Examining the Cydonia Region of Mars

Examining the Cydonia Region of Mars Tell a friend Search Advanced Home Expeditions Publications EPH Cosmology ...

37 downloads 443 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Examining the Cydonia Region of Mars

Tell a friend

Search

Advanced

Home

Expeditions

Publications

EPH

Cosmology

Solar System

Media and Links

Cydonia

The Cydonia Region of Mars 'When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth.' -Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

00/06/15 Proof of Artificiality at Cydonia Discovery of secondary facial features and other recent evidence show natural origin is improbable

The Viking spacecraft provided our first close up look at Mars in the 1970s. Among the many interesting images was one located in the Cydonia region that looked remarkably like a human face (top right image). While the likeness was striking, there was insufficient data to draw any conclusions. People frequently see familiar shapes in otherwise random images, such as the 'man in the moon'. New images from different angles and at higher resolution were needed before any sound determination about the origin of the object could be made.

98/04/12 On Improbable Claims Discussion Unfortunately, perhaps due to the astounding implications artificiality of scientific criteria for establishing brings, many people, including scientists, rushed to judgment on this issue, polarizing into two extreme camps. The absurdity of this situation scientific claims was illustrated in newsgroups where one could find people offering odds 98/04/10 of 100:1 both for and against artificiality. Preliminary Analysis of April 5, While the original image did not support conclusions, it did serve as a Cydonia Image Analysis of full basis for predictions. Half of the original image was in shadow and the resolution (unfiltered) image resolution of the image was still fairly low. If the image was artificial, future images should show symmetry in the shadowed area or secondary 98/05 facial features only visible at higher resolutions. If on the other hand the Subimages of Distinct Cydonia object was natural in origin, symmetry and secondary facial features Features were extremely unlikely. 98/06 Meta Research first weighed in on this issue in 1997, only after new Additional MGS Cydonia evidence showed that the Exploded Planet Hypothesis offered Subimages significance to the position and orientation of the 'face' on Mars. Still, 97/03/15 we were careful not to draw any conclusion but that additional images New Evidence for Artificiality at were urgently needed. Cydonia on Mars EPH suggests On three orbital passes in April 1998, NASA's Mars Global Surveyor location and orientation of the face (MGS) imaged the region known as Cydonia. The MGS images have the may be significant highest resolution of the Cydonia features achieved to date. JPL released a new image of the 'face' to the press and declared the issued resolved. And most people viewing this image agreed that artificiality seemed unlikely. Yet some scientists argued that the new MGS images strengthened the case for artificiality. How can that be? Part of the answer lies in the fact that people are not looking at the same images. The first image released to the world media by JPL was "high-pass-filtered", effectively http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/cydonia.asp (1 of 2) [11/16/2000 5:37:13 AM]

Examining the Cydonia Region of Mars

suppressing much of the image's detail. Yet this image has convinced many that the face was little more than a pile of rocks and a trick of light and shadow. After a careful analysis of both images was completed, Meta Research published Proof of Artificiality at Cydonia which outlines a standard scientific line of reasoning that leads to the conclusion that in this case the face must be of artificial origin. Reader comments on this line of reasoning are invited. Meta Research recognizes that publishing a paper in support of artificiality comes with consequences. We are aware that this may impact our credibility in support other alternative research, regardless of the scientific merit of this paper. However, scientific integrity requires that findings be released when ready, without regard for their popularity.

1998 High-resolution images TIFF-formatted to maintain maximum resolution April 5 April 14 April 24 top of strip(8.1 MB) top of strip(5.1 MB) Unflitered image of the face full strip (9.8 MB) bottom of strip(8.1 MB) bottom of strip(5.1 MB) Links to other Mars/Cydonia sites ©1991-2000 Meta Research. All rights reserved Contact Meta Research Privacy Policy

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/cydonia.asp (2 of 2) [11/16/2000 5:37:13 AM]

On Improbable Claims

Tell a friend

Search

Advanced

Home

Expeditions Press Releases

Publications External Links

Cosmology

Solar System

Animations

Media and Links Event Calendar

On Improbable Claims Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research Often we hear arguments for fantastic claims based on a long list of coincidences very unlikely to happen by chance. Yet frequently they are all chance occurrences. Why is this so when the odds were against it, and how can we keep from being fooled by such circumstances? I will mention just two common causes of deceptiveness among many known to science. The first is selection effects. You go to the airport for a trip, and while sitting there, you have a premonition that something might happen to the flight. Still, you board anyway. En route, an engine catches on fire and the plane makes an emergency landing. You remember your premonition. Isn't this near proof of a supernatural occurrence? It turns out that you, like most people, probably have such premonitions almost every time you go to an airport and think about your mortality and how your fate will be in the hands of others. But such thoughts are quickly forgotten after all normal, safe flights. We remember them and transfer them into long-term memory only if some event reinforces the thought and causes you to ponder it. In general, we are much more likely to remember improbable events and associations than normal or frequently occurring ones. So our memories contain many "selection effects" caused by forgetting most of the normal data and remembering only the abnormal data. It's the same if you think of someone and they call soon thereafter. Was it "psychic", or a selection effect? The latter explanation is usually the simpler and therefore the preferred one. The second common cause of deception is also based on seemingly unlikely statistical coincidences. In any truly random data set, many regular patterns can always be found. For example, if we have a star chart with a million stars, we might find an unusual shape formed by stars that has less than one chance in a billion of happening by chance. So are some mysterious super-beings moving stars around? This is not as likely as the simpler explanation: In every random data set capable of forming billions of random patterns, it is virtually certain that some 1-in-1 billion pattern will be found formed by chance. In general, we tend to be deceived because our minds often do not recognize how truly vast is the number of possible coincidences that can occur. So when a few of them do occur, as they must if the odds are right, we tend to be amazed simply because the odds against that particular coincidence were very great. The odds against a flipped coin coming up tails ten straight times are 1024-to-1 against. But if we make several thousand attempts, the odds become pretty good that it will happen one or more times. In science, an improbable event that has already happened is called "a posteriori" (after the fact), and generally is taken to have no significance no matter how unlikely it might appear. By contrast, if we specified a certain specific highly improbable event in all its detail "a priori" (before the fact), and it happened anyway, that would be significant, and we would be obliged to pay attention. As all this pertains to the "Face" on Mars at Cydonia, the discovery of the face-like object was an a posteriori event. No one predicted it, nor could they have done so based on known facts. But once our attention was called to a particular object in a particular place on a particular planet as possibly being of artificial http://www.metaresearch.org/media%20and%20links/press/on-improbable-claims.asp (1 of 3) [11/16/2000 6:01:55 AM]


(constructed) origin, anything else found out about it that is highly improbable but related to the artificiality question becomes a priori. We can safely ignore a posteriori claims, but not a priori ones. At Cydonia, almost everything we see in the new, high-resolution "Face" image fulfills highly unlikely a priori predictions. So when we found a "nostrils" feature, that was impressive. The fact that the relative size, positioning, and orientation is also correct for nostrils makes it a significant a priori prediction. The additional fact that no other nostril-like features can be found nearby means that our minds are not free to pick and choose such face-like features we may want to see. Because it is a priori, that single feature would be strong evidence for the artificiality hypothesis by itself. But when we consider the perspective, lighting, and contrast Limitations of the new image and use old Viking images to fill in missing items, we now see that a priori predictions for a "pupil" and an "eyebrow" are also fulfilled. These are a priori even if no one had verbalized them because the face hypothesis implicitly predicts such facial details before the fact. And each feature is unique on the mesa and its surroundings, and properly shaped and positioned relative to the face with the right relative size and orientation. All this makes the a priori probability of chance operating vanishingly low. But there is much more. The eye socket is a well-formed 3-D cavity and not in any way shaped by shadows. The mouth is smooth and regular with inner and outer portions, curled just below the nose, and continues to the opposite side. Viking shows reasonable bilateral symmetry, although the Mars Global Surveyor image cannot because of its low viewing angle. The headpiece is smooth, regular, and symmetric. It is crowned with a huge crest feature just north of the mesa. The "enclosure" or headdress feature is smooth, symmetric, and right-angled, and is complete expect for a small possible "entranceway" or break in one corner. The facial decorations are smooth, linear or symmetric, and appropriate for their relative locations with respect to a face. Before seeing this new image, we knew that "fractal" content implied a natural origin, while regularity, angularity, and symmetry indicated artificiality. I see almost no fractality with the exception of the nose bridge, the feature least protected from wind erosion. I do see smooth lines and curves, right angles and corners (including one in the "furrowed" eyebrow), and lots of symmetry, especially detailed symmetry in the headdress enclosure. And that symmetry is not simple symmetry, as when duplicating a profile, but full 3-D symmetry. For example, the enclosure wraps all the way around with both its inner and outer boundaries, yet remains of uniform height and symmetric shape. Nowhere does the mesa overlap or get confounded with this boundary. The whole amazing "Face" mesa stands isolated in a totally flat, barren desert. It's not as if there are lots of natural formations around, and this one just happened to look like a face. And all of this says nothing about the rest of the strip image, which also contains some surprises. Even the other major formation in the strip image, although it doesn't look like any recognizable shape, does appear far too non-fractal and regular to have arisen as a natural formation. Although its boundary has an irregular outline, it wraps all the way around. The uniform parallel white strips that appear to radiate from the southeast boundary also have no precedent among natural features in the solar system. The reason I have concluded that the case for artificiality of the "Face" is well-established is the fulfillment of so many a priori expectations, combined the lack of extraneous features that might allow us to see patterns that might arise by chance. We have almost no degrees of freedom, yet everything in the image appears to work. Each of the new a priori points such as the nostrils, mouth curl, pupil, and eyebrow has individually only very small chance to occur at all, let alone with the correct relative size, shape, location, and orientation. Each such feature by itself indicates artificiality at perhaps 1000-to-1 odds (some much more) just because of their a priori nature. Collectively, they say "artificial" beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not the odds of occurrence of these features that is convincing, because even a long list of 1,000,000-to-1 a posteriori coincidences has no persuasive ability. It is the low probability of these features combined with their a priori nature that makes them persuasive. Real faces do have just such features, and all major facial features http://www.metaresearch.org/media%20and%20links/press/on-improbable-claims.asp (2 of 3) [11/16/2000 6:01:55 AM]


are present in the Martian "Face". In truth, the thought never crossed my mind before the fact that the Face should have eyebrows, nostrils, pupils, and a lip curl. But of course, if it is a real face depiction, it should have those features. Anyone could have predicted those things, but most of us dare not hope for so much. Now we have them! SUMMARY: Based on the best available high-resolution, contrast-enhanced Mars Global Surveyor image and the best old Viking images, the "Face" mesa contains regularity, angularity, symmetry, and the fulfillment of a priori predictions based on the artificiality hypothesis such as the appearance of nostrils in the nose, mouth shaping just under the nose, an eyebrow over the eye socket, a pupil in the eye socket, a separated vertical enclosure of the whole mesa with near perfect symmetry and corners, a crest over the headpiece, and the almost complete absence of extraneous or non-contributing features. These enhance earlier findings of bilateral symmetry, 3-D contouring, a lack of fractal features that are the trademark of natural objects, plus a culturally significant location on the old Martian equator and a culturally significant upright north-south orientation. In my considered opinion, there is no longer room for reasonable doubt of the artificial origin of the face mesa, and I've never concluded "no room for reasonable doubt" about anything before in my 35-year scientific career. ©1991-2000 Meta Research. All rights reserved Contact Meta Research Privacy Policy

http://www.metaresearch.org/media%20and%20links/press/on-improbable-claims.asp (3 of 3) [11/16/2000 6:01:55 AM]

New Evidence of Artificiality at Cydonia on Mars

Tell a friend

Search

Advanced

Home

Expeditions

Publications

Cosmology

EPH

Solar System

Media and Links

Cydonia

New Evidence of Artificiality at Cydonia on Mars Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research -- 97/03/15

ABSTRACT Contents: ● Abstract ●

Description of Cydonia

●

Summary of the Exploded Planet Hypothesis (eph)

●

Chronology (table)

●

Connection of the EPH to Mars

●

Connection of the EPH and Pole Shift to Cydonia

●

Conclusions

●

Acknowledgments

●

References

The so-called "Face" on Mars and the surrounding anomalous objects in a region called "Cydonia" appear at first glance to be randomly located and oriented on the planet. But it has previously been established that the martian poles had a different location with respect to the surface of the planet in the past, and apparently jumped from that location to the present one in relatively little geological time. We draw attention to the fact that the Cydonia area is right on the old martian equator, and the "Face" is oriented perpendicular to that old equator, to within the measurement uncertainties. This has only about a 1% probability of occurring by chance. Both the line of inquiry that led to this discovery and a possible purpose for building such an artificial structure looking into space were suggested by the exploded planet hypothesis. Taken in conjunction with the finding of bilateral symmetry in the Face and the anomalous nature of other nearby objects on Mars, the weight of existing evidence has, in this author's opinion, shifted in favor of an artificial origin of the Cydonia complex. With luck, the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft now en route to Mars will confirm or refute this conclusion.

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/mrb_cydonia/new-evidence.asp (1 of 15) [11/16/2000 6:10:11 AM]


Overview of Cydonia region on Mars. North is up. The frame height is about 1.5 degrees or 80 km. Figure 1. Description of Cydonia The Cydonia region of Mars (see Figure 1) is located at 41° north latitude, 10° west longitude on the red planet. It was photographed several times by NASA's Viking Mars-orbiting spacecraft in the mid-to-late 1970s. One ground object drew the attention of researchers because of its striking resemblance to a human face. In the opinion of many who have viewed the higher resolution images, the resemblance is closer than seems likely to have arisen by chance, despite half the "face" being hidden in shadow. (See Figure 2.) Because it is a three-dimensional "face" and not just a profile, it has been described as the next best depiction of a human face in stone on its (~ 1 kilometer) size scale in the explored solar system after Mount Rushmore in South Dakota. The immediately surrounding area likewise contains a number of anomalous-looking objects. One of them, dubbed the "D&M pyramid" after its discoverers Vincent DiPietro and Gregory Molenaar, is shown in Figure 3. It has a more-than-passing resemblance to a four-sided, or possibly a five-sided, pyramid. The formation of a small crater seen very close to the base on the shadowed side has apparently thrown debris onto that side of the object, and possibly caused it to split or separate, leading to the ambiguity in the number of original apparent pyramidal faces. But the three faces not coated with debris appear remarkably smooth and triangular, separated by seemingly linear edges. Close-up of the "Face" at Cydonia on Mars.

Close-up of "D&M pyramid" at Cydonia on Mars. Figure 3.

Figure 2. Close-up of "Fortress" at Cydonia on Mars. Figure 4.

Close-up of "City" showing its relation to the "Face" and "Fortress". Figure 5.

(Click on any of the thumbnail images to see the full-sized illustration) Still another nearby object has been dubbed the "Fortress" because of a modest resemblance to structures called that on Earth. (See Figure 4.) Its linear features and sharp angles suggest artificiality to some. A nearby cluster of vaguely pyramidal objects surrounding some unusual small mounds not commonly seen away from Cydonia has been dubbed the "City". (See Figure 5.) Two or perhaps three other nearby features are each in its own way mildly anomalous or unique on the planet. These may be viewed in (Carlotto, 1991), in (DiPietro, Molenaar & Brandenburg, 1988), or on the World Wide Web at <http://www.psrw.com/~markc/marshome.html>. Summary of the Exploded Planet Hypothesis (eph) In (Van Flandern, 1993), the author provided extensive evidence of the explosion of a former major planet in the main asteroid belt. Such evidence may be found all over the solar system. A few highlight points include the following: ●

Asteroid orbits fill the available range of positions and velocities between Mars and Jupiter that are stable against planetary perturbations over millions of years. Their original population was clearly far greater, with only a small percentage of the original mass still present. Some asteroid orbits, most notably the



Trojan asteroids near Jupiter's orbit, are not stable for time spans as long as a billion years, and cannot be original members of the solar system (Marzari, Farinella, et al., 1997). ●

Asteroid orbits possess "explosion signatures" – patterns first catalogued for orbits of fragments of artificial Earth satellites that blew up in orbit around the Earth, that are indicative of a common origin at one point in space at one instant of time (Gabbard, 1974).

●

Many meteorites show evidence of separation of heavy elements from light elements by gravity (called "chemical differentiation"), as would normally require a planetary-sized parent body.

●

All meteorites have relatively young cosmic ray exposure ages, indicating they have not been traveling in space in their present form since the solar system's origin billions of years ago. They must be fragments of much larger bodies. But collisional fragmentation is rare enough that most meteorites should show much older exposure ages than they do. So some other large-scale fragmentation process seems required.

●

The predicted statistical properties of the orbits of fragments ejected to a great distance from an explosion in the main asteroid belt are well fulfilled by "new" comets. Some of these properties were unknown before being predicted by the explosion model and confirmed in the actual orbits of new comets (Van Flandern, 1978).

●

Comet comas seem to have all the properties of the predicted debris clouds that should accompany fragments from an explosion. One of these is visibility of the coma all around the orbit. The standard model tries to explain comas by outgassing from a single nucleus as the comet approaches the Sun. But Comet Hale-Bopp, for example, had a fully developed coma when first photographed out near the orbit of Uranus.

●

Comets and asteroids, to the surprise of mainstream astronomy, appear to be indistinguishable as classes with respect to physical and chemical properties such as reflectivity and spectra. No unique identifying characteristic seems to exist, as if both had a common origin. Yet in standard models, asteroids originated in the inner solar system and comets in the outer regions, and the two should be quite chemically and spectrally distinct.

●

The explosion model expected debris clouds around asteroids and comets. This led to a well-publicized 1991 prediction that satellites will be found around both types of bodies. Mainstream astronomers were shocked when the Galileo spacecraft found a moon orbiting asteroid Ida in 1993.

Saturn's half-bright, half-dark moon Iapetus. Figure 6. ●

The explosion would have sent a blast wave of black, carbonaceous material through the entire planetary system. In fact, airless bodies are coated by just such black residue precisely to the extent they could have been exposed to such a blast wave. The most striking example is Saturn's moon Iapetus, which spins so slowly (once per 80 days) that only one side could have been coated by the blast. An unsolved mystery of long standing about Iapetus is why it is icy-bright on one side and coal black on the other. (See Figure 6.)

Over 100 lines of evidence bearing on the comparison of the exploded planet hypothesis and the many standard models it would replace are discussed in (Van Flandern, 1993). The two strongest lines of evidence are: (1) the occurrence among comet orbits of every statistical property of orbits expected to result from an explosion origin, including some not previously known; and (2) the a priori prediction of the main physical characteristics of comets by the explosion-debris-cloud ("satellite") model. An example of the former is the expectation of a population of "new" comets close to solar system escape velocity falling back into the planetary region for the first time since the explosion. An example of the latter is a quantitative prediction of the mean relative speeds of



split comet fragments as a function of heliocentric distance -- a feat that is by itself a virtual proof of the explosion-debris-cloud model for comets. The recent discovery of a second belt of fragments orbiting the Sun in large numbers beyond the orbit of Neptune suggests that planetary explosions into asteroid belts are not rare events on time scales of billions of years. The mean orbital period of new comets tells us that the most recent "planetary" explosion event happened 3.2 million years ago, and the angular momenta of new comets locates that explosion somewhere within or near the main asteroid belt. The number of new comets, integrated over 3.2 million years, indicates a total mass of the parent body somewhere between that of the largest asteroid Ceres and that of our Moon. Consistent with that finding, the most common type of meteorites found on Earth, the chondrites, are from a parent body too small for chemical differentiation to have occurred, as is generally true for moon-sized bodies. Geological boundary

Date

CHRONOLOGY

Permian-Triassic (P/T)

336 Mya 15-Earth-mass "Planet K" (taken from M.W. Ovenden’s proposed name "Krypton") exploded in the outer main asteroid belt, giving rise to C-type asteroids. Iron meteorites are the survivors remaining in Earth-crossing or bits from this long-ago catastrophe that wiped out 90% of all species on Earth. Ceres and perhaps also Pallas, Juno, and/or Vesta may have been moons of this planet prior to the explosion. The large number of Earth-crossing asteroids generated by this explosion then continued to pepper Earth over the next 50-million-plus years, accounting for the seemingly long duration of this cataclysm. Cretaceous-Tertiary (K/T) 65 Mya 8-Earth-mass "Planet V" (the original fifth planet) exploded in the inner main asteroid belt, giving rise to S-type asteroids. Stony-iron and achondritic meteorites are the survivors remaining in Earth-crossing orbits today, of the event associated with the extinction of the dinosaurs and a single global fire. Mars and Body C were presumably moons of Planet V before this explosion. Other lesser events at 38 Mya ("Body E") and perhaps 16 Mya ("Body D") may have been the explosions of other former moons. Pliocene-Pleistocene 3.2 Mya 0.01-Earth-mass Body C (source of today’s comets) exploded in the inner asteroid belt, giving rise to chondritic meteorites and much of the current population of small Earth-crossing asteroids. Body C and Mars were most probably former moons of Planet V prior to the explosion of the latter. The two abandoned moons may then have remained gravitationally bound to one another as parent and moon until the explosion of Body C. ●

Table 1. (Mya = million years ago) I call this most recent exploded object "Body C" to indicate its association with comets and chondrite meteorites. Although this astronomically recent event, which coincides with the Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary in the geological record on Earth, was apparently the source of all comets still existing today, comets from such an explosion cannot survive beyond about 10,000,000 years after the event because of galactic tides. Chemically differentiated meteors and the larger asteroids presumably originated from earlier explosions of larger planet-sized bodies. Piecing together a tentative scenario from meteorite compositions and exposure ages, and from geological evidence of mass-extinction events of global extent, the chronology in Table 1 seems indicated (Van Flandern, 1995). This chronology is based on clusterings in meteorite cosmic ray exposure ages (Caffee, Goswami, et al., 1988) and the dating of tektite strewn fields on Earth (O’Keefe, 1975), plus the major geological events



shown in Table 2 (courtesy of C. Warren Hunt). Event

Time of Event

Magnitude

Duration

(my – bp)

(relative)

(years)

Archeozoic/Proterozoic

2,600 - 2,500

200

100,000,000?

very high

Mid-Proterozoic

1,800

10

sudden

high

Proterozoic/Cambrian

590

5

sudden

very high

Cambrian/Ordovician

505

5

sudden

low

Late Ordovician

450

10

1,000,000? - tailing off

very high

Mid-Devonian

420

2

sudden

low

Late Permian

336-286±

60

50,000,000, many events

very high

Triassic/Jurassic

213

20

sudden

high

Jurassic/Cretaceous

144

20

1,000,000? - tailing off

medium

Cretaceous/Tertiary

65

2

400,000 - increasing

very high

Late Eocene

38

15

sudden

very high

Pliocene/Pleistocene

3.2

2

sudden

medium

Late Pleistocene

0.026

1

sudden

low

Pleistocene/Holocene

0.0115

5

sudden

very high

❍

Certitude

Table 2. Major geological events in Earth history. Connection of the EPH to Mars Early on, it became clear that asteroid and meteorite physical, chemical, and dynamical evidence indicated at least two explosion events in the main asteroid belt. Yet the Titius-Bode law of planetary spacing strongly indicated that the gap between Mars and Jupiter was large enough for exactly one missing planet. Unrelated astronomical evidence had given strong hints that the small planet Pluto and its near-twin moon Charon were not original planets, but instead were escaped moons of Neptune (Harrington & Van Flandern, 1979). Still other unrelated considerations were consistent with the suggestion that Mercury was originally a moon of Venus that escaped into its own solar orbit in the early solar system because of tidal interactions (Van Flandern & Harrington, 1976). These considerations would have left Mars as the only original planet in its mass range, the only planet strongly inconsistent with a steady progression of planetary masses with distance to either side of Jupiter, and the only planet with a relatively slow spin rate but no companion large enough to slow its spin



through tidal interactions. It therefore seemed reasonable to suggest that Mars was not an original planet, but rather a moon of Planet V before the explosion of the latter. ■

same distance from the Sun

■

slow spin, as for a moon

■

hemispheric crustal dichotomy

■

geologically rapid 90° pole shift

■

original atmosphere gone

■

abundant short-term water

excess 129Xe Table 3. Summary of evidence that Mars is a former moon of Planet V. ■

Since that speculative suggestion, many additional lines of evidence have served mainly to amplify its probability of being correct. (See summary in Table 3.) If Mars was a moon of Planet V at the time of the latter's explosion, Mars would have been severely affected by its proximity to the blast. Because of its mass, Mars must have been in a synchronous lock, keeping the same face toward Planet V just as our Moon keeps the same face toward the Earth. So this scenario first predicts that one hemisphere of Mars would have been heavily bombarded, and the other barely touched by the explosion. That is indeed a good description of the actual situation for Mars, for which an overview is shown in Figure 7. Except for two extensive lava extrusions, the border between highlands and lowlands is remarkably linear, and almost coincides with a great circle inclined about 35° to the present equator. This sharp hemispheric border is certainly a puzzlement for the often-proposed explanation that the old martian northern hemisphere was blown away by some huge mega-impact.

Martian cratered highlands (white) and lowland plains (shaded). Left: western hemisphere, 180° to 0°. Right: eastern hemisphere, 360° to 180°. From (Christiansen and Hamblin, 1995). Figure 7. Moreover, evidence of water erosion on achondrite meteorites, presumed here to have originated from Planet V, indicates that the exploded planet contained abundant water as well, much of which would have hit Mars. Surely, such a dramatic event would have left plentiful evidence on the red planet. Let us compare to what is actually seen today. In (Maran, 1992), we learn that the northern hemisphere of Mars is only sparsely cratered, compared to the heavily cratered southern hemisphere. (McGill & Squyres, 1991) discuss the huge crustal dichotomy between the northern and southern hemispheres of Mars. The southern crust is so much thicker than the northern that the center of mass of Mars is offset from its center of figure by 3.6 km. Moreover, the thick southern crust drops abruptly to the level of the northern lowlands, with the surface sloping down 4 or 5 kilometers in a span of just a few hundred kilometers near the present equator. But there are no mountain rings nor catastrophic impacts to mark the boundary between highlands and lowlands, so the cause of what is presumed to have been the destruction of the ancient



northern crust is generally considered unknown (Abell, Morrison & Wolff, 1991). There are two very large, relatively well preserved impact basins on the bombarded southern plains: the 2000-km diameter Hellas Basin at 43°S, 291°W; and the 1200-km diameter Argyre basin at 50°S, 42°W. Numerous other large craters stand almost shoulder to shoulder in the south. And unlike lunar craters, southern martian craters have ejecta saturated with water, giving them a mud-like consistency that caused them to flow along the ground after ejection from the crater. Branching valleys with tributaries cover all the exposed high terrain except at high latitudes, where they may have been eroded away. Lava flows between large craters on the highlands show that volcanism was occurring simultaneously with the formation of the cratered terrain. A noteworthy peculiarity is that many large channels start close to the volcanoes in Elysium and extend several hundred kilometers to the northwest, down the regional slope. And several enormous channels emerge from the chaotic terrain east of the Tharsis bulge canyons and extend northward. Finally, the Tharsis bulge itself takes the form of high-elevation terrain and several huge volcanoes in the Tharsis region at tropical latitudes on Mars. This picture is indeed very much as the exploded planet hypothesis (eph) with Mars as a nearby moon would expect. The actual data for Mars are so close to expectations that one even sees evidence that many of the impacts on the southern hemisphere near the equator were northward-directed grazing impacts. (Strom, Croft & Barlow, 1992) indicate that the cratering on Mars is more diverse than on any other planet or satellite in the solar system. (Chapman & Jones, 1977) tell us that the southern highland craters generally have low rims and shallow depths (as if considerable in-filling occurred); the craters smaller than 30 km are too few in number (as if erased by near-simultaneous larger impact events); and that the "erosion" episode apparently consisted of a "pulse" contemporary with the valley network formation. We might well ask where this "pulse" came from if not a nearby planet that exploded. If the parent planet were a few Earth masses in size, and Mars subtended a few square degrees in its sky, then Mars would intercept about 10-4 of the parent planet’s mass. Spread over one hemisphere on Mars, this would imply a crustal build-up of about 20 km. This agrees well with the actual crustal thickness of the southern hemisphere, estimated to be 21 km (McGill & Dimitriou, 1990). The new material would have lower average mean density than the mantle of Mars because it would be more loosely packed. This build-up would shift the center of figure of Mars south about 10 km (half the maximum build-up). But the center of mass would shift south by a lesser amount because the material was less dense. The observed 3.6-km difference (Anderson, Jurgens, et al., 1996) is a reasonable value in this scenario. The only significant departure from intuitive expectations is that the affected hemisphere is the southern one. In the normal course of events, one would expect Mars to be struck on an east or west hemisphere -- the side permanently facing Planet V. Assuming that happens, then after the explosion Mars would be rotating around an axis that had more mass on one side than on the other because of the one-sided bombardment. This is an unstable configuration. With Planet V gone, Mars would be forced to gradually re-orient its entire body until it spun again about an axis with equal mass balanced on all sides. This would involve an approximately 90° pole shift until the spin axis passed through the middle of the extra-heavy southern hemisphere. The actual pole position before the Planet V explosion is only poorly known. But from data in (Schultz & Lutz, 1988, see p. 124), the oldest known pole position – near Utopia Planitia (UP) – is roughly 90° away from the position near Arcadia Planitia (AP) last occupied by the pole before it jumped to its present location. (Speculative intermediate pole positions between UP and AP may be associated with re-orientation delays caused by the co-orbiting of Mars and Body C.) Not only is the prediction by the eph of a geologically rapid pole shift in agreement with the data, but the approximately 90° magnitude of that shift agrees as well. And the early pole shift(s) are http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/mrb_cydonia/new-evidence.asp (7 of 15) [11/16/2000 6:10:11 AM]


known to be geologically associated with the time the volcanic eruptions began on Mars. This too fits the Planet V scenario because when the north pole was still at location UP, the south pole 180° away was near the Tharsis volcanoes. Therefore, the UP-Tharsis axis of Mars was the shortest axis. Following the 90° pole shift to AP, the Tharsis volcano region was relocated to near the Martian equator. Centrifugal force would try to flatten the new polar axis and cause the new equator to bulge out. The region under the most stress would have been the Tharsis region because it would have to make the greatest adjustment - from shortest axis to the new equatorial radius. So this is where the extrusions from the martian interior would erupt as the interior of Mars adjusted to the huge new weight of its bombarded southernn hemisphere. The present Tharsis bulge, on which may be found the four largest shield volcanoes in the solar system near its central region, was very likely created at just this time. Yet another consequence of proximity to a planetary explosion would be to blow away a substantial part of the original atmosphere of Mars. Again, there is evidence that Mars could have supported, and probably actually possessed, a thicker atmosphere in the past (Lammer, 1996). This old atmosphere might have had a surface pressure up to 10 bars, a factor of 1000 greater than for the present martian atmosphere, and ten times thicker than Earth's atmosphere. Moreover, contamination of the Mars atmosphere by gases from exploded Planet V may then readily explain the general similarities between the contents of gas bubbles in meteorite EETA79001 (presumed here to be a piece of Planet V) and Viking spacecraft samples of the present Mars atmosphere. Despite the often quoted statement that the match was "almost exact", it is in fact not especially good. However, no presently existing planet matched as well as Mars, perhaps explaining why the quality of the match seems to have been exaggerated (Van Flandern, 1996). As further evidence of this scenario, we note that Mars has an anomalous 129Xe content in its atmosphere that is nearly triple that found on other bodies where it has been measured (DiPietro, 1996). Since 129Xe is a second order nuclear fission by-product and does not arise through normal nucleosynthesis, it has long been assumed that an ancient supernova was responsible for the presence of that isotope in the solar system. Then why does Mars have an anomalously high amount of it? Again, its proximity to the eph event is an obvious explanation for Mars in particular to be anomalous. A missing step in the chronology is an identification of Body C. From meteorite evidence, it must have been an undifferentiated body, and therefore probably a small planetary moon rather than a planet or an asteroid. This agrees with mass estimates based on counting comets (Van Flandern, 1995). Yet comets also indicate that it had a high water content, perhaps even oceans, rather like those presently conjectured to exist under the ice on Jupiter's moon Europa. A factor in destabilizing the body for later explosion may have been proximity to Planet V when the latter exploded, since Body C would then have received an asymmetric bombardment similar to Mars. If it was another moon of Planet V along with Mars, it is interesting to contemplate the logical sequence of events following Planet V's explosion. Mars and C are released from their satellite orbits into a solar orbit. With typical satellite velocities, an eccentricity of order 10% seems likely to result for the solar orbit; and Mars does have just such an eccentricity, presently 9%. Once Planet V has dissipated, Mars and C may well find themselves within their mutual gravitational sphere of influence. Much like Pluto and Charon following their probable escape from Neptune, Mars and C might therefore remain gravitationally bound to one another. The two would remain a stable binary system, evolving their rotation rates and orbits under the influence of tidal friction, until the explosion of Body C 3.2 Mya. That smaller explosion would pepper half of Mars with smaller, fresher craters and an enormous amount of water. A new round of volcanism would be set off as the weight of the newly bombarded hemisphere increased. This could account for the evidence of flowing water on mainly the south hemisphere, with some overlap to the north, at



around the same time as the cratering and volcanism. Following the explosion of Body C, Mars would then undergo the its final pole re-orientation to its present spin axis as the red planet began to orbit the Sun alone. Finally, the high deuterium to hydrogen (D/H) ratio of the martian atmosphere implies that almost all its formerly abundant flowing water has been lost in just the last 105 to 107 years. That, in turn, is consistent with the chronology of the eph, for which this main water dump happened at 3.2 Mya. According to this scenario, the water dumped on Mars then was far greater in volume, and evaporated in far shorter a time, than has seemed possible with all previous scenarios considered up to now. Connection of the EPH and Pole Shift to Cydonia Either the unusual landforms at Cydonia on Mars are natural features, or they are artificial constructs of intelligent beings. A number of tests of artificiality have been proposed since the area was discovered. For example, it has been noted that the "Face" is a three-dimensional face, not merely a profile or an outline. As such, it still looks like a face from every angle. Moreover, the U.S. military has perfected the use of fractal techniques to search for man-made objects camouflaged by terrain in aerial photographs. It has been well demonstrated that natural objects show a high degree of fractal content, whereas artificial objects have more symmetry and regularity. This software was applied to various features on Mars, with the finding that the "Face" gave by far the highest degree of artificiality of any image tested, usually high enough to assure artificiality of the object if it had appeared on Earth. In the immediate vicinity of the Cydonian landforms, but in general not elsewhere on the martian surface, can be found more than a dozen small, raised mounds of similar she distribution of the mounds (Crater & McDaniel, 1997; see also http://www.mcdanielreport.com) shows that the random geology hypothesis fails to account for the regularity and redundancy of geometric patterns in these formations. At the least, enigmatic geology is involved, the alternative being intelligent design.> Each of these features, taken in conjunction with the presence of several other anomalous objects in close proximity, have induced a number of serious scientists to seek to develop further tests of artificiality, in consideration of the importance of such a finding. I have proposed four such tests myself, although it now appears that others have made some of the same proposals before me. These were: ■

Bilateral symmetry of the Face: If natural, the chances are negligible that the shadowed side of the object would resemble a symmetric half of a human face, and ought to be a random pile of rocks or sand. If artificial, the mirror image of the visible half face is to be expected.

■

Culturally significant location: A culturally meaningful location of the structures, such as on the equator or in the lowest valley on the planet, would suggest artificial design; whereas a seemingly random location would suggest a natural formation.

■

Orientation: A human face has a natural "up" and "down". A polar-aligned north-south orientation of a face structure suggests artificiality, while any other orientation suggests a natural formation.

■

>Functionality: The faces on Mount Rushmore in South Dakota are visible to people on the ground. The "Face" on Mars stares up into space, yet cannot be seen from any other planet, even with our largest telescopes. A lack of obvious purpose suggests a natural object, although we cannot hope to guess all possible purposes of its hypothetical builders. An



obvious purposefulness would suggest artificiality. Test PASS FAIL "Face" in 3-D * fractal test * mounds non-random * nearby context * bilateral symmetry ? location X orientation X purpose X ■

Table 4. Original status of tests of artificiality of Cydonia landforms.

When I proposed these tests, it appeared that the first (and strongest) test would not be performed until another spacecraft returned to take higher resolution pictures; but that the three weaker tests seemed to favor a natural formation. The status of the eight tests of artificiality then known was as shown in Table 4. However, recent advances in image processing software (first applied to the Cydonia structures by Mark Carlotto) allowed another high-resolution image of the Face taken at a slightly higher Sun angle to be enhanced enough to bring out some detail on the shadowed side. The result is shown in Figure 8. While the symmetry is far from perfect, owing in part to an impact crater in the "headdress", it is certainly more suggestive of symmetry than of randomness. Similar results have been obtained using other enhancement techniques by (DiPietro, Molenaar & Brandenburg, 1988), and even by skeptics of artificiality such as M. Malin at . S.V. McDaniel notes the symmetrical headpiece, the second eye-socket, and the continuation of the mouth and "teeth" to the other side of the face as the most significant points of symmetry. The "Face" at a higher Sun angle, image processed to bring out detail on the shadowed side. Figure 8. Now a development has shed further light on this important artificiality question. Following a discussion of the exploded planet hypothesis by the author on the nationally syndicated Art Bell radio talk show on December 20, 1996, an listener who wishes to remain anonymous sent email via the Meta Research web site at . Assuming the landforms at Cydonia on Mars had been built by advanced beings, the listener suggested that perhaps the exploded planet might have been the cause of the demise of their civilization. If that were the case, then the structures at Cydonia would have necessarily been built before the most recent explosion event. Having heard me mention the martian pole shift as probably caused by the explosion, the listener asked where the "Face" on Mars was relative to the prior location of the martian pole. This seemed an interesting and logical question. According to (Schultz, 1985), the most recent stable position of the martian north pole before its present one (designated AP in our earlier discussion) was at 45°N, 160°W. On that assumption, I computed the great circle arc between that former pole position and the coordinates of the "Face" at Cydonia, 40.89°N, 9.52°W. If s is that arc length, the formula is:



cos s = sin 45 sin 40.89 + cos 45 cos 40.89 cos(160 - 9.52) from which we compute s = 90.1°. The old pole position was specified to the nearest 5°, and conversations with the author of that study suggest it is probably good to the nearest 10°. This implies an estimated mean error of +/- 5 great circle degrees. This would likewise be the mean error for s. So a result that is just 0.1° from the old equator is necessarily somewhat fortuitous. Nonetheless, it is clear that Cydonia formerly occupied a location quite close the previous martian equator. And this passes the "location" test of artificiality in our Table 4 since the equator is culturally significant and there is no known reason why a natural landform would prefer the equator to any other surface location. Given that there are 41253 square degrees on any sphere, the statistical probability of a random point lying within 5° of the equator of the sphere is 9%. Therefore, the probability that this result for Cydonia is culturally significant rather than chance is about 91%. With the location test nominally passed, the orientation test took on extra importance. The present orientation of the "Face" is 31° west of north. If a is the orientation correction between present pole and former pole viewed from Cydonia, the formula for it is:

sin a = -cos 45 sin (160 - 9.52) / sin s from which we compute a = -20.4°. This brings the "Face" three times closer to the culturally significant north-south orientation than it now is. An overview of the situation may be seen in Figure 1, where the straight gray line parallels the old martian equator. However, we have landforms other than the "Face" to aid in this orientation test. The primary linear features in other nearby landforms also show a preference for nearly the same orientation as the "Face". We see these in Figure 9 courtesy of Mark J. Carlotto, who also provided the following descriptions: The "rounded formation", the pyramid in the City, the Fortress, and the Face, though different in shape, are similar in both size and orientation. The present-day west-of-north orientations of the best defined edge on each of these objects are as follows: left edge of "rounded formation" in City, 30.8°; left edge of pyramid in City, 30.8°; right edge of Fortress, 34.5°; left edge of Face, 30.9°. The average value for the four objects is 31.8° +/ -1.6°.

Figure 9. The orientation of a primary linear feature in four landforms at Cydonia ia essentially the same, each perpendicular to the old equator. Therefore, when we apply the correction a to refer these objects to the estimated location of the previous martian pole, their average orientation is 11.4° +/- 5.2° west of due north. Since any value between 0° and 90° is equally probable for a natural formation, the probability of this being culturally significant rather than chance is 87%. Of course, the probability of three of these four objects having the same orientation to within 0.1° is very much smaller. But considering that probability would introduce a possible selection bias into our statistics, which we very much wish to avoid. Without that help, the net probability of both the location and the orientation tests being passed by chance to the degree shown here is just 1%. The probability of bilateral symmetry to the degree seen is also too subjective to quantify, but is surely small. Although these findings are independent of the exploded planet hypothesis, the eph led us to this line of thought. And it has further implications. Under eph premises, Mars is a former moon of Planet V. And as we have seen, Mars would have kept the same side permanently toward Planet V. So our line of reasoning has suggested a previously unimagined cultural purpose for a "Face" to be http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/mrb_cydonia/new-evidence.asp (11 of 15) [11/16/2000 6:10:12 AM]


built looking up into space: It would have been visible to the presumed occupants of parent Planet V. We can readily imagine that the hypothetical builders would have outfitted the "Face" and landforms with appropriate illumination to make them visible even when in total darkness. Hence, a cultural purpose for a "Face" looking up into space has arisen from our considerations, thereby completing the fourth test, as shown in Table 5. Test PASS FAIL "Face" in 3-D * fractal test * mounds non-random * nearby context * bilateral symmetry * location * orientation * purpose * ■

Table 5. Present status of tests of artificiality of Cydonia landforms.

However, the unraveling of this intriguing cosmic puzzle is not so simple as the naïve picture just painted, and we have some loose ends to tidy up. If the Cydonia landforms permanently faced Planet V at the time of its explosion, they would now be buried under 21 km of debris in the martian southern hemisphere. Moreover, the immediately former martian pole location AP is apparently located within 10° of the center of the original hemispheric dichotomy, as inspection of Figure 7 can confirm. This means AP was the martian pole after the Planet V explosion. Since the Cydonia landforms were seemingly built on the martian equator when AP was the pole, then the landforms necessarily were built after the Planet V explosion. The location that is now Cydonia was oriented about 100° away from the point on Mars closest to the Planet V explosion. In the scenario described earlier, Body C was also orbiting Planet V at the time of the explosion, and perhaps became gravitationally bound to Mars following the explosion. It therefore seems plausible, given that the Cydonia landforms are artificial, that the Cydonia builders’ home planet was Body C, accounting for the absence of overt evidence for an advanced civilization on the surface of Mars. Body C would have suffered a fate similar to Mars when Planet V exploded. However, the side facing away from Planet V would have been spared the main force of the explosion, and suffered less direct impact than even distant Earth. So we can picture that part of the builders’ civilization was spared by taking refuge on the far side of Body C, or perhaps by escaping to that moon from Planet V before the latter’s demise. The supposed civilization would have either evolved, or (if pre-existing) have done its best to survive and recover, following the Planet V explosion at 65 Mya. Body C would tidally evolve to an orbit and spin rate synchronous with Mars. Mars, presumed to be the more massive of the two, might or might not have become spin-locked with Body C. At some point, the Cydonia landforms were built on Mars for visibility from Body C. Then Body C exploded at 3.2 Mya, leaving only Mars, and triggering the final pole shift. This much smaller explosion largely overlapped the earlier Planet V explosion on Mars, but included more of the present western hemisphere and preventing the sharp hemispheric boundary created by the earlier explosion from being visible all around the planet. Cydonia again seems to have been spared the brunt of the second explosion; so either Mars was not spin-locked with Body C, or a precursor explosion broke the spin lock shortly before the final destruction of Body C. It is intriguing to note that this hypothesized civilization apparently had the ability to save some of its members from the deadly effects of one or both explosions by space transporting them to the far http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/mrb_cydonia/new-evidence.asp (12 of 15) [11/16/2000 6:10:12 AM]


side of nearby moons. But following the destruction of their primary world, Body C, at 3.2 Mya, this species would have been forced to choose between attempting to survive on explosion-torn, atmosphere-stripped Mars, or long-distance relocation to the most habitable of the remaining planets, Earth. This is intriguing because the first appearance of hominids on Earth also dates to just about the time of this last explosion, 3.2 Mya. And it has been noted that the "Face" is apparently more hominid-like than alien. Conclusions The "Face" on Mars has now passed each test of artificiality yet proposed. These tests include a three dimensional structure, a lack of fractal patterns in the image, non-random distribution of the nearby small mounds, proximity of other anomalous landforms, an apparent bilateral symmetry, being located on the martian equator, having a culturally significant orientation, and serving an apparent culturally significant purpose. It would be an exaggeration to say that the case for artificiality is now compelling, and many thoughtful people will still find that conclusion less likely than all these "coincidences" put together. Yet the balance of the evidence, considered objectively, now weighs clearly in favor of artificiality over a natural origin of the Cydonian landforms. As a counterpoint, it is sometimes argued that the probability of artificial structures on Mars must be vanishingly small. However, for all we know, intelligent life may have developed elsewhere in our galaxy long ago, and long since explored the galaxy and left structures on all terrestrial planets in the galaxy. If that were the case, then the probability of finding artificial landforms on Mars is close to 100%. This illustrates that the probability of the Cydonia landforms being artificial is unknown, which is very different from being very small. An unknown probability can lead to either outcome without being statistically improbable. It would be disingenuous to provide evidence for such a startling conclusion if no verification was possible in the foreseeable future. The author therefore hastens to point out that the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft is now en route to the red planet for a mapping mission, with cameras able to take high resolution pictures of such potential quality that the truth status of the artificiality hypothesis could be made considerably clearer to all sometime during 1998. It would be illogical to conclude that the exploded planet hypothesis was either verified or falsified by the outcome of the Cydonia artificiality hypothesis. But both hypotheses have important implications for one another, and go a long way toward providing some understanding of the surprising and curious properties of Mars that we have come to discover in this early space age. However, in view of the preceding considerations, all might be wise to prepare for the possibility of a cultural shock probably unrivaled by any other in our generation. Acknowledgments All the figures in this paper except Figure 7 are taken from NASA photos. Vincent DiPietro and Gregory Molenaar were the first investigators to conduct scientific research on the Cydonian anomalies, later joined by John Brandenburg (DiPietro, Molenaar & Brandenburg, 1988). The Cydonian anomalies have been widely popularized by Richard Hoagland (Hoagland, 1992). NASA's role in discouraging further investigation has been critiqued by Stanley McDaniel (McDaniel, 1993). The singularly important image enhancements were the work of Mark Carlotto (Carlotto, 1991). See for additional images, some in stereo. Without any of these people, the Cydonia area might still reside in obscurity today. The author gratefully acknowledges invaluable discussions and insights with members of the Society for Planetary SETI Research (SPSR), and in particular contributions from John Brandenburg, Mark J. Carlotto, Horace Crater, Vince DiPietro, Lambert Dolphin, Dan Drasin, Jim Erjevac, Marie-Louise Kagan, Stan McDaniel, Brian O'Leary, Ananda Sirisena, Jim Strange, Erol http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/mrb_cydonia/new-evidence.asp (13 of 15) [11/16/2000 6:10:12 AM]


Torun, Dr. David Webb, and Michael E. Zimmerman. Discussions with Michael Van Flandern were also of great help in piecing together the various parts of this intriguing puzzle. References Abell, G.O., Morrison, D., and Wolff, S.C., Exploration of the Universe, Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia, 239-240 (1991). Anderson, J.D., Jurgens, R.F., et al., "Shape and orientation of Mercury from radar ranging data", Icarus 124, 690-697 (1996). Caffee, M.W., Goswami, J.N., et al., "Irradiation records in meteorites", in Meteorites and the Early Solar System, J.F. Kerridge and M.S. Matthews, eds., Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, 205-245 (1988). Carlotto, M.J., The Martian Enigmas, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley (1991). Chapman, C.R. and Jones, K.L., "Cratering and obliteration history of Mars", Ann.Rev.Earth Planet.Sci. 5, 515-540 (1977). Christiansen, E.H. and Hamblin, W.K., Exploring the Planets, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p. 144 (1995). Crater, H.W. and McDaniel, S.V., "Mound configurations on the martian Cydonia plain: a geometric and probabilistic analysis", revised and combined version of papers delivered to the Society for Scientific Exploration meetings, 1995-96; submitted to J.Sci.Explor (1997). DiPietro, V., "Report of findings of life on Mars", copyright by author, updated 12/15/96, p. 4 (1996). DiPietro, V., Molenaar, G., and Brandenburg, J., Unusual Mars Surface Features, Mars Research, Glenn Dale, MD, 4th ed. (1988). Harrington, R.S. and Van Flandern, T., "The satellites of Neptune and the origin of Pluto", Icarus 39, 131-136 (1979). Hoagland, R.C., The Monuments of Mars, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley (1992). Gabbard, J.R., "Orbits of fragments from exploded satellites", Tech.Mem. 74-3, Headquarters NORAD/CONAD/ADC, Colorado Springs, CO (1974). Lammer, H., "Atmospheric mass loss on Mars and the consequences for the Cydonian hypothesis and early martian-life forms", J.Sci.Exploration 10, 355-361 (1996). Maran, S.P., ed., The Astronomy and Astrophysics Encyclopedia, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 412-414 (1992). Marzari, F., Farinella, P., et al., "Collisional evolution of Trojan asteroids", Icarus 125, 39-49 (1997). McDaniel, S.V., The McDaniel Report, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley (1992). McGill, G.E. and Dimitriou, A.M., "Origin of the martian global dichotomy by crustal thinning in the late Noachian or early Hesperian", J.Geophys.Res. 95, 12595-12605 (1990). McGill, G.E. and Squyres, S.W., "Origin of the martian crustal dichotomy: evaluating



hypotheses", Icarus 93, 386-393 (1991). O’Keefe, J.A., Tektites and Their Origin", Elsevier Scientific Publ., 150-151 (1976). Schultz, P.H., "Polar wandering on Mars", Sci.Amer. 253, Dec. 94-102 (1985). Schultz, P.H. and Lutz, A.B., "Polar wandering on Mars", Icarus 73, 91-141 (1988). Strom, R.G., Croft, S.K., and Barlow, N.G., "The martian impact cratering record", in Mars, H.H. Kieffer, B.M. Jakosky et al., eds., U. of Arizona Press, Tucson, 383-423 (1992). Van Flandern, T., "A former asteroidal planet as the origin of comets", Icarus 36, 51-74 (1978). Van Flandern, T., Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, 155-236 (1993). Van Flandern, T., "A revision of the exploded planet hypothesis", Meta Research Bull. 4, 33-42 (1995). Van Flandern, T., "Are the ‘Mars meteorites’ really from Mars?", Meta Research Bulletin 5, 33-38 (1996). Van Flandern, T. and Harrington, R.S., "A dynamical investigation of the conjecture that Mercury is an escaped satellite of Venus", Icarus 28, 435-440 (1976). ©1991-2000 Meta Research. All rights reserved Contact Meta Research Privacy Policy


Figure 1.

Tell a friend

Search

Advanced

Home

Expeditions EPH

Publications

Cosmology

Solar System

Media and Links

Cydonia Figure 1.

Overview of Cydonia region on Mars. North is up. The frame height is about 1.5 degrees or 80 km. ©1991-2000 Meta Research. All rights reserved Contact Meta Research Privacy Policy

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/mrb_cydonia/cydonia.asp [11/16/2000 6:12:26 AM]

Figure 2.

Tell a friend

Search

Advanced

Home

Expeditions EPH

Publications

Cosmology

Solar System

Cydonia Figure 2.

Close-up of the "Face" at Cydonia on Mars. ©1991-2000 Meta Research. All rights reserved Contact Meta Research Privacy Policy

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/mrb_cydonia/face1.asp [11/16/2000 6:14:30 AM]

Media and Links

Figure 3.

Tell a friend

Search

Advanced

Home

Expeditions EPH

Publications

Cosmology

Solar System

Cydonia Figure 3.

Close-up of "D&M pyramid" at Cydonia on Mars. ©1991-2000 Meta Research. All rights reserved Contact Meta Research Privacy Policy

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/mrb_cydonia/pyramid.asp [11/16/2000 6:15:09 AM]

Media and Links

Figure 4.

Tell a friend

Search

Advanced

Home

Expeditions EPH

Publications

Cosmology

Solar System

Cydonia Figure 4.

Close-up of "Fortress" at Cydonia on Mars. ©1991-2000 Meta Research. All rights reserved Contact Meta Research Privacy Policy

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/mrb_cydonia/fortress.asp [11/16/2000 6:15:26 AM]

Media and Links

Figure 5.

--> Tell a friend

Search

Advanced

Home

Expeditions EPH

Publications

Cosmology

Solar System

Cydonia Figure 5.

Close-up of "City" showing its relation to the "Face" and "Fortress". ©1991-2000 Meta Research. All rights reserved Contact Meta Research Privacy Policy

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/mrb_cydonia/city.asp [11/16/2000 6:15:50 AM]

Media and Links

Figure 8.

Tell a friend

Search

Advanced

Home

Expeditions EPH

Publications

Cosmology

Solar System

Media and Links

Cydonia Figure 8.

The "Face" at a higher Sun angle, image processed to bring out detail on the shadowed side. ©1991-2000 Meta Research. All rights reserved Contact Meta Research Privacy Policy

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/mrb_cydonia/face2.asp [11/16/2000 6:19:59 AM]

Preliminary Analysis of April 5 Cydonia Image

Tell a friend

Search

Advanced

Home

Expeditions EPH

Publications

Cosmology

Solar System

Media and Links

Cydonia

Preliminary Analysis of April 5 Cydonia Image from the Mars Global Surveyor Spacecraft Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research -- 98/04/10

Background Viking spacecraft images of Mars in the late 1970s included a photo showing an object that resembled half a human face, with shadows hiding anything that might lie to its immediate east. This drew scientific attention (as well as much unscientific attention) to this object and its vicinity, now named the Cydonia region. Many of the objects near the Face object proved to be anomalous as well. A team of scientists found the region so scientifically interesting that they proposed a variety of tests that would measure the relative probability that the landforms found there are natural formations versus artificial structures. We now know eight such tests. The test results remained mixed until the end of 1996, despite favoring an artificial origin. Then a possible connection between Cydonia and the exploded planet hypothesis (eph) came to light in December 1996. This reversed the conclusions of the three test results appearing to favor a natural origin. In light of the eph connection, these test results now favor an artificial origin of Cydonia at better than a 99% confidence level. Details of the tests and the exploded planet connection can be found in this authors paper New Evidence of Artificiality at Cydonia on Mars, Meta Res.Bull., vol. 6, #1 (1997), also posted at <www.metaresearch.org>. At this time, all available test results indicated a probable artificial origin for objects in the Cydonia complex. This engendered high public interest. Consequently, on March 26 JPL/NASA announced that Cydonia would be one of the priority targets for the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft during the month of April 1998. The new camera was capable of producing images with 10-50 times better resolution than the earlier Viking images. On April 5, it captured the first such image. This report contains an analysis of this first MGS image and its implications for the artificiality hypothesis. Description of the image. The spacecraft is in a near-polar orbit, and its high-resolution camera took a 4.4-km wide, 42-km long roughly north-south strip photo across the Cydonia region in a band that included the Face near its center. The spacecrafts orbit passed well to the west of the Cydonia region on this occasion, producing a viewing angle much lower than in any previous photos having useful resolution. The minimum range was about 440 km. Lighting conditions corresponded to late morning by local time at Cydonia. However, with the Sun well to the south of the Martian equator and Cydonia 41 degrees to the north, sunlight was also from a low angle to the southeast. Its altitude above the horizon was 25 degrees. Initial press reports. Yielding to pressure for rapid release, JPL/NASA took the unprecedented step of releasing raw, unprocessed imagery to the Internet hours before good quality, contrast-enhanced images could be posted. Unfortunately, many individuals and even media, inexperienced with handling raw images and with imaging processing techniques, jumped to conclusions based on a casual glimpse at this image. Most of these did not attempt to

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/preliminary-analysis.asp (1 of 7) [11/16/2000 6:22:05 AM]


analyze the image content or compare it against the criteria for artificiality under discussion. Headlines were based on statements made only by biased individuals willing to comment without careful or proper analysis, and happy to seize on the lack of obvious face-like details in the raw image to ridicule the whole artificiality issue. The media need to become aware in general that such individuals are not acting as objective scientists. In effect, they have made themselves cheerleaders for one side of a controversial issue. The choice for the media here, as always, is between getting the first headlines versus getting the story right. Does the Face still look like a face? From this viewing angle with this lighting, the resemblance to a face was rather poor in the initial images. Because of the poor contrast in the raw images, the lowness of the viewing angle was not immediately obvious. The whole Face landform seemed to be visible. Part of that is a new mini-mock face consisting of boulders and crevices bears little resemblance to a true face, but which led many to think they were seeing the Face itself at higher resolution. That was not the case, and led to many of the erroneous statements that appeared in the first day. With processed, contrast-enhanced images to study, we now know that the eastern half of the Face is almost completely hidden behind the nose bridge. This is especially difficult to notice due to the absence of shadows on the eastern (sunlit) portion. However, this new image shows only the western half of the Face, the half also prominent in Viking imagery. Once that is recognized and the new perspective and lighting are considered, the features identified in earlier images are plain to see again. Figure 1 shows the earlier Viking image plus the new image oriented similarly and scaled to comparable size. It also shows the same new image as a negative to simulate the partial reversal of light and dark areas between the two images. Figure 1.

(NASA/Malin Space Sciences Systems)

Comparison of best Viking with two versions of MOC image -- 415 KB (source: Malin Space Sciences Systems) View the "face", as snapped by the Viking orbiter, "morph" before your eyes in Dorian Grayscale, changing into the latest image returned by the Mars Global Surveyor. The Quicktime animimation from "Air and Space Magazine" was prepared Larry D. Lowe based on images provided by NASA, JPL, Mark Carlotto, and Malin Space Sciences Systems .



The object would still look very much like a humanoid face if the viewing angle were from above and the lighting angle were from the low west. This would reproduce the conditions for the older Viking images. The higher viewing angle would allow us to peer over the nose bridge to the east side in the new image as we could in the old image, allowing us to see that both sides of the face are reasonably symmetric. This symmetry is near impossible to see in the new image alone. Moreover, as the middle image best demonstrates, the brightness of the sunlight washes out details on the east side that can be seen in the Viking image, such as the continuation of the mouth. But why should these special conditions be necessary for optimal viewing? One possibility is that the feature is natural and only accidentally looked like a face under any conditions. But faces in general change appearance depending on viewing angle and lighting. Consider what a human face looks like if illuminated only by a flashlight held under the chin. Or if we are too far to one side, we see only a profile. The aforementioned connection to the exploded planet hypothesis tells us that, if artificial, the Face builders would intend viewing only from locations on the parent planet about which Mars formerly orbited. Mars would always keep the same side toward its parent (as is true of most major moons in the solar system). So all viewing angles from the home world would necessarily be high ones such as those available to Viking, but unlike the current image. Note this is necessarily true if the Face is artificial. It cannot be seen as a face from ground level on Mars, and cannot be seen from any present-day solar system planet even in the largest telescopes. If the builders intended viewing from a nearby planet, illumination of the Face would logically have been from west-side and possibly east-side artificial ground illumination sources so that the object would have maximum visibility during Martian nighttime. This artificial lighting most closely resembles sunlight conditions for the Viking photo, but is far from MGS lighting conditions. Finally, viewing from the home planet would have been distant enough that a hypothetical architect would have needed only large-scale details. The blocks in the corners of the west eye socket provide a rounded appearance to the socket when viewed from a distance, but look like blocks when viewed from a relatively close distance. Biases. Scientists are human. But it is always disheartening to see scientists behave unscientifically. In the first instance, each of us needs to check our own behavior for biases. Scientific Method calls for us to form explanatory hypotheses consistent with the data and propose tests of those hypotheses. We all feel sad when a favored hypothesis fails a test. But the trained scientist knows not to engage in adding ad hoc helper hypotheses to resurrect a hypothesis that has failed a test. That fact notwithstanding, such behavior happens all the time. Indeed, anyone reading the preceding paragraphs might well conclude that it is happening here and now in this analysis paper. The key to overcoming bias here is to examine what the hypothesis as originally formulated actually predicted, and to compare that to the new data. The need for model changes after the arrival of new data is a good indicator of a failed or failing model unless those changes reasonably could and should have been anticipated before the new data. Conversely, the success of a model even beyond the predictions actually made is a good indicator of a solid model of scientific importance. For the artificial origin of Cydonia hypothesis, considerations of a possible link between Cydonia and the exploded planet hypothesis led to several specific predictions that were fulfilled before this new image arrived. If artificial, the Face was apparently intended for viewing from a parent planet, making high-resolution detail unnecessary, high viewing angles mandatory, and artificial ground lighting from the sides probable. Therefore, as speculative as the description I gave above may seem to those unfamiliar with evidence supporting the exploded planet hypothesis [see the authors book, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley (1993)], the argument is at least not ad hoc or after the fact.



By contrast, most scientists who believe in a natural origin of the landforms at Cydonia did not make testable predictions, contrary to what Scientific Method requires. They tended to focus on the physical appearance of a high-resolution, low viewing angle, low illumination angle, well-eroded landform, rather than on specific tests of artificiality. Their opinions are often no more than a reinforcement of their previous conclusions, without benefit of analysis or testable predictions to justify such reinforcement. Typically, scientists in this class say the odds against artifacts on Mars are enormous, a statement that cannot be justified, and exemplifies the problem with their approach. If our galaxy has evolved intelligent life many times, all terrestrial planets in it may have been visited and contain artifacts, making the probability of finding artifacts on any of them close to 100%. Conclusions drawn from invalid assumptions are not often noted for their usefulness. How did the eight tests of artificiality fare? The new image could potentially shed light on just two of the eight tests for artificial origin of Cydonia. In brief, the eight tests and their pre-MGS-image results are: 1. The Face has face-like 3-dimensional contours, and does not resemble a face merely because of albedo variations (light and dark areas) or because it is seen in profile (easy to happen by chance). 2. The Face registers as artificial in military software designed to detect artificial objects in camouflage by measuring the degree of fractality in images. 3. The numerous mounds on the Cydonia plain, rare elsewhere on the Martian surface, are non-randomly distributed and repeat significant angles more often than chance will allow. 4. A number of anomalous and artificial-looking landforms are present among the objects nearest the Face. 5. The Face appears to have bilateral symmetry. 6. The Face appears in a culturally significant location on the planet, the old equator. 7. The Face has a culturally significant orientation, aligned north-south and upright. 8. The Face has a culturally significant purpose, to be viewed from the home planet of the builders, for which Mars was a synchronous moon. The previous test results were positive for artificiality for all eight tests once the exploded planet hypothesis is considered. The new image potentially bears on tests #1 and #5, but sheds no new light on any of the other tests. However, because the image shows only the western half of the Face, it cannot confirm or deny previous image-enhancement work on two Viking photos that suggested bilateral symmetry is present. As for test #1, the new image does confirm that the west eye socket is a real depression and not a shadow, that the bridge of the nose is the highest feature on the mesa, and that the west side of the mouth is a real ravine and not just a shadow. Unfortunately, little information about the east eye socket and east side of the mouth can be gleamed from this image. But both of these are seen in the Viking imagery. Our conclusion is that the new image confirms the results of one test, and does nothing to weaken the test results for the other seven. New features We all hoped that the higher resolution would show something that would resolve the controversy surrounding the artificiality of Cydonia. It may have done that. However, so many scientists jumped the gun and made statements to the press prior to image analysis that opinions have been formed and hardened, and now many people cannot look at the situation objectively without some loss of face (no pun). But a great deal of new information has become available to us because of the much improved resolution and different perspective. An asymmetrical or highly fractal appearance of the Face mesa would have been compelling evidence for a natural origin of at least this one feature, and with it the significance of six of the eight tests of artificiality for Cydonia. But the reality is that the object has a high degree of symmetry and very http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/preliminary-analysis.asp (4 of 7) [11/16/2000 6:22:05 AM]


low fractal content, consistent with artificial origin. Lets examine some specific findings: Below I list some of the highlights of new features seen in this 5-meter resolution image, mainly using those with full contrast-enhancement. But many details are seen to varying degrees in views with different brightness/contrast or other image processing settings. ● Headdress: Old low-resolution photos gave limited details of this feature. The new MGS image shows that it wraps at least three-fourths of the way around the Face mesa, a distance of roughly 5 km. A line along the east side of the mesa hints strongly that this feature wraps all the way around, except perhaps for an entranceway at the southeast corner. The old Viking photos from a higher viewing angle confirm that this is the case the feature wraps around almost the entire mesa. Allowing for perspective, the headdress appears to have a uniform height of hundreds of meters over most or all of this span. Both its bottom and top follow smooth, regular lines or curves. The sides are straight, the bottom is smoothly rounded, and the top has symmetric right-angle bends in both corners. The top has a symmetric round-shape cap containing markings that, when combined with older images, are suggestive of a ceremonial purpose. A smooth, uniform-width trough seems to separate the headdress feature from the rest of the Face mesa, at least on the west and top sides. The headdress feature strongly reinforces the artificiality interpretation. ● Face: Once careful allowance is made for perspective, the features start to look quite regular. The initial chaos that greets the eye soon falls into familiar functional patterns. The comparison between new and old images in the small insets above is helpful if extrapolating the correct perspective for our vantage point. The west top of the Face contains what appears to be a raised eyebrow. In previous stereo imagery, this feature was indistinct and seemed out of place on the forehead, and a possible cause of a shadow producing the false appearance of a west eye socket. The new image removes all doubt: The raised feature has the size, shape and orientation of an eyebrow, including a bend or furrow. Moreover, the eye socket is a deep hollow with no need of a shadow from the eyebrow to create its appearance. The deep west eye socket is delimited by elongated rectangular-looking blocks that appear placed to create the appearance of roundness for the socket. The nose clearly contains two indentations placed and oriented correctly for nostrils, and the nose bridge narrows as it approaches the forehead. Neither the eyebrow nor the nostrils were predicted, but clearly could have been. And it is an amazing coincidence that these uniquely facial features exist in a landform resembling a face if the structure is not artificial. The interior of the mouth has a faint vertical jagged appearance almost suggestive of teeth. The chin is indistinct, but not obviously incorrect. Three regular, parallel lineaments (long, short, and long) just to the west of the nose bridge, and another just beneath the mouth, are again suggestive of ornamental facial decorations or a costume, consistent with the headdress. The features of a near-perfect face are all present, and almost every feature seen on the mesa has a size, shape, and orientation that enhances the appearance of a decorated face in headdress. No imagination is required. But we do require views from different viewpoints at different illuminations with different contrast enhancements, and the ability (which many people do not possess, according to Piaget) to mentally change perspectives. Those who possess such ability can mentally merge the images and see the combined features in 3-D. In such a view, no reasonable doubt appears to remain about the artificiality of this object. ● Crest: This is a new low-contrast feature seen over the top of the headdress and its cap. We can trace its curve around the east side almost down to chin level, but nearly a face-diameter away. Unfortunately, the image does not extend far enough to see if the west side is also symmetric. But if it were, this would add emphasis to an extensive and unusual feature favoring artificiality. Possible other similar but fainter features may surround this one, giving a shroud-like appearance. ● Ridges: A face-diameter to the north we can trace some extremely faint uniformly spaced irregular ridgelines. I count no fewer than 15 in the best contrast-stretched views. Many more of these appear to the south. Their nature must apparently remain a matter of conjecture until NASA can obtain some



●

●

●

●

ground truth. Courtyard: Half way from the Face to the bottom of the strip frame is a half-kilometer crater with a rim that looks more like an enclosure than a crater rim. This is principally because it is so out of round, and because the rim starts at an interior point and completes its circumference by joining on to a different point, resulting in some rim overlap. There are two unresolved structures in the interior that are approached by the rim starting point, and a third, larger structure inside the rim behind the other two. Animal: The largest feature in the strip, three-fourths of the way down from the Face, has the striking appearance of a pictogram, reminiscent of animal drawings in the Peruvian and Chilean desert sands. Since it appears not to have been noticed or named previously, but is the largest feature in the strip frame, I thought to give it a name for referring to it succinctly. It also seems to have a sharp and well-delineated boundary perhaps hundreds of meters high, similar to but far more irregular in shape than the headdress around the Face. Comb and Teeth: A truly remarkable set of 20 short, parallel white lines slant down and to the east from the next feature down below the animal I call the comb. A similar set of lines slant down and to the east from the bottom and lower east side of the animal itself. I call these the teeth, although they tend to give the seeming pictogram the aura-like appearance of rays coming from it. D&M Pyramid: At the bottom of the strip we encounter the melt pool on the east side of the largest Cydonian pyramid-like structure. Unfortunately, the frame cuts off on the west and south sides too soon to see any trace of the high-interest pyramid itself. But the crater on the shadowed side of Viking imagery is now resolved. Earlier speculation about its unusual depth because of its very black shadow and invisible bottom appears justified in this new image. Although we now see the bottom, the walls are quite high and steep for the crater width. We also see an unusual gouge into the nearby terrain on the northwest side where the rim appears open. In the context of the pyramid itself, this author has suggested the possibility that an artificial explosion might have formed this crater. This hypothetical explosion might explain damage to the east side of the pyramid (presumed artificial), splitting and shifting its base and melting enough material to produce the surrounding melt pool on that side. Nothing in the new, high-resolution image appears to counter that hypothesis, but no realistic test is possible until the pyramid itself is imaged.

Conclusion A preliminary analysis of the portion of the Cydonia plain revealed in high-resolution by the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft on April 5 shows that the early claims of conclusive natural origin for the landforms were, at best, premature. The eight original tests of artificiality indicated artificial origin to a degree suggesting that priority targeting of Cydonia was justified. This new high-interest image shows that such priority was justified, and calls for continued high priority for additional images, as is planned. The humanoid facial features that first drew attention to this area are confirmed by this photo despite poor lighting and poor viewing angle. One feature, the headdress, is so much a symmetrical combination of right-angle linear and rounded features as to suggest artificiality strongly. Using the ability to change mental perspectives, one can see the mesa clearly, without imagining details, as an excellent rendition of a sculpted face. Other new features are so uncommon that they raise more questions than they answer. Nothing yet seen on our Moon or any other solar system surface besides Earth suggests artificiality to a comparable degree. Objectivity When dealing with scientific matters, especially controversial ones, it is of great importance that scientists conduct themselves in accord with the procedures of Scientific Method, and remove, to the maximum extent possible, the effects of prior bias from their conclusions. It is unfortunate, if understandable, that some scientists drew public conclusions for the press without background or analysis sufficient to justify their statements. It is even more regrettable that JPL and NASA did not publicly disassociate their agencies from such unscientific statements made by their own employees, thereby fostering the view in the public that JPL http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/preliminary-analysis.asp (6 of 7) [11/16/2000 6:22:05 AM]


and NASA condone such unprofessional conduct by scientists. This engenders disrespect for all of science and all scientists, and should now be dealt with forthrightly in the appropriate manner before further damage occurs in connection with the next set of Cydonia pictures. 98/04/10 ©1991-2000 Meta Research. All rights reserved Contact Meta Research Privacy Policy


Selected Subfields From April 5, 1998 Cydonia Flyover

Tell a friend

Search

Advanced

Home

Expeditions EPH

Publications

Cosmology

Solar System

Media and Links

Cydonia Selected Subfields From April 5, 1998 Cydonia Flyover Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research

"Face" - Face mesa with enclosure on Cydonia plain in Tim Parker's contrast-enhanced cropped face at 1/2 resolution. (full resolution, 839 KB) 223 KB This identifies the major Face features because the needed change of perspective is not easy to see for many people. The added dark markings are not on Mars!

"Animal" - sharply bordered figurine due south of "Face" 229 KB

"Aura" - curious building-size white lines on southeast border of "Animal"

29 KB "Comb" - more odd but regular shapes and white lines - I was tempted to call this the "parking lot" 126 KB

"Courtyard" - dim object between "Animal" and "Face" looking more like an enclosure than a crater rim 44 KB "Crest" - apparent decoration for "helmet" worn by "Face" 198 KB http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/preliminary-images.asp (1 of 2) [11/16/2000 6:22:41 AM]

Selected Subfields From April 5, 1998 Cydonia Flyover

"Eyebrow" - Enlargement of feature over west eye socket with possible furrow 28 KB "Mouth" - enlargement of feature under "nose", showing hint of perspective-foreshortened continuation on east side of "Face" 51 KB "Pupil" - Enlargement of west eye socket showing circular depression where the pupil would be expected 39 KB More MGS Cydonia Subimages... ©1991-2000 Meta Research. All rights reserved Contact Meta Research Privacy Policy

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/preliminary-images.asp (2 of 2) [11/16/2000 6:22:41 AM]

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/mgs-face-quarter.gif

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/mgs-face-quarter.gif [11/16/2000 6:22:52 AM]

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/mgs-face-full.gif

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/mgs-face-full.gif (1 of 2) [11/16/2000 6:23:56 AM]

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/mgs-face-full.gif

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/mgs-face-full.gif (2 of 2) [11/16/2000 6:23:56 AM]

Cydonia Face and Artwork

Tell a friend

Search

Advanced

Home

Expeditions EPH

Publications

Cosmology

Solar System

Media and Links

Cydonia

This identifies the major Face features because the needed change of perspective is not easy to see for many people. The added dark markings are not on Mars! ©1991-2000 Meta Research. All rights reserved Contact Meta Research Privacy Policy

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/face-art.asp [11/16/2000 6:24:13 AM]

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/animal.gif

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/animal.gif [11/16/2000 6:24:26 AM]

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/aura.gif

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/aura.gif [11/16/2000 6:25:37 AM]

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/comb.gif

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/comb.gif [11/16/2000 6:26:16 AM]

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/courtyard.gif

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/courtyard.gif [11/16/2000 6:26:56 AM]

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/crest.gif

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/crest.gif [11/16/2000 6:27:15 AM]

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/pupil.gif

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/pupil.gif [11/16/2000 6:27:36 AM]

Additional Subfields From April 1998 MGS Cydonia Flyovers

Tell a friend

Search

Advanced

Home

Expeditions EPH

Publications

Cosmology

Solar System

Media and Links

Cydonia Additional Subfields From April 1998 MGS Cydonia Flyover Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research -- 98/06

Click on one of the following thumbnails to view the full-sized image. An extract from the top portion of the third MGS-Cydonia strip image taken April 23. This shows a set of embedded triangular features. Triangles are rare phenomena on moon and planet surfaces except at Cydonia, where many triangles and other features composed of linear sections are seen. 400 KB

316 KB

An extract from the top portion of the third MGS-Cydonia strip image taken April 23. This shows an unusual feature with dark stripes or bands. The feature is a few hundred meters long, and somewhat resembles a large lizard. Material sliding down the smooth pyramid-like face behind this object has been suggested as a possible natural explanation. We show it here because, just above (behind?) the dark stripes is an almost identical set of fainter dark stripes, as if a reflection were being seen. Likewise, irregular shapes to the right along the base of this smooth face also have fainter (mirror?) images "behind" them. If these were reflections, the presence of manufactured materials such as glass or metal would be implied.

This shows the triangular eyebrow feature just above the west eye socket on the Face. All three sides are apparently linear, and the bright portions are apparently on a front section facing directly into the Sun. 229 KB

Mark Carlotto's ortho-rectified view of the Face. This uses height information from the Viking photos to reconstruct how the Face mesa would appear if viewed right-side-up from above. Naturally, only features on the visible west side are present in this image. East-side features were hidden behind the nose ridge and are therefore nearly blank in this rectified view.

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/additional-images.asp (1 of 2) [11/16/2000 6:27:53 AM]

Additional Subfields From April 1998 MGS Cydonia Flyovers

If we make the assumption that the east side is a mirror image of the west side, this is the resulting rectified view. Only east side information was inserted; while the west side is still identical with the rectified view above. If we take this view and ask the computer to reconstruct what we would see from a 45-degree west viewing angle with sunlight eliminating contrast for illuminated east-side features, we would arrive at an image rather similar to what MGS actually saw. (Of course, an east-side that was not symmetric would also work. This merely shows that perfect symmetry is consistent with both Viking and MGS data.)

©1991-2000 Meta Research. All rights reserved Contact Meta Research Privacy Policy

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/additional-images.asp (2 of 2) [11/16/2000 6:27:53 AM]

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/cy3-triangles-set.gif

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/cy3-triangles-set.gif [11/16/2000 6:28:05 AM]

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/cy3-reflections.gif

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/cy3-reflections.gif [11/16/2000 6:29:20 AM]

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/cy1-eyebrow+outline.gif

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/images/cy1-eyebrow+outline.gif [11/16/2000 6:29:38 AM]

PROOF THAT THE CYDONIA FACE ON MARS IS ARTIFICIAL

Tell a friend

Search

Advanced

Home

Expeditions EPH

Publications

Cosmology

Solar System

Media and Links

Cydonia

PROOF THAT THE CYDONIA FACE ON MARS IS ARTIFICIAL Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research [Reprinted from the Meta Research Bulletin 00/06/15] ** [addendum added in footnote on 00/08/14]**

Abstract: The MGS spacecraft took a high-resolution photo of the “Face on Mars” in April, 1998. That image suffered from four handicaps: a low viewing angle; a low Sun angle from the direction under the “chin”; an almost complete lack of contrast; and enough cloudiness to scatter most of the light and eliminate shadows. To add to these difficult circumstances, JPL-MIPL personnel, apparently judging that the controversy over artificiality would not be ended when the actual photo was released, processed the image through two filters having the effect of flattening and suppressing image details. This step is documented at a JPL web site. Here we do image processing correctly and present the results of computer corrections to compensate for the poor lighting and low viewing angle. The actual image shows clearly the impropriety of the JPL-MIPL actions because the visual impression of artificiality persists. However, appearances after a discovery are not a valid basis for drawing conclusions, but only for Figure 1. Part of Viking image 70a13 showing “Face” at forming hypotheses for further testing. This is Cydonia. Contrast was adjusted separately on sunlit and called the a priori principle of scientific method. shadowed (outlined) sides to bring out details of both at The 1976 Viking imagery allowed the formation comparable lighting levels. Bright border of outline is an of competing hypotheses, natural vs. artificial artefact of brightening everything inside the outline origin, and tests to distinguish them. When applied to the high-resolution MGS image of the Face, all artificiality predictions were fulfilled despite a lack of background noise. The combined a priori odds against a natural origin of the Face on Mars are 1021 to 1. Background The “Face” at Cydonia on Mars is shown in 1976 medium resolution Viking spacecraft image 70a13 in Figure 1, and in the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft strip-image SP1-22003 in Figure 2. The mesa is about 2.5 km tall by 2 km wide, and extends several hundred meters above ground level. The appearance is much less

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp (1 of 7) [11/16/2000 6:43:25 AM]


face-like in the high-resolution MGS image in Figure 2 than in the original Viking image in Figure 1 for the following reasons: (1) The MGS spacecraft took its image from a low-perspective angle well to the west, rather than from nearly overhead as in the Viking spacecraft view. Mainly the western half of the “Face” is seen in Figure 2, with the eastern half largely hidden behind the nose ridge. (2) Sunlight shines on the Face mesa from the low west in the Viking image, but from the low southeast in the MGS image. The latter tends to distort facial features, much like a flashlight held under the chin. (3) The Viking image had a normal variation of grayscale levels to provide contrast between adjacent features. The range of grayscale levels in the MGS image was inadequate to provide the amount of contrast normally utilized by the human eye. (4) Following analysis, it became apparent that the major face-like features on the mesa have the characteristic that they cast shadows that enhance the face-like appearance at almost any Sun-angle. For example, the eye socket is a depression that contains the shadow of its walls while the Sun is anywhere but overhead. It is similar for the mouth feature, which casts a shadow into the ravine between the lips at most times of day. The facial appearance is enhanced by such shadows, but is difficult to separate from the background when the shadows are absent. By bad luck, the sunlight was so scattered by thin cloud cover that light on the Face was mainly ambient (omni-directional, shadow-free) light. This partially ameliorates difficulty (2), but creates a greater problem by removing one element important to the perceived appearance of the mesa. Photographs of actual human faces and of face sculptures taken under similar viewing perspective and lighting conditions as prevailed for Figure 2 are commonly no longer recognizable as faces. The image in Figure 2 initially leaves the question of the degree to which the mesa resembles a face unresolved. Various features of Figure 2 can be cited on both sides of the issue. Unfortunately for the objectivity that scientists are supposed to maintain, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) apparently was unhappy that the high-resolution image received by its spacecraft did not immediately settle the artificiality controversy. Strong public statements ridiculing the “Face” and the serious scientific investigation thereof had previously been issued by certain scientists working for JPL, Caltech (which owns JPL), and JPL contractors, and by other supporters of robotic space exploration (managed and controlled almost exclusively by JPL) over manned space exploration (for which little science or funding goes to JPL). Indeed, the laboratory and MSSS, its contractor for the MGS imaging mission, initially refused to take the Figure 2. Part of MGS image SP1-22003 showing “Face” high-resolution images of the “Face” on the at Cydonia. Inset locates “facial” features. Contrast is stated grounds that it would be a waste of public adjusted separately on the two sides, with the sunlit funds and a slap at the integrity of the scientists portions outlined. Dark border of outline is an artefact in the program. They were ordered to take them



caused by darkening everything inside the outline to bring anyway by NASA Headquarters. out its details. When the first picture arrived at JPL, its Mission Image Processing Laboratory (MIPL) passed the image through two filters, a low-pass filter and a high-pass filter. It is difficult to see how usage of these filters on this image before release to the media could be scientifically justified. Indeed, usage of the high-pass filter gave an especially damaging impression. From Adobe’s Photoshop software, we find the following description of the function and purpose of this filter: “High Pass Filter: Retains edge details … and suppresses the rest of the image. … The filter removes low-frequency detail in an image … The filter is useful for extracting line art and large black-and-white areas from scanned images.” The usage of these filters on the “Face” image is documented on the JPL web site . The same day that the raw spacecraft image data was received at MSSS and posted to the Internet, the JPL Public Information Office (PIO) released the MIPL-created, filtered image shown in Figure 3 to the world media. As a direct consequence of this act, it has become extraordinarily difficult to get material on this subject considered in the scientific community. For example, a technical abstract on the subject of Cydonia submitted by this author in the summer of 1998 for oral presentation to the Division of Planetary Science (DPS) of the American Astronomical Society was rejected. This was the only rejection of an abstract by a member in good standing at this meeting, with over 600 other abstracts accepted. Rejection of a member-submitted abstract is a rare event (unprecedented for this author) because presentation of papers before peers is the primary means of getting feedback before submitting written versions of papers to journals for peer review, and because justification of conclusions is not normally provided in an abstract. The DPS abstract review committee based its decision on the evidence they had seen with their own eyes in the image released by JPL-PIO to the media. On appeal, they reversed their decision and accepted the abstract for a late poster paper; but the damage had already been done. The subject Figure 3. High-pass-filtered “Face” image released by JPL matter of Cydonia and the “Face” on Mars was to the world media. by then on a list of topics not suitable for consideration by certain mainstream technical journals such as Nature magazine. By editorial policy, papers on the subject of the “Face” can no longer receive peer review at that magazine. Whatever your opinion about the artificiality of the “Face” may be, and whatever the actual merits of the issue may be, it seems beyond dispute that allowing world opinion to be based on the image in Figure 3 was scientifically inappropriate. When considering why this happened, we appear to be left with an unhappy choice between dishonesty and incompetence. Correcting the Photographic Shortcomings of the MGS “Face”



So what would the Face mesa have looked like if the image had been taken under better lighting conditions from an overhead perspective? Modern computer image enhancement techniques can do an excellent job of simulating different lighting and perspectives without significant alteration or distortion of the image content. The results presented here are the combined efforts of three professionals skilled in computer graphics and image enhancement. Boris Starosta noted that, because of the abnormal lighting conditions, the negative of the April 1998 MGS Face image looked more like the 1976 Viking image than its positive. Boris began with the MGS negative (shown in the left panel of Figure 4), and switched the lighting so that the source of illumination was northwest (upper left) of the Face and creating shadows accordingly. This view is shown on the cover of this issue and in the center panel of Figure 4. Mark Carlotto had previously mapped heights on the Face using shape-from-shading and triangulation techniques, allowing him to change viewing angles, for example, to overhead. This process is called “orthorectification”. That view is shown in the right panel of Figure 4. Mark Kelly optimized the brightness and contrast for the purpose, then put the transition between these steps into an animation, available on our web site at . The starting, middle, and end images from Kelly’s animation are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Left: negative of the Face as seen by the MGS spacecraft in April, 1998. Center: Lighting source switched from SE to NW. Right: Viewing angle switched from 45° west to overhead. Click on above image to view full animation by Mark Kelly, whose web site is <www.electrobus.com>. Need an animation viewer? Click here and see link at end of page.

Before I studied image processing myself, I worried that the biases of the person doing the processing might contribute significantly to the image seen. Now that I am more familiar with the process, I can see that it uses objective, standardized computer techniques, and does not add features to an image that are not present in the original. The techniques used are more like focusing a camera – they change the camera’s view to one more like what the human eye would see if viewing directly. The exception is the left portion of the east (right-side) eye, which was hidden behind the nose ridge, and for which no data exists other than that in Figure 1. It was therefore filled out artistically by assuming symmetry with the other eye socket. ** [See footnote at end.] ** The JPL personnel who decided to release Figure 3 to the media were right about one thing. If they had released the unfiltered spacecraft image to the press, the controversy over artificiality of the Face would not have been settled in the minds of many fair-minded people. Proof that the “Face” is Artificial The Viking images presented us with a mesa and a reason to suspect artificiality – its seemingly



improbable humanoid-face-like appearance. However, as is well known, face-like images sometimes appear in clouds, profiles of mountains, and various other random or visually noisy scenes. Moreover, humans have a tendency to perceive order, even in the midst of chaos. A scientific principle known as the a priori principle, a part of scientific method, teaches us that judgments of the significance of unexpected findings in random data have ambiguous significance at best, and are generally not significant. This is simply because remarkably regular patterns frequently arise by chance, even when the a priori odds are billions to one against that happening. For example, every deal of 13 playing cards gets the player 13 unique cards. The odds against being dealt those specific 13 cards are 635-billion-to-1. Yet every hand dealt yields 13 unique cards with the same long odds against that particular deal happening by chance. Whether the player receives 13 random cards or 13 spades, the odds against the unique result of the deal occurring by chance are the same. By contrast, if someone predicts before the deal takes place that he/she will be dealt 13 spades (or any 13 unique cards), and that prediction turns out to be correct, we may be certain, at odds of 635 billion to 1, that something other than chance was responsible for this successful prediction. Both scenarios involved the same event – a hand of 13 spades dealt to a particular player from a deck of 52 cards. In one case, no correct prediction was made in advance, nor was one possible. In the other case, a correct prediction in advance of the deal was made. The latter is an a priori prediction, meaning one made before the result is known. The expression a priori means “proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive; based on a hypothesis or theory rather than on experiment or experience; made before or without examination; not [yet] supported by factual study.” When an a priori prediction exists, the results then become a test of the hypothesis on which the prediction is based. A successful prediction tends to support the hypothesis that generated it, and a failed prediction tends to falsify the hypothesis that generated it. The degree of support or falsification depends on how probable or improbable it was that the prediction would happen or fail to happen by chance alone. A priori predictions are a valid basis for testing scientific hypotheses. A posteriori findings (made after the results are known, but still sometimes called “predictions”) are generally not a valid basis for drawing conclusions because their significance is, at best, ambiguous or indeterminate. The number of possible ways an a posteriori finding might have arisen by chance is usually vast and impossible to estimate in an unbiased way. Ignoring the results of an a priori prediction is no more valid scientifically than is drawing conclusions from the results of an a posteriori finding. As this applies to the “Face”, all Viking images were a posteriori, so no reliable conclusions could be drawn from the data initially available. However, the images did allow formulation of specific hypotheses for further testing. The competing models were: ● The “Face” is an artificial structure built by an intelligent species (indigenous or visiting) and intended to depict the face of a member of a humanoid-like species, whether their own, ours, or some other. ● The “Face” is of natural origin, resembling a humanoid face entirely by accidental chance combined with our predilection to see familiar patterns in otherwise non-ordered data. With regard to some of the new data provided by the MGS images taken in 1998 or later with ten times greater resolution than the older (1976) Viking images, these competing hypotheses and their consequent predictions have a priori status. Scientific method attaches significance to the test results of predictions having a priori status. Disputing or ignoring the results of tests of a priori predictions, whichever way they go, is itself a form of a posteriori reasoning, generally of questionable validity because it violates the controls against bias imposed by scientific method. For example, the artificiality hypothesis predicts that an image intended to portray a humanoid face should have more than the primary facial features (eyes, nose, mouth) seen in the Viking images. At higher resolution, we ought to see secondary facial features such as eyebrows, pupils, nostrils, and lips, for which the resolution of the



original Viking images was insufficient. The presence of such features in the MGS images would be significant new indicators of artificiality. Their existence by chance is highly improbable. And the prediction of their existence by the artificiality hypothesis is completely a priori. By contrast, the natural-origin hypothesis predicts that the “Face” will look more fractal (e.g., more natural) at higher resolution. Any feature that resembled secondary facial features could do so only by chance, and would be expected to have poor correspondence with the expected size, shape, location, and orientation of real secondary facial features. Any such chance feature might also be expected to be part of a background containing many similar chance features. In Figure 2, it is possible to see details in the image (once the right correspondence to the Viking image is recognized) that might have been intended to portray each secondary facial feature – eyebrow, pupil, nostrils, and lips. These are more plainly visible in higher-magnification views with brightness and contrast adjusted for each area because of the limited contrast in the image. Such views may be inspected at in the Cydonia section. Detailed study with image processing software shows that these secondary facial features exist where expected by the artificiality hypothesis, but nowhere else on the mesa. This rules out a background of many similar features from which we might pick out just ones that fulfill our expectations. Moreover, each feature is present at the expected location, having the expected size, shape, and orientation. The odds are against any of these features arising by chance, and against each feature having any of the four listed characteristics. Each of these probabilities has been carefully and conservatively estimated in a fuller treatment of this topic. [1] The combined odds against all of these features being present and having all expected characteristics to the degree actually present, when taken together with the absence of similar features in the background, exceed a thousand billion billion to one (1021 to 1). Strictly speaking, science does not prove physical hypotheses; it disproves them. In that sense, all we have done, technically, is rule out the natural origin hypothesis at the cited odds. However, unless we can formulate some other hypothesis competing with artificiality that makes similar a priori predictions, we are compelled to accept artificiality as the most reasonable explanation consistent with the a priori principle of scientific method. [1] T. Van Flandern, H. Crater, J. Erjavec, L. Fleming & H. Moore (2000), Evidence of Planetary Artifacts, preprint available from Meta Research (may eventually be posted to ).

** Footnote added 00/08/14 ** I have since learned that the last two sentences of this paragraph (immediately following Figure 4) are incorrect. Mark Kelly filled in the small, missing information using low-resolution Viking imagery, not artistically. This was based on Mark Carlotto’s shape-from-shading models that combine both Viking and MGS images. Kelly used Figure 2 at Carlotto’s site, . This answers concerns expressed about the reality of the extension of the mouth to the right (east) side of the Face, and the presence of a complete eye socket on that side. Both are real features, not artist’s concepts. Lan Fleming has done a critique of Kelly’s final image, available at . He says, “While I pointed out what I see as a few flaws in [Kelly’s] enhancement, I think the overall work is valid and the result is powerful, which is why I went to the trouble of doing a critique of it.” If you have not already viewed the animated transition of the Face from the MGS lighting and viewing angle to the Viking lighting and viewing angle, it is well worth the effort. [animation]





Astronomy Animations

Tell a friend

Search

Advanced

Home



Cosmology

Solar System

Animations


Astronomy Animations This page contains quick links to animations on this site. Descriptions and credits are below. Links to animations are in the box on the left. (1) Face on Mars (2) Fission Model

(1) 00/07/15: Correction of MGS Face image for poor lighting and viewing perspective, by Mark Kelly . Appears in the paper "Proof that the Cydonia Face on Mars is Artificial". Based in part on image processing by Boris Starosta and Mark Carlotto .

(2) 00/07/15: Fission model for planet and moon formation, by John Bejko . Appears in the paper "The Original Solar System".

If you do not already have a viewer for .mov file types (needed for the Face animation), you can download the free Apple QuickTime viewer at the preceding link. ©1991-2000 Meta Research. All rights reserved Contact Meta Research Privacy Policy

http://www.metaresearch.org/media%20and%20links/animations/animations.asp [11/16/2000 6:43:47 AM]

External Links

Tell a friend

Search

Advanced

Home



Cosmology

Solar System

Animations


Links Outside of Meta Research More information on the topics discussed on the Meta Research web pages can be found at the following links. Meta Research has no editorial control over the content at these external sites and a link here does not necessarily indicated support or endorsement by Meta Research for ideas or information presented at these sites. Exploded Planet Hypothesis ● Alan F. Alford web site provides a detailed synopsis of the EPH and a useful list of responses to FAQs (frequently asked questions). Includes a summary of EPH evidence grouped by category. Alford also argues that ancient religions were "exploded planet cults". He evaluates the scientific data to establish whether or not ancient religions were based on a correct premise. ● Enterprise Mission illustrated spread on the exploded planet hypothesis. ●

A summary of evidence in support of the Exploded Planet Hypothesis.

Mars & Cydonia Links ● Geology Home Page, Web Site developed by Jim Erjavec, a Geologist with the Society for Planetary SETI Research (SPSR). ● Interviews by Dr. Bob Hieronimus for 21st Century Radio with Dr. John Brandenburg, Ph.D. and Dr. Tom Van Flandern, Ph.D. on the New Photos of the Face and Monuments ●

Mark J. Carlotto's The Martian Enigmas: The Face, Pyramids and Other Unusual Objects on Mars

●

MGS images from the Mars Surface Anomaly Analysis Group.

●

Adam Marturana's Observations of Cydonia, Mars is intended to "intrigue you and peek your interest in space exploration." "The McDaniel Report Newsletter", an on-line source of current information on Mars research.

●

Miscellaneous ● A provocative article in the American Spectator magazine, "Rethinking Relativity" by Tom Bethell, examines the "speed of gravity" and how mainstream science works (or doesn't work). ● Interviews at Laura Lee's national radio program, including Tom's analysis of the "Akkadian Seal" (as popularized by Z. Sitchin). ● At Planetary Mysteries site: "Are the Mars meteorites really from Mars?" ●

Jon Kierein's anti-Big-Bang site.

Astronomy News and Services ● Science Frontiers: a digest of anomalies in many fields. http://www.metaresearch.org/media%20and%20links/external%20links/links.asp (1 of 2) [11/16/2000 6:46:33 AM]

External Links ●

Universe Today. Space exploration and astronomy news, updated every weekday.

●

Astronomical-theme & custom T-shirts: Wacky Willy T's, includes Cydonia, Mars, Hubble Deep Field, etc. Observatorio ARVAL: many, many more links.

●


http://www.metaresearch.org/media%20and%20links/external%20links/links.asp (2 of 2) [11/16/2000 6:46:33 AM]

Examining the Cydonia Region of Mars

The Throne Of Cydonia

the Chessmen of Mars

The Chessmen of Mars

The Chessmen of Mars

The Chessmen of Mars

The Memory of Mars

The Gods of Mars

The Memory of Mars

The Chessmen of Mars

The Chessmen of Mars

The Chessmen of Mars

The Chessmen of Mars

The Caves Of Mars

The Gods of Mars

The Sands of Mars

The Gods of Mars

The Sons of Mars

The Gods of Mars

The Gods Of Mars

Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition

The Mastermind of Mars

The Gods of Mars

The Memory of Mars

The Chessmen of Mars

The Gods Of Mars

The Memory of Mars

The Chessmen of Mars

The Surface of Mars

Examining the Cydonia Region of Mars

The Throne Of Cydonia

the Chessmen of Mars

The Chessmen of Mars

The Chessmen of Mars

The Chessmen of Mars

The Memory of Mars

The Gods of Mars

The Memory of Mars

The Chessmen of Mars

The Chessmen of Mars

The Chessmen of Mars

The Chessmen of Mars

The Caves Of Mars

The Gods of Mars

The Sands of Mars

The Gods of Mars

The Sons of Mars

The Gods of Mars

The Gods Of Mars

Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition

The Mastermind of Mars

The Gods of Mars

The Memory of Mars

The Chessmen of Mars

The Gods Of Mars

The Memory of Mars

The Chessmen of Mars

The Surface of Mars

Recommend Documents