Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1996 -> Dec -> Mars Anomaly Research 1996 - 01/03

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: 'The McDaniel Report Newsletter' Website
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 12:47:42 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 12:47:42 -0500
Subject: Mars Anomaly Research 1996 - 01/03

http://www.mcdanielreport.com/manchstr.htm


MARS ANOMALY RESEARCH

The Current Situation

NOTE: The following is the full text of an address delivered by Professor
Stanley V. McDaniel to a convention in Manchester, England on December 7,
1996. The convention was sponsored by Amateur Astronomy and Earth Sciences
Magazine and was presented by remote
audio link.

Copyright =A9 1996 by Stanley V. McDaniel


The Meteorite Evidence for Life on Mars

In 1966 an Hungarian scientist, Dr. Barthalamew Nagy (pron. Naazh), began
looking closely at meteorites believed to be about 4 billion years old.
These visitors from outer space had been found in a variety of locations:
Canada, France, Africa. In 1975 Dr. Nagy came to the conclusion that the
compounds and small objects found in these meteorites would "confidently be
assumed to be of biological origin" if thought to have originated on the=
 Earth.=20

Unfortunately Dr. Nagy's decade-long work was dismissed on the grounds that
one of the
meteorites he had studied appeared to have been contaminated by Earthly
biological entities.=20

However, in the early 1990's two American investigators, Mr. Vincent
DiPietro and Dr. John E. Brandenburg, studied Nagy's work and began their
own investigation of the meteorites. They reported their work, supportive of
Dr. Nagy's, at the American Geophysical Union conference in 1995.=20

Scientists Brandenburg and DiPietro had a specific interest in the question
whether an environment conducive to the evolution of life can have existed
on Mars for a period sufficient to give rise to intelligent life-forms.
Along with another researcher, Gregory Molenaar, they put forward in 1991
"The Cydonian Hypothesis." This is the hypothesis that certain structures on
Mars, most of them in the region called "Cydonia," may possibly have been
built by an indigenously evolved race of Martians. Should the meteorite
evidence for microbial life be sustained, they believe that the time
period for evolution on Mars would have been sufficient to give rise to
intelligent beings.=20

Given the possibility of a long time period during which Mars was capable of
supporting life, is there any reasonable evidence for the hypothesis that
Mars may once have been occupied by intelligent beings?=20

I say occupied because even were the time period too short for the evolution
of intelligent beings this would not rule out occupation of Mars in the
distant past by a spacefaring race. It is a premise of the SETI
investigations that intelligent life is likely to be present throughout the
galaxy. It has even been speculated, based on probabilities, that our solar
system may have been visited on repeated occasions by interstellar
travelers. Included in these speculations has been the further suggestion
that eventually we may encounter artifacts left behind by such visitors.[1]=
=20

Another scenario that has been suggested is the rather tenuous view that
visitors to Mars may have come from the Earth itself, at a time when some
presently unknown civilization of intelligent humanoid beings existed here,
millions of years ago.=20

The Fourth Possibility: Planet V

And now there has been added to this mix of theories a fourth possibility.
In a paper titled "Are the Mars Meteorites Really from Mars?" Dr. Thomas van
Flandern, an astronomer and former director of the Celestial Mechanics
Branch of the U.S. Naval Observatory, argues that although the meteorites do
seem to show their origin in a life-bearing planet, possibly that planet was
not Mars. Instead, Mars was the Moon of this other planet, which exploded
about 65 million years ago. He calls this other planet "Planet V," and
suggests that its destruction was the source of the asteroid belt
now circling the Sun between Mars and Jupiter.[2]=20

Pointing out that there are serious problems in explaining how the
meteorites were tossed off the surface of Mars, Dr. van Flandern says "The
explosive breakup of a larger body solves all the dynamical problems
involved in the delivery of life-bearing meteorites to Earth." Van Flandern
argues that this scenario explains several characteristics of Martian
geology: "One side of Mars would have been heavily impacted by the explosion
and would have accumulated much water on a temporary basis." The theory also
explains the similarity between various features of the meteorites and the
present Martian environment.=20

But if Dr. van Flandern's hypothesis is correct, then a fourth possibility
is that visitors from Planet V were the builders of the Cydonian structures.
Even if intelligent humanoids on Planet V had relatively primitive means of
space flight, some of them could have reached their moon (Mars), established
a colony, and built the large structures some now suspect of being=
 artificial.=20

Given the cogent argument regarding the origin of the meteorites which Dr.
van Flandern sets forth, it seems that the meteorites may be better evidence
for the existence of Planet V than for previous life on Mars. And since the
hypothetical Planet V would have been Earth-like and a member of our own
solar system, the probability of humanoid life evolving on such a planet is
perhaps greater than for such evolution in the unknown regions of
interstellar space.=20

The Problem of the Face

So the question is this: Have such artifacts -- either originating with
interstellar visitors, constructed by indigenously evolved Martians, or by
an unknown terrestrial civilization, or by the former inhabitants of Planet
V -- been discovered already via the Viking cameras which, in 1976, sent
back images of the curious objects in the Cydonia region?=20

And here we run up against a serious difficulty. Science requires
objectivity. But the Martian data found at Cydonia puts a tremendous strain
on our objectivity. Indeed, for some scientists objectivity appears to fly
out the window. Why is this? Certainly it is because one of the objects
looks like a gigantic sculpture of a face.=20

The present Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) keeps alien
life at a comfortable distance. The search is confined to stellar regions
outside the solar system, and our contact with intelligent alien life is
anticipated to be in the form of an antiseptic series of prime numbers. Thus
the SETI astronomers can comfortably converse by radio transmission with
alien astronomers who, perhaps somewhat in the former's own image, are
effectively disembodied minds. And these cosmic pen pals are so far away
that their bodies, their arts, their emotions, and their personal=
 motivations
can be easily ignored -- In the eyes of some, this is the ideal scientific
conversation.=20

But the Face on Mars is in an entirely different category. Though
undoubtedly hundreds of thousands if not millions of years old, it has
presence. Such presence, indeed, that anthropologist Randolfo Pozos wrote:

            "When people first see it, there is, almost always, a strong
visceral reaction."

Indeed, reactions to the existence of the Face are usually strong, but they
vary widely. At one extreme are those who refuse to admit that it even looks
like a face. Others have gone to the opposite extreme: This is proof, they
say, that humanoid aliens once inhabited Mars.=20

Certainly it is not proof. But there is a reasonable middle ground.
Responsible scientists may choose to encounter this admittedly strange
object scientifically, that is to say, place it under investigation. Apply
tests which could turn out negative and weaken the hypothesis that the
object may be artificial, or turn out positive and strengthen that
hypothesis. This responsible and objective approach, I am sad to say, has
been utterly rejected by the scientific community as a whole. However, a few
scientists and engineers have chosen to follow the appropriate response:=
 careful
study, hypothesis, and test.=20

Tests Performed on the Face

Let us consider, for a moment, those tests that have been performed on the
Face and what their results have been.=20

1. Light and Shadow=20

It is the stated conclusion of NASA scientists that the facial appearance is
a "trick of light and shadow" -- an illusion of lighting. This conclusion
was based on the alleged fact that in other images, taken at a different
lighting angle, the facial characteristics "disappear."=20

Unfortunately the NASA opinion is not a scientific one. When pressed on the
matter NASA has admitted that the disconfirming images, alleged to have
existed for almost two decades, cannot be identified. There is no scientific
support for the "illusion" hypothesis.=20

In my book The McDaniel Report I pointed out that besides the fact that
there is no evidence for the "trick of lighting" theory, there are also
serious logical flaws in this NASA position. Apparently as a result of these
criticisms Dr. Carl Sagan, in a recent book, stated that NASA's "light and
shadow" position was an unfortunate error. In so doing, Dr. Sagan finally
abandoned his own long-standing view as expressed in his 1985 article "The
Man in the Moon" in Parade Magazine. He now confirms what independent
investigators have validated many times over. Three separate tests, from the
areas of image processing (using a sophisticated technique called
photoclinometry), geology, and
sculptural modeling, working with the primary two Viking frames taken at
different lighting angles, have confirmed that the face is a result of the
underlying=20
three-dimensional structure of the landform and not an illusion of lighting.=
=20

2. Chance Erosion=20

So the object is undoubtedly shaped as it appears to be. This certainly does
not prove that it is artificial; but what has been shown is that the Face
passes its first test. Yet perhaps, even though it is indeed shaped like a
Face, this is merely an accident of erosion. Against this hypothesis four
major tests have been performed. In each case the tests turn out positive.=
=20

     The first test is the result mentioned above, that the facial
appearance is a result of a three-dimensional structure and is not a face
only when seen from a particular angle.=20

     The second test is the observation of general symmetry. Relatively
speaking the Face is a highly symmetrical object. The mouth continues to the
darker side of the Face, the "headpiece" or "helmet" shows a noticeable
symmetry, there are two eye sockets, and so forth.=20

     The third test was performed by an artist with anthropological
training. James Channon studied the Face from the viewpoint of the classical
proportions and relationships as indicated in art and anthropology. His
assessment was that the Face does not violate classical humanoid proportions
in a number of parameters. This differentiates the Face from various chance
features resembling faces.[3]=20

     The fourth test is the presence of fine detail. At least three
particularly compelling items, which one would not expect from on the
hypothesis that the facial appearance is simply a product of erosion, have
been identified. These are the fine detail around the eye, an apparent
"pupil" in the eye socket, and the apparent "teeth" in the Face's mouth.=20

With each such detail, consistent with a Facial interpretation and
inconsistent with the theory of chance wind erosion, the probability that
the Face is a product of wind erosion is decreased. One would have to
advocate a kind of "selective erosion" to maintain that view.=20

Yet these details might still be the result of some remarkable coincidence.
Researchers sought out other means of testing the possible artificiality of
the landform.=20

3. Fractal Analysis=20

In a paper published in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society in
1990, Dr. Mark J. Carlotto and M. C. Stein proposed to apply an entirely
quantitative and mathematical technique called fractal analysis to the area.
On the fractal test, the Face jumped out as unique over 15,000 square
kilometers of Mars -- registering high on the scale of probable=
 artificiality.=20

With this result, the theory that the Face is a result of "selective wind
erosion" is weakened even further. Scattered all over the Cydonia Plain are
other knobs or mesas, all of which have been subjected to the erosive forces
operating on that landscape over millions of years. As one would expect from
natural erosion, none of these objects show up on the fractal test as
anything but clearly natural (registering on average 5 on a scale of 1 - 75
from "probably natural" to "probably artificial."). At the top of the scale,
registering 75, the Face is quantitatively unlike any of these other
objects.[4]=20