
This is a report prepared by a geologist and paleontologist named Dr. 
Bruce Cornet who provides his interpretation of the anomalous structures 
on the moon.

This report was prepared on the basis of data which was obtained from
NASA's own archive, and is available to the public.  Unfortunately, NASA
has kept this information under wraps from the public for many years by
publishing a catalog with the pictures blanked out, or very badly
overexposed images of the pictures.  Sometime soon, perhaps I will be able
to publish copies of some of these pictures on the internet in GIF format
so that you can decide for yourself what these pictures are like. 

This report, and soon the pictures, are clear evidence of the immense 
data NASA has been hiding from the public for over 30 years.  This 
evidence is not going to be easy to explain away since the evidence has 
been known to NASA's own scientists for many years.  However, it is "too 
devasting" to admit that NASA may have hard evidence of artifacts on the 
surface of the moon of proof of ET origins of life, and refused to admit 
to the American people, and the scientific community that it exists.  It 
is unfortunate that people who have access to this information have been 
for many years part of a carefully archestrated campaign to disinform and 
deceive the public.

Marc Whitford

Flames will be ignored.  Serious dialog is encouraged.


_______________________________________________________________________


~Title:  Interpretation of Anomalous Structures on the Moon 
 
Author of report:
					Dr. Bruce Cornet
					geologist and paleontologist
					27 Tower Hill Ave.
					Red Bank, NJ  07701
					(908) 747-9244
 
RE: Interpretation of anomalous structures on the moon, based on
evidence shown to me by Richard C. Hoagland on 24 April, 28 April,
7 May, and 11 May, 1994, and discussions of said evidence with
Hoagland.
 
Areas of interest: Central area and southwestern area of Sinus Medii,
center of moon disk; Mare Crisium, northwest area of moon disk.
 
DATA: All photographs at same scale.
 
Lunar Orbiter, February 1967
 
Original negative from National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC) at
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD: III-84M of "Shard" and
"Tower" on southwest side of Sinus Medii from 30 miles altitude, taken
by 3" camera objective (film developed on board satellite; scanned
with 6.5 mu dot scanner; images transmitted, reconstructed, and
reassembled at NASA).  Horizon at 256 miles; "Shard" and "Tower" about
230 and 200 miles distance from camera, respectively; resolution of
Shard and Tower calculated at about 70 and 60 meters, respectively.
Orientation of this photograph 45 degrees to south of Apollo 10
photographs AS10-32-4854, AS10-32-4855, and AS10-32-4856.
 
Surveyor 6, November 1967
 
One of seven photographs published in NASA Technical Report 32-1262
(NAS7-100), entitled: Surveyor 6 Mission Report, Part III, television
data; published by JPL at Cal. Tech., August 15, 1968.  View angle of
photograph west from western part of Sinus Medii, showing refraction
of intense light from Sun (beads are image of photosphere) by surface
material on horizon.
 
Apollo 10, May 1969
 
NASA catalog SP-232: AS10-32-4822, AS10-32-4854, AS10-32-4855, and
AS10-32-4856 of Sinus Medii from 70 miles in orbit, taken by hand held
Hasselblad camera.  Photographs 4854-56 looking west at terminator
(lunar surface sunrise line) from above eastern side of Sinus Medii;
photograph 4822 looking northeast across Ukert crater in the most
intensively photographed northern edge of Sinus Medii (this photograph
intentionally blacked out in catalog).
 
The Lunar Orbiter photograph and the three sequential photographs
(AS10-32-4854-56) taken from the Apollo spacecraft all show the
"Tower" (and "Shard") in the southwestern area of Sinus Medii from
different angles and different perspectives.  The Surveyor 6
photograph shows anomalous geometric structures above the ground, like
those associated with the tower extending to the north of the "Tower"
for about a hundred miles.  The censored Apollo 10 photograph near
Ukert crater shows anomalous geometric structures extending on the
ground for tens of miles over an area the size of the Los Angeles
basin.  All of these unnatural structures appear to have sustained
varying degrees of damage from meteorite and micrometeorite impact.
Small impact craters (1-2 miles), for example, exist within the
anomalous area near Ukert, and clearly post-date the anomalies.
Recognition of such damage is important in understanding and
interpreting the nature and time sequence in the origin of these
structures.
 
Apollo 16, June 1972
 
NASA photograph AS16-121-19438, looking northwest from above the
eastern edge of Mare Crisium and across Mare Tranquilitatus from 70
miles altitude.
 
 
				 UKERT
 
     Ukert is a crater-like feature that displays a circumscribed
equilateral triangle at full Moon (Noon local time) in its center.  I
agree with Hoagland's interpretation that this triangle is not
natural, because the sides of the "crater" are much brighter only
opposite the sides of this triangle.  The apices or angles of the
triangle intersect the darkest three areas of the "crater" rim, while
the brightest three areas of the rim are opposite the sides of the
triangle.  In addition, the brightest parts of the rim are midway
between the apices of the triangle, and are at 120 degrees orientation
from one another.  If a line is drawn from the centers of each bright
area across the triange to the opposing angle, the lines will exactly
bisect each angle.  Such regular geometry is not a natural feature of
any terrain, either on Earth or on the Moon.  Furthermore, the
symbolism of an equilateral triangle within a circle is a two
dimensional representation of a tetrahedral pyramid within a sphere.
Tetrahedral geometry is hypothesized to be the primary message encoded
in the geometry of the Cydonia complex on Mars (Hoagland, 1992;
McDaniel, 1993).
 
 
			       THE SHARD
 
     The Shard is an obvious structure which rises above the Moon's
surface by more than a mile.  Its overall irregular spindly shape
(containing a regular geometric pattern) with constricted nodes and
swollen internodes, if natural, has got to be a wonder of the
Universe.  No known natural process can explain such a structure.
Computer enhancement with about 190 feet (60 meters) resolution shows
an irregular outline with more reflective and less reflective
surfaces.  The amount of sunlight reflecting from parts of the Shard
indicate a composition inconsistent with that of most natural
substances.  Only crystal facets and glass can reflect that much light
(polished metallic surfaces are unnatural).  Single crystals the size
of city blocks are currently unknown.  I concur with Hoagland that the
Shard may be a highly eroded remnant of some sort of artificial
structure made of glass-like material.  Other larger structures and
their reflectivity in the area support this theory.
 
			       THE TOWER
 
     The Tower represents an enigma of the highest magnitude, because
it rises more than five miles above the surface of the Moon, and has
been photographed from five different angles and two different
altitudes (from 30 miles altitude, and from 70 miles altitude at three
different distances).  In all four photographs the same structure is
visible, and can be viewed from two different sides.  The Tower exists
in front of and to the left of the Shard in the Lunar Orbiter III-84M
photograph.  The distance from the Tower and the camera is estimated
at about 200 miles, while the distance of the Shard beyond the Tower
is estimated at about 230 miles.  The top of the Tower has a very
ordered cubic geometry, and appears to be composed of regular cubes
(similar in size) joined together to form a very large cube with an
estimated width of over one mile!  There is apparent damage to the
outline and surface of this megacube, because many cubic spaces or
indentations occur over its surface (these spaces are 50-60 times
larger than pixel size, and their shapes are not controlled by the
rectangular shape of the pixel).  A narrow columnar structure connects
this cube with the surface of the Moon.  The columnar support is at
least three miles tall, and tapers towards its base.  The taper may be
in part due to perspective, if the Tower is oriented at an angle and
is leaning towards the camera.  The leaning Tower may be part of a
larger more transparent structure, which is also inclined.
 
     Surrounding the Tower are faint indications of additional light-
reflective material.  The amount of light coming from this material is
very small compared with the amount of light reflected off the lunar
surface.  In order to make it visible, the surface of the Moon has to
be over-exposed on the photograph.  The pattern that becomes visible
above the Moon's surface is not caused by the scan lines that make up
the Lunar Orbiter photography. The scan lines can be seen clearly, and
are oriented at different angles from the orientation of patterns in
the sky.  The regular cubic and/or rectangular nature of this pattern,
and indications of radiating structures that connect the Tower with
the surface indicate that material of low light reflectivity exists
above the Moon's surface over a large area measured in hundreds of
miles.  The irregular splotchy reflection from some of this aerial
material may be due to meteorite and projectile damage over millions
of years.  Its highly transparent nature (bright stars can be seen
behind and through this material) indicates either an open grid with
cubic spaces or glass-like material held together by some sort of
structural grid or a combination of both.  Other photographs described
below confirm the size and extent of this grid-like construction.
 
 
			     THE SKY GRID
 
     The Surveyor 6 photograph of the Sun's corona at the horizon
(Photograph published in NASA Technical Report 32-1262) is a view just
to the north of the Tower (less than 100 miles).  Total image was
recorded in primary data, and variations in image reproduction are due
to processing differences.  Two major anomalies are apparent in this
photograph: 1) sunlight at the surface of the Moon is refracted
towards the camera and appears as elongate beads of bright light on
top of the horizon (JPL measurements indicate light saturation for the
camera was reached in these beads); 2) a regular cubic pattern of
horizontal benches appears above the surface, and extends nearly as
high as the view in the photograph to an altitude of several miles.
Due to the angle of incidence of backlit sunlight from the Sun, which
was located below the horizon, the visibility of the pattern above the
surface decreases with increasing angular reflection from the center
of the Sun.  This means that whatever was causing the reflection and
refraction above the Moon's surface is geometrically dependent on the
Sun's position below the Moon's horizon, and is therefore not likely
an artifact of imaging, reproduction, or processing.  Six additional
pictures of this horizon were taken within 90 minutes, and if
available (obtainable) will provide additional data for further
analysis.
 
     The bright beads of light on the surface decrease or become more
non-continuous laterally along the horizon.  This anomalous beading
was explained by NASA as diffraction by fine dust suspended above the
surface.  No such suspended dust was found by the Apollo astronauts,
and an alternative hypothesis is warranted.  I agree with Hoagland's
interpretation that a) the light is refraction, and b) the intense
concentration of light is likely caused by glass imaging the Sun from
beyond the horizon.  It is unlikely that the material causing this
phenomenon is natural dust or glass tectites on the surface, which are
largely opaque to only partly transparent.  The glass refracting the
light has to be nearly transparent to transmit so much light to such a
height above the surface, particularly if the refracting material has
any depth to it.  It may represent the basal more intact part of a
superstructure that is apparent above the surface.  Because of less
damage, and more massive glass support structures at the base (visible
in some photographs as a hierarchy of stacked glass arches, each with
expanded bases), more light is conducted and focused there like a
series of glass lenses.  Simple reflection can be ruled out as an
explanation for the beads because of the position of the Sun below the
horizon.
 
     The three Apollo 10 photographs showing the Tower in the distance
also show the grid structure from above.  These photographs were taken
at three different distances from the Tower as the Apollo spacecraft
moved towards the Tower.  Within the sky above the horizon and around
the Tower a regular grid pattern emerges with proper contrast control.
This grid pattern appears to be three-dimensional, and is expressed as
dark lines with random points of reflection around those lines.  The
grid appears to be some sort of support structure, perhaps formed from
a metallic rebar.  The reflective material associated with it is cubic
and hexagonal in design, but incomplete.  With different attitudes or
angles of sight, different areas of the grid structure become
illuminated or reflective, implying that angle of incidence is
important.  I agree with Hoagland's interpretation of this material as
remnant portions of the glass structure, which still remains attached
and suspended above the Moon's surface on a metallic cross support
structure.  The Tower, by contrast, is visible in all three
photographs, because there is much more glass remaining than on the
suspended grid structure around the Tower.  Even from different angles
and distances in these photographs, the top of the Tower appears as a
giant cube made up of smaller cubic and hexagonal objects.
 
     There is no way to get around this evidence once it becomes
apparent.  Altering the contrast of the Moon's surface can make this
faint structure seem to disappear, but such photographic manipulation
(cf. NASA catalogs) will not invalidate it.  The evidence that
Hoagland has brought to light may assail one's sensibilities because
of its magnitude and artificial implication, but it cannot be
dismissed or ignored.  It is there and it must be explained.
 
 
		      THE CITY COMPLEX NEAR UKERT
 
     Photograph AS10-32-4822 in NASA catalog SP-232 is blacked out,
along with several other photographs.  When it was ordered, the image
was of high quality, contrary to what was implied by it being blacked
out in the catalog.  Instead of a poor photograph, the image shows
features near Ukert crater that defy conventional explanation.  A
linear dome-shaped hill runs diagonally across the photograph.  To the
north of that hill a large area exists with regularly aligned rows of
structure.  Within this anomalous area more than a dozen small craters
can be seen that modify the landscape.  From a distance the regular
rows appear like benches.  On Earth such a feature would be
interpreted as the pattern produced by the eroded edges of layered
rocks that dip below the surface.  But on the Moon there have been no
physical processes that can account for such a regular geologic
structure.  Furthermore, rills and wrinkles on the surface of a
cooling magma outflow do not form such a regular pattern, as is
evident in so many mare on the Moon.  And this anomalous pattern has
definite boundaries beyond which it is absent.
 
     Upon magnification, this anomalous pattern begins to take on a
different character: Rectangular features exist along the rows, with
many having gaps between them.  In addition, thin spires project up
from the surface in several places along some rows.  Upon further
magnification some of the rectangular structures take on a form like
buildings and skyscrapers.  Resolution at high magnification (for the
image I saw) is not good enough to resolve more than the outlines of
possible buildings.  The whole area resembles what one might expect
for a city the size of Los Angeles that had been abandoned and left to
decay for centuries.  The crater impacts and constant barrage from
micrometeorites over millions of years would have provided an abrasive
force as damaging as our weather and earthquakes on Earth over
centuries or even decades.
 
     I agree with Hoagland that someone or some group within NASA
deliberately concealed this picture in the catalog because of its
content, and that this area may contain one of several city complexes
that were built under an enormous glass dome within Sinus Medii.  The
sheer implications of such massive structures on the Moon, if verified
by an open and honest visit by astronauts to the Moon, would cause Man
to rethink many ideas and question many beliefs about other
intelligent life in the Universe.  Clearly, such structures are well
beyond our current technologies, and rank with the Pyramids and Sphinx
on Earth, and with the Cydonia complex and its humanoid face on Mars,
as major mysteries of our Solar System.
 
		      THE DOME OVER MARE CRISIUM
 
     Further evidence for such massive constructs on the Moon can be
found in Mare Crisium.  The photograph that Hoagland showed me of that
area (NASA photograph AS16-121-19438) has a strange set of large, 
concentric, circular light patterns within the mare. To one side an 
emormous spire or tower rises from the surface within the perimeter 
of these light circles. Magnification of the area around this spire 
shows cubic patterns like those around the Tower in Sinus Medii. 
Numerous holes of varying size can be detected within this cubic 
pattern, probably caused by meteorites. Around the edges of these 
holes I can see layers of light-reflecting cubic glass-like material 
and suggestions of strands of rebar support. Below this cover on the 
ground there is more structure, which can be detected under some 
of the holes. There is an unusual interference pattern below the 
cubic pattern as well. None of these patterns can be explained as 
normal or natural.  I interpret the major cubic pattern as 
reflections off rebar and micrometeorite-frosted glass of the dome 
that covers most of Mare Crisium.  I interpret the pattern below the 
dome as possibly caused by artificial structures on the surface of 
the Moon, such as the city-like construct near Ukert, and the 
concentric circles of light over the surface of Mare Crisium as 
light reflection and refraction through the remaining portions of 
the glass dome.
 
     I support Hoagland's interpretation that the anomalous patterns
in photographs from Sinus Medii and Mare Crisium cannot be explained
as natural.  I further support his interpretation that these patterns
above the surface are caused by enormous structures of artificial
origin, structures that may represent the remains of glass domes that
were built to cover, protect, and provide a life-support environment
for habitable structures on the surface.
 
     Clearly, further independent investigation and analysis by
experts is warranted.  There is also a relevant need to press the
Pentagon into releasing all 1.5 million Clementine photographs
immediately and without censorship.
 
 
 
 
				   _______________________
				   Dr. Bruce Cornet
 
				   May 15, 1994
 
 



