Hoagland v/s WUFOC's version of the "castle".

According to an article about Richard Hoagland in the last issue of this e-magazine, we promised to give some analysis of pictures we ordered from NASA.     The pictures was two of Hoaglands hard evidence to support his thesis on constructed buildings on our Moon! By Anders Persson

Richard C. Hoagland

Mars to the Moon     During more than a decade Richard Hoagland has been involved in a debate around whether or not there is monuments on our neighbour-planet Mars.     Even if Hoagland only is one of, in some cases, high ranked people who has been involved in this subject, it's still Hoagland we think about when we read or hear something regarding monuments on Mars. The reason for this is that Hoagland has, over a couple of years, been seen regular in different types of media.     Hoagland is also the person who has "stretched" the subject more than no one else had dared when he claimed different types of connections. It could be mathematical connections where he means that there is several mathematical constants in the geometrical placing of the different objects, and it could also be a connection with different ancient buildings here on earth. To many people this type of claims are disturbing enough and clearly unnecessary because the subject already is highly loaded according to histories of green Martians during a whole century.     Therefore it was with great hesitation that I two years ago received the message that Hoagland now thinks that it is monuments even on our own Moon!     One of the first things that came to mind when I heard of this, was who all this people who had traveled to the moon during the Apollo missions had missed all these things!? Conspiracy? Well... Maybe. But first let us look at the evidence, I thought. And that's what I have done.     The evidence is, in principle, based on pictures taken from ground or from satellites in orbit around the Moon. In general the anomalies appear near, or falls on the limit of the solution of the picture.     And it must be said. It is very different to those pictures we have seen on the surface of Mars where the picture, in general, is proportionately clear with, also in most cases, clearly geometrical shapes. And there is often more than one picture of the each anomalous object to make ones judgement from.

Narkontakt's copy of 4822

Frame 4822...      One of the main pictures who are going to support the thesis of monuments on the moon is frame 4822.     The picture shows a flat area with a few craters and a part of a mountain in the lower left section of the picture. The sun is shining from the right as we can see by how the shadow falls. One of the disturbing things, according to Hoagland, is that the right section is supposed to be shadowed of something. Of course the shadow should not be there, because what could be responsible of that?     Hoagland has his answer crystalclear: The shadow originate from remains or fragments of a huge roof, or doom, who once in time had covered big areas of the moon!     To support this thesis further, he points on a "structure" (se picture at the top of this page), approximate in the middle of the shadowed area, who he called "the castle".     The structure is built up by a couple of parallel short lines who lies close with each other. Hoagland supposesthat this is part of the old roof construction who now can be seen hanging in a sort of wire construction.     OK for that...the structure is for sure odd and have some artificial outlines, but the question is: Is it really there?      I have said it before and I say it again - to be sure you must have at least one more picture from a different angel, showing the same area with the same structure to make a judgement. Unfortunately, Hoagland has up till now failed to do so.      Anyway, everyone ( who have an interest ) can of course order the same picture from NASA and look if the structure is there. And that's what I did... The picture arrived a month later.      The expectations was high. NASA had promised us copies directly from the original and if these odd structures was there then NASA indeed had some question to answer.      Turn on the lightboard, take out the magnifying-glass, and after 5 minutes of intensive checking it was all clear. It was clinicaly free from both any castle, vertical sticks or most of other odd things. I could not see any reflecting glass-structure in "the biosphere 2" and it was impossible to see any streets or buildings in the area called "LA". The only thing left was these mysterious shadowing of the right part of the picture. Whatever it is that are causing this shadowing, I think that a roof , doom, and similar thing comes very at the end in a list of possible explanations. One example of a explanation I can think of is that the photo was taken through a curved window where light from the right part of the picture have to go trough more glass then the left side and therefore have been more moderate.      In my opinion it can only be two explanations. First: NASA has ( due to some reason) retouched the picture from these odd structures. Second: these odd structures that we can see in Hoaglands picture is only a product of damage caused by a careless procedure during the copying process ( in principle, you must have a absolutely sterile room to avoid alien particles to reach the negative).      If I'm going to make a guess of which of these two possibilities that are most likely then it must be the second. That's because I don't think that NASA would retouch structures who have such overwhelming similarities to scratches.      Either the conclusion is right or not, this of course is devastating for Hoagland, because he must have been in the same (or better) position to do the same check of the basic material!

Hoagland's copy of frame 4822

Twincraters      Another picture who Hoagland claimes is evidence for intelligent activity is frame III-85H1 who seems to show a area overwhelming with something who look like twincraters! All of these twincraters is oriented in the same way and Hoagland claimed that this can not have been done by mother nature and it is tempting to agree on that. At least if they really are there!      But if we look a little more closer, then we see that all round structures under a given magnitude is just - double. What can we learn from this? Well, one thing I think, namely that a little shaking on the camera under the exposing procedure would give similar, or I would say exactly the same pattern like these "twincraters". I don't meant that it must be so, but I mean that it can be so. And I'm saying that - before it's time to go out with these claims, it must be backed with at least one more picture of the same area and with at least same quality! In my opinion, this looks like a school example of a photo which is lacking of sharpness, caused by movement.

Hoagland holds a lecture at The Peoples House in Ange, Sweden, June 1996.

Credibility...      This is only two examples of pictures where, in my opinion, ordinary photo procedures has been base to dramatic interpretations. This, of course, is devastating for the credibility of other pronouncement from the same person, but of course it's not the same as saying that all that he says is false.      However, the gist is that Hoagland has destroyed his credibility in such way that you must take his future statement merely as good stories then result of methods of science.      One of Hoaglands latest news is that the whole Moon-program was infiltrated of some Mason's with connections back to the old Egyptians (?!). Neil Armstrong was supposed to have placed flags and made some ceremonials on his trip to moon. Even the whole Moon-program was supposed to been driven in the light of the old legends of Sirius and such.      After a look at a recent received picture from the Galileo-probe, showing one of Jupiter's moons - Callisto, Hoagland are arguing that one of the frames may be showing some artificial structures. These structures are supposed to be imbedded in ice and the structures, as usual, appears near the border of the pictures solution. NASA says that the surface of Callisto is more than 3 billion years old, so these "constructed" structures must've, in that case, been built on the ice from the beginning.      Maybe there are unusual structures on Callisto too, but... I don't know, for me the whole thing sounds like something which is rapidly running of the track.      We have tried to reach Hoagland for a comment by email, mail and fax, but without any luck. We hope that we can have a comment in a later issue of our e-magazine.