The following file is an excerpt from the PARANET Conference
on the Mars findings regarding the Face on Mars. We wish to thank
Mr. Lance Oliver
for uploading this file to KeelyNet for distribution to our users.
Placed on KeelyNet 11/04/89
[76012,3361]
MARS6.TXT 15-May-89 3146 Accesses: 21
Keywords: CONRESSMAN ROE HOAGLAND MARS FACE NASA COVERUP
The following is a template of a letter to the Chairman of the
House Committee on Space and Technology. It is very important
that this issue receive the proper amount of "political"
attention, as NASA seems to have their own agenda on how to look
for signs of extrasolar intelligence AND has refused to consider
any "outside" evidence, irregardless of how compelling.
Pressfor next or type CHOICES !
[76012,3361]
HOAG.CO 11-May-89 36058 Accesses: 39
Keywords: HOAGLAND MARS MISSIOM PROJECT CO ET FACE
This file is transcript of Sunday, May 7, 1989 on-line CompuServe
Conference sponsored by the National Issues and People Forum with
author Richard Hoagland. His most recent book, "The Monuments of
Mars," explores a surface anomaly photographed by NASA's Mars
Viking Mission resembling a human face.
Pressfor next or type CHOICES !CHO
The Issues Forum Library Disposition
1 READ this file
2 DOWNLOAD this file
3 RETURN to library menu
Enter choice orfor next !1
[The following is a transcript of Sunday, May 7, 1989 on-line
CompuServe Conference sponsored by the National Issues and People
Forum with author Richard Hoagland. His most recent book, "The
Monuments of Mars," explores a surface anomaly photographed by
NASA's Mars Viking Mission resembling a human face.]
User ID Nod Name
------------- --- -------------------
72470,250 NRL daniel burton
71340,276 SOR Mark.Y
76012,3361 MRT Ted
76340,3357 BTM Michelle Smith
76703,266 DUK Georgia
71270,1311 LAK MARTIN ARANT
76416,733 QFM Ed Tarantelli
76702,330 CWV Dick
72537,2312 PRI Paul Carr
74656,2333 LCA Paul J. Burke/CA
71435,1203 NWH Howard
72135,424 PNX Jim S.
73500,625 CGK John
72406,1736 HLY Darrell Green
70511,17 CRZ Mike
74270,3360 BOI Don Ecker
71450,3504 ANN Bert
72560,341 RIV Mike Sugarman/Celes
72427,1316 ENC Ron Page
76703,674 DUK Chuck Lynd
76247,447 DTB steve rivera
72470,242 HVN EROL TORUN
75015,364 SFM Stan Tenen
72210,1213 DEM mcorbin
76703,303 WVA Dick DeLoach
% Conference has begun
(Georgia) Welcome to all! Tonight we welcome Richard Hoagland.
During the question-and-answer period, when it is your turn to
speak, please keep line length to around 60 columns. Keep
questions short so that all participants have an opportunity to ask
their questions. When you have finished formulating your question,
end with GA so that our guest will know when to begin. First, Ted
Markley, my assistant in charge of Paranormal issues will introduce
the guest, then ask some questions to start things moving. After
that we will take questions as long as possible. GA Ted.
(Ted) Tonight we are fortunate to have as our special guest
Richard Hoagland, author of "The Monuments of Mars" and founder of
the Mars Project and the newly formed Mars Mission. Dick's long
list of impressive credentials can found in the Convention Center
lobby as well as in the Issues Forum. Before we open the floor to
questions I will conduct a brief interview with Dick which will
cover some of the more frequently asked question. Welcome, Dick!
GA
(Dick) Thanks, Ted. It's nice to be here. Ah, where ever "here"
is.
(Ted) While many here tonight have read your book, others only know
of the "Face" on the Martian surface through tabloids such as the
"National Enquirer." I know that this Martian surface feature is
getting the serious attention of noted members of the scientific
community. Can you comment on the caliber of the team on the Mars
Project. GA
(Dick) Well, Ted, the list is constantly growing. We have some whom
have been involved almost from the beginning -like Dr. Mark
Carlotto, of the Analytic Science Corporation, in Reading Mass.
But, then we have "new blood" that comes to us out of the blue,
like Erol Torun of Defense Mapping who read my book last okfall,
was _determined_ to prove me wrong --and wound up discovering some
extraordinary stuff. So it just keeps growing.GA
(Ted) Dick, you recently started the Mars Mission as spin off of
the Mars Project. Can you explain the charter and purpose of the
Mars Mission? GA
(Dick) When it became clear last Fall that we were really on to
something, when the numbers started really coming together I
realized that the biggest hurdle to getting verification was going
to be the _political_ process. So, if the Project was the
originator of the research, the Mars Mission is the "home" of what
I like to think of as the necessary "democratization" of the data
to get the _political_ system up to speed for verification. In
other words, we need to put the pressure on NASA to TAKE NEW
PICTURES. And that means Congress and people who want to know if
this is real. GA
(Ted) Is there a way that interested people (even though they may
not be highly technical) can keep abreast of new development in
both the Mars Project and the Mars Mission? ----- Dick got knocked
off. Please stand by. For those of you who just joined us, Dick
Hoagland was knocked off and should be back on shortly. GA
(Dick H.) Sorry, guys I seem to have slipped into a warp. This
ship takes a little getting used to. One can't be "all thumbs". GA
(Ted) I'll repeat my last question. Is there a way that interested
people (even though they may not be highly technical) can keep
abreast of new development in both the Mars Project and the Mars
Mission? GA
(Dick H.) Let's try again. Yes, there is. One can write to us at
the Mars Mission: P.O. Box 981, Wytheville, VA 24382. Or, one can
subscribe to the Mars Mission Newsletter (at the same P.O. Box).
Or, one can actually log-on to our new (very new -- grin) Mars
Mission Board, which we hope to get up and running in a week or
two. There are so many new developments -- on both the research
front and the political front that we've decided to try the
"electronic way" and see if it works. I should add that Marty Arant
is the guy who really impelled us to try this, so if it DOESN'T
work blame him!.ga
(Ted) One last ? before I open the floor. What can the average
person do to help get us back to Mars and get more data on the
"Face"? GA
(Dick H.) (Sorry for the delay -- we have cats) The main thing is
that we need new images of Cydonia, ASAP, And NASA has steadfastly
refused to take them!!! That simply doesn't make sense. What
makes this science, as opposed to that "other stuff" is that THIS
IS TESTABLE. It's that simple. The fact that NASA doesn't WANT to
subject this data to the only fair appraisal at this point, is very
suspicious. Which is why we were extremely gratified that we've
found such an excellent reception on Capitol Hill including an
invitation to meet with the Chairman (himself!) of the House
Committee on Science, Space and Technology a couple of weeks ago.
His attention to this problem is probably going to do more in the
long run to get us the answers we need (and deserve) than any other
single development on the political front in the last 13 years.
And, to keep that side of the system "honest" public interest
(citizen support for the simple idea of LOOKING) is ESSENTIAL.
This, Congressman Robert A. Roe should get some mail from anyone
who wants to let him know that they support HIS interest in this
vital inquiry. His address is:
The Honorable Robert A. Roe
Chairman, House Committee on Space, Science and
Technology
U.S. House of Representatives
Rayburn Building -- Rm 2243
Washington, D.C.
Ted, you asked. GA
(Ted) I'll now open the floor to ? GA
(Dick H.) Sounds good. GA
(Georgia) type /que to get in line.
% Moderator recognizes queue #1
Paul J. Burke/CA <10>
(Paul J. Burke/CA) Mr. Hoagland, I feel you are mining the depths
of scientific ignorance, with this phony issue. It is the nadir of
anthroprocentric chauvanism to believe some advanced civilization
could detect the existence of man on this planet and do nothing
more than carve out a mountain that MIGHT be seen, by some tree
dwelling mammal. How could THEY see so far ahead? GA.
(Dick H.) This goes to the heart of many issues, Paul I personally
believe it is us who are acting slightly anthropocentric. We have
an "image," a "model" for how "ET" is "supposed" to behave. If the
"signal" we get doesn't fit that "image," we -- NASA -- rejects it.
So, which is more anthropocentric? To pursue data where it leads.
Or to say, "the data doesn't exist?" GA
(Paul J. Burke/CA) Aren't the Mars imagers dead? How can NASA take
any more photos?
(Dick H.) I don't see any connection. The material "ruins" are
still there. When Mars Observer gets there in 1993, all we want is
the Cydonia Region REIMAGED. The objects (there is FAR more than
the "face") will still certainly be there. GA
(Ted) Next
(Paul J. Burke/CA) I would agree to a 'side trip' on the next Mars
mission,
(Dick H.) It's not even that complicated. Mars Observer will be
in a POLAR ORBIT. It will inevitably fly over EVERY SQUARE INCH OF
MARS every 35 or 36 days. So, all NASA has to agree to is to take
the images at the designated time. And they won't! GA
% Moderator recognizes queue #2
Bert <17>
(Ted) GA Bert
(Bert) Dick, do you know if the Soviets have an interest in Cydonia
and do you have any information relating to the AP release (a month
or so back) indicating the Soviets had observed something very
strange on the surface of Mars? GA
(Dick H.) I put several items relating to the past research history
of this into the Library earlier today (Ted, can tell you guys how
to get them out!) I can tell you this (as background to some of
that material, which relates to past dealings we've had with the
Soviets on this issue. Last January, one of our team -- Dr. Brian
O'Leary a former scientist-astronaut went personally to Moscow with
the pictures. His mission: to try to get Sagdeev and others to take
new images with the Phobos spacecraft. They all sat there, looking
at the Carlotto enhancements and were VERY interested, according to
O'leary. That was over a year ago. Late last year, in December,
just before the NASA briefing we did I got a letter from a Soviet
scientist whom we've been in direct contact with for about a year.
He's a specialist in "problems of extraterrestrial contact". His
Ph.D. is in this particular subject, in fact! Anyway, HE said the
new data was SO interesting, he was going to Sagdeev (then head of
the unmanned Phobos Mission) to try to get new images of Cydonia
from Phobos 2. That was last December I, of course, immediately
shot back a reply telling him HOW the images might be taken
(inclination of orbit to the equator, etc.) So far -- this is MAY -
- nothing. But the Soviet's HAVE announced some pretty peculiar
things around their Phobos mission including a Radio Moscow Report
that Marty Arant heard first-hand which had Orthodox Russian
priests going into the Moscow Phobos Control Center to "see the
Phobos images of Mars and to talk about the creation. You figure
it out. GA
(Ted) As Dick mentioned, there will be several files in LIB 10 of
the ISSUES forum tomorrow. Dick was furiously uploading document
today and I have not processed them all yet....
(Dick H.) "Furiously" is right.ga
(Ted) We will have only one ? each until all have had at least one
chance. GA
NEXT
% Moderator recognizes queue #3
DON <16>
(#DON) Ok Thanks Ted. Richard, I have just a simple question. I am
presuming that the majority of your work is concerned with the
photos that were taken in the early 70's, and are mostly concerned
with the "face" and what you perceive as structures my question is
this. How many independent computer photo enhancements have been
performed by independent facilities, other than the Carlotto work
and if this is so important why is there so much "infighting" among
the various people working on this, such as John Brandenbergs
Cydonia Features, and Vince Di Pietro and Greg Molenaar. Why is
there no co-operation? GA
(Dick H.) I guess every time in the history of human affairs one
comes up against a problem that is really interesting very "human"
problem will inevitably raise there head. This is true, whether you
work at the NSC, at NASA, for the Civil Rights movement, or
anything. The fact of the matter is we all, all of us who have
been involved with this firmly are committed to one goal now: new
images ASAP. That's got to be priority number uno. The rest of it
--which says a lot about different emphasis on different aspects of
the research is far less important than that point. GA
(DON) Ok, so how many independent research efforts have there been
that confirms your theory? Or is there only one? GA
(Dick H.) Good question. In "Monuments" I go into great detail on
three investigations. Each of these did some imaging. The first,
of course, was NASA! Surprised? It as NASA which first "found" this
object, and put it on the public record. It was only after that,
that others namely DiPietro and Molenarr, at Goddard, in 1979 did
their "thing" -- found the SECOND, corroborating frames taken of
Cydonia at a higher sun-angle which has given us such great data to
actually work with. They did enhancements, published and nothing
much happened for EIGHT YEARS. Then, in 1983 I got the images,
looked at them and realized that I was seeing not only a "face" but
other things which didn't belong there. That's when the third
IMAGING investigation began -- at SRI. Their Prime system did some
excellent work, using digital copies of the NASA Viking tapes.
That's when we turned to a FOURTH source, for "independent data" on
the imaging: Mark Carlotto. Carlotto, I must say, has put the most
time and effort into extracting every bit of data from these tapes.
And he's brought not only new techniques to the imaging. He's also
"attacked" the problem with new ideas -- such as the "fractal
analysis" he's not done and submitted to the journals. And every
time we use a new technique we turn up DATA not noise.
That, I believe, is trying to tell us something.ga
% Moderator recognizes queue #4
Stan Tenen <8>
(Stan Tenen) hi, Richard, this is Stan of meru. (I don't think I
can squeeze in punctuation ). I have several questions; first, i
think that you are focusing on the wrong data; brilliant as
Carlotto's analysis is, the best data , in my opinion is Toruns.
the alignments that he shows among the various strange objects at
Cydonia is very hard to explain for example: l the edges of the d&m
pyramid are very fuzzy in the enhanced photos. I am not convinced
by the photos what is extraordinary is that the alignments of the
d&m with the bulls eye and the face and the cliff and the tholus
are exactly redefine the fuzzy edges of the d & m so it is not
necessary to see it clearly - the alignments sharply define the
edges. Also, it is not hard to find very interesting alignments
for example; the cliff subtends the same angle from both the tip of
the d & m and from the city center bulls eye. That means that the
edges of the cliff, which are very well defined and the tip of the
d & m and the bulls eye must lie on the same circle. By the way,
what features has John Brandenberg found - I have not heard of his
data before. Also, you mentioned base 3 and 3609 on the phone
earlier my calculations show 360 base 10 to equal 111100 base 3.
364 base 1 retry; 364 base 10 equals 111111 base 3, much more
elegant. What say you. ga
(Dick H.) I don't know quite where to begin, Stan. Let me say,
first, that you have confused some of the work just a bit. When I
got into this, back in 1983, it was precisely because I thought I
saw the potential for some remarkable relationships between some
intriguing objects at Cydonia. I put these ideas into a VERY
primitive numerical "model" in "Monuments" I called it the
"relationship model" and felt that if we were going to ever know at
EXISTING image resolution what we were dealing with it would only
be through discovery of some very precise, provocative, and
repeating numerical RELATIONSHIPS between these objects. Little did
I know that that day would arrive much sooner than I thought when I
finished the book Erol, in the Fall of last year, in measuring.
ONE of the most fascinating "structures" near the "face": the so-
called "D&M Pyramid" discovered an extraordinary set of VERY
SPECIFIC relationships INTERNAL to this object. I, in turn, in
remeasuring all the previous alignments, had noted in the book
between the objects that you cited -- the Face, the "City", the
"Cliff" and the "Tholus" (all objects which are much easier to talk
about if you have images and maps before you!) Anyway, in
remeasuring those previously noted alignments, I discovered to my
immense surprise -- and satisfaction! -- that Torun's precise
numerical angles (and derived numerical constants which we shall
define in a moment) SHOWED UP -- not once . . . or twice . . . but
perhaps HALF A DOZEN TIMES (I've lost exact count, at this point).
The point is this: you're right. To me, the REALLY exciting stuff
is NOT that something "looks like a face" or "looks like a
Pyramid". It's that Erol and I have discovered between us
something like two or three dozen REPEATING numerical relationships
and these have given us the SAME set of repeating mathematical
constants -- like "e" and "pi" -- again . . . and again . . . and
again. And these constants have now yielded a prediction as to the
very siting latitude of these objects on the planets's surface --.
Anyway, you're right. THAT's the "ball to keep one's eye upon!
And, tonight, we're fortunate that Erol is here, to tell us
specifically what he's discovered recently.ga
(Georgia) Ted is next.
(Ted) Dick, I think we passed too quickly over a couple of
innuendoes that Don raised relative to "Infighting" and lack of co-
operation among members of the Mars Project. Is it true that this
has been occurring? GA
(Dick H.) I'd be less than candid if I didn't say, "yes." But so
what? Politics are everywhere. The point is not who agrees with
you, or who decides that "this" area is more important than "that."
The point in science is "Can you test your hypothesis?" Personality
conflicts, hidden agendas, fear of being too bold (or too timid)
have no real place in such a process. That's why those of us who
think we need a bold, politically aggressive strategy to get back
to Mars for the crucial data that we need now have formed the Mars
Mission.
(Ted) GA Dick
(Ted) Dick has been knocked off again.
(Dick H.) Gone into the ether, again. But, I'm back!
% Moderator recognizes queue #5
steve rivera <22>
(Ted) TO get into QUE type "/que" GA Dick
(Dick H.) Now, what was I saying? Oh, yes . . . the point is not
the politics of "personality," but the objective of getting real
information on a problem of first-rate importance. If the criteria
for an important problem be that there are no "politics," then that
would eliminate ALL of human activity. Next.ga
(Ted) GA Steve
(steve rivera) SORRY I MISSED THE FIRST FIFTEEN MINUTES OF THE
CONFERENCE BESIDES THE "ISSUES" FORUM, WHERE CAN I GET MORE
INFORMATION (AND PERHAPS PHOTOS) SUCH AS BBS NUMBERS, ADDRESSES,
ETC DTB GA
(Ted) Steve, there will be a transcript of this CO in the ISSUES
Lib 10 soon. Dick answered that question earlier. If you don't
find what you need there send me EMAIL. NEXT
% Moderator recognizes queue #6
Jim S. <12>
(Dick H.) I should add our Mars BBS number, however, which I forgot
earlier (703)228-7822.ga
(Jim S.) I should preface by saying the face looks enough like a
face to me to merit serious inquiry, however. As you know, this
issue lives or dies on scientific diligence. In your white paper,
you refer to the Viking images as the "first hard evidence" of the
existence of ETI. Was this just a semantical slip (did you mean
"possible indication") or do you really consider your findings
"hard evidence"? If so, isn't it possible that NASA's motivation
(or lack thereof) stems from simple mistrust of your methodology
and/or scientific objectivity? GA
(Dick H.) Excellent question. I used the term "hard" because for
all of NASA's 30 years of SETI. They've only had THEORY. The
evidence in the images -- no matter how you consider the pros or
cons of looking at it -- is hard evidence. It must be addressed.
It has not been except by this group OUTSIDE of NASA. I have
entered in LIB 10 what I think as some of the reasons for this.
You may agree or disagree. But the point is this. In science, when
a theory ("Hypothesis" is a better term, here) is "on the table,"
the scientific process DEMANDS that it be tested. It hasn't been.
The only one's who can TEST it at this point on Mars (which is the
only test that will really convince everyone) are the NASA folks
who control the spacecraft, the launch facilities, the imaging
systems the tracking network, etc.etc.etc. And that"s put a severe
"dent" in the process.ga
(Ted) Next
% Moderator recognizes queue #7
Bert <17>
(Ted) Bert Passes, Next
% Moderator recognizes queue #8
mcorbin <9>
(mcorbin) Dick, I hope that this is not redundant as I was unable
to get on at 6:30 due to network problems, but despite official
NASA denial of interest in this aspect of the Martian surface are
there any indications of interest on their part unofficially? I
seem to get the indication that they do indeed have an interest in
this phenomenon, but they are not public about it.ga
(Dick H.) If they don't have a "official"interest now, they might
have shortly. Tomorrow morning, according to a phone conversation
we had with the chief aid to Congressman Roe last Friday the
Congressman is sending an _official_letter to NASA, asking
precisely that question "WHAT (NASA) HAVE YOU DONE ABOUT THIS
DATA?" Now it's become a bit uncomfortable in the last 48 hours or
so to lie to Congress. I think we're going to find out some
interesting things in the next few days.ga
(Ted) Ok Next
% Moderator recognizes queue #9
DON <16>
(DON) Richard, I assume you are familiar with William "Bill" Moore
and the work that he, Stan Friedman and Jamie Shandera have done
with the MJ-12 material. As you may or may not know, ParaNet was
the first informational system to "break" this story, at ParaNet
and here on CIS. I understand that Moore was attempting to get in
contact with you. Would you care to elaborate on this, and does it
have anything to do with your attempt to get Congress involved with
the Mars material and his same attempt in reference with the MJ-12
material? ga
(Dick H.) First, the investigation into the Viking images has no
DIRECT connection with any UFO material, investigations, etc. I
want to say that, so that what I say next is very clear. Both,
however, have at their root, a POLITICAL problem. If NASA HAS done
work on these images (in the theory that we're not the only "smart"
guys in town) then the ONLY way to find that out is through the
political process -- if it works. The UFO guys have had the same
problem. So, on the surface there is a similarity. The DIFFERENCE
is this: we can test the Mars data in the very near future BY
SIMPLY GETTING NEW IMAGES OF MARS. There is no easy way to TEST
the UFO hypothesis; the "data" doesn't "stand still". Now, I'm
impressed that the CHAIRMAN of the most powerful committee, in
terms of science, in the Congress invited us in HIMSELF -- no
"staff" etc. We had what Henry Kissinger would have called a "frank
and open discussion" of many issues. His reaction was (and I'm
paraphrasing here, of course): "Look, NASA's taken a _political_
position why are you here . . . for a _political_ solution." But,
that solution is going to need the attention of Americans who want
to know what's there, if these political expressions of interest
are going to be followed through.ga
(Georgia) We are not quite finished but the format is about to
change there are still 3 questions and after I end the formal
session, each of you 3 send a ? and Ted will moderate there is a
more manageable number here now. I want to thank Richard!!!
APPLAUSE!!
% The conference has ended
Thank you for attending
(Jim S.) ?
(Ted) Let start the new que, who are waiting in the wings? ga
(DON) !!
(MARTIN ARANT) ?
(mcorbin) !
(Stan Tenen) ?
(Ted) GA Jim
(Jim S.) Thanks Ted, and yes, applause Dick. Is it just coincidence
that your Mars Mission is headquartered in a well-known UFO flap
area? More to the point, is Danny Gordon in any way connected with
your group? GA
(Dick H.) Well, everyone I know, at one time or another has asked
me that in the last year! I can assure you that UFO's are NOT why
I'm here. But I have met Danny Gordon on a number of occasions.
And he strikes me as a serious reporter, trying to fathom an
unfathomable story.ga
(Ted) Don is next ga
(DON) Richard, lets get back to Moore. I believe you did not
address the question about Moore? Is he connected with you with
the Mars material, or was this coincidence? ga
(Dick H.) Don, I have also met Bill Moore -- at a coupe of
conferences in LA, I believe. (So, I don't know where the idea came
from that "he's trying to get in touch with me; he already has!")
Anyway, I know all about his work, and can assure you that it has
no direct or indirect connection with our own. Let me add this,
however. If this data we've been exploring on Mars is as robust as
it has now become to some of us, then it raises the obvious
question: if someone could find this solar system once (the
operative "visitor to Mars" model that I favor). Then why couldn't
someone AGAIN. Especially, if the "face" is trying to tell us of
some "link" with events beyond this planet. I think we should all
keep an open mind on that point.ga
(Ted) Martin is next Don you are in line after Stan ga Martin
(#MARTIN ARANT) on my interesting conversation with JPL ted, am I
on? OK. Dick, Great conference! I was #11 and was going to make a
statement on my interesting conversation with the "gentleman" at
JPL. Anyway, is Erol Torom on line? I am interested in what else
he has discovered. ga
(Dick H.) Erol, do you want to get a word in here?ga
(Ted) Ga Erol
(Bert) ?
(Ted) Maybe Erol will speak later
(Dick H.) Let me answer Marty's question in another way. Marty
called JPL some weeks ago and got some very interesting responses
to this investigation. Particularly the idea that if we "keep this
up, we're going to destroy the planetary program, if not at least
Mars Observer!" I kid you not... Anyway, last week, a reporter for
the Wall St. Journal called up JPL and, asked to speak to the
Project Scientist for Mars Observer. I think his name is Alby, or
something. Anyway, Alby told the Wall St. Journal guy that "he
didn't have any objection to taking a few pictures of Cydonia if
asked. Point: this represents a 180 degree reversal of field for
NASA. And, I said in a note to the Journal reporter: "Perhaps it's
because there have been some calls from the guys on the Hill in the
last few days"ga
(Ted) Ok Mike wanna continue? ga
(mcorbin) Yield to Bert. Th-.,.HX6l. Good night.
(Ted) Stan is next GA STAN
(Stan Tenen) im still curious about 360 degrees and base 3 as far
as I can see 360 base10 = 111100 base3 is this correct?ga
(Ted) This seems to be a rather involve question to answer in this
format. Stan, earlier Dick gave an address where he can be reached.
Could this question be dealt with in that way? ga
(Stan Tenen) yes
(EROL TORUN) ?
(Dick H.) perhaps I can answer Stan, without boring everyone else I
come back to "how will we know it's real." That is THE question
everyone would agree (I hope!) I also feel that something said
earlier this evening is right on track:
we tend to get mesmerized by the images -- what "looks" familiar --
a "Face," etc. And we lose sight of the science -- the
epistemology -- that must underpin any "decision" on "reality." I
believe, in answer to another question, that we may have "crossed
the Rubicon" on this one. The math is the key. How many "big"
questions in science are decided by things we CANNOT see -- quarks
black-hole models .. AIDS viruses? If we have to recognize
something in these images, before we accept the "reality" of this,
then we're rejecting at least two hundred years of science! So, we
come back to the numbers. Erol discovered a specific set of numbers
in one object, after trying to DISPROVE my contention that this
object was important. I extended those specific numbers to the
whole Complex and found THE SAME quantities, expressed repeatedly
to ONE PART IN A THOUSAND!!! The probability that these serial
discoveries are chance is calculable by the same mathematics used
to calculate the odds of TWO engines failing on a 737 in England
and the results say we are NOT dealing with chance: it HAS to be
Design to we believe the numbers . . .? Read the papers on the
Mars BBS -- (703) 228-7822 -- in a week or so. ga
(Ted) Erol Torun is up. Go Ahead Erol GA
(EROL TORUN) Am I getting through to you?
(Ted) Yes. Just a reminder to those new to our CO. We operate
under formal rules. If you want to ask a question or make a
comment type a "?" or a "!" and I will take down your name and put
you in queue. I'll let you know when it is your turn. GA Erol ( GA
means Go Ahead and talk) GA
(EROL TORUN) Great conference, dick. I agree with Dick's opinion
that the final test of the reality of what we are looking at will
be based on the presence of regular geometry. To briefly summarize
my work, I have found the three things that one would look for in
ANY remotely sensed imagery that might contain ruins these are :
1 - Inconsistency with the local geology ..
2 - The presence of regular geometry that is suggestive
of intelligent intervention
3 - Meaningful context
Dick was the first to emphasize the importance of context i.e. a
face or pyramid in isolation would make little sense GA
(steve rivera) ?
(Dick H.) Sorry, I missed a bit when something knocked me off
line.ga
(Stan Tenen) bye and be well all
(Ted) Don is up GA
(DON) Thanks Ted. Richard, Mars is all well and good, and it is
possible that something has in fact occurred there. Until such time
as more photos are taken, or a manned mission happens, we will not
know. My question is this. Since the first manned flights in the
60's, there have been many reports by our astronauts of sightings
of UFOs while in orbit, or while on the moon. Also, many
unexplained sightings of something on the moon have filtered back.
In the mid 70's George Leonard wrote an excellent book titled
"Somebody Else is on the Moon". Have you read this. Or are you
familiar with this as well as other works about unusual occurrences
that have been reported on the Moon? What is your opinion that even
know, something could be occurring? ga
(Dick H.) First thing's first. My point (and Erol's) is simply
this: we now have enough repeatable, numerical data, to be able to
make a very high probability statement regarding the "reality" or
"non-reality" of the Cydonia Complex -- if we use the SAME RULES we
routinely apply to other areas of science. To most people, I
realize, they'll have to "see" something they recognize; but that's
not "science," that's emotional response. So, let's keep in mind
the work that we have covered
(Ted) Dick, are you there? ga
(DON) Ted, he got bumped.
(Ted) Dick got dumped. Welcome back Dick.
(Dick H.) Sorry, Don. Now, to the last part of your question
[Don left the conference at this point]
(Ted) Bert is next GA BERT
(Dick H.) Oh
(Bert) Go ahead and finish your thought Dick.ga
(Ted) Ga Dick
(Dick H.) I was going to answer Don's question...But. since he's
left, let's move on.ga
(Ted) GA BERT
(Bert) With regard to the AP article mentioning that the Soviets
had seen something like a "15 mile strip" and a "spindle" shaped
formation, have you or any of your group attempted to contact them
about what this might have been? ga
(Dick H.) Let's take a few interesting things in order. The Soviets
have "known" about these objects since AT LEAST 1984 -- when they
published a provocative piece in Soviet Life Mag titled" "Pyramids
on Mars?" Now, O'Leary took them the enhanced photos in Jan, '88.
They had at least a year and a half to plan how to take new images.
Now, we have strange stories coming out of Radio Moscow Stories of
"strange, spindle-shaped objects and linear features that seem
rectilinear". If you put all of this together, you just MIGHT come
up with the idea that they have indeed taken some new images . . .
and they are "leaking" news to the West -just like they've done
before. Look at the details of the "spindle story": They claim it
could be the "shadow of a spacecraft on the surface". If their
resolution is THAT good (do the calculation) then they have to have
seen something interesting at Cydonia! ga
(mcorbin) !
(Ted) Mike C is up GA Mike
(mcorbin) I have three small questions/statements to make. First,
does the US have any frames of the areas that have been taken by
the Soviets? Also, I would to offer ParaNet's assistance to you in
the efforts of getting information to the public. We are prepared
to be of service to you in any way that we possibly can. And,
finally, how near to the complex is this area that the Soviets are
interested in?
(Dick H.) To your first question, yes the Soviets have brought some
Phobos images to Washington NASA HQ but I haven't seen them. They
did show O'Leary some Phobos (the moon) photos in Tokyo. And he
brought those back to Phoenix. We were discussing them on the
phone the other afternoon when he called trying to get an idea of
the resolution of the cameras (Something like the physicists who've
been trying to duplicate the cold fusion lab set-ups from wire
photos!) Anyway, we don't know (because they haven't released
coordinates) where the Soviet "spindle" is located. So, does that
answer your question?.ga
(EROL TORUN) ?
(Ted) GA Erol
(mcorbin) Yes, one thing more on this. What is the resolution on
the Soviet's camera. Do you know?
(Dick H.) For obvious reasons, we've been trying to get very
specific info on this. But it's been hard. We've tried published
specs. We've tried "inside sources" who are working with the
Soviets (like Merton Davies, at RAND) and, we've tried to estimate
it, based on the photos they gave O'Leary last week. It all says
that IF they wanted to really take new images of Cydonia they could
probably AT LEAST equal Viking and, if they put the spacecraft in
an orbit designed to get new pics specifically they could do better
than Viking by maybe a factor of 2 or 3 But we don't know!!! ga
(EROL TORUN) ?
(Ted) ga EROL
(EROL TORUN) Dick, was the AP story more specific as to what the
Soviets meant by a "spindle shaped object" ? I'm thinking of the
Viking photograph in Monuments that shows a bizarre "bow-tie"
shaped object in close proximity to a straight line with an East-
West orientation perhaps the Soviets have reimaged these objects GA
(Dick H.) Shades of the Runway. I simply don't know, Erol. However,
all our speculating is not going to get real data. What we have
done -- and you were in the meeting in Roe's office when he asked -
- is to submit a specific "wish list" to the Chairman of items that
will move this Investigation along. And a DIRECT CALL to the
Soviets, asking to see any images they DID secure of Cydonia, is on
that list and will be in the LIB 10, t'morrow, right Ted? ga
(Ted) Should be there if all goes well. Any other ? GA
(Ted) Ok, I want to thank Richard Hoagland for a VERY interesting
and informative evening. I hope that Dick will be back to join us
soon (and hopefully will be in the National Issues Forum) to join
our discussions. Thank you Dick. GA
(mcorbin) Thank you Dick.
(Dick H.) I'd like to thank everyone who turned out, Ted, it's been
a real experience. Never had to type so fast in MY LIFE!ga
(Bert) Many thanks Dick, also thanks to Erol.
(Mark.Y) Thank you for typing with us! Much appreciated!
(Mike) Ditto
(EROL TORUN) Thanks and good night to all
(mcorbin) Thanks Erol.
(Ted) Yes, thanks to EROL also. Let you fingers do the walking thru
the data bases! Nite all! ga
(mcorbin) Night Ted. Night Bert.
(Mark.Y) Night, all!
(EROL TORUN) ditto
(Bert) Night all.
(Mike) "Nite
(Dick H.) Why does this sound (look?) like the Waltons? G'night one
and all.ga
Press!