Continued
Continued
4-12-00
A Closer Look at the Tholus
This rotation by Mark Carlotto (below) offers the most impressive view yet of the "Tholus," one of the two primary anomalies targeted by the Mars Global Surveyor. Although it looks natural upon first glance, the Tholus possesses subtle detail that deserves close examination. Except for its "satellite" (not imaged by the MGS), the Tholus is the only large dome-like formation in the Cydonia region.
Animation courtesy Mark Carlotto
Compare the Tholus, above, to Silbury Hill, an artificial structure in Wiltshire, England.
From the Tholus' apex, our always-hypothetical Martians would have been offered a magnificent view of the "Cliff" to the north. If non-natural, a sound argument can be made for the Tholus once serving as some sort of "lookout point."
The "Cliff," a symmetrical formation directly above the Tholus.
Perhaps significantly, the Tholus's center is the vertice of a 19.5 degree angle, with lines extending through the center of the Cliff and a neighboring crater rim "pyramid." 19.5, a tetrahedral constant, is also embedded in the layout of the Cydonia Mounds. Cydonia's evident tetrahedral motif was first proposed by Richard Hoagland and later verified by Horace Crater and Stanley McDaniel, who outline their research and methodology in "The Case for the Face."
A manufactured opening on the Tholus' side or an eroded crater?
Before the Tholus was imaged by the MGS, Mark Carlotto hypothesized that the blemish evident in the Viking data might turn out to be an opening in the Tholus' side. This proposed "opening," visible in the above rotation, is apparently situated atop a faintly defined "corkscrew"-like ramp that appears to have been eroded into near-invisibility.
The Tholus as viewed by Viking and Mars Global Surveyor. These images have been scaled to size; compare small-scale features such as Carlotto's proposed "entrance" and subtle "groove" near apex. Animation courtesy Mark Carlotto.
Interestingly, Richard Hoagland has proposed that the Tholus' apex appears tetrahedral. Close-up views on his website support this claim to a point, although it's obvious that if the Tholus was once crowned with a pyramidal structure, it is now highly eroded.
4-13-00
Structure of Mounds Supports McDaniel and Crater's Geometry Hypothesis
One of the newly acquired MGS pictures shows the feature called "Mound E" by Stanley McDaniel and Horace Crater.
Conspicuous geometry of Mound E supports the hypothesis that specific Cydonia "Mound" features are artificial features designed to be seen from above. Image courtesy Lan Fleming.
Mark Carlotto's new 360 degree rotation of Mound E, showing conspicuous detail.
Mound P is located next to two other unexplained surface features: the hexagonal platform shown here (right of Mound P), and the sunken, highly angular feature below.
Angles and interior geometry of this unique feature tend to suggest a non-natural origin.
Crater and McDaniel's Mound Geometry Hypothesis posits that sixteen Mounds comprise a mathematically coherent "message" emplaced on the Martian surface. The message, whether intentional or geological "static," relates a specific emphasis on 19.5 degrees: a tetrahedral constant.
The sixteen Mounds identified as statistically nonrandom by Dr. Horace Crater. At least two of these features have been confirmed as being consistent with artificial constructions.
4-15-00
Anomalous Geomorphology of "Hollow" Feature Confirmed by Mark Carlotto
After poring over the new images ofthe Fort and Tholus, I proceded to look at the less promising image swaths. Near the bottom of swath MO8-06460, I found a truly odd feature that reminded me immediately of the terraced, faceted perimeter of the City Pyramid.
The "Hollow," an interesting -- if overlooked -- anomaly located near the Face. The artificial-looking lines and facets along its top are paralleled by markings on both the Face and City Pyramid.
I mentioned the feature on a Cydonia mailing list and received no further comment on it until today, when Mark Carlotto took note of it on his Martian Enigmas website. The fact that he discovered this feature independently makes me feel more secure in my own estimation of this anomaly. Furthermore, he points out that this feature appears to have a large depression on top -- a detail I had completely overlooked, thinking this was a flat mesa that may have undergone modification along its perimeter.
4-25-00
On Recent Conspiracy Theories
Elsewhere on this site I concluded that the only conspiracy at work concerning Cydonia rephotography was one of "mutually assured ignorance." In light of Malin Space Science Systems' abrupt, unnannounced photo-dump of 4-5-00, I've been forced to reexamine this stance. My research was aided greatly by reading Stanley V. McDaniel's "The McDaniel Report," a 1993 document exposing the flawed methodology that threatens the prospect of retrieving high-resolution images of Cydonia in the near future.
"The McDaniel Report," not to be confused with the website of the same name, is ultimately a scathing examination of one Dr. Michael Malin, principal contractor for the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC), originally designed for inclusion on the failed Mars Observer mission. Malin, in an unprecented political move by NASA, was given legal "ownership" of any and all incoming Mars images, and is free to release them essentially at his whim. Although his status entitles him to a six-month period in which to prepare and sort any Mars photos deigned fit for public exposure, Malin's revelation that numerous images of Cydonia have been taken in the last two years calls the integrity of MSSS and NASA into serious question.
Given that privately sequestering photos of potentially explosive scientific value (even for a period of six months) is absurd, one is naturally forced to wonder where these images have been over the last 28 months -- and, more disturbingly, why the public was not made aware of their existence until April 5. This issue is made even more perplexing when one takes into account Malin's outspoken criticism of Cydonia rephotography. He has described rephotographing the Face (and other anomalies) as a "waste of time" again and again, appealing to the prevailing (and provenly false) official position that the "Face" is a trick of light and shadow that "vanishes" at different sun angles. (After years of controversy, NASA was forced to admit that the Viking frames "proving" that the Face was an illusion never even existed--but only after disseminating this fiction to Congressional staffers and interested citizens. I personally received an edited version of this document several years ago, which goes to considerable lengths to avoid mention of nearly 20 years of cross-verified independent research.)
Why, then, has MSSS continued to not only take photos of the Cydonia region, but apparently target specific sites in the Cydonia region? Malin admits on his website that a second attempt to rephotograph the Face was made, resulting in a sequencing error that returned no useful data. But orbital calculations show that additional opportunities for rephotographing the Face (and possibly other anomalous formations) have been met by deliberately repositioning the Mars Global Surveyor. Whether additional photos have actually been taken remains an open question for the time being. But, given Malin's duplicitous involvement with the issue, I think it's naive to reject the possibility that NASA is in possession of additional high-resolution Cydonia pictures.
With the mainstream news media effectively placated by the horribly over-contrasted "catbox" image of the Face in 1998, whatever agency ultimately responsible for handling the Cydonia situation apparently feels it can continue its disservice to science with impunity. The nature of this "agency" is, of course, the centerpiece for the understandable concern and annoyance that has flooded Cydonia discussions on the Internet.
It's conceivable that Malin's convenient stranglehold on incoming Mars data is in fact a means for an intelligence organization to monitor (and possibly screen) controversial new photographs. This isn't nearly as paranoid as it sounds. In 1960, NASA was provided with an exhaustive document by the Brookings Institution, a think-tank based in Washington, D.C. The report, examining future "peaceful activities in space," specifically mentions the possibility of discovering alien artifacts on the surfaces of other celestial bodies, Mars being one of the candidates.
This speculation was almost certainly not the product of the authors' imaginations; Dr. Carl Sagan, the most articulate and well-known astronomer to have addressed the possibility of extrasolar visitation, had concluded that it was plausible that we might encounter telltale signs of intelligence in the solar system as we continued to expand into space.
In a possible foreshadowing of our present predicament regarding Cydonia, the Brookings report warned that public knowledge of advanced nonhuman intelligence could shatter existing social paradigms, and urged secrecy if alien ruins were discovered. Alarmingly, such secrecy measures conform to the confusing politics that have descended on NASA/JPL's Mars exploration program after the failure of the Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar Lander (with Bobby Ray Inman, a former head of the supersecret National Security Agency, being placed in a position to potentially dictate Mars policy behind the scenes).
Are we being skillfully acclimated to the existence of probable extraterrestrial ruins on Mars? It's worth noting that the Brookings paper recommended a period of acclimatization before revealing definitive proof of extraterrestrial intelligence. Certainly an issue as potentially incendiary as the literal redefinition of our species would warrant similar contingencies.
The most outspoken voice for this viewpoint is Richard Hoagland, who provides his perspective in the following two articles. Including these links does not mean that I endorse Hoagland's perspective on Cydonia or anything else; indeed, I think his standards for evidence and enthusiasm for the scientific method have degenerated since the publication of his excellent book, "The Monuments of Mars."
Malin Suddenly "Finds" New Images of Cydonia--Skullduggery Continues at MSSS
Malin Points MGS at the Face--But What is He Hiding?
Additionally, Hoagland notes some interesting symmetry in a mesa adjacent to the Face (and muses that it was in fact one of MSSS' specified targets) and points out a low-resolution anomaly on the Face itself that he identifies as a possible entrance, complete with ramp.
4-29-00
Analysis of the "Fort" as a Possible Structural Ruin
The MGS images of the formation known as the "Fort" were received with disillusionment. Many expected high-resolution views to illuminate the shadowy "courtyard" suggested by Viking photos of the same object. Similarly, evident "notched" walls were hoped to help vindicate the Artificiality Hypothesis by confronting planetary geologists with undeniable architectural detail.
We now know that the "courtyard" was a genuine "trick of light and shadow." The Fort's "walls" are actually components of a "platform mesa" that elevates the rest of the formation, including the oddly shaped mass responsible for casting the "courtyard's" triangular shadow.
So is the Fort out of the running as a potential artifact? I argue that it is not. Indeed, this formation sports several peculiarities that seem quite "Cydonian" in their uniqueness and placement on the Martian surface. Not the least of these details is the aforementioned "platform," an element we see clearly exhibited by the Face as well as the "Rounded Formation" (alternately known as the "Platform Pyramid") to the far west of the City complex. Dr. Mark Carlotto, in his overview of the Cydonia controversy ("The Martian Enigmas: A Closer Look"), presents a revealing look at the Rounded Formation, Fort and Face, all of which exhibit identical alignment and comparable size. This could represent a geological anomaly (or, more accurately, three geological anomalies conforming to a fortuitous "architectural" motif) or it could indicate a common intelligent origin.
Six clearly faceted sides form the Fort's perimeter. Those to the bottom and far left (see illustration) are relatively difficult to make out -- primarily, I suspect, because of their lack of shadow. The defile along the right side of the Fort, on the other hand, is quite clear. The illusory "notches" mentioned above were due to details below the resolution of the Viking camera, such as a decent-size crater to the Fort's far-right.
The only portion of the Fort lacking clear delineation from the surrounding terrain is the lower left portion, compared illustratively as "rocket fins" by Richard Hoagland in "The Monuments of Mars." These consist of three equidistant outcroppings, and their brightness is due to reflected sunlight. Carlotto's rotation reveals that the "fins" are the Fort's tallest outcroppings; the rest of the formation, consistent with the original impression of a collapsed structure, is sunken inward.
The clearly defined angles that isolate the Fort from the rest of the City also require an explanation. While many of the formations on Mars exhibit straight sides, this effect usually disintegrates upon close inspection. The presence of six straight edges, rather than the usual one or two that characterize natural wind-shaped mesas, is unusual. Furthermore, there is evidence of possible "terraces" along the lower right-hand edge of the Fort.
"Terraces" are nothing new at Cydonia. We've seen them adorning the City Pyramid as well as Carlotto's "Hollow." If the Fort is an imploded artificial structure, then the faceted perimeter platform would have provided an expansive terrace upon which a population could have looked across the Cydonia desert to the Face. Thus, there is some indirect aesthetic confirmation for the Fort's alignment on the Martian surface.
5-5-00
Prediction for May 7 Imaging Opportunity
The Mars Global Surveyor will be in a position to rephotograph the Face on Mars from directly above on May 7. A vigorous online petition demanding MSSS to reimage this perplexing formation, coupled with MSSS' recent release of two years worth of "missing" Cydonia photographs, indicates a level of interest in the Face MSSS has been remiss in divulging to the public. Thus there's a significant chance that the image will be taken and publically released.
But what will it tell us?
The new image (if taken and released, as hoped) will not likely "prove" either side of the Cydonia debate. The ever-vigilant Mark Carlotto has simulated what the Face will look like to the MGS: much like last time, unfortunately, with the sun shining from below and giving the feature the "Halloween effect" that disconcerted Cydonia researchers in 1998. However, the deceiving camera angle (that JPL exploited in their tragically warped "orthorectification" of the 1998 Face image) does not appear to be a factor.
Mark Carlotto's computer-generated prediction of the May 7 Face image, based on the orbital position of the Mars Global Surveyor sattelite. The digital model used was derived from the Face as photographed on April 5, 1998.
Since the hoped-for image will be a frontal shot, we can expect the Face to reveal its mysteries without the assistance of computer "enhancement" that killed mainstream media interest in the Face two years ago. Hopefully we can establish the extent of the Face's evident bisymmetry; the western half has always been the most difficult to make out, both on the MGS image and the Viking photos. In Viking's case, this was due to unfavorable sun-angles. Sun-angle will still play a significant role, but the MGS's hugely better resolution should be able to compensate for much of this.
If the image is indeed taken and disseminated online, NASA will make sure the image is handled as condescendingly as possible. As the 1998 press debacle demonstrated, this is easy to do when the facial features in question are thrown into unfamiliar lighting conditions. I predict NASA/MSSS will exploit the new picture's general similarity to the 1998 image as "proof" that the Face is not a face, as claimed by proponents of artificiality. Most journalists have been conditioned to accept whatever NASA says at "face" value, and I sincerely doubt if any of them are aware of the topological analyses that confirm the Face's anthropomorphism. So don't expect a major change of public attitude when some nameless JPL "expert" laughingly dismisses the new Face photo to the Associated Press.
