|
|
|
I want to thank you. Finally some balance and true journalistic integrity. I've put your web site on some of the forums I've visit regularly. It is so refreshing to hear. Most of the claims and controversy you report is published on the Enterprise Forum freely and openly. I ask you readers this. If Hoagland and the team are such manipulators and liars why not censer all this it like so many of the other sites do. They allow anything to be said including personal attacks on Hoagland's character and credentials. Those who decided to leave your site are so closed minded that any type of open debate is lost on them. I will put your site in my favorites folder and whether I agree with you or not I will know you have made an honest effort. We need more journalistic integrity like that shown by Edward R Morrow you my friend you have shown that courage and integrity and courage. Of course you know, as history points out, you will be criticized for doing what's right, but that comes with the territory.
Joseph - Brooklyn, N.Y.
THANK YOU, for at least acknowledging the present situation regarding the THEMIS infrared Cydonia image. Really, how could a faked image be qualitatively superior to a "real" original?! Why are Dr. Phil Christensen's few comments more full of holes than Swiss cheese? This is a huge story - why are you and MSNBC the only media who apparently see this? In any event, I just wanted to give you kudos on the story. I will be turning to your page a lot more often from now on.
Anders - Stockholm, Sweden
The story on mars images at the NASA/THEMIS website is very interesting. I am concerned that this tax payer supported agency may have compromised its scientific integrity. Keep it up.
Don
Thank you for having the guts and the sense to print this article. I applaud your efforts to seek the truth, knowing many out there are very closed minded and refuse to really explore all possibilities. I will now put your website on my favorites list and regularly visit it to see your articles. I now know that there is at least one media outlet who is not trying to ignore or ridicule the whole reason we have space exploration to begin with.
From just an ordinary American citizen who wants the truth to be revealed, thanks again and keep up the good work!
Robert
I could not agree with you more concerning the lack of media attention to this matter.
I have come to the conclusion that some people really truly do NOT want to know the truth. The main stream media is not interested in truth, they are only interested in sponsor dollars. I would bet you that a ID4 scenario just like the movie could occur and most media and others STILL convinced it's all a hoax (and probably even blame it on Mr. Hoagland). Sadly I've given up hope that this matter will even be given credit were credit is do. YOU are a fresh exception. Thanks.
James W.
thanks folks for covering the Hoagland/Enterprise Mission story on the Themis data. This is my first visit to your cite [sic] and I will continue to visit it due to your complete and honest coverage. Hope you'll be covering the Enterprise Mission lawsuit of NASA as well!
Brian
Your coverage of Richard C. Hoaglands recent release of new Mars information was absolutely outstanding. You did not ridicule or make a laughing matter out of it, instead you covered it as a true journalist.
What surprised me the most was that apparently you have employees that know a great deal about image enhancements and techniques. By focusing on the data in a serious proffessional manner and taking a nuetral [sic] stance on this issue you have raised serious questions into those images. I will continue to follow this story on your web site as well as pass the word to others about your coverage.
Once again- simply outstanding journalism.
James G.
I have recommended Marsnews.com for years. I'm afraid I can no longer do that if you are going to give nuts like Hoagland credibility. Even if he makes a claim which seems plausible he has made so many obviously false claims over the years that there is no reason to report what he says as part of serious Mars news reporting. At the very least no such story should be run with out a rebuttal from someone rational at NASA.
Hoagland violates many of these [rules of "Baloney Detection"] frequently. I'll admit my own comments here may seem to violate the rule on personal attacks, but I am discussing the credibility of a source and how it impacts your own credibility not engaging in a scientific debate with Hoagland. If I were I would discuss only the issues and facts at hand not his personal failings. I certainly would not rely on conspiracy theories as a fundamental part of my arguments.
Mark
I have had Mars News on my default list since the site came on line. I would like to applaud and give a standing ovation to Mr. Burk for having the intelligence, guts and integrity on covering this intriguing story. It does seem that most other media sites have slid into the 'safe and accepted' stories side of journalism for fear of reprimands. Kudos to Mr Burk and the rest of his team. Keep up the honest and truly scientific journalism.
On a related note, I yet to understand why NASA doesn't jump on this as an opportunity to silence this issue once and for all. If what they say is true, then couldn't, no shouldn't they confront Mr. Hoagland in an organized scientific forum with imaging experts from the private sector present. Including the software engineers of the software supplied to Hoagland by KODAK to enhance these images?
Jordan
Thank you (and MarsNews.com) for your honest coverage of the possible fake Cydonia IR image from NASA. It is amazing to me that the rest of the news media does not take this issue seriously. For a while there it looked like Alan Boyle was going to...
Tim - Jackson, Michigan
As an individual who has followed this over the years, I've seen the blatant cover up by NASA, time after time. For Mr Hoagland to put his reputation on the chopping block again, as he has, is the act of an honest man.(imho). Look at the IR from the "official" Themis, compared to what RCH has gleaned from the "TOP" photo labs in the country! Would this man go out on a limb just for publicity? I think not. RCH, has something to say. I think we need to listen.
Harry - Colorado
James, excellent work and true journalistic courage and integrity on your part.
I happen not to be a Hoagland acolyte and have made it a practice to debunk some of the unfounded correlations he draws.
I think there is a concerted effort to suppress some of the more curious and challenging findings of Mars investigations over the years, and unfortunately Hoagland's hyperbole tends to work to undermine more serious consideration of these. I intentionally or not, I do not know.
You hit on the key points - NASA/JPL is caught (again) misrepresenting what they have done and can do with a given image. Their track record is one of making certain assertions that they are forced to contradict once the evidence is overwhelming ... like, "there is no water on Mars outside the poles" and they never own their earlier errors [not in making the wrong assumption, but in having ignored basic scientific process of gathering data BEFORE stating a hypothesis as fact].
I am very doubtful that they've only acquired a single nighttime IR image in all the passes they've made to date.
That is a ludicrous claim, and I'd challenge them to release an image acquisition log of the mission to date, and to release all raw data for public consumption.
BTW, The threats not to visit your site are weak attempts to pressure you. External editorial pressure. I applaud your stand on principle.
Thank you. I will personally promote and champion your site as one that values honest inquiry.
Michael
I am a first time visitor to Mars News having followed a link from Enterprise Mission. You may count me as a replacement for anyone who refuses to return to your site over this controversy!
I have been following Richard Hoagland for several years now, and although some of his stuff leaves me scratching my head, I applaud his persistant efforts to get NASA, et al to "fess up" to the issues. Whatever it is we see in the IR image, it needs to be further investigated, not simply blown-off.
I note that at least one comment here stated that NASA ought to ge given the chance to refute the data. Indeed! Why has NASA not yet taken *every* opportunity to do exactly that? Why do they remain silent?
If Hoagland's data has been doctored in any way, then it ought to be fairly easy for someone to duplicate his results from the THEMIS image, and explain how it was done. I trust that Mars News will be on top of that if/when it happens.
Until I see something like this from the "Experts" who refute Hoagland's evidence, his credibility with me remains unshaken.
Stu - Phoenix, Arizona
I too must add thank you for balance in the THEMIS images controversy. I personally trust Mr. Hoagland and the professionals with whom he consults. It is also highly probable he has made some mistakes during his tenure on this planet. I know of no one on his staff, or closely associated with him who would make the claim of his being "perfect" or mistake proof. I believe that most of his detractors have a very jaundiced eye, and fail to check out all the material being generated by Mr. Hoagland and his associates. Trusting in NASA, or any government agency is the height of absurdity, and not seeing the religious fanaticism of those various agencies, is near total blindness of glaring facts. Nineteen point five trillion to one odds against random choice for Apollo missions can be very convincing for most of us. The amounts of data are large, and space here is not available to reveal what is already acessible to anyone (freely) and friendly response from the Enterprise crew if time permits. Thanks again for fair treatment of an extremely important issue, and you may wish to compare this to know Earth history.
Gerald
I'd like to compliment you on balanced reporting in respect to Keith Laney's (aka- Bullitt) "Real" IR Themis Image. I've known Bullitt a long time, we've exchanged images, worked on images, and, critiqued those of others, generally agreeing on all points. However, I'd like to point out that I didn't say "Hoaglands..." I've known Bullitt too long to doubt where he says he got the image, to long to doubt the results of his processing. And, I trust what he's saying now, "...I don't know, I'm still studying it, working with it..." But, I agree with Bullitt, and, everyone else whose taken a serious look at the images, these blocky structures, whether imaged through a layer of dust, or not, look awfully, suspiciously like something aritificial.
I walked away from the fight over Cydonia, a long time ago. For Hoagland, Bullitt, or, anyone else to be fighting a battle lost (however corrupt the method used to win), is futile. Mars has too much land area (more than Earth), to fight over one tiny area smaller than my hometown. Cydonia has been debunked, an "authority" said so, in an authoritative voice...end of story (to "John Q Public"). But, it's instructive to undersand CSICOP's 'original' definition of, "Debunk," which is: ("...as a last resort, if something absolutely defies proof that it 'cannot be'...") "Tell a lie and repeat it, till it's the last thing heard, and, the only thing remembered" (or, "...becomes the "truth remembered""...the essence of Propaganda).
My congratulations to you, to Keith (Bullitt) for the work he's done on the images, and, to Hoagland and all their supporters for taking up the fight.
Gordon
Frankly, my dear, I would be careful about supporting Hoagland too strongly. He has gotten a bit wild over the years he has far distanced himself from the elbow of Walter Cronkite. But, alas, he helps keep the home fires burning for Mars exploration and that ain't all bad.
HH
Thank you for covering the work of the Enterprise crew. I have never been convinced of the artificiality of anything on Mars. But I have spent a lot of time looking pixel by pixel through both sets of images, and it seems to me that the NASA image is the one that has been modified.
"Micromike"
I read your article (linked from Enterprise Mission) about the current controversy over the THEMIS data. A question I have often thought about but never asked, is why is it that only NASA (or JPL etc) has access to the data being transmitted back to earth from the Mars satellite?
I assume part of the answer has to be the ability to receive the very weak signals sent back from Mars. But I wondered if there weren't independent listening capabilities available? Also, is the transmission encrypted? It would seem that for purely scientific missions, the data should be sent in a form whereby any interested party could receive the data, and produce the images without having to go through a middle-man, such as NASA or Malin.
I was just curious on these points.
Keep up the great work on reporting ALL aspects of news about Mars.
Steve
After reading your report on "Update: Did NASA Fake Data To Hide Mars Anomalies?" I would like to personaly THANK YOU for writing the story, and helping to give some exposure to the Enterprisemission. I have been a viewer of their website for quite sometime now, and now will be a viewer of your page for such opened minded journalism. Keep up the great work! =)
Matt
Will the mainstream media catch up to this article of yours? What are the implications, if what Hoagland is saying, is (at least in part) true? All in all, this is a global world (and then some!) and delving our minds into this sort of issues is called freedom - remember?
Congratulations to MarsNews - the world is watching!
Aljaz - Slovenia
Note: Some comments have been edited for brevity, but no content has been changed.
Posted by jburk at September 12, 2002 12:43 PM
| TrackBack