to see these things. There were many of what Leonard called “X-drones” in these photos. It reminded us of a circular saw, shaped like an “X.”

You can listen to this amazing interview in its entirety, by clicking here.

So even though the 'lunar giant' image were to be explained away as a digital aberration or some other trivial explanation, that doesn't mean we should close ourselves to the possibility that sometime in the future, future lunar colonists could find an artifact of unknown origin buried under the powdery regolith, just as the Brookings report alerted to Nasa in 1960.

It also remains to be seen if the irruption of private interests in space exploration would allow us to have more cameras pointed at the Moon, along with drones & other forms of robotic telepresence. Maybe it will be Elon Musk –instead of Dr. Heywood Floyd– the first man to put ever his gloved hands on the slick surface of an alien sentinel.

…Or maybe, just maaaybe, what we discover on the Moon will be far more fabulous than a boring black monolith.

Further Reading:


Following the suggestions of one of our members, I went back to Google Moon, rotated the image 90° to the right:

I then decided to rotate it another 90°, so now we have completely switched the image upside-down:

From this POV, the ‘colossal shadow’ looks more like a crack or rift on a side of the mound. The most likely explanation for the anomaly, IMO. Thanks to WriterSP for his input.

  1. Once you have convinced
    Once you have convinced yourself that ET’s have been running all over the place for a damn long time then it would follow that the impossibility is that they would “not” have activities on the moon.

    1. Ingo Swann
      One thing I considered to mention, is Ingo Swann’s fantastic tale of remote viewing the Moon, at the behest of an enigmatic individual identifying himself as Axelrod. Swann not only ‘observed’ buildings on the Moon, but also humanoid creatures, working on the lunar surface completely naked.

      He related all this in his book Penetration, which I downloaded once on PDF, but never found the time to read. I really need to stop my procrastination & catch up with my studies.

      1. Naked on the Moon.
        Perhaps our moon man is simply “mooning” us. First of all those naked humanoids must be robots to with stand the lack of air and extreme temperatures and lack of atmospheric pressure on the moon. This notion smacks of a silly hoax for either fame or fortune. As to the man-on-the-moon does it not strike you as odd that there are no other ultra clear concise cracks. That the human-looking figure is probably a misinterpreted anomaly of natural circumstances is solid enough, however, that it is a crevasse or crack in the ground lacks a bit in the proof department as well.

  2. followed by a moonshadow?
    “the first thing one realizes is that even with the total lack of scale, the distance marked by Google Moon would indicate this ‘Man on the Moon’ is impossibly large”

    Actually, the first thing I realized was that the “shadow” is going the wrong direction.

    1. Depends

      Depends on what you think is the shadow, and what the oblique silhouette casting it. With the Moon, sometimes it's hard to tell which ones are the craters, and which ones the mounds.

      1. LOL, I wasn’t thinking
        LOL, I wasn’t thinking anything in particular about the anomaly was a shadow at all. I put the word “shadow” in quotes as referencing the label already placed on the image (either by the OP, or an unidentified someone else).

        However, you are correct in that I am assuming that what appear to be so many round craters are, in fact, craters. Shame on me for blindly paying attention to a lifetime of supposed “experts” in the field of astronomy telling the world that most of the moon’s surface is “cratered”. I should have realized that this image is of the famous “Sea of Mounds”, but I honestly am not familiar with the prevailing theory that explains the geological/meteorological processes which produce so many smooth mounds in such a (again, presumably) small area of the Lunar surface. Could you please enlighten us? I’m sure it will make a fascinating post.

        Look, I’ve been seeing your Nom’d’net here for years, so I realize you’re some High Mucky-muck of the conspiratorial fringe, but seriously – mounds? geezlefuck.

        1. High Mucky-muck

          I don't pretend to be anything on the conspiratorial fringe. And yes, the Moon is puckered with craters, but there's also a lot of mounds, the result of volcanic activity.Sometimes is hard to tell the difference.

  3. The moon shadows
    I have to disagree with the commenter who said that you can’t tell which way the sun is shining due to not knowing what is a mound and what is a crater. If the sun is shining from the upper-left in the photo, the curvature of the darkest shadows would be all wrong if they are on mounds (they’d be curved the opposite way). However, assuming the sunlight is shining from the lower-right direction and the darker shadows are in fact craters or holes, makes the anomaly even more difficult to interpret. If you rotate the image almost 90 degrees to the right and keep the sun over your left shoulder, the anomaly appears to be a dip, then a rise, then another dip with the whitish spot in the center casting down the shadow that looks like a head. The darker areas on the sun-side might be some kind of narrow rift. Anyway, that’s what I see.

  4. Another Silhouettes??
    I found this, two more silhouettes?…

    Please help me to search more details about this!. Is a error of the camera, or dust, or WTF???…

    27°34’10.55″ N 18°15’20.61″ O

    27°41’31.08″ N 16°54’19.69″ O

    1. W instead of O
      I take it you might not be an English-speaking native, so since my Google Mooon software is using English, I’m changing the O (Oeste) for W (West).

      Your 1st location doesn’t seem to show anything, though Google says it’s located inside the Mare Tranquilitatis (Sea of Tranquility).

      The 2nd coordinate does show a shadowish ‘anomaly’ somewhat resemblant of the image that inspired this post.

      But we have to be mindful of something important: The resolution quality is not good enough to really make much sense of all these black & white blobs. The Moon can turn into one big spherical Rorschach test if we’re not careful.

      That’s why I want to wait and see when we get to have third-party surveillance satellites & drones equipped with more sophisticated cameras. The Google Lunar X Prize could very well become the answer to all armchair researchers’ prayers.

    1. Anomalies
      Anomalies are important to recognize. They might point the way to new discoveries.

      Take for instance that weird ‘light’ observed by the Curiosity rover. It turned out to be a true anomaly, regardless of the initial dismissals that it was “just a cosmic ray.”

      1. Anomalies and Science

        “An epistemological paradigm shift was called a “scientific revolution” by epistemologist and historian of science Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

        A scientific revolution occurs, according to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies that cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has thereto been made. The paradigm, in Kuhn’s view, is not simply the current theory, but the entire worldview in which it exists, and all of the implications which come with it. This is based on features of landscape of knowledge that scientists can identify around them.”

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal