Anyone read the book Extraterrestrial Archaeology by David Childress? So much of this book is loaded with photos that "appear" to provide evidence
that there are artificial structures on the moon and other planets in the solar system. Now, I have seen some photos over the years that at times
appear compelling. Such was the case with one particular photo in Extraterrestrial Archaeology:
(source: Extraterrestrial Archaeology 1994 AUP Publishers Network, p.144. Author: David Childress)
Childress clams that this triangle is an "installation" or "hangar". When I first saw this photo, my first reaction was that any reasonable mind would
look at this and conclude that this flat-edged triangular crater-like feature or installation was completely artificial, and as such, evidence of an
intelligent presence on the moon, whether it be earthling or extraterrestrial. But it seemed too obvious, to much of a smoking gun, and I had never
seen this photo in any other demonstration of lunar anomolies, either in publication or on the internet. Something wasn't right here.
One of my first clues was the rest of the book, which contains hundreds of supposed instances of artificial structures, though of which only a small
handful seemed hard to explain naturally. Yet the author David Childress seemed more than willing to assume "aliens" at every turn. Then I realized
that this was the same David Childress who stretches credulity to the limit on the Ancient Alien TV series:
Childress and fellow ancient alien theorists such Giorgio Tsoukalos (he of the Sideshow Bob hair style) are always quick on the "aliens did it" mantra
at the expense of critical scientific thinking.
So with this knowledge of Childress and his way of approaching the subject, I did a little investigating into the above triangle anomaly photo. In
Extraterrestrial Archaeology, the caption of the photo revealed it to be from photo# HR157 from the Lunar Orbiter 4 mission. A search on the internet
led me an extensive gallery of Lunar Orbiter mission photographs, maintained by the Universities Space Research Association, Lunar and Planetary
). It was here that I was able to find the LO4 photograph which is the source of the one in
Zooming in to the area in question, and adjusting for orientation (rotating 90 degrees, and for some reason Childress' photo is a mirror image), gave
me this photo.
Suddenly, the photo doesn't look so intriguing. It looks to me like the triangular object is nothing more than a flaw or hole of some sort on the
photographic film itself. If you look at it closely, you can see that the straight-edged portion of the anomaly looks brighter, which to me suggests
that this could be a rolled-up portion of the film that "curled up" having been separated from the rest of the film on the adjacent two sides, like
the lid of a tin of sardines.
Even the supposed "shadow" area of this triangular area is more of a gray compared to the black shadow of the authentic crater next to it, which is
evidence that this is not a shadow at all, but simply additional evidence that this is merely a flaw in the film. Really, nothing about this triangle
compares positively to the features of the true crater right next to it.
Note also in this next photo, that a similar type of anomaly appears some distance away from the first, over to the right side of the photograph.
Would Childress claim that this too is an extraterrestrial structure in the same manner about which he is claiming the first?
It gets worse. If you compare the original and Childress' photos, you can see that the two side-by-side craters/structures in Childress' book are
similar in every way except in their shapes; i.e same general size, similar lighting, same shadow. However you can see in the source photo that this
is definitely not the case.
I don't want to claim that this was done purposefully to mislead, but at the same time, if it was merely coincidental that the two shapes appeared as
similar as they happened to appear during the transfer of photographic images from their source to his book, no attempt was made to rectify this
erroneous perception and perform the necessary corrections to ensure a more true depiction of what the photographs actually show.
Lesson learned -- don't always assume a photo is what a appears to be.
edit on 13-8-2017 by Monsieur Neary because: for clarity
edit on 13-8-2017 by Monsieur Neary because: (no reason