Richard Hoagland's Lecture
at Univ of New Mexico June 27, 1998

The title of this report /lecture was “The Monuments of Mars Confirmed”. The summary below is from notes taken at the lecture by Jeff Glickman, and I greatly appreciate his sharing it with us. He did an excellent job.


Subject: personal report: Hoagland event in Albuquerque
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 17:20:27
From: Jeff Glickman

About 200 tickets had been presold for the event, held in UNM’s Woodward
Hall. The space was very fine and looked like it could seat close to 500. I
would estimate the attendance to be between 200 and 300. The event began
close to 5pm, closing with a question/answer period which ended a bit
before 12:30am. It was long and at times felt like it! There were periods
however when time seemed to fly by.

The participants were Richard C. Hoagland (Director and force behind the
Enterprise Mission), Ron Nicks (geologist), David Kepke (drafter, designer,
and CAD programmer), Kynthia (sculptor and artist), and Tom van Flandern
(professional astronomer, former Chief of the Celestial Mechanics Branch of
the U.S. Naval Observatory, and founder of the scientific non-profit
corporation, Meta Research).

Multimedia tools used in the various presentations included a video
projector, a slide projector, and a PC overhead projector. The latter was
used extensively for viewing images directly from PC storage and focusing
in on specific areas of interest. Some of the programs used were Adobe
Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro 5, and AutoCAD.

Hoagland begins the evening with an overview of the Enterprise Mission’s
Cydonia research, from the 1976 Viking images to the Cydonia Geometry
Relationship, and the Cydonia connection with Earth monuments such as those
at Giza and Stonehenge. “Geometry is the key”, states Hoagland. He also
reviews some specifics such as Torun’s work on the internal geometry of the
D&M Pyramid and emphasizes the importance of tetrahedral geometry. Asking
an “obvious” question, a majority of the combined audience responds
“nineteen point five!”

Richard speaks at some length on the societal implications of the Cydonia
findings stating that the hardest thing was to “get scientists to believe
that NASA would lie.” He was very careful and specific to inform the
audience that he does not believe all NASA employees lie and that a small
“cadre” of persons was in on the fix. Of course, he speaks of the
Brooking’s Report. He emphasizes, regarding the “dreaded ‘C’ word”, that
holding back data which would support the artificiality hypothesis “is not
conspiracy, it’s policy.” He points out that the fine print in NASA’s
charter makes it clear that NASA is in fact a defense organization and that
the charter allows NASA to classify its findings if it deems that necessary.

Richard segues into one of *the* highlights of the evening: a showing of
the entire STS-80 video. This tape shows many “violations of Newton”. The
major events shown occur “at 19.5 degrees over the Amazon jungle.” What you
see at the beginning is a close up of part of South America. You can see
that the camera controller (remotely from Houston) was purposefully
focusing in on a particular spot, set dead center in the viewing area, and
waiting, adjusting continuously as the Earth keep moving by under the
Shuttle. Suddenly there is a bright streak, dead center of the viewing
area. It is hard to not conclude that the camera controller knew that
something was going to happen then and there. It looked to me as if the
streak came up through the atmosphere and into space. When the camera is
panned back, back, back, you see just *how small* is the area previously
focused on up close and that again confirms that the controller knew where
to look and purposefully did so. Regarding other oddities in this video,
Richard suggests we are seeing EMP’s from particle beam weapons, the output
of which is probably traveling around 1000 miles/sec. According to Richard,
“the shuttle is being used as a recording platform for this live display.”
Picking up on his earlier comments regarding the conspiracy/policy,
Hoagland suggests that there are “suppressers and leakers” inside NASA,
implying an internal struggle with regard to policy and data release. If
what we are seeing on STS-80, STS-40, and other shuttle mission videos (not
to mention Apollo and Lunar Orbiter missions) is not “ice crystals” and
other NASA debunked causes, then we in fact seem to be seeing technology
literally light years beyond anything we currently know.

At this point Richard turns the podium over to Ron Nicks, who begins with a
thumbnail background of himself and then discusses the general geologic
characteristics of Mars, making the point that, “there are no Martian
geologists.” He then compares Mars and Earth. Ron is a great speaker. He
engages the audience with his clear voice and laid back style and has us
chuckling with about every sentence: “Earth is round ... Mars is round” he
states. “Earth has mountains ... Mars has mountains. Earth has a bulge ...
Mars has a bulge.” He ends this bit with “Earth has evidence of ruins of
past intelligent design ... Mars has evidence of ruins of past intelligent
design. Now how many of you really weren’t paying attention until the last
comparison?” Ron proceeds to discuss that which *does not* lend itself to
fit know geologic processes. This is the bulk of his talk and is focused on
several MGS images, one of which is the 2nd April strip; others (not
identified by specific photo id) were, I believe, earlier MGS images. Ron
comments on how beautiful these other images are, very sharp and clearly
exhibiting a robust gray scale. He later praises Malin and MSSS for the
incredible clarity of such images. He also says regarding these images that
he “hasn’t a clue where on Mars” they were taken and at this point he
“doesn’t care” because this situation only lends support to his
objectivity. I believe he indicated that all the images he used in his talk
were taken directly from Malin’s MSSS web site. There were less than a half
dozen total images used during his discussion.

Ron tries, as part of his work procedure, to recognize features in the
images from the perspective of natural geologic features and processes. He
points out “hexagonal craters”. “How do you make a hexagonal crater?” he
asks and states there are several of them that have been found. He speaks
of “gauzy, hazy, mesh” material which appears to blanket some slopes (not
only in the April strips). He points out areas in an image with “an open
pit mine appearance”, dark rippled areas with “grossly rectilinear
features, greatly eroded.” He makes reference to Dan Rather’s quote about
the Face, based on the Cat Box image (1st April strip): Rather said, “It’s
just a pile of rocks.” Ron says, “That’s exactly right Dan. Also, the Great
Pyramid is a pile of rocks, Teotihuacan is a pile of rocks”, etc. He refers
to areas of the image he is using to indicate that these are “special piles
of rocks” for they have geometric and spatial spacing.

He points out many examples in the images of what he, as a geologist, has a
difficult time explaining geologically. One example is what he refers to as
“the hex nut”. The crowd is fairly blown away by this part of one of his
reference images. He discusses in one image the “waffle” appearance and
exposed “latticework” to exemplify ‘anomaly’, that which cannot be
recognized in conjunction with some geologic process. He points out closed
depressions atop a ridge which cannot be explained geologically. He
comments on the NASA planetary scientists’ catch phrase, “differential
erosion”, asking, “what natural process ‘does’ differential erosion?” He
states, with regard to any one of these anomalous areas, that “it defies
meaning as far as natural geologic erosion” is concerned. He points out
“crosses” near what appear to be natural dunes, based on the ripple mark
appearance of an approximate 3x4 square mile area, referring to it as “a
pretty hulkin’ ripple mark.” He states that the hexagonal shapes found in
images all appear to be associated with hills. He also mentions that he
looks for “patterns, geometry, symmetry.”

A member of the audience asks Ron about the affect of gravity, geologically
speaking. Ron tells the audience that this is a *very* good question: how
does Mars’ lighter gravity affect erosion, rock formation, deposition, etc?
Another question refers to the Pathfinder Mission. Ron does not want to
speak much on that, though he does say as a generalization that he thought
the mission was, “long on technology, short on results.” However, he does
spend time discussing a couple of oddities from Pathfinder imagery
including a “pump” - I think it is referred to on the EM board as a
gyroscope - right next to Pathfinder; this is the rock which has the
“spokes” and other “components” (remember: pattern, geometry, symmetry)
which he says only appear in *one* image which has that rock. This was the
first image posted at the Pathfinder site (or the Malin site); all
subsequent images containing that rock show none of the detail.

Another oddity he discusses is a “bale cylinder”, then says that oddities
can be seen “one over here, one over there, another over there ...” in the
image. He expands on this noticing, this becoming perceptively aware, (and
concludes his talk) with an analogy: consider a tree and a phone pole. We
see pictures of each and we know immediately which is a tree, a natural
object, and which is an artifact, an intelligently made object. What are,
he asks, the defining characteristics which one applies in the tree-pole
analogy to distinguish not only the difference between them, but also which
is natural and which is not? “Symmetry and use” are defining
characteristics here, particularly the latter. He asks that we all be aware
of this process.

Hoagland then introduces David Kepke, who briefly gives his background as a
drafter/designer and his experience with UNIX and CAD systems. He seems to
be a *very* young man. He is currently involved in a project in Seattle,
under the Space Needle, in which man-made features are being built using
curved members. Once these members are ‘camouflaged’ with dirt and sod and
the like, they *do not* look artificial. His implication is that one can no
longer look just for perfectly rectangular lines to ascertain the
artificiality of an object.

David talks about the Face images from Viking and the 1st MGS April strip.
His work is to grab obvious features on one image and map it to the same
feature on the other image. This tended to become somewhat tedious as each
image had to be loaded from disk and the discussion was fairly technical.
David makes a statement regarding the Face’s mouth area on the MGS image:
“This is not the mouth on Viking. No way.” He points out that the MGS image
only used 82 of 256 gray shades. He makes us aware of an isosceles triangle
jetting out of the Face’s foundation at the midway point, left side as you
look at the Face. This is a feature I had never seen before and he was able
to map it to its counterpart in the Viking image.

David also points out the Face’s right eye area. He is troubled that this
area and the mouth area “don’t line up” with the Viking images’ counterpart
areas. Hoagland gets up to the podium and flat out asks David if, bottom
line, he believes the MGS image (1st strip) was “tampered with.” A tough
position for this young man. David replies, “Hard to believe they ... yes,
they’ve been tampered with.” This was all in the context of the bulk of
David’s talk in which he shows how, from the Viking and MGS images, wire
frame CAD drawings are made which are then mapped together, point by point;
he shows how the reference points used in the mapping process are selected;
he talks about the camera angles relative to the Face and how the wire
frame would be distorted up/down or left/right if certain parameters (such
as azimuth) were incorrectly used in the production of the wire frames and
the mappings. This was all fairly technical for me and I hope I have done
David’s presentation enough justice while giving you an idea of what he
showed us.

There was FINALLY a fifteen minute break in the evening’s proceedings at
around 8:30pm. Most folks went outside where the temperature had dropped
from 102 to a balmy 96 as dusk began to come on. Hot food was served on the
premises, but who wanted heat? I stuck my head in the melted ice water of
the cooler in the back of my truck.

Well, it got hot once again inside air conditioned Woodward Hall after the
break. Richard spends some time talking about how histograms are made and
used, and shows the histogram from the MGS 1st April strip. He points out
that (his finding of) only 42 of the 256 gray shades appear in the image
(92-50). He talks of the links on Malin’s site which purport to be “the raw
image, the enhanced image, and the Parker image.” He says that the ‘raw’
image in “not raw but a 2nd generation copy. It is mislabeled on the web
site.” That is the first level of inconsistency.

The second level of inconsistency, according to Richard, pertains to
Malin’s statement about the image being taken on “a cloudy day.” He speaks
of this being a bright, wide angle shot producing a dark, narrow frame. He
speaks of the Parker image containing *more* data than the ‘raw’ image and
says this is impossible - a third level of inconsistency. “NASA fudged it.
The picture has been diddled with.” He wraps up this brief discussion by
saying that John Holliman (CNN) is “beginning to ask questions” and that
Ted Koppel (ABC) has a meeting coming up which, I believe, pertains to the
Cydonia issue.

Richard then introduces Kynthia - artist, sculptor, and founder of the
planetarymysteries web site. She spends her time at the podium recounting
her fourteen year struggle to sculpt an accurate rendition of the Face
which would comply with the lighting/shadowing of both Viking Face images,
then having to contend with the more detailed MGS 1st April strip which
contains the Face. She shows a chronological history in slides of her Face
project, as well as other art works pertaining to Cydonia. She shows a
video of Richard receiving a birthday gift which depicts his face over the
Face. It was cute. She speaks of her thought processes and growth while
sculpting the Face, her process of discovery, and that this project is the
discipline of her lifetime. She finishes with a rather interesting video
portrayal of sunrise-to-sunset light-and-shadow motion over the Face for
each of the two sun angles captured in the Viking images. It was nice to
learn about Kynthia and see her up close and in person. Also, I would say
that this part of the evening contributed little to *confirming* the
Monuments of Mars, which is what is implied in the event’s title. There
were some restless natives by now as we are approaching 10:30pm. The
sculpture is still in progress.

Richard next introduces Tom Van Flandern. I walked away from this with a
whole buncha respect for this man. He is a Major Player in my mind. He
begins with discussion of Mars meteorites, from the year 1884 to the more
recent Hill meteorite. Tom speaks of possible solar system catastrophes and
mentions his belief that Mars was once the satellite of another solar
system planet. He thinks that the ‘Mars meteorites’ were actually from the
once-parent planet of Mars. He speaks of the negative Viking lander results
(experiments to search for life in the Martian soil) and the failed
Antarctic meteorite tests. However, he also states that the scientist
Levine (?) from the Viking mission *now* says that Viking *did* detect
organisms in the soil of Mars.

Tom goes over the features we by now all know (and love) so well. He speaks
of artificiality indicators being: 3-D nature of the Face evidenced in the
initial Viking image; fractal test; small mound non-random distribution;
nearby context. New evidence includes: the second, high sun angle Viking
image of the Face; bilateral symmetry; cultural location; orientation. The
latter two points he includes as evidence in light of P. Schultz’s Dec. ‘85
Scientific American,.#253, article about Mars’ former pole locations. Tom
asks where was the Face relative to those pole locations? He concludes it
was almost right on the equator and upright relative to north/south. Tom
Van Flandern then states clearly that artificiality “is now confirmed.”
The audience applauds.

Tom speaks about the MGS April images and artificiality. He mentions the
Face view to be foreshortened and taken from a low viewing and an opposite
sun angle (from Viking), thus allowing us to see only half of the
structure. He speaks of secondary facial features: the nose ridge narrows
upward, nostrils, eye brow. He says that ultimately, arguing for/against
artificiality is a statistical argument.

He speaks at length about the ‘scientific’ and ‘unscientific’ processes.
The scientific process is no longer taught! (By the way, I’ve noticed
frequent posts to the mail lists and bbs in which the writer states
something to the effect that, “that’s not how I learned it in school.”) He
says that if most mainstream models had the same ‘unscientific’ process
applied to them, they would not pass the test! He states that there is *no
absolute* knowledge in science, so how can one tell what’s real and what’s
bias? One must decide the issue, then articulate and investigate the

Pertaining to the ‘unscientific’ method, Tom denotes ‘acausal patterns’ (‘a
posteriori’, after the fact), ‘acausal coincidences’, and ‘acausal
associations’. However, if you make a prediction *prior* to the fact, then
attention must be paid to the prediction. He says the ‘scientific method’
has rules to prevent such ‘acausal’ errors of judgment.

Among the rules of the scientific method he speaks of is reality testing.
This deals with objectivity outside the mind. It is to prevent biases of
people from influencing the judgment and truth of a hypothesis. He refers
to Carl Sagan’s statement that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence”, and asks about different standards being applied to one or
another hypothesis. He feels that according to Sagan, *no* hypothesis would
meet such a standard. You can *disprove* a false hypothesis, but you cannot
*prove* a hypothesis. He speaks of ‘simplest interpretation’, Occam’s
Razor, and that one should choose the hypothesis which requires the fewest
assumptions. He again speaks of ‘a priori’ vs. ‘a posteriori’ with regard
to ‘the artificiality hypothesis’ and ‘the features of the Face’. The MGS
images should show additional evidence, for example, the three straight
sides comprising the eye brow.

He uses the eye brow to exemplify that this is indeed a statistical
argument. The probability, he says, of the eyebrow being comprised
naturally of three straight sides is greater than one in 100,000. This is
necessary, but not sufficient, for the validity of the artificiality
hypothesis. *And*, there must be an absence of similar features which are
*not* in the “right” location. This argument also applies to the eye ball,
the eye socket, and the mouth. He mentions evidence of a septum. These all
have low probability of being “just right” by chance. He points out that
the east side of the face is obscured, and thus there is no data to fill in
the blank areas.

Tom concludes with the following:

* The Natural Origin Hypothesis is disfavored by odds of 10^31 to 1, this a
“conservative estimate.”

* The artificiality of Cydonia is, “in my best judgment, established beyond
a reasonable doubt.” The audience applauds spontaneously.

* There are additional (new via MGS) objects which draw attention, such as
the first mesa south of the Face.

Of this latter conclusion, he remarks that this is not evidence, but
speculation. He speaks of the spaced, white marks found around the
foundations of some of the enigmatic landforms. He speaks of the set of
four embedded triangles. He shows contrast stretched close ups from the MGS
strips and refers to the white marks again. In one close up, he points out
that they are 100% reflective albedo features and in one case, the entire
ensemble of marks is actually *reflected* by the terrain nearby, implying
it may be either glass or metallic.

He diverges and speaks about the content of his Exploding Planet
Hypothesis, including the relative velocities of the asteroids, explosion
signatures, and the like. You should look into his book for detail. He
predicts that “a debris cloud will be found around [the asteroid] Eros.” He
says the sides of bodies facing the blast [of the exploded planet] were
coated with hits, especially if those bodies were not fast moving. He says
six of twelve planets survived and that Mercury, Mars and Pluto were
previously moons to a parent planet. He talks of two debris fields of the
asteroid belt. He talks of a global boundary layer on Earth (geologically
speaking) and a global carbon layer, implying a single, global fire. There
is no such layer in Antarctica, and one pole only would be shielded. One
half of Mars was *saturated* with craters (meaning a new crater could not
be formed without destroying other craters), and one half of Mars was very
sparsely cratered, and this division is along hemispheric lines. Xenon-129
cannot be created naturally - but only in nuclear type explosions - and
Mars has an excess of it over anywhere else.

Tom gets back to the details from the MGS images and speculates. He shows
what may be pictograms. He shows the Dolphin (see bemyguest web site), the
previous reflection anomaly which he refers to as a scorpion, and a slue of
other possible ‘pictograms’. He speculates that Cydonia may have been a
“theme park” of what was on Earth. At 3.2 million years ago there were
hominids on Earth and a massive explosion. He refers to different aspects
of the ‘theme park’: viper area, marine animal area, etc. He speculates
about the flood and a possible transfer of species; about the origin of the
Garden of Eden story and the story of Noah’s Ark, all via the Sumerians. Is
it possible that this is truth rather than myth?

The final portion of the evening (rapidly becoming morning) is question and
answer time. Hoagland tells us to “look for a new paper” to be put on the
web site which deals with - as I understood him to say - the
hyperdimensional physics ala Maxwell and his QUATERNIONS. Richard spends a
good deal of time discussing Maxwell, in 1873, and how his work was edited
by a guy named Hebicide(?) He speaks of a solar angular momentum deficit
which can be made up for by hypothetical planets; he shows a graph of
‘luminosity’ vs. ‘angular momentum’, their linear relationship, and that
the sun is off the line. The sun, he says, is at a deficit by two orders of
magnitude and we need two planets, very far away, to compensate. He says
that 4-D physics can account for this, but not 3-D physics. He acknowledges
that he and Van Flandern don’t see eye to eye on some things, but insists
that the *current* location/orientation of the Face (post pole shift) “is
not an accident.” (I want to see how they are both right.) Richard holds up
four viles of T-Rex “stuff” having arrived by Fed Ex. He says that if
there’s a hyper-d physics, then radioactive signatures will create specific
isotope transformations and imprint a signature in the sediments. It will
be tested. He speaks of the hyper-d energy as “the energy of the vacuum.”
SO, to those with mathematical interest in Hoagland’s hyper-d claims, I
guess you and the rest of us should all be on the lookout for the new paper
he said he would put on the web, probably within a couple of weeks. I know
you’ve heard things like this before. At the late hour during which I was
trying to take notes, that’s the best I can provide regarding hyper-d
physics from the seminar.

In other areas, Richard, answering an audience question, says he does not
believe in Sitchin’s planet but thinks that the tale of Nibiru is a “coded
tale”. He says he is “dying to sit with Zach on stage.” He also relates
that Ted Koppel is to be briefed on Cydonia and that RCH himself is to meet
with John Holliman. He predicts (boldly, but nothing new I suppose) that on
December 16, it will be announced that a manned mission will be sent to the
Cydonia region of Mars. He says there’s a deep internal division of opinion
among scientists at JPL.

He finally cuts the q&a short as it’s now approaching 12:30am. I really
tried taking good, clear notes for all of you just so you could get an idea
of what went down in Albuquerque. You get kind of groggy after awhile
during such a long event. Some other things of note: several people fell
down the stairs due to the wide, wide, narrow encoding in their
construction; a woman who flew in from California and sat in the row in
front of me *knitted* during the entire seminar (all three hundred of us
walked out with new pairs of socks); and Richard wore a bolo tie.

THE END (and hopefully, A NEW BEGINNING)
- signing off from the Great American Southwest, Jeff Glickman

Dave's Favorite Subjects Page