- News Release
-
- The Enterprise Mission (Richard Hoagland; science consultant,
author), Keith Laney (image analyst), Francis C. P. Knize (producer) has
today submitted a "Correction of Data" request to NASA, under
the authority of the newly instigated "Data Quality Act". This
will be the first challenge ever of its kind. NASA will have to answer
concerning a mysterious download from the Mars Odyssey probe, which seems
to contain images of building and transportation structures underground
the Mars Cydonia region. At the very least, an inconsistency of data has
occurred within NASA which must officially be looked into and corrected.
We are hoping the American Press will become open to SETI issues today,
as have most distinguished countries worldwide. Please help open the doors
of science and report, and join Russia, China, Belgium, France, Brazil,
Chile, Mexico, San Marino, Italy, England, and many other nationalities
to allow for the people's voice on SETI matters. .
-
- Beyond our mandates inguiry of NASA, our investigation
team is determined to arrange for a debate with official organizations,
scientists, researchers spanning the globe to consider the possibility
for life on other planets in our Solar System, leading further to the question
of evidence for intelligent life. We are set on associating with all significant
entities pushing for American freedoms to pursue open Space Science, and
to fairly observe the most important topic within the realm of Space Exploration:
..."are we or are we not alone?"
-
- To move things along, I have been left little option,
after being stalemated for nearly two years by NASA, but to open what is
known as the (newly instigated) "Data Quality Act ," which has
been put upon all federal agencies for the protection of the integrity
of data. The recent episode concerning Richard Hoagland; Space Science
investigator, and a questionable download his organization made from the
NASA site containing Mars Odyssey THEMIS (infrared) imagery data (and possible
anomalies seen underground), and of which data appears now missing from
NASA archives, raises many questions about the transparency of data dispelled
from JPL.
- I have conducted an enormous amount of research in these
legal areas and have contacted essential Data Quality Officers at NASA,
as well as being in frequent touch with Don Savage, Public Relations Officer.
I would be honored to update The Press on all these events. I can send
a link to a radio show accomplished a few days ago concerning that topic
(Mars Revealer radio show).
-
- I also foresee a greater association with either AMES
Research Center's noted MARSOWEB system for space probe analysis or JPL.'s
new system for image analysis, whereby scientists from both outside and
inside NASA can compare interpretations of the data and post them on the
Internet. There is much evidence to discuss, I disagree with the present
NIDS (National Institute for Discovery Science) analysis that there's not
enough there to warrant further study for Solar System SETI. Arthur C.
Clarke seems to think there's enough to go on to have forums about possible
life-forms (leading to Intelligence) on Mars, not to mention a host of
scientists worldwide ready to open discussion? Even the SETI Institute
(NASA sanctioned) appears to be changing their attitude about finding life
in our neighborhood.
-
- Our team has already contacted many mainstream scientists
to become involved with our venture and are ready for the Panel. Our goal
is to form a just forum which can conduct lively open debate according
to the dictates of the NSF and the NAS. Director Joseph Alexander of the
National Academy of the Sciences has written me in support of our project.
Members of The Society For Planetary SETI Research, Richard Hoagland, Stephen
Bassett, Richard Dolan, ...mainstream astronomers, Geologists, Anthropologists,
Authors, Government officials involved in science; have all expressed an
interest to see our project succeed. We are well on the way to the reality
of our event for an international debate on television.
-
- One can reference some of my activities through these
links:
-
- http://english.pravda.ru/politics/2002/09/25/37217.html
-
- http://www.greatdreams.com/cydonia.htm
-
- http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=seti&Number=
- 315650&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1
-
-
- RELEASE:
- File for CORRECTION OF DATA submitted today, October
31, 2002 to NASA:
-
- RE: Data Quality Act inquiry concerning problems with
NASA dissemination of data
- October 31th 2002
-
- On behalf of Ames Laboratory consultant, Keith Laney,
and the American public at large of whom have a stake in the knowledge
gained through Mr. Laney's interpretation of NASA data, we wish to submit
for an official inquiry, for the purpose that NASA conduct a "correction
of data" as outlined by NASA guidelines for the defined mandates
of the Data Quality Act, of which were implemented recently by Congress.
Keith Laney is to be considered the primary "affected party ."
Since Keith Laney has observed Mars Odyssey THEMIS data by request of science
writer, Richard Hoagland, and his organization known as "The Enterprise
Mission ," he reserves the right to include Mr. Hoagland's organization
also as an "affected party ."
-
- We mean, when we say "American public at large"
as represented by the most recent poll concerning SETI Research, known
as the Roper poll, which showed a clear majority of 72 percent of the American
public felt the government has not been forthcoming about what it knows
about SETI matters. We hold that the interest of America is bound to our
inquiry and therefore the public is to be considered, as well, an affected
party. I, as a producer, represent the majority public opinion concerning
The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Therefore I consider myself,
through associations with The Enterprise Mission and being a professional
communicator aligned with this Inquisition, an affected party also.
-
- The incident in question concerning possible non-transparency,
non-credibility, non-integrity of NASA/ASU data, transpired on July 25th
2002, whereby Keith Laney made a download directly from the Mars Odyssey
THEMIS section at the NASA/ASU Internet site, under recommendations of
a person claiming to be a NASA employee, and that this download appeared
to be different in nature than downloads which were made earlier from that
same NASA Internet source, as well as downloads that were made later.
Put in Mr. Laney's own words, please read the following e-mail he sent
to me:
-
- Re: I need to hear from you now please... Date: 10/28/2002
11:09:33 PM Eastern Standard Time From: Bullitt@carolina.rr.com <mailto:Bullitt@carolina.rr.com>
To: <mailto:Frankknee@aol.com> Frankknee@aol.com <mailto:Frankknee@aol.com>
Sent from the Internet (Details
-
- Hi Frank,
-
- It's as easy as this, I received a different Cydonia
infrared image upon download than what was the supposed to be the ASU THEMIS
webpage's official version. It is unquestionably different from as officially
portrayed at the site now and at that time, and unquestionably different
from the images as portrayed now in the raw pds releases.
-
- I've already went over the whole ordeal in detail here,
- http://www.keithlaney.com/timeline.htm
- excerpted:
-
- "Timeline, Testimony, Processing, and Politics of
a Leaked THEMIS Image"
-
- The politics.
- I had been sharing my imaging results with Richard Hoagland
and Mike Bara, who after review of them were astounded also. The strange
thing about it was that no one else was getting near the same results as
I. Holger Isenberg wasn't, Steve Wingate wasn't, (In fact he only seems
interesting in debunking this image, which sadly he has looked very foolish
doing) Richard wasn't. No one that tried did. The best attempts I saw from
others were rather streaked and the color values were smudged, weak, with
high noise levels. Not very good examples of true false color multispectrals
worthy of the capabilities of the wonderful THEMIS, which for the most
part are supposed to be clean and colorful where there are thermal and
compositional differences being imaged.
-
- The reason for this became apparent when I went back
to the THEMIS site on August 26th. I found that the image now there is
very different from the one I downloaded on July 25th. I could not believe
it. This image was much "prettier." This was obviously not the
same one that Noel just described as having blocks. In comparison, it looks
very much like a visible image. This was the reason why the others were
not getting the same results. I for some reason had a different image.
Somehow, This is strange because the only source for that image on July
25th would have been the THEMIS site. No doubt my image came from there.
This is further confirmed by comparing the official present image with
what Noel described to me above. The block effect is not noticeable on
the ratio images made from the "official" image, it is not evident
in the individual band images from it either, yet it is in both on the
image that I got, just as described.
-
- These "blocks" are in no way a result of any
further processing that I have done on the parent image, these were on
the image the day I got it. I have done slight processing work on my original
dated file download image and saved it. Nothing destructive, and for the
simple reason of trying to lessen the severity of the blocks while comparing
it to the different clear image from the THEMIS site at present. This was
on Aug 26th as evidenced by the modified file date. Original copies were
made and saved from it beforehand, and all the work and ratios I have for
the color multispectral images were made from it beforehand as well. I
did this quite inadvertently, but because the processes done on it are
necessary and compatible for what processes are being done to the image
to make quality multispectrals that is of little consequence. A lot of
people have done a lot of torture processes on the image to try to discredit
it's pedigree, but as of yet no one including myself has been able to replicate
it using the image that is at the THEMIS site now.
-
- I have so far processed nearly every possible band ratio
combination from my downloaded image, the "official" THEMIS page
image of the present, and the other separate version from an associate
obtained independently that is very similar to the one I downloaded. Without
exception, and in every band combination tried, the version I got on July
25th is superior both in color data levels and clarity.
-
- The Official image at the THEMIS site is in fact a prettied
up, heavily destreaked, and warp registered later version of the image
I received. This is extremely important, because my image has no hints
of destreaking or warp registration. Both of these are irreversible processes.
There is no way I could have made my image from the version now at the
THEMIS website. Not even had I wanted to. The inferior looking image produces
superior multispectrals. That's all there is to it.
- I challenge ANY image processor to counter the conclusions
I have made comparing these images.
-
- The image data also confirms somewhat that this image
is valid. Clearly in the header of my image, (Which is a tiff) and unalterable
by any method I know was the identifier. My image is labeled as a II* ¶µF
Standard converted PNM file. The tiff image now available at the THEMIS
site is headered with this label. II* dz. The GIF was labeled GIF, the
png was labeled png, and the jpeg was labeled jiff. Might I remind any
that PNM is a standard raw satellite data transferal format?
- There have been many to attempt to "debunk"
this image. No one has, and I have a good hunch no one ever will.
-
- It is plain faulty analysis to take an image and subject
it to overtly data torturous nonsense processes designed only to fake a
claim that it's a fake based on the observations of said overprocessing
steps. The only true way to analyze this image is to process all the data
sets and compare. All else is foolhardy supposition using an array of dubious
practices for ascertainment. Nonsense in other words.
-
- Where did I get this image? From ASU's (Arizonia State
University) THEMIS site. No speculation needed. What did I do to this image?
Nothing in any way image destructive. I will stand before all and defend
my stance on this. Perhaps I was "bamfed" to where the real picture
was kept? I do know this, somehow I obtained an unaltered tiff image with
a different header identifier which produces superior IR multispectrals
over and beyond the presently displayed and original July 24th image release.
Having looked at some of the example images and visible overlays both on
my site and The Enterprise Mission you might come to the same conclusion.
Personally, I think they are fantastic, opening up an entire new era in
Mars exploration.
-
- Keith Laney"
- END of testimony.
-
- Clearly, Mr. Keith Laney's testimony above not only describes
in detail how he acquired his downloaded data from NASA, but also describes
a complex set of communications between an important researcher named Noel
Gorelick from within the ASU imaging department in a direct association
with NASA. This accompaniment of official advice adds to the process of
dissemination and must be included in the consideration of integrity for
data for this circumstance.
-
- We wish that the Data Quality officer e-mail all responses
to Keith Laney at bullitt@carolina.rr.com (telephone 704-573-6144) with
CC to Richard Hoagland; rr1947@yahoo.com and Francis Knize; frankknee@aol.com
(203 544-9603)
-
- Mr. Hoagland has indicated he will provide the documentary
evidence upon request, which is a record kept of the headers attached to
each download. Apparently the download headers indicate a difference of
data size as well as other attributes.
-
- Should NASA maintain that the data Mr. Laney claims to
have received could not have come from a NASA source, then this should
be considered a point of need for inspection rather than denial of inspection.
An open Panel must then analyze how the elements of Mr. Laney's frame relates
to the original as posted at the NASA site. Only then can it be properly
determined how data was received by Mr. Laney, and disseminated by NASA
-
- We request that a panel for peer review be set up consisting
of members from both inside and outside of NASA to determine why data does
not seem transparent and, additionally, the process and mode for dissemination
not transparent. This is according to original OMB guidelines for data
quality. A review conducted solely from the inside of the agency could
be considered a continuance of prejudicial treatment in determining integrity.
A fair proceeding would include agreement from imaging professionals from
both inside and outside the agency. The selection must include recognized
scientists previously involved in anomalies study as well as having credentials
in image analysis. Open peer review status would be according to the original
Data Quality Act determinations of which the NASA guidelines should be
encompassing. Judgments need to include the opinions of well-established
scientists who have centered on SETI study of which NASA has little inkling
and knowledge, since the agency has officially indicated that it has little
interest today to pursue SETI Research in our Solar System.
-
- NASA guidelines place upon affected parties to have a
duty to explain where data should be corrected, but it must also be realized
that this cannot be easily determined until a reexamination is conducted
to see where possibly information was corrupted, or altered, as image data
often holds levels of complexity that best wait for an appropriate scientific
approach for clarification. If we as a combined group of affected interests
had to explain where we would like to see a correction in data take place,
it would be in the correction to establish transparency of data, in other
words that data would remain the same from the same NASA source for independent
researchers who depend on consistency. This has clearly not been the case
as depicted by the testimony above. A correction will occur when data
is consistent, Mr. Laney's data for image frame was skewed when received.
Mr. Laney's data contained a certain "blocking phenomenon" which
appears not to be a result of photographic artifacting and pixilation,
but rather to exhibit visual elements that are real. The aforementioned
attributes were not contained in the image later showing at the same THEMIS
source, which shows an inconsistency and unwarranted degradation in the
official version now posted of the frame in question at the official NASA
Internet site.
-
- Please return notice as soon as possible concerning our
Data Quality Act inquiry into NASA space probe imagery activities. The
public anxiously awaits your reply.
-
- Respectfully,
-
- Francis C. P. Knize; producer
- Keith Laney; independent researcher, Ames Research Center
consultant
- Richard Hoagland; science writer, author, science consultant
- The Enterprise Mission; Space Research organization
- SETI scientists from about the globe
- 72 percent of the American population
|
