Q: How did you get into lunar anomaly research?
A: I've been a graphic designer for 16 years and I had originally intended to create a coffee table book of cool photos taken during the Apollo missions. I was going to focus on the images that were rarely seen, so astronaut waving the flag was out, stain damaged and poorly exposed images that I could bring back to life were in. It is when I was adjusting the photographs for print that I started noticing highly geometric shapes that stood out from the lunar geology.Q: What are your credentials?
A: 22 years combined personal and professional experience in photography (film/darkrooms, digital/Photoshop), 16 years professional experience in print and digital graphic design, 4 years 3D concept modeling and animation, 4 years adjunct faculty teaching college level digital arts, 4 years military training and active duty as a forward observer in the U.S. Cavalry with emphasis on intel gathering along the East/West German border during the "Cold War".Q: So, what are they?
A: I wish I knew! In my opinion, they look like ancient structures - covered in Moon dust - which would require thousands of years to accumulate. If these objects are indeed structures, the builders may have caked lunar soil (regolith) onto the exteriors to provide insulation and protection from small meteorites and radiation. NASA is also considering this technique for the future permanent manned lunar base.Q: What could they be?
A: If I were required to survive on the moon, I would build large habitats that could sustain life. I'm sure that economics plays a role in space travel - only so much material to fulfill the probable common law of form follows function. Therefore, one would probably need to step out of a space vehicle and into another habitat.Q: How big are these / this?
A: Very large. The second phase of research, of which we are in right now, is dealing with scale, architectural and engineering design. Unlike the mapping camera photos of the Lunar Orbiter satellites (where we could easily measure distances and determine scale) the full frame oblique photos that we focus on often show the horizon and are subject to lens distortion. We are in the process of developing a system that will allow us to faithfully straighten these images so that we can further analyze the objects in question. The object seen on left column of page 119 of the eBook is roughly 4 km (2.5 miles) long.Q: It's a little hard to swallow that a 2.5 mile long building exists on the Moon. What makes you think it's actually a structure and not a bunch of rocks?
A: The fact that it stands above the surface and clearly displays basic constructive geometry. Circular disc with dot near center. Cylindrical front shape attached to a pie wedge and a rectangular arm extending down to the surface where, if you look closely, appears to have additional structures atop another circular plane. According to lunar and planetary scientists, the Moon has not been the effected by Mother Nature (active erosion)... for millions or billions of years. The Moon should look like nothing more than a more than a 3+ billion year long World War II carpet bombing run. It's possible that underlying geological masses may have been resistant to impacts of smaller meteorites, but that just begs the question of where did all the pieces that were blasted away go? In many cases, there is no evidence in the photos of piles of ruble and I have a hard time imagining that they just disappeared. So, what we are looking at in many of these photographs are highly geometric objects appearing unnatural to the local terrain.Q: Do you believe that the government / NASA has been covering up existence of structures on the Moon?
A: I don't concern myself with government cover-ups. Since the images exist and are available to the public, then there wasn't anything more to hide than what a father doesn't tell his 5 year old son who feels his sole purpose in life is to eat, sleep, and play with toys. I'd like to bring up another point about coverups. These images have been available for decades. Back to my military experience, we used the burn barrel on far more meaningless topics. Had I shared information intended to be destroyed with anyone not already in the loop, I would've been given a court martial and kicked out. If the government or NASA or whomever didn't want us to know that there was evidence of intelligent activities on the Moon, past or present, we would've never, ever seen the original images.Q: Ok, so then do you think the Moon landings were a Hoax?
A: I seriously doubt that the government would spend so much money to build giant rockets that clearly left the Earth just to float around for nothing. I'm betting we went to the Moon. I can, however imagine that if the astronauts of Apollo 8 (which was the first mission to circle the Moon) saw and photographed things that shouldn't have been there, then maybe later missions would've been staged. But who knows? I leave this topic to those that love that kind of research. I'm focused on what can be revealed in the photographs.Q: What can you tell us about your process of revealing these objects?
A: I use the same techniques that any graphic designer or photo restoration artist would apply to photos that lacked detail. This includes a handful of steps that ultimately set the stage for the fun part (or the hard part!) of delicately massaging in the shadow detail for hours on end. I have also custom designed automated processes that return different visual results that help in identifying areas that contain odd geometry, but I always end up working the images from scratch for final presentation. If you think that one can just grab any of these photos and get the same results by adjusting the contrast and brightness, think again. This is a time intensive process require acute awareness of the applied effects. If anyone has access to super-secret software like we see on TV where a blurry image some hours later turns into the face of the bad guy, please call me!Q: Is your process creating the shapes? How do we know it isn't?
A: The shapes are already there. The effect of enhancing shadow detail allows the eye to distinguish the geometry from the local terrain. Another thing to consider is to imagine sitting on a bench overlooking a river. On the far side of the river there are trees and rolling hills. The longer you look at the scene in front of you, the more detail you will see. Eventually, you can begin to count the number of branches of a far away tree. When I was originally creating the coffee-table book, I couldn't see the trees for the forest either. It takes time to get familiar with the lunar terrain - and this familiarity continuously evolves not unlike being a pilot. The longer you do it, the more aware you are of all the subtleties. I'm just making very faint shapes more obvious for everyone to be able to see.Q: How do you respond to the typical criticism of "anyone can find anything in clouds" ?
A: There's a difference between an active imagination and analysis of aerial photography. An active imagination, a quality required for an artist, envisions shapes - making connections from various elements and experiences to create shapes that we see. Analysis of aerial photography for the purposes of identifying "man" made objects relies on identifying geometry that appear inconsistent with the local terrain. This could be obvious as in the case of a building or a ship on the ocean, or less obvious and more difficult to discern like camouflage over a tank parked in a forest. In the case of the Moon, most everything I find odd on the surface appears to have a fine silt or dust sprinkled over it - all of the same or similar handful of grays colored surface material from the areas nearby.Q: Do you think the "structures" on the Moon are from past Earth civilizations?
A: The only evidence that I have found that could suggest a connection to civilizations here on Earth is that many of the structures on the Moon appear to have a likeness to Babylonian or Ziggurat block construction.Q: Do you think that we have a base on the Moon now?
A: I would. But seriously, I have no idea. According to other researchers, we have been contacted in the past by benevolent, friendly or at the least tolerant species from elsewhere. If so, I could easily imagine a scenario where we would have a cooperative place to share culture and knowledge and that place might be the Moon.Q: How do you respond to viewers saying that all they see are a bunch of rocks, fuzzy dots, animals or faces?
A: In most cases, my imagery are crops of views taken at an angle to the surface of the Moon. If someone is viewing the crops in 2D, that is, if they are looking at the images as if they were flat, then they will tend to see the shapes as flat. I remind viewers that in most of my crops, the top of the photo is always farther away from them than the bottom. If you are seeing animals and faces and such, then you are looking AT the image instead of INTO the image. As far as fuzzy dots or a bunch of rocks, well.... some people have developed the skill to identify shapes, relate those shapes within a terrain or field of view and "make sense" of the scene in whole - seeing the parts from the whole - quite easily. Some people just can't see these images very well. Pilots or people that fly often and choose the window seats, engineers, architects, and anyone "visual" pick out the shapes very quickly. Don't be frustrated if you don't see what I see. Step back, relax your eyes and gaze into the scene while you compare what I see (highlighted by color) to what you see. I bet you'll see all the things I didn't colorize...
