Encounters: The UFO Phenomenon, Exposed!/Encounters - The UFO Phenomenon, Exposed (1995).iso/misc2/misc124.txt

Text File | 1995-10-20 | 27KB | 571 lines

THE McDANIEL REPORT
by Stanley V. McDaniel
(C) 1993

1005 West College Avenue, #273
Santa Rosa, CA 95401.
USA.

*************************************************************

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

  A great scientific experiment came to a climactic and
frustrating end when, on 21st. August 1993, communication with
NASA's Mars Observer spacecraft was reported lost after its
successful completion of an eleven-month journey to the Red
Planet.(2) Just three days before it was to enter mars orbit, but
shortly after instructions for orbital insertion had been
uploaded, the spacecraft mysteriously failed to respond to
commands from the ground or to signal its presence to its
controllers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratories in Pasedena,
California. In the weeks following, repeated attempts to restore
communications have been made. As of this writing, all efforts
have failed.

  This apparent tragedy, ended the first mission to mars since
the Viking probes of 1976, is part of a much larger story - a
story of deception and scientific irresponsibility designed to
suppress or prevent what might be one of the greatest scientific
discoveries in all of human history. With a replacement mission
in the planning, a very real possibility exists that the scenario
that dominated the Mars Observer mission may be repeated. This
report chronicles the ongoing picture of scientific, ethical and
political concern within which the Mars Observer mission took
place, in the hop that the mistakes and distortions that plagued
that mission will not be repeated.

THE MARS OBSERVER SPACECRAFT

  The Mars Observer, launched 25th. September 1992, was the first
of an "Observer series" of missions for planetary exploration.
The principal objective of the mission was to gather information
on the geology and climate of mars (3). Mars Observer was
scheduled to reach its destination in August 1993 and begin its
"mapping phase" by November 1993. The mapping phase was to last
for one Martian year, or 687 days (4). During this phase the Mars
Observer camera would relay low resolution photographs of the
entire planet daily. It would take moderate-resolution
photographs (size of smallest visible object 300 metres) and
high-resolution photographs (size of smallest visible objects 11
and 1.4 metres) for the purpose of securing geological and albedo
(reflectivity) information on targeted areas of interest (5). The
Mars Observer was reported "lost" by NASA on 21st. August 1993,
shortly after instructions for orbital insertion had been sent to
the spacecraft. At this writing, communication with the
spacecraft has not been reestablished, and NASA is still
attempting to overcome the problem. It is not known whether the
Mars Observer has gone into orbit around Mars or has passed the
planet and entered a solar orbit (6).


THE AOC HYPOTHESIS

  During the 1976 Viking mission to Mars, photographs of the
planet were obtained at a 50 metre resolution (7). The seventeen
years since then independent research groups have engaged in an
exhaustive study of certain unusual surface features revealed in
the Viking images, most of which are located in an area of Mars
known as the Cydonia Plain (8). All the independent researchers
have concluded that the data supports the possibility that some
features at Cydonia may be the ruins of intelligently designed
structures. I will refer to the hypothesis that the Cydonia
features may be of artificial origin as the AOC hypothesis
(Artificial Origin at Cydonia).

  The AOC hypothesis does not claim that there is PROOF of
artificial features on Mars; it claims that the probability of
there being artificial features is strong enough to make new
high-resolution photographs a top priority for any future mission
to the planet - including the Mars Observer mission, should
communications with that spacecraft be restored(9).

  Some of the researchers have gone further in their hypotheses
regarding the Martian objects, and others have not. The present
discussion is not intended to support or deny any features of
these extended hypotheses (10). The immediate purpose of this
paper is to determine and evaluate the relationship between
evidence supporting the AOC hypothesis and NASA's policy on
setting priority levels for targeting the Cydonian features for
observation, as well as NASA's policies regarding public access
to any such data once it has been obtained (11). The long term
purpose is to illustrate the political, ethical and scientific
tension that arises when the potential of a discovery that could
cause a major shift in our understanding of ourselves and our
history comes up against the biases of individual scientists and
the interests of a government bureaucracy.

PRIORITY LEVELS

  This report has been prompted in part by a document distributed
by NASA titled "Information on NASA Re-photographing the Cydonia
Region of Mars" and letters written in January and October 1992
by Dr Michael Malin, NASA Mars Observer Camera Principal
Investigator, and Mark A. Pine, Chief of the Policy and Plans
Branch of the NASA Office of Space Science and Applications
(references 8, 9 and 11).

Dr. Malin's letter indicates that the Cydonia region of Mars
where the AOC landforms are located, was targeted for
high-resolution photography as part of a general plan to secure
images of scientifically interesting natural geological
formations. However, the AOC hypothesis played no significant
role in the prioritizing of NASA objectives. This position is
reiterated in the letter from Mark A. Pine and in other NASA
documents: "NASA has no plans to treat images of the Cydonia
region any differently than those of the other regions of the
Martian surface (13)." While the region in general may be
targeted, this does not guarantee any special effort to image the
AOC landforms. Careful analysis of NASA priorities as embodied in
the Mars Observer mission indicates that in all probability they
would not be included.

TECHNICAL UNCERTAINTIES

  Both Dr Malin and Mr Pine were also careful to stress that
because of the technical uncertainties no guarantees could be
made regarding photographs of any specific features. Yet plans
were under way to photograph other specific features than the AOC
landforms, and in these cases, instead of emphasizing technical
uncertainties, discussion of ways and means of accomplishing this
took place. The special emphasis given to the possibility of
difficulties in the particular case of the AOC landforms has a
clearer rationale as part of a general pattern of discouraging
interest in those particular landforms.


RESTRICTION OF INFORMATION

  As the Mars Observer mission proceeded, considerable furore
arose in connection with NASA's policy for data release. NASA
announced that in the case of the Mars Observer mission, unlike
previous missions, there would be "No immediate transmission of
photography to the public". Data may be withheld from the public
for as long as six months solely at the discretion of the
"Principal Investigators" holding private contracts with NASA
(reference 9). As of June 1993 there were indications that NASA,
under considerable public pressure to modify this policy, was
considering easing the restriction  (see chapter nine), However,
hopes for this were dashed when NASA announced that only
"selected" imaged were to be made available for viewing at two or
three sites around the country with no release to the general
public via NASA Select-TV. There was no guarantee that these
images would include the AOC landforms (13). To see the images, a
person would have to travel to Pasadena, Washington or Houston
and then sit watching a special screen for hours or days with no
assurance that the AOC objects would be imaged at all - or, if
imaged, "selected" for viewing. NASA was apparently trying to
create the impression of a more liberal policy on data release
without actually making any significant change. In later chapters
of this report, MASA's policy on data release will be discussed
in detail. The summary conclusion is that for the Mars Observer
mission, NASA introduced a severe restriction on data release,
providing a new potential for censorship, under the cover of a
technicality.

  Since 1979, a number of highly qualified independent
investigators have engaged in an extensive analysis of
photographs taken by the 1976 Viking Mars mission. These
photographs appear to be evidence that some landforms in the
Martian region called Cydonia may be artificial.

  A comprehensive independent analysis of the data supporting
this hypothesis, using established criteria for scientific
methodology, shows that the method of research pursued by by the
independent investigators are basically sound. There is a
reasonable doubt as to the natural origin of the Cydonian
objects. Reputable scientists in several fields, including
physics, astronomy, and geology, have expressed their confidence
in the overall integrity of this report and have called for
further investigations of these landforms by NASA (1). However,
during the seventeen years since the controversial landforms were
discovered, NASA has maintained steadfastly there is "no credible
evidence" that any of the landforms may be artificial. A close
look at NASA's argumants reveals that NASA's "evaluation" has
consisted largely of initial impressions from unenhanced
photographs, heavily weighted by faulty reasoning, NASA has
failed to apply any special methods of analysis; it has relied
upon flawed reports; it has failed to attempt verification of the
enhancements and measurements made by others; and it has focused
exclusively on inappropriate methodology which ignores the
importance of context. There remains no scientific basis for
NASA's position regarding the landforms.

  Finally, NASA has based its evaluation almost exclusively on
the alleged existence of disconfirming  photographs which it has
never identified, and has recently admitted it is unable to
identify.

  Instead of carrying out legitimate scientific enquiry , NASA
has regularly sent false and misleading statements regarding the
landforms to members of congress and their constituents. NASA has
condoned efforts to unfairly ridicule and discredit independent
researchers, and has insisted that there is a "scientific
consensus" that the landforms are natural- despite the fact that
the only real scientific study of the landforms indicates a clear
possibility that they are artificial.

  Of the various landforms investigated by the independent teams
and individuals, the one that began the research, referred to as
the "Face" because of its resemblance to the humanoid face, has
undergone one of the most exhaustive series of tests for the
evaluation of digital images originating from an interplanetary
probe available to scientists today. The data collected in the
course of these investigations appears to be highly reliable.


  The most advanced techniques of image enhancement,
photoclinometry and fractal analysis, confirmed by cross-checking
and thoroughly documented, have been used. The investigators are
acknowledged experts in their fields with strong academic and
professional qualifications. In every test, the data has been
consistently tilted in the direction of artificial, rather than
natural, origin. Moreover, the various test performed, including
anthropometric and aesthetic evaluation, have been mutually
cross-confirming.

  In September 1992 a new spacecraft - the Mars Observer - was
launched. Now reported lost, the Mars Observer carried a camera
capable of taking high-resolution photographs that would have
almost certainly settled the question of artificiality. But
NASA's position regarding the priority assigned to photographs of
the landforms has been throughout to resist any consideration of
their possible artificial origin. NASA's equivocol statements on
the issue of priorities indicated a clear likelihood that new
photographs of the suspect landforms could not be obtained, or
would not be released if they were obtained.

  If NASA's Mars Observer policy remains unchanged, future
missions to Mars will almost certainly not include meaningful
effort to settle the question of artificiality. NASA is in the
process of evaluating options for a new Mars launch as early as
October 1994. As of this writing, the selection of the spacecraft
and instrumentation to be used for a new launch is under way,
allowing the previous policy to dominate a new mission would
constitute a reprehensible abdication of a clear and compelling
social responsibility.

NASA'S POSSIBLE MOTIVATION

  In 1960, a report titled "Proposed studies on the implications
of peaceful space activities for human affairs" was delivered to
the chairman of NASA's Committee on Long-Range Studies. The
report was prepared under contract to NASA by the Brookings
Institute, Washington, DC. The report outlines the need to
investigate the possible social consequences of an
extraterrestrial discovery and to consider whether a discovery
should be "kept from the public" in order to avoid political
change and a possible "devastating" effect on scientists
themselves - due to the discovery that many of their own
cherished theories could be at risk.

  The concept of withholding information on a possible
extraterrestrial discovery conflicts with an understood NASA
policy to the effect that information on a verified discovery of
extraterrestrial intelligence should be shared promptly with all
humanity. A report on the cultural aspects of the search for
extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is presently being prepared
for publication by the NASA Ames Research Center. In this report,
the position that NASA would not withhold such data from the
public is said to be strongly supported.

  NASA's actual behaviour in the specific case of the Martian
objects, however, does not appear to be consistent with this
policy. NASA has regularly distributed documents containing false
or misleading statements about its evaluation of the Face to
members of Congress and to the public. The absence of legitimate
scientific evaluation of the landforms by NASA, its ignoring of
the relevant research, its apparently exaggerated warnings that
such photographs would be extremely difficult to obtain, the
possible sequestering of the data under the aegis of "private
contract", and the ambiguous language used by NASA officials to
generate a sense of complacency around the issue all support the
suspicion of a motivation contrary to the stated policy.


MISLEADING ASSURANCES

  When forwarded enquiries from constituents by United States
senators and representatives, NASA has provided answers which may
appear plausible to the uninformed, but which cannot withstand
even the slightest logical scrutiny. Among the various misleading
assurances given by NASA are those to do with NASA's own policy
for Mars Observer camera data release. On the first mission to
Mars in seventeen years, with growing public interest in the
artificiality hypothesis and NASA's vigorous resistance to that
hypothesis, NASA made a radical change in the way photographic
data from the spacecraft would be handled. Unlike previous
missions, there was to be no conveyance of camera data to the
public as soon as it was received and converted into viewable
images (what is often called "live" transmission). Instead images
from the Mars Observer camera would be under the exclusive
control of a private contractor for up to six months after
acquisition.

  This same private contractor has been given sole authority to
determine not only what images would be released and when, but
even "what objects would be photographed by the high-resolution
camera". That contractor, Dr Michael Malin, is an outspoken
opponent of the hypothesis of possible artificiality. Dr Malin's
arguments against the hypothesis of possible artificiality have
been uniformly fallacious. Thus the interests of the American
public in relation to Mars Observer camera data were effectively
turned over to the prejudiced decisions of a private individual.

  The credibility gap widened as NASA, using contractual
technicalities, insisted that it was treating Mars Observer
imaging data "no differently" than data from previous missions -
despite the fact the end result would have been radically
different as far as immediate public access and public
accountability were concerned. It is impossible, from a logical
standpoint, to see NASA's efforts to claim "no change in previous
policy" as anything but a transparent attempt at misdirection.

  In the face of growing public clamor, NASA also has begun to
make assurances that the "Cydonia region" where the landforms are
located was scheduled to be photographed by the high-resolution
camera. NASA clearly attempted to put the public at ease by
making it appear that the landforms would likely be photographed
because of NASA's general interest in the geology of the
"region". But the Cydonia region is a vast area, and
high-resolution photography would cover only a very small
percentage of that area. No special priority for the specific
landforms in question has ever been contemplated. Under the
standing policy, the likelihood is high that the landforms will
not be photographed, regardless of assurances about the "region".

  RECOMENDATIONS

  Given the importance of the subject and the urgent need to take
action, I have put forward the following recommendations. These
recommendations apply to the Mars Observer mission in the event
the spacecraft is recovered, and to any future missions,
including a mission specifically to replace the Mars Observer.

  * Assuming Mars Observer is not recovered, NASA will select a
spacecraft carrying instrumentation capable of achieving
high-resolution imaging of the Martian surface at least superior
to that of the Viking missions of 1976, and having the highest
degree of camera flexibility possible, including pointing
capability.

  * NASA and any private contractor who may be involved in
imaging, by agreement, will assign a level of priority to the
suspect landforms that will ensure the obtaining of
high-resolution photographs of these landforms, using all means
at their disposal, subject only to uncertainties beyond their
control. This priority level will be entered into the imaging
Target Data Base and taken into consideration in mission
sequencing. The stated purpose of taking such photographs will
include the possibility that they are of artificial origin.

  * The camera operator will plan for and initiate
high-resolution imaging sequences on "every occasion" (20 to 30)
times in the case of Mars Observer) during which the spacecraft
groundtrack is within the area from 8 - 10 degrees longitude,
such that the data strips include the area 40.4 to 41.2 degrees
latitude.

  * All imaging data gathered during camera passes over the area
specified above, will be placed in the category "news worthy" and
will not be subject to the propriety aspects of any principal
investigator's contract with NASA. This includes the raw data
prior to processing, but after the camera data has been separated
from that of other instrumentation.

 * The scientific community and the general public will be given
advance notice, within the constraints of predictability, as to
when each such pass will occur, in order to prepare to receive
the data.

  * The raw data for the specific area indicated above will be
released to scientists and to the public upon receipt at JPL with
no time delay.

  * Video image conversion of the data received in the same
passes will be released in a continuous stream to NASA Select-TV,
PBS and others who desire to receive it. NASA will be held
accountable for any inordinate delay between receipt of the raw
data and release of video imagery. No  delay should occur other
than the minimum time period necessary for computers to convert
the data to video form. NASA should provide in advance specific
technical details of what procedures are necessary for conversion
and how long they are likely to take.

  * Video image conversion of "all" high-resolution camera
activity, regardless of location on the planets surface, will be
released as a continuous stream to NASA Select-TV, PBS and others
who desire to receive it throughout the course of the mission.
Because of its extreme importance, this data release will take
precedence over regular NASA programing for as long as necessary
to achieve the goal of providing the public with open access to
the data that may settle the question of artificiality.

  * A blue-ribbon interdisciplinary panel of independent
scientists and lay persons should be appointed to enquire into
the circumstances surrounding NASA's questionable behavior in the
suspect landforms in particular, and NASA's concept of SETI
(Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) methodology with
respect to the solar system, particularly Mars and the Moon.
Among the panel's charges should be the undertaking of an
unbiased scientific evaluation of the data gathered by the
independent researchers to data, and an oversight committee to
monitor NASA's compliance with the additional recommendations set
forth below. As members of such an oversight committee,
independent researcher Vincent DiPietro, Dr Mark J. Carlotto, and
Richard C. Hoagland, representing the three main lines of
approach to the subject should be included.

FOOTNOTES

(1) Among them: Dr Robert M. Schoch, Associate Professor of
Science and Mathematics (Geology), Boston University; Dr Horace
Crater, Professor of Physics, University of Tennessee Space
Institute; Dr David Webb, Professor of Space Education, Research
and Technology at Embry-Riddle University, Daytona Beach,
Florida; Dr Thomas Van Flandern, former Head, Celestial Mechanics
Branch, US Naval Observatory; James Berkland, former Assistant
Professor of Geology, Appalachian State University; and L.J.
Angstrom, the great grandson of the famous physicist A.J.
Angstrom and Director of the prestigious Angstrom Foundation in
Stockholm, Sweden.

(2) Although the official decision that the craft was "lost" came
on Saturday evening, 21st August, announcement of the loss was
delayed until the morning of 22nd August.

(3) Reference 15, pages 489-90.

(4) Reference 15, page 523.

(5) Ibid, page 499.

(6) Information as of 22nd September 1993.

(7) 164 feet. The proper description is "50 metres/pixel" where a
pixel is the smallest bit if digital information in an image.

(8) See references 1-7.

(9) Reference 1, page 130; reference 2, page 30; reference 4,
page 4.

(10) The two main extended hypotheses have been put forward by
Richard C. Hoagland an the one hand, and the team of John E.
Brandenburg, Vincent DiPietro and Gregory Molenaar on the other.
Hoagland's view is that the Martian anomalies, if they tuen out
to be artificial, must be the work of an advanced non-indigenous
technological civilization which occupied mars for an
undetermined period of time. The Brandenburg, DiPietro and
Molenaar hypothesis, which they title "The Cydonian Hypothesis",
proposes that the anomalies were built by an indigenously evolved
race of humanoid Martains. See references 3 and 16.

(11) The Mars Observer spacecraft, launched September 1992,
carried the Mars Observer camera, a three component telescopic
imaging system designed for both high- and low-resolution
photography of Mars. For a detailed account of the spacecraft and
the camera, see references 14 and 15.

(12) Reference 11, page 4.

(13) See Chapter Nine, Part D, under "Data Release".

REFERENCES

1. DiPietro, Molenaar and Brandenburg, Unusual Mars Surface
Features, Mars Research, PO Box 284, Glen Dale, MD 20769, USA
1988 (4th ed).

2. Pozos, Randolfo R.,The Face on Mars: Evidence for a Lost
Civilisation?, Chicago Review Press, 814N. Franklin, Chicago, IL
60610, USA, 1986.

3. Hoagland, Richard C., The Monuments of Mars: A City on the
Edge of Forever, North Atlantic Books, 2800 Woolsey Street,
Berkley, CA 94705, USA, 1992 (2nd ed.).

4. Carlotto, Mark J., The Martian Enigmas: A Closer Look, North
Atlantic Books, 1991.

5. Torun, Erol, "The Geomorphology and geometry of the D&M
Pyramid", unpublished paper, available through Compuserve, ISSUES
Forum, section 10 under the file name payami.rsh.

6. Carlotto, Mark J., "Digital Imagery Analysis of Unusual
Martian Features", Applied Optics, vol. 27, no. 10, 1988.

7. Martian Horizons: The quarterly journal of The Mars Mission,
vol. 1, nos. 1,2,3, Mars Mission, 122 Dodd Street, Wechewken, NJ
07087, USA.

8. Letter of 2 January 1992 from Dr Michael Malin, Mars Observer
Mission Camera Principal Investigator, NASA, to Mark Archambault,
reproduced in "Martian Horizons", vol. 1,no. 3, and (in part) in
reference 3, page 386.

9. Letter of 23 October 1992, from Mark A. Pine, Chief, Policy &
Plans Branch, Office of Space Science and Applications, NASA, to
Mr. David Laverty.

10. "Technical Review of The Monuments of Mars", anonymous
memorandum included in a packet of materials sent to Mr. David
Laverty by Mark A. Pine, NASA, apparently representing and
official evaluation, prepared for NASA, of some of the claims
made in Richard C. Hoagland's book, "The monuments of Mars"
(reference 3).

11. Information on NASA re-photographing the Cydonia region of
Mars", anonymous document distributed by NASA's Office for
Legislative Affairs. This document was being distributed as late
as October 1992. About 3 1/2 pages in length, it contains no
identifying marks as to its author or date of preparation.

12. "Mars Observer Fact Sheet", distributed by NASA Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, CA 91109, dated May 1987.

13. O'Leary, Brian,, Exploring Inner and Outer Space, North
Atlantic Books, 1989.

14. Malin, Michael, G.E. Danielson et al., "Mars Observer
Camera", Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 97, no. E5, 25 May
1992, pages 7699-7718.

15. Journal of spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 28, no.5,
September-October 1991.

16. Brandenburg, Dipietro and Molenaar, The Cydonian Hypothesis",
Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 5, no. 1, pages 1-25
(1991).

**************************************************************

  I hope this information has been useful. If you can, see if you
can lay your hands the McDaniel Report, it makes very interesting
reading.

                              () ()
         KEEP THE INFO      \\(o o)//      FLOWING
--------------------------o00-=(_)=-00o---------------------------
                             R I C K



 ***  REGISTERED COPY OF AMIQWK 2.2  ***
-*-
 | AmiQWK 2.2 | Love is grand, but a divorce is fifty grand!

--
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: [e-mail]
======================================================================
Inquiries regarding ParaNet, or mail directed to Michael Corbin, should
be sent to: [e-mail].  Or you can phone voice at 303-429-2654/
Michael Corbin
Director
ParaNet Information Services