The latest selections from the SPACE.com
mailbag…
Pete Ford's opinion
piece "Mars Face Breaks Under Questioning" argued against claims that the
Face on Mars is artificial. Readers respond.
To the Editor:
Regarding Peter Ford's article on the
Face on Mars, whether there's a bona fide conspiracy or not, NASA is certainly
guilty of superficiality and flippancy on this subject.
When the Face on Mars was first photographed
in 1976, Gerald Soffen, lead scientist on the Viking mission, claimed that
there was a "second picture" taken only a few hours later, which proved
the first was only a "trick of light and shadow." However, mission logs
show the probe wasn't in position to re-photograph Cydonia for another
month, and Soffen has since recanted his claim.
When Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) photographed
the Face in 1998, NASA incorrectly processed the image so that it showed
something resembling more a "cat box" than a Face. However, a few days
later, after public interest died down, NASA quietly released a correctly-processed
image -- which was so face-like, it includes new details such as an iris
and nostrils.
Yet there's no conspiracy here. Soffen's
dismissal and the MGS processing fiasco occurred because NASA scientists
get sloppy in their thinking because they desperately don't want to think
about the Face. They know that just entertaining the possibility that the
Face is artificial can be enough to ruin their careers under a constant
bombardment of ridicule. Mr. Ford is apparently one of the many "reputational
predators" waiting to attack any scientist who dares to leave the safety
of the herd mentality.
But real scientists don't dismiss anomalies
-- they investigate them. Hope they teach that in schools someday.
Joe Schembrie
The Cydonia Files
http://cybooks.com
| Letters |
| SPACE.com welcomes letters to the editor. |
Letters should be under 250 words and may be edited for length and clarity. |
For more feedback options, click here . |
 |
 |
 |  | More Stories |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|  | Related Links |
| |
|
| |
 |
To the Editor:
There is no "Face on Mars" controversy.
Subsequent flybys by more advanced satellites, with much higher resolution
cameras reveal this geological feature to be quite ordinary, with virtually
no special qualities. No reputable scientist gives this any thought. Only
pseudo-science lovers, cranks etc. support the wild "martian message" theories.
This topic should not even merit the time of day, let alone the expense
of website space. Of course, con-artists and hustlers continue to make
a profit publishing paperbacks filled with the drivel that drives these
conjectures. It is a testimony to the imagination of (Earth) human beings,
rather than evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence.
Tom Utterback
To the Editor:
Mr. Ford's comments about Cydonia on
Mars are evidence of his ignorance on the subject. Far more than the human
character of the face is involved, including complex geometry, which is
not typical of a natural formation. And as to a cover-up by NASA or others
in the government, these days in our government the truth is the exception,
not the norm. Where have you been for the past decade or more, Mr. Ford?
Ford is certainly welcome to his views, but to those that have knowledge
of the subject and an open mind, his comments are simply bunk and rubbish.
Too bad that is the editorial that SPACE.com chose to publish on
the subject.
David Livingston
To the Editor:
Regardless of what you call it, the
structure popularly known as the Face on Mars has one striking feature
that argues strongly in favor of its being "artificial", and that is symmetry.
Even under less-than-favorable lighting conditions, where the "facial"
features are less distinct, symmetry can still be observed. Any honest
geologist will admit that symmetry is rare, if not non-existent in natural
geologic formations. Meteor hits, floods, volcanism, earthquakes or other
natural forces will not result in the formation of deliberately symmetrical
structures such as the "Face" on Mars.
As for its being "constructed" on a
planet too far away to be seen without the aid of highly sophisticated
and/or powerful optical instruments, there is a reasonable body of evidence
that Mars' ancient orbit was much different than it is today. The basic
theory runs counter to the popular uniformitarian dogmas of today, but
can be supported by ancient records -- both secular and religious. Briefly,
Mars' ancient orbit was quite elliptical, and on the order of 720 days,
exactly twice that of the Earth's 360 days. The obvious synchronization
resulted in "near-miss" pass-bys of the two planets every 108 years, in
either the early spring (March 22-23) or the late fall (October 24-25).
These near flybys were certainly close
enough for the two planets to affect each others' orbits and surface geography
(quakes, etc), and may well have been close enough on occasion to actually
made the "face" visible to observers on the Earth's surface -- if it was
present at all during those times (approximately from the time of ancient
Egypt at least until 701 BC, when virtually all the calendars of the major
civilizations of the ancient world were corrected to an approximately 365-day
year, when the near pass-bys ceased and the two planets' orbits were finally
adjusted to very nearly their present conditions).
More information on this theory is
available in the book Catastrophism and The Old Testament, by Donald
W. Patten, published by the Pacific Meridian Publishing Co., 13540 Lake
City Way, NE, Seattle WA 98125.
Mike Johnston
To the Editor:
This opinion is in regards to Pete
Ford's article about the Face on Cydonia.
I'd have to agree with Mr. Ford for
the most part. Especially the part where he said "Could NASA, or any government
agency, keep information about intelligent extraterrestrial life a secret
for 24 years? I don't believe they could keep something like this quiet
for 24 hours." This is so true.
No government could hide proof of alien
existence. This is exactly why there is so much evidence around today.
The secrets they try to hide are leaking out all over the world. Not to
mention the whistle-blowers and very creditable eyewitness accounts. As
for Cydonia, who cares? Why don't we concentrate on the aliens who are
here on Earth, then we'll worry about Mars. Thanks!
Mike Evans
Take the latest SPACE.com
poll .
To the Editor:
I have been reading your website for
a while, and I found [Pete Ford's opinion piece] to be extremely ironic.
Here is a man, in the process of writing books to make money, denouncing
other authors. He bases his opinions on images of the "Face" that were
admitted to be altering by applying both high-pass and low-pass filters
on them, and then asks why people do not panic over life on Europa? Huh?
Even if his argument made an ounce of sense, I find it hard to connect
artifacts made by intelligent life on Mars with unintelligent life on Europa.
Intelligent life would mean a great deal to many people...but unintelligent
would mean…what? Something to biologists and genetic engineers for sure,
but if that life is patterned after our own (DNA/RNA) -- what would that
mean?
Maybe somebody could write an article
expounding that interesting angle. But with Mr. Ford's kind of logic, I
find it almost insulting to my profession that he is also a programmer.
I do not mind reading about people that want to denounce the 'Face', I
just would rather their arguments and their logic make sense, instead of
relying on intuitive leaps. Excepting, of course, future authors looking
for a place to advertise their books.
Michael Musser
Houston, Texas
To the Editor:
I do not subscribe to the theory that
the Face on Mars is artificial. I must admit that, at first, I didn't want
to read your article, because any press is good press to proponents of
artificial face conspiracy theories. Instead, I decided to keep an open
mind.
Only man would be arrogant enough to
think that some extraterrestrial species would create a monument to him.
Once you get past the image itself and begin to ask the hard questions
as your article does, it becomes more likely that it is a natural phenomenon.
Sometimes we just want to believe it so bad that we see what we want to,
and skip the obvious.
All things being equal, the simplest
explanation tends to be the right one. What's more likely: (1) Some alien
race on Mars had the technology to see man up-close without showing themselves;
erected or sculpted an enormous monument to the human species; then died
off or moved on to another planet. -OR- (2) It didn't happen at all. A
probe took a picture of martian terrain when the sun was about to set and
our imaginations ran wild.
Tony Schmitt
Pickerington, Ohio
To the Editor:
The June 13th article, "Mars Face Breaks
Under Questioning" was filled with factual errors and opinions disguised
as fact. First, it should be pointed out that the "Inca City" formation
is not in Cydonia as Mr. Ford asserts. Cydonia is at approximately 41 degrees
north latitude while the "Inca City" is near the Mars' south pole.
A second and more serious error was
Mr. Ford's claim that the Viking images of Cydonia were taken when the
sun was "very low in the martian sky" while the MGS (Mars Global Surveyor)
image was taken when the sun was about 25 degrees above the horizon." The
truth is that the second Viking image of the Face was taken when the sun
was at an elevation of 27 degrees -- roughly two degrees higher than its
position when the MGS took the image. Much, if not most, of the difference
in the appearance of the Face between the Viking images and the MGS image
is due to the difference of the sun's azimuth when the pictures were acquired,
not its elevation. The two Viking images were taken when the sun was to
the left and above the top of the "head" relative to the Face while the
MGS image was taken when the sun was almost directly below the "chin."
The illumination of the Face in the Viking images was therefore the kind
of illumination under which we usually view faces while the illumination
in the MGS image was more akin to someone holding a flashlight under his
chin to give his face an eerie and grotesque appearance.
Third, Mr. Ford implies that MGS took
more than one image of the Face by using the plural, "pictures." There
was only one MGS image of the Face, taken under extremely bad lighting
conditions. And that image was first released to the public by JPL in an
"enhancement" that was so improper that the Face appears to be a shallow
depression in the ground rather than the 400-meter (1,300-foot) high landform
that it is known to be. Mr. Ford provides a link to a Goddard website displaying
this improper enhancement, but of course, he makes no reference to Dr.
Mark Carlotto's website, which does provide a series of images describing
a correct enhancement process:
http://www.psrw.com/~markc/marshome.html
I find it very disappointing that news
sources such as SPACE.com, when publishing articles on the Face
controversy, seldom reference this information. It is even more disappointing
that NASA would publish what appears to be an intentionally falsified "enhancement"
of an image on what is supposed to be an educational website.
Mr. Ford claims that "these" MGS "pictures"
showed no resemblance to a face. Since he doesn't seem to know that there
was only one MGS picture of the "Face," it is difficult to tell if his
opinion is based on actually looking at the sole MGS image of it (properly
enhanced). But in any case that is only his opinion. As for myself, I immediately
identified the Face in the raw MGS image (not the poor JUL enhancement)
when I first saw it about an hour after NASA posted it on the internet
and before NASA had announced that the image had actually captured the
Face -- something that had by no means been certain beforehand. I was able
to identify the Face only because of what I perceived as the resemblance
to one of the landforms in the image to a face. Proper enhancements of
the Face have since then revealed additional features resembling those
of a face not visible in the old Viking images -- namely, a ridge running
down the center of the landform where a nose would be expected on a face
and ending with two depressions resembling nostrils, also correctly positioned
for a face.
Ford concludes his article by indiscriminately
attacking all Cydonia "enthusiasts" as ignorant. Given the numerous errors
in his article, however, it appears he should be more concerned with his
own deficit of knowledge.
Lan Fleming
Society for Planetary SETI Research
To the Editor:
Peter Ford's article on the Mars face
episode was on target. He asks all the right questions that the believers
ignore.
The authors of the Mars Face books
are hardly to be faulted. They are out to make a buck the American way.
Some of them may not even believe what they are writing.
My problem is with the gullibility
of the believers who eat up this stuff. Somewhere in life they have parked
their brains.
John Blanton
The North Texas Skeptics
http://www.ntskeptics.org
And finally, for now,
a reader responds to a recent SPACE.com
poll.
To the Editor:
Your poll left out the most obvious,
and I feel, correct, prediction for where we'll be in space in 30 years:
permanent lunar colony and planning the first manned mission to Mars.
Ian Randal Strock
Editor, Artemis Magazine
http://www.LRCPublications.com
SPACE.com welcomes Letters
to the Editor. Letters intended for publication should be under 250 words
and may be edited for length and clarity.
advertisement
