NASA Mars expedition fraud

I had been listening to some of the Art Bell show since the MGS started taking pictures of Cydonia, and the continual suggesting of fraud and conspiracy by NASA/JPL started to concern me. It then became obvious to me that something seemed real odd with therogue JPL employee interview. Richard Hoagland began to seem rather odd to me, as well. Since the 15th of April, his website, The Enterprise Mission, was posting what seemed to me to be total garbage (natural appearing geologic features labeled as artificial structures) and ignoring the only soft piece of evidence (yet hard to dismiss) indicating a possible “man-made” structure on Mars. Art Bell’s program strikes me as odd/weird (more so than it’s supposed to be) to me in anycase—but entertaining. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and notified him about the “Trailer Park,” but apparently he had no interest. I thought that of all the people in the world, these two, Bell and Hoagland, would jump on this discovery and proclaim it to the world. Instead, I percieved disinformation and became suspicious of their motives. I felt that they were doing more harm than good and making it difficult for anyone interested in Cydonia to be taken seriously. Then I heard my name mentioned in Art Bell’s program with David Oates’ backward speech expose of the “disinformation” agent “Kent.”Bad move, Mr. Bell. Hoagland then posted a claim of evidence of “Arcology” in the “Pyramid,” so I decided to take a critical look. I didn’t recall any of the “structures” being in the NASA image. If these were indeed structures, Mars must be covered with them! How could I have missed them? Well folks, here is what I did . . . I took the original full size NASA/JPL gif blew it up 300 per cent (to match the size) and compared it to Hoagland’s and there IT was. He had severely cooked the data (baked it?). Not only darkened and contrast enhanced (which is acceptable) but checkerboard patterns of digital noise evidently had been added to the image. Is this noise is his evidence of “artificial structure?” The image had also been softened to make the digital noise pattern look “photographic.” Where the NASA image had regular blocky pixels, the Hoagland image was smooth and contained much more detail. Just to be sure, I also checked the tiff in case this was a compression artifact—it isn’t. No, NASA didn’t switch the tiff, I used the one I had downloaded when it was first posted on the web. If this isn’t outright fraud and disinformation, I don’t know what is. What is this all about? I wonder if someone is behind Bell, “Kent” and Hoagland pulling the strings, or is this their idea of a joke? I thought that Hoagland could continue to make his points and rake in the bucks by exploiting what’s really on the images, which are far more interesting to me than his “fictions.” And why ignore the row of oblong dots? Pretty mysterious, eh? Perhaps I’m wrong, maybe “Kent” gave Richard Hoagland some of those better pictures that he said