Author: MOTW Admin

It sounds like something straight out of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but a new ultra-high-resolution photograph taken by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter may prove that life does indeed imitate art. 
The Orbiter has taken a photo of something on the Martian surface that looks amazingly like a rectangular upright monolith, similar to the one imagined by Arthur C. Clarke in his 2001 novel, and later by Stanley Kubrick in his film adaptation.  The object measures roughly five meters across, and towers above everything else in the surrounding landscape, casting a long shadow behind it.  
The question is: is it a natural formation, or something artificially created (and if so, by whom)? 
Most scientists are skeptical, saying the object is merely a boulder with rectangular shaped features. But if you ask Buzz Aldrin (only the second man to have walked on the moon), he may tell you otherwise. 
According to Aldrin, there is another similar monolith on the surface of the Martian moon Phobos. 
Speaking last week on C-SPAN, Aldrin tried to make a case for exploring Mars and it’s moon. “There’s a monolith there – a very unusual structure on this little potato shaped object that goes around Mars once every seven hours,” said Aldrin.
“When people find out about that they are going to say, ‘Who put that there? Who put that there?'”
Now while I feel this “monolith” does need to be studied further, I do want to remind our readers about past “Monuments of Mars” that have turned up to be simply light and shadow on natural formations playing tricks on the eye.
Does anybody remember the “Face on Mars?”

Back on July 25, 1976, the Viking Orbiter 1 captured the above photograph of an unusual face-like formation on the surface of Mars.  When this image first appeared, it caused a wave of sensation and speculation that perhaps the red planet had been home to intelligent life sometime in its far-flung past.
Well, it wasn’t until years later on another Mars mission that this myth was finally put to rest. On April 5, 1998, the Mars Global Surveyor flew over Cydonia, the Martian site where the infamous “face” was photographed, and took another photo ten times sharper than the original Viking photos.
Here is what the same “face” looks like under different lighting conditions and better resolution.

Yup, just an eroded hill. 
Of course, the verdict is still out on last years “Bigfoot on Mars” photo. 

(Personally, I’m still hoping that one’s true.)

now the name of my “Weekly Weird News” blog is an homage to the late, great tabloid “Weekly World News,” but this story sounds like something ripped straight from their headlines… only the source of this one is none other than the esteemed BBC.
A Saudi Arabian family in the city of Medina has filed suit in a local court against a “genie” that they claim has been harassing them.   The accusations against the genie range from threatening the family and throwing rocks to stealing their cell phones. They even reported disembodied voices telling them to “get out of the house.” The genie’s shenanigans ultimately forced the family to move out of their home of 15 years.
A local court is investigating the claims. 
My question is this:  if it’s a genie, can’t they just wish him away?
All joking aside, while it may seem comical at first, in all seriousness there does appear to be a correlation between this family’s experience and that of what we in western society would call “poltergeist” activity. Any thoughts?

Source: BBC  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8145862.stm

Wednesday night’s broadcast of “The Shadow Hour” included a 20 minute segment of a discussion between host Chris Walden and myself concerning this week’s investigation into the mysterious “Gable Film.”  In case you didn’t get a chance to catch it, here is the complete unedited interview from that segment of the show.

(Insert link to The Shadow Hour-Gable Film Discussion)

A few hours before the broadcast, I had invited Steve Cook, the man who owns the original Gable Film, to call in to the show but he didn’t get the message in enough time to tune in to the live show. He did however get a chance to listen to the broadcast afterwards, and had a few things he wanted to clarify. I was granted his permission to share this with our readers, so here is the email I received from him regarding his position and clarifications (annotations in brackets are my additions – S. Busti):
*******************************************************************Hi Steve –
Sorry I couldn’t join the show last night. I had a chance to listen to your interview with Chris Walden on iTunes this evening. Overall it was well done and fairly presented, but I did want to clarify a couple of things.
First, I did not buy the film. It was given to me [by] a family who purchased a box of hinges at an estate sale in southern Michigan in 2004. The film was in a carton at the bottom, with a tag attached that read “Gable Case” followed by a sequence of numbers [MP041177-1]. They had the film for over a year before borrowing a projector to watch it.
One of them was familiar with my song “The Legend of the Dogman,” (which by the way was recorded in 1987, almost 20 years before this film surfaced). He knew that people had been sending me sighting reports for years, and originally tried to sell me the film, but I told him I would not purchase any kind of evidence. Eventually, he returned and gave the film to me in August of 2006.
Second, you suggested that I had somehow inserted the ‘teeth’ frames at the end of the film. I assure you the film you see is exactly the film that is on the original 8mm reel. A film expert who examined the frames stated that while it appears the mouth and teeth bite the camera, one must remember that in the sequence immediately before, the lens had been on its highest zoom setting. It is unlikely that the person reset the lens while running, so it follows that the ‘teeth’ sequence is actually shot while the animal is several feet from the lens. He speculates that the camera was either thrown to the ground or at the animal itself to fend it off.
Third, much has been made of the ‘video lines’ that are visible just after the teeth frames. These do not appear on the original film. They only surfaced following the last digital enhancement project, which was completed largely on Apple’s Final Cut Pro Studio software. The studio technician tells me that the lines are artifacts caused by a contrast filter he used to boost the image quality.
I have never stated that the film is of a dogman. It is my policy to remain neutral on all evidence  presented on the website. I prefer to let the viewer decide.
It’s also important to note that I’ve never attempted to market the film for profit. Recently, I released the entire film under the Creative Commons License. It’s available for anyone to download from my website to study, enhance, or use in any way they choose. Although portions of the film are shown in a documentary on my CD/DVD set, all profits from the sale of the set are donated to charity. I invite you to visit my site and view the contributions list: http://www.michigan-dogman.com/00_news.html
This latest development, the “Gable Film Part 2” is very disturbing. I have no idea if it is real, and frankly, I’ve expended so much time and energy on the original film that I lack the enthusiasm to pursue it.
There is a great deal more I could tell you about this matter, but this message has grown far too long already. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
Best regards,Steve Cook
*******************************************************************I’d like to thank Mr. Cook for taking the time to clarify several of the facts, I apologize for not being entirely accurate and for inferring certain things when in fact, that was not the case. His claims that the “video lines” were artifacts created during the digital enhancement makes sense, as I am familiar with Final Cut and can see how that might occur.
As for the numbers on the film box, it appears this was an important clue that nobody had picked up on until recently. The number, MP041177-1, could possibly stand for “Michigan Police 04/11/1977, Film 1.”  If that assumption is correct, then we have a date.
As far as the new “Gable Film Part 2?” is concerned, the original user, QuinlanOUR12, pulled the video from YouTube late last night, shortly before George Noory’s Coast To Coast AM radio show aired with Beast of Bray Road specialist Linda Godfrey as guest (and yes, they did discuss the Gable Films). Not to fear, though; before it disappeared, I was able to upload the video to my YouTube Channel here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/MuseumOfTheWeird
Next, I’ll discuss a scene by scene breakdown and analysis of the Gable Film 2, and see if in fact it appears to be related to the original Gable Film.

TO BE CONTINUED: GABLE FILM 2 ANALYSIS

    Hello, and welcome to the first official blog for the Museum of the Weird!  However you may have found us, we’re just glad that you did.  Now you may be asking yourself, “What is this Museum of the Weird?”  I’ll attempt to answer that in the next couple of entries, since what the Museum started out as is beginning to morph into something much grander than what I had originally intended it to be… which I’m very excited to share with you.
    Back in July 2005, my wife and I had the opportunity to open our own little gift shop in the heart of downtown Austin, TX on the world-famous 6th Street.  We wanted our shop to be different from the ordinary run-of-the-mill tourist shops and convenience stores that were already in the area, and I (being a long-time fan of horror and sci-fi movies) had the idea: wouldn’t it be neat to be the owners of one of those creepy little curiosity shops you see in those late-night B-horror-movies, where perhaps one might actually find, browsing among the dusty shelves, an actual cursed monkey’s paw, or an authentic mummified fiji mermaid, or maybe even a “mogwai” or two. Well, needless to say, my wife (then-girlfriend) Veronica thought that I was out of my mind, but agreed to humor me and let me explore my fantasy of this strange gift shop of oddities. And so was birthed our little store here in Austin, Lucky Lizard Curios & Gifts, and the beginning kernel of what would grow into the future Museum of the Weird.  
    It’s kind of funny how we came up with the name “Lucky Lizard” for our shop.  After several hours of brainstorming trying to come up with a catchy name, I remembered something a friend of ours had casually suggested. He knew that I had a couple of lizards as pets, an iguana and a nile monitor. I had mentioned to him I intended on housing them somewhere in the back of the store in a big glass case for our customers to see, and so he suggested why don’t we name the store “6th Street Lizard,” or something along those lines. While I knew it didn’t have quite the ring I was looking for, the idea of adding the word “lizard” to the name stuck in the back of my head. Later in our brainstorming session, Veronica and I were looking for adjectives that would convey a good feeling with our patrons– “joyous”… “happy”… “LUCKY!” That was the one!  As soon as the word popped into my head, it just came out naturally: “Lucky Lizard!” It was perfect. I decided to add “Curios & Gifts” because without it, being situated on 6th Street, I knew people would get confused and think it was a bar. “Yeah, let’s go on down to The Lucky Lizard and have a drink!” So we named the place Lucky Lizard Curios & Gifts, and the rest, as they say, is history. 
    Believe it or not, even with the full name clearly written on our outside sign, people still stumble in time to time thinking we’re a bar. “Hey! Do you guys serve margaritas???”
–Steve Busti, owner of Museum of the Weird

TO BE CONTINUED!
TOMORROW: Part 2 of The Origin of the Museum of the Weird!