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 -> 1997 -> Dec -> Re: Mars Face Report, Austin, TX

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: JJ Mercieca <mufor@maltanet.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 11:21:58 +0100
Fwd Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 11:22:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Mars Face Report, Austin, TX

Stan McDaniel's rebuttal to Faye Flam's Mars Face article kindly posted
to this list by Brian Cuthbertson.

Regards,

JJ Mercieca
Malta UFO Research
http://www.mufor.org/

-----

November 30, 1997

Letters to the Editor,
Austin American-Statesman (by fax)

	We of the Society for Planetary SETI Research (SPSR)
greatly regret the article in the American-Statesman "MARS PROBE TO
CHECK THAT FAMILIAR "FACE" (Nov. 27). The tone of the article
is quite misleading. Dr. Mark J. Carlotto's presentation of a body
of peer-reviewed scientific evidence to a technical seminar at the
University of Pennsylvania is inappro priately concatenated with
the speculations of tabloids, cults, and "believers." The article
gives the erroneous impression that Dr. Carlotto has "followers"
that constitute such cultish groups, and that he is out "spreading
the word."

	Dr. Carlotto has nothing to do with "cults" and "followers."
He is one of a number of academically qualified scientists and
professionals in our research organization who have carefully
studied the data, presented and published peer-reviewed scientific
papers, and found by four separate statistical tests that there
is a favorable probability for some of the objects on Mars being
artificial.

	We are especially disturbed by the comments quoted from
Dr. Michael Malin, who is not a NASA spokesperson but a private
contractor. Dr. Malin has regularly shown that he has a mistaken
understanding of Dr. Carlotto's procedures. His statement that
if the "Face on Mars" turns out in new higher resolution images
to still look like a face, this would prove nothing, is
particularly reprehensible. It would appear that the actual
"believers" are those in the opposite camp, who will not accept
new data unless it suits their preconceived ideas of reality.

Sincerely,


Stanley V. McDaniel