SUBJECT: R. HOAGLAND MESSAGE THREAD RE: MARSFACE FILE: UFO1732 CompuServe The Issues Forum Cydonia Reality S 7 / Mars Mission Issues Date Range: 02-Sep-89 to 05-Sep-89 #193982 Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 To: ALL Dt: 02-Sep-89 OK, I have a question for everyone: what would take for YOU to accept Cydonia as artificial? (Be as specific as you like, and please estimate *when* this is likely to be accomplished, and by what means.) #193991 reply to #193982 Fm: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320 To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 Dt: 03-Sep-89 Richard, In my book I propose a simple test. The image of half a face is so unusual that is must have only the slightest chance of occuring through natural processes, such as wind erosion. So, just take photos of the other side, hidden in shadows. If that looks like a natural formation, the whole structure will lose its "artificiality". If the unseen half looks like the complementary half of a human face, well, what are the chances of that? It would sure convince me. NASA SHOULD have reprogrammed Viking to look while they still could. But they didn't, so we must await Mars Observer. --- Tom #194143 reply to #193991 Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320 Dt: 04-Sep-89 Tom (and all those who gave basically the same response), I'm a bit mystified. We HAVE photos -- marvelous computerized, detailed enhancements now (thanks to Carlotto), of both the original low sun-angle frame, 35A72 (the version that's most well-known, with the right side of the "face" indeed in shadow), AND, high sun-angle frames 70A11 and 70A13, with the shadowed side revealed. It's these frames (with the sun 20 degreees higher) that amply confirm that the exquisite bisymmetry, proportionality, and image structure we see hints of in 35A72 is continued in the so-called "hidden side." The point is: with the Viking data we (NOT NASA!) have exhaustively analyzed and published now (and will make available to anyone who asks), there IS NO hidden side! This feature's remarkable symmetry (which is about 95% -- erosion could well account for the "missing" 5%) extends even to the detailed *shape* of the "eyebrow ridges" at the structure's "top," left and right. In a Viking low-resolution "morning frame" (753A33 -- with sunlight coming from the right) this "eyebrow" morphology can be matched perfectly to "degraded resolution images" we specifically prepared (at SRI, in 1983) of these identical features on 35A72 -- with sunlight coming from the left, as well as with Carlotto's 3-D views, "lit" at the appropriate angle. And they're a perfect match. So, what's all this about "needing to see the whole structure." We ARE seeing the whole structure . . . (see examples on our stationery and Newsletter!), and STILL no one is willing to "commit" on the basis of the face *alone*. Com'on, guys, what's the REAL reason? -- Dick #194182 reply to #194143 Fm: Jim Speiser 72135,424 To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 Dt: 05-Sep-89 Dick: Now I'm the one that's mystified. I'm looking at "Unusual Martian Surface Features," 4th ed., pg. 41. I see three different enlargements of 70A13 on the right side. The first two look like raw data, the third one looks like some kind of computer enhancement - at least, I can't see how they got the "shadow side" information. Looking at the other two, it just isn't there. If that bottom blow-up is computer-enhanced, I would need to see a treatise on the process used (S.P.I.T.?), and a refereed review of the appropriateness of using such a process. If that blow-up is "au naturel", its very impressive, but still too ambiguous for me. I see flaws in the bisymmetry right off the bat - the right eye seems lower and closer to the bridge of the "nose" than the left. I hope your suggestion of an ulterior motive in my hesitance was in jest. If not, your petulance is most unbecoming a man of science. You DID ask what would CONVINCE us it was artificial. I'm very IMPRESSED, but unCONVINCED. Jim #194199 reply to #194182 Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 To: Jim Speiser 72135,424 Dt: 05-Sep-89 Jim, Yes, my comment on "what's REALLY going on?" was in jest -- tinged, I guess, with a bit of frustration. Morphologically, as the geomorphologist in Torun noted, the D&M is far more intriguing to us at this point than "the face" -- as it is a figure NOT influenced by the psychological pitfalls of "humanoid projection" (as "faces" inevitably are, and ALWAYS will be, viewed by "sceptics"). It is deomonstrably there, with its own unique symmetry, specific alignments with the other "unique objects," AND its own resitting precisely astride the *one latitude* which ties all that interconnected geometry into its very location on the planet. Very hard to explain, Jim, *very* hard . . . other than by deliberate intention. Which bring me to your question: what would it take to convince me that this is all a natural "fluke" (I'm paraphrasing). Answer: for someone else (actually, a number of "someone elses") to REPEAT all our geodetic and geometric measurements, between all the objects at Cydonia -- and to have EVERY ONE of these independent groups discover we were wrong in all the measurements. Science IS measurement, observation, analysis of data , etc., . . . and, * repeatablity*. What this investigation needs now is what any science at this point deserves: simple independent replication. My frustration is that no one seems willing publically to test our measurements. They say, instead, "Oh, they'll prove nothing!", or, "Let's wait for better pictures." When, in fact, by any standard of any science that I've ever known, those measurements should now be the basis for any future *scientific* judgements on Cydonia. If they're wrong, then the whole thing is highly suspect. And I would be the first to admit it! But if they're right . . . It's like NASA not agreeing simply to "take the damn pictures in 1993": as long as the "day of reckoning" can be put off . . . we don't have to make "the decision." And the REAL meaning of Cydonia remains in limbo. Frustrating 42 Dt: 05-Sep-89 (Continued from last message) In answer to your question re "raw images" and "enhancements" of 70A13: Yes, on page 41 of "Unusual Martian Surface Features," 4th ed., the three righthand images ARE THE SAME. The top one is the full-frame of 70A13; the righthand one is an enlargement of the "face" area in the same frame; and the middle (bottom) image isht out," "something stretched," something amplified," "something made visible above the noise," etc. Here it does NOT mean "something added!" Dipietro and Molenaar's SPIT algorithm was not, strictly speaking, an "enhancement technique" at all. It was an "anti-aliasing (sp?) technique"; it merely "smoothed the edges" between pixels (picture elements -- the "dots") making up the computer image. True "enhancement" removes noise, stretches contrast, corrects geometric distortions, etc. It ultimately redistributes what data is available, so the human eye can SEE that data easier (like "false color" )! What Carlotto has done, in contrast (another pun . . .) to D&M, is truly apply a range of these state-of-the-art enhancement techniques to these images - - all carefully described in the Applied Optics piece. I KNOW that when you see the new images from the Mars Mission ("new" only in the sense of the techniques applied to these, now, 13-year old data tapes), you'll be amazed at what you see. And realize why Erol and I think continuing arguments about the "symmetry" of our friend here slightly miss the point. -- Dick #194235 reply to #194200 Fm: Jim Speiser 72135,424 To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 Dt: 06-Sep-89 Dick, Science is more than numbers and measurements. You have not left any room for interpretation, nor evaluation of your conclusions. Imagine if I were to claim that the mere existence of some 10,000 unexplained UFO reports over 40 yare subject to review, not my interpretation. Bottom line: What percentage of possibility do you think there is that your measurements are all correct, yet the "monuments" are still naturally formed? I'll say it again, I'm impressed enough with your work to be willing to DEMAND further research and more openness on the matter from NASA, but only becld depend on the results of that series of independent replications, as to my next decisions re "naturalness"). Over the years I've spent on this (six very intensive ones, as of now), as long as we were dealing with "soft" data ("faces," approximate geometric "alignments," etc.) I carefully maintained the appropriate "open mind" re the ultimate interpretation of Cydonia -- believing that we would indeed need to wait for high-res Mars Observer images, before we clarified the situation. Then Torun, a geomorphologist, cartographer and geographer with Defense Mapping, began in late 1988 *independently* testing my "relationship model, established in "Monuments" as a "what would constitute 'ultimate proof' for or against the Intelligence Hypothesis" (because he thought my assertion of bilateral symmetry in the D&M "absurd" -- his word!). To his amazement, nay shock -- he found my assertion was correct: the D&M is bilaterally symmetric, and is "aimed" directly at the "face." Further, he extended those initial observations, and discovered that the object possessed extraordinary internal symmetry, mathematical elegance (the front is exactly a third of a circle), and REDUNDANT geometric "constants" difficult to rationalize in any manner other than potentially deliberate. Morphologically, after a broad survey of a lot of other Viking images and geological regimes, and an assessment of realistic processes and "weathering agents" proposed by the Viking geologists for other surface features, he concluded that both mathematically and geomorphologically, Dt: 06-Sep-89 (Cont'd from previous message) What really got me, however, was not "just" the mathematical elegence Torun found within the D&M. It was the fact that he discovered, completely independently, a *second* example of a curious "coincidence" I included in "Monuments" as a "throw away" on the very back of the book: that the tangent of the (then) approximate lshington, from a total stranger currently working with Defense Mapping, who has found -- not only additional apparent constants "encoded" in the D&M -- but good ol' "e/pi" itself! Redundancy. A possible (note I still say "possible") signal (see #194254 et al) ! No, Jim, I could maintain a fascade, a political "front" on this, and I guess make a lot of people feel easier. Only, I have leveled with everyone all the way along. When it was uncertain, I said so. Now, we have something VERY specific that can easily be tested: *dozen*s of repeats, across the entire "complex," of these two numbers and other specifically related constants -together, alone, inverted, and even multiplied. These multiple redundancies BEG TO BE INVESTIGATED. If they hold up, this "signal" is telling us NOW -- not in three years -- that Cydonia is real. And that should *insure* that we get those vital images! -- Dick #194208 reply to #194199 Fm: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320 To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 Dt: 05-Sep-89 Dick, I object to your criteria in answer to the question about what would convince you Cydonia was natural. You have surely heard of numerology (the attachment of special significance to certain numbers). And you must know the difference between *a priori* and *ad hoc*. Consider a randomly-generated set of millions of dots on a large, flat surface. If you specify IN ADVANCE (a priori) some special pattern, such as 24 dots forming a nearly perfect square with 6 dots per side, the chances are very slight that it will occur by chance in a random pattern. So if you find chance. So if you are searching for a 24-dot square, and find instead two sets of four triangles, each making a perfect square, that is NOT significant, because some improbable things MUST happen purely by chance. Finding a rationale for this pattern after you have found it is *ad hoc* (after the fact), and convinces only those who have not dealt with large random sets before. I have asked for any *a priori* significance to the measurements you cite, and received unconvincing answers. If is not reasonable for us to accept your measurements, replicated or not, as proof of anything unless they have *a priori* significance. This is the main stumbling block between us over your whole "measurements" approach to proving artificiality. It is also why I said symmetry in the face WOULD be convincing, because it is *a priori* significant. --- Tom #194215 reply to #194208 Fm: Martin Arant 71270,1311 To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320 Dt: 05-Sep-89 Tom, Although I have NOT dealt with large random number bases, I do agree 100% that * some * of these patterns could be, as you put it, * ad hoc *. However, as you yourself have pointed out, the face (even half a face) is * a priori *. Given the fact that a line drawn from the "city center" (which DOES look artificial) to the cliff (which DOES look artifi that not represent * a priori * ? Given the fact that there is an object in the immediate vicinity of the face which DOES LOOK like a pyramid, would that not represent * f a site with similar "objects" are "relationships" be solely considere d to be * ad hoc * ? Marty #194318 reply to #194215 Fm: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320 To: Martin Arant 71270,1311 Dt: 07-Sep-89 Marty, objects? What about lying on the arc of a circle, lying at a perfect right angle, or at an angle of 40.97 degrees, etc, etc. Do you see the problem? Since you mention objects here on Earth, I agree there is a lot to be intrigued by among the pyramids and other artifacts. But if there is any significance at all to the latitude (40.97 degrees) of the D&M pyramid on Mars, and if there is any Earth connection, then WHY isn't there something significant at that latitude on Earth??? That would be truly "a priori", provided you don't open up the field of "something significant" to include more than major ancient structures of possible ET origin. --- Tom #194331 reply to #194318 Fm: Martin Arant 71270,1311 To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320 Dt: 07-Sep-89 Tom, *a priori* and *ad hoc* are fine when you're dealing with a mathematical puzzle. What we have here, however, is something that "looks" very suspicious. There is simply NO PRECEDENT for calculating odds for the possibility that these may be or may not be ET artifacts. How many advanced civilizations have arisen in the galaxy during the past 4 billion years? How many are "humanoid?" How many engage in monument building? What do they consider important; geometry, art, faces, etc? Until we have answers to those questions, it will simply be impossible to apply any "known formulander thousands of atmospheres of pressure in ocean trenches; "advanced life forms" which breathe Hydrogen Sulfide. Almost everything we "knew" about the planets and their moons has been proven wrong. I vividly remember a statement made by a planetary scientist regarding the riverbeds on Mars , "We considered every conceivable liquid, including champagne, before finally deciding that the only possible answer was vast amounts of liquid water." The "impossible" has already happened too many times in the recent past to justify throwing this out just because it in too incredible to be real. I think there is a temptation to view the two sides in this issue as: THOSE WHO ARE CONVINCED (ARTIFICIAL) * VS * THOSE WHO ARE CONVINCED (NATURAL.) I see it in another context: THOSE WHO WANT TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH * VS * THOSE WHO ARE CONVINCED...and finding out the truth demands further investigation by Mars Observer. Marty #194349 reply to #194331 Fm: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320 To: Martin Arant 71270,1311 Dt: 07-Sep-89 Marty, I completely concur with your thoughts in #194331. Did I say something which made you think I would not be? --- Tom #194401 reply to #194349 Fm: Martin Arant 71270,1311 To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320 Dt: 08-Sep-89 priori* and *ad hoc* depend on the level of knowledge of the person (persons) attempting to "interpret" a message? A quick example AND PLEASE let me know if I'm off base here: We (20th century) unearth a large million , in fact, there is a message) was left as opposed to a message based on something we understand, should be a yardstick for determining if there is actually a message. If there is a "pattern," it should be certainly be considered "suggestivur example of the periodic table of the elements is a good one. But wouldn't we be disappointed if such a table from ET's with interplanetary capability stopped at 106 or sooner (i.e. told us nothing we didn't already know). I would then immediately suspect that the gold disk was a fraud. But if it does go to higher elements, that's something we can use and verify. Of course you are right that ET messages may come in strange packages, perhaps intended for us and perhaps not. We already know, from thinking about our own attempts at communication, how difficult it is to imagine what would be meaningful to ET life. I agree, quite generally, that we shouldn't ignore patterns, but should study them. Nonetheless, patterns of dots, lines, angles, ratios, etc. are all suspect, because these very things can, and MUST, arise naturally. I honestly do not see a way that a few examples of simple, "special" patterns, whatever they are, can argue for the artificiality of Cydonia. Given that artificiality, then everything about the site becomes interesting. But just because the ET architects find e/pi angles aesthetically pleasing does not imply they are part of a message. I certainly agree that Cydonia is a remarkable phenomenon, and should be #194420 reply to #194415 Fm: Martin Arant 71270,1311 To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320 Dt: 08-Sep-89 Tom, Your comment "an unusual set of natural features" makes MASA's refusal to "commit itself" even more suspicious. This also brings to memory a discussion I had with one of the planetary Geologists at the USGS. He stated "this is nothing more than an example of bizarre geology." Now, if I had been really quick on my toes, I would have commented, "well, you're a geologist aren't you? Why are you opposed to photographing something that you, yourself, describe as 'bizarre?" If NASA really has a problem lending "credibility" to Hoagland and the other researchers, why don't they just agree to takes more pictures because it "bizarre geology?" Marty #194254 reply to #194208 Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320 Dt: 06-Sep-89 Tom, I believe that part of the problem we are having, on this very crucial aspect of our work, lies in semantics: precisely how does one define "a priori" and "ad hoc." Let me give an example from the "standard" SETI community, then pick up ( if the 37 lines permit!) on your own example -- the "million random points" (any cousin to George Bush's "thousand points" . . .?). SETI has been looking for The Signal for precisely thirty years, now. A LOT of people, over those years, have debated exactly wavailable specturm will look like true "white noise," the *real* signal will look exactly like the Galactic background! -- until a proper "decoding algorithm" is applied. [Since we can't be expected to know what that decoding algorithm is, say these guys, the "real" signals will be "from aliens TO aliens" (who already have the code), which we'll merely intercept by accident. And so on.] If you flew through the beam of Voyager 2's telemetry and dage.) #194255 reply to #194254 Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 Dt: 06-Sep-89 (Cont'd from last message) I've always been a bit suspicious of these arguments. Trying to "crawl inside the psychology of aliens" to me has always seemed both hopeless . . . and somewhat chauvanistic. The true "signal," I have come to suspect (after you finally find it -- the hard part!), must contain WITHIN ITSELF ITS OWN "A PRIORI" DEFINITION THAT IT IS A SIGNAL. That's the only way it COULD work -- in a Universe of almost infinite possibilities and combinations, where each "unique" reasoning about "a priori" must be based on the individual receiver's experience, awareness, and level of intelligence (or, just as bad, the "sender's" "guesstimates" of same). What I'm saying is that, to be totally "universal," the "senders" could make NO ASSUMPTIONS regarding "a priori." The "signal" would have to do its own defining. And the only way I could see that it could do that, would be if it was SELF-REFERENTIAL. Like "intelligence" itself. So, how would this work in practice? You're at your radio telescope, attentively scanning the skies, looking for an intelligent signal that (so our physics say) is going to be far down "in the noise" (simple distance andan "intelligent signal," against all that other "hash?" Must it give you "pi" before you accept it? A prime number? A raster scan of Vanna White? No. All it has to do is REPEAT something -- anything! "Noise" IS random. It will not repeat (at least, not within a highly limited "search space" and time). But a true signal will instantly be recognizable BY ITS SIMPLE REPETITION of "the signal" -- regardless of WHAT that signal "thinks" it's important to communicate. It's the *redundancy* which immediately lifts it "out of the noise of randomness." (And if you're thinking of the "pulsar problem," that's NOT the kind of simple "time repetition" I'm describing. The precise PATTERN must replicate. -- More) #194257 reply to #194255 Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 Dt: 06-Sep-89 (Continued from last message). There is a real difference between "a priori" and "arbitrary." If we have "a priori" defined our "sige combinations of those SAME FEW DOTS. To insist at that point that "only the square could be significant" would be highly arbitrary. The trianges, by their redundancy, become the "carrier" for "the signal"; the redundant mathematics the "modulation" of that carrier -- the actual information. What we have found, Tom, is the equivalent of the "highly-redundant triaconstants amid these highly limited combinations (to repeated three sig. figure accuracy), that has us convinced we're "on to something." I would be the first to "throw away" our possible "first-cut" at a MEANING (what "they" might have intended by this pattern). That there is now an intelligent PATTERN there -- "a message," which has defined itself by its *extreme* redundancy -- I will defend quite strenuously. And I insist that others actually examine what we have discovered and then either replicate or refute the *measurements*, BEFORE they criticize our logic and results -- "a priori." -- Dick #194261 reply to #194257 Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 Dt: 06-Sep-89 Tom, The computer "ate" a vital line in my third message. it was supposed to read ". . . I would totally agree that finding the triangle -- while intriguing -- is not particularly significant-(the *exact* ratios of the angles of that triangle, their trig functions, and their radian measure) occurred twice . . three times . . . ten times . . ." Dick #194262 reply to #194261 Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 Dt: 06-Sep-89 Tom, OK, let's try one more time! (Georgia, doesn't the system like capitols for emphasis?) The line is supposed to read ". . . I would totally agree that finding the triangle -- while intriguing -- mes . . . ten times . . ." Dick #194319 reply to #194257 Fm: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320 To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 Dt: 07-Sep-89 Dick, If your other compelling measurements and relationships are like TAN (latitude) = e/pi, I'll pass when it comes to replication of your calculations, because "a priori" I don't attach any significance to that sort of coincidence. But perhaps we are reaching the point where I need to know more detail before I can fairly criticize or support your finding that you already have enough evidence to conclude that the Cydonia objects are artificial, other than through the artificial appearance. I have been through the exercise of finding an amazing conclusion after lengthy calculations (the breakup of the asteroidal planet); and then having the frustration that others who don't repeat the calculations, but only hear my description about how compelling they are, can never appreciate first hand to what extent they are "air tight" vs. having "loopholes" or subject to interpretation or experimenter bias. So I can emphathize with your frustration. So, what is the single most important single thing you would like someone to replicate, and what raw materials would that someone have to possess to begin? If you make the task better defined and a little less formidable, you may get some volunteers (maybe even me). --- Tom #194431 reply to #194319 Fm: Erol O. Torun 73207,2331 To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320 Dt: 08-Sep-89 Tom: The single most could examine would be the alignments between the "monuments" themselves. This would NOT involve a search for numbers with an abstract significance, but for whole angles such as 60, 90, & 120 deg., and for these and other angles that appear in more than one place. This investigation would not be analogous to he aforementioned sightline intersection point. - This bisected 120 deg. angle matches the geometry of the "front" of the D&M. - The City Square to Cliff(lower) to Tholus angle is 85.3 deg., matching the sides of the D&M. - The Cliff(lower) to Tholus to D&M angle is 90 deg. These simple alignments, *combined with* the geomorphology of each object, should support the contention that nature may not have been wholly responsible for their existence. I suggest that you get the original orthographic negs or prints from NSSDC at Goddard and mosaic them. You'll need frames 35A72, 35A73, and 35A74. You might get some hostile comments from the folks at NSSDC, but probably not. After all, who could reasonably object to your wanting to find out for yourself? 71270,1311 To: Stan Tenen 75015,364 Dt: 10-Sep-89 Stan, I must disagree with you assertion that should the "face" turn out to be natural, Cydonia would still be interesting! It certainly would not be of any further interest to me. The "face" IS THE CENTERPIECE OF CYDONIA. It is the whole reason this issue reply to #194508 Fm: Stan Tenen 75015,364 To: Martin Arant 71270,1311 Dt: 10-Sep-89 I meant, if it turns out that the face is natural, but that the complex is not, after we have examined new data, then that would be the greater mystery. While it is true that the presence of what looks like a face started this investigation, and while it is very unlikely, given the context of the alignments of the other forms, that the face is natural, I still find the alignments themselves - from the data we have - a much more compelling indication of conscious intent than the face itself. I am not attempting to dismiss the face. It is just that given the low resolution of the face, I find the high resolution of the alignments, by comparison, more likely not to change with new data. For example, it appears to me that the landforms at Cydonia were artificially modified, but were initially chosen from the natural landforms available. The forms are very large and would have been very expensive to make if they were all entirely artificial. Even the face may/might have been adapted from a conveniently placed and formed natural feature which might not have been sufficiently symmetrical to start with for it to have been shaped into a completely symmetrical face. It is not even obvious to me that the face ought to be symmetrical. Real faces are not entirely symmetrical and artistic lly carries information, not the symmetrical and redundant carrier itself. I believe that the presence of static symmetry may not be as strong an indication of consciousness as slight asymmetry. Moslem geometric patterns always include a defect or an asymmetrical component because, among other reasons, perfect order is considered to be the province of God and not appropriate for man's view of reality which is always "defective". The face may be more than a weathered rock and still not be symmetrical. (more) #194525 reply to #194524 Fm: Stan Tenen 75015,364 To: Stan Tenen 75015,364 Dt: 10-Sep-89 A closer look at Cydonia will improve the precision of our view of the face significantly, but it is not likely to improve our knowledge of the alignments between the forms to any significant degree. I am prepared to find that the face is not entirely symmetrical even after we find that the Cydonia complex is actually artificial. As for absolute proof: It would be beyond doubt an artificial complex if we were to find a map, chart, or illustration of the complex or the face inscribed/written/drawn on the face or on another object at Cydonia. That would be the ultimate proof of conscious design based on my a priori requirement of self-reference - even if the face were completely asymmetrill NOT "go away." While it is true that the existing imagery reveals it is not "perfectly" symmetric (neither, in fact, is any "face"; just look in the mirror!), the small differences we see (and they are small) are easily explainable in terms of selective erosion. The prevailing winds at Cydonia -- as charted by the published global meteorological models developed from the Viking surface observations, uncomplicated by any "oceans" -reveal a long (millenia-long) pattern of seasonal-dependence of compassdirection. In other words, the right side (as you look at it) should b Additional factors are: the "photometric function" of the surface. Light in both existing high-res images is falling across the curved "cheek" on the right at a significant angle, on a surface which strongly absorbs at low incident lighting angles (because it is composed of myriad little dust particles, each of casting a shadow on the next particle, at low angles). This can explain the rest of the *apparent* differences between the right and left side. But, most important to me, is the simple fact that the "Face" is an INTEGRAL part of the geometry and specific relationships we've found on the Cydonia landscape. One line -- the line that precisely bisects the 120 degree front angle of the D&M Pyramid -- crosses the "face" at three critical points: the lower left "corner," the "teardrop" (just below the left "eye"), and at the upper "forehead" where the "face" literally ends. These *three* points (on that ONE line) in turn provide specific, redundant, angular relationships with three other objects. No, Marty, the "face" will not disappear -- leaving just the mathematical relationships (like the Cheshire Cat ). The *two* are inextricably linked. -- Dick #194204 reply to #194143 Fm: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320 To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 Dt: 05-Sep-89 Dick, I haven't the slightest inclination to backd by this very important point. How can I get copies of your 11x14 pictures and enhancements, as described in your second paragraph to Michael. And how can I get SOURCE information about times and spacecraft location when these frames were taken, so I can be absolutely certain there is no mistake about this? It is too easy for a print to get reversed, and too important a matter to tolerate any chance of human error. --- Tom #194207 reply to #194204 Fm: Martin Arant 71270,1311 To: Tom Van Flandern/DC 71107,2320 Dt: 05-Sep-89 Tom, I am sure that Richard will also reply to your message, but I thought an opinion from someone who has the enhanced enlargements may also be in order. There are only two ** known ** photographs of the face. One was taken at low sun angle (10 degrees) and the other was taken at high sun angle (30 degrees). In both photographs the right side is in shadow. Even in the low sun angle photo, it is possible to see what appears to be a "right edge" of the face. The high angle "stretch-contrast" Carlotto enhancement (which also distorts the image) clearly shows **some symmetry** with the left side. It does not show the visual detail of the left side, this (right) side not being "filled-in" with data. Still, it ** tends ** to confirm rather than to ** disprove ** the "artificial hypothesis," at least in my mind. Obviously what we need are more AND BETTER photographs!!! Marty frames, including made-to-order enlargements from those frames, are indeed available from the Mars Mission (see message to Darrell Green re "Mars Mission Order Form," # 194206). As to source information on the initial imaging parameters ( frame number, spacecraft distance from Mars, lighting azimuth, lighting angle to zenith, etc.), all these data are on the "data blocks" that accompany each e IS a "second frame" with lighting at almost 30 degrees to the surface, which TOTALLY reveals the so-called "shadowed side." And under Carlotto's algorithms, it's a beaut! I am aware of (and possess) at least one lower resolution, "morning shot" of the "face" (frame 753A33). As it was taken about five times higher than the two previous frames, its resolution is about 5 times lower. But, as I noted earlier, it's facinating for the detail it reveals regarding the left "eyebrow" region of the "face" at opposite lighting -- particularly when compared to both a "deliberately-degraded 35A72," and to Carlotto's 3-D computerized "face" model, the latter "lit" from the same "morning" angle. All three images show IDENTICAL DETAIL in this "eyebrow" region -- which is pretty impressive, considering that three different data sources being compared. I prepared an illustrated comparison of this effect years ago, but it "strayed." I'll try to find it -- or recreat it, if you're interested. -- Dick #193997 reply to #193982 Fm: Jim Speiser 72135,424 To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 Dt: 03-Sep-89 OK, Richard: I am looking for total bisymmetry in the "face." I've heard that Carlotto has shown some rudimentary bisymmetry through some sort of computer enhancement, but I have yet to see it. I would also like to see an objective skeptical treatment of Carlotto's work in this area. As with any anomalistic claim, I tend to wait for the skeptics' answer; if it is specious, or smacks of a priori rejection, I am inclined to sympathise more with the claimant. This is how I came to become an advocate of serious UFO research. Now that I've answered y.Y 71340,276 To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 Dt: 03-Sep-89 Richard, I am 60% persuaded that the Face and Pyramids are probably artificial. I have read _Monuments of Mars_ and it left me tphotographs and ranging data. #194049 reply to #193982 Fm: Martin Arant 71270,1311 To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 Dt: 03-Sep-89 Richard, This may sound like a simple answer but I think Mars Observer really will decide "once and for all." We have, for example, a photograph of only one side of the face. The "face" IS the centerpiece of Cydonia. If the "hidden side" (even at Viking level resolution) shows nothing, I think this whole issue will be settled. No copouts like "The Martians only built half a face." If, on the other hand, the hidden side shows the same symmetry and detail as the sunlit side, "just let someone suggest that we don't investigate or take higher resolution photographs!!!!!!" This brings up another point: As you stated in your book, NASA "secretly" took another photo of the face 35 days after the first photo. It will probably never be known whether this was the result of "normal mapping" or if there was a conscious decision to do so. If they actually "made the decision," then it would be safe to assume that they also took a "third" photograph of the hidden side. If "that side" showed NOTHING, they could have used it to "disprove" all of this "nonsense" (their choice of words, not mine.) Note: beginning of this paragraph: I didn't mean they secretly took the second photo, only that they never mentioned to the preDt: 03-Sep-89 Dick, The Cydonia observations/measurements/predictions are extremely interesting and clearly warrant further examination by Observer, etc. My attention, however, keeps being drown back to another region on Mars referred to as Utopia, an area which is far away from Cydonia but in a similar latitude. DiPietro, Molenaar and Brandenburg, in their book "Unusual Mars Surface Features" (4th edition) point out two "faces" in the region. One of the faces looks remarkably similar to the Cydonia face, with its "characteristic" hair (helmet?). It is shown with comparisons to the Cydonia face on page 102 (Fig. 63) of their book. I would think it would be possible to do some kind of computerized comparisons between the two faces. If indeed similarities proved to be significantly "beyond chance", that would be supporting evidence for artificallity. There are other intriguing features in Utopia, which you point out in your book "Monuments" (Fig 22) --a "Runway" complex, etc. One particular feature that caught my eye but was not specifically referred to is something that looks like a complete "humanoid body". This is just inside the right edge of Fig. 22 in your book. The "head" is about one third the distance from the top of the figure and has the "characteristic" appearance of the Cydonia face (most distinguishable feature is the "hair". ). A "right arm" is stretched outportions resemble that of a human. When I pointed this out to my wife, she immediately saw still another "face" within the torso. I'm curious if you or anyone else has noticed te additional significant information gathered there, especially if certain mathematical relationships (similar to Cydonia?) could be found. In any case, shouldn't there be some encouragement for Observer to look city. Although I haven't even spoken to any "geology experts" about this, I feel they would explain this by some kind of local faulting. I think what had made Cydonia the center of attention is that here we have five or six "bizarre looking" objects...all of which are very "DIFFERENT" from each other. That makes them much harder to explain through weathering or geology than the other "interesting" areas. Marty Arant PS Yes, I do see a "face." It "looks" interesting, but I don't think it has anywhere near the symmetry or "relief" that the face in Cydonia has. #194101 reply to #194088 Fm: michael houdeshell 70003,4667 To: Martin Arant 71270,1311 Dt: 03-Sep-89 Ok. Some questions which have probably already been answered, but I'm { forgetful. 1) Who is the publisher of "Monuments"? 2) How can I obtain higher resolution photos (as opposed to halftones or whatever you see in magazines and, I suppose, the book) of the region in question? #194144 reply to #194101 Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 To: michael houdeshell 70003,4667 Dt: 04-Sep-89 Mike, In answer to your questions: 1) "Monuments" is published by North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA. Its' available in Waldonbooks (even accessible here on CIS, I believe), B. Dalton, Crown, and a lot of major independents, anywhere in t that way, it's signed, and the on-going research gets a percentage of the cover price). 2) The highest resolution photos are also available (as actual hard-copy 11 X 14 prints of 35A72, 70A11, and 70A13), with individual 11 X 14 enlargements of the key features (high atical "overlays." Does that help? -- Dick P.S. There's also, just out (Sept 1), an "updated audio 'docu-drama' of the book" (NOT just someone reading "Monuments!") -- with illustrations, mosaics and a map included in the "bookpac" containing the cassette. Also called "The Monuments of Mars," and available like the book. #194193 reply to #194144 Fm: michael houdeshell 70003,4667 To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 Dt: 05-Sep-89 Yes, but how can one get the photos you describe? #194203 reply to #194193 Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 To: michael houdeshell 70003,4667 Dt: 05-Sep-89 Mike, To order the 11 X 14 enhanced full-frame images, and detailed enlargements of the Cydonia objects (or any of the other items discussed in previous messages -like "Monuments," the new audio-version of same, the Mars Mission Newsletter, the NASA-Goddard video, etc.), simply send a U.S Mail note requesting a list of what's available to: The Mars Mission, P.O. Box 981, Wytheville, VA 24382. You'll get a free issue of the "Mars Mission News" and an enclosed order form by return mail, detailing everything we have -- with ilustrations. If you have a PC (and you must, or you wouldn't be reading this !), simply call the Mars Mission BBS (703) 228-7822, and enter "Files." Follow the "prompts" from there to get to "RESOURCES" -- the file-name under which a detailed printout of what we have available is entered. There is also an order form filed there, which when printed out, filled out, and mailed to us (with check), will get you anything we have. Hope this helps. Dick #194201 reply to #194144 Fm: Darrell Green 72406,1736 To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 Dt: 05-Sep-89 Dick, if I wanted to purchase a copy of "Monuments" directly from The Mars Mission, how much money should be sent? :dg #194206 reply to #194201 Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 To: Darrell Green 72406,1736 Dt: 05-Sep-89 Darrell, Please see message #194203: my response to Mike on a similar question. Also, I've copied the Mars Mission BBS "Order Form" below. Detailed descriptions of these items are available by calling (703) 228-7822, and following the "prompts" to "DESCRIBE" (in "RESOURCES"). -- Dick _______________________________________________________________________________ ***** MARS MISSION ORDER FORM ***** Price Shipping Total Number each &handling each ordered Subtotal BOOK-Monuments of Mars $14.95 $3.00 $17.95 ________ $___________ 5.00 1.00 6.00 ________ $___________ T-SHIRT(Size___Color______)10.95 2.00 12.95 ________ $___________ PHOTOGRAPHS (As marked) 16.95 3.00 19.95 ________ $___________ Face & Profile___ Pyramid___ Fort & Oblique___ Mosaic ___ Total of Order $___________ Virginia Residents add 4.5% Tax $___________ Total Enclosed $___________ PAYMENT IS BY: MoneyOrder__ Check__ SHIP TO: CHARGE TO MY: Mastercard __ Visa __ NAME:__________________________________ Card #_____________________________ ADDRESS:_______________________________ Expires:___/___/___Bank No.________ CITY:__________________________________ Signature__________________________ STATE:____________ ZIP CODE:__________ Order Date___/___/___ PHONE NUMBER:(_______)_________________ Please place my name on your mailing list to receive future releases:______ Sale of above items helps to support THE MARS MISSION,a non-profit educational & scientific research group. THANK YOU for your order. Allow 3 weeks delivery. Mail this form to: THE MARS MISSION, P.O. BOX 981, WYTHEVILLE, VA 24382 #194228 reply to #194206 Fm: Darrell Green 72406,1736 To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 Dt: 05-Sep-89 Thanks, Dick! And if I order the book direct from The Mars Mission I get a signed copy, right? Appreciate the info. :dg #194105 reply to #194088 perimposes the "torso" of the "whole-body figure", which has a much more symetrical Cydonia-like face. That face is about a quarter the size of the other face and is slightly above the latter. Let me know if you can see it. Bert #194114 reply to #194105 Fm: Erol O. Torun 73207,landforms, and is oriented exactly East-West. Speaking of "faces", I think that there has been too much attention over the years given to the search for representations of the human form on Mars. The face in Cydonia is the only one that I feel has a chance of being real; the others don't even come close. But while the face in Cydonia appears real, it is NOT the most anomalous landform present from the viewpoint of geomorphology. There are objects in Cydonia whose location, shape, and orientation more strongly suggest intelligent design. These objects include the "cliff" - a straight ~2km long ridge located ON the ejecta apron of ancient pedestal crater, the "Tholus" - a hemispherical structure with a flat ledge around its periphery, the straight walled "city", and most anomalous of them all, the D&M pyramid - with its five sides and bilateral symmetry oriented toward the face. I began my own investigations into the possibility of ruins on Mars not after seeing the face, but as a result of seeing the D&M pyramid, a structure that geologically should not exist on Mars (or any of the inner planets). #194232 reply to #194114 Fm: Bert 71450,3504 To: Erol O. Torun 73207,2331 Dt: 05-Sep-89 Erol, I have not seen "The Face on Mars" by Pozos. Can you give me some infomation such as the publisher, etc. and any suggestions on how I might obtain a copy? Thanks. Bert #194240 reply to #194232 Fm: James Duke 75340,377 To: Bert 71450,3504 Dt: 06-Sep-89 Dear Bert: The formal title is "The Face on Mars: Evidence for a Lost Civilization?" by Randol of cost and current address of the publisher; it's probably the same but sometimes publishers move. #194250 reply to #194240 Fm: Bert 71450,3504 To: James Duke 75340,377 Dt: 06-Sep-89 James, Thanks for the book info. I'll see if I can find a copy. Bert -Sep-89 Bert. Now that you mention it I see both the larger face as well as the smaller one (with the body.) It seems as though the "body" is pointing to something to the left of the picture. The "legs" seem slightly misaligned though. As for the larger face, it.... well....sorta looks like.... ... Richard Nixon. #194129 reply to #194127 Fm: Bert 71450,3504 To: Sysop Ted Markley 76012,3361 Dt: 04-Sep-89 Ted, You're right the larger face does look sort of like Nixon. I thought it looked familiar but I couldn't place it . Actually, the image looks almost TOO real to be real (Ha!), but what's underneath it (the full figure) is quite intiguing. Do you think the small face (the one above "Nixon") looks like the Cydonia face? It would be interesting to see a "blowup" of it. Bert #194100 reply to #193982 Fm: michael houdeshell 70003,4667 To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 Dt: 03-Sep-89 Little manufactured things sprinkled around the surface, or buried beneath the surface features. #194145 reply to #194100 Fm: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 To: michael houdeshell 70003,4667 Dt: 04-Sep-89 Mike, Ok, my question back to you: how would you RECOGNIZE "little manufactured things" . . . if you can't recongize BIG manufactured things (like the D&M, the "Fort," etc.)? In otherplease don't respond "because it will *look* manufactured."). -- Dick #194194 reply to #194145 Fm: michael houdeshell 70003,4667 To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 Dt: 05-Sep-89 Guess I was shooting from the hip. How about a similarity of objects across several scales? Little faces just like the one on the surface. Now =that= would show consciousness to me. #194179 reply to #193982 Fm: James Duke 75340,377 To: Richard Hoagland 72470,242 Dt: 05-Sep-89 Dear Richard: I have seen the Carlotto photos and frankly they impress me as giving the clearest indication as of now that the face is most likely an artificial construct which in turn would lead to probable artificial construction of the pyramids and other objects of Cydonia. The only other feature is the negative made of one of the Viking photos shown on p. 43 in "The Face on Mars" by Dr. Pozos. However I would prefer to have IMAX photos which show the Face and the surrounding area in incredible detail enough to make the skeptics and myself scream, "OH, MY GOD!" But I must admit that Carlotto's work has certainly lessened my modest skepticism eeven more. ********************************************** * THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo * **********************************************