The "Face On Mars" - Google Groups The "Face On Mars" The Viking missions to Mars in the late 1970s produced more information about the Red Planet than had been gathered in all the previous centuries of study by Earth-bound astronomers and observers. The primary mission of the Viking program was to search for signs of life on the surface of Mars. Two landers containing sophisticated biological laboratories studied soil samples in a variety of tests which, it was hoped, would prove or disprove the existence of life. The results of these tests indicated that Mars contained no life, at least at these landing sites. However, Viking gathered volumes of data on the weather, soil chemistry and other surface properties and mapped the surface using low-to-moderate resolution cameras on the two orbiters. Shortly after mapping began in 1976 an interesting image taken by the Viking 1 Orbiter was received at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., which contained a surface feature resembling a human or ape-like face.

The photo was immediately released to the public as an interesting geological feature and dubbed the "Face on Mars." Shortly afterwards other photos of the same area were taken, and some scientists believed that the formation appeared to be a face due to the lighting angles as seen from the Orbiter. Origin Of Features Examined Over the years, some people began to raise questions about the origins of the features. A few ideas and theories arose speculating that the features may have been built by aliens in the distant past. These theories are based largely on the results of computer photo enhancements and other analytical techniques performed on the Viking images beginning in the early 1980s. Most planetary geologists familiar with the set of photos, however, concluded that the natural processes known to occur on Mars -- such as wind erosion, Mars quakes, and erosion from running water in the distant past -- could account for the formation of the complicated fretted terrain of the Cydonia region, including the face. Because the entire data set includes only nine low-to-moderate resolution photos, scientists say that there just is not enough data available to justify what would be an extraordinary conclusion that the features are not natural in origin (many scientists question whether images alone would be enough to settle the matter).

Such a proven discovery of extraterrestrial life or artifacts would be one of the greatest discoveries in human history, and, as such, demand the most rigorous scientific investigation. However, despite the phenomenal nature of such a potential discovery, no one in the scientific community -- either in the U.S. or worldwide -- has ever proposed an investigation for a mission to study these features. Until more data is gathered, many scientists consider the probability that the features are anything other than natural in origin are just too low to justify the major expenditure of public funds which such an investigation would entail (more on this below). What is agreed on is that a greater number of high resolution images of this area should be gathered. Following the failure of the Mars Observer mission in August, 1993, NASA proposed a decade-long program of Mars exploration, including orbiters and landers. The program, called Mars Surveyor, would take advantage of launch opportunities about every 2 years to launch an orbiter and a lander to the Red Planet. The first mission, consisting of an orbiter to be launched in 1996, will map the surface and take high- and medium-resolution images of particular features on the Martian surface that are of high interest.

NASA intends to make observations of the Cydonia region making the best effort feasible, either with the first orbiter or on follow-on missions, to obtain images of the "face" and nearby landforms. Quite aside from the interest generated by these curious features, Cydonia has long been regarded as an area of high scientific importance, ever since the first detailed images were returned by NASA's Viking spacecraft in the late 1970s. The Cydonia region of Mars is part of the so-called fretted terrain, a belt of landforms that circles Mars at about 30-40 degrees North Latitude. In this region, the ancient crust of Mars has been intensely eroded by weathering processes, leaving high remnants of older crust surrounded by lower plains of eroded debris. The landforms of Cydonia resemble in some respects those of terrestrial deserts, but they probably have been shaped by a unique range of peculiarly martian agencies: wind, frost and possibly running water in ancient times. Deciphering the geological age and origin of this terrain will yield important insights into the evolution of the martian surface, into the role of ice and water in its development and into the nature of the martian climate in times past.

The selection of goals and scientific priorities for NASA to undertake on future space science missions starts in the scientific and academic communities, as well as within NASA. Scientific associations, such as the National Academy of Science, determine the research priorities in any given field of science. For instance, the most important questions remaining about Mars include gaining an understanding of the amount of water on the planet; mapping the surface in detail to gain a complete understanding of the geological processes, history and composition; and gaining a global understanding of the atmosphere, including climate and weather. When NASA receives permission to proceed with a science mission, the Agency publishes an Announcement of Opportunity (AO). The AO solicits interest in providing high priority scientific investigations and instruments that will be part of the new mission. The AO receives the widest possible circulation throughout the university and research communities and industry. Proposals are submitted and reviewed through a competitive peer review process. In this process, scientists from various institutions and organizations evaluate each proposal's scientific and technical merit, and then rank the relative merit of each. NASA receives the reports of the review panels and makes a final selection as to which instruments will be built and actually flown.

This rational selection process ensures that only the most useful research, with a high probability of returning good science, is done at taxpayer expense. After selection, each Mars Surveyor Principle Investigator (PI) team will develop its instrument, build it, test it and prepare it for launch and the 10-month journey to Mars. They are also charged with developing, testing, and using the software required to properly calibrate their instrument's data. Most of the scientists working on the various Mars Surveyor missions will have several years invested in their instrument before the spacecraft arrives at Mars and they can actually receive the bulk of the data they have been waiting for. Obtaining Images of the "Face" and Other Planetary Data Since the release and subsequent widespread circulation of the 'face' images, scientists and individual members of the public have freely drawn their own conclusions about the nature and origin of this feature. NASA encourages anyone seriously interested in this topic to obtain the photo(s) and decide for themselves, just as every day many hundreds of independent researchers and scientists make use of NASA-provided data on a variety of subjects. The most noteworthy image of the 'face' feature is available to the public, for a nominal fee, through Headquarters and JPL.

A photo catalogue can be provided to select images. The phone numbers for ordering photos are: HQ: 202/358-1900 All imaging data obtained by the Mars Surveyor program, as well as other types of data, will be deposited in open data archives. Two such archives widely used are the Planetary Data System (PDS), an open archive accessible to thousands of scientists and other individuals, and the National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC) where images and other data will be readily available to the general public (generally on CD-ROMs or as hard copy, as appropriate), for a nominal charge that covers the materials and time needed to produce the copies. For information about ordering copies of NASA science mission images, including on CD-ROM format, contact the NSSDC at: National Space Science Data Center Request Coordination Center Listed below are the photo numbers of every image taken by Viking of the 'face' feature and the surrounding Cydonia terrain. When ordering from the data archive centers, refer to the Viking picno (photo number).

Sun Picno Scale Emission Incidence Phase Elevation Period of (m/pixel) (deg) (deg) (deg) Day (deg) 035A7247.13 10.53 79.89 86.26 10.11 morning 070A1343.42 12.36 62.61 71.77 27.39 morning 561A25162.7 32.83 76.59 45.63 13.41 morning 753A33232.82 10.25 35.3 25.12 54.7 afternoon 753A34232.51 10.13 35.15 25.14 54.85 afternoon 814A07848.86 38.15 65.93 103.25 24.07 too low

 257S69821.24 42.06 43.83 8.66 46.17 cloudy 673B54226.02 23.22 64.94 77.76 25.06 morning 673B56225.7 21.33 67.77 76.7 22.23 morning ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This is the first time I've read anything coherent/complete about the > 'face' so my opinion on the matter is neutral (I always read Mr Baalke's > posts with interest); however, I was just curious to know why there is a > fee for _these_ photos while I constantly see new photos published with > URLs regarding Europa, Galaxies, etc...

What makes a photo "fee-able" vs > readily and freely available. The images of Cydonia and the "face" are already avaliable online in a number of locations. It appears that the fee is for prints, not electronic copies. Since prints require paper, chemicals, postage, etc., it is not unreasonable that those who want them reimburse the government for the cost of doing this. I have ordered stuff from the government before, and the charge is truly nominal (i.e. small). -- Bob Martino ( bmar...@osu.edu ) I look up to the heavens but night has clouded over Perkins Observatory Web site: no spark of constellation . no Vela no Orion : Because (1) if there is even the remotest chance that there was once : intelligent life on Mars, we ought to investigate it; and (2), much : more importantly, perhaps when the `face' is shown to be a pile of : rocks the loonies will go away. (Actually, the more dedicated will : just claim there's a `government' coverup. NASA can't win.) I'm still with AndersonRM on this one.

There is the remotest chance that life was or is many places--we can't investigate them all. Of course, in this case we're talking about human or near-human life; but in spite of Star Trek showing the whole universe is populated with funny-looking humans, it still makes the chances seem more remote to me. And why do we want the loonies to go away? Where would they go? Bart Mathias > Why not? It's an interesting feature in an interesting region on an > interesting planet we'll be taking pictures of and exploring anyway. > > Plus, I think you could argue that space exploration is highly > dependent on public support, and therefore focussing on things > like this that have captured the public's attention is a good idea > in and of itself. > Besides, maybe it is a face. :-) Yes, indeed, it is amagnificent, symmetric, FACE which will soon be better seen when solar angle is appropriate in new pictures. There some 15 human Faces at Cydonia and many other Artistic Monuments. About 60 of them. Who does not distinghish them is just a poor fellow totally negated in the field of fine-Art.

On top of that there is math. in between the Monuments and only incompetent indioviduals in basic math are not seing the 'conclusive' proof of existence of ETI in that most sacred area of Cydonia. -- Angel, secretary of Universitas Americae (UNIAM). His proof of ETI at Cydonia and complete Index of new "TETET-97: Creatoris Digitus.." by Prof. Dr. D.G. Lahoz (leader on ETI and Cosmogony) can be studied at URL: > > Does putting a "word" in quotations change the meaning? > It sometimes changes the meaning the author wishes to convey...it often > indicates that the author questions, challenges, or rejects the validity > of the word. This comes from a discussion far off-topic from the one here about "the face" but I found it relevant anyway. The scare quotes in this case definitely convey a sense of incredulity at best and lunacy at worst. It would be interesting if other scientific hypothesis were -- as a rule -- treated with the same disrespect as "the face".

Then we could talk about "the flood plains", "the canals", or "the life" on Mars depending on how ardently you believe in them. >Okay, a face proves absolutely nothing, we see faces in clouds, wrinkles >in the sheets, unusual land formations... But for all we know at the >moment there may be more there, probably not, but *if* there is even the >slight chances that mars was visited (as would probably be the case) by >some alien technological species at some time, surely it's worth looking >into? Sure, someday. But it makes sense to give it low priority. The "face" is not really a very strong hint of intelligent visitors. >After all, a face is something we're very good at spotting, and >would serve as a very good marker. Actually, a diagram of (say) the Pythagorean theorem would be far more definitive evidence of intelligence, and would make a much better marker. The "face" is too simple a shape to be an unambiguous marker; it's too easy for something like that to be natural. These aliens must be pretty dumb -- doesn't sound like we're likely to learn much from them. :-) >And another point.

Most scientist now thinks it's almost a certainty that >there's going to be (intelligent) life in our galaxy, and that with >technology little better than our own, `they' may have passed thru our >solar system - albeit tens of thousands (millions?) of years ago. >However, the moment that you suggest that this *really* could have >happened, ie that there are definate artifacts suggesting this, it's >completely impossible. This makes no sense to me. Nobody -- well, almost nobody -- is going to say that it's impossible. What they will say is that there's remarkably little *evidence* of it, and that the simplest explanation is that -- for some unknown reason -- there have been no recent visitors. They'll also say that a facelike shape in a low-resolution image of an eroded surface is far from being a "definite artifact", and is not convincing evidence for anything. (Is the Kermit face on Mars -- yes, there is one -- evidence for interstellar talking frogs?) >Just keep an open mind, I say, you just can't know what's round the >corner.

"It is good to have an open mind, but not at both ends." Most remarkable claims unaccompanied by solid evidence are false. You can spend a lot of time and effort pursuing them; your supply of time and effort is finite. It is better to be skeptical and ask that their proponents produce clear evidence before you devote serious attention to them. Otherwise there's no time or effort left to get anything done. -- Being the last man on the Moon | Henry Spencer is a very dubious honor. -- Gene Cernan | he...@zoo.toronto.edu > I've been reading the E-Mails on this subject and have this point to add. > > What can be said for the "Pyramid-Like" structures photographed on Mars ? > Does this mean that an alien civilisation built the pyramids in Eygpt ? Right. It takes space aliens with highly advanced technology to pile rocks one on top of the other. Sheesh. Go find a copy of the NOVA episode "This Old Pyramid." In the 1 and 1/2 hour show, they document a group of egyption guys who use nothing but wood, ropes, and copper (not even bronze!) tools to construct a small pyramid in about a month.

Hopefully this will dispell any silly notions that pyramid construction requires FTL drives, replicators, levitation beams, or any other hypothetical ET technology. :) > Chrisp Simmons wrote in message ... > >Okay, a face proves absolutely nothing, we see faces in clouds, wrinkles > >in the sheets, unusual land formations... But for all we know at the > >moment there may be more there, probably not, but *if* there is even the > >slight chances that mars was visited (as would probably be the case) by > >some alien technological species at some time, surely it's worth looking > >into? After all, a face is something we're very good at spotting, and > >would serve as a very good marker. > > > >And another point. Most scientist now thinks it's almost a certainty that > >there's going to be (intelligent) life in our galaxy, and that with > >technology little better than our own, `they' may have passed thru our > >solar system - albeit tens of thousands (millions?) of years ago.

> >However, the moment that you suggest that this *really* could have > >happened, ie that there are definate artifacts suggesting this, it's > >completely impossible. This makes no sense to me. > > > >Just keep an open mind, I say, you just can't know what's round the > >corner. : > I'm justwaiting until they find the "Shadow Ship" on Mars! : > : > The Year is 2260 ... The Place Babylon 5 : Come with me please. We have a nice facility for you on Isidis. You will first spend a lovely two weeks at our massive complex under what-used-to-be San Diego. As you approach the area, note the surface crusting of what appears to be green glassy material. This is known as "Sandiegoite," and did not exist until a few years from now. It is similar, though not identical, in composition to "Trinitite," a mineral found in very limited quantities in a selected New Mexico location. Do not be alarmed by the glow; our complex is far enough underground that any residual radiation will probably not affect your health.

: The Corps is your Friend *Trust* the corps > Chrisp Simmons wrote in message ... > >Okay, a face proves absolutely nothing, we see faces in clouds, wrinkles > >in the sheets, unusual land formations... But for all we know at the > >moment there may be more there, probably not, but *if* there is even the > >slight chances that mars was visited (as would probably be the case) by > >some alien technological species at some time, surely it's worth looking > >into? After all, a face is something we're very good at spotting, and > >would serve as a very good marker. > > > >And another point. Most scientist now thinks it's almost a certainty that > >there's going to be (intelligent) life in our galaxy, and that with > >technology little better than our own, `they' may have passed thru our > >solar system - albeit tens of thousands (millions?) of years ago. > >However, the moment that you suggest that this *really* could have > >happened, ie that there are definate artifacts suggesting this, it's > >completely impossible. This makes no sense to me.

> > > >Just keep an open mind, I say, you just can't know what's round the > >corner. >> Because the entire data set includes only nine low-to-moderate resolution >> photos, scientists say that there just is not enough data available to >> justify what would be an extraordinary conclusion that the features are not >> natural in origin (many scientists question whether images alone would be >> enough to settle the matter). That is totally wrong: It is not 9 but 13 frames from Viking which touch the "Museum of Monuments", namely 5 around the central 35A72 and 8 around the central 70A12. Two set were taken in orbits 35 and 70 respectively. Only TWO (above mentioned) contain the 'Face' which is in central-north portion of the Museum. But the BEST Monuments have only recently discovered and are NDC and PANTOCRATON just at the boundary of the 106 km diameter circle which defines de Museum. Whoever in seing them does not agree that they are supreme works of Finest-Art is just an artistically handicaped person. See my URL. > Now that I don't understand.

Personally I doubt whether there has ever > been intelligent life on Mars, let me make that clear, however it would > surely be very easy to imagine images which would prove that there had > been. Images of huge Nazca-type lines defining Egyptian-style There are Mathematics embedded in between the 60 Monuments which prove conclusively ETI in that region. Many Doctors in various fields have studied it to saturation over 16 years and Dr. Lahoz, physicist with many papers and books published, has spent more than 6 years with such issue publishing 6 books about Cydonia; he is of course the leader in Cosmogony and in SETI around the globe. See my URL. -- Angel, secretary of Universitas Americae (UNIAM). His proof of ETI at Cydonia and complete Index of new "TETET-97: Creatoris Digitus.." by Prof. Dr. D.G. Lahoz (leader on ETI and Cosmogony) can be studied at URL: > I think, the so called "face on Mars" is a complete natural formation. Just > think about all the "faces" that apear in our mountains on earth.

Here in > northern Germany one from the Harz mountains is very famous. It looks like a > big indian or, more likely, like our old chancellor Konrad Adenauer. I think > such features can be found everywhere. The state of New Hampshire in the United States has a natural rock formation plainly visible to anyone driving through Franconia Notch called "The Old Man Of The Mountain", which is used as a logo on many state documents and signs. The human nervous system is optimized for seeing faces. > > I think, the so called "face on Mars" is a complete natural formation. > Just > > think about all the "faces" that apear in our mountains on earth. Here in > > northern Germany one from the Harz mountains is very famous. It looks > like a > > big indian or, more likely, like our old chancellor Konrad Adenauer. I > think > > such features can be found everywhere. > > The state of New Hampshire in the United States > has a natural rock formation plainly visible to anyone > driving through Franconia Notch called "The > Old Man Of The Mountain", which is used as a > logo on many state documents and signs.

> > The human nervous system is optimized for seeing > faces. > For one, some people with the "alien agenda" bias have taken the > raw data and done image processing of it which has caused spurious > features to appear, like nostrils and teeth. These people enlarged the > original segment of the face image, using things like pixel doubling, > and then applied certain processing techniques to enhance the detail. > Unfortunatly, the pixels when enlarged tended to be square, and the > enhancement of these squares generated false detail. That's all well and good, but the details you refer to appear in both photographs. That strongly suggests that they may be real details, not processing artifacts. Since I started looking at this stuff to point and giggle at the kooks, I can appreciate your poem. However, it betrays an attitude that is all too prevalent on the subject: that there is absolutely no evidence of anomaly at Cydonia. For instance: >> But those who wished for alien nations, >> refused to consider this explanation. >> With no hard facts to support their inklings, >> they abandoned much of their critical thinking.

"No hard facts." If you weren't talking about Cydonia, I'd swear you were talking about the so-called "martian metorites," and the claims that evidence of life has been found in them. Surely, you're aware of the scales involved, and how extremely unlikely it is that a piece of Mars would be found in Antarctica? And even after that, how likely is it that this particular piece of Mars would have evidence of life? If exobiology were treated like planetary SETI, these arguments would have stifled most research on the subject. Yet, I think the evidence shows we should pursue both avenues -- despite your assertions about "No hard facts." The strongest arguments for a closer look at Cydonia were published after 1990. Judging by the attitudes displayed, I suspect most scientists made up their minds before then. (I just posted another article to sci.astro comparing exobiology with planetary SETI, perhaps you'll take the time to read that.) But claiming there is _no_ evidence for anonaly at Cydonia is either lazy or credulous -- the kooks have influenced you.

-Scott > Just out of curiosity, why doesn't your recommendation to ignore Nancy > lead to a similar recommendation to ignore Face on Mars proponents? The N**** person just posts to get attention for herself or to deliberately start an argument, thus she simply isn't worth discussion or interaction (it only encourages her, and does not further astronomy). However, many, if not most, of the people who are actually "discussing" the face on Mars are doing so from a somewhat logical perspective; ie: "it looks like a face, so is it really one?". They aren't arguing just to argue; they are discussing, with an interest in the opinions of others. At one point, there was a reasonable debate as to whether the face was a monument or an illusion. Some of the pre-MGS factual evidence pointed to a natural explanation for the appearance of the "face", but to some, the look of the face was too much to ignore. The evidence of an artificial origin for the face was more speculation than fact (along with a little excessive image processing), however it was food for a debate.

There are, of course, the fringe element numerologists who tried to prove intelligence by looking for pyramids, measuring lines and arcs and such (along with the "government coverup" enthusiasts), but otherwise, the debate was fairly interesting. Now that we have a really high resolution image, it becomes clear that the feature known as the face indeed appears to be very natural, rather than artificial. As another poster put it "take away the lighting, and the face goes poof". Maybe someday, we will find something somewhere which will indicate that we are not alone in the universe. This is worth discussing. The long illogical rantings and ravings of the N**** person are not, and those who insist on engaging her at length for whatever reason, are just wasting bandwidth. -- Prairie Astronomy Club, Inc. Hyde Memorial Observatory: * Attend the 5th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY * * July 18-25, 1998 * >> Just out of curiosity, why doesn't your recommendation to ignore Nancy >> lead to a similar recommendation to ignore Face on Mars proponents? > The N**** person just posts to get attention for herself or to > deliberately start an argument, How would you know?

Are you now claiming to be clairvoyant? > thus she simply isn't worth discussion or interaction (it only > encourages her, and does not further astronomy). As if the Face on Mars discussion does further astronomy. > However, many, if not most, of the people who are actually > "discussing" the face on Mars are doing so from a somewhat logical > perspective; ie: "it looks like a face, so is it really one?". You find that perspective logical? The Man in the Moon looks like a face. Should we discuss it to find out if it really is one? How about discussing the pictures of lenticular clouds that look like flying saucers? Or the Pizza Hut spaghetti billboard that was supposed to contain the likeness of Christ? > They aren't arguing just to argue; You don't know that any more than you do so for Nancy. > they are discussing, with an interest in the opinions of others. Actually, several of the proponents of the Face on Mars do not seem to have an interest in the opinions of others at all. > At one point, there was a reasonable debate as to whether the face > was a monument or an illusion. There's also been plenty of unreasonable debate.

> Some of the pre-MGS > factual evidence pointed to a natural explanation for the appearance of > the "face", but to some, the look of the face was too much to ignore. By the same token, the deflection of a comet away from Jupiter on the two-dimensional plane of the sky is too much to ignore, after being told how gravitational perturbations are supposed to attract an object. > The evidence of an artificial origin for the face was more speculation > than fact Like the alleged misidentification of a nova as comet Hale-Bopp. > (along with a little excessive image processing), however it > was food for a debate. Like the alleged misidentification of a nova as comet Hale-Bopp. > There are, of course, the fringe element numerologists who tried to > prove intelligence by looking for pyramids, measuring lines and arcs > and such (along with the "government coverup" enthusiasts), Sounds similar to Nancy, who also referred to "government coverup". > but otherwise, the debate was fairly interesting. That's subjective. > Now that we have a really high resolution image, it becomes clear that > the feature known as the face indeed appears to be very natural, rather > than artificial. Surprise, surprise.

And similarly, once we had a naked-eye comet, its reality became clear. > As another poster put it "take away the lighting, and the > face goes poof". Make the comet naked eye, and the identification as a nova goes poof. > Maybe someday, we will find something somewhere which > will indicate that we are not alone in the universe. Like the Zetas? Feel free to do so with Nancy. > The long illogical rantings and ravings of the N**** person > are not, How can you say that, given that she likes to discuss beings that show we are not alone in the universe? > and those who insist on engaging her at length for whatever > reason, are just wasting bandwidth. And as the above reasoning shows, the same can be applied to your discussion of the Face on Mars. You're being inconsistent. > >> But those who wished for alien nations, > >> refused to consider this explanation. > >> With no hard facts to support their inklings, > >> they abandoned much of their critical thinking.

> > "No hard facts." If you weren't talking about Cydonia, I'd swear you > were talking about the so-called "martian metorites," and the claims > that evidence of life has been found in them. Surely, > you're aware of the scales involved, and how extremely unlikely > it is that a piece of Mars would be found in Antarctica? And naturally, the ancient and far researched field of interplanetary drift of asteroids, meteors and comets within a star system is something you're an expert on. I am critical of your rejection of the possibilities, hundreds of years before they can be checked out. What was the name of that probe again ? Some guy who went to jail or something. Yeah, a teacher, with a telescope I think. Let's see now, I have a hammer in one hand and a feather in the other - which one do you think will hit you on your closed mind first ?

In article <6gaanu$ds0$ 1...@ultra.sonic.net >, Scott Doty < no-...@sonic.net > wrote: >"No hard facts." If you weren't talking about Cydonia, I'd swear you >were talking about the so-called "martian metorites," and the claims >that evidence of life has been found in them. Surely, >you're aware of the scales involved, and how extremely unlikely >it is that a piece of Mars would be found in Antarctica? It seems to me that, given other scales involved - especially geological time scales of millions or billions of years - it's pretty likely that *something* from Mars would be found *somewhere* on Earth. There have been a number of impacts on planetary surfaces throughout the history of the solar system, though much more so early on. These impacts have thrown chunks of rock from planets into space, and although the chances of any one rock actually making it to Earth are tiny, given lots of rocks and enough time, eventually the odds improve to realistic levels. >And even after that, how likely is it that this particular piece of >Mars would have evidence of life?

If exobiology were treated like >planetary SETI, these arguments would have stifled most research on >the subject. Yet, I think the evidence shows we should pursue both >avenues -- despite your assertions about "No hard facts." Well, that brings up one of the nice things about science - the ability to self correct. The initial claims about the Martian rock have been disputed from the very beginning, and lately what I have heard seems to point to solid evidence that the rocks were indeed contaminated, apparently by water seepage over time. The credibility of the claims for the rock seems to be heading the same way as the claims about the Face. (This doesn't even address the credibility of the claim that the nanostructures observed were organic in nature, which is also highly disputed.) -- >"No hard facts." If you weren't talking about Cydonia, I'd swear you >were talking about the so-called "martian metorites," and the claims >that evidence of life has been found in them. Surely, >you're aware of the scales involved, and how extremely unlikely >it is that a piece of Mars would be found in Antarctica? Just how unlikely is that? Explain, please, with numbers.

Although the debate about the supposed chemical and physical microfossils continues -- and of late the trend is against them -- there has never been serious doubt that the meteorite is from Mars. That is the *simplest* explanation of the isotope-ratio data; surprising though it sounds, the surprise would be even greater if the thing were from somewhere else. Note that a number of pieces of the Moon have been found in Antarctica, and one or two in Australia. There is no doubt whatever about them; we have real Moon rocks -- which are quite unlike Earth rocks in some readily-measurable ways -- for comparison. Being the last man on the Moon | Henry Spencer is a very dubious honor. -- Gene Cernan | he...@zoo.toronto.edu > "Lastly, if you're not a member of the > Mainstream Scientific Community, you > don't have the right to think out loud about > anything at all. We have your credit card > numbers, email addresses, and the implants > in your skull will inform us of your ongoing > perceptions and subtle realizations at all > times. Sleep tight, sweet little brother." Pure caca.

You have every right to think and speak out on these topics, but if your ideas are ridiculous they will be ridiculed. A simple preventive to such ridicule is to make sure you have your ducks in a row, evidence-wise, before speaking up. Many of us who do the ridiculing would love it if evidence were found of extraterrestrial life or civilization, and that's why we get especially pissed off at people who propose such ideas and fail to live up to them with decent evidence and thinking. A poor analogy, perhaps, but say you had a dread disease which had no effective treatment or cure. Wouldn't you be ESPECIALLY pissed off at anyone who said they had a good treatment when they didn't? > >> Just out of curiosity, why doesn't your recommendation to ignore Nancy > >> lead to a similar recommendation to ignore Face on Mars proponents? > > > The N**** person just posts to get attention for herself or to > > deliberately start an argument, > How would you know? Are you now claiming to be clairvoyant? I agree with Knisely on this. There's no apparent logic or sense to the N**** entity, so there's no point in discussing anything with her.

But most of the "face" buffs proceed from at least some semblance of evidence and follow, perhaps torturously, some sort of logical path. Indeed, on other BBS's and the like I've seen quite a few former face-buffs actually admit they were wrong (something unheard of among most True Believers)! This holds out the possibility that the remainder might be appealed to with logic, reason and evidence. ---peter > The new face is different because IT IS MOVING! > ITS ALIVE! You know what I find interesting about all this "face on Mars" stuff and Atlantis and all that? Its that the truely remarkable is being ignored for the fantasy and the legend. On the front cover of Science is an image of Mars from Global Suveyor that shows dendritic drainage and sedimentary accumulations in the valleys. This means that there was running water on the surface of Mars, probably for some number of millions of years. It takes a lot of time for water to erode basalt. That is worth more to me than some mythical trick of the light or a rehash of bug eyed monsters lurking in space to take us out.

Perhaps if the monsters were only going to take out the crazies and the politicians I would be more supportive. Have a good Easter guys. >>>> Just out of curiosity, why doesn't your recommendation to ignore Nancy >>>> lead to a similar recommendation to ignore Face on Mars proponents? >>> The N**** person just posts to get attention for herself or to >>> deliberately start an argument, >> How would you know? Are you now claiming to be clairvoyant? > I agree with Knisely on this. There's no apparent logic or > sense to the N**** entity, so there's no point in discussing anything > with her. Irrelevant. The issue is Nancy's motives and how Knisely supposedly knows them, not the lack of logic in Nancy's postings. > But most of the "face" buffs proceed from at least > some semblance of evidence and follow, perhaps torturously, > some sort of logical path. So has Nancy. For example, she plotted comet Hale-Bopp's supposed path on the sky, noticed a deflection away from Jupiter, and questioned the reality of the orbit, given that gravitational perturbations are supposed to deflect an orbit toward a planet.

Of course, there's a flaw in her analysis, which I've pointed out. > Indeed, on other BBS's and the > like I've seen quite a few former face-buffs actually admit > they were wrong (something unheard of among most True > Believers)! Irrelevant. Again, the issue is Nancy's motives and how Knisely supposedly knows them. > This holds out the possibility that the remainder > might be appealed to with logic, reason and evidence. And my corrections of Nancy's errors are for the benefit of such people. Haven't I made that clear? I've told Schlyter so many times it's ridiculous. : You know what I find interesting about all this "face on Mars" stuff and : Atlantis and all that? Its that the truely remarkable is being ignored for : the fantasy and the legend. On the front cover of Science is an image of Mars : from Global Suveyor that shows dendritic drainage and sedimentary : accumulations in the valleys. This means that there was running water on the : surface of Mars, probably for some number of millions of years. It takes a : lot of time for water to erode basalt.

That is worth more to me than some : mythical trick of the light or a rehash of bug eyed monsters lurking in space : to take us out. Perhaps if the monsters were only going to take out the : crazies and the politicians I would be more supportive. Have a good Easter : guys. > Yes, the Nanedi canyon image is much more interesting than Face Mesa, > which nonetheless has some interesting differential erosive features, and > nostrils!? I agree, especially, in the instance of the Face, the interesting tilted and eroded strata around the "forehead". Looks like it was domed up by intrusion (igneous laccolith?, salt!?!?!) of the light colored material that makes up the complex terrain of the Face proper. These lighter, thin beds show up as the highest strata in a lot of the MGS photos. Makes me start to think carbonates (wish, maybe), but I've heard that carbonate minerals haven't been detected in abundance. The large-scale layering in the canyon walls could be stacked basalt flows, but who knows? Maybe volcanic ash for these higher, lighter layers? Lighter windblown dust (related to a climatic epidode)?

If all or some of this layering is do to water-based sedimentary processes, we have much, much more to learn about Martian geology than we would have ever thought! > > >The state of New Hampshire in the United States > > >has a natural rock formation plainly visible to anyone > > >driving through Franconia Notch called "The > > >Old Man Of The Mountain", which is used as a > > >logo on many state documents and signs. > > > > This goes to show that the Martians have been carving faces > > on Earth too! Read sci.archeaology for discussions on aliens > > building monuments on Earth. > > (About three days late posting :-) > > > So the aliens have nothing to do but just travelling around an carving faces > into the rocks of distant planets? > Oh, they must be even more crazy than the humans. It's their version of artistic vandalism. I can see it now: they arrive on earth and go carve a face on a mountainside. When they return to their flying saucer they discover that it's covered with graffitti.

On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 12:07:05 -0400, in sci.astro, Spotazhazer wrote: > >What was the name of that probe again ? >Some guy who went to jail or something. >Yeah, a teacher, with a telescope I think. >Let's see now, I have a hammer in one hand >and a feather in the other - which one do you >think will hit you on your closed mind first ? Galileo, the guy who was jailed by the closed minds of his time? We've had this guy on sci.archaeology. When we started to use evidence to disagree with him, he replied with the best stuff in his armory -- ad hominems. Doug >"Lastly, if you're not a member of the >Mainstream Scientific Community, you >don't have the right to think out loud about >anything at all.

The people who believe in the Mars face share a few common traits: -ill educated -like to believe we are being "looked upon by alien benevolence" -resort to fortune tellers to get answers they are too stupid or afraid to reason out on their own -cannot cope with drastic technological change -are incapable of understanding what scientific theory is composed of. -jump to conclusions with little or not facts -candidates for Scientology -believed in Santa until they were 18. -are scared of the boogeymen -tend to be "followers" -are generally paranoid by nature The people who "invented" the concept of the Mars face are brilliant marketers. Like Von Dainiken, L. Ron Hubbard, Rev. Moon. They are people who know there are suckers born every minute and they are there to be conned, herded and fleeced. Now, imagine someone lays out a black, Mickey Mouse-shaped tarp over part of a pixel's area. It seems to me that the average brightness for that area, influenced by the area of the tarp, would drop, and the same for the pixel value.

** Therefore, it seems our 2x2 pixel image can detect the presence of an object, even though its details are "below the true resolution of the image." However, nobody can tell its shape. I think the problem with this detection of this "fine detail" is distinguishing it from noise. > One image I saw did not take out the "salt-and-pepper" noise spikes > in the image, and again interpreted the images as having even more > non-existant detail. I have the original images. I got rid of the > noise spikes and did the "right" level of processing to get an > enlarged version without introducing artificial detail. No teeth > appear. If I understand Carlotto's argument correctly, it appears he combined the images before removing noise. I suspect that this combination would tend to re-enforce signal, and noise would remain random. It seems to me that applying noise correction to both images and eyeballing the results would defeat the purpose of the experiment. Meanwhile, applying noise correction to a combination of the images might detect the presence of "finer detail," though its shape would still remain unknown.

In combining the images, one would have to correct for differences in lighting angle and camera location -- it's not as simple as mushing two images together. I can't find a refereed paper on the method, so perhaps this is a Mickey Mouse argument. Nonetheless, I think it's interesting to look at NASA's original processed view of the new imagery in the region (the oblique view), and after doing so, compare it to the Mercator projection. Is this method vindicated? I can't argue with any other (solid) points in your article, save one: > To quote Sagan (and others), extraordinary claims require > extraordinary proof. To quote Sagan: "Some of them were fairly cautious and deserve to be commended for advancing the subject." I think a scientific search for extraterrestrial life is fascinating -- if Carlotto hasn't "advanced the subject," then who was Sagan talking about? -Scott >It seems to me that pixel values are a function of the average >brightness for the area they record. Approximately true.

(It is in fact a weighted average, and the weighting function fades out gradually at the edges rather than stopping at the official boundary of the pixel, but these are minor details.) >Now, imagine someone lays out a black, Mickey Mouse-shaped tarp over >part of a pixel's area. It seems to me that the average brightness >for that area, influenced by the area of the tarp, would drop, and >the same for the pixel value. Correct. This is why, for example, long thin bright/dark features across contrasting backgrounds are visible even when they are narrower than the nominal limiting resolution of the system. >Therefore, it seems our 2x2 pixel image can detect the presence of an >object, even though its details are "below the true resolution of the >image." However, nobody can tell its shape. Correct. Note, though, that when lots of fine contrasty detail is present, as opposed to one single spot of it, it's very difficult to sort out what is going on. -- Being the last man on the Moon | Henry Spencer is a very dubious honor.

-- Gene Cernan | he...@zoo.toronto.edu >>"No hard facts." If you weren't talking about Cydonia, I'd swear you >>were talking about the so-called "martian metorites," and the claims >>that evidence of life has been found in them. Surely, >>you're aware of the scales involved, and how extremely unlikely >>it is that a piece of Mars would be found in Antarctica? [Henry snipped the rest: "And even after that, how likely is it that this particular piece of Mars would have evidence of life?" and "I just posted another to sci.astro comparing exobiology with planetary SETI, perhaps you'll take the time to read that."] Henry then asks: > Just how unlikely is that? Explain, please, with numbers. I fear my attempt at irony may have been too subtle. (Or even, too sloppy.) I'll avoid that in the future.

The article I referred to is news:<6ga1ll$5il$ 1...@ultra.sonic.net > , which I've retreived from dejanews and put here: The point of my question: Though scientifically feasible that we should find pieces of Mars on Earth, this doesn't seem intuitive -- yet it does appear to be the case. (When I first heard of this claim, my BS detector shifted to "red alert" --I thought it was another bunch of kooks who would then try to sell these rocks, or something like that.) ...which includes the following quote, regarding the collecting action of Antarctic glaciers: Researchers were surprised to find a few samples of lunar material among the meteorites -- until then it was thought to be impossible to eject a rock from the surface of a body as large as the Moon. Even more surprising was the discovery of meteorites from Mars. And why is it surprising? Because it's not intuitive. > Although the debate about the supposed chemical and physical > microfossils continues -- and of late the trend is against them -- > there has never been serious doubt that the meteorite is from Mars.

> That is the *simplest* explanation of the isotope-ratio data; > surprising though it sounds, the surprise would be even greater if > the thing were from somewhere else. My argument is about the process of inquiry that yielded the simpler explanation (which I've posted separately). -Scott > Researchers were surprised to find a few samples of lunar > material among the meteorites -- until then it was thought > to be impossible to eject a rock from the surface of a body > as large as the Moon. Even more surprising was the > discovery of meteorites from Mars. > >And why is it surprising? Because it's not intuitive. No, it was surprising -- to people who prefer numbers over intuition because intuition sometimes lies -- because at the time, it was thought that rocks could not be accelerated to the escape velocity of a substantial planet without being melted in the process. It wasn't a question of intuition, but rather of oversimplified models of ejection during impacts. Intuitively it *is* reasonable that ejection could happen, and intuition actually turns out to be correct here, but only when the question is examined in considerable detail. -- Being the last man on the Moon | Henry Spencer is a very dubious honor.

-- Gene Cernan | he...@zoo.toronto.edu In article < Pine.SGI.3.95L.980413155140.23757A-100000@tower.york.ac.uk > Chrisp Simmons < cps...@york.ac.uk > writes: >Okay, so the face clearly isn't a face to anyone with any sense in their >head (and I came to all this with an open mind, perhaps too open?). I was >wondering, what might the realistic chances be of there being some *real* >alien artifact or similar left in our solar system, perhaps as a marker to >any species which may evolve in the vicinity in the meantime, or some >other reason. For much of the Solar System's history, Mars could have been a more attractive place to be than Earth.

As little as 600 million years ago, or one eighth the age of the solar system, Earth was - mostly covered with water - had low O2 in atmosphere (compared to current, high UV radiation - no interesting life beyond bacterial scum - stronger gravity than Mars - had frozen periods (ice ages) and sweltering periods (hotter than now) Perhaps two billion years ago Mars had more attractive temperature, land area, atmosphere, gravity and life than Earth for alien passerbys. As for any alien construction on Mars surviving for hundreds of millions of years- the sandstorms and temparature cycling would erode most anything sooner than that. > > Okay, so the face clearly isn't a face to anyone with any sense in their > head (and I came to all this with an open mind, perhaps too open?). I was > wondering, what might the realistic chances be of there being some *real* > alien artifact or similar left in our solar system, perhaps as a marker to > any species which may evolve in the vicinity in the meantime, or some > other reason. > I mean this as a genuine scientific question. One would think otherwise based on the assumptions in your first sentence, above.

Anyone who would answer the question in the positive must be lacking "any sense in their head," yes? Abell In article < Pine.SGI.3.95L.980413155140.23757A-100000@tower.york.ac.uk >, Chrisp Simmons < cps...@york.ac.uk > wrote: >Okay, so the face clearly isn't a face to anyone with any sense in their >head (and I came to all this with an open mind, perhaps too open?). I was >wondering, what might the realistic chances be of there being some *real* >alien artifact or similar left in our solar system, perhaps as a marker to >any species which may evolve in the vicinity in the meantime, or some >other reason. This is, quite literally, incalculable. What we have numbers for are the percentage of Sun-like stars in the galaxy. We don't yet have data for any of the following: - the percentage of Sun-like stars orbited by planets that can support life.

Part of the complication here is that we don't know for sure what the limits of life zones are; consider the fringe cases like Mars, Europa, and so on. - the percentage of planets which can support life that do. Current thinking on this one seems to be that life will indeed spring up if given much of a chance. - the percentage of worlds with life that give rise to complex life forms. This one's tricky. Earth spent a looong time with just single-celled organisms, and there's no way to tell how much of the Precambrian explosion and subsequent events are just a rare fluke versus something one should expect to see elsewhere. We don't know about the balance of forces in mass extinctions, how much they help and how much they hurt. And so forth and so on. - the percentage of worlds with complex life forms that give rise to sentience. Another tricky one. Human-style sentience seems a recent development. On the other hand, we've got a bunch of neighbors in the sentience department. Is it just steam-engine time? ("We steam-engine when it's steam-engine time." - Charles Fort) Hard to say. - the percentage of sentient life forms that develop interstellar travel. Yet another tricky one.

It seems quite possible to develop sentience without ever being in a position to get off-planet - look at dolphins, and for a still-open example at the primates other than us. There's also the cultural question; humanity's history includes many complex interesting societies which never developed systematic science and therefore would presumably never have developed space travel. It's an open question whether the attitudes necessary for it will survive (or indeed have survived) in this society. Then there's questions about travel time and the like. Realistic, justifiable answers cover the spectrum from "we are alone, the first sentient race to arise in this galaxy" to "we should have a lot of neighbors". Try hunting with Deja News for threads about the Fermi paradox for discussion of this. >system. After all, you never know, we might strike it lucky one day. Basically everybody I know in astronomy, even those who strongly favor the "we're alone" view, has this as a semi-secret hope. -- Et in Tela Ego: New science fiction by S.M. Stirling, rolegaming, writers' tools >I mean this as a genuine scientific question.

After all, we could just >about conceive that, extrapolating from our technology, it would be >possible to send humans to other star systems - although probably in an >undesirably large time scale. There is no question that clumsy, slow, expensive interstellar travel is possible; it will be within our capabilities within a century or so. (A recent workshop/conference seriously examined the question of whether it would be realistic to start work now on launching the first starprobe. The answer was "not quite yet".) -- Being the last man on the Moon | Henry Spencer is a very dubious honor. -- Gene Cernan | he...@zoo.toronto.edu > Realistic, justifiable answers cover the spectrum from "we are alone, > the first sentient race to arise in this galaxy" to "we should have a > lot of neighbors". Try hunting with Deja News for threads about the > Fermi paradox for discussion of this. > > >system. After all, you never know, we might strike it lucky one day. > > Basically everybody I know in astronomy, even those who strongly favor > the "we're alone" view, has this as a semi-secret hope.

I personally don't think we're alone in the universe -- the sheer number of other stars out there is staggering. But as far as I can guess, I can't think of one single thing that any planet could have that would make it more likely to develop intelligent life fast. I would cheerfully place bets at even odds that we *are* alone in this galaxy. At least until we get around to seeding other planets.... Bear > there is every reason to expect that advanced starfaring races > should be common in the galaxy, yet there is no Of course, it's quite possible for them to be common while still never (or very rarely) running into each other. The galaxy is pretty big, including in the dimension most people forget about (time). There's lots of room for abundant intelligent life that never runs into any other intelligent life. Humans tend to think on small timescales anyway, with a few thousands of years of recorded history at our disposal. Will humanity be around in 100 million years? That's just an eyeblink, but it doesn't seem impossible that we'll have died out long, long before that. Although, interestingly, we do seem to be the first species on this planet able to make complex devices.

So it could also just take a really long time to involve intelligent life. Maybe when you couple this with the timescales needed to produce cozy life-sustaining planets in the first place, the universe is just getting around to it in the last few billion years. Tom > Though you state it as a genuine scientific question, I believe > that a quick review of "2001: A Space Odyssey" (the book, not the movie) > is in order. > Speaking of which, when are we going to do detailed magnetic > field mapping with a Lunar Prospector type mission...? If not, how are we > supposed to find TMA-1? Believe it or not, such thoughts were nowhere near my mind. Since everyone's going about 2001/europa though, I remember faintly reading an old Authur C Clarke short about life under Europa, which probably predates 2001, although I have no idea when it was written nor its name. I think it had a blue cover though :), helpful egh? Some creature broke through the ice crust attracted by warm or light or something... I'll shut up now. :) I want to believe there is sentient life elsewhere in the Universe.

Having said that, I view the chances of finding it this way... Distance wise, you can view us finding them as worse than if you told a gnat, "there is one other gnat in the world. Find it". Space is VERY large and empty. Time wise, view it this way. The world is 4,600,000,000 years old. Life in some form has existed for 3,800,000,000 years Multicellular life forms have existed for 700,000,000 years. Modern man has existed for 100,000 years. Multicellular life, a prerequisite for complex, intelligent life forms like us, has existed for only 15 percent of the age of the Earth. Modern Man, capable of complex activity, tool building, written language, yadda yadda yadda, has existed for 0.002 percent of the age of the Earth.

Looking at it that way, I find it more constructive and meaningful to forget about the possibilities of as-yet-to-be-detected alien sentience, thank our lucky stars that we're even here, and work towards making life better for us here, knowing that we're alone and cannot ask for anyone else's help, and knowing that if we drive ourselves towards extinction, no one will miss us. Chrisp Simmons wrote: > Okay, so the face clearly isn't a face to anyone with any sense > in their head (and I came to all this with an open mind, perhaps > too open?). I was wondering, what might the realistic chances > be of there being some *real* alien artifact or similar left in > our solar system, perhaps as a marker to any species which may > evolve in the vicinity in the meantime, or some other reason. > > I mean this as a genuine scientific question. After all, we > could just about conceive that, extrapolating from our technology, > it would be possible to send humans to other star systems - > although probably in an undesirably large time scale.

-- If it was so, it would be, and if it were so, it might be, but as it isn't, it ain't! That's logic. Lewis Carroll, from Through the Looking Glass >At least until we get around to seeding other planets.... Let's imagine one day we (human race) reach a stage where we can seed other planets... Assuming that, by then, we surely must be able to prolong our bodies lifes to several hundred years: will we be interested in preserving and artificially improving our own DNA or to "seed and forget" to allow for natural evolution ? Will we do it ? (or not out of fear of competition for resources) If distances are great (question/answer time more than average 1 generation life-span) will we actively intervene in the development of life on those planets or will we just observe ? I think the general question is: once a sentient race is capable of assuring its survival against cosmic cataclisms in its neighbourhoods: will it be impeled to colonize and propagate as far as possible ? If yes will it impose itself to others ? Interact with others ? Or avoid others ? If no it seams to me it will avoid contact at all cost.

Judging from the desastrous results of human imposition upon other species here on earth I supose races that impose themselves anihilate both them and the others involved. It is commonly accepted that, would time travel be possible, the main rule to observe would be that of not interveening with past events. Why should then contact be desirable if it most surely would afect decisevly future events especially for the contacted/retarded species ? I personally think that truly advanced sentient races treasure above all life diversity and seek contact only on SOS situations and that they might even choose to ignore/avoid/escape being contacted by other more naive civilizations. Appreciate your toughts on this comments Afonso > Appreciate your toughts on this comments > Afonso It seems a sad thought that there may be a universe filled with life that, out of fear, would avoid contact with all other intelligent life. It is true that life on earth has been somewhat violent, however in the big picture, we are in our infancy. I would hope that as we evolve, our tendencies toward violence would be replaced with tendencies, and actions, that are far more refined.

I, as an optimist, must believe that intelligent life in the universe can coexist, not only guardedly, but in a spirit of cooperation. > Clarke wrote about life on Europa in _2010: Odyssey Two_. Correct, and Clarke credited the to a paper Richard Hoagland wrote called "The Europa Enigma." It's available on The Enterprise Mission website In the acknowledgments to "2010," Clark wrote: "The fascinating idea that there might be life on Europa, beneath ice-covered oceans kept liquid by the same Jovian tidal forces that heat Io, was first proposed by Richard C. Hoagland in the magazine Star & Sky ( The Europa Enigma,' January, 1980). This quite brilliant concept has been taken seriously by a number of astronomers (notably NASA's Institute of Space Studies, Dr. Robert Jastrow), and may provide one of the best motives for the projected GALILEO Mission..." You make a good point. We do have a rather limited exposure to actual alien characteristics don't we? I accept that alien life could, and quite likely would, present views on life that are unimaginable to those of us who are here on earth.

Even the most fundamental elements of life, such as carbon based life forms, may be different. Given this, I do accept the fact that it is realistic to assume that we would not encounter life that is warm and friendly in every case, however it also seems unlikely that every alien species would either hide in fear or approach contact with hostile intentions. I think that the huge variations in the form that life could take also would create huge variations in the desire for contact and the intentions upon contact. Ok, maybe I'm moving toward the realist camp. :) Dave

Question: Which four letter word beginning with N is a star showing a sudden large increase in brightness, then gradually returning to its original state over a period of weeks to years?
Answer: Nova