There’s a robot head on the Moon. Did you know that?
A severed robot head. Photographed near the ‘Shorty’ crater, apparently by Apollo 17 in 1972. Well, now you know. Mind-blowing, isn’t it?
Alright, so it probably isn’t a ‘robot head’: though this is generally how the mystery object is referred to by those who find excitement or intrigue in the image. Which, I will admit, includes me.
This particular image was brought to public attention by the author Richard Hoagland some years ago. The ‘Data’s Head’ (a Star Trek reference) object was discovered by Hoagland in official NASA photographs: he subsequently went on, at length, to argue that the enticing image showed the remains of an artificial lifeform – proof of a concealed alien presence on the Moon.
As we’ll get to a moment, there is a specific reason why I’m bringing up this issue and this image.
I will admit, however, that – even if it’s just a strange-looking rock in this image – the idea of the severed robot head on the Moon has intrigued and excited me for years. Just the notion that there could’ve been this robot on the lunar surface some time in the past, placed there by some other, non-human civilisation to conduct some mission or another: it’s the stuff of sci-fi novellas or the perfect subject for an offbeat animated short or contemplative poem.
Is that an ancient robot head on the lunar surface? Again, probably not. Probably just a rock that caught the light in a strange way. I’ve touched on the subject of ‘pareidolia’ – the innate human tendency to see meaningful patterns in random objects – before (way back in the old BBB archive), in regard to some of the strange images from Mars and some of the intriguing objects they appeared to show.
That’s probably what this is here in the Hoagland image. We are hard-wired to find not just meaningful patterns, but also specifically human faces, in inanimate objects.
Even knowing this, however, doesn’t make it any less viscerally impactful when you see a strange or eerie item crop up in images of another planet.
Take this, for another irresistible example: a humanoid-shaped shadow entity captured by Google Moon. What is it? A shifty alien? A lunar demon? One of those Gnostic ‘Archons’ everyone’s crazy about these days? Well, no, probably just a trick of light and shadow, right?
But… my human psyche can’t help but see something more in it: and once the mind makes that connection or leap, it’s kind of difficult to un-make it, even if the more logical part of the brain is advising against it.
Coming back to the matter of the ‘robot head’, it’s worth noting that Hoagland was also the man who popularised the iconic ‘Face on Mars’ back in the late 80s: and, as widespread as the fascination with that image was (along with entire arenas of mythology woven around it), the reality of the Face on Mars seemed to have been debunked by subsequent images of the Martian area in question.
Or… (dramatic music)… was it a fake debunking by NASA to cover up the truth? Unsurprisingly, that’s what a lot of people think. But I tend to think the Face of Mars was probably just never what Hoagland and others thought it was. And I say that as someone who was genuinely, as a youngster, really into the whole Face of Mars thing. And the fact that the same author who brought the Face of Mars to popular attention is also the guy who brought the ‘Data’s Head’ (he also likened it to C3PO) on the Moon to our attention doesn’t necessarily lend credibility.
Some of Hoagland’s excessive mythologizing and over-elaborate conspiracy-theorising makes him a little off-putting at times as an author. And he certainly has his debunkers and ridiculers. There’s also a case to be considered that a lot of the most prominent advocates and influencers in the promotion of ‘New Age’-inspired ‘Ancient Astronaut’ literature and space-god mythology may have been forwarding agendas linked to the intelligence community and occult societies: something that I really came to understand better via the excellent work of the researchers and authors Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince in the late 1990s, particularly in linking a lot of the emerging ‘space gods’ mythology back to things like Alistair Crowley, Jack Parsons and early occult undercurrents to the work of early Egyptology pioneers (a subject I will return to, as it was something I was putting together a piece on prior to the old website being taken down).
That being said, I probably reside somewhere in the middle. Generally, I’m not an eager enthusiast (at least not in terms of zealously subscribing to any specific theory), but neither am I a sceptic. I 100 percent believe there is more than enough strong or credible evidence out there in various forms for the existence and presence of both technology and anomalies that are essentially non-human in nature (be it extra-terrestrial, inter-dimensional, time-travel-based, or whatever else): and this being coupled to the fact, of course, that pure logic would dictate that there is other life – in whatever form – out there in the cosmos (or in other dimensions).
Even if we put aside the Moon and Mars, there are still unanswered anomalies, such as the monolith on Phobos, the unidentified object that took down Russia’s Phobos probes, the unexplained object or entities supposedly witnessed drawing plasma from the Sun, and – perhaps the most mind-blowing to this day – the mystery of the ‘ring-makers of Saturn’.
The problem is that the field of Ufology and its related subjects is so saturated with over-the-top mythology, fanaticism and even outright misinformation: all of which serves to undermine the credible data and evidence, of which there is plenty (and some of which we might be seeing very shortly). In fact, it has long been established that actual misinformation artists and campaigns have been active in the Ufology field for many years, originating with the intelligence community and military-industrial complex. And it then becomes very difficult to differentiate between credible researchers or authors and the misinformation peddlers whose job is presumably to muddy the waters: and this being in addition, of course, to outright charlatans and sensationalists who just do it for either fun or attention.
Where the likes of Hoagland or his robot head on the Moon (or indeed Face of Mars) fit into that, who knows?
Here, for example, is an attempt to debunk the ‘Data’s Head’ image specifically: by someone who was clearly not a fan of Hoagland’s work. He argues – and demonstrates – that the image from the lunar surface has been overly doctored to fit Hoagland’s idea of the humanoid head.
A counter-argument would be that certain enhancements and fixes were necessary to make the object more clearly discernible.
I don’t know. As I said earlier, I tend to think it’s probably just a rock.
All of that being said, the claims of NASA cover-ups regarding the Moon (and Mars), and the claims about strange goings-on regarding the Moon, are not all far-fetched. Some of these claims – not just of strange lights and UFOs witnessed by actual astronauts involved in lunar missions, but of artefacts and artificial structures being covered up by NASA (including via the systematic doctoring of images: for which there seems to be good evidence), and even of actual mysterious encounters on the Moon – entirely deserve to be taken seriously.
I’m not saying they’re all true: but there absolutely have been strange things involved in the Apollo missions and the Moon in general.
Is it possible, as a very popular theory holds, that the Apollo astronauts were being watched the whole time by beings already based on the Moon? And is this the reason, as that same school of thought suggests, that NASA discontinued the Apollo programme and, for decades after the supposedly great, epoch-defining accomplishment of the Moon Landing, we never went back?
The ‘evidence’ of a non-human presence on the Moon, it would be argued, is limited: but, then again, if the ‘evidence’ has and is being covered up, then that would be the case, wouldn’t it? Add to that the idea (apparently true) that key figures involved in the Apollo landings (including the men who walked on the Moon in 1969) were Masons and, well, you’d be entitled to ask questions. Especially when NASA, by its own admission, didn’t merely lose the original tapes of the Apollo 11 Moon Landing, but actually erased them (not joking: it’s official).
Also, for anyone who’s never looked into it, the alleged ‘secret’ Apollo 20 mission to the Dark Side of the Moon (a supposedly joint US/Soviet mission conducted in secret) is absolutely fascinating – even if it, along the with the mind-blowing video of the mummified non-human female figures supposedly discovered on the Moon (nicknamed ‘Mona Lisa’), was really just an elaborate hoax.
If it was just a hoax (and let’s assume it was), it was a brilliant one: both in terms of narrative and in terms of sheer production quality and attention to detail. This is the best surviving ‘Apollo 20’ footage still available on YouTube, for anyone who wants to marvel at it.
I mean forget about the old Santilli footage of the alleged alien autopsy from Roswell: the Apollo 20 video is – again, if it’s a hoax – a masterpiece.
For the record, I don’t personally have a definite opinion on any of these matters, one way or the other. But when highly respected people, such as Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell, talk about otherworldly life and accompanying cover-ups, it’s fair to say there’s something to be taken seriously here – although it isn’t entirely clear what that something would look like if fully revealed.
And also, in terms of any future ‘disclosure’ of potential information regarding aliens or interdimensional lifeforms or other civilisations, there’s also the ongoing question of whether human societies – in their present state – are ‘ready’ for such revelations: and the question of what the fallout would be from such revelations.
And, as if this subject wasn’t complicated enough, there’s *also* the question of whether any such future disclosure of this type of information would be legitimate or would be part of a controlled manipulation for the purposes of global control: which would bring us to the subject of the fake or staged ‘alien invasion’ that was apparently predicted by no less a figure than Nazi scientist and NASA founder Werner von Braun on his deathbed (a conspiracy allegation that has since been heavily taken up and propagated by Dr Stephen Greer of the Disclosure Project, who believes the government, led by the military industrial complex, is going to fake an alien threat in order to weaponise and control space).
This is particularly interesting in regards to the looming date of June 1st: the working date scheduled for the Pentagon’s apparent revealing of key UFO information (as was demanded as part of Trump’s COVID relief bill). This is something I’ll be getting into again here as that date approaches.
You also have to wonder if this would also take us into the territory of what Serge Monast predicted with Project Bluebeam: an alleged NASA-related conspiracy to stage a fake second coming of Christ for the purposes of ushering in a new age religion. Again, this stuff gets complicated (and I’m supposed to be talking about the robot head on the Moon here), so let’s leave some of this other stuff on the shelf for now. But we’ll come back to some of it soon.
But in terms of the alleged fake alien invasion or threat, I’m not sure what I think the reality is. Steven Greer is an interesting figure: but I remain on the fence about him and his very high-profile project. On the other hand, Werner von Braun (essentially the man who sent man to the Moon) is hardly a voice that one can easily dismiss: so, who knows? Also, the interesting thing about what Werner von Braun allegedly said is that the staged alien invasion hoax was simply going to be the final false-flag event in a line of planned false-flag events that would include a fake ‘War on Terror’ (bear in mind that he was saying this in the 70s): and all of it was designed to seize more and more control and power.
And again, we’ll come back to this stuff soon.
All of this is endlessly interesting. And, actually, the reason I’m addressing the subject of the ‘robot head’ on the Moon right now is because some interesting news items have recently popped up in space/science content online – which actually made me think immediately about this old NASA image that occasionally haunts my dreams.
This centers around a proposed rethinking of the way we look for signs of extra-terrestrial life or civilisations.
Regarding it as an alternative approach to the Drake Equation, James Benford – a physicist at Microwave Sciences in Lafayette, California – recently spoke about a study advocating for a Drake Equation specifically for artefacts: suggesting that physical evidence in examinable places could be a better approach to finding evidence of other civilisations than the SETI approach of searching for distant radio or light signals. This new ‘message in a bottle’ method would instead be focused on “lurkers”: hidden and probably robot-based objects of extra-terrestrial origin. Although it’s possible that the civilisations that created and sent out these things might even be long vanished, their tech, including probes or robots, could still be around (and maybe even still capable of communicating with us).
This idea also highlights the value of looking for such things in or around targets closer to us; such as Mars or the Moon, for example. This being as opposed to focusing our search far out into the galaxy.
As soon as I read this, I immediately thought about the robot head on the Moon. As well as various strange structures or anomalies that have been photographed on the Martian and Lunar surfaces (again, with the Phobos monolith being a prime example). Because, yes, while I still think the ‘Data’s Head’ object is probably just a rock, it would actually fit perfectly with what ‘SETA’ (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Artefacts) proposes.
I have no definitive theory or conclusion here: it’s just interesting food for thought.
And it would make some sense that potential extra-terrestrial civilisations would sent robots or robotic probes on missions: after all, it’s what we do now. We have robots on Mars, for example, and elsewhere: and our space exploration methodology has definitely shifted over the decades away from manned missions and towards robots, for obvious reasons. So why wouldn’t other civilisations out there have taken the same approach?
Ergo, there’s a severed robot head on the Moon! Okay, that’s probably too neat-and-tidy a line of logic I’ve followed there. But the general idea stands.
And in fact, while our ‘robots’ have thus far generally not been humanoid in construction, we may be heading in that direction. In fact, an actual humanoid robot was sent into space: specifically to the International Space Station. It was called Robonaut 2 (or ‘R2’ – seriously, Artoo…?).
So, if we’re heading in that direction, it’s entirely reasonable to suggest that some other civilisation has done so already: even in the distant past.
Ergo, there’s a severed robot head on the Moon!
Also, we’re apparently (finally) going back to the Moon now: as in manned missions. Apparently as soon as 2024, potentially.
While suspicious minds might be inclined to ask questions about why we’re suddenly going back the Moon after all this time, it’s also worth remembering that China has gotten pretty active on the Lunar surface too – so some of this might be about competition.
But, in conclusion… there’s a robot head on the Moon.
Honestly, even though I keep saying I think it’s just a rock, I’ve genuinely thought about that robot head on the Moon so many times over the years. The idea of it just captures my imagination. I mean, how did it get there? Was it part of a team? Or was it up there on its own? If so, was it lonely? What was its name? And how did it die? How did its head get severed from the rest of its body? What kind of gruesome, horrible death was that?
Someone really ought to write a short story about that lonely robot on the Moon and how it met its sad end. Or an epic poem. I might do it myself. “Oh, robot head on the Moon…” That’s all I’ve got so far.