In my article "Mars Global Surveyor Priorities" in this Newsletter, I made the following call for communication between Mars anomaly researchers and NASA:
NASA and the Mars Global Surveyor Camera Principal investigator should engage the legitimate investigators in intelligent dialogue intended to resolve misconceptions, and revise priorities upward based on a reconsideration of the research.
Now a disturbing new development, described below, vividly illustrates the depth of misunderstanding that exists and highlights the necessity for meaningful communication.
One of the problems for skeptics regarding the Martian anomalies is that with careful enhancement the "Face on Mars" shows elements of detail that tend to support the thesis that the Face may be an artificial construct. None of the independent researchers has maintained that these details "prove" the Face is artificial; but the presence of certain details makes it more difficult to view the Face as an accident of nature. The apparent "pupil" in the eyesocket of the Face, discovered by researcher Vincent DiPietro, is one such detail (McDaniel 1993, p. 56; DiPietro et. al. 1988, pp. 86-87). [1] Another very impressive detail in the Face is the presence of what appear to be "teeth" inside the partly open "mouth."
Both the eye "pupil" and the "teeth" have been determined to be real features: they are much larger than individual pixel errors, they appear in both Viking frames, and they have been replicated by more than one image-processing specialist. See Figs. 1 & 2 below. (These images should be viewed using your best available resolution.)
A note of caution: The images supplied here are primarily for the purpose of identifying the location of the "teeth" feature. The details may or may not appear as clearly on your monitor as they do in high-quality photographic reproductions (depending on your hardware and software). For quality reproductions see The Martian Enigmas by Dr. Mark J. Carlotto.
Recently however the Camera Principal Investigator for the upcoming Mars Global Surveyor mission (Dr. Michael C. Malin), using deliberately induced enhancement errors, has produced some over-bright pixels located roughly on the right "cheek" of the Face (shadowed side as seen from above) and has erroneously implied that these are the "teeth" referred to by independent investigators since 1987. In a page on the World Wide Web, Dr. Malin incorrectly argues that the so-called "teeth" are simply a result of this type of inept processing. Vincent DiPietro, co-author of Unusual Mars Surface Features, communicated to me the following evaluation of Dr. Malin's "false teeth."
"I have just looked at the "teeth" in the mouth area on the right side of the Face image as pointed to by Dr. Malin's arrows. This is clearly an enhancement of one of the pixel "salt and pepper" errors, and not an enhancement of the teeth in the left side of the Face, which Dr. Carlotto and I talk about." [2]
Cartographer Erol Torun, whose analysis of the "D&M" pyramidal landform has been a landmark in the study of the Martian anomalies, gives the following perspective on Dr. Malin's procedure:
"It appears that Dr. Malin has deliberately increased image contrast to the point where pixel-to-pixel intensities would be artificially high, then has claimed these as "artifacts" that could be mistaken as "teeth." This, however, does not reflect the procedure used by Dr. Carlotto.
"The type of interpolation that Dr. Carlotto did averages the values of surrounding pixels in the process of calculating the value of each new interpolated pixel. This decreases the visual impression of pixel-to-pixel variations, and also decreases the chance that such variations will be misinterpreted as ground detail. This interpolation is often desirable in "noisy" imaging systems like Viking's.
"A smoothing filter will also reduce these pixel-to-pixel variations, but will usually produce a loss of some fine structural detail. Interpolation to a larger number of pixels is the best alternative, and it is the one that Dr. Carlotto illustrates on p.14-15 of The Martian Enigmas."
In Unusual Mars Surface Features (DiPietro, Molenaar, Brandenburg 1982, 1988) there is a detailed description of the image processing techniques used to study the Face. The same is true of Dr. Carlotto's The Martian Enigmas. The idea that these careful and skilled researchers first produced "noisy", poor-quality enhancements and then mistook overenhanced pixel errors for "teeth" is simply contrary to fact. Consider the following:
(In addition, an explanation of the processing techniques, along with images of both frames showing the "teeth" is available on Dr. Carlotto's World Wide Web Page.)
The fact that the "teeth" referred to by researchers are present in both frames 35A72 and 70A13 is sufficient to show that they are real features. Mr. Daniel Drasin, Photographic Consultant, states
"It's very important to point out that the face lies at a different angle to the pixel grid in each picture. All else being equal, this virtually eliminates the possibility that the same artifact could appear in the same place in both images. One cannot reasonably expect the same processing artifact to show up in both images -- least of all in the exact place, size, orientation, shape, etc., in which teeth would be expected to appear on a face."The "teeth" are also present throughout a wide variety of procedures, providing added confirmation that they are a real feature. In contrast, the bright pixels mistaken for the "teeth" by Dr. Malin are present in only one frame , must be brought out by one particular series of processing errors, and are not even in the right location.
It is difficult to understand the reason for this misidentification by Dr. Malin. He is after all a scientist whose position as the Mars Global Surveyor Camera Principal Investigator charges him with considerable public responsibility. How can he have made such an obvious mistake?
One possible reason could be Dr. Malin's apparent reliance on supermarket tabloids for information regarding the Face on Mars: In his various Web pages he frequently refers to tabloids rather than to the legitimate researchers. In fact, as far as I know he does not give his readers any clue as to who the independent Mars anomaly researchers may be, and seldom if ever speaks to the actual data they have uncovered. Is it possible that Dr. Malin has formed his entire opinion of the Mars anomaly question from an evidently frequent reading of supermarket tabloids?
This would seem unlikely, in view of the fact that as early as 1992 Dr. Malin had seen and commented on Dr. Carlotto's book The Martian Enigmas.[3] At that time he had full opportunity to acquaint himself with the image enhancement procedures used, as well as the location and appearance of the "teeth" feature.
An unsettling aspect of Dr. Malin's apparent mistake is that it is strikingly similar to several other events that might best be described as propaganda rather than scientific commentary. In Dr. Carl Sagan's article for Parade Magazine (June 1985) titled "The Man in the Moon," Dr. Sagan included a version of the Face in Viking Frame 70A13 which had been colorized so as to render the facial features less visible. He then used this doctored image as "evidence" that the Facial appearance is merely an illusion.[4]
In that same article, and frequently thereafter, Dr. Sagan pointed out a transmission error dot that he implied the researchers were mistaking for a "nostril." Actually the independent researchers investigating the Martian anomalies removed such errors prior to studying the objects.
The pattern of these moves is uncomfortably similar to Dr. Malin's mistaken analysis of the "teeth." An improperly processed image is presented as data and then used to discredit Mars anomaly research. Such a strategy takes advantage of the fact that the general public remains largely unaware of the work done by independent Mars anomaly investigators. (For a discussion of policy matters that may be relevant to this problematic situation, see the section "Questions of Credibility and Motivation" in the current excerpt from The McDaniel Report on "Watch this page..."
The ethics of scientific debate indicate, first of all, that one should identify those researchers with whom one takes issue. Dr. Malin does not name either Dr. Carlotto or DiPietro and Molenaar in his discussion of the "teeth." Instead he seems to think that this entire discussion is presented in the "supermarket tabloids" rather than in peer-reviewed scientific papers and technically oriented books. [5] Furthermore implying, as does Dr. Malin, that the primary platform of this controversy is the "supermarket tabloids" does nothing to help the public become aware of the legitimate research.
What Dr. Malin has done, whether intentionally or not, is to set up what is called a "straw man" argument -- a fallacious argument that addresses a misrepresentation of the view under discussion rather than the actual view.
Second, it is a scientific obligation to get the facts straight, and make the appropriate references to the literature. Dr. Malin, for example, should reference both Dr. Carlotto's book, pages 15-22, as well as Unusual Mars Surface Features by DiPietro, Molenaar, and Brandenburg, pages 90-91. He also should be cognizant of the careful descriptions of the enhancement procedures used, which are given in detail in both of these volumes and in Dr. Carlotto's paper "Digital Imagery Analysis of Unusual Martian Surface Features" in Applied Optics, Vol. 27 No. 10, 1988.
If he were to make these proper references to the literature, Dr. Malin would certainly never present his "false teeth" as though they are the actual features referred to when the "teeth" in the Face are under discussion. He also would never be inclined to present enhancement errors as the procedure used by these expert professionals. With fair recognition of the actual nature of the data that has led some researchers to postulate possible artificiality, some progress toward intelligent and productive discussion might be made.
Finally, Dr. Malin and NASA's planetary scientists need to recognize the integrity and expertise of researchers such as Dr. Carlotto and Vincent DiPietro. They might take a cue from a recent book by Dr. Carl Sagan, who in partially reversing his original antipathy has finally given credit to the independent investigators as having done meaningful research on the Mars Anomalies (see "Dr. Sagan's Big Surprise" in this Newsletter).
Certainly the public must be disturbed when the Principal Investigator for the Mars Global Surveyor Camera, who bears a heavy responsibility as the single individual upon whom the decision to obtain new high resolution images of the Cydonia features rests, presents himself to the international public as being apparently misinformed, as taking his data from supermarket tabloids, and as seeming to participate in a long-standing pattern of apparent misrepresentations by NASA. It is time that this impression be corrected.
In The McDaniel Report (page 49) I pointed out how Dr. Malin had apparently seriously misunderstood the nature of the fractal analysis performed by Dr. Carlotto. Perhaps it is now, with clear evidence at hand that Dr. Malin has misunderstood yet another key element of the research, that the public should demand proper communication between Dr. Malin, NASA, and the legitimate independent Mars anomaly researchers. If you are concerned about this issue, please write expressing your concern to Dr. Michael C. Malin, Malin Space Science Systems, PO Box 919148 San Diego CA 92101-0148. Dr. Malin's e-mail address is malin@esther.la.asu.edu.
FOOTNOTES
1. For text references, see the bibliography.
2. Personal conversation, July 3 1996. Mr. DiPietro has a 30 year background in image processing, is a co- developer of the Starburst Pixel Interleave technique for digital image enhancement, and has designed several electronic control devices used to produce film products from satellite image data.
3. Letter of March 19, 1992 from Dr. Michael Malin to Mr. Daniel Drasin, photographic consultant to the Independent Mars Investigation, in response to an inquiry by Mr. Drasin.
4. Details are given in The McDaniel Report, Chapter Eight.
5. See note 1.