I Just want to say same as usual. The Voodoo Scientist Plait is a prime example of someone who attacks the person not the science. The idea that this is all just like clouds in the sky to me is not an answer. Some clouds look like people does that mean there are no people because some clouds look like us. It makes no sense. I see hundreds of pictures that show something is going on. Not only Hoagland but many others see the same. You can call us names all day long and rant and rave with you science dogma but it doesn't change it one iota. Prove it! That is science. You have to rovers and sat. up there prove it!

Joe Capp
Brooklyn, NY

I've taken the time to read Phil's extraordinarily crappily written diatribe. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/city.html
He does not make a case, he just slanders. I fail to see any sensible assertations not ascribable to someone elses's work.
I read Ralph Greenberg's work and critique of Hoaglund's Hyper Dimensional Physics basis. Summarized-That with the number of points selected any conclusion could be drawn. He does not mention that the predicted 'Spot' on Neptune was found as predicted in RH's model. He also prominently criticizes the lack of accurate angles that were available and that interpreting these angles without 'knowing the intent of the designer' (my emphasis) would be extremely difficult.
No kidding! Who shall we ask as to what the intent is? The angles of erosion mutilated multi-million year old constructs may not be dead accurate, really? Hoaglund makes leaps and conjectures is his principle complaint and this is justified.
However justified, it does not interfere with the results of testing so far.
Next Greenburg reviews another paper, 'Mound Configurations on the Martian Cydonia Plain' written by Crater and McDaniel. This he finds to be puzzling. There is enough correlations that his use of Van Flandern's "Give me enough data points and I can prove anything." is weak. (Van Flandern is not commenting directly on any of this.)
I note that Greenberg appears to be a very honest person. He has wanted to debate Hogland and is upset at Richard for refusing to debate him as to his HDP's basis.
I do not know enough math to dispute those who are trained in this discipline. I can read English with fair alacrity and acuity.
Philip is at best a poseur at this cited endeavor of debunking Richard. He fails to consider that the face has proven, as better images are taken, a priori assumptions. That mathematical analysis of this data is running overwhelmingly to the proving of artificiality. That the powers that be are lying whenever possible about this matter and honestly displaying data that US citizens have paid for.
Philip Plait Phalls Phlat on his Phace. He is running without shoes on broken glass. Once his numbness passes he'll regret having gone down this path.

I would like to emphasize on the fact that NASA is full of scientists that can determine the longevity of both the rovers.I am also sure that in order to send $280 million rovers you must know exactly what they are capable of. My point all boils down to the fact that they are going to get alot more roving out of those expensive machines that are made to strive under the most extreme conditions.How is it that NASA can't even entertain the fact on whether Hoagland is right with the strange "debatable" items in the dirt. From the article I read on MarsNews.Com it appears that NASA is confused on where it is suppose to go next with all of the extra power the rovers still have. How Much power would it really have taken to test the microscopicimagingspectometer on one of the controversial images potrayed by hoagland on his web site?

i think we're all quite excited for the time when man can walk across cydonia and be content with the natural beauty of mars and not have to pretend there is some ancient city there to make it more interesting for himself.

i believe the saddest think is that once that day occurs, odd people extrapolating a fantasy from a picture will simply turn to another area we haven't yet been to. then, they will construe and draw and outline roughly geometric shapes amongst a bunch of rock formations and show a bunch of pictures with little supporting arguments. maybe a sentence or two.

the real wonder is that phil gives arguments that provide evidence and analysis, and not simply large pictures with goofy lines and photoshopping and odd conclusions about "reflectivity" due to an image's simple brightness. i guess accepting basic, uncomplicated truths is not good enough for some people.

thats ok i guess reality can be boring, lets just look for more ancient citys on mars through a blurry photograph.

I have just one more thing to add in light of a previous thought.If plait said that the wind might have blown that object away then surely the rovers would have been affected by such a windstorm. The fact is that we will never know if it did or if it didn't.As for the comment that NASA doesnt have time to look at mysterious objects in the dirt, that statement only gives me more reason to look at blurry photographs of a possibility rather than to be led like a sheep into the blindness of a federally funded oraginization. Keep in mind that alot of discoveries were made at the basic assumption that something might exist beyond what we
beleive. Amerigo Vespucci saw land and didnt even know it was america until someone later came along and discovered it was actually America.I guess some people just want to beleive that we can sail right off the edge of the earth because it is still flat.I guess that my analogy simply states that anything is possible and if you look a little deeper sometimes then you truly see the real picture instead of what you are trained to beleive.

Phillip Plait seems like a nice enough guy when he is a guest on Coast To Coast AM. And, he is certainly entitled to his opinion re what he terms "pseduoscientist". However, his website's blast at Hoagland smacks of desperation. It's way too strident. If he wants to debunk Hoagland's theories and statements, take your best shot, I say. You just don't have to attack the theorist! Plait spends more time Hoagland bashing than he does debunking. In particular, his debunking of the glass worms was very lame. To say they are not worms or tunnels may be correct. To say that the whole issue is they pictures are upside down and that probably all we are seeing is Martian sand patterns is laughable. It reads like Phillip's thinking Oh My God, these people may actaully figure something out even though they haven't been anointed by at PhD from Academia or blessed by NASA. If Hoagland is wrong, we will learn soon enough. In the meantime, let's get on with actually investigating these analomies on Mars rather than wasting time with diatribes against any who speculate outside the box.

Thats cool

Pareidolia, the bane of hunters and the meal-ticket of psychotherapists.
C'mon people look at the scales. Hoagland's structures are huge. It's like looking at Devil's tower from an observatory on Mars and calling it a watch tower.

I totally agree with the comments made by Phillip Plait about the pseduoscientist Hoagland. To me it seems that no matter how many images are taken of the so called face Hoagland will always say its an alien object despite the fact to me it looks like a mesa and not a face. After looking at his web site it took me ages to stop laughing at some of his stupid claims about about machinery being see at Spirts site. As for the claims that NASA deliberately grinded a martian fossel well so stupid that is all I going to say on that.
Wake people there are NOT any alien objects on Mars as Mars could not have even had a chance to support intelligent life in its history.
Its Hoagland that is stupid idiot

I totally agree with the comments made by Phillip Plait about the pseduoscientist Hoagland. To me it seems that no matter how many images are taken of the so called face Hoagland will always say its an alien object despite the fact to me it looks like a mesa and not a face. After looking at his web site it took me ages to stop laughing at some of his stupid claims about about machinery being see at Spirts site. As for the claims that NASA deliberately grinded a martian fossel well so stupid that is all I going to say on that.
Wake people there are NOT any alien objects on Mars as Mars could not have even had a chance to support intelligent life in its history.
Its Hoagland that is a stupid idiot

Well,it is all very interesting. I think we will not know for sure one way or another weather or not the claims by Hoagland are true untill we get coperation from space agencys like NASA. It is unfortunate, because if even half of what hoagland is saying is true, then the reputation of NASA goes into the trash. That reason alone I think may be a leading contributior into why NASA may be covering up information.
I think we will know the truth, but it will be in their, not Hoagland's time table. Are we being gently eased into the knowledge of other world intellegant life? To me, it seems likely. And why not? The past sixty years of T.V. and movies are strewn with ufo ideas. Are we being prepared for a revelation, so when it happens societies wont crumble like some say would happen? Should we really be thanking agencies like NASA for doing it this way? Or have we been ready for this information and withholding it from us may be in part due to some greater deception?
It is very interesting...
Thanks for reading an opnion

NASA may a bit over cautious for my tastes, but the claims that NASA has founf evidence for alien life and is for some reason keeping quiet are absurd. NASA has watched its budget be cut year after year since the Apollo program, why would they keep quiet about news that would give them a budget on par with the militarys? And why would an advanced race, capable of the incredible feat of traveling interstellar space, allow a puny small organization like NASA to silence them?

It is a matter of histeria and of those that can not coop with this information. Whether for religious beliefs for or from just personal ideals. Going slow, allows for a way for people to adjust to the notions, especially if it is brought up time after time after time over an extended period. Nasa may not be covering up anything just going slowly letting people adjust.

Besides if aliens wanted to they would have blasted us from this planet a long time ago. For traveling the vastness of space would have given them superior techonlogies. I do not believe we could have stopped them if we wanted to. So I do not believe the conspiracy theories.

Is Richard Hoagland right or wrong? It doesn't really matter. The issue is much broader than one man. From my point of view, the question is not is there a NASA conspiracy but rather are we getting the the best analysis from NASA. There may or may not be any lies or intentionally misleading people going on. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy to be wrong. It could be the culture of the agency to be arrogant and resist any comments that imply they may not always be correct. Conventional science seems to be more and more hibebound as time goes on. Unwilling or unable to "think outside the box". So far NASA is doing an exceptional engineering job. They are most recently 2 for 2 in Mars landings and that is terrific. Are they the only arbiters of understanding everything in the iamges the Rovers obediently stream back to Earth? That's the real question.

Much of what NASA has claims to, or of findings there in are being duplicated by the folks at the Mars desert station out in Utah here on Earth for by far less than the price of the rovers. Plus it is some what enjoyable just to pretend that one is there.
Oh, on a side note am I the only east coast guy posting to this blog or are there others that are silent at this time. Lets here from everyone please.

Yes Stuart, NASA shouldn't be the only agency to interpert incoming data, I totally agree. I wasn't saying you were wrong or that 'wild' claims should never be made. However, to a public largely under-educated when it comes to our space program and the universe at large, 'wild' ideas can leave a lasting, and unfortunately, wrong impression. But you are right, interpertation of information shouldn't be the charge of one entity.

Lets face it.. The so called UFO sightings of the 60's & 70's could just as easily have been caused by experimentation with anti gravity vehicles. A strong magnetic field around an object could quite feasibly in principle cause cars electrical systems to fail, stop watches etc. The Germans in WWII are supposedly to have invented such a machine which the US was desperate to recover. Some of these sightings could have been caused by the experimental vehicles having severe handling problems to overcome. Still sounds far fetched but a bit more plausible than Aliens visiting us.

Further more progress in aviation was rapid up until the end of the sixties. SR71, Concord, Boeing 747, etc since then no great changes until 1990 when the stealth fighter suddenly appeared and the B2 bomber both supprisingly having a profile remarkably like a triangle when flying. As for space the Shuttle budget has been cut back and missions delayed or cancelled on budget grounds.

Maybe if there is a conspiracy it is not in NASA covering up Aliens but the military may have solved issues for effectively travelling into LEO which makes NASA's progress reduntant - but it is kept going to distract from the clandistine opperations. Also NASA can concentrate on more deep space exploration such as the Cassini probe.

Finally assuming the universe 13Billion plus years old. Who is to say that an alien species has developed any faster than us. Assumig life has developed at a similar pace there is no reason to assume an alien species has developed the technology to conquer the huge distances of intersteller travel. Similarly that is why SETI have not as yet picked up any radio waves. They also take years to travel between the stars and we have only been beaming radio waves for 60 odd years. How many star systems are within 60 light years of us? plus it would take another 60 years to get any type of targeted response. However, suddenly the universe could become a very noisy place.

Now you can all stop laughing as I am not very good at conspiracy theories but just thought I would throw in my 2 cents worth.

I think area 51 of the Military is probably the biggest cover up of all.

You make a lot of valid points Mike. I'd just like to say a few things about UFO's and mile-long glass worms, lol.

1)UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object. While many strange things have been seen in our skies, flying saucer reports only came after sci-fi movies invented the idea in the late 40's. I doubt that aliens would wait till Hollywood dreamed up a ship to come visit us.

2)The technology required to travel between stars is poorly under by the general public and even today's leading scientists. By today's standards, this feat still remains impossible even if the world's resources were applied in full.

3)Furthermore, to think that aliens could accomplish this task yet somehow forget to hide themselves is nothing short of moronic. Any civilization capable of traveling the stars could mask their presence much easier.

4)Maybe they aren't trying to hide you say? Why would they make themselves known to illiterate inbred rednecks? If they wanted their presence known, they would park their saucers over New York City.

As far as faces and worms go: don't just look at blurry pictures and play connect the dots. If these people want NASA to spend some of its precious resources looking for pink elephants then they need to do real science themselves. The single combining element to all these supporters of far out theories is a lack of education. I bet most people on this site have a better understanding of what Mars is really like than Hoagland.

Just go to: "City of Cydonia"

Just go to: "City of Cydonia."