New Ukrainian Moon UFO Observations Put the Moon’s Strangest Anomalies Back Under the Microscope

By JM Talboo

What if the Moon isn't quite the dead, inactive world we were taught to imagine?

A new preprint from researchers associated with Ukraine's Main Astronomical Observatory of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine is making an extraordinary claim: high-speed observations near the Moon have captured objects that the researchers interpret as unidentified craft, including disc-shaped objects estimated at 25 to 40 kilometers across and toroidal, or ring-shaped, objects approximately 36 kilometers in size.

The researchers report speeds reaching approximately 11 kilometers per second, unusual brightness fluctuations, and apparent rotation.

Most remarkably, the authors ultimately propose that the Moon may serve as a base for UFOs and that these objects may represent a technologically advanced civilization.

Those are extraordinary claims.

They are also claims that remain unproven.

The paper is a preprint and has not established its conclusions through independent peer review or replication. But that doesn't necessarily make the underlying observations unworthy of examination.

And that is where this story gets interesting.

The Ukrainian Observations

The latest paper, “UFO Dynamics on the Moon,” is authored by Boris Zhilyaev, Vladimir Petukhov and Sergey Pokhvala, who identify themselves with the Main Astronomical Observatory of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in Kyiv.

According to the paper's abstract, high-speed video recordings of the sky near the Moon revealed numerous objects that the researchers broadly divide into “atmospheric” and “continental” categories.

The reported atmospheric objects produce flashes lasting between approximately 100 and 500 milliseconds, with brightness variations occurring at frequencies of a few hertz.

The more dramatic claims concern the objects the authors classify as continental.

The paper reports:

Disc-shaped objects approximately 25–40 kilometers in diameter
Toroidal objects approximately 36 kilometers across
Reported speeds reaching 11 km/s
A reported toroidal rotation period of approximately 180 seconds
A calculated centrifugal acceleration of approximately 2,200 cm/s², roughly twice Earth's surface gravity
And the authors' conclusion that the Moon may function as a UFO base.

An earlier paper by the same researchers, Observations of Unidentified Flying Objects on the Moon, reported objects ranging from approximately 14 to 36 kilometers, speeds between 6 and 11 km/s, and reconstructed disc-shaped and toroidal forms.

The researchers say their observations were made using high-speed astronomical imaging.

That doesn't automatically establish their interpretation.

But it does mean that the claims are not simply coming from an anonymous person posting a blurry cellphone video.

The Ukrainian observatory has publicly posted the research:

https://www.mao.kiev.ua/index.php/en/forum/info/717-ufo-dynamics-on-the-moon

https://www.mao.kiev.ua/index.php/en/forum/info/709-observations-of-ufos-on-the-moon

The full preprint is also available through research repositories.

The Angry Astronaut Reconsiders Old Lunar Footage

This is where the story gets considerably more interesting.

YouTuber The Angry Astronaut recently examined the Ukrainian research in a video titled:

“Insane! Astronomers spot huge UFOs orbiting the Moon!”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fJOk72eCsU

The video doesn't merely discuss the new observations.

It also brings up older footage that The Angry Astronaut says he previously believed was fake.

And then he says something remarkable:

“Which for a very long time I thought was fake, but now I'm not so sure.”

That doesn't mean he is claiming that the old footage has been proven genuine.

He isn't.

He's saying that new information has caused him to reconsider a previous conclusion.

That is one of the most interesting aspects of the story.

The old footage, according to his discussion, appears to show something moving across the lunar surface in a manner that he now finds difficult to dismiss outright after seeing the new Ukrainian material.

He also makes an important distinction concerning the Ukrainian research itself:

“That does not make the interpretation correct, but it does mean the raw claim is coming from professional instrumentation, not a backyard telescope or a viral phone clip.”

That's an important point.

Professional equipment does not guarantee a correct interpretation.

But neither should a controversial interpretation automatically make the underlying observations unworthy of examination.

A Long History of Strange Things on the Moon

The Ukrainian observations aren't appearing in a vacuum.

The Moon has been the subject of anomalous observations for centuries.

Observers have reported transient flashes, glows, obscurations and other unusual phenomena on its surface. More recently, UFO researchers have compiled enormous catalogs of photographs they believe show structures or objects that appear difficult to explain as ordinary lunar terrain.

One extensive collection, “Strange Moon Surface Anomalies,” discusses alleged formations including:

The Tower
The Shard
The Castle
The Lunar Cylinder
The alleged Ukert Crater triangle
Objects associated with Apollo 12
Alleged moving objects known as Fastwalkers
And other unusual geometric formations.

https://www.unariunwisdom.com/strange-moon-surface-anomalies/

Another lunar-anomaly archive contains discussions of alleged structures referred to as The Tower, The Castle, The Dish, The Paperclip, and others.

https://www.tarrdaniel.com/documents/Ufology/lunar_anomaly.html

None of these names constitute scientific classifications.

They are names given by investigators who believe the images deserve further examination.

And some of the claims are much stranger than others.

The “Gun Turret” on the Moon

Here's the one that took some digging.

If you've ever tried searching for a “Moon gun turret,” “lunar cannon,” “mile-long gun turret,” “Apollo 16 gun turret,” or “gun emplacement on the Moon,” you may have discovered that finding the original source is surprisingly difficult.

The reason is that the claim comes from a specific documentary rather than from NASA itself.

The 2014 documentary Aliens on the Moon: The Truth Exposed examines an Apollo photograph and presents an interpretation of what investigators believe can be seen in it.

According to the documentary's narration, the photograph was taken by the Apollo 16 astronauts and allegedly shows a huge fortress-like formation consisting of a towering cylindrical structure positioned next to what might be a gun turret extending for more than a mile in the Mare Crisium region. The documentary also discusses a possible massive satellite dish.

That is almost certainly the image many people remember when they talk about a supposed “giant gun turret” or “cannon” on the Moon.

And the wording matters.

The documentary does not establish that NASA discovered a lunar gun.

It presents an interpretation of NASA imagery.

So there are three separate questions:

What does the original photograph actually show?

What did the documentary's investigators believe it showed?

Is that interpretation correct?

Those questions should not be collapsed into one.

But if you've been searching for that strange image of what looks like a giant cannon or gun emplacement on the lunar surface, the documentary is the trail to follow.

And yes—the alleged structure was described as extending more than a mile.

That's the phrase worth remembering.

The Tower, Castle, Dish and Other Lunar Anomalies

The alleged gun turret isn't an isolated claim.

Researchers who investigate lunar anomalies have identified numerous photographs they believe depict geometric or artificial-looking structures.

Among the most famous are:

The Tower

An enormous vertical formation that some investigators have interpreted as an artificial tower or construction.

The Castle

A complex-looking formation that has been interpreted as having apparent columns, structural elements and a central tower.

The Dish

A formation interpreted as resembling a gigantic communications dish or antenna.

The Shard

A tall, apparently geometric formation that has been interpreted by some investigators as an enormous artificial structure.

The Lunar Cylinder

An apparently cylindrical object that has attracted attention because of its unusual geometry.

The scale of some of these alleged objects is enormous.

But scale is one of the most difficult things to establish from a single lunar photograph.

Without reliable distance information and an appropriate reference, something that looks enormous may be much smaller—or may not be a discrete object at all.

That is why obtaining original imagery, examining multiple frames and establishing geometry are so important.

The Question of the Original Images

There's another reason the older lunar-anomaly material remains so controversial.

A photograph can be perfectly authentic while an interpretation of the photograph is completely wrong.

Lighting can create dramatic shadows.

Low-angle illumination can make ordinary terrain appear architectural.

Compression and image processing can introduce artifacts.

Perspective can distort familiar shapes.

And the human brain is exceptionally good at finding recognizable patterns in ambiguous imagery.

But the opposite problem exists too.

A photograph being ambiguous does not automatically mean the object in it has been explained.

The scientifically useful question isn't:

“Does it look like a building?”

It's:

“What measurements or observations would allow us to distinguish a building from a geological formation or image artifact?”

That's the standard any extraordinary interpretation ultimately has to meet.

What About the Moon's Other “Anomalies”?

The UFO literature surrounding the Moon contains much more than photographs of alleged structures.

There are also reports of:

Transient lunar lights
Strange flashes
Moving objects
Objects appearing above the lunar surface
Geometric formations
Apparent shadows without obvious sources
Unusual color changes
Objects seen in or around lunar photographs

Some observations have conventional explanations.

Others remain disputed.

And some are simply too poorly documented to reach a meaningful conclusion.

That doesn't make them evidence of aliens.

But it also doesn't make every historical observation automatically worthless.

The Flat-Earth Perspective: What If the UFO Story Is Part of the Cover-Up?

There is another perspective that deserves to be included—not because it has been proven, but because it represents a radically different interpretation of the entire lunar-anomaly phenomenon.

From a Flat-Earth perspective, the alleged UFOs, lunar structures and strange Moon imagery may themselves be part of the deception.

In this interpretation, the anomalies aren't necessarily exposing a secret extraterrestrial presence.

They may be part of the cover story designed to distract people from what is supposedly really happening.

In other words, the mystery itself could be the distraction.

The public sees strange objects.

Researchers argue about alien bases.

People debate whether structures are artificial.

Documentaries present dramatic interpretations.

And, from this perspective, all of that attention may be directed toward the wrong question.

The underlying idea is essentially:

What if we're being given a mystery to investigate because the real mystery is somewhere else?

This is a much more extreme proposition than the claim that unidentified objects are operating around the Moon, and there is no established evidence proving it.

But it is worth documenting because it demonstrates just how radically different the interpretations of the same material can become.

One person looks at a strange lunar photograph and sees an extraterrestrial installation.

Another sees a geological formation.

Another sees a camera artifact.

And the Flat-Earth interpretation asks whether the entire UFO narrative itself could be part of a larger deception intended to conceal the true nature of the world.

For readers interested in that perspective, this page presents a collection of lunar-anomaly material from within the alternative-research community:

https://bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/luna_moonanomalies12.htm

And that brings to mind a quotation frequently circulated in conspiracy and alternative-research circles:

“Whenever the people need a hero we shall supply him.”

—Albert Pike

Whatever its ultimate provenance, the sentiment captures the idea being discussed here: if people need a hero, villain, mystery or explanation, what if one is supplied to them?

Source:

https://ifunny.co/picture/whenever-the-people-need-a-hero-we-shall-supply-him-FdQlwZpQA

Again, that is presented here as the Flat-Earth/alternative perspective, not as an established explanation for the Moon.

The Moon's Extraordinary Eclipse Geometry

The lunar-UFO discussion also frequently moves into another unusual feature of the Earth-Moon system: total solar eclipses.

The Moon currently appears almost exactly the right angular size in Earth's sky to completely cover the Sun's photosphere while leaving the solar corona visible.

It is an extraordinary coincidence.

The Moon is also slowly receding from Earth, meaning the geometry of total solar eclipses is temporary on geological timescales.

This has led some people to wonder whether the timing is somehow significant.

But there is an important distinction.

The eclipse geometry is real.

The Moon's recession is real.

But neither fact establishes that the Moon was deliberately positioned here.

The coincidence can be fascinating without being proof of design.

And this is an important principle for the entire lunar-anomaly debate:

A strange coincidence is a reason to ask a question, not automatically an answer to it.

The Moon's Density and Origin

Another frequently discussed lunar characteristic is its density.

Earth's average density is approximately 5.51 g/cm³, while the Moon's is approximately 3.34 g/cm³.

The Moon therefore has a substantially lower average density than Earth.

The leading scientific explanation is the giant-impact hypothesis, in which a Mars-sized body—often called Theia—struck the early Earth and debris eventually formed the Moon.

The model provides a mechanism for a Moon with a relatively small iron core and a much larger proportion of mantle material.

There are, however, continuing scientific questions surrounding exactly how the Moon formed and how to reconcile the details of lunar formation models with the remarkable similarities between Earth and Moon samples.

Those questions are legitimate scientific problems.

They are not evidence that the Moon is artificial.

But they are another reminder that the conventional story of the Moon continues to develop as new evidence is examined.

The Peer-Review Question

This may be the most important issue raised by the new Ukrainian work.

The papers are preprints. They have not been established through peer review.

That matters.

Peer review is an important part of science because independent experts can examine methodology, calculations, data interpretation and conclusions.

But there is another side to the discussion.

What happens when controversial work is never given a serious opportunity to undergo that process?

The Angry Astronaut makes that argument directly.

Discussing the Ukrainian research, he says:

“Nobody is going to peer review something like this, which again in my opinion is incredibly irresponsible. If you want to disprove stuff like this, then give it a chance to stand up against peer review.”

That isn't the same as saying:

“It's not peer-reviewed, therefore it's true.”

It's the opposite challenge:

If it's wrong, examine it rigorously and demonstrate where it fails.

That is a legitimate position.

Our own article “Peer-Reviewed 9/11 Truth” isn't about UFOs or lunar anomalies, but it examines controversies surrounding peer review and why the process shouldn't be treated as a magical stamp of absolute truth.

https://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/10/peer-reviewed-911-truth.html?m=1

Peer review is important.

But peer review is performed by human beings.

It can identify errors.

It can improve research.

It can reject bad work.

And it can sometimes be influenced by disciplinary boundaries, assumptions, incentives and controversies surrounding a subject.

So the appropriate position isn't “peer review is meaningless.”

It's:

Peer review is an important tool—but it isn't the final word on reality.

What We Actually Know

At this point, it's useful to separate the claims from the conclusions.

What is documented?

Researchers associated with Ukraine's Main Astronomical Observatory have published preprints describing high-speed observations of unidentified objects near the Moon.

What do the researchers report?

They describe objects with estimated dimensions ranging from kilometers to tens of kilometers, including disc-shaped and toroidal forms, with reported high speeds and brightness variations.

What do they conclude?

They propose that the objects may represent manifestations of a technologically advanced civilization and that the Moon may serve as a base.

Has extraterrestrial origin been established?

No.

Has the new work been independently replicated and accepted through peer review?

Not at this point.

Does that automatically mean the observations are false?

No.

Does the fact that professional astronomical equipment was used prove the interpretation?

No.

That's the line we should keep throughout this investigation.

The Most Interesting Part May Be What Happens Next

The most scientifically useful outcome of this controversy wouldn't be for everybody to suddenly declare that the Moon is an alien base.

It would be for independent researchers to examine the data.

Check the instrumentation.

Examine the image-processing pipeline.

Verify the distance calculations.

Analyze possible optical artifacts.

Compare the observations with satellites, aircraft, spacecraft and other known objects.

Attempt simultaneous observations from multiple locations.

Try to reproduce the reported measurements.

If the objects are artifacts, show us.

If they're ordinary objects at a different distance, show us.

If the calculations are wrong, show us.

And if independent researchers perform those tests and the observations continue to resist explanation?

Then the story becomes considerably more interesting.

That's how controversial claims should be handled.

And What About That Old Video?

This brings us back to the footage that started another part of this investigation.

The Angry Astronaut says he once thought the video was fake.

After seeing the new Ukrainian material, he's no longer certain.

That does not prove the video is real.

It does demonstrate something else:

People can change their minds when new information causes them to reconsider old evidence.

That's worth remembering in both directions.

A believer should be willing to change his mind if the evidence fails.

A skeptic should be willing to change his mind if the evidence survives scrutiny.

And an investigator should be willing to say:

“I don't know yet.”

That may be the most honest answer available right now.

So… What Is Really Going On Up There?

The Moon has been photographed more extensively than almost any other object in the night sky.

We've orbited it.

We've landed on it.

We've driven vehicles across it.

We've collected samples.

We've left scientific instruments there.

And yet, somehow, the Moon continues to generate some of the strangest claims in modern anomalous research.

Some of those claims will almost certainly turn out to have mundane explanations.

Some may be artifacts of photography.

Some may be misidentified objects.

Some may simply be stories that grew larger over time.

But the new Ukrainian observations give us something different to examine: a contemporary set of quantitative claims made by named researchers using astronomical instrumentation.

Whether those observations ultimately survive scrutiny remains to be seen.

And the old lunar footage remains an open question for those who find it compelling.

The alleged mile-long lunar gun turret or cannon remains an interpretation from a 2014 documentary—not a discovery announced by NASA.

The Tower, Castle, Dish and other alleged structures remain interpretations of photographs.

The Flat-Earth claim that the entire UFO narrative could itself be part of a cover-up is another hypothesis entirely.

And none of these should be confused with established fact.

But neither should the existence of controversy be used as an excuse to stop investigating.

So we're going to put the claims on the table.

Here are the observations.

Here are the photographs.

Here is the footage.

Here are the researchers.

Here are the interpretations.

Here are the criticisms.

And now we wait to see whether somebody is willing to put the new claims through the kind of rigorous examination that could either knock them down—or make them considerably harder to dismiss.

We'll wait and see.

And if nobody even gives it a serious shot?

Remember that we said that.