Astronomer Dr. Carl Sagan, author of the infamous "Man in the Moon" article in Parade Magazine [1], has recently published a new book in which some of the ridicule he previously heaped on the independent Mars researchers has been softened. In The Demon-Haunted World (Random House, NY, 1995), Sagan makes some startling changes in his previous unrelenting skepticism on this issue -- but he also repeats much of the propaganda and rhetoric he used in his 1985 diatribe.
That said, we find that Dr. Sagan's latest contribution to this debate suffers from strange ambiguities and misleading innuendos. For example, it is undoubtedly due to the careful work of image processing specialists Carlotto, DiPietro, and Molenaar that the "trick of lighting" argument has been finally laid to rest; yet when describing the Face, Sagan fails to recognize the evidence of detail and symmetry uncovered by these same researchers. Instead he chooses to perpetuate the claim that the object is only "half a face" and that it "looks natural."
This judgement ignores the unaccountable presence of a "pupil" in the left eye socket, apparent "teeth" in the mouth, the continuation of the mouth (at least partially) to the other side of the face, the second eye socket, and the symmetrical lines of the "headpiece" running parallel on both sides of the face. It also ignores the fact that an irremovable camera registration mark on the dark side of the face (in Frame 70A13) tends to distort the figure. Finally it has to be pointed out that even if the object were only "half a face" this does not prove that it is natural. The evident precision of detail and proportion on the most visible side of the Face is sufficient to establish the object as anomalous, even if the other side were so shadowed as to be unreadable.
Given that Dr. Sagan at last recognizes publicly the expertise and valuable work of the independent investigators (although he does not do them the courtesy of naming them), it is remarkable that in this latest essay he ignores the details and still clings to the old implication that the researchers have mistaken a data error dot for a "nostril." As pointed out in The McDaniel Report, none of the researchers (being professional image processing specialists) ever considered this dot to be a veridical piece of data. None of their image enhancements retain these transmission error "dots." Furthermore the "nostril dot" is only present in Viking frame 35A72 and does not appear in frame 70A13 -- a fact that Dr. Sagan omits to mention.
Overall Dr. Sagan attempts to paint a picture of the legitimate researchers as well-intentioned, but "perhaps" overly influenced by their emotions. This gambit is typical of Sagan's frequent role as "pop" psychologist. When it comes to scientists in the "mainstream" (presumably including himself), Sagan characterizes them favorably as "effervescent" and "uncontainable" as well as "collaborative," and "communicative;" but when describing those investigating the Mars Face he implies, none too subtly, that they are subject to psychological moods which distort their work.
Thus he characterizes their motivation as "hoping" for amazing revelations, as though there is something questionable about that -- but then reverses himself by granting that the motivation to discovery is "permitted" in science after all as long as you are careful in your work. Perhaps we are supposed to be grateful to Dr. Sagan for telling us what is permitted and not permitted in science and for allowing scientists the luxury of occasional excitement. But since he has already commended the investigators for the quality of their work, it is difficult to understand what Sagan is trying to convey here -- other than the clearly obvious fact that despite the condescending praise, he seeks to trivialize the investigation.
We are compelled to ask, which is the better science: non-investigation by supposedly calm and collected NASA officials, or the detailed and painstaking efforts of those few researchers whose excitement over a potential discovery has led them to push the frontier of planetary SETI forward after it has been virtually abandoned by NASA? Perhaps a bit more excitement over the possibility of discoveries beyond the dull litany of Martian geology might bring NASA back to a stronger sense of purpose and a closer communication with the taxpaying public.
Sagan's account of the "unfortunate" comment by a NASA official that the Face is a trick of lighting continues in the same vein of strange ambiguity. Thus although what Sagan says is actually a startling revelation about a major NASA error, he immediately trivializes the point by suggesting that it was merely this "mistake" that brought about the accusation, by some individuals, that NASA is engaging in a cover-up. Actually it was not that initial comment, but NASA's carrying forward of this mistake for almost 20 years, and purveying its faulty assessment to members of Congress as well as to the public while simultaneously ridiculing independent investigation and insisting that NASA scientists had "studied" the object, that led to the suspicion of misbehavior.
Then, suddenly, Dr. Sagan goes beyond the edge of credibility by alleging that some of the investigators (again not naming them, so he cannot technically be challenged) claim to have located a city on Mars replete with temples and fortifications. Here he plays the same game as that indulged in by the Mars Global Surveyor Camera Principal Investigator, by taking the identifying names coined early in the investigation for reference purposes as though the researchers intended them literally. No one, save perhaps in the tabloids (which do not represent the independent investigators), has ever suggested that the object called the "Fort," for example, is actually a fort -- much less to claim that there are "fortifications" lying about. And the idea that "temples" are claimed to exist seems to have sprung entirely from Dr. Sagan's imagination.
And then Dr. Sagan adds to the mix the fallacious argument that the Face cannot be artificial because, being humanoid in form, it would have to have been built by "humans," who unfortunately did not exist on the earth at the epoch when the Face may have been constructed. The possibility that other races might have humanoid form, or that our view of evolution and our own history may be incomplete, seems to elude him. In this he appears to miss the most salient point about the Face on Mars: that should it turn out to be artificial, the knowledge would shatter certain paradigms and perhaps add immeasurably to our understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe.
In short, Dr. Sagan's essay on the Face in The Demon-Haunted World simply repeats many of the same poorly researched facts and misleading innuendos we have seen many times before. Nevertheless, he concludes with two more surprises which should be taken into account by NASA and the Mars Global Surveyor Camera Principal Investigator:
