Artificial
Structures on Mars
National Press Club
2001 April 5 at 9:00 a.m.
Contents
Captions.................................................................................................. [below]
Appendix 1. Purpose of press
conference
Specific goals for new images to test artificiality
Appendix
3. Bio & Acknowledgments
Appendix
4. Peer-reviewed publications
Appendix
5. Contacts with NASA and Journals
Appendix
6. Evidence for Planetary Artifacts
Appendix
7. The Society for Planetary SETI Research (SPSR) 15
Appendix
8. Clarke Quotes about Life and Artifacts on Mars. 18
Captions
[Web copies of all images
shown here are available for downloading beginning April 5 at:
<http://metaresearch.org>. See link to Artificial Structures on Mars
on home page. Some features described here are not visible in the printed
images at this scale. Web images also make use of color to show keys for
original images, which are grayscale only. Larger and higher-resolution
monitors will bring out the most image details. All original Mars images are
from NASA/JPL Viking and Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft.
MGS images are courtesy of Malin Space Sciences Systems. Most of this press
release and miniatures of images 13-52 are published in the 2001 March 15 issue
of the Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 10, #1.]
· announce the finding of probable artifacts on Mars
· place the subject of planetary artifacts on the scientific table for proper debate
· re-open the journals to peer review for qualified papers in this subject area
· encourage the acquisition of new spacecraft images to test the artificiality hypothesis
Each of the following images in the Cydonia region of Mars, if taken by the MGS spacecraft during its remaining lifetime, has the potential to confirm or falsify the hypothesis of artifacts on Mars:
· East side of Cydonia Face – Imaging this with good lighting and viewing angle should determine if the secondary facial features, much like the primary ones, are symmetric on the two sides of the Face. In particular, an east-side “eyebrow”, “iris”, and “lips” are predicted to be present if the object is an artifact, and to be absent if it is of natural origin.
· Symbols – Imaging the “symbols” just east of the D&M pyramid at higher resolution should determine if the unresolved portions are also symbols, as predicted by an origin from a species with language; or are random markings, as predicted by the natural origin hypothesis.
· Scene hypothesis – When photographed at high resolution, the area just to the east and west of images M0401903.gif and M09-05394.gif at Cydonia, which overlap, should be contextually appropriate for the undersea/waterfall/land/sky scene apparently depicted in the two images cited. Specific shapes that contextually filled out this set of related artistic imagery would fulfill the predictions of the artifact hypothesis, whereas unrelated or random shapes would fulfill the predictions of the natural origin hypothesis.
· Artistic images – When color images are possible in a few years, colors should either be appropriate to the image (e.g., flesh tones, eye colors, etc.), with abrupt color changes at image borders, if the images are artifacts; or show no particular correspondence to the apparent images if they are natural.
· Other categories of imagery can be checked with ground truth.
· Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research, PO Box 3604, Sequim WA 98382-5040; phone 360/504-1169; email <tomvf@metaresearch.org>; short faxes 866/758-3792.]
·
Scientific:
·
Financial: Tim Seward, Chilefish
s.a.,
· Tom Van Flandern [Research astronomer; Ph.D. Yale 1969; founder, president, and research astronomer for Meta Research 1991-2001; research associate for Univ. of Maryland 1992-2000; contractor for Army Research Lab 1997-1998; visiting faculty for Univ. of South Florida 1981; astronomer for U.S. Naval Observatory 1963-1983; consultant for Jet Propulsion Lab 1971; see <http://metaresearch.org>, “Home” tab, “About Meta Research” sub-tab, link at bottom of page to <Tom Van Flandern> for biographical sketch and full résumé; address Meta Research, PO Box 3604, Sequim WA 98382-5040; phone 360/504-1169; email <tomvf@metaresearch.org>.]
· Arthur C. Clarke [first to draw our attention to images 20, 21, 32, 33, 40.]
· John Bejko [computer graphics specialist; image 28 plus artwork for images 38, 39, 41, 42, 43.]
·
Mark Kelly [computer graphics specialist for
Lighthouse Studios,
· Greg Orme [artwork for image 44.]
· Books by SPSR (Appendix 7) scientists containing material about possible artifacts on Mars:
o
DiPietro,
V., Molenaar, G. and
o McDaniel,
S.V. The McDaniel Report. North
Atlantic Books,
o Carlotto, M.J. The Martian Enigmas. Pp. 28, 43, 111 (North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, 2nd ed. 1997).
o McDaniel, S.V. and Paxson, M.R. The Case for the Face. (Adventures Unlimited Press, Kempton, 1998).
o Van Flandern, T. Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets. p. 346 (North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, 1993; see also chapter 24 of 2nd edition, 1999).
· Technical papers by SPSR scientists about possible artifacts on Mars:
o O’Leary, B.T. Analysis of images of the “Face” on Mars and possible intelligent origin. J.Brit.Interplan.Soc. 32, 203-208 (1990).
o Carlotto, M.J. and Stein, M.C. A Method for Searching for Artificial Objects on Planetary Surfaces. J.Brit.Interplan.Soc. 43, (May 1990).
o
DiPietro, V., Molenaar, G., and
o Van Flandern, T. New evidence of artificiality at Cydonia on Mars. MetaRes.Bull. 6, 1-15 (<http://metaresearch.org/>, “solar system” tab, “Cydonia” sub-tab, 1997).
o Carlotto, M.J. Evidence in support of the hypothesis that certain objects on Mars are artificial in origin, J.Sci.Expl. 11, 121-145 (1997).
o Crater H. W. and McDaniel S.V. Mound configurations on the Martian Cydonia plain. J.Sci.Expl. 13, 373-396 (1999).
o Carlotto, M., Crater, H., Erjavec, J., McDaniel, M. Response to Geomorphology of Selected Massifs on the Plains of Cydonia, Mars by David Pieri. J.Sci.Expl. 13, 413-420 (1999).
· SPSR (Appendix 7) brought preliminary evidence of artificiality in the Cydonia region of Mars to NASA in the fall of 1997. NASA weighed that and other considerations, and announced in March 1998 that the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft would take three high-resolution images of the Cydonia region. The first was taken of 1998 April 5, and included the “Face on Mars” object, which had attracted attention as early as 1976 during the two Viking spacecraft visits to Mars.
·
The April 5 image was processed by the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in
· Subsequent investigations by independent scientists, especially those affiliated with SPSR, turned up new findings about the “Face” object and nearby features:
o The JPL-released “Face” image bore little resemblance to the raw image data.
o After proper processing, the raw data looked like the 1976 Viking “Face” images.
o Scientific analysis of the “Face” turned up strong evidence of an artificial origin.
o Additional objects with artificial appearance were discovered nearby the “Face”.
o The JPL-released “Face” image acquired its natural appearance from the use of inappropriate image processing filters.
· SPSR and Meta Research approached NASA in 1999 about their findings. Without examining those findings, NASA responded that it was time to get the findings published in a peer-reviewed journal.
· Following NASA’s suggestion, the present authors wrote a new technical paper, “Evidence for planetary artifacts”, announcing strong evidence favoring artificiality in the “Face” and in other nearby anomalous features on Mars. We obtained preprint feedback from about two-dozen scientists in SPSR, Meta Research, and other organizations.
· The paper was submitted to Nature magazine for review and consideration for publication. It was rejected instantly without review. In a request for reconsideration, we learned that the magazine has a list of topics judged “not suitable for Nature”, and that the “Face on Mars” has been on that list since the 1998 JPL-released image appeared. Upon further inquiry about the type of evidence that would be required to return a subject on that list to “respectable science”, we were told that the risk to the reputation of a commercial publisher such as Nature was too high for evidence alone to change the status of such a subject. A group of “big name” scientists and their institutions would have to assume the risks involved in such a controversial action.
· We continued the research, added new evidence, new images, and the specifics on the JPL-released image, then submitted the paper to Science magazine, the other broad-impact, science-wide weekly. Science also rejected it immediately without review. Their form letter explained simply: “We select papers on the basis of, for example, discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals.” A request for reconsideration because our paper met those criteria rather well was rejected as “not competitive for our limited space”. Discussions with the rejecting editor made it clear that our paper had not been read even once before rejection.
· More specialized journals are inappropriate for such a cross-disciplinary paper of wide interest, and the slow process would not leave NASA enough time to rethink imaging priorities during this last year of the MGS spacecraft’s lifetime.
[See technical paper with above title by T. Van Flandern, M. Carlotto, H. Crater, J. Erjavec, L. Fleming, & J.P. Levasseur, enclosed in press kit.]
The Society for Planetary SETI Research (SPSR) is an organization of scientists and scholars from a variety of fields formed around their common interest in anomalies on planets and their satellites that may possibly originate as a result of intelligent activity. The focus of research is primarily the surfaces of Mars and the Moon as revealed by orbiter and lander investigation. Members donate their time to continue this research on a subject they consider to be of high interest and possible long-term importance, despite its unpopularity with mainstream science, lack of research funding, and difficulties in publishing papers on the subject.
SPSR is committed to keeping the Mars investigation in particular as much in the scientific mainstream as possible. To this end, members are encouraged to submit their papers to peer review within the group and for possible publication in appropriate peer-reviewed science journals.
Because SPSR members represent such a large diversity of interests, areas of expertise, and opinions, the organization as a whole does not generally endorse any particular conclusions drawn by its members, and no claim of endorsement by SPSR as an organization would be appropriate. Some of the position statements by individual members reflect this diversity of viewpoints.
Nevertheless a common statement of goals upon which we all agree is that anomalous features we have seen in certain images from Mars convince us that the issue of artificial structures on Mars should be openly debated in the scientific community, that the journals should be open to review of qualified technical papers on this subject matter, and that follow-up images to test the predictions of the hypotheses of natural versus artificial origin for these anomalous features should be a priority for the remaining lifetime of the MGS spacecraft.
The following SPSR members are listed with brief bios, email addresses and an individual position statement. This last would define the area of that researcher’s interests and/or expertise, and in some cases, the member’s own conclusions about the likelihood that some anomalous features on Mars may be artificial.
Position statements by members:
Dr. John Brandenburg, contact: <John.E.Brandenburg@aero.com>. Position statement: "The objects in Cydonia appear to be heavily eroded, which makes interpretation difficult, however, this erosion is consistent with the Cydonian Hypothesis, which dates them from a period of earthlike climate on Mars, and also similar to the condition of ancient earth archeology. In the Cydonian Hypothesis, published in 1990, it was predicted that , despite erosion , new details suggesting archeological origin would be found, if the objects were in fact archeological. As is discussed in the book Dead Mars Dying Earth, such new details are in fact apparent. Therefore, given the totality of new Mars data, the Cydonian Hypothesis has gained ground. More images should be taken by the MGS in Cydonia, while it can still take them. "
Horace W. Crater -
Lan Fleming, Computer Systems Specialist, subcontractor employee, Automation, Robotics, and Simulation Division, Johnson Space Center, Houston. Position statement: “In its forty years of existence, NASA to my knowledge has never allocated any resources to any methodical and scientific search for extraterrestrial intelligence on other planets of the solar system. Such searches could easily have been conducted as minor adjuncts to planetary missions without in any way interfering with primary mission goals. A low expectation of success does not, in my opinion, justify the active efforts of some scientists affiliated with NASA to discourage this line of research altogether.
“With NASA's recent announcement of the discovery of strong evidence for liquid water flows on the surface of Mars at present and for the existence of vast seas in the past, the possibility that intelligent life forms capable of creating artifacts such as the Face is greater now than it was at the time when the Viking spacecraft returned the first images, a time when Mars was generally regarded as a dry and long-dead planet. On that basis alone, the justification for a modest planetary SETI effort focused on Mars is also arguably greater, even if only marginally so.
“After meeting with senior members of the Society for Planetary SETI Research in 1997, Dr. Carl Pilcher, NASA's Director of Solar System Studies, agreed to just such a modest effort: the targeted observation by the Mars Global Surveyor of the ‘Face on Mars’ and other unusual objects on the plains of Cydonia in April 1998. The high-resolution image of the Face did in fact show details suggestive of an artificially modified landform that were not visible in the previous Viking Orbiter images of the 1970s. An even higher resolution image capturing only a small part of the landform was taken by the MGS spacecraft in June, 2000 and showed yet more such details that had not been clearly visible in the first MGS image -- namely, a raised structure suggestive of an iris within a well-delineated oval concavity suggestive of an eye that is in turn within a larger and shallower depression suggestive of an eye socket.
“Unfortunately, the release of the second image was made without any note in the news media. Media interest in a possible artificial origin of the Face had all but disappeared two years earlier when improper and highly misleading ‘enhancements’ of the first image were released by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory immediately after it was acquired. Few opportunities have been offered by the news media or by scientific publications for proponents of the artificiality hypothesis to explain the serious flaws in the officially released versions of the image or to present their case for the evidence in the images that they think supports the hypothesis. It is my hope that this gross imbalance will eventually be redressed.”
Peter Nerbun,
contact: <Peter3210@email.msn.com>. Position statement: "On
Arthur C. Clarke: “Many years ago, I wrote a tongue-in-cheek essay Report on Planet Three in which a Martian observer decided that Earth was unsuitable for life because of its high temperature and poisonous (yes, poisonous) oxygen atmosphere.
“The recent discovery of life in the most improbable places, especially far down inside the Earth's crust, has now convinced me that we have been equally short-sighted. Some of the amazing images from the Mars Surveyor, especially M0804688 [image 33], make me ninety-five percent sure that there are extensive areas of vegetation - or its equivalent - on Mars. I hope that these are being carefully monitored now to see if there are any changes. When I addressed the Explorers Club a few days ago, Dan Goldin was in the audience, and I hope he took my hints...
“And I'm still waiting for a good explanation of that colossal 'sandworm' at 27W, 39N (M0400291 [image 23]). Last week I showed it to Brian Herbert when he visited Colombo: maybe it will give him ideas for the next 'Dune' novel.
“As for the suggestion that there may be artefacts on Mars, I am very sceptical: the demolition of the infamous "Face" should be a warning to the over-credulous. Mother Nature is capable of the most amazing tricks - see for example the hill in Canada which is such a convincing likeness that it's been named after its obvious model - George Bernard Shaw. Nevertheless, such an investigation is fully justified, even if the chances of success are remote.” [emphasis added]
