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.
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.
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.
One of the main pictures who are going to support the thesis of monuments on the moon is frame 4822.
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.
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.
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).
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.