Archive for the ‘forteana’ Category


it’s all grey to me

April 20, 2007

i was looking around the ‘net for Fortean videos – y’know; UFOs, unexplained phenomena, alternative histories, that sort of thing – when i stumbled across the Grey Lodge.  it doesn’t take a genius (or a Twin Peaks fan) to realise that this place deals with things that can’t be categorized in simple terms of black or white, but come from that fuzzy place in between.  it is divided into two sections – the Grey Lodge Occult Review, and GPod (which is essentially a blog version of the infrequently updated magazine-style Occult Review). 

as the name suggests, the Grey Lodge reviews (and shares) various types of media for those of us with more… eccentric tastes.  they have pretty much everything – documentaries, art films, audio books, podcasts – even the Daily Show.  they don’t host all of the files themselves, so a basic knowledge of using BitTorrent is needed to get some of the best stuff (I had been looking for a copy of Matthew Barney’s Drawing Restraint 9 for months).  the Occult Review side has just been updated for the first time in about two years, but all the original content is still there, so don’t forget to have a browse once you’re done with GPod.  (which will take a while, if you’re anything like me – and my download queue has never been fuller!)

if YouTube and Google Video are more your thing, check out Anomaly Television, which posts numerous videos each day under a variety of themes (such as UFO Monday and Cryptozoology Wednesday).  don’t forget that you can use a website such as KeepVid to download these videos to watch at your leisure.


is there anybody out there?

April 19, 2007

or “moon anomalies for beginners”.

moon base?

when i recently informed my sister that they’ve found structures on the Moon (along with various other unexplained anomalies), she requested some websites where she could see and read for herself.  now, i’m sure she wants to see actual evidence of these structures on the Moon (and Mars), but to be frank, there is no “real evidence” (yet).  what i mean is, there’s nothing that you’d see that would make you go, “oh my god, that’s a building!”  when viewing images of the Moon (or any other astral body), you have to keep in mind that these photographs were taken from very far away, and that many have been censored or doctored by NASA.  in a way, you have to look at these anomalies in context with their surroundings.  for example, take the above picture of a “Moon base” – at first glance, you see a crater on the Moon.  but if you look closer, you’ll notice that although the majority of the Moon (in the image) appears “flat” and “smooth”, the area around the crater in the middle of the image is vastly different.  there are bumps and ridges and lines.  sure, it’s possible that they are natural formations, but then we have to ask ourselves – what caused this “natural formation”?  weather?  a meteor shower?  are these likely options?  and then you have to use your imagination a little – if we took a photograph of a city on Earth from high above, would it still look like a city?  or would we just notice that the terrain looked “bumpy and different from its surroundings”?  that’s often the case with these photographs – they are taken from too great a distance to really represent what they are.  we can’t see the individual streets and buildings and parks.  but we can see that there’s something there, something that’s different from what we might expect.  that’s why these are lunar anomalies, not hard evidence of the existence of extraterrestrials.  we look at these images and say to ourselves, “gee, that sure looks like a photograph of a city taken from a great height”.  the proponents of these lunar structure theories aren’t saying “that’s a Moon base” – they’re saying “that area there looks different and unexpected, and warrants further investigation”.  usually these anomalies are given fanciful names to illustrate what they resemble, or what they could represent.  if we see what looks like streets, we’ll nickname it “the freeway“.  if it’s round, we’ll call it a “dome“.  the important thing to remember is that we don’t really know what extraterrestrial buildings would look like.  we don’t know what materials the architects used, if the structures are above or below ground, if the “streets” are really roads at all.  we could even be looking at the ruins of a city, and not a bustling, thriving metropolis.  a skeptic could look at any of these photographs and state that they see nothing unusual, that the lunar landscape looks exactly as they imagined it would.  but a viewer with an open mind might think, “yeah, that does kinda look like a city from far above – maybe there is something there”.

i’ll admit that i am a “believer” – i think it’s highly unlikely that we are/were the only “intelligent” creatures to ever inhabit this solar system.  i’ll also admit that when i look at some of these images, i can’t see a damn thing.  but then there are photographs that really make me scratch my head and wonder, “what the hell caused/created that?”  as i said earlier, they could all just be amazing natural formations, but i’ll be damned if they don’t look artificial.  so all i ask of you, the viewer, is to keep an open mind, and try to put things into context.  ask yourself the right questions (ie, “how did a triangle get into that crater?”).

a good place to start is the Anomalies Network – specifically, their page on Moon/Mars anomalies.  the links under the “general information” heading contain a wealth of images and information.  the anomalous Moon images page just contains links to images, so is a good place to whet your appetite before plunging ahead.  also be sure to check out the pages about the “tower”, the “shard”, the “castle”, and the “monolith graveyard” on Mars, as these are probably the most “obvious” examples of unexplainable structures.  for a summary and explanation of what you’re seeing, make sure to read the “interpretation of anomalous structures on the Moon” page, where a geologist backs up the claims of the man who originally discovered these bizarre structures, Richard C. Hoagland.

Hoagland actually specialises in mysterious Mars anomalies, so once you’re done perusing the Moon pictures, there is much information to be found on his own website, the Enterprise Mission – and let’s face it: the stuff on Mars is often a hell of a lot weirder.  there’s a lot to wade through, and it’s not particularly well-organised, so good luck.

but back to the Moon – it wasn’t actually the supposed structures that piqued my sister’s interest in the Moon, but my claim that it is a hollow, artificial satellite.  now, i read a hell of a lot of stuff online that i often don’t keep a track of, and unfortunately, i can’t locate the site where i originally read this claim.  however, i did manage to find a number of interesting articles that follow this theme.  Strange Moon facts sums it all up rather nicely, but for further reading, check out the following articles.  if anyone knows of any good hollow moon/artificial satellite pages, please let me know – my inquisitive sister will thank you for it!