What the F**k is Happening on the Moon…?

Robot head on the Moon

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?

 Alien shadow on the Moon photo 

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.

 Robot head on the Moon 

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.


Apollo 20: Mona Lisa Alien body photos
Image Source: https://www.slideshare.net/ysaxvh/apollo-20-mystery2


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.


S. Awan

Independent journalist. Pariah. Believer in human rights, human dignity and liberty. Musician. Substandard Jedi. All-round failure. And future ghost.


  1. That’s great an article!

    I enjoyed every sentence while reading. I tried not to overlook every detail. Except for one point, it’s been a very good read for me, after a long time! That point was, of course, your remarks about the other shape on the moon.
    “What is it? A shifty alien? A lunar demon?”
    At this point, you opened a new point of doubt for WD, who believes that the aliens always are firmly prepared for the earth invasion. And now he sees you as a fan of his opinions; and he has a new complaint point about me in his paw; you do not have any idea what you have done to me with your questions, my friend, haha!

    Anyway, if I back to your article, especially to the parts of head on the Moon. I remember the times when I have read this very first time. In those days, I had the following question in my mind, as it is now:

    “If its head is here, where is this robot’s main body?”

    At the end of the article, you touched on something similar with emotional approach.

    -In the meantime, the last moments of the robot could be like this. This is the most poetic approach I can do.;)

    Data entry,
    Access permission for recording
    Data entry, error.
    Last record,
    permission is requested.
    Scanning memory
    “An iron life, you’ll be needed”
    Only recording in memory,
    a sound record of unidentified living being.
    Last record,
    An identified error.
    Access the sound recording,
    Transition diagnosis
    Decoding the error code
    Las.t recor..d
    Las..t recor..d..d..d … ”

    And really where is the body of this robot head? So when we look at the object, if we think of it as a robot head, it is not a small object. It had to have a large body as well. Isn’t it strange that only its head remains almost firmly, and its body disappears?

    Let’s say there was a big explosion, and this robot fell apart. Then there must be explosion marks on surface. And again, where are the remaining robot parts?

    Let’s say there was a big war, (…exciting war music preferably Shingeki no Kyojin OST # 10 (E•M•A).. ;)) and this robot was on the defeated side. So where are the others then? And yet where other parts?

    So if the defeated side removed all the wreckage and left only his head there. Maybe by saying “humanity will come someday, let this be our gift to them?”:)

    The last possibility was that they dumped waste robot parts from the spaceship into space as garbage. And this head fell to the lunar surface. The incredible thing at this point is of course that it fell from that height and there was no disinformation on it, also with the effect of the atmosphere. Lucky robot head!:)

    By the way, just because I don’t believe this object is the robot head doesn’t mean I don’t believe NASA is covering up a lot of things.
    And of course, the original tapes of the Apollo 11 Moon Landing was erased. Because I never believed Apollo 11 landed on the lunar surface. This is of course my own opinion. I also speak due to on the same days based on the Soviet study of Luna 15. And also in the environment of those days. Isn’t it interesting that Luna 15 with robotic mission crashed the moon’s surface on the same day, but Apollo 11 also successfully human landed on the moon?

    In other words, how the Soviets, who were ahead of every step until that moment, were defeated by the Americans who were behind them in space studies on the very same day, as well as in the human landing. Everything is politic on this planet, everything is propaganda.

    Also, of course, the capitalists who rule the planet and their shadows, dictators, may try to intimidate humanity in the future, with a new fear under the name of alien invasion. This is not something that will not happen. And from their perspective, it makes perfect sense. Right now, fear of pandemics, alien invasion next, cause, just like Hollywood movies. Shakespeare could have said his words today like that if he had lived:
    “All the world’s a Holywood stage”;)

    So why not, everything is possible while humans are willing to destroy their own kind rapaciously. I should also mention that, in addition to the subject, Space Fence is a very important subject in terms of the future of humanity, and perhaps it will be one of the last points of the greedy human surveillance dictatorships.

    • I knew you would like this one 🙂 And I like your re-enactment of the robot’s final moments of life. But what do you mean when you say ‘space fence’…?

  2. The following link from aulis.com is interesting
    https://www.aulis.com/moonshadows2.htm (part 1 in https://www.aulis.com/moonshadows.htm)
    An account by James Beals about what he learned in his youth from a friend whose father was working on classified projects.
    He learned that the space shuttle, begun on the drawing boards in the 1950s, was the real US manned space program while the programs of the 60s etc were publicity stunts.
    One detail is mentioned about the spacewalks having been faked in water basins.
    It is known that astronauts were training in water basins so it isnt too farfetched.
    But russian experts in recent years have scrutinised the evidence from the Gemini project and were able to prove, in my view convincingly, that the Gemini spacewalk fas faked in a wind tunnel.
    There was a small ribbon attached to the space suit and it fluttered like you would expect in a wind tunnel but nor in empty space neither under water.
    They also show that the earth turning beneath the spacewalker didnt rotate as fast as it did in a russian recording and neither did the earths cloudcover change character visibly indicating it was a rotated still image.
    Being in a low orbit means the speed must be around 8km/s so circular paths must seem to have the same speed

    Beals was interviewed in 1997 but the russian investigations were performed arounf 2015.

    The russians also mentioned that the same individual belonging to the so called paperclip scientists was responsible for controlling the shaft in both the Gemini and Apollo projects. An american technician who wanted to help was brusquely reprimanded so there was obviously secrecy surrounding the shaft. The russians explain that before takeoff the astronauts were secretely conducted to a shelter beneath the platform before the rocket was launched with an empty capsule.

    There is a frustrating circumstance for me in that my grandfather told me around 1970 that they hadnt landed on the moon. He was very categorical.
    Unfortunately I didnt take him seriously so I never asked him where he got that from.
    I now believe he got this information from somebody who had access to sources who did know.

    • Thanks petergrafstrm, I look forward to reading through these links: as this is an endlessly fascinating subject. As for the matter of the moon landing being faked; I don’t know. I’ve always assumed they weren’t faked, given that there was more than one landing mission, and also given that they’re planning (apparently) to land humans on the moon in the next few years. But I’m open to anything at this point. One interesting argument I heard a while ago is that the Apollo landing weren’t faked, but the actual *footage* was faked because they weren’t convinced they could get broadcast-quality video from the actual astronauts. Which leads into the whole idea that filmmaker Stanley Kubrick was hired to produce the fake moon landing footage. But, again, I don’t know.
      I would also love to know what your grandfather thought and what his scepticism was based on.
      But I will definitely dive into these links you’ve provided: they look interesting.

  3. I dunno how you manage to somehow make a rock on the surface of the moon become such an exhilarating a read, but here I am!

    Interestingly, I wasn’t aware until this article how the USA space initiatives set their sights again on re-visiting the moon. A huge part of me sighs and thinks, “why the hell for?”. Perhaps, I’ve heard too often Neil Degrasse Tyson utter similar sentiments on the futility of re-visiting the moon and low-earth orbit instead of pursuing new frontiers that it’s now part of my psyche.

    For me, I’m far more excited about the JWST being launched that I’ve been following for over 8 years with anticipation! Apparently, it’s scheduled to be launched this year, even with COVID setbacks having been taken into consideration. CAN’T WAIT!! It’s so exciting and the stakes are so goddamn high, especially as if it fails there’s no chance at repairs or redemption (unlike Hubble back in the day).

      • Apparently, the Hubble can continue to function with utility up until 2040. To what extent that utility will be I’m unsure of. It makes me think about the Voyager satellites whose functionality was (and continues) to be stretched to its limits in accordance to it’s remaining working instruments as components deteriorate and fail over time.

        Of course, unlike the Voyager missions, the Hubble could be tended to for repairs via space walks and such (as has happened in the past), but personally I don’t see that happening from a financial standpoint. But I could be wrong, as your article informs me of plans for man to return to the moon…. again.

        I really want the JWST mission to succeed more than an other that I’ve witnessed in my living memory of observing space exploration. I’m concerned about the success of the launch and space debris that man has created which pose serious threat to all space launches. If it makes it past Earth and into space, then I can worry about those shields deploying and the instruments coming online and working as designed.

        Like the Voyager missions, once launch happens, that’s it, there are no repairs or do-overs, that bad boy is on its own.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.