The Shrike Defends Lunar Alien Artifact/Structures - Seriouosly!

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
My main memory is of the Xs and of really squinting hard to try and see what it was the author was seeing...

Isn't that always the way? I wish these various authors would provide diagrams corresponding to the photographs so we wouldn't have to work so hard to see these allegedly amazing objects that are apparently so easy for some people to see.

On that UFO Seminar flier...

The date is January 1984.

Why in October of 1984 would you write that note on there?

It's just as odd as your red ink remark/note to self.

Odd indeed.

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
reply to post by The Shrike

 

That would be sweet. If you can scan one of the photos of the supposed X mining drones that would be cool. Happy to listen to any debunking of same as well.

I can't really remember anything else of note. Did he claim to see towers? My main memory is of the Xs and of really squinting hard to try and see what it was the author was seeing

Every so often I search the web for a second hand copy but they are quite expensive.

Below you will find what you requested. I took digital photos (6 megapixels) and cropped them with Picasa in order to post them here but did not alter the photo. Here are the problems facing the researcher, me, when dealing with this stuff. The whole book is small, 8-1/2"x5-3/4" and the particular photo with the X-drones is 5-1/4"x3-3/4" so right off the bat you're not working with a large, high resolution photo and whatever Leonard claims is just not visible in this small photo to verify. I don't know if he worked from large, high resolution photos and I don't remember if he mentions such in the text of the book as I haven't re-read the book since when I acquired it in the early '80s. However, I doubt that he used large, high resolution photos. No photo in the book allows for any verification. For that you'd need large, high resolution photos and while I didn't acquire them, I did acquire some NASA books which included most of the photos much larger than found in Leonard's book. I can say the same thing for Fred Steckling's just-as-small book, "WE DISCOVERED ALIEN BASES ON THE MOON", in which the photos were poorly reproduced and verification of claims was almost just as difficult

Below I provide a photo of the whole page of Leonard's book for size comparison with the photo that allegedly shows X-drones. The second photo is a closeup of the photo and note the rulers for size reference. The third photo is from a NASA book and it is larger but still not as large as would be required to totally verify or debunk Leonard's claim. The bottom URL is from a NASA webpage that has the photo in extremely large size and it could use some contrast as when you look where the X-drones are indicated by Leonard they're hardly visible.

But it doesn't matter as there really are no X-drones on the moon, this is strictly Leonard's imagination as are all of the other anomalies he points to in the other photos. Again, go to this URL and read the list of the photo descriptions and see the variety of objects Leonard claims he saw in the photos. Not one stands up to scrutiny.


Full page - 8-1/4"x5-1/4"
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9722d5b93e21.jpg[/atsimg]

Photo with X-drones - 5-1/4"x3-3/4"
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8bbb32ef9089.jpg[/atsimg]

Photo of AS8-17-2704 - 6-1/2"X6-1/2" - from page 32, "LUNAR PHOTOGRAPHS FROM APOLLOS 8, 10, and 11", NASA SP-246, 1971 -
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3a9a759986a8.jpg[/atsimg]

high res (1.3 M) low res (68 K) - could be improved with contrast applied
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Pervius
On that UFO Seminar flier...

The date is January 1984.

Why in October of 1984 would you write that note on there?

It's just as odd as your red ink remark/note to self.

Odd indeed.

I don't see why you would consider it odd. I had a life to lead. I worked and devoted time to my new-found hobby of lunar alien artifact hunting which required looking at one photo without a proper reference number and then looking through my various NASA books including the large and heavy (9 pounds!) "LUNAR PHOTOGRAPHIC ATLAS OF THE MOON" with 675 large b&w plates, and its companion " ATLAS AND GAZETTEER OF THE NEAR SIDE OF THE MOON" - (NASA SP-241). I had to scour each plate to see if the photos in Leonard's and Steckling's books, which didn't always show the whole photo - just closeups - were in the NASA books. Finding them was always a joyous occasion because it was immediately evident that the authors' claims were laughable.

And as I wrote on the flyer that I had written to MUFON, that was after a period of waiting to see if I could find the vendor on my own. From your point of view, time passed quickly. From my POV, every day lasted 24 hours! You have no idea the hundreds if not more hours constantly looking through the NASA books for each photo in the authors' books. Talk about time consuming!

Additionally, I was also dealing with similar claims in FATE magazine and communicating with the authors of the letters to the editor of FATE magazine. I have a box full of notes on almost everything I did in addition to regular UFOlogy such as reading UFO books and whenever I felt like it writing a review, attending lectures. I was busy, man!

This thread provides a very interesting, deeper look into The Shrike's personal history. Suddenly you don't seem like the knee-jerk skeptic I thought you were. Seems more like you came to this field with an open mind, and any frustration you've shown us in recent times has been due to the cumulative effect of having to spend years wading through people's pareidolia-fueled fantasies.

Originally posted by flightsuit
This thread provides a very interesting, deeper look into The Shrike's personal history. Suddenly you don't seem like the knee-jerk skeptic I thought you were. Seems more like you came to this field with an open mind, and any frustration you've shown us in recent times has been due to the cumulative effect of having to spend years wading through people's pareidolia-fueled fantasies.

It might sound self-serving to reply instead of letting others agree and/or disagree but I thank you for seeing the situation unusually clearly. My hat's off to you.

Hey, my pleasure! I hope this thread will gather some momentum, as you've given us some interesting things to ponder.

Well, it looks like this thread won't gather momentum without a little nudge.

Tell us Shrike, if you had to hazard a guess, what do you think the supposed artifacts or structures might have been?

Or is there even any point in speculating?

One thing I know you won't do is what so many of the kooks and True Believers do, which is make the mistake of stating that an object is definitely this or certainly that. Just because something reminds our eyes of a tractor or a grain elevator or a bridge or a road, that doesn't mean that's actually what it is.

It's kind of weird when you think about it. Let's suppose for a moment that the structures are the work of a totally alien species or civilization:

On the one hand, their technology would probably be vastly different from ours, and therefore we shouldn't expect to recognize anything or be able to divine its purpose by looking at its form.

But on the other hand, if the aliens are living things of any kind, we would know they'd face similar challenges to what we face, and would have to meet similar needs working within the same physical laws that we have to work with.

It's mind boggling to consider how much we could possibly deduce, and how right or wrong we might be.

Originally posted by flightsuit
Well, it looks like this thread won't gather momentum without a little nudge.

Tell us Shrike, if you had to hazard a guess, what do you think the supposed artifacts or structures might have been?

Or is there even any point in speculating?

One thing I know you won't do is what so many of the kooks and True Believers do, which is make the mistake of stating that an object is definitely this or certainly that. Just because something reminds our eyes of a tractor or a grain elevator or a bridge or a road, that doesn't mean that's actually what it is.

It's kind of weird when you think about it. Let's suppose for a moment that the structures are the work of a totally alien species or civilization:

On the one hand, their technology would probably be vastly different from ours, and therefore we shouldn't expect to recognize anything or be able to divine its purpose by looking at its form.

But on the other hand, if the aliens are living things of any kind, we would know they'd face similar challenges to what we face, and would have to meet similar needs working within the same physical laws that we have to work with.

It's mind boggling to consider how much we could possibly deduce, and how right or wrong we might be.

Thanks for the nudge but I won't mind if the thread dies a quiet death, I stated my reasons for the thread. I'll repeat: I have been and still am a vociferous critic of every single claim posted on this forum that what the claimant sees in NASA and other photos of the moon are alien artifacts and/or structures. Not one offering passes even simple criticism, the claimants are all seeing things that are not there and they're confusing natural features for whatever their imagination feeds them. Of course, pareidolia is rampant in the claims. No one has yet offered a clear, high resolution, photo actually showing something unnatural without resorting to colorization so that "it" stands out.

Yet, back in 1984 I did see, large, clear NASA photos of the lunar surface and they were being displayed because they showed clear artifacts/structures. Now, you'd think, and rightfully so, that my memory would not fade but it has. I've forgotten a lot of things that I thought were important to me. I owned an electric bass. I remember buying it and removing the paint and repainting it and playing it at my 40th birthday. When we moved from NYC to LA I sold it. I don't remember anything about the sale. The bass was a Mosrite, THE VENTURES model now selling on eBay for close to and above $2,000! I also bought another Mosrite in L.A., no memory of that either. Yet, THE VENTURES figure in my life.

What I saw on those photos impressed me to the point of disrupting the seminar to bring attention to their content. But what that content was, I have no idea.

Thanks for asking.

OMG, the Draco reptilian aliens have wiped your memory of the artifacts!

Just kidding....


So if none of the alien archaeology claims you've seen on this board are able to stand up to your scrutiny, I'm curious as to whether you've seen any other claims of the extraordinary that you feel might have some validity to them?

And along similar lines, are there any prominent figures in this field who you feel are sufficiently skeptical, and haven't given themselves over to pseudo-science?

Originally posted by flightsuit
OMG, the Draco reptilian aliens have wiped your memory of the artifacts!

Just kidding....


So if none of the alien archaeology claims you've seen on this board are able to stand up to your scrutiny, I'm curious as to whether you've seen any other claims of the extraordinary that you feel might have some validity to them?

And along similar lines, are there any prominent figures in this field who you feel are sufficiently skeptical, and haven't given themselves over to pseudo-science?

I think that the worst part, for me, is that I'm an ex-hypnotist and I was never successful in applying self-hypnosis, and only one hypnotist was able to hypnotize me, my teacher. I've tried to find a hypnotist aligned with a medical facility so that I can be hypnotized using a drug such as sodium pentothal so that suggestions for self-hypnosis would be effective and then I could spend some of my free time in self-hypnosis remembering stuff like what it was I saw on those photos at the seminar.

It isn't that the lunar anomalies presented here were just up to me to proclaim real or misidentification, there are a few individuals who are not easily fooled either and they are not shy in expressing doubt or disbelief. I would say that if 100 members post lunar photos with the claim that they contain alien anomalies, at least 40-50 members will chime in with their non-acceptance.

Other claims of the extraordinary? Not claims but I have seen videos and photos of alien "craft" scooting over the moon's surface and they've been discussed here. I posted vidcaps from a video showing a white object flitting over the lunar surface and when it approached a crater, you could see what can only be classified as "acknowledging flashes". And I thought I found a lunar entrance complete with one "UFO" partially in the entrance and another behind it hot on its tail. In a decent size NASA photo, but when I ordered a poster size print from NASA my "entrance" was something else although I don't know. I'm not a conspiracist but if NASA was to airbrush photos, this one would have been a perfect candidate.

I don't know any "prominent figures" by name, aside from James Oberg, because this field is really a loose field with the dedicated sites being from the believers, such as The Enterprise Mission, Lunar Anomalies (Steve Troy), The Living Moon, and tons of UFO sites that include lunar anomalies, all showing the same awful photos.

Skeptics are not banded together in a lunar anomalies website, they're here and there. We take it as it comes.

Well said.

reply to post by The Shrike


Ah 'Super-rigs', now that jogs my memory.

Looks like the x-drone in that image was just an illusion caused by the terrain and shadows.

Thanks for putting so much effort in for this, it's appreciated. I wish I had the ability to applaud you!

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
reply to post by The Shrike

 

Ah 'Super-rigs', now that jogs my memory.

Looks like the x-drone in that image was just an illusion caused by the terrain and shadows.

Thanks for putting so much effort in for this, it's appreciated. I wish I had the ability to applaud you!

Here are 3 more to give you a chuckle. The first photo is from Leonard's book "SOMEBODY ELSE IS ON THE MOON", #23. Leonard's caption is: "Unexplained white light, which may be pure energy, is flowing over rim of Lobachavsky Crater (See p. 164.) The second photo is from Fred Steckling book "We Discovered Alien Bases On The Moon", PLATE 67. Steckling's caption is: (Area Blow-up) LARGE LOW CLOUD BANK hugging the crater's edge of the Lobachavsky crater on this Apollo 16 No. 16-758 photo. Also notice large oval object on the crater's edge casing a shadow. The 3rd photo is from Steckling's book, PLATE 57. Steckling's caption is: (Area Blow-up) No. 1513 NASA LUNAR ORBITER IV PHOTO of the crater "Krieger" and area. To the right of "Krieger" notice five triangular white pond-like constructions reflecting sunlight. Also notice clouds on the edge of "Krieger" as well as 50 Km. southwest of the crater.

I'm sure that when you read the above and see the photos below you'll just have to guffaw! Neither author recognizes high albedo in the same photo that have been reproduced too contrasty and what they see is just out of this world! For one it's "pure energy" and for the other it's a "cloud bank". The Steckling thinks there are pond-like constructions for his "consultants" should have told him that those pond-like constructions are film emulsion processing glitches and in my 9-poun ATLAS there's almost hundreds of them! Steckling declined to meet me on a radio program because he could sense that I was going to beat the pants out of him when I whipped out my NASA books and showed him that the majority of his photos were simply silly claims. On to the photos!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1bad113ecc01.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ba65d95689c8.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bb06c658dfb5.jpg[/atsimg]