Sacred Texts  Esoteric & Occult   Mysteries
Buy CD-ROM   Buy Books about UFOs
Index  Previous  Next 

Compuserve Chat with Hoagland about Mars Face

   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

    MARS6.TXT                 15-May-89 3146           Accesses: 21


    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.

    Press  for next or type CHOICES !

    HOAG.CO                   11-May-89 36058          Accesses: 39


    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.

    Press  for 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 or  for 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!

   (Dick) Thanks, Ted.  It's nice to be here. Ah, where ever "here"

   (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
               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

   (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

   (Ted)  We will have only one ? each until all have had at least one
   chance. GA


   % 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

   % 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

   (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
   (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.

   (Ted) GA Steve


   (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)

   (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

   (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

   (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

   (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

   (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!!!

   % The conference has ended
   Thank you for attending

   (Jim S.) ?

   (Ted) Let start the new que,  who are waiting in the wings? ga

   (DON) !!
   (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

   (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

   (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


   (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

   (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

   (Ted) Ga Dick

   (Dick H.) I was going to answer Don's question...But. since he's
   left, let's move

   (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


   (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


   (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

   Press  !

Next: A Brief Account of the True Nature of the UFO Entities