Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-23 14:23:38

Hey Shaun.

I suppose the real nitty gritty is whether or not the pictures Hoagland has are as good as he says they are.

Well, Hoagland argues that the PR images are. Today one of the NASA scientists claimed that they were of scientific quality. Well, it's my opinion that for a true comparasion, the data must come from the PDS. That's all I'm saying.

Any comparasions done outside of the PDS make you look like a fool... this may be why some NASA scientists are so willing to work with Hoagland. Then again, perhaps raw PDS calibrated data would reflect the same data on the PDS site, however, to assume that is pretty unscientific.

Phil Christensen from THEMIS agreed to follow Hoaglands process with regard to the PR images (I will always refer to them as PR images):

The data were calibrated by our standard processes and in the same way that it's done for the THEMIS science team.
I look forward to your release and to a detailed description of exactly what you have done to the data once you have downloaded it from our site.

So there we have it. NASA is working with the nutcases... I feel sorry for Phil though, he has no idea what he's getting himself in to.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-08-30 01:32:29

"... I feel sorry for Phil though, he has no idea what he's getting himself into." [Quote from Josh]
You may yet be proven correct, Josh! Most of the information promised from the Hoagland team has not materialised on schedule.
According to The Enterprise Mission, their computers have been hacked into and some damage done. Data has been tampered with, personal attacks made (verbal, I assume), and legal action may be taken.
I've noticed that access to their website is slower than usual, and some of the pictures won't enlarge on cue. Does this indicate damage to the site? If so, maybe they have been targeted by somebody.
Anyway, the bottom line is we'll have to wait even longer now for unequivocal proof that the Face really is a face!

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-30 02:59:52

I was in the TEM chatroom tonight, and they were attacked numerous times. Now, I'm in no way saying that this was done by NASA, but I'm just saying that it did happen.

However, the suggestion that the data was at one time switched on the NASA site is ridiculous... the data RCH has is clearly resampled. (The best way to tell is to look at the text in the upper image of tale1.jpg.)

Here's a mirror: http://www.boulder-holder.com/tale/ or http://www.lunaranomalies.com/tale.htm

You can get a link to his complete interview on Coast to Coast here: http://www.reversespeech.com/RCH290802.mp3 (interestingly this site analogizes reverse speech, and they ?found? some weird stuff http://www.reversespeech.com/rch.htm - I of course don't buy any of this, I'm just saying).

My main problem with RCH's ?scientific comparasion? is the fact that he compares a scaled up overlay on a high quality MOC image, to poorly sampled overlay with a scaled down image.

Poor guy, I think he really believes the stuff he says...

Mark S · 2002-08-30 15:48:44

Hoaglund's "proof" of a coverup comes from the file headers of the two images. Although he's being laconic right now, he says that the header in the "fake" file isn't right, while the header in the "real" data indicates that it was generated on a Unix machine. If this computer can be tracked down to JPL or Arizona State, there might be a way to verify Hoagulnd's claims. If he can prove that NASA has been tampering with data, Hoaglund should sue the agency. But I still don't think that the daytime IR will lead to anything new. After looking at the ENVI-enhanced image of the "real" data, I did not see any internal structure. He should just wait until the definitive nighttime IR comes out before making any announcements.

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-30 16:08:30

Even if NASA did alter the data (which they didn't as shown by Hoaglands obviously resampled data), they have absolutely no obligation to provide ?accurate? images. That's what the PDS is for. If they wanted to, they could draw smiley faces all over the images...

The Odyssey THEMIS EDRs are raw data (which won't be available until Oct.). The THEMIS website PotD is not, nor is it intended to be.

Phobos · 2002-08-30 17:31:06

bump

Mark S · 2002-09-06 15:00:37

The plot thickens...

Head over to www.enterprisemission.com for Hoaglund's latest claims regarding the IR data of Cydonia. Analysis of the "real" images with the ENVI multi-spectral imaging program reveal geometric patterns underneath the Martian regolith.

The question we face is whether Hoaglund's "real" image is the real McCoy. If that's true, then NASA is covering something up. At the risk of sounding like Fox Mulder, I can say that I have seen some evidence of a cover-up. When space.com ran the article about the release of the Cydonia IR, it claimed that the face was "just another wind-swept mesa in the Cydonia region." However, the face was CROPPED OUT of the image posted on space.com. There is a conspiracy at space.com aimed at preventing readers from drawing their own conclusions.

nirgal · 2002-09-06 15:28:03

This site is terribly slow, it takes eons to download just one image. However, I agree that these new images are fascinating. It really looks like an ancient city buried under the dust. If the data is genuine JPL is in for some serious trouble, the patterns are just too regular to have formed naturally.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-09-06 17:53:45

Hi Mark S and Nirgal !!

Mark, I'm not familiar with the "cropped out" image you mention, but even the better known images released by NASA seem to have been deliberately degraded or distorted.
When the first so-called high resolution MGS images came out, at least one I remember was upside down, elongated (stretched), and washed out, as though seen through gauze or something. As NASA said at the release, it looked like a shapeless mesa. ... But then, so would a photograph of your mother, if displayed the same way!!
They later released what they described as 'confirmation' of the shapelessness of the Face, in the form of a MOLA image. Now anybody with some slight knowledge of the MOLA instrument will understand that its vertical resolution is very good (that's its job! ), but laterally, its resolution is poor. The image they showed, therefore, made the Face look like a bowl of oatmeal! But the press and the hapless (and generally clueless) man-in-the-street, were fooled into accepting this 'blob' as some kind of superior quality image which finally laid to rest any notions of artificiality. In fact, its resolution was orders of magnitude worse than the visible light images it was supposed to debunk!
Now, I don't classify myself as a wide-eyed, drooling sucker who falls for every flying saucer story he hears. In fact, I like to think I'm as hard-headed and practical as the next person. But surely you have to admit that NASA's treatment of this whole Cydonia thing has been less than open and unbiased? It honestly doesn't look like even-handed and transparent behaviour to me, at any rate.
And yes, Nirgal, I've found the same problem with images being impossibly slow to download from the Enterprise Mission site. I assumed this was because of huge demand from thousands of interested individuals all hitting the site at the same time(? ). Would that explain it?
Anyway, from what I did see, there are apparently buried artificial structures all over the Cydonia region. I can't see how these geometric and detailed shapes could be artifacts of the imaging process, either. Unlike some of the earlier way-over-the-top, magnified-to-blazes Enterprise images where the pixels themselves were being identified as buildings(! ), these images are going to be hard to dismiss as anything other than artificial (I think). Although Josh may have something to say about all this!!
So, a summary of my position on this is that I'm now leaning quite markedly towards the artificiality hypothesis, but I'm waiting to hear a plausible alternative explanation from the imaging gurus.
Where are ya, Josh?! Save me from the lunatic fringe!!

Shaun Barrett · 2002-09-06 20:12:29

It's 12 hours now since I first accessed the Enterprise site to see the latest Cydonia images. If anything, access is now slower than before and it has become impossible to enlarge any of the pictures for close scrutiny.
Does anybody know why?

For the record, I have one nagging reservation about all those 'buildings'. There seem to be so MANY of them!
If what we're seeing is a city, it is the ultimate in urban sprawl!! It goes on for miles and miles and miles, and the individual structures are huge.
But the detail and the precise 90 degree corners are incredible.
:0

Mark S · 2002-09-06 23:25:03

About the space.com image--I did a search on their site but couldn't find it. As I remember it, the top half of the image, which should have contained the face, was completely lopped off the picture.

I'm a bit skeptical about the underground cities on Cydonia. The regular, geometric pattern is mesmerizing, but it might be what the soil naturally looks like under the imaging conditions that Hoaglund and company used.

I'll reserve any verdict until all of the THEMIS data has been analyzed under the same conditions with the ENVI program. Hopefully other researchers will come up with other methods for looking at the data and alternate computer programs. If all the images show the geometric pattern, it would damage the "underground city" theory. But if these patterns could be found in isolated areas all over Mars, it would DRAMATICALLY alter the way we look at Mars, the earth, and ourselves.

Things just got a little more interesting.

Josh Cryer · 2002-09-07 04:55:30

Well, Hoagland certainly came through for his followers.

It's all a bunch of hogwash, though. I expect Phil to come back with filtered images of the real NASA data (not the Hoagland real, the NASA real)... to show how Hoagland faked the whole thing...

...at least, I hope that's what he does.

nirgal · 2002-09-09 16:29:24

It's 12 hours now since I first accessed the Enterprise site to see the latest Cydonia images. If anything, access is now slower than before and it has become impossible to enlarge any of the pictures for close scrutiny.
Does anybody know why?

I found this on marsnews.com:

"Hoagland revealed the news on the Thursday night broadcast of COAST TO COAST AM. Hoagland also reported that his website The Enterprise Mission has been "under serious attack" from unknown sources including denial of service attacks and at least one attempted firewall breach (apparently to download or erase their hard drive.) Also reportedly attacked is a company called Research Services, Inc (a division of Kodak) which provided Hoagland with software to enhance the images."

Interesting. Could this be an explanation? I never had problems accessing the Enterprise website before.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-09-09 20:57:49

Thanks Mark, Josh, and Nirgal!
It's good to get feedback on this because it's such a potentially amazing topic that reality checks at regular intervals are advisable!
Josh, I've been reading bits and pieces of Hoagland's stuff over the years. Some of it seems preposterous to me, especially the claims that some Apollo Moon photos show artificial structures in the background - with the best will in the world, I could honestly see nothing in the pictures remotely resembling anything artificial. Enterprise Mission does tend to look too hard for what it wants to see, and ends up seeing it ... even when it's not really there!
This could conceivably be the case again with the IR pictures from Cydonia, although they look suspiciously artificial to my eyes. But your understandable implication, Josh, that Richard Hoagland deliberately fakes pictures, with the express intention of misrepresenting the facts, is, at least in my view, probably wrong.
The people at Enterprise Mission may be mistaken. They may be misguided and self-deluding. But I get the impression they honestly believe what they preach. In other words, they might well be crazy, but they're not bare-faced liars!
There is no question that the Enterprise Mission website was almost inaccessible for nearly two days after this affair started, and, when it became accessible, most of the all-important images were difficult to download and impossible to magnify. I'm no computer/internet expert so I'm in no position to make assertions. But this kind of difficulty would seem to be consistent (at least to the layman) with a damaged website, and maybe a deliberately sabotaged website. So far, nobody in New Mars with expertise in this field has made any comment on this point.
Nirgal's post appears to bolster the case for a deliberate and malicious attack on the Enterprise site, and immediately and inevitably raises the question: Why? I suppose those in Josh's camp would suggest a deliberate attempt by Hoagland to dramatise things by causing this site damage himself, to make it look like 'they' are out to get him!
It's interesting that none of the online space 'magazines', such as Space.com, Spaceref.com, and SpaceDaily has made any reference to all of this, even in an attempt to ridicule it. I hope this isn't the beginning of 'the silent treatment' by the scientific establishment as well.
I confess to being very curious about these latest IR images and I'd like to know more. I find it hard to understand why some people seem happy to ignore what could be one of the most exciting revelations in history. I don't care if you go about trashing the Cydonia thing ... that's fine, if you do it properly. But how can you ignore it?!
???

Palomar · 2002-09-10 11:00:13

I found this on marsnews.com:
"Hoagland revealed the news on the Thursday night broadcast of COAST TO COAST AM. Hoagland also reported that his website The Enterprise Mission has been "under serious attack" from unknown sources including denial of service attacks and at least one attempted firewall breach (apparently to download or erase their hard drive.) Also reportedly attacked is a company called Research Services, Inc (a division of Kodak) which provided Hoagland with software to enhance the images."
Interesting. Could this be an explanation? I never had problems accessing the Enterprise website before.

*Oh, you know how it goes: Folks like Hoaglund, who really truly has THE REAL "inside scoop" on spooky soooper seekrit stuff are always getting "attacked" from without...or so they say.

Paranoia. Tsk, tsk.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2002-09-11 01:26:05

I know, Cindy, it's easy to get caught up in conspiracy theories. But it's also very easy to join in with a group of people ridiculing a new idea or concept. I'm still amazed that, some years after the Wright brothers' first controlled powered flight, people were refusing to believe it had happened.
Considering the potentially enormous significance of finding artificial structures on Mars, isn't it worth some time and effort to study what is being claimed, fairly and openly, so that it can be either proven correct or duly refuted?
I've seen the evidence. I'm not a complete idiot (I hope! ). There is a case to answer here. Neither ridicule nor silence is an adequate response.
Try this site for an interesting viewpoint which, incidentally, mirrors my own:-
http://www.marsnews.com/news/20020910-fakedata2.html

P.S. Sorry. Can't seem to get a direct link for you. You'll have
to type it in!

nirgal · 2002-09-11 09:41:03

Link

I don't know about the impossibility of faking those images but Mr Burk raises two very interesting points:

"...many have made the claim that the individual known as "Bamf" who apparently released the high-res image to EnterpriseMission was not who Hoagland claimed him to be, NASA/ASU/THEMIS engineer Noel Gorlick [sic?]. Well, this person has admitted to many that he is in fact the individual known as "Bamf" who has spent around 1000 hours visiting the Enterprise Mission website & posting on their forums in the last three months. If NASA doesn't have any interest in Hoagland, why is one of their engineers basically spending the majority of his time, on the job and off, on Hoagland's website?

Finally, there is this burning question, which may put this matter to rest if it was addressed: Why has NASA never released any nighttime IR images from Cydonia? There were claims that NASA acquired a nighttime image of Cydonia around the end of July and it has not been released. In fact, NO nighttime IR images of ANY region on Mars have been released by NASA . We challenge NASA to explain this issue, with no more deception or ignoring these important questions."

Mark S · 2002-09-11 11:42:23

MarsNews.com should be applauded for not following the space.com tactic of repeating NASA's official statements as objective fact. The story actually has a pro-Hoaglund slant to it. But the Sept. 10 update to the article shows that the reporter has done his homework into image processing and manipulation, something that the NASA PR machine hasn't counted on.

The only way to get to the bottom of the mystery is for Hoaglund to sue NASA. He should unveil his best evidence in a court of law and allow NASA to make a logical defense of their data. "BAMF" Noel Gorelick should be subpoenaed and forced to come clean. Only then can an objective body (a jury) determine whether NASA is defrauding the taxpayers. This betrayal of trust should not be allowed to continue.

nirgal · 2002-09-11 13:57:32

This betrayal of trust should not be allowed to continue.

Wait a minute! We don't know yet if they're hiding something. But I agree, sueing NASA/JPL might be the right thing to do now. Either Hoagland's or NASA's credibility and reputation will be severely damaged in the process.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-09-17 02:08:47

I was just thinking about Noel Gorelick spending 1000 hours on the Enterprise Mission website in a period of 3 months.
That's over 11 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 90 days!!

When did he have time to go to work? Does he have a family? (If so, do they still recognise him?! )

I guess it should be fairly straightforward to ascertain whether Gorelik, alias "Bamf", really did spend so much time at Enterprise Mission's website. If he did, I'd love to know why this NASA employee abandoned so much of his work and/or his home-life, in order to study the research of Richard Hoagland and converse with people interested in planetary SETI.
Maybe he's really taken with Hoagland's work and believes there may be something in it. Or maybe he IS the mole that Hoagland thinks he is!

Mark S, your suggestion that legal action be taken is probably what the Enterprise Mission team is considering at the moment.
I think it would probably be unwise to attempt such a thing, because of NASA's potentially unlimited funding and the military connection. Even if Hoagland has the evidence, I think he'd be up against very stiff legal opposition and could be in court for years. He could even end up bankrupted by it. And just suppose he's on the brink of victory, the military have only to plead "interests of National Security", and the case would be halted in its tracks.
If the government isn't hiding anything, a court case would be pointless. If they are hiding something, the average American has no hope whatever of finding out exactly what it might be, until the government is good and ready to tell!
This kind of power is what Eisenhower tried to warn America about as he left office at the end of 1959. He expressed concern at the burgeoning influence of what he coined "the military-industrial complex", which was rapidly, even then, rising above the law. ... Something he saw as potentially capable of ultimately undermining the fabric and freedoms of American society.
No. If there is a plot, Hoagland only gets the information he's supposed to get, and no more. Any attempt by him, or anyone else for that matter, to learn more than is deemed necessary, is doomed to failure for obvious reasons.

Incidentally (and this isn't the right Forum for this, I know), the 2003 Rovers might now be postponed until maybe 2008.
The sample-return mission (something I've long thought superfluous) could end up costing as much as $2 billion, and probably won't launch until 2016!!
At this rate, we'll all be dead before a manned mission gets off the drawing board!

Josh Cryer · 2002-09-17 04:46:38

Every time I mentioned ?Phil? in my posts, I was referring to Noel. I was in the TEM chatroom for about a week straight, just observing, and ocassionally jumping into a conversation, and it doesn't surprise me that Noel was there so much. But to call it some sort of conspiracy is just... silly.

I know a lot of intellectuals who invest a lot of times in things of this nature. In fact, I hang out in channels related to programming and such, and know quite a few people (myself including) who associate with complete idiots for their own amusement, and because perhaps they'll teach someone something in the process.

The whole time I was in the chatroom, Bamf was quite a nice fellow, explaining how things worked, and so on. You'd think by now they'd get the picture, and understand that he's just some guy who's there for fun. But no, someone has to distort it and make a common scientist look like a mole or something.

What I find ironic, and what led to the shutdown of the TEM forum, is that Hoagland was and is reluctant to release the TEM image, the ?offical? image that Hoagland supposedly downloaded during that short timeframe on July the 25th. You know why it's ironic? You know why, of all the things that could possibly happen, this is the most ironic thing in existance? Because the whole crux of his, and the TEM mentality in general, argument against NASA, is based on NASAs ?reluctance? (in reality, cost-inhibited ablity), to release PDS data immediately after it's gathered.

And if the damn rovers are postponed, I will make it a point to become active in the Mars Society, to get a rover or something there.

Mark S · 2002-09-17 06:21:37

This kind of power is what Eisenhower tried to warn America about as he left office at the end of 1959. He expressed concern at the burgeoning influence of what he coined "the military-industrial complex", which was rapidly, even then, rising above the law. ... Something he saw as potentially capable of ultimately undermining the fabric and freedoms of American society.

Although Eisenhower was the first to use the term "military industrial complex," during his 1961 farewell address, he did not categorize it as inherently evil. Instead he noted that it was a unique institution in American history, because America had traditionally kept small armies and turned to the draft and ramped-up production in the event of war.

The MAC was the result of the United States taking Britain's role as a world superpower. The world expects America to fight for the rights of the oppressed at a moment's notice, and only a large standing army can do that.

The MAC doesn't have to be a bad thing. Keeping a large, standing army keeps the defense contractors happy, and it diminishes the economic incentives to declaring war.

Just a minor digression from the topic...

Shaun Barrett · 2002-09-17 08:03:48

Peace, Josh!!
I was just amazed at the sheer number of hours Noel spent at TEM. I'm sure he's a nice guy and I don't have any solid evidence that he's a mole for NASA. All I've got is hearsay. You're probably quite correct that the whole thing is silly.
But I can't help but find it all fascinating! If, as you suggest, Hoagland is a nut, he has created an imaginary scene of extraordinary depth and complexity. If it's an illusion ... it's a beauty! And I'm enjoying every episode as it unfolds.
I want to be shown, by somebody much smarter than I am with computer imaging techniques (of which I know nothing), that the apparent angular, artificial-looking shapes in the enhanced IR pictures from Odyssey, are simply artifacts or 'noise'. I realise the uninitiated can be fooled easily. I'm ready, willing, and able to be shown the truth. But nobody's saying anything!

Hi MarkS!
Thankyou for correcting my dating of Eisenhower's statement. I'd thought he said all that earlier than '61 ... my mistake.
My interpretation of his mood at the time was that he was wary that too much non-accountability was creeping into the situation as far as the military was concerned. I was led to believe it was a warning of sorts, on his part.
If I am mistaken again, then again I apologise. I daresay you would know your own country's history better than I do!!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-08-23 14:23:38

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#27 2002-08-30 01:32:29

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#28 2002-08-30 02:59:52

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#29 2002-08-30 15:48:44

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#30 2002-08-30 16:08:30

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#31 2002-08-30 17:31:06

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#32 2002-09-06 15:00:37

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#33 2002-09-06 15:28:03

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#34 2002-09-06 17:53:45

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#35 2002-09-06 20:12:29

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#36 2002-09-06 23:25:03

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#37 2002-09-07 04:55:30

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#38 2002-09-09 16:29:24

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#39 2002-09-09 20:57:49

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#40 2002-09-10 11:00:13

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#41 2002-09-11 01:26:05

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#42 2002-09-11 09:41:03

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#43 2002-09-11 11:42:23

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#44 2002-09-11 13:57:32

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#45 2002-09-17 02:08:47

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#46 2002-09-17 04:46:38

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#47 2002-09-17 06:21:37

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

#48 2002-09-17 08:03:48

Re: Face on Mars - Hard evidence wanted, please

Board footer