Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Keith Laney and RCH discuss the THEMIS data in 2002

I recorded this many years ago and I think this is an important historical event and should be unearthed from the past and given new focus and discussion. I had forgotten that I had this.

Art Bell's reaction between 35-36 minutes is worthwhile. Keith joins the conversation after 48 minutes. 

Part 2 will be up as soon as I can get it together. This has taken more time from other projects than I wanted but its worth it. I hope you think so too.


The images in the video are there only to give you a reference while listening. You have to go to Keith's pages on the THEMIS I.R. and Enterprise Mission for the hi res and important info.
"The stones were still in their native quarries had it been left to us to seek them; we are like the conies in the ruins... the inheritors of what other hands have done..."
Just Embarrassing!! Sorry bones. You think Art Bell's reaction is from a base of informed understanding of the imaging processes involved?  Keiths work wrapped up in RCHs stupid bitching forums and ART Bells TOTAL ignorance  really just makes my blood boil. He tried this shit on Facebook and got found out.  He turns genuine POIs into a dogs chasing tail event. He starts the whole merry-go-round, he said she said, is his stupid game.   The whole discussion descends into  farce.  Bell starts to lose the will to understand what RCH is on about. A whole shit fest on mail crap and fear mongering takes over.
And by the way... i didnt need a $7,000 dollar mythical program to analyse tonal maps in grey-scale. I use SPARTAN.  RCH reefers to this so called program to attempt to corner the analysis under his Enterprising mission!!

I'm trying to pry your work from Richards Bullshit Keith. Its difficult.  He knows SWEET F A!  He's so full of patronizing bullshit.   As soon as he feels lost in his verbal crap, he drags in Keith under the bus.  He WONT discuss geology. The MOLO IR laser is not ground penetrating. Its a topographical mapper.  Theres lots more but again, i cant waste brain power on this.  

The big word is IR Radar. No lasers involved.  Resolution and scans are notoriously blocky under interrogation.  J P SKIPPER  came across better versions shot with IR Radar.

ESA Image ;)

[Image: 02-084-closer-official-view.jpg]

GrayScale mapping:

[Image: 03a-084-closer-clarified-view.jpg]

$7,000 my ASS!!!

And towards the end, Low and behold the money begging bowl comes out on the table.


Heres RCHs Royal Fuxxk UP!
Total and utter fabrication of the facts..

[Image: ghost8.jpg]

Its the Topographical data his misinterpreting... Theres no ground penetration , being IR Laser and all!
The idiot is using 2 data sets that are not related in resolution.  The Visible Dust layer he de-marks is actually what we would call sea-level (what an idiot) and the troughs falling bellow That level line are craters, indentations and a myriad of other GEOLOGICAL  signatures.

He enforces his ignorance further by stamping "MOLA Tracks" on his unfortunate image. 

Its like pulling the wings off a butterfly with his Enterpricks Mission conclusions.

Heres what MOLA Actually is capable of.

Quote:The Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA), an instrument on the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft, has measured the topography, surface roughness, and 1.064-μm reflectivity of Mars and the heights of volatile and dust clouds. This paper discusses the function of the MOLA instrument and the acquisition, processing, and correction of observations to produce global data sets. The altimeter measurements have been converted to both gridded and spherical harmonic models for the topography and shape of Mars that have vertical and radial accuracies of ∼1 m with respect to the planet's center of mass. The current global topographic grid has a resolution of 1/64° in latitude × 1/32° in longitude (1×2 km2 at the equator). Reconstruction of the locations of incident laser pulses on the Martian surface appears to be at the 100-m spatial accuracy level and results in 2 orders of magnitude improvement in the global geodetic grid of Mars. Global maps of optical pulse width indicative of 100-m-scale surface roughness and 1.064-μm reflectivity with an accuracy of 5% have also been obtained.
Note the DUST CLOUDS statement.  You can see what Hoagland did with that in his image ;). These are clouds of dust off the ground agitated by storms etc. Hoagland changes that too
"Visible Dust SURFACE".  Like Ive said so many times. Ive handed his ass to him on a plate within the lofty cathedrals of  facebook surrounded by his followers.

Hes an annoyance and a plagiariser of good hard work for his own ends.


Good open honest debates about findings. This is Alien when it comes into the zone of the Conspiracy Industrial Commercial Complex. Everything they do has a financial bent and very little substance on their part. They feed off others work habitually and manipulate their outcomes. A Crying Shame!
The asset / that RCH pretends to use is known as the SHARAD ground penetrating radar located on the MRO satelite. Here's an example of data-set from Mars.

[Image: PIA13164.jpg]

Took me 15 secs to realize what his game is again.  Themis readings degrade when they hit clouds of dust, mist located above terrain trapped in geological basins or troughs etc. anything under that haze will be reduced to basic geometric pixel shadows or outlines. 
The whole premise was carried along on the RCH train of ignorance and self promotion.

still fresh when ya think about it isn't it?

he and I differ in that I don't need to detail out in fantastic scientifical (sic) speculation, I simply do the images, point to the 'funnies' and they I think speak for themselves just nicely.
On a satellite I ride. Nothing down below can hide.
Absolutely. Well put lol :)
(10-23-2015, 05:33 PM)watcher Wrote: Absolutely.  Well put lol :)


Watcher, I am glad you brought up the MOLA. That confused me in '02 and still confused me and seeing that the "dust line" is supposed to be "sea level" (interesting term for Mars BTW---what would be that sea?) would clarify it for me.

I never followed RCH on Facebook so I don't know the discussion that went on there. I missed your input Watcher from that era. While I was a member of the old old TEM conference I did not contribute much past 1997. I did contribute to the 2nd (private) conference that was started all because of the BAMF stuff. I wanted to go back and see the discussion we had from time to time on THEMIS but its gone. I will just search here at Hidden Mission.

The IR data's contiguous nature to the geology and GEOMETRY in the visible is remarkable and, frankly, incredible. The thing that struck me in '02 was the internal stuff of the D and M. It still is striking. What I am noting now is how much easier it is to note the artificial nature of the area with the IR. I especially like the masif just to the west of the D and M. I cycle the images through the full spectrum to allow for my eyes to see it better also--sort of a lighting excavation really I guess.

This whole situation with the image being "slid under the door" to Keith reminds me of what went on back in '95 with the Clementine image on the Apollo 17 area. (Which RCH at the time thought was Sinus Medii).

Yes, Richard has made many mistakes and it really is an apt analogy to tearing off those wings---or worse smashing a crysalis. I have been following and conducting my own research into the Cydonia area since 1987 and I also realize that had he not taken the initial image work of others and ran with it in some fashion there would not have been a venue for the image to be discussed in the first place. He has earned my respect for that alone. I don't want to be an apologist for him--just fair.

Trailblazing is not an easy thing. It's clear its been a wilderness to trample through. It is frustrating though when Hoagland makes mistakes like that because if Cydonia becomes a cult of personality, then it can fall with the person. An idiot, though, he is not.

On a positive side, what he has started is the grass-roots and the lawn has grown eh?

Finally, the images do indeed "speak for themselves".
"The stones were still in their native quarries had it been left to us to seek them; we are like the conies in the ruins... the inheritors of what other hands have done..."
Quote:Watcher, I am glad you brought up the MOLA. That confused me in '02 and still confused me and seeing that the "dust line" is supposed to be "sea level" (interesting term for Mars BTW---what would be that sea?) would clarify it for me.

@Bones ;)  Nice, honest post Bones. The questions are understandable and pretty important when we begin to understand the lay of the land. This gives important clues into 'certain formations' origins, the building of theoretical models which assist in the extrusion of possible cause and affect geological signatures and including said anomalies observed by many. First establishing what exactly is sea level and how its calculated takes a step forward.


It is said that the MPF will land at Ares Vallis in an area
below sea level.  I know there is no sea, so how do you determine
where 0 datum or sea level is on Mars?

ANSWER from Ken Edgett on January 25, 1997:
(quoting text he wrote for the Planetary Society's MARSLINK Kit #2,
© 1994)

Topographic mapping of Mars is very similar to methods used to map
Earth. The exception is that Mars has no seas or oceans, hence it has
no actual sea level.  How do cartographers determine martian "sea
level"? Mars scientists refer to the sea level as the *topographic datum*.

This datum is the elevation designated as zero.  For Mars, the zero
elevation is defined by the mean martian radius, 3382.9 kilometers,
and the [average] atmospheric pressure [which] is 6.1 millibars
(6.1 thousandths of the Earth's atmosphere).  If you were standing on
the martian surface and the center of the planet were 3382.9 kilometers
beneath your feet, then you would be standing at 0 kilometers
elevation. Likewise, if the surface depth to the center of the planet
were 3407.9 kilometers, you would be at an elevation of 25 kilometers.
You'd probably be standing on [the summit of] Olympus Mons.

To determine the elevations... scientists combined 1972 Mariner 9
mission data with Earth-based radar.  The ultraviolet spectrometer
instrument on Mariner 9 measured the intensity of ultraviolet light
scattered between the orbiting spacecraft and the surface.  By
analyzing the amount of atmosphere under the Mariner, scientists
measured elevations to an accuracy of 0.6 kilometers.  The higher
the atmospheric pressure, the lower the elevation (when compensated
for temperature).  The lowest elevation is in the huge impact crater,
Hellas Planitia.  This is also the location of the highest
atmospheric pressure on Mars.

The trail blazers of anomaly hunting fed off the insecurities of many and took advantage of interested parties trust. I would point to absolute fakes presented by RCH.
The blatant cut and paste imaging leaving a marquee around the image by said so called authority. I might add RCH has put as much distance between himself and this image due to a few of us finding out what actually was undertaken to produce this hoax.  The image speaks a thousand words if you know how to analyse the pixels.

[Image: luna26_03.jpg]

RCHs Lunar Crystal Towers was another example of getting away with an absolute lie. he cropped and rotated the image to change its context. he failed to reveal that this feature was cropped from the inner walls of a  Lunar crater. they arent spires but rock falls lying flat due to their cascading down crater walls.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTZupNtvQSCwIaf5j5NQe0...bi714Lg4lA]

Again he was outed before his beloved audience.  A few of his minions tried to defend his hoaxing ass.
They were given the same treatment publicly by SecretPlanets members.  He tried to shut me up with his patronizing Enterprising Bullshit.
he asked me to analyse his super secret CIA BS images of the moon. I dragged the discussion into the public and demanded he show everyone those so called images. i warned him I would out him if they were fakes.  Guess what ? he never did show those fakes either in the end. He know  he would be tarred and feathered with them. He was warned that we would take special interest in anything based on NASA images on his Facebook page.  he tried a few Comet BS geometric mumblings which were shredded before they could take route.

Hoagland likes to operate within the realms of smoke and mirrors. He completely relies on viewer apathy and absolute trust and needs self adulation.
I personally have absolutely no time for his BS. He knows nothing, but proclaims everything. I know a few good people hold him up as the trigger for anomaly hunting through the face on Mars. The problem is that he wasn't the first,  There were others ....    He calls them CIA informants lol. Why? Cause he cant share the lime light..

I'm protective over good work, even though I may have issues with conclusions of some. Theres nothing wrong with trying to get answers.  SO I will hit any of the self proclaimed, money grabbing sultans of TRUTH with extreme prejudice .Enough of my rants. ... Sorry ;)
Im no apologist for anyone, however I've seen his version of the image that comes from, what is it, AS10-32-4822?)
and no, he did not crop that feature from the side of a crater.. it's actually oriented like that, and is a tiny little thing.

I actually have what may be the best copy of this image (at present) available online.
although this version is apparently not as clear as the one he used, it is clearly obvious that there is a strange haze and the sky is full of twinklies
On a satellite I ride. Nothing down below can hide.
Ok let's see :)  ... Busy but will fight for time on this.

Impact events, volcanism, and tectonism form the majority of features found on the Moon. However landslides are an important modifier of the landscape at small scales. Ultimately, the source of landslides are seismic events triggered by impacts or movements deep inside the Moon. These shaking events cause poorly consolidated material on steep slopes to slide downhill. In this case the slide spreads out in a complex of narrow finger-like streamers. What controls this distinctive pattern? The process is controlled by the energy of the shaking, the size of particles in the slide, the steepness of the slope, and volume of the source deposit. Mars also has many landslide deposits, so scientists are using the new LROC data to compare with these martian counterparts.

Marius crater (41 km diameter) is located in Oceanus Procellarum (11.9°N, 50.8°W) and is notable for its mare-filled floor - unequivocal evidence that it formed before the surrounding mare basalts flooded the region.

[Image: M109569228LE_thumb.png]
Landslide deposits seen on the steep interior slopes of Marius crater,
image is 510 meters wide [NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University].

Hoaglands interpretation...
First he cropped out the context.
Then tones increased to allow landslides to jump forward and then.....
He hid those revealing spires following the contour of the land by simply widening the shot...

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTZupNtvQSCwIaf5j5NQe0...bi714Lg4lA]

Low and behold we have 'Crystal Spires; reaching into the Lunar Sky!
The darker material around the collapses are on the same plane.  People just took this image and ran with it

He dam well knew what he was doing. Subtle tonal manipulation and rotation /cropping of image ticks all those conspiracy needs.
Seriously mislead the public me thinks! he didn't even debate the surrounding geology. He didn't debate what NASA were pointing out.
Notice how those spires follow the contours of the terrain. How do u hide those tell tale signs.? Bury them in contrast.

I know you think I'm being a little harsh lol.
Check his DARK MISSION link and tell me why those images are missing ?

Never admit your wrong... Just hide the mistakes and hope no one says anything! Sound familiar in conspiracy circles? I think he put that hat firmly on NASAs head.

Even th viewing public were onto his little mistake...  A comment on blog... telling!!

James said...

   I was talking about this one with a friend... Why are these not "landslides" as NASA claims? In the NASA "upside down" processed image, they do look like landslides. They look flat, and there are things that look like boulders in the mess.

   The Enterprise version jumps out of the frame when oriented and processed that way. The difference is pretty astonishing, but when flipped back "upside down" you could still see them as "landslides" if you wanted.

   I look forward to the explanation whether it's here or in an Enterprise article.
And that's from a follower in 2009 (the last unedited comment Entry ;)
NO answer...   Absolutely nothing. ...

Smoke and Mirrors Keith. ....
Do you think he repeated this technique with the castle.?
Yes tonal mapping falls off on almost a 3 of the right side... but heres a question. lets focus on where and the size of Hoagland stated the anomaly was.... Why darken a third of the whole image to hide something around 20 pixels square? Have you had a really good look at that 'apparent ' castle? Strange how 'darker surrounding terrain, is in the same focal plane ...... Familiar signature of selective toning?

From one of many followers ;)

[Image: %D0%9D%D0%90%D0%A1%D0%90+%D1%81%D0%BA%D1...%D1%83.jpg]

Notice something odd? That background around the alleged floating hotel....
And I cant find a direct link from Hoaglands site to his castle... maybe you can help so I can directly link him to a few other problems with the image.
According to Living Moon Hoagland didnt find the Castle .... Interesting dont u think.? A complete stranger handed him an image that has no quality assurance !?!
Quote:The above image is the source photo of the anomaly. This photo, regardless of the "castle" tower is absolutely bizarre. Judging from the lighting in the craters on the lower left corner it is apparent the sun coming from the upper right side of the photo. If you look at the immense unlit area in the right half of the photo, it begs the question, "where is the sunlight on the surface." The logical conclusion is that something above the surface is blocking the sun. It is in this area we find the "castle" tower. Close scrutiny by legitimate scientists place the "castle" some 9 miles above the surface of the moon.
When I first became aware of this anomaly some 11 years ago, I obtained the original photograph from NASA to verify for myself that it was real, and it is. I have since met with (and had dinner with) Mr. Richard C. Hoagland on numerous occasions . I believe this man to be a crusader for all of us, to deliver the truth of our wondrous past.
The nay-sayers on here can not have seriously looked at the overwhelming body of evidence that proves NASA has been lying to us for all these years about the true nature of man and his past. The greater question is why? What is going on at the upper echelons of power in this world that they do not want you to know. I know the answer to this question and it is evil, evil, evil. If I told you you would not believe it, so I won't bother. Now if you spend some time, as I have (20 years) looking into it, you will come to the same evil conclusion that I have. Fortunately, these days with the Internet and so many people having awakened to the truth, it will not take you as long to figure it out.

So If we go by TheLivingMoons account Hoagland was given this image and he took this as gospel and ... well the rest is history.

[Image: Castle04.jpg]

Did Hoagland not do his background checks??? Literally in this case lol.

This is the questionable image that sparked the investigation... Or shall I say charge lead by RCH...

[Image: 4822_H1.gif]

Your image Keith (Very nice I might add).
Contrasts up but tonal maps closely match flat POI areas of loss.
[Image: AS10-32-4822.jpg]

Notice how it has the exact tonal issues pointed out? Now what are the chances of an anomaly sitting on an already hidden/ masked area?
Seriously... ??

Just a professional opinion but the Hoagland image shows a huge amount of compression and tonal flattening. Even more so than the Nasa image.
Whose cheating who?

To put it bluntly... I can see a mask on Hoaglands image. A poor one but its obscured part of the Horizon on the right... Shoddy work I might add.

[Image: 4822.jpg]

Mission:  10
Magazine:  32
Magazine Letter: S
Film Type: 3400
Film Width: 70 mm
Film Color: black & white

Notice any differences between Hoaglands and your image Keith? That area of flattening or data loss is simply just not there in NASAs image.
Over processing pushed away subtle details into the dark.  Hoaglands image looks almost completely manipulated, removing detail on horizon and lower right portion of image. Interesting your image ses the same ref AS10-32-4822. Again I refer to it below..... Your image includes a single piece of detail not present in either RCHs image or in original data but also exhibits less detail on right side of image than NASAs.

[Image: AS10-32-4822.jpg]

Do you see issues cropping up here? Nasa original image has more detail on right than either your ot even worse RCH has.
Do you see that specular detail in your image, centre just above horizon? Thats not present either in RCFH or NASAs image.

Check this one out from....
[Image: BlogMoon12.jpg]
More detail on right side. ELA data shows very quiet on the pixel front ie  no suspicious pixel manipulation and NO castle.
IF u check the ELA signatures in Hoaglands image...  very very busy work lol.

I could spend far too much time on this but im deeply suspicious of Hoaglands blatantly manipulated submission.

Back to work for me...   more to come in the future ;)
i wouldn't rely too heavily on that ELA doink-headto disqualify anything.

What's it going to do, tell someone an image has been sharpened, resaved or color shifted? or that an imaging program was used to adjust an image?
without processing there'd be no pretty pictures
I see folks using that thing like it's the bible, it's not.

While ELA is an excellent tool for helping detect modifications, there are a number of caveats:
  • A single pixel change, or minor color adjustment, may not generate a noticeable change in the ELA.
  • Since JPEG operates on a grid, a change to any part of the grid will likely impact the entire grid square. You may not be able to identify exactly which pixel in the grid was modified.
  • JPEG uses the YUV color space. High contrast colors in the same grid, such as black and white, orange and blue, or green and purple (opposite ends of the YUV color space), will usually generate higher ELA values than similar colors in the same grid.
  • ELA only identifies what regions have different compression levels. It does not identify sources. If a lower quality image is spliced into a higher quality picture, then the lower quality image may appear as a darker region.
  • Scaling, recoloring, or adding noise to an image will modify the entire image, creating a higher error level potential.
  • If an image is resaved multiple times, then it may be entirely at a minimum error level, where more resaves do not alter the image. In this case, the ELA will return a black image and no modifications can be identified using this algorithm.
  • With Photoshop, the simple act of saving the picture can auto-sharpen textures and edges, creating a higher error level potential. This artifact does not identify intentional modification; it identifies that an Adobe product was used. (Remember: if someone needs to download a picture from their camera or resize a picture for the web, they are just as likely to reach for Photoshop as they are to use any other tool.) Technically, ELA appears as a modification because Adobe automatically performed a modification, but the modification was not necessarily intentional by the user.
  • As mentioned above, rainbowing is not exclusive to Photoshop. The open source GIMP drawing program may introduce a little rainbowing and some high quality photos may contain rainbowing.
ELA is only one algorithm. The interpretation of results may be inconclusive. It is important to validate findings with other analysis techniques and doink-head.
On a satellite I ride. Nothing down below can hide.
Not good enough for me mate. There's obvious differences in detail no matter how the picture is hung.
You mention unusual tonring in the zone but that's on the submission, not NASAs Image. You pointed out. Tone maps don't match in those zones. ELAs, in the right hands will pick up changes around POI. Every time it's saved even though this degrades but there are ways to interrogate specific areas of code.

Putting this in front of a 'satelite imaging woof' it's a closed case. If I can see the selective data areas that's pretty damminng. Chunks of the horizon are missing. The interfering mask is in the foreground Keith. It's not meshing with the overall pic! Also detail better in. NASA image! Explain?

People talk of unusual masking. It's only in 3rd party images. In most cases just blanket enhancements knocking out subtler details. NASA ain't hiding anything in 4882 . 'Someone's adding crap to the original!


Excuse typos on busy bus!!
So do those inexperienced sit back and trust the likes of who?
The simple fact there's discrepancies in the data. Not everyone has SPARTAN... And for some reason you think THE USE OF ELA analysis is unreliable due to well known caveats. So what happens or shall I say guess what's happened. Utter confusion, misdirection and unbelievably, very few actually investigated the integrity of the images. Hoagland claims he was given those images of the castle. Do u think that's good enough to trust Keith?! They've been doctored!!

He blatantly deceived many over the crystal towers... I think that's a no brainer. You've got to call a spade a spade. Your splitting hairs with ELAS. You know as well as I do those are t the only tools and SPARTANS picked really suspect manipulation. If you find it difficult to call this guy a hoaxer then ur entitled of course to ur opinion. Just don't let him drag ur name in the Martian mud, which I feel is already happening.

I sense u have other reasons and its your forum so I shall respectfully stop posting on this matter in this thread for the sake of peace!! But I won't back down if I smell his unqualified stink!

Thanks again Keith..

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)