Meaningful Discrepancies

(Posted 11/11/10)

(11/13/10 update)

(clickable images lead to full resolution versions)

***

To say the least... I'm disappointed.

After more than 5 years of patiently waiting for Hoagland to speak publicly about my work, the first thing out of his mouth was a lie.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why he lied and I believe his intentions were honorable.

He wanted to prove a point.

Anyone who has been paying attention to Hoagland's Facebook page can attest that he has been echoing a couple of phrases that I've uttered on this website more than once.

Most notably, "Figure it out for yourself".

He tried to make this point when a simple question was asked by "Swallow Wood".

(Copied & pasted from Hoagland's Facebook page)

  • Swallow Wood

    Max,

    I have noticed a difference in "TRUE NORTH" between your image above and the same image from Richard's book "Monuments of Mars". You can't BOTH be right. Could either of you comment about this? Did somebody intentionally mislabel true north?

    October 26 at 2:55pm

     

  • Tim Oldfather

    No GPS on Mars. That explains it. :-)

    October 26 at 3:33pm

     

  • Max Kiejzik

    Swallow...

    From: http://www.maxtheknife.com/navigationwebpage/navigationwebpage.htm

    I write: "Hoagland must have reached the same conclusions long before I did and decided to intentionally misrepresent Mars' True north.

    In doing so, he cleverly facilitated a scenario which would force someone... anyone... to prove him right or wrong.

    In order to prove this, 'one' would inevitably have to realize the significance of finding "truth in the light" and independently conclude the Face on Mars really is...

    The Way, The Truth, & The Light.

    Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Hoagland predicted Cydonia was all about the apocalypse and enabled at least one of the prophecies to be fulfilled.

    Furthermore, by misrepresenting several key measurements, he provided an ingenious way of getting totally independent confirmation for some of the finer geometric points."

    So... yes... RCH ~intentionally~ mislabeled Mars' True North.

    And the PROOF that I am right is simple.

    In which of these images does the ~shadow~ CONFORM to the line which represents Mars' axial tilt?



    YOU tell ME. :)

    ~~~~~~~

    Tim... no amount of sarcasm, reductionism, denial, or ad hoc reasoning will make all this go away.

    As the signs all around us indicate... it's time to ~face the music~

    The Face on Mars doesn't just mean ~something~ it means **EVERYTHING**
    It IS, The Way, the Truth, & the Light.

    October 26 at 4:29pm

  •  

    Richard C. Hoagland

    Swallow,

    Regardless of Max's THEORIZING re my Cydonia measurements, the actual story is much simpler ... and related in "Monuments" itself.

    I got my Cydonia measurements directly from Merton Davies, at the RAND Corporation (the well-known US ...
    Air Force "think tank," in Santa Monica, CA) -- who was the chief scientist directly responsible for ALL NASA's geodetic planetary measurements at the time ...."

    Mert and I had been friends for years, long before I got into the whole "Cydonia controversy." When I discovered the likelihood of an "artificial origin" for Cydonia, after I personally briefed him in his office at RAND, I specifically asked him to REMEASURE (from the Viking original imagery) "the geodetic control points" for Cydonia -- for accurate determination (of, among other things) "true north."

    Which he promptly did.

    I then placed THOSE coordinates (he remeasured for me DIRECTLY) in "Monuments."

    No 'hidden messages" ....

    Unless--

    They came from RAND ... and Mert!

    Who, unfortunately, died many years ago ... so I can't ask him.

    Hope this helps.

  • ***

    Hoagland's response stunned me.

    After more than 5 years of anxiously anticipating a public response to my efforts, I got this.

    A response that totally contradicted every encouraging word and subtle hint I have ever received from him.

    Believe me, there were several.

    Without a doubt, the biggest encouragement I received was in the spring of 2007 through a National Geographic Channel program called, Is it Real? Life on Mars.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7xWyCYjSVU&feature=related (pt5 linked for reasons to follow)

    In this episode Hoagland was a featured guest.

    When asked what it is that convinces him most about Cydonia's artificiality, he says "It's the GEOMETRY".

    Soon after he says this, one sees Hoagland working on a printed copy of MY first geometry 'map'.

    Clearly, that IS my map.

    I was truly excited to see this, but that's not all that happened in this stunning episode of Is it Real?.

    A NOT so subtle hint that I was/am right about everything I've discovered to date came from the most unlikely source...

    Dr. J. Garvin, NASA's Chief Scientist, himself.

    While spewing out the usual NASA rhetoric regarding Cydonia's 'natural' explanation, we see Dr. Garvin at his desk.

    On his desk there is a surprised looking figurine of a stereotypical alien.

    This figurine looks surprised for a reason.

    The figurine is looking directly at Dr. Garvin's computer screen upon which he has a 3-D, high resolution image of the Face.

    But what's WRONG with that image?

    When I saw the show for the first time, I caught it immediately and nearly fell out of my chair.

    The Face is FLIPPED... or... MIRRORED.

    Can't see it?

    How about now?

    In other words, Dr. Garvin set the stage such that the alien was looking directly at a REFLECTION of HIMSELF.

    If Dr. Garvin's message doesn't strike everyone as a major hint, I can't imagine what would.

    Regardless, I received many more subtle hints and encouraging words from Hoagland via private email and through Enterprise's private forum.

    One such conversation and subtle hint went like this.

    In the thread linked above, we were discussing a recently released image of Jupiter's moon, Io.

    I wrote:

    http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/gallery/miss...es/030107.html

    That is an amazing picture.

    I don't know if the apparent geometry of the two plumes might be significant...

     

    RCH writes:

    Did you factor in Io's Jovian orbit and axial tilt to it's own orbit?

    This might just be showing us something important.

    If you DIDN'T factor in those orbital parameters (which, from the sunlight's incoming geometry, would allow determination of Io's true pole position in this image ...), please do so.

    Again, this could be significant.

    RCH

    I responded:

    Anytime I'm off my Cydonia map, I just use the given image orientation. Hence I said "apparent" geometry.

    So... I don't know and wouldn't know where to begin.

    Hey... I've gotta leave something for you guys to figure out!

     

    RCH writes:

    Then it's time you learned ....

    Take a stab at it. You'll find it's easy, once you think about the overall Jovian geometry, Io's orbit, geometric relation to the Sun, etc..

    RCH

    I responded:


    Lol... Spoken like a true educator! Do I get xtra credit if I get it right?!

    Earth facts and figures

    Io facts and figures

    Jupiter facts and figures

    I was thinking that Io's equatorial inclination to orbit would be important, but that information isn't given for Io. Earth's is 23.45, while Jupiter's is a mere 3.12 degrees.

    For all three, Earth, Io, & Jupiter, the Orbital Inclination to Ecliptic value is practically zero. So I don't see how that could matter very much.

    So... I think... If Io orbits Jupiter such that its equator is running parallel... or very close to parallel, to it's orbit, the shadow we see should visually mark the north and south poles of Io. At least within a reasonable tolerance.

    Close?

    RCH writes:

    Give that man a cigar!!!

    So, your "19.5-degree" measurement IS quite significant ... regarding the internal tetrahedral geometry of these enormous upwellings on the Io surface ....

    Real science.

    Now -- don't you feel good?

    RCH

    ***

    Now here's the crucial context of this whole conversation.

    It took place in March of 2007.

    That was approximately 3 months after I started putting together the first version of my Truth & Light presentation.

    At that time, I was struggling to determine whose north line was the RIGHT one.

    I wasn't sure if such a determination was even possible.

    All I knew was I had a substantial discrepancy and a nagging question on my hands.

    Was Mars' True North represented accurately by THEMIS, Hoagland, or neither?

    The simple lesson learned from my conversation with Hoagland helped switch on the proverbial light bulb.

    It didn't take long to realize EXACTLY what Hoagland was hinting at.

    He was trying to tell me I could use the exact same method on The Face to determine Mars' True North.

    I didn't have to rely on anyone save my own ability to reason and measure.

    It was an ingenious, yet subtle, hint.

    ***

    Now, back to the so-called Facebook "debate".

    Unfortunately, there was a subsequent thread in which I presented the above conversation.

    The entire thread was deleted by Hoagland.

    What I'm about to relay, I'm sure, others will confirm.

    When confronted with this, Hoagland tried to brush it off.

    He said something very close to this: "It's hard to imagine how determining a volcano's latitude --when there are other visual cues-- could compare to determining Mars' T. North from a tiny patch of real estate."

    He then went on to make a few ridiculous assertions like needing to know the Sun's azimuth, the exact latitude and longitude, the orientation of the space craft, and the EXACT TIME the image was acquired.

    All of which he contends could very well have been 'doctored' by NASA.

    It was now painfully obvious what Hoagland was doing.

    He was playing the role of both "authority figure" and "pseudo skeptic".

    There are only two logical explanations for Hoagland's posturing.

    1) He was trying to get the readers and participants of his Facebook page to THINK for themselves and NOT take HIS word it.

    2) He was trying to get me riled up enough that I would prove my 'theory' about his intentions regarding Mars' True North.

    Judging by what I've produced here, I'd have to say his little plan succeeded.

    Allow me to clarify the confusion induced by Hoagland.

    The Sun's azimuth, latitude and longitude, orientation of the space craft, exact time... NONE of this MATTERS!

    How do I know?

    Because I can reason and measure.

    Apparently, even though it makes perfect sense to me, to everyone else... it does not.

    So, I'll elaborate one last time and really try to DRIVE my point home.

    If my reasoning is correct, then the lesson learned via Io should be analogous to the problem of finding True North vis--vis The Face.

    Again, the Sun's azimuth, latitude and longitude, orientation of the space craft, exact time... makes ZERO difference.

    Let's TEST that assumption on ALL available data sets and demonstrate once and for all that the shadow cast on The Face must be and is 25.2 degrees from Mars' True North.

    For the following sequence of images, red denotes a 25.2 degree line derived from Hoagland's North and white denotes the same from NASA's North.

    (Image: 35a72)

     

    (Image: 70a13)

     

    (Image: THEMIS 2002 + Hoagland's measurement)

     

    (Image: Scanned copy of Hoagland's orthographically rectified '76 Viking data)

     

    So, there it is.

    Under careful examination, even upon these relatively low resolution images, it is plain to see in EVERY example that the WHITE line conforms to the shadow cast on The Face.

    Thus, I am right and Hoagland is wrong.

     The Sun's azimuth, latitude and longitude, orientation of the space craft, exact time... makes ZERO difference to the shadow cast upon The Face.

    So long as a shadow is cast upon The Face, it MUST measure 25.2 degrees from True North in accordance with the axial tilt of Mars.

    This proof, however, does NOT prove that I am right about Hoagland's INTENTIONS.

    What proves THAT point has everything to do with the VALUE of the angle differentiating the above red and white lines...

    2.35 degrees.

    ***

    On page 85 of Dark Mission (revised edition), Hoagland and Bara write:

    "Hoagland and Torun's measurements are nominal, meaning that they are valid to the closest fit of... the methodology employed. They are not saying, "these are the numbers within a loose tolerance

     range," they are saying flatly THESE ARE THE NUMBERS" [emphasis added]

    REALLY... is that so?

    All evidence to the contrary.

    As I have documented throughout my website, Hoagland has posted a few "measurements" that are, shall we say, less than perfect.

    Unless, of course, he was trying to convey a message through his 'mistakes'.

    For example, this graphic taken from Hoagland's website:

    That angle is NOT 19.5 degrees.

    It IS 18.6 degrees.

    The point is not that Hoagland was inaccurate.

    Rather the point was simply to bring attention to this incredibly significant "Tetrahedral Ruin".

    I go into painstaking detail about this specific and meaningful discrepancy here.

    That is not to say Hoagland cannot be accurate when he wants to be.

    This next image was created by Hoagland as an indirect and subtle reassurance to my concerns that no one was even trying to apply my measuring techniques during a discussion on Enterprise's private forum.

    The red 19.5 angles measured by Hoagland are spot on.

    I was glad he did that as I felt quite relieved.

    But let's get to the meat of my argument which is that Hoagland intentionally mislabeled North and a few other key measurements.

    This graphic is scanned from Monuments:

    The angle is NOT 22.5.

    It is precisely 22.8 degrees.

    Now why is THAT significant?

    Simple.

    22.8 - 25.2 = 2.4 which is TOO DAMN CLOSE to 2.35 degrees to be ignored.

    Hoagland's message is TWO fold.

    First, he used HIS North line and LABELED the angle 22.5 degrees for a very specific reason.

    That reason was to illustrate he was fully cognizant of the following geometric relationship between the D&M's axis of symmetry and western buttress.

    This special relationship is CRITICAL and is demonstrated as such through the reflections.

    These two very SPECIFIC lines reveal major events within the story of Horus, Set, Isis, and Osiris.

    Major events like the cutting out of the Eye of Horus and the castration of Set...

    ... the intervention of Isis in the battle between Horus and Set...

    ... or the conception of Horus.

    Hoagland's second message is all about north and demonstrating through precision geometry that he knows exactly where it really is.

    Measurably, Hoagland used the CORRECT line to demarcate the shadow, which is Mars' axial tilt, 25.2 degrees.

    But curiously, the text below this graphic reads as follows:

    "The offset angle of the "Face" from True North, 22.5 degrees..."

    Now... sliding that line over it becomes readily apparent that it doesn't even come close to conforming to The Face's platform.

    Now try to retain all of that in your short term memory because the rest of Hoagland's evidence lies with this graphic...

    ... and the carefully written text in his book Monuments.

    On page 63 & 64 of Monuments, Hoagland writes:

    "Even DiPietro and Molenaar had commented on its remarkable bisymmetry, the perfect "match" of the left and right halves. If it was truly bisymmetrical, then it should be possible to express that as a measurement (something DiPietro and Molenaar hadn't published -- except in the form of an almost quirky cartoon, for it was obvious that it was shifted by some angle to the north -- only DiPietro and Molenaar had never mentioned what that angle was!)

    IF the Face was a constructed object, and if its purpose was to mark the position of the Summer Solstice for someone standing in the City, and IF the "sightline" was that perfectly straight "mouth" running northeast/southwest -- and aimed directly toward the City Square -- then that sightline would have to be oriented at a 90 degree angle to the line marking the bisymmetrical centerline of the Face itself.

    A moment's measurement on the blow-ups of the Face confirmed the 90 degree angle -- between "the mouth" and a line perpendicular, from "the chin" up through the center of "the nose," right between "the eyes," and off into the desert.

    Now for the critical measurement.

    IF any of this was really true, and not merely a figment of my overworked imagination, then the centerline itself had to lie at a specific angle off true north.

    That angle (within the limit of measurement) should be 23.5 degrees. [emphasis added]

    With great care and trepidation, going back to the original computer printout on the NASA version of the original Viking image (for confirmation of True North), I proceeded to establish a grid system for the Martian landscape in frame 35A72 -- on a piece of clear plastic placed over the photograph itself. Once my set of reference lines were drawn -- from which I could now establish the orientation of any "structure" in the picture -- I drew the centerline of that amazing visage, the Face, on the plastic.

    Then, very carefully, I measured its exact tilt -- relative to the planetary meridian on the established grid.

    Sometime in the cavernous, yawning geologic past of this extraordinary planet -- a world that had held center-stage on Man's attention as the one place in all the solar system where there might be other "life" -- if one of those hypothetical "Martians" had stood in the center of "my" City, in the City Square -- they would have seen the Earth rise brilliant in the Dawn. And, a few moments afterward, the Sun itself would have" magically" appeared...

    Rising directly out of the "mouth" of the god-like figure in the Martian desert -- if it even was a "desert," the. For... the last time this alignment would have worked was half a million years ago.

    In my own mind the mathematical odds, against these two "alignments" being the result of mere chance, were compelling. The "Martians" had moved a quantum leap closer to reality."

    ***

    So now, if we read this carefully, Hoagland NEVER CONFIRMS his measurement WAS in fact 23.5 degrees.

    He gives us this image labeled 22.5 along with a caption that totally contradicts what he wrote in the body of his book.

    "The offset angle of the "Face" from True North, 22.5 degrees..."

    That's NOT what Hoagland stated earlier.

    He specifically wrote:

    "That angle (within the limit of measurement) should be 23.5 degrees." [emphasis added]

    THEN... upon the image that actually illustrates his solstice scenario, he conveniently leaves out that 23.5 notation!

    Even more telling is that on THIS graphic he doesn't even BOTHER to notate North.

    Isn't THAT curious?

    Could it be this image IS in fact CORRECTLY oriented with True North up?

    Could THAT be why Hoagland NEVER CONFIRMS via text OR graphic that The Face's platform measures out to be 23.5 degrees off due east?

    Inescapably, it is.

    First, just like the 22.5 graphic, this perpendicular line also fails to conform to The Face's platform.

    And well it should fail, because it's neither 22.5 OR 23.5 off Hoagland's north OR True North.

    In fact, Carlotto WAS right.

    The Face's platform is aligned PRECISELY 33.3 degrees off due east.

    (In this graphic 'old True North' represents the D&M's axis of symmetry)

    Second, the angle in Hoagland's graphic measures out to be exactly 28.35 degrees from horizontal.

    Hoagland clearly stated this angle SHOULD be 23.5 degrees off True North.

    That's quite an error considering his measurements are supposed to be nominal, right?

    28.35 - 23.5 = 4.85 or 5 WHOLE DEGREES worth of discrepancy in round numbers!

    Recall what was written in Dark Mission, "These ARE the numbers".

    Are we to believe someone as meticulous as Hoagland was THAT careless?

    I think not.

    Actually, if one is to believe he was serious, he should have said 23.5 off due east.

    But he didn't.

    In fact, I've heard him say it himself... he's a wordsmith.

    He chooses his words carefully.

    That he chose to write True North over due east is perhaps the biggest written clue that implies he knows exactly where True North really is...

    2.35 degrees away from his so-called 'north'.

    ***

    So now Hoagland has contradicted himself TWICE with regards to the orientation of the Face's platform.

    The first contradiction is this graphic and caption:

    "The offset angle of the "Face" from True North, 22.5 degrees..."

    The second contradiction is this graphic and glaring omission of what he claims his measurements should be.

    Clearly, he omitted them because the angle measures exactly 28.35 degrees off horizontal, which turns out to be due east.

    Not Hoagland's due east, mind you... Mars' actual due east.

    And I KNOW this is the case vis--vis my independent measurements.

    So, by now, I'm hoping it is OBVIOUS to even the most casual observer.

    By stating the offset angle of The Face is 23.5 degrees from due east and then contradicting himself first here:

    And again here...

    ... it becomes evident that Hoagland was sending a message to anyone who actually bothered to verify his measurements and pay attention to his carefully chosen words and labeled graphics.

    He KNEW the geometric framework of Cydonia was offset from Mars' True North by exactly 2.35 degrees. (23.5 with the decimal moved one place)

    The discrepancies I've measured and taken note of are anything BUT random.

    They are in fact...

    Meaningful Discrepancies.

    Just look at all the information one is able to glean through simply applying that number.

    Furthermore, Hoagland knew the only way to prove him wrong on his True North annotation...

    ... would be through the light cast upon the perfect Face.

    Given all the empirical evidence, there is only ONE plausible conclusion.

    Hoagland intentionally mislabeled Mars' True North.

    The reason why he would do this he answered himself later on in the same Facebook thread I began this paper with.

    Hoagland writes: "As this key number -- the determination of True North -- is a highly guarded, RELIGIOUS (in their minds) "SACRED number!""

    So there you have it... this entire exercise, the determination of True North is a RELIGIOUS RITUAL.

    That should not be surprising to anyone given all the religious overtones and symbolism I've discovered at Cydonia.

    The evidence and subsequent proof that I am right about Hoagland's intentions was carefully laid out by himself in a trail of bread crumbs which inexorably leads straight to the light.

    The crumbs merely needed to be picked up and carefully analyzed.

    So, Swallow Wood, et al, I stand firmly by what Hoagland called a "THEORY".

    I think I've proved my case.

    ***

     To summarize, it ultimately boils down to this simple question and measurement.

     In which of these images does the line representing Mars' axial tilt CONFORM to the shadow?

    (Hoagland's North)

    (NASA's True North)

     

    Do NOT take Hoagland's word for it.

    Do NOT take NASA's word for it.

    Do NOT take my word for it.

    Figure it out for yourself.

    Then YOU can tell everyone...

    "The Shadow Knows"

    ***

    (11/13/10 update)

    It just occurred to me.

    I've one more meaningful discrepancy which indicates Carlotto was in on ALL of Hoagland's hidden intentions.

    Hoagland's graphic:

    And Carlotto's graphic:

    ... are both off by exactly .3 degrees in OPPOSITE directions.

    Hoagland's actual angle is 22.8 while Carlotto's actual angle is 33.0.

    First, that strikes me as an intentional reflection.

    Second, if one takes Carlotto's ACTUAL angle 33.0 and subtracts Mars' axial tilt, 25.2, one gets 7.8.

    19.5 x 4 = 78 degrees.

    I strongly suspect this was Carlotto's way of signaling that he is ALSO aware of this geometric relationship.

    Couple this with the fact that it was Carlotto who put forth this shape for the D&M.

    That shape, as we now know, fuses in perfect harmony with Torun's shape.

    Put into context, that makes Carlotto's .3 degree discrepancy meaningful on multiple levels and nearly impossible to dismiss as mere coincidence.

    In a word... Hoagland and Carlotto BOTH knew.

    ***

    Navigation web page