home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- 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
- ============================================================
-
-