PDA

View Full Version : New Images from Richard Hoagland



Phobos
2002-Sep-06, 07:25 AM
http://www.artbell.com/images/hoagland2.jpg

This is Richards Primary image which is claimed to show subsurface recterlinear structures in the Cydonia region.

Phobos

tusenfem
2002-Sep-06, 09:00 AM
Looks like Manhattan to me, but where is ground 0?

Phobos
2002-Sep-06, 09:13 AM
I questioned Art and Richard reguarding this image live on Coast to Coast.

I was curious as to how the apparent sub-surface structures seemed to be parallel to the edges of the picture. To me if the image was real then it would have been unlikely that it was the first IR image taken of the area (odds would be against the parallel alignment unless a prior image already had been taken and this was lined up with what was already known to be there).

Richard said that part of the processing involved turning the image through a small angle (from memory I believe he said about 7 degrees), but I will need to check back what he said (perhaps on the rebroadcast of the first hour which should be due soon).

Phobos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-09-06 05:13 ]</font>

SpacedOut
2002-Sep-06, 09:50 AM
I happened to catch the last few minutes of the Coast to Coast broadcast this morning - It actually sounded like Art doesn't really believe Richard - speaks volumes for Mr. Hoagland's theories! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Phobos
2002-Sep-06, 10:26 AM
I just heard the rebroadcast and it seems my memory was correct - Richard Hoagland said the image was rotated by 7.2 degrees.

Art felt their was a 50% chance Richard was being "set-up".

Phobos

AgoraBasta
2002-Sep-06, 01:53 PM
It all looks like quantization noise/aliasing at some stage of image processing, reminds MPEG/JPEG artifacts.

Kaptain K
2002-Sep-06, 02:35 PM
On 2002-09-06 05:50, SpacedOut wrote:
I happened to catch the last few minutes of the Coast to Coast broadcast this morning - It actually sounded like Art doesn't really believe Richard - speaks volumes for Mr. Hoagland's theories! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

I noticed that too. Seems to me that Hoagland finally crossed Bell's extremely high credulity threshold.

Phobos
2002-Sep-06, 02:58 PM
From Ghost Town ... and The Darkness ... (http://www.enterprisemission.com/ir_analysis.html) on Richard Hoaglands website;


As a deliberate choice, Enterprise Mission investigators, including Richard Hoagland, decided early on to stay completely out of the "processing phase" of this Investigation. We instead elected to utilize the skills of two outside volunteers in image processing -- who freely offered invaluable technical assistance at this crucial time: Holger Isenberg and Keith Laney.

Neither were full-time members of our long-standing team of other imaging and geological experts, whom we have previously turned to over the years, but rather highly qualified and completely independent recent "interested persons" in our work (Holger is a graduate engineer for Applied Computer Science at Dortmund University, as well as a Unix System and Network Administrator at a German software company. Keith Laney is a digital imaging and software applications specialist and MOC image processor for the NASA-Ames' MOC MER2003 Landing Sites Project). We felt this would give the maximum degree of credibility to our eventual results.


So the person who processed the images has a background in doing similar work for NASA, he used the same software NASA used (ENVI), and he had technical assistance from NASA on the correct usage of the software.

Then there is this quote;


In addition to a whole new IR perspective on the "long-familiar features" of Cydonia the Face, the D&M, etc. -- Laney found a troublesome, quasi-regular pattern of easily discernable pervasive rectilinear markings running almost the entire length of each band of the IR Cydonia strips. When he queried Gorelick about the annoying "blockies" (as he called them), "BAMF" grudgingly admitted "so, you've found our dirty little secret." The ASU Manager acknowledged that the THEMIS team had also seen this peculiar "noise," and had decided NOT to create the normal, multi-spectral color images produced of other areas on Mars from the same THEMIS camera because of this disfiguring pattern. Remarkably, he also admitted that, despite their best efforts, they could not seem to remove the "noise" or find it on other published IR THEMIS images.

If I was a betting man then my money would be on the likelyhood than BAMF has set Richard Hoagland up (especially when you read up on who BAMF is, and what BAMF probably stands for).

Full Microsoft Word based press release (http://www.enterprisemission.com/press-cydonia3.doc)

Phobos

chascarrillo
2002-Sep-06, 04:14 PM
(Part about terrain features showing edited out - didn't realize that Hoagland was claiming that they were underground(?). So much for my "Jell-O buildings" comment...)

Yes, the pictures were rotated. However, the sides of the unrotated image match up to the side of the "structures" in that image. They still line up with the sides in both pictures.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: chascarrillo on 2002-09-06 12:22 ]</font>

Phobos
2002-Sep-06, 04:32 PM
After speaking with Richard the same thought occured to me. Unfortunately I did not have the opportunity to put this issue to him as C2C cut me off after asking my initial question (no complaints from me however as they were very good in interupting the earlier part of the show and allowing me to put my main question to Richard).

Phobos

AgoraBasta
2002-Sep-06, 05:21 PM
I've just put this through a simple CMYK split. It appears that the rectangular structure shows in cyan and magenta channels at different level of detail, like the magenta is put through a low-pass filter. Furthermore, the features in cyan and magenta are different to the point that some parts show absolutely no correlation between channels.
I can't imagine any non-fake image to appear this way. Seems like two different images of some two areas of a city downtown are blended into the channels.

Phobos
2002-Sep-06, 05:27 PM
On 2002-09-06 13:21, AgoraBasta wrote:
I've just put this through a simple CMYK split. It appears that the rectangular structure shows in cyan and magenta channels at different level of detail, like the magenta is put through a low-pass filter. Furthermore, the features in cyan and magenta are different to the point that some parts show absolutely no correlation between channels.
I can't imagine any non-fake image to appear this way. Seems like two different images of some two areas of a city downtown are blended into the channels.


The image is a composite of the 9 IR multi-spectral images. The exact method used (via the ENVI software) is available for replication purposes.

The levels of detail reflect the differing IR wavelengths used for each of the composite images (shorter wavelengths pass through the Mars surface to a different depth than the longer wavelenght images).

Phobos

AgoraBasta
2002-Sep-06, 05:37 PM
Phobos,

Just make yourself a single cyan channel image and tell me what the heck you see!

Phobos
2002-Sep-06, 05:54 PM
On 2002-09-06 13:37, AgoraBasta wrote:
Phobos,

Just make yourself a single cyan channel image and tell me what the heck you see!


OK, I have performed a colour separation, extracted the cyan image, and brightened it up because it was a bit dark.

I then uploaded the image to the net;

brightened cyan separation (having trouble inserting image) (http://community.webshots.com/photo/49285484/49406687cnCAZO)

My initial observation is that most of the blocking shows in the cyan separation.

Phobos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-09-06 14:03 ]</font>

AgoraBasta
2002-Sep-06, 06:00 PM
On 2002-09-06 13:54, Phobos wrote:
My initial observation is that most of the blocking shows in the cyan separation.


My observation is that cyan channel is a superposition of two different images. One of those is taken of some city on Earth, or just computer-generated.

Phobos
2002-Sep-06, 06:07 PM
The cyan separation does indeed look too good to be true - the 3D of the geometric shapes is very clear in this image.

However, having said that check out the yellow channel - the blocking is there also.

You also need to remember how this image was created (a combination of 9 false image IR images each with differing wavelengths).

I do not know if this is correct, but the cyan separation would be concentrating on the mid-range of the colour spectrum and could be restricting the image to what is seen a very specific depth (ie somewhere between certain levels of depth below the surface).

Since this is still early days I would not even rule out that these are real images of geological structures, but my money is still on Richard being feed fake images (by BAMF ?).

Phobos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-09-06 16:03 ]</font>

AgoraBasta
2002-Sep-06, 06:37 PM
Yea, yea, that'd be a real BAMF geological structure [:-)]

aurorae
2002-Sep-06, 10:19 PM
Difference between psuedo-science and science.

Given an unusual or unexplained result or input...

Hoagland and his ilk: "Aliens!"

Rational being: "This is really interesting! Let's examine it. Let's think of different possible explanations and test them."

Rift
2002-Sep-06, 11:52 PM
Given an unusual or unexplained result or input...

Hoagland and his ilk: "Aliens!"


Don't forget...

Given no unusual or no unexplained result or input...

Hoagland and his ilk: "Cover Up!"

There is no way to win with these guys.

Wiley
2002-Sep-07, 12:01 AM
On 2002-09-06 19:52, Rift wrote:

There is no way to win with these guys.



There is. The more (on-the-fence) people we enlighten, the less people buy their books. Hurt 'em in the wallet.

AgoraBasta
2002-Sep-07, 07:15 AM
On 2002-09-06 20:01, Wiley wrote:
There is.


There is not. They want to believe, it's their idea of having fun.

John Kierein
2002-Sep-07, 11:20 AM
The Russian Phobos picture from 1989 is of a different place on Mars and looks like some of the chaos areas on Europa. It's probably a breakup of material like ice blocks, due to lava or water flows. I think it's all natural geology (or marsology).

My daughter took a quick look at the image and said the blocks are not an artifact of pixel size pixelization, but could possibly be an artifact of image compression, especially if they're lined up with the edges of the image.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: John Kierein on 2002-09-07 07:27 ]</font>

Jigsaw
2002-Sep-07, 09:02 PM
Is there a simple, 25-words-or-less, hopefully not too technical explanation for how Hoagland did it and why it really does look like rectangles? I gather that he fiddled with a photo processing technique somehow?

It looks like an aerial photo of farmland, is what it looks like. Is that what I'm "supposed" to think? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

overrated
2002-Sep-07, 10:59 PM
MSNBC.com covers the "controversy": http://www.msnbc.com/news/750150.asp

Also, I found it odd that Hoagland posted the link to the article on enterprisemission.com. It seems pretty even-handed and doesn't espouse his theories. On the other hand, I guess he could use the old rhetorical trick of "Major news outlets covered us, therefore we have credibility."

Phobos
2002-Sep-08, 12:26 PM
On 2002-09-07 07:20, John Kierein wrote:
The Russian Phobos picture from 1989 is of a different place on Mars and looks like some of the chaos areas on Europa. It's probably a breakup of material like ice blocks, due to lava or water flows. I think it's all natural geology (or marsology).

My daughter took a quick look at the image and said the blocks are not an artifact of pixel size pixelization, but could possibly be an artifact of image compression, especially if they're lined up with the edges of the image.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: John Kierein on 2002-09-07 07:27 ]</font>


John, When Richard presented his data on coast to coast I called in and pointed out to Richard that the rectangles were parallel to the edge of th picture.

Richard replied by stating that the picture had been through a 7.2 degree correction (this did not invalidate my observation), but interestingly he did say that the picture and satellite are North/South aligned.

I found a Dr. Kathryn S. Kierein-Young who is an instructor at Analytical Imaging and Geophysics Limited Liability Company (AIG);

AIG websit (http://www.aigllc.com/training/instructors.htm)


Dr. Kathryn S. Kierein-Young received her Ph.D. degree in Geophysics from the University of Colorado, Boulder, in 1995. She has been involved in the analysis of imaging spectrometer data since 1987. Her dissertation concentrated on utilizing AVIRIS as part of an integrated dataset with multifrequency, polarimetric SAR for geologic mapping. She is presently a Research Scientist with Analytical Imaging and Geophysics LLC, Boulder, Colorad
Is this her ?

Phobos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-09-08 09:09 ]</font>

John Kierein
2002-Sep-08, 02:38 PM
That's Kathy. She and a few other PhDs developed ENVI, The Environment for Visualizing Images. She wrote most of the manuals & taught some of the very first classes in the use of ENVI. ENVI is used extensively by the NASA teams involved in analysis of TERRA and Landsat and airborne sensors, as well as radar images from space. It is particularly good for multispectral and hyperspectral data analysis. New uses are being found by the pharmaceutical industry in analysis of microscopic spectra. They have access to a very large spectral library for identification of mineral and molecular spectra. ENVI was originally developed for geology and geophysics analysis,(like minerals present, surface roughness, fault lines, looking for oil, etc.) but is now finding strong use for agricultural, (water content, ferilization need, etc.), and even archaelogical applications. No wonder Kodak bought ENVI.

They might have possibly done a compression after rotating the image? I'm not expert in this like Kathy. I noticed that the Phobos image blocks are also aligned with the edge.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: John Kierein on 2002-09-08 10:54 ]</font>

Phobos
2002-Sep-08, 08:48 PM
They might have possibly done a compression after rotating the image?
I will find out and report back when I know more.

Phobos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-09-08 17:02 ]</font>

Bad Engineer
2002-Sep-10, 05:42 PM
I've always been fascinated with Mars - I remember when I was 5 or 6 years old, I did a report on the red planet - it was around the time Viking 2 had landed, and I wrote NASA (actually my dad did) telling them about my little project, and they sent me a packet full of information on Mars, including some photographs taken by Viking! I was so excited ...

Interestingly, I was directed to Hoagland's site from this one - it was one of the links that the BA had posted that debunked the HB'ers during that Moon Hoax ordeal (aired by Fox, I believe). I've read through a lot of Hoagland's stuff, mostly for pure entertainment value. The guy baffles me, quite frankly - I'll read something of his and think, 'wow, this guy knows what he's talking about,' and then I'll read something about Hyperdimensional Physics or the Osiris Ritual and think, "what in the ... "

I guess I'm one of those people on the fence about Mars, and admittedly part of that is because of my infatuation with the planet and that I would really like to see a manned mission head there sometime in my lifetime. I'm more inclined to believe the scientists' explanation for some of the 'anomolies' on Mars than I would Hoagland's folks - but then again, I don't really understand how anyone on *either* side of the argument can claim that their view is indisputably, 100% the correct one. Admittedly, my expertise does not lie in analyzing imagery, but to me some of those images do indicate something strange down there. So why don't we just send some guys out there to find out?

I guess one thing that puzzles me about Hoagland's claim about a NASA coverup/conspiracy, etc: Let's say that NASA took some photos that *did* show what looked to be some kind of artificial structure on the surface of Mars. Wouldn't this be their mealticket? If they showed this to the public, it would generate an enormous amount of interest in the space program, and would likewise lead to a heckuva lot more funding for the space program? To me, and again I admit to being ignorant of the politics involved in all of this stuff, but this would seem like a good thing to NASA - there being stuff on Mars


B.E.

David Hall
2002-Sep-11, 01:48 PM
On 2002-09-10 13:42, Bad Engineer wrote:

I don't really understand how anyone on *either* side of the argument can claim that their view is indisputably, 100% the correct one. Admittedly, my expertise does not lie in analyzing imagery, but to me some of those images do indicate something strange down there. So why don't we just send some guys out there to find out?

No, it's impossible to claim anything with 100% accuracy. But I think we can give a 95%+ probablility that Hoagland is wrong. Just the fact that he plays up the conspiracy angle so much is enough for me to treat his "findings" with a strong scepticism. People with a real case don't need to resort to such smear tactics.



If they showed this to the public, it would generate an enormous amount of interest in the space program, and would likewise lead to a heckuva lot more funding for the space program?


Agreed. At the very least, if there was any kind of evidence at all, I'm sure NASA would play it up as much as possible. It wouldn't have to be obviously artificial to be of benefit. I'm sure they'd be more than willing to use anything even hinting of life. Look how they played up the Mars Meteorite thing, and how they emphasize how they're finding water and the possibility for life now.

But, unlike Hoagland, NASA and other Mars researchers have the integrity not to throw around rank speculation and doctored images. They only use what the data supports, not fanciful tales based on seeing shapes in the sand. This is another strike against Hoagland and company, IMHO.

SpacedOut
2002-Sep-13, 10:19 AM
From this thread A page from Hoagland (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2208&forum=1&1).



On 2002-09-13 02:05, Peter B wrote:
Folks

Someone at Dr Karl's Self Service Science Forum posted a link to this page:

http://www.enterprisemission.com/ir_analysis.html

Does anyone know anything about this issue? Is it anything new, or an old story that someone has stumbled upon for the umpteenth time?

ToSeek
2002-Sep-29, 02:44 PM
Mark Carlotto chimes in (http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/ArchiveIndex/v01n03/enterprise.shtml).

Carlotto is one of the more sensible members of the pro-Face faction (not that that's much of a compliment). Not too surprisingly, he believes that the "genuine" Enterprise image has been doctored.

ToSeek
2002-Oct-06, 11:08 PM
Hoagland & co. respond to Carlotto (http://www.enterprisemission.com/irupdate.htm)

I like the conclusion;



...we can no longer endorse his methods, his competence, or even his intellectual honesty on any issue pertaining to this continuing extraterrestrial artifacts investigation.


I'm sure Carlotto is quaking in his boots at his loss of support from the bastion of competence and intellectual honesty known as The Enterprise Mission.

Rift
2002-Oct-07, 07:13 AM
...we can no longer endorse his methods, his competence, or even his intellectual honesty on any issue pertaining to this continuing extraterrestrial artifacts investigation.



LOL, I love it, that's hilarious...

'you disagree with us, and we can't endorse your competence or intellectual honesty any more'.




_________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rift on 2002-10-07 05:17 ]</font>

ToSeek
2002-Oct-08, 11:50 PM
Sycophantic interview with Hoagland (http://www.darkplanetonline.com/ruinscydonia.html). My favorite this time is the reference to marsnews.com as an "online scientific journal" when it's a somewhat dubious news source, at best. Also note that Hoagland doesn't even bother to defend the questionable legitimacy of the image he's basing everything on.

Rift
2002-Oct-09, 02:38 AM
Argh...

Dang it ToSeek, why did you post that???

Dang it, why did I read that???

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Kaptain K
2002-Oct-09, 08:50 AM
From the interview:

I encourage you to research this issue on your own by visiting http://www.enterprisemission.com or http://www.marsnews.com for more information.
But, what ever you do, don't go to any website that might disagree with us.


_________________
Be alert! The world needs more lerts.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-10-09 04:52 ]</font>

ToSeek
2002-Oct-09, 02:14 PM
On 2002-10-08 22:38, Rift wrote:
Argh...

Dang it ToSeek, why did you post that???

Dang it, why did I read that???

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif



You think I want to be the only one to suffer? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

ToSeek
2002-Oct-09, 09:25 PM
This is better:

A new Cydonia image from Mars Odyssey (http://themis.la.asu.edu/zoom-20021009a.html)

If you draw a line from the large crater at the upper right through the linear structure next to it, it will intersect the "Face" and the "City." Certain parties consider this significant, as if the linear structure were set up as a backdrop for the Face.

Rift
2002-Oct-10, 11:35 AM
The ancient martians made craters?

Actually, this is a great image, that center mesa looks like the same morphology(is that the correct term? I'm not a geology person) as the face mesa.

Apparently the ancient martians went around making random looking artifacts as well...

Rift
2002-Oct-10, 11:53 AM
From that Hoagland interview-

[quote] if we (actually, our great, great, great, etc. ancestors) came from Mars - -as our research is tending to reveal ? then EVERYTHING we think we know of our human history is simply wrong. [quote]

In my opinion this is a very damning quote. Everything we know has to be wrong if Hoagland is right. ALL the historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, paleontologists, biologists, and scads other scientists that have given their whole LIVES to study human history are just plain wrong and stupid according to Hoagland. He's the only one smart enough to figure it all out and outsmarted all those thousands of other scientists. Nobody noticed any thing before?

Everything tends to point that we evolved on earth, not a planet with 1/3rd the gravity of earth and hardly any atmosphere to speak of. We sure are well adapted to this heavy gravity, thick atmosphere planet, which we share DNA with every other living thing that lives here, aren't we?

And that "Deep Space" contact is just laughable, not to mention the fact that Hoagland doesn't have an orginal thought in his brain, couldn't he have come up with a more orginal name???

ToSeek
2002-Oct-10, 09:01 PM
New "Face" image in the latest release of MGS data (http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e07_e12/images/E10/E1003730.html)

Doodler
2002-Oct-10, 09:12 PM
Nice picture, still no face.

Rift
2002-Oct-10, 11:36 PM
With every new picture it looks less and less like a face.

Luriko-Ysabeth
2002-Oct-11, 01:28 AM
Personally, I always thought the face on the moon looked more like a face... ^_^

David Hall
2002-Oct-11, 01:41 PM
How much will you bet that Hoagland will take this new photo and try to use it to show even more conclusively that it is artificial?

Jim
2002-Oct-11, 01:58 PM
Folks, I think you're all missing the true story here.

The Cydonian "anomaly" is indeed artificial. It was constructed by the Martians to look like a face.

However, after making it, the Martians began to worry that if Earthlings ever saw it and realized its signifigance, Mars would be invaded by hoards of off-world scientists and (ugh) tourists. There would be sampling and questioning and picture taking ("Can you snap one of me and the Face, Mr. Martian?") and chains of fast food joints and souvenir stores and eventually a Martian version of Branson, MO.

Frightened by this prospect, the Martians began to disguise the Face, making it look like a natural rock outcropping. This effort extended to their pyramids, obelisks, and cities. In final desperation, they moved underground to avoid detection.

It's not a NASA conspiracy. It's a Martian one!

Klausnh
2003-Mar-17, 04:23 PM
I wonder how Mr. Hoagland would interpret this picture of the Carina Nebula.

http://store3.yimg.com/I/skyimage_1733_2351657

2003-Mar-17, 04:40 PM
<a name="20030317"> page 20030317 aka 386/20 ? 8:47 A.M.
On 2002-09-10 13:42, Bad Engineer wrote: tO? 8:48 A.M.









B.E.

g99
2003-Mar-17, 05:42 PM
On 2003-03-17 11:23, Klausnh wrote:
I wonder how Mr. Hoagland would interpret this picture of the Carina Nebula.

http://store3.yimg.com/I/skyimage_1733_2351657


Ha /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif the middle finger nebula...

DaveOlden
2003-Mar-18, 11:17 AM
On 2003-03-17 11:23, Klausnh wrote:
I wonder how Mr. Hoagland would interpret this picture of the Carina Nebula.

http://store3.yimg.com/I/skyimage_1733_2351657


We now know exactly what God thinks of the Paparazzi--No, on second thought...

Since God is All Knowing, He knew that this picture would be viewed by Hoagland.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveOlden on 2003-03-18 06:18 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveOlden on 2003-03-18 06:21 ]</font>

2003-Mar-19, 02:27 AM
<a name="JD2452717.HOW"> page JD2452717.HOW aka HOW?
On 2002-09-08 08:26, Phobos wrote: TO: 6:32 P.M. pst
[quote]












I found a Dr. Kathryn S. Kierein-Young

AIG websit (http://www.aigllc.com/training/instructors.htm)
[/quotee]
I found it? 7:05 P.M.
roblosey@darkwing.uoregon.edu
it was the "DARK" part that
thru me off
----earlier
i would like to find ?
Rob Losey oregon.uoregon.edu Clues appriciated

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2003-03-18 21:59 ]</font>

Manchurian Taikonaut
2005-Feb-17, 07:07 PM
The Moon was altered by a super-being
picture 1 (http://www.enterprisemission.com/images_v2/Iapetus/IAPETUS-Wall-CL3a-b.jpg)
picture 2 (http://www.enterprisemission.com/images_v2/Iapetus/IAPETUS-Wall-CL.jpg)

The Saturn moon remains a giant relic, a fossil of technology - something along the lines of a Star Trek, Star Wars ship

#-o Where does he and his crew get those ideas :P

Manchurian Taikonaut
2005-Feb-17, 07:13 PM
Oops, TooSeeked

I see now there's already a thread on this 8-[