The latest selections from the SPACE.com mailbag, about the Face on Mars and other subjects…

Pete Ford's opinion piece "Mars Face Breaks Under Questioning" sparked a storm of reader response. Here is Ford's response to a number of critical letters.

To the Editor:

David Livingston: First, I didn’t say that governments don’t try to cover things up. My point is that they are hopeless at keeping matters of public interest secret for very long. Second, as a skeptic I can say that I have an open mind. I’ve listened to the claims; I’ve looked at the evidence and found it wanting. I call it as I see it. Having an open mind doesn’t mean believing in something that has no supporting evidence.

Michael Musser: When I write a piece that I present as fact I do my best to be honest. Some people make money by presenting distorted data and unjustifiable conclusions and calling it "fact." I make no apology for denouncing such people. As for the Europa comparison, the point I was trying to make is that I don’t believe that NASA would hide the discovery of intelligent life on Mars to avoid global panic, because I don’t believe any such panic would occur. In hindsight, I agree that Europa was a bad example.

Lan Fleming: The NSSDC says that the Viking image was taken from a low angle, just before sunset. I believe them, not the Society for Planetary SETI Research (not to be confused with the SETI Institute). I also believe that NASA and JPL (the Jet Propulsion Laboratory) are pretty good at processing images; they’ve had plenty of practice. I’m sure that if they thought Mark Carlotto’s methods were valid, they would be using them.

Pete Ford
Texas

Yet the controversy rages on.

To the Editor:

In his recent article, Pete Ford pretends to destroy any possible arguments and logic behind the undeniably questionable existence of a human face on the surface of Mars. However, the questioning that Mr. Ford proposes in an effort to disqualify the existence of such phenomenon is -- for the most part -- also very questionable and unconvincing. Many of Mr. Ford's questions sound argumentative and are debatable by even those who don't take this matter seriously.

There is no doubt that the human face on Mars needs more exploration before we can even start to argue its authenticity as an item of extraterrestrial intelligence, but courtroom-type questioning is far from providing real scientific facts and it only prompts the impartial side to suspect there's just as much benefit for the skeptics as there is for the proponents in this so-called controversy.

We need to be there, at the foot of the alleged human face on Mars, before we can responsibly argue either way. But I couldn't agree more with Mr. Ford in that we have far more important issues back on Earth, and those issues involve millions of real human faces.

José Maguregui
 
 

To the Editor:

In all the storm of letters generated by the "Face on Mars" editorial, one point has not been brought up:

It makes absolutely no sense for NASA to be involved in a cover-up of the "truth" about a Mars face. I can think of no better way for NASA to force its budget requests through Congress than if there really were genuine evidence for alien artifacts on Mars. Can anyone seriously imagine NASA chief Dan Goldin not making the most of such a windfall to pressure Congress for funding and to drum up support among the U.S. public for space exploration?? Those who suggest an all-encompassing government conspiracy to keep the truth from the American public have a major misconception that "Government" is this monolithic entity that can act in lockstep, when really it's thousands of separate fiefdoms all struggling against the other for money (and therefore influence).

Have we learned nothing from Percival Lowell's canals on Mars? As with the canals, the Face is the product of intelligent life -- intelligent life here on Earth which insists on interpreting our world (and beyond) in terms of our human biases and interests. Mars, the real Mars, is exciting and interesting enough on its own terms, without inventing human-centered fantasies.

Keith Landa
Director of Academic Computing and Instructional Technology
Concordia College
Moorhead, Minnesota

And some earlier correspondents reenter the fray.

To the Editor:

As our previous letter to the editor was apparently the catalyst for Greg [sic] Ford's latest "hit piece" on the Face on Mars, we feel obligated to respond to his puzzling attempts at logic. Luckily, Mr. Ford's arguments are at best run-of-the-mill pseudo-skepticism, and they are easily handled by examining the facts.

For instance, it may come as a surprise to Mr. Ford that science requires gathering observational evidence and weighing theories against it, rather than dismissing evidence because it doesn't fit preconceptions. In this case, Mr. Ford claims to know the motivations of the Face builders. He feels justified in disregarding voluminous, often peer reviewed, fractal, statistical and photoclinometric evidence supporting artificiality at Cydonia -- all because he can't think of a reason why "his" aliens would bother.

Trouble with Mr. Ford's argument is that his aliens are in his head. And the only objective scientific evidence available points firmly in the direction of artificiality.

Like many pseudo-skeptics before him, Mr. Ford cheerfully plays the "trick of light and shadow" card, showing an alarming willingness to double as a pop psychologist. Never mind that NASA recanted on that explanation long ago (though it continued to use the excuse in letters to Congress -- a fact which should disturb even hard-core skeptics). Even Carl Sagan, surely an icon to aspiring sci-fi writer Mr. Ford, categorized JPL's initial trick of light statement as "an unfortunate dismissal."

Mr. Ford correctly points out that NASA has "no official opinion" on the possibility of artificiality at Cydonia, though he avoids the obvious question -- "Why not?" After all, isn't NASA's mandate to expand our knowledge of the universe? It's difficult to see how discovery of artifacts would not.

Other letters here effectively negate Mr. Ford's flawed arguments regarding lighting angles in Face images, so we see no need to address that issue. Suffice it to say that even a perfect face looks nothing like a face under many lighting conditions.

As far as NASA’s keeping the Face a secret? We agree, Mr. Ford. The space agency hasn’t been able to squelch the Cydonia issue, even after 25 years of trying. In fact, NASA has failed miserably in keeping the evidence for artificiality under wraps -- that’s why there’s so much of it. The only secret here is why so many otherwise intelligent people have failed to pay attention to the research. (We refer you again to the data: http://www.infosourceresearch.com/current/cydonia.html).

Predictably, Mr. Ford concludes his vapid article with a jab at "all those authors out there" making gobs of money off gullible folks who buy their books. Mr. Ford must be working on his first book, as he’s clearly not had to face the harsh reality of the publishing business, where fewer than 10 percent of all books ever break even, much less make millions. But, alas, reality does not currently seem to be on Ford’s agenda.

The point of this letter -- which will undoubtedly be characterized as whiny and deluded by those who "know better" -- is that any discussion of the possibility of artificiality at Cydonia must be confined to the available evidence. It is disturbing to us, who simply seek a fair hearing for the Artificiality Hypothesis in the "court of science," to see letters like Mr. Ford’s given prominence in media such as SPACE.com simply because they sound reasonable on a superficial level. Delving into the details of the Cydonia data reveals a far more complicated and intriguing story, one that we look forward to seeing told by an author who has done his research, without bias.

We certainly hope someone at SPACE.com is up to the task.

David Jinks, MBA
Dr. Paula Sommerville
Infosource Research
Olympia, Washington

And now, readers respond to Jeff Kanipe's writings on astrology.

To the Editor:

I enjoy SPACE.com for most of its coverage of science and astronomy. I am thankful for your introduction to Starry Night. After downloading and running the demo I immediately called in an order for the package.

Most of the information that you provide is entertaining and valuable to me, but I don't consider discussions of astrology to be something with which I want to waste my time. Why not discuss medieval alchemy? It is neither more nor less valid than astrology, but it is certainly more interesting.

Thank you.

W. Thomas Boussum
 
 

To the Editor:

In preparing his article, "Your Real Astrological Sign" I wonder if Jeff Kanipe asked any qualified astrologers about how astrologers deal with the precession of the equinoxes. His article shows remarkable ignorance of the topic, and repeats a common falsehood about astrologers that has been answered so many times there is really no excuse for this canard to keep waddling about.

The tropical astrologer who knows anything about his or her business understands that the zodiac of astrological signs is different from the zodiac of astronomical constellations. The astrological zodiac begins at the point of the vernal equinox and we call the following 30 degrees "Aries," knowing full well that it is mostly aligned with the astronomical constellation of Pisces.

When astrologers began constructing the system that has evolved into modern astrology the two zodiacs were indeed coincident. Experience and observation have shown us over the millennia that the "signs" we're dealing with, that is, the 30-degree arcs of celestial longitude are based on the equinoctial and solstice points. The stars that made such convenient markers thousands of years ago were only markers which have "drifted" in our geocentric perspective.

Contrary to Kanipe's bizarre assertion, the sun today is important for where it is today, not where it was over 2,000 years ago. It would be more accurate to say that to the modern astrologer, the location of Sirius, Aldebaran and Regulus are not so important as they were 2,000 years ago as we now have more sophisticated ways of measuring the motion of bodies within our own solar system.

Kanipe's misrepresentation of astrology makes a sham of science. Rather than critically investigating a question he just repeats a dogmatic falsehood. Whether his fault is arrogant ignorance or deliberate mendacity, it is a fault of astronomical proportions!

Jack Fertig
San Francisco CA

Readers respond to James Pinkerton's article "Cartoon Battle: Titan Versus Fantasia."

To the Editor:

I think [Pinkerton's article] is just a lot of "science saves the world" hogwash. Since when does humanity turn to science for inspiration? It doesn't. Humanity turns to its storytellers for inspiration. I think it can get that better from artists and musicians rather than scientists. When was the last time any of us have felt better about ourselves as a species from just exclusively reading "scientific" journals?

Pinkerton, don't try to place lofty significance on entertainment media products. It's a waste of your talents and web space. The children of today recognize cartoons for what they are, you have not.

Mark Edward Jones
Latrobe, PA
 


Take the latest SPACE.com poll .
     

To the Editor:

Sorry, but I have to strongly object to [Pinkerton's] commentary. While he has the right to question the ruthless tactics the Disney corporation tried to employ to remove the focus from the competition (which seem to have failed: the re-release of Fantasia 2000 didn't even make it into the top 10 grossing films list in its first weekend; Titan A.E. was number five), his comments that the Fantasia film is undermining the scientific worldview borders on paranoia.

James' comments remind me of the harsh attacks unleashed on the TV show The X Files by skeptics since its first episode. Like those attacks, what he seems to be saying is that writers should only create stories that match current scientific ideas (which, by the way, Titan A.E. violates in a big way at the end.) Though I have seen and read some wonderful works that follow this guideline, personally I feel that most fictional writers object to involuntarily working under such a straightjacket.

Mr. Pinkerton would be better off protesting the fact that unlike a large part of the world, most adult Americans still think of animation as being only suitable for "kiddie films." Trashing the intelligence of the people who created Fantasia 2000 will only look like a case of "sour grapes" to most people, especially from someone who has done work for the TV news division of the company that made Titan A.E.

Carl Sampson

And finally, for now, a response to Andrew Bridges' article "NASA's Newest 'Search for Life' Technology."

To the Editor:

I read your interesting story in SPACE.com, about developing really tiny sensors for use in planetary exploration. This is a fascinating concept, one that is well worth pursuing.

However, one aspect of the use of such small devices on Mars will need some special attention. This has to do with potential "forward contamination" of the planet.

In a letter that I wrote last August to NASA's planetary protection officer, I pointed out that as "landers" became smaller and smaller, NASA's existing policy regarding forward contamination of Mars would become difficult, if not impossible, to implement.

The current planetary protection policy on "lander" missions (except those carrying life-detection experiments) specifies "a biological surface burden to be 300 bacterial spores or less per square meter (1.2 square yards), and 3 by 10/5 total bacterial spores..."

Carrying this idea to the extreme, I pointed out that:

• To meet the "spores per square meter (yard)" requirement, a baseball-sized lander would be allowed to have only two spores on its surface.

• A golfball-sized lander would have to have less than a single spore.

• Even a single spore on the surface of a landed sphere of 2 centimeters (0.8 inches) diameter would greatly exceed the 300/m2 limit.

• And that a single spore on the surface of a landed sphere of 1-centimeter (0.4-inch) diameter would already have a surface burden of 3,175 spores/m2 !

And here, in your article, it seems that we are now contemplating launching "gumball"-size sensor systems to land on Mars!!

Harold P. Klein
Senior Research Scientist, SETI Institute
Former Director of Life Sciences, NASA-Ames Research Center
Viking Mission, Biology Team Leader

SPACE.com welcomes Letters to the Editor. Letters intended for publication should be under 250 words and may be edited for length and clarity.