SETTING MISSION PRIORITIES FOR NASA'S MARS OBSERVER
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Path: demon!news!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!rkrouse
From: rkrouse@netcom.com (Robert K. Rouse)
Subject: Mars Face info (L-O-N-G)
Message-ID: <rkrouseCCoH4I.GHv@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 13:50:41 GMT
Lines: 524
[ Article crossposted from alt.alien.visitors ]
[ Author was Ronald J. Logsdon ]
[ Posted on Wed, 1 Sep 1993 03:26:38 GMT ]
I came across this information and thought some on this news group would
like to see it. It is not form me so don't contact me about it!!!
Thanks,
Ronald J. Logsdon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===================================================
SETTING MISSION PRIORITIES FOR NASA'S MARS
OBSERVER
A failure of Executive, Congressional, and Scientific
Responsibility
Stanley V. McDaniel, Professor Emeritus and Former Chairman
Department of Philosophy, Sonoma State University
===================================================
NOTE: All material below is copyright 1993 by Stanley V.
McDaniel, and is excerpted from the report named above. These
excerpts, and only these excerpts, may be reproduced on computer
conferences for the purpose of informing the public regarding the
existence of the report and its general nature. When reproduced,
this material should be reproduced in its entirety.
Copies of the full report, which is a 180-page document including
diagrams and photographs, may be obtained from North Atlantic
Press, 2741 8th Street, Berkeley, CA 94710. All proceeds from the
sale of the report will go toward publication and distribution of
more copies. The cost is $20.00 plus 3.50 postage. California
residents add 1.65 sales tax.
===================================================
A. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE REPORT
Since 1979 various highly qualified independent investigators have
engaged in an extensive analysis of photographs taken by the 1976
Viking Mars mission. These photographs appear to support the
thesis that some landforms on the Martian surface may be artificial.
A detailed 180-page professional analysis of the independent
research, in this report, indicates that the research has been carried
out with a remarkably high degree of scientific integrity. Because of
the extraordinary importance of the issue, even a small degree of
doubt regarding the natural origin of these landforms must place
NASA under a profound and compelling obligation to assign a
high priority to obtaining new photographs of the controversial
landforms.
During the seventeen years since the controversial landforms were
discovered, NASA has maintained steadfastly that there is "no
credible evidence" that any of the landforms may be artificial.
NASA's priorities for photographing these landforms have therefore
not taken the possibility that they are artificial into account. A
detailed professional analysis of NASA's position is carried out in
this report, using accepted criteria from the fields of philosophy of
science, logic, theory of knowledge, and ethics. The report develops
strong, thoroughly documented evidence for the following:
a. NASA's evaluations appear to have consisted largely of initial
impressions from unenhanced photographs, heavily weighted by
repeated examples of faulty reasoning.
b. NASA has failed to apply any special methods of analysis as
called for by the nature of the data.
c. NASA has relied upon flawed reports.
d. NASA has failed to attempt verification of the enhancements and
measurements made by others.
e. NASA has focused exclusively on inappropriate methodology
which ignores the importance of context.
f. NASA has condoned efforts to ridicule and discredit the research
undertaken by independent investigators.
g. NASA has repeatedly sent documents to members of Congress
containing false or misleading statements regarding this matter.
h. NASA has based its evaluation on alleged disconfirming photo-
graphs which NASA has never shown to the public and which, in a
sudden reversal as of June 1993, NASA has now admitted it cannot
identify. The overwhelming evidence is that such photographs
never existed.
The Mars Observer spacecraft, "lost" just as it was about to enter
orbit around Mars, carried a camera capable of settling the question
posed by the independent research. But NASA's position regarding
the priority assigned to obtaining photographs was highly equivocal,
completely ignored the independent research, and left open a clear
possibility that the photographs might not have been obtained, or
might not have been released if they were obtained.
There is substantial evidence that brings NASA's credibility and
motivation regarding these objects into question. Because of the
position NASA had taken, a massive failure of NASA's public
responsibility was imminent. NASA may have been about to
commit one of the most egregious crimes against the ethics of
science in all of history. The apparent loss of the spacecraft, if
accidental, may have only delayed this potential crime.
The report concludes with a set of recommendations for executive
and Congressional action to intervene.
====================================================
B. EXCERPT FROM CHAPTER THREE,
"Evaluation of Independent Research Data: The Face"
E. Light and Shadow
NASA has dismissed the image of the Face in Viking Frame 35A72
as a "trick of light and shadow" created by the particular angle at
which the sun strikes a natural formation. NASA's previous claim
that there are photographs taken at different lighting angles in
which the Face "disappears" has lost all credibility (see Chapter
Two). The sole evidential basis for the "trick of light and shadow"
theory has been removed. The question now becomes: "If NASA
scientists were not looking at disconfirming photographs all these
years, what has been the basis for their adamantly-held theory that
the facial features are merely an illusion of lighting? The only other
evidence to which they might appeal is the two Viking frames
35A72 and 70A13. What do these two photographs reveal?
As the discussion in Section One explains, a second frame, 70A13,
was discovered by DiPietro after a search of NASA files. In this
frame the sun angle is 27 degrees, 17 degrees higher than the angle
in frame 35A72. To better appreciate the difference between a 10
degree sun angle and a 27 degree sun angle, imagine a hill 100 feet
high. At a sun angle of 27 degrees the shadow of the hill would be
196 feet long; but at 10 degrees the shadow would be almost three
times the length 567 feet. This is a significant difference, which is
quite visible when the shadows cast by the height of the Face upon
the surrounding plain are compared on the two frames.
Not only is the sun angle different, but so are other variables, such
as the spacecraft camera angle, the satellite altitude, and the orbital
inclination. But the facial features do not disappear. Instead,
additional detail is visible that reinforces the impression of a face.
Thus in the first and simplest test the data tends to support the face-
like appearance rather than falsify it; and NASA is left without the
evidence it needs to resurrect its argument that the Face is an
illusion of sun angle. But there is one more alternative: to specify in
detail what objects are throwing the temporary shadows. This
option also fails, as explained below.
1. The "Old Man of the Mountain."
NASA has attempted to equate the Face phenomenon with natural
features on Earth, like "The Old Man of the Mountain" in New
Hampshire, which presents a human-like profile when seen from a
particular vantage point. Actually it is a chance jumble of rocks.
The Face on Mars, however, is not seen in profile. It is a full frontal
view that does not disappear when illuminated over an angle range
of 10 to 27 degrees. If the Face were an illusion created by a
particular sun angle, the shadows creating the face-like features
would have to be cast by a random collection of ridges and knolls
of some particular shape. So a preliminary question is: What kind
of formation could throw just this variety of shadows at a 10
degree through 27 degree sun angle, but in its actual 3-dimensional
shape would have no significant resemblance to a face?
As far as I know, no one has ever attempted to answer this
question, and the probable reason they have not done so is that
even a cursory glance at the image of the Face in either of the two
existing frames makes it obvious that there is no such strange
agglomeration of projections, spikes, and ridges on the Face
throwing this particular complex of shadows. If there were, they
would give themselves away clearly in the photographs by their
highlighted sides. Unless the mixture of forms creating the alleged
illusion are specified, along with the manner in which they achieve
this, the "trick of lighting" explanation is simply ad hoc (introduced
as an arbitrary explanation with no specific proof).
A test of NASA's claim, then, would be to attempt construction of
an object that would duplicate the image of the Face over the 10 to
27 degree lighting angle, but is not shaped like a face. It does not
take much effort of imagination to see that such an object would be
most peculiar, probably a geological wonder. The features on the
Face are raised from the surrounding plain by nearly a quarter of a
mile, with nothing nearby that could throw shadows over the Face
to create the alleged illusion. All projections creating the facial
resemblance must be located together on top of the knob.
In this limited area there would have to be two almost identical
hills perfectly placed just above "eyebrow" level to throw the eye
shadows, a raised knoll situated properly between and below the
hills to create the nose shadow (but not shaped anything like a
nose), and an elongated razor-like ridge just below this knoll and
parallel to the eyebrow line to throw the mouth shadow, all sitting
on top of a singular mesa with a symmetrically rounded top which
happens to have parallel ridges, or indentations, throwing shadows
appearing to frame the face in the manner of a headpiece none of
which objects are really physically arranged in the pattern found on
a real face.
And now, add to the requirements that the shadows created by this
unbelievable mixture of invisible hills, knolls, and ridges must
continue to produce a face-like appearance through a 17 degree
shift of lighting angle, which would cause the shadows of
projections to be shortened by a factor of three. It would be
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish this by artifice;
how could natural forces create such a singular combination?
2. Shape from Shading.
Fortunately, it is not necessary to engage in guesswork on this point.
Techniques exist that are capable of estimating the shape of an
object from relative degrees of brightness and shadow in a
photograph. Such techniques are termed generally photoclinometry,
or alternatively "shape-from-shading." Originally created to assist in
analyzing the topography of the Moon, algorithms to accomplish
photoclinometry are successfully used in astrogeology and
computer-vision. Dr. Mark Carlotto states:
"A variety of shape-from-shading algorithms have been developed
in the astrogeology and computer vision communities and have
been successfully applied to images of arid areas on Earth, and of
the Moon, Mars, and most recently Venus."
The Viking Face images can be subjected to photoclinometric
techniques with a fairly high degree of reliability, especially in view
of the fact that photographs taken under different conditions are
available for analysis. Photoclinometric studies of the Viking images
have been carried out by Dr. Mark Carlotto, a recognized expert in
digital image processing. After generating the probable three-
dimensional shape of the face as indicated by Viking frame 35A72
(sun angle 10 degrees), Dr. Carlotto used computer techniques to
predict the appearance of the Face at a sun angle of 27 degrees.
The predicted image matches the actual features of Viking frame
70A13 (27 degrees). Dr Carlotto then reversed this process,
accurately predicting the appearance of 35A72 from the
photoclinometric analysis of 70A13. Thus the shape of the Face
derived from photoclinometry achieves the result asked for above,
that the facial features should remain consistent across the 10 to 27
degree range of sun angles.
In addition to this cross-verification, Dr. Carlotto also managed to
compare his results with an image of the Face from Viking frame
753A34. This is one of two frames showing the Face illuminated
from the opposite (east) side at an estimated sun angle of about 45
degrees. The distance of the craft from the object was about 5,500
miles, about five times as far away as it was when the other frames
were taken, so the resolution is much lower. But the computer-
generated image of the Face simulating the same (morning) sun
angle shows key similarities to the magnified Viking image. The
shadows of the nose, mouth, and chin, and the bright eyesockets
(illuminated in this frame from the right side and somewhat
beneath) are a clear match. Carlotto summarized the result of his
photoclinometric analysis as follows:
"Results from all three tests indicate that the computed surfaces are
accurate 3-D representations...The features are present in the
underlying topography and do seem to reflect recognizably facial
characteristics over a wide range of illumination conditions and
perspectives."
According to the photoclinometric analysis, the resemblance to a
Face over the sun angles of 10 to 27 degrees is produced by a
shallow sculptured shape, rather like a bas-relief, that has
symmetrically placed eye hollows, a mouth-like linear indentation at
the right location for the mouth, a slight but identifiable nasal
projection of the correct length and position, and a clearly
symmetrical headpiece. In the third dimension, height, the Face is
uniformly highest along the axis of lateral symmetry, that is, on the
line from the brow to the chin, as would be expected of a
humanoid face. The evidence indicates that it is this face-like shape
that produces the face-like shadows, not a jumble of randomly
placed projections.
Criticism by Mr. Q. In the anonymous "Technical Review"
distributed by NASA the unidentified author (henceforth called
"Mr. Q") argues that the Face is nothing more than a "trick of light
and shadow" by referring to Plate 26 in the book The Monuments
of Mars by Richard Hoagland. This plate presents twenty computer-
generated images of the Face simulating a wide range of sun angles
based upon Carlotto's earliest efforts (1987). Mr. Q points out,
correctly, that many of the images are not immediately recognizable
as face-like, especially if viewed in isolation. Then he takes this as
conclusive evidence that the Face is merely an ephemeral
phenomenon.
But a moment's reflection shows that this is a logical blunder. The
images on Hoagland's Plate 26 depict the way shadows do fall on a
face-like sculpture, when that sculpture is seen from different sun
angles. This is just how the images on plate 26 were derived. Each
image represents the way a 3-dimensional face *would* look when
illuminated from a particular angle. What is proven by Plate 26, if
anything, is that a face-like three-dimensional structure, when
illuminated from a variety of sun angles, will not always be clearly
recognizable as a face.
The fact that in certain cases the distinct facial characteristics are
distorted by the way the shadows fall is not proof that the object no
longer has the shape that it has: It is, rather, proof that at some
lighting angles the real shape of an object can be distorted. All of
us are familiar with the halloween trick of shining a flashlight in the
dark upward just under the chin, giving one's face a distorted and
frightening look. Changes in lighting angle can introduce distortion.
Thus the fact that only certain angles give a clear sense of the
underlying facial characteristics is not proof that the object has no
resemblance to a face. The case is just the reverse: What Mr. Q is
demanding as "proof" is in fact impossible, for he imagines wrongly
that if the Face is really a face, then all images of it, or most of
them, should look substantially the same throughout radical
changes in sun angle.
NASA's argument, in other words, has been faulty from the start.
NASA has insisted that if the object were seen at a different lighting
angle and the face-like character is absent, this would "prove" that
the object is not shaped like a face. But it would not necessarily do
so.
What would tend to prove that the object is not shaped like a face
is that photoclinometric analysis of the two primary existing images,
35A72 and 70A13, would turn up a form totally unlike a face; but
this experiment, never performed by NASA, has been undertaken
by Dr. Carlotto. The data show that the underlying general shape
of the object retains the primary facial characteristics visible in the
Viking images.
In my encounter with attitudes toward the Face over the course of
my research, I have found that skeptics among the lay public
generally accept the "trick of lighting" explanation without giving a
moment's thought to the issues raised here. For example, one
individual, debunking the Face on a computer forum, proclaimed
how easy it would be for a natural geological formation to create
the image of a face seen from the air: All that was needed, he said,
was a hill here, a valley there, and presto! you have a face.
Aside from the fact that no such formations are known to exist on
the Earth, the Moon, or Mars, it is plain that the individual referred
to above either had never seen the photographs of the Face, or had
never considered them thoughtfully. One would think, however,
that NASA scientists, being scientists, would have done so. Given
the analysis set forth here, NASA's purveying to the public and to
members of Congress the idea that the Face is an illusion of
lighting especially when the alleged disconfirming photographs do
not even exist can hardly be considered as anything other than an
act of gross scientific carelessness, or a propaganda trick intended to
take advantage of the ordinary person's ignorance of the images.
Neither of these scenarios does credit to NASA.
In the preceding discussion I have referred only to the "general
shape" of the object, because there are certain fine details of the
landform that yet have to be taken into account. For the moment, I
note for a second time that the Face has withstood a potentially
disconfirming test. Photoclinometric investigation of the feature
tends to support, rather than falsify, its apparent face-like
characteristics.
=====================================================
C. EXCERPTS FROM THE SUPPLEMENT to Chapter Two of
the Report. (Details on points discussed below are to be found in
later chapters of the report)
On May 18, 1990, a letter written by Martin P. Kress, NASA Acting
Assistant Administrator for Legislative Affairs, was sent to United
States Senator Alan Cranston in response to the Senator's letter on
behalf of a constituent. Similar letters have been sent by NASA to
members of the House and Senate as late as May 1993. In each
case the NASA letters were in response to inquiries on behalf of
constituents, to whom NASA sent the same material. The letters
contain the following paragraph:
"Planetary scientists who have studied the images of this 'face,' since
they were first returned by the Viking mission more than a decade
ago, have concluded that the 'face' is in fact a natural rock
formation produced by wind erosion on Mars. They have
concluded that the resemblance to a human face is due to the
particular lighting angle at which the images were taken. This
conclusion is supported by the fact that the 'face' disappears in
images of the same place taken at different lighting angles. Similar
geological formations with resemblances to human features have
long been known on Earth: the 'Old Man of the Mountains' at
Franconia, New Hampshire, is a well-known example."
The following points apply:
1. It is false that the Face "disappears" in "images taken at different
lighting angles." NASA's planetary scientists could not have studied
even one such image: besides the original frame, there is only a
single image of the Face having high enough resolution to
distinguish detail, and that frame (70A13) has been known since
1980 to confirm the facial features. Since 1987 it has been known
that photoclinometric studies indicate the object has the three-
dimensional shape of a sculptured face. NASA now has admitted,
by changing the wording of its documents as of June 1993, that it is
unable to identify any images in which the face "disappears." But
apparently NASA is not addressing the scientific problem this
creates for its evaluation of the Face, namely that the only existing
photographs of the Face contradict NASA's claim that the facial
appearance is merely the result of a particular lighting angle.
Regardless of whether there is or is not a photograph in which the
Face "disappears," the concept that the Face would be proven
illusory by finding a frame taken at a different lighting angle in
which the Face is not visible is incorrect. Even a clearly sculptured
face at some lighting angles may not be easily recognizable as a
face. A proper methodology would specify what objects, that are
not facial features, are supposed to be throwing the temporary
shadows that cause the allegedly fleeting illusion of a face. The
existing data does not support the idea that the facial features are a
trick of lighting, because there is no identifiable configuration of
non-facial features that can be pointed to as producing the alleged
illusion. To the contrary, the existing data supports the opposite
conclusion, as the photoclinometric analysis shows.
The "support" cited for NASA's conclusion that the Face is a trick
of lighting is the support offered by nonexistent frames. This leaves
open the question of what real support, if any, NASA has for its
conclusion. "The Missing Research" in section two of the report
lists eight procedures, all or most of which would need to be
carried out in order to make a thorough evaluation of the Face.
NASA does not appear to have carried out any of them. No written
report of a study by NASA planetary scientists exists. NASA official
Mark A. Pine notes the absence of references to the Face in the
reports of the Viking Orbiter Imaging Team. Donald Savage,
NASA Public Information Officer for the Mars Observer Mission,
admitted in August, 1993 that no formal study by NASA was ever
produced. Without a written, dated report with its authors
identified, specifying which Viking frames were studied, what
techniques were used, and how the conclusions were supported,
NASA's claim that images of the Face have been "studied" cannot
be taken seriously.
NASA states that "similar geological formations" have "long been
known on Earth." This is false. There are no similar geological
formations known to exist on the surface of the Earth. The Face on
Mars is a full-frontal, three-dimensional representation of a
humanoid face with a significant degree of symmetry and detail,
including aesthetic and anthropometric characteristics. This has
been confirmed by careful research. Short of the Mount Rushmore
monuments, which are artificial and much smaller, there is nothing
remotely resembling the Face on the Earth--or, for that matter, on
the Moon. A thorough discussion of the fallacy inherent in this
appeal to "The Old Man of the Mountains" will be found in
Section Three of the report. Finally, the geometric and geologically
anomalous context within which the Face resides effectively
excludes any attempt to characterize the Face as an isolated
geological oddity.
=====================================================
D. EXCERPTS FROM THE SUPPLEMENT to Chapter Nine of
the Report. (Details on points discussed below are to be found in
earlier chapters of the report)
Brief Summary of the Epistemology and Methodology of the
hypothesis that some objects on Mars may possibly be artificial
1. The Face: Photoclinometric analysis indicates that the Face
actually has the three-dimensional structure apparent on the
Viking frames. The Face is quantitatively unique within its
setting, with a fractal signature curve strongly indicating
possible artificial origin. Facial details difficult to explain from a
geomorphological standpoint are coherently related in terms of
possible artificiality. Application of a wide range of techniques
for analysis of the Face, both qualitative and quantitative, have
turned up mutually reinforcing results consistently supporting
the likelihood of artificiality. (See Section Three.)
2. The City: The prediction, based upon the possible artificiality
of the Face, that a cultural/symbolic context may be found in its
vicinity, has been tentatively satisfied. The area termed the
"City" includes the geomorphologically anomalous "Fort" and the
"City Square," which appears to be surrounded by geometrically
regular features arranged in a symmetrical pentagonal pattern.
Architectural analysis of the arrangements and shapes of objects
in this area indicates a rationale not likely to be found in
randomly selected geological features. The probable structure of
the D&M Pyramid and its geometrical relationships to the City
and other anomalous landforms nearby reinforce the presence of
a mathematically and symbolically meaningful context. (See
Section Four.)
3. The D&M Pyramid and Cydonia Complex: The Torun
reconstruction of the D&M Pyramid is mathematically unique in
its simultaneous generation of six interrelated mathematical
constants. It is inconceivable that such a unique figure could be
generated in advance and then arbitrarily applied to a randomly
selected mountain so that it would achieve a visibly close
cartographic "fit." This, plus the geomorphologically anomalous
character of the landform and its mathematical relationship to
measurements taken within the Cydonia Complex, places the
Pyramid high on the list of objects having a possible artificial
origin. Objects used in making measurements have not been
chosen arbitrarily: Methods used to include or discard geometric
measurements have been stringently controlled by redundancy,
difference-of-context, and alignment criteria. (See Chapters Five
and Six.)
4. The Cultural/Symbolic Context: There are at least two known
cultural/symbolic contexts that match the particular
configuration of mathematical constants inherent in the
geometric measurements of the Cydonia Complex. The
implication, derived from the symbolism of the longitudinal
relationship between Cydonia and Olympus Mons, that one of
these contexts (hyperdimensional topology) may be associated
with planetary dynamics appears to be partially satisfied by
existing planetary data gathered by NASA spacecraft and by the
interstellar astronomical data for Supernova 1987A. This
tentatively successful predictive aspect of the mathematical data
at Cydonia, while not decisive, adds further contextual support
to the AOC hypothesis. It also projects a set of astrophysical
predictions that are subject to empirical verification. (See
Section Seven.)
=================================================
Ronald J. Logsdon
--
============================================================
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't
make it drink"
Author unknown
============================================================
Robert K. Rouse rkrouse@netcom.com
============================================================
Path: demon!news!uunet!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!rkrouse
From: rkrouse@netcom.com (Robert K. Rouse)
Subject: Mars Face info (L-O-N-G)
Message-ID: <rkrouseCCoH4I.GHv@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 13:50:41 GMT
Lines: 524
[ Article crossposted from alt.alien.visitors ]
[ Author was Ronald J. Logsdon ]
[ Posted on Wed, 1 Sep 1993 03:26:38 GMT ]
I came across this information and thought some on this news group would
like to see it. It is not form me so don't contact me about it!!!
Thanks,
Ronald J. Logsdon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===================================================
SETTING MISSION PRIORITIES FOR NASA'S MARS
OBSERVER
A failure of Executive, Congressional, and Scientific
Responsibility
Stanley V. McDaniel, Professor Emeritus and Former Chairman
Department of Philosophy, Sonoma State University
===================================================
NOTE: All material below is copyright 1993 by Stanley V.
McDaniel, and is excerpted from the report named above. These
excerpts, and only these excerpts, may be reproduced on computer
conferences for the purpose of informing the public regarding the
existence of the report and its general nature. When reproduced,
this material should be reproduced in its entirety.
Copies of the full report, which is a 180-page document including
diagrams and photographs, may be obtained from North Atlantic
Press, 2741 8th Street, Berkeley, CA 94710. All proceeds from the
sale of the report will go toward publication and distribution of
more copies. The cost is $20.00 plus 3.50 postage. California
residents add 1.65 sales tax.
===================================================
A. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE REPORT
Since 1979 various highly qualified independent investigators have
engaged in an extensive analysis of photographs taken by the 1976
Viking Mars mission. These photographs appear to support the
thesis that some landforms on the Martian surface may be artificial.
A detailed 180-page professional analysis of the independent
research, in this report, indicates that the research has been carried
out with a remarkably high degree of scientific integrity. Because of
the extraordinary importance of the issue, even a small degree of
doubt regarding the natural origin of these landforms must place
NASA under a profound and compelling obligation to assign a
high priority to obtaining new photographs of the controversial
landforms.
During the seventeen years since the controversial landforms were
discovered, NASA has maintained steadfastly that there is "no
credible evidence" that any of the landforms may be artificial.
NASA's priorities for photographing these landforms have therefore
not taken the possibility that they are artificial into account. A
detailed professional analysis of NASA's position is carried out in
this report, using accepted criteria from the fields of philosophy of
science, logic, theory of knowledge, and ethics. The report develops
strong, thoroughly documented evidence for the following:
a. NASA's evaluations appear to have consisted largely of initial
impressions from unenhanced photographs, heavily weighted by
repeated examples of faulty reasoning.
b. NASA has failed to apply any special methods of analysis as
called for by the nature of the data.
c. NASA has relied upon flawed reports.
d. NASA has failed to attempt verification of the enhancements and
measurements made by others.
e. NASA has focused exclusively on inappropriate methodology
which ignores the importance of context.
f. NASA has condoned efforts to ridicule and discredit the research
undertaken by independent investigators.
g. NASA has repeatedly sent documents to members of Congress
containing false or misleading statements regarding this matter.
h. NASA has based its evaluation on alleged disconfirming photo-
graphs which NASA has never shown to the public and which, in a
sudden reversal as of June 1993, NASA has now admitted it cannot
identify. The overwhelming evidence is that such photographs
never existed.
The Mars Observer spacecraft, "lost" just as it was about to enter
orbit around Mars, carried a camera capable of settling the question
posed by the independent research. But NASA's position regarding
the priority assigned to obtaining photographs was highly equivocal,
completely ignored the independent research, and left open a clear
possibility that the photographs might not have been obtained, or
might not have been released if they were obtained.
There is substantial evidence that brings NASA's credibility and
motivation regarding these objects into question. Because of the
position NASA had taken, a massive failure of NASA's public
responsibility was imminent. NASA may have been about to
commit one of the most egregious crimes against the ethics of
science in all of history. The apparent loss of the spacecraft, if
accidental, may have only delayed this potential crime.
The report concludes with a set of recommendations for executive
and Congressional action to intervene.
====================================================
B. EXCERPT FROM CHAPTER THREE,
"Evaluation of Independent Research Data: The Face"
E. Light and Shadow
NASA has dismissed the image of the Face in Viking Frame 35A72
as a "trick of light and shadow" created by the particular angle at
which the sun strikes a natural formation. NASA's previous claim
that there are photographs taken at different lighting angles in
which the Face "disappears" has lost all credibility (see Chapter
Two). The sole evidential basis for the "trick of light and shadow"
theory has been removed. The question now becomes: "If NASA
scientists were not looking at disconfirming photographs all these
years, what has been the basis for their adamantly-held theory that
the facial features are merely an illusion of lighting? The only other
evidence to which they might appeal is the two Viking frames
35A72 and 70A13. What do these two photographs reveal?
As the discussion in Section One explains, a second frame, 70A13,
was discovered by DiPietro after a search of NASA files. In this
frame the sun angle is 27 degrees, 17 degrees higher than the angle
in frame 35A72. To better appreciate the difference between a 10
degree sun angle and a 27 degree sun angle, imagine a hill 100 feet
high. At a sun angle of 27 degrees the shadow of the hill would be
196 feet long; but at 10 degrees the shadow would be almost three
times the length 567 feet. This is a significant difference, which is
quite visible when the shadows cast by the height of the Face upon
the surrounding plain are compared on the two frames.
Not only is the sun angle different, but so are other variables, such
as the spacecraft camera angle, the satellite altitude, and the orbital
inclination. But the facial features do not disappear. Instead,
additional detail is visible that reinforces the impression of a face.
Thus in the first and simplest test the data tends to support the face-
like appearance rather than falsify it; and NASA is left without the
evidence it needs to resurrect its argument that the Face is an
illusion of sun angle. But there is one more alternative: to specify in
detail what objects are throwing the temporary shadows. This
option also fails, as explained below.
1. The "Old Man of the Mountain."
NASA has attempted to equate the Face phenomenon with natural
features on Earth, like "The Old Man of the Mountain" in New
Hampshire, which presents a human-like profile when seen from a
particular vantage point. Actually it is a chance jumble of rocks.
The Face on Mars, however, is not seen in profile. It is a full frontal
view that does not disappear when illuminated over an angle range
of 10 to 27 degrees. If the Face were an illusion created by a
particular sun angle, the shadows creating the face-like features
would have to be cast by a random collection of ridges and knolls
of some particular shape. So a preliminary question is: What kind
of formation could throw just this variety of shadows at a 10
degree through 27 degree sun angle, but in its actual 3-dimensional
shape would have no significant resemblance to a face?
As far as I know, no one has ever attempted to answer this
question, and the probable reason they have not done so is that
even a cursory glance at the image of the Face in either of the two
existing frames makes it obvious that there is no such strange
agglomeration of projections, spikes, and ridges on the Face
throwing this particular complex of shadows. If there were, they
would give themselves away clearly in the photographs by their
highlighted sides. Unless the mixture of forms creating the alleged
illusion are specified, along with the manner in which they achieve
this, the "trick of lighting" explanation is simply ad hoc (introduced
as an arbitrary explanation with no specific proof).
A test of NASA's claim, then, would be to attempt construction of
an object that would duplicate the image of the Face over the 10 to
27 degree lighting angle, but is not shaped like a face. It does not
take much effort of imagination to see that such an object would be
most peculiar, probably a geological wonder. The features on the
Face are raised from the surrounding plain by nearly a quarter of a
mile, with nothing nearby that could throw shadows over the Face
to create the alleged illusion. All projections creating the facial
resemblance must be located together on top of the knob.
In this limited area there would have to be two almost identical
hills perfectly placed just above "eyebrow" level to throw the eye
shadows, a raised knoll situated properly between and below the
hills to create the nose shadow (but not shaped anything like a
nose), and an elongated razor-like ridge just below this knoll and
parallel to the eyebrow line to throw the mouth shadow, all sitting
on top of a singular mesa with a symmetrically rounded top which
happens to have parallel ridges, or indentations, throwing shadows
appearing to frame the face in the manner of a headpiece none of
which objects are really physically arranged in the pattern found on
a real face.
And now, add to the requirements that the shadows created by this
unbelievable mixture of invisible hills, knolls, and ridges must
continue to produce a face-like appearance through a 17 degree
shift of lighting angle, which would cause the shadows of
projections to be shortened by a factor of three. It would be
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish this by artifice;
how could natural forces create such a singular combination?
2. Shape from Shading.
Fortunately, it is not necessary to engage in guesswork on this point.
Techniques exist that are capable of estimating the shape of an
object from relative degrees of brightness and shadow in a
photograph. Such techniques are termed generally photoclinometry,
or alternatively "shape-from-shading." Originally created to assist in
analyzing the topography of the Moon, algorithms to accomplish
photoclinometry are successfully used in astrogeology and
computer-vision. Dr. Mark Carlotto states:
"A variety of shape-from-shading algorithms have been developed
in the astrogeology and computer vision communities and have
been successfully applied to images of arid areas on Earth, and of
the Moon, Mars, and most recently Venus."
The Viking Face images can be subjected to photoclinometric
techniques with a fairly high degree of reliability, especially in view
of the fact that photographs taken under different conditions are
available for analysis. Photoclinometric studies of the Viking images
have been carried out by Dr. Mark Carlotto, a recognized expert in
digital image processing. After generating the probable three-
dimensional shape of the face as indicated by Viking frame 35A72
(sun angle 10 degrees), Dr. Carlotto used computer techniques to
predict the appearance of the Face at a sun angle of 27 degrees.
The predicted image matches the actual features of Viking frame
70A13 (27 degrees). Dr Carlotto then reversed this process,
accurately predicting the appearance of 35A72 from the
photoclinometric analysis of 70A13. Thus the shape of the Face
derived from photoclinometry achieves the result asked for above,
that the facial features should remain consistent across the 10 to 27
degree range of sun angles.
In addition to this cross-verification, Dr. Carlotto also managed to
compare his results with an image of the Face from Viking frame
753A34. This is one of two frames showing the Face illuminated
from the opposite (east) side at an estimated sun angle of about 45
degrees. The distance of the craft from the object was about 5,500
miles, about five times as far away as it was when the other frames
were taken, so the resolution is much lower. But the computer-
generated image of the Face simulating the same (morning) sun
angle shows key similarities to the magnified Viking image. The
shadows of the nose, mouth, and chin, and the bright eyesockets
(illuminated in this frame from the right side and somewhat
beneath) are a clear match. Carlotto summarized the result of his
photoclinometric analysis as follows:
"Results from all three tests indicate that the computed surfaces are
accurate 3-D representations...The features are present in the
underlying topography and do seem to reflect recognizably facial
characteristics over a wide range of illumination conditions and
perspectives."
According to the photoclinometric analysis, the resemblance to a
Face over the sun angles of 10 to 27 degrees is produced by a
shallow sculptured shape, rather like a bas-relief, that has
symmetrically placed eye hollows, a mouth-like linear indentation at
the right location for the mouth, a slight but identifiable nasal
projection of the correct length and position, and a clearly
symmetrical headpiece. In the third dimension, height, the Face is
uniformly highest along the axis of lateral symmetry, that is, on the
line from the brow to the chin, as would be expected of a
humanoid face. The evidence indicates that it is this face-like shape
that produces the face-like shadows, not a jumble of randomly
placed projections.
Criticism by Mr. Q. In the anonymous "Technical Review"
distributed by NASA the unidentified author (henceforth called
"Mr. Q") argues that the Face is nothing more than a "trick of light
and shadow" by referring to Plate 26 in the book The Monuments
of Mars by Richard Hoagland. This plate presents twenty computer-
generated images of the Face simulating a wide range of sun angles
based upon Carlotto's earliest efforts (1987). Mr. Q points out,
correctly, that many of the images are not immediately recognizable
as face-like, especially if viewed in isolation. Then he takes this as
conclusive evidence that the Face is merely an ephemeral
phenomenon.
But a moment's reflection shows that this is a logical blunder. The
images on Hoagland's Plate 26 depict the way shadows do fall on a
face-like sculpture, when that sculpture is seen from different sun
angles. This is just how the images on plate 26 were derived. Each
image represents the way a 3-dimensional face *would* look when
illuminated from a particular angle. What is proven by Plate 26, if
anything, is that a face-like three-dimensional structure, when
illuminated from a variety of sun angles, will not always be clearly
recognizable as a face.
The fact that in certain cases the distinct facial characteristics are
distorted by the way the shadows fall is not proof that the object no
longer has the shape that it has: It is, rather, proof that at some
lighting angles the real shape of an object can be distorted. All of
us are familiar with the halloween trick of shining a flashlight in the
dark upward just under the chin, giving one's face a distorted and
frightening look. Changes in lighting angle can introduce distortion.
Thus the fact that only certain angles give a clear sense of the
underlying facial characteristics is not proof that the object has no
resemblance to a face. The case is just the reverse: What Mr. Q is
demanding as "proof" is in fact impossible, for he imagines wrongly
that if the Face is really a face, then all images of it, or most of
them, should look substantially the same throughout radical
changes in sun angle.
NASA's argument, in other words, has been faulty from the start.
NASA has insisted that if the object were seen at a different lighting
angle and the face-like character is absent, this would "prove" that
the object is not shaped like a face. But it would not necessarily do
so.
What would tend to prove that the object is not shaped like a face
is that photoclinometric analysis of the two primary existing images,
35A72 and 70A13, would turn up a form totally unlike a face; but
this experiment, never performed by NASA, has been undertaken
by Dr. Carlotto. The data show that the underlying general shape
of the object retains the primary facial characteristics visible in the
Viking images.
In my encounter with attitudes toward the Face over the course of
my research, I have found that skeptics among the lay public
generally accept the "trick of lighting" explanation without giving a
moment's thought to the issues raised here. For example, one
individual, debunking the Face on a computer forum, proclaimed
how easy it would be for a natural geological formation to create
the image of a face seen from the air: All that was needed, he said,
was a hill here, a valley there, and presto! you have a face.
Aside from the fact that no such formations are known to exist on
the Earth, the Moon, or Mars, it is plain that the individual referred
to above either had never seen the photographs of the Face, or had
never considered them thoughtfully. One would think, however,
that NASA scientists, being scientists, would have done so. Given
the analysis set forth here, NASA's purveying to the public and to
members of Congress the idea that the Face is an illusion of
lighting especially when the alleged disconfirming photographs do
not even exist can hardly be considered as anything other than an
act of gross scientific carelessness, or a propaganda trick intended to
take advantage of the ordinary person's ignorance of the images.
Neither of these scenarios does credit to NASA.
In the preceding discussion I have referred only to the "general
shape" of the object, because there are certain fine details of the
landform that yet have to be taken into account. For the moment, I
note for a second time that the Face has withstood a potentially
disconfirming test. Photoclinometric investigation of the feature
tends to support, rather than falsify, its apparent face-like
characteristics.
=====================================================
C. EXCERPTS FROM THE SUPPLEMENT to Chapter Two of
the Report. (Details on points discussed below are to be found in
later chapters of the report)
On May 18, 1990, a letter written by Martin P. Kress, NASA Acting
Assistant Administrator for Legislative Affairs, was sent to United
States Senator Alan Cranston in response to the Senator's letter on
behalf of a constituent. Similar letters have been sent by NASA to
members of the House and Senate as late as May 1993. In each
case the NASA letters were in response to inquiries on behalf of
constituents, to whom NASA sent the same material. The letters
contain the following paragraph:
"Planetary scientists who have studied the images of this 'face,' since
they were first returned by the Viking mission more than a decade
ago, have concluded that the 'face' is in fact a natural rock
formation produced by wind erosion on Mars. They have
concluded that the resemblance to a human face is due to the
particular lighting angle at which the images were taken. This
conclusion is supported by the fact that the 'face' disappears in
images of the same place taken at different lighting angles. Similar
geological formations with resemblances to human features have
long been known on Earth: the 'Old Man of the Mountains' at
Franconia, New Hampshire, is a well-known example."
The following points apply:
1. It is false that the Face "disappears" in "images taken at different
lighting angles." NASA's planetary scientists could not have studied
even one such image: besides the original frame, there is only a
single image of the Face having high enough resolution to
distinguish detail, and that frame (70A13) has been known since
1980 to confirm the facial features. Since 1987 it has been known
that photoclinometric studies indicate the object has the three-
dimensional shape of a sculptured face. NASA now has admitted,
by changing the wording of its documents as of June 1993, that it is
unable to identify any images in which the face "disappears." But
apparently NASA is not addressing the scientific problem this
creates for its evaluation of the Face, namely that the only existing
photographs of the Face contradict NASA's claim that the facial
appearance is merely the result of a particular lighting angle.
Regardless of whether there is or is not a photograph in which the
Face "disappears," the concept that the Face would be proven
illusory by finding a frame taken at a different lighting angle in
which the Face is not visible is incorrect. Even a clearly sculptured
face at some lighting angles may not be easily recognizable as a
face. A proper methodology would specify what objects, that are
not facial features, are supposed to be throwing the temporary
shadows that cause the allegedly fleeting illusion of a face. The
existing data does not support the idea that the facial features are a
trick of lighting, because there is no identifiable configuration of
non-facial features that can be pointed to as producing the alleged
illusion. To the contrary, the existing data supports the opposite
conclusion, as the photoclinometric analysis shows.
The "support" cited for NASA's conclusion that the Face is a trick
of lighting is the support offered by nonexistent frames. This leaves
open the question of what real support, if any, NASA has for its
conclusion. "The Missing Research" in section two of the report
lists eight procedures, all or most of which would need to be
carried out in order to make a thorough evaluation of the Face.
NASA does not appear to have carried out any of them. No written
report of a study by NASA planetary scientists exists. NASA official
Mark A. Pine notes the absence of references to the Face in the
reports of the Viking Orbiter Imaging Team. Donald Savage,
NASA Public Information Officer for the Mars Observer Mission,
admitted in August, 1993 that no formal study by NASA was ever
produced. Without a written, dated report with its authors
identified, specifying which Viking frames were studied, what
techniques were used, and how the conclusions were supported,
NASA's claim that images of the Face have been "studied" cannot
be taken seriously.
NASA states that "similar geological formations" have "long been
known on Earth." This is false. There are no similar geological
formations known to exist on the surface of the Earth. The Face on
Mars is a full-frontal, three-dimensional representation of a
humanoid face with a significant degree of symmetry and detail,
including aesthetic and anthropometric characteristics. This has
been confirmed by careful research. Short of the Mount Rushmore
monuments, which are artificial and much smaller, there is nothing
remotely resembling the Face on the Earth--or, for that matter, on
the Moon. A thorough discussion of the fallacy inherent in this
appeal to "The Old Man of the Mountains" will be found in
Section Three of the report. Finally, the geometric and geologically
anomalous context within which the Face resides effectively
excludes any attempt to characterize the Face as an isolated
geological oddity.
=====================================================
D. EXCERPTS FROM THE SUPPLEMENT to Chapter Nine of
the Report. (Details on points discussed below are to be found in
earlier chapters of the report)
Brief Summary of the Epistemology and Methodology of the
hypothesis that some objects on Mars may possibly be artificial
1. The Face: Photoclinometric analysis indicates that the Face
actually has the three-dimensional structure apparent on the
Viking frames. The Face is quantitatively unique within its
setting, with a fractal signature curve strongly indicating
possible artificial origin. Facial details difficult to explain from a
geomorphological standpoint are coherently related in terms of
possible artificiality. Application of a wide range of techniques
for analysis of the Face, both qualitative and quantitative, have
turned up mutually reinforcing results consistently supporting
the likelihood of artificiality. (See Section Three.)
2. The City: The prediction, based upon the possible artificiality
of the Face, that a cultural/symbolic context may be found in its
vicinity, has been tentatively satisfied. The area termed the
"City" includes the geomorphologically anomalous "Fort" and the
"City Square," which appears to be surrounded by geometrically
regular features arranged in a symmetrical pentagonal pattern.
Architectural analysis of the arrangements and shapes of objects
in this area indicates a rationale not likely to be found in
randomly selected geological features. The probable structure of
the D&M Pyramid and its geometrical relationships to the City
and other anomalous landforms nearby reinforce the presence of
a mathematically and symbolically meaningful context. (See
Section Four.)
3. The D&M Pyramid and Cydonia Complex: The Torun
reconstruction of the D&M Pyramid is mathematically unique in
its simultaneous generation of six interrelated mathematical
constants. It is inconceivable that such a unique figure could be
generated in advance and then arbitrarily applied to a randomly
selected mountain so that it would achieve a visibly close
cartographic "fit." This, plus the geomorphologically anomalous
character of the landform and its mathematical relationship to
measurements taken within the Cydonia Complex, places the
Pyramid high on the list of objects having a possible artificial
origin. Objects used in making measurements have not been
chosen arbitrarily: Methods used to include or discard geometric
measurements have been stringently controlled by redundancy,
difference-of-context, and alignment criteria. (See Chapters Five
and Six.)
4. The Cultural/Symbolic Context: There are at least two known
cultural/symbolic contexts that match the particular
configuration of mathematical constants inherent in the
geometric measurements of the Cydonia Complex. The
implication, derived from the symbolism of the longitudinal
relationship between Cydonia and Olympus Mons, that one of
these contexts (hyperdimensional topology) may be associated
with planetary dynamics appears to be partially satisfied by
existing planetary data gathered by NASA spacecraft and by the
interstellar astronomical data for Supernova 1987A. This
tentatively successful predictive aspect of the mathematical data
at Cydonia, while not decisive, adds further contextual support
to the AOC hypothesis. It also projects a set of astrophysical
predictions that are subject to empirical verification. (See
Section Seven.)
=================================================
Ronald J. Logsdon
--
============================================================
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't
make it drink"
Author unknown
============================================================
Robert K. Rouse rkrouse@netcom.com
============================================================
Comments
Post a Comment