The Question of Mission Difficulties
Information I have received indicates, however, that the priority ranking for the landforms is "somewhat higher than average" and that as far as their scientific interest goes they are of "moderate to low rank."[2] This is cause for concern. NASA has made clear repeatedly that the overriding priority for NASA missions is "scientific interest." Under that policy objects having only "moderate to low" scientific interest will not likely be given the level of priority necessary to ensure successful image acquisition.
In my book The McDaniel Report I contend that however unlikely it may seem, any reasonable possibility that some of these objects may be artificial raises the scientific ante to its maximum. No merely geological discovery can be compared in importance with the possible discovery of ruins of intelligently designed structures on another planet. By this criterion the debated landforms should command the highest possible priority.
It is therefore imperative that the question of priorities be reconsidered by NASA in the light of a more thorough understanding of the legitimate research that has been conducted to date.
Efforts to discredit the researchers have painted a distorted and at times even vicious picture. It is an extremely unfortunate fact that the Mars Global Surveyor Camera Principal Investigator (in whose hands rests the potential for new high-resolution images of the Cydonian features) has fallen into this same pattern. In his recent Web Page statements he has replicated virtually all of the propaganda techniques described below.
Typically all the researchers are treated as if they were a single group with a single set of "beliefs" rather than independent scientists who are willing to take a closer look at anomalous data. Those who are being ridiculed are seldom given even the professional courtesy of being identified by name. Instead they are condemned, as a group, by innuendo and misstatement.
Such critics imply that the researchers, as well as the interested general public, are subject to psychological aberrations such as a tendency to see "faces" everywhere (absurd "pop" psychology); that they publish in supermarket tabloids; that they all imagine they are viewing "messages from alien beings;" that they claim to have found "proof" the objects are artificial; that they wildly accuse NASA of a conspiracy; and that anyone bringing this topic to the public is exploiting the Viking images to run a lucrative "cottage industry" (most have spent their own funds with little likelihood of recouping).[3]
None of these bizarre allegations address the scientific issues that have been brought to the fore by independent researchers, or the issues for humanity that are at stake in this debate.
Another impression created by critics is that the researchers believe there is a NASA conspiracy to keep the truth about Cydonia from the public. Such a possibility has been suggested by very few. The majority of independent researchers have never espoused such a view. In The McDaniel Report I state "It is not my place to contend here that NASA is following a policy of withholding information...However, I find it extremely difficult to understand what policy does underlie NASA's perplexing behavior regarding the landforms."
In science those who propose a theory must demonstrate some rationale for that theory. Yet NASA scientists have never fulfilled their scientific obligation by specifying what objects, not shaped like a face, are alleged to be throwing the face-like shadows.
Actually there are two images taken at different lighting angles, both of which show the facial appearance. Critics have attempted to discount the difference in lighting angle (10 and 27 degrees) as insignificant. This is incorrect. In terms of shadow length the difference is considerable. The shadowing at 10 degrees is almost three times the length of the shadowing at 27 degrees (Report, page 35). This difference is sufficient to render cross-comparisons meaningful. It is more than enough to show that there are no strangely shaped protuberances casting an illusory "face" only at a given sun angle.
A technique called photoclinometry (known as "shape from shading" or SFS) can determine to a fair degree of accuracy whether the "trick of lighting" theory is correct. NASA scientists among many others have employed photoclinometry to analyze the morphology of impact craters and other geological features (see for example Malin & Danielson, 1983). Yet inexplicably, contrary to claims that NASA scientists had "studied" the object, this technique was never applied to the Face by NASA.
When state-of-the-art photoclinometry algorithms were applied by independent researcher Dr. Mark J. Carlotto the results came out against the "trick of lighting" theory. Cross-confirmation using both images make Carlotto's results highly reliable. A detailed technical account of Dr. Carlotto's results was published as early as 1988. Since then, other tests of the "trick of lighting" theory have taken place, including the careful, detailed construction of a three-dimensional scale model tested by duplicating the Viking frame lighting angles, and a geomorphological analysis of the Face. All these studies have concluded that the "trick of lighting" theory represents a physical impossibility.
There is, in other words, a reasonable degree of rational support for the view that the facial appearance is not an illusion of lighting. There is no rational support whatsoever for the theory that it is.
Nevertheless, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is still sending out information sheets claiming that the facial appearance is "a result of the illumination of the sun at the time the picture was taken." The JPL statement also implies that there exists only a single image, that the researchers as a group "believe" the objects are artificial, and that this "belief" is "odd." It goes on to make the false claim that "there is no evidence to support the contention of intelligent origin for this feature."
It is this sort of misstatement, as well as the evident irrationality of most of NASA's arguments (documented and analyzed in The McDaniel Report) that has given rise to questions regarding motivation and sincerity. In contrast The McDaniel Report lists some five or six crucial tests that have been applied by independent investigators to the "Face on Mars," any one of which could have had a negative outcome. Yet in no case did the tests produce negative results. Among these was the use by Dr. Carlotto of fractal analysis, a quantitative test which resulted in the Face and two other suspect objects sounding high-level "alarms" as possible artificials (Report, pp. 49-50).
The Face shows the highest probability of artificial origin, with a model fit error of 75 compared to the average of only 5 for all but about 1,000 out of the 1,200,000 pixels in the area image. The Face and the "Fort" are so few pixels in relation to the total that they appear to be located on the zero line at the top of the chart. If the chart were 91 feet long (vertically) the position of the Fort would be only about two inches from the top and the Face would be one-sixth of an inch from the top. Fractal analysis tests for artificiality by taking advantage of the fact that natural formations tend to be fractal in character, while artificial objects are typically non-fractal. [5]
In short, contrary to the ridicule they have unfairly received, highly qualified investigators often operating independently of one another have carefully analyzed the Viking data using state-of-the-art techniques, have published their data in peer-reviewed journals, and have concluded that some objects at Cydonia may possibly be artificial.
It is imperative for the public interest that those in charge of the Mars Global Surveyor camera priorities should have a full understanding of this core research and should give it adequate consideration when establishing priorities for camera activity during the forthcoming mission.Given this need, the present lack of meaningful communication between the legitimate investigators and key NASA scientists, heavily tainted by the atmosphere of ridicule that has been generated, is unfortunate and regrettable.
On the one hand, these explanations do the public a service by explaining that Mars reconnaissance is subject to a variety of possible difficulties. On the other hand, it is precisely because of these uncertainties that appropriate priorities must be assigned to ensure, as far as humanly possible, that the desired images will be obtained.
For the sake of those not familiar with the data, I will recall some of the considerations here (a full account is in The McDaniel Report, Chapter 2).
Planetwide dust storms are rare, and localized storms are usually concentrated in areas distant from Cydonia. The spacecraft will pass over the 57-km.-wide area multiple times at widely separated intervals during the course of the mission. Hence, there would appear to be very little chance of obscuring weather (if it occurs at all) persisting through all the passes over the region.
Uncertainty in the spacecraft's position does not appear to be a relevant factor. The Mars Surveyor Camera is a strip (not frame) camera. The camera is capable of imaging a strip 800 km. long at a high resolution of 12 meters/pixel. Compared to an 800 km. long strip, the downtrack length of the area in question is only about 16 kilometers, and uncertainty in the spacecraft's downtrack position seven days after a position check will be on the order of 120 km. This being the case, obtaining an 800 km. strip image that brackets the crucial 16 kilometers would not appear to pose a problem -- if appropriate priorities are assigned allowing the buffer to be cleared and camera activity initiated at the proper moment.
Inability to "point" the camera is also not a significant factor. The question is not one of precisely pinpointing specific objects. There are numerous objects of interest in the 57 km. wide area. The orbiter intends to map the Martian surface in overlapping strips ideally spaced at 2.4 km. Given appropriate priorities, a possible 23 strips across the area could be obtained. One or two of these strips could include the Face, but even should the Face be missed (unlikely) many objects of concern in the surrounding area would be imaged at a resolution at least four times better than that of the Viking frames.
The relatively small size of the objects (the Face is about two km. across) does not mean the camera cannot capture at least some of them with high resolution. To test the camera's ability to detect surface features the size of small vehicles, the camera operator plans to image the Viking landers, presently stranded on the surface of Mars. Various steps can be undertaken to ensure accuracy for this high priority project, including uplinking commands to the spacecraft in response to revised orbital information as that becomes available.
In the case of the Mars Observer mission and presumably for the Global Surveyor as well, it was expected that the camera operator would receive updated orbit information one to three days in advance for a high priority target (Report, pages 21-22). The downtrack error for a 3-day lag would be one or two kilometers, and, for a 1-day lag, only a few hundred meters. Thus given an equivalent priority the same could be accomplished for the Cydonian objects, which are larger and more numerous (and certainly far more important) than the Viking landers. But if the status quo remains, these objects will not be given an equivalent priority. Again the question becomes one of priorities rather than of technical capability.
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 legitimate research.
[2] Letter from Michael C. Malin, Mars Observer Camera Principal Investigator, to Mr. Lee Clinton, August 1, 1993.
[3] The most notorious of these attempts to discredit the research is the June 2, 1985 article in Parade Magazine titled "The Man in the Moon." Written by Dr. Carl Sagan, a member of the 1976 Viking Lander Imaging Team, this article featured a misleading false-color photograph (see The McDaniel Report, Chapter Eight).
[4] See The McDaniel Report, Chapter One, pages 10-14.
[5] Dr Michael C. Malin, the Mars Global Surveyor Camera Principal Investigator, has argued that the fractal method measures only "differences in texture." This incorrect interpretation indicates a misunderstanding of the technique. If Dr. Malin's interpretation were correct, multiple objects such as the crater ejecta blankets, which differ greatly in texture from the surrounding plain, would have set off non-fractal alarms. The chart shown would have had a very different character.