Artificial Structures on Mars

 

Contents

Captions................................................................................................... [below]

Appendix 1. Purpose of press conference. 8

Specific image goals. 8

Contact for more information.. 8

Appendix 2. Sponsors. 9

Appendix 3. Bio & Acknowledgments. 10

Additional Contributors. 10

Appendix 4. Peer-reviewed publications. 11

Appendix 5. Contacts with NASA and Journals. 12

Appendix 6. Evidence for Planetary Artifacts. 13

 

Captions

 

[Web copies of all images shown here are available for downloading beginning April 5 at: <http://metaresearch.org>. See link to Artificial Structures on Mars on home page. Some features described here are not visible in the printed images at this scale. Web images also make use of color to show keys for original images, which are grayscale only. Larger and higher-resolution monitors will bring out the most image details. All original Mars images are from NASA/JPL Viking and Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft. MGS images are courtesy of Malin Space Sciences Systems. Most of this press release and miniatures of images 13-52 are published in the 2001 March 15 issue of the Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 10, #1.]

 

I: Introduction

1.      Overview: When it comes to evidence for artifacts on Mars, people divide into two categories: those who find scientific analysis more convincing than imagery; and those who find the reverse to be true. Here, we present evidence that may appeal to both categories.

1. Images 2-12 deal with statistical proof that at least one Martian surface feature, the “Face” on Mars, is artificial. These were presented in previous issues of the Meta Research Bulletin, especially MRB 9, 22-27 (2000). The statistical argument is presented in detail in the reference in Appendix VI.
2. Image 13 shows one of the better examples of a suspected artifact anywhere else in the solar system than on Earth or Mars. Later improved imagery showed it likely to be a natural object.
3. Images 14-52 show images of possible artifacts on Mars of the character that, if seen on Earth, they would immediately be categorized as the products of large-scale biological, and in many cases human, activity.
4. Images 53-55 give our primary conclusion and some speculative implications.

 

II: The “Face” on Mars

2.      Face on old equator: Today, the Face is located at 41° north latitude, and is tilted from upright (north-oriented) by an angle of 21°. Prior to the last major pole shift on Mars [P.H. Schultz, “Polar wandering on Mars”, Sci.Amer. 253 (Dec.), pp. 94-102 (1985)], the Face was located on the Martian equator and oriented upright.

3.      Face in 1976 Viking image: This is one of two images first attracting attention to the Face on Mars. Image processing has now brought out details on the shadowed side, not originally visible, showing that the mesa has a surprising degree of bilateral symmetry. A natural object was expected to show more randomness.

4.      Face in 1998 MGS image, JPL-MIPL version: The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Mission Image Processing Lab (MIPL) released this image of the Face by passing the spacecraft data through a high-pass filter and a low-pass filter, then averaging. Source: <http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/index.html>.

5.      High-pass filter description: Quoted from Adobe Photoshop, this shows why such filtration was scientifically inappropriate and is rarely used on planetary images. Here, it produced the previous image – a flat, featureless Face object that convinced most people the Face was of natural origin. However, it violated the first rule for planetary image processing by making the object look less like what the human eye would see if there. When considering why this happened, we are left with an unhappy choice between dishonesty and incompetence.

6.      MGS Face, unfiltered: In the 1998 April 5 MGS image, the Face actually looked like this. Only standard image processing, such as a single, uniform adjustment for brightness and contrast to bring them into the range seen best by human eyes, was performed. Source: <http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/index.html>.

7.      MGS Face corrected for lighting and viewing angle: Using advanced image processing techniques, three computer graphics professionals contributed to showing how the Face object would change appearance if the lighting were optimized (1 and 2) and if viewed from overhead instead of a 45° slant angle (3).

8.      Animation of Face corrections: This animation shows the transition from diffuse to shadow-producing lighting and from oblique to overhead viewing. This is the closest we can come to what the Face really looks like until we get a high-resolution image of the east side of the Face from overhead with good lighting. However, the final view shows that dismissal of possible artificiality of the Face by JPL scientists based on the JPL-released image was premature.

9.      A priori principle: Used to distinguish a natural origin from an artificial origin for the Face based on predictions made before the MGS images were taken.

·   

10.  Fulfilled predictions for Face: The predicted secondary facial features – the west eyebrow and iris plus the nostrils and lips – were found with the expected size, shape, location and orientation, despite no background of similar shapes from which we might pick and choose those that fit our preconceptions.

11.  Conclusions regarding Face: A natural origin is ruled out by legitimate a priori tests at highly significant levels. The most reasonable remaining possibility is that the object exists on Mars and was built by an intelligent species in the distant past.

12.  Goldberg quote: Source – When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe Is False.

 

III: Special shapes

13.  Ukert crater on Moon: The best triangle and one of the most artificial-looking objects in the solar system other than on Earth or Mars is Ukert crater on the Moon. The inset shows the Lunar Orbiter image, making the crater interior appear triangular. The main image is from the Clementine spacecraft, showing that the sides are not linear nor the vertices sharp. The higher-resolution view revealed this to probably be a natural feature.

14.  Embedded triangles at Cydonia: As many as five congruent, equi-spaced triangles can be traced on the original image. The Cydonia region alone contains dozens of triangles better than the one in Ukert crater on the Moon. Triangles whose sides end in sharp vertices are extremely rare in most of nature. Source: <http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD3/index.html>.

15.  D&M pyramid: Two smooth, triangular faces and proximity to the Face make an artificial origin more likely than a natural one, given the artificiality of the Face. This pyramid would therefore not stand alone as evidence of artificiality; rather, it is evidence of function or purpose. More than an isolated improbable shape is needed to conclude artificiality. Context and relationships are possible qualifiers. From Viking image 070a13.

16.  Possible reflections: The stripped feature at the base of the one visible smooth face of this pyramid-like object might be landslide debris. But a faint reflection seems to appear just above it and the cloud-like features next to it. If those are reflections, then the surface is shiny, as for glass or metal, unlike natural terrain. Source: <http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD3/index.html>.

17.  Block, circle, arrow: Shapes of high linearity, angularity, and symmetry are in general associated with artificial structures and are uncommon in nature. Even the dark shadow has block-like steps. Source: http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/landingsites/MOC/8405/ 8405.jpg.

18.  “T”& “!”: Natural channels rarely end in a perpendicular “T”-shape for obvious reasons. In the image on the right, the crater appears to have extremely steep walls and a flat floor. The elongated shape is incompatible with crater formation mechanisms because of their explosive, rather than excavating, nature. No “source” or “sink” is available for excavation to have occurred by flowing liquid. Source for “T”: <http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/SP243004.html>.

 

IV: Spots, stripes and tubes

19.  Spots context: Shows location of strip image (white box) for the spots, shown next on left. The spots are the dark area inside the crater. Source: http://www.msss.com/ moc_gallery/ ab1_m04/images/M0306105.html.

20.  Spots: Black spots appear on dune-like terrain, separated by a sharp boundary from the rest of the flat crater floor. Later images indicate that the spots grow larger as spring advances on Mars. Neither geological nor biological explanations easily explain all features seen here, but biological explanations are less ad hoc. Source: <http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/maps/M0306104.gif>.

21.  Spots changing with seasons: In late winter, bright, snow-like frost begins to dissolve into spots first near its periphery. As summer approaches, another spot area resembles a pool of standing liquid in which the spots are some sort of growth. Sources: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/jpegmaps/M08/M0803419.jpg  & http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/jpegmaps/M0400604.jpg.

22.  “Crenulations”: Rows of parallel white stripes are seen in numerous locations on Mars. Often, these lie along the borders of mesas containing shapes themselves suggestive of artificiality. The example on the right shows a hint of the tube-like structures seen underneath these stripes wherever the ground is broken. Sources: M0304566d.gif & <http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/index.html>.

23.  Crenulations are underground tubes: Ground fissures seem to expose a network of glassy or translucent underground tubes. The bright spot might be a specular reflection of the Sun, consistent with a glassy or plastic skin. The magnified view shows that the white lines are bands that appear to wrap completely around the tubes. Source: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/jpegmaps/M0400291.jpg.

24.  More tubes: The translucent and highly reflective properties of the tubes are easily seen here. Tubes are typically 20-30 meters in diameter. Source: http://www.msss.com/ moc_gallery/m07_m12/jpegmaps/M12/M1201450.jpg.

25.  Tube network: The tubes appear in complex networks that involve perpendicular intersections. As unlike lava tubes as these tubes are anyway, no known type of lava flow formations could form perpendicular tubes. Source: <http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ m07_m12/nonmaps/M11/M1104220.gif>.

26.  Tubes on “Cliff”: More tubes turned up in the latest image from the Cydonia region of the flat-topped mesa known as the “Cliff”. The magnified features have an unusual degree of linearity to them. Source: <http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/ 01_31_01_releases/cydonia/M18-00606d.gif>.

27.  Artist concept of tubes: This ground view by John Bejko seems faithful to the main features of the tubes seen in multiple images. Suggestions of functionality include water pipes or an environmentally protected underground rapid transit system.

 

V: Tracks, trails, possible vegetation

28.  Plain track: Wide, shallow, linear tracks of uniform depth with lengthy, parallel rows of closely spaced dune-like ridges certainly cannot be water carved. They are suggestive of the transport of heavy machinery. Source: image of Nirgal Vallis, Mars.

29.  Tracks details: On the left, we see a low-resolution overview of several tracks, showing their appearance over hundreds of kilometers. The small white box indicates the location of the high-resolution image on the right of a track that passes tangentially just below two large craters. In the close up view, we see that this track again passes precisely tangent to another crater too small to be seen in the previous overview image, and has characteristics similar to other tracks. Sources: M1700670pctx.gif & M1700669p.gif.

30.  Track with fork: Sometimes the tracks show branching, as in this image. Signs of possible sparse vegetation follow the tracks. Source: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ m07_m12/images/M08/M0806477.html.

31.  Track parallels terrain: Another example shows again both broad and closely spaced features beside unusual trackside formations looking more biological than geological. Source: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M08/M0806582.html.

32.  Possible vegetation: The thickness of the dark structures increases at lower altitudes, just as it does on Earth. The edges have a fractal character, almost a signature of vegetation on Earth. On the right, a radial quality, much like terrestrial life with a stem or trunk, may be discerned. Sources: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M10/M1001442.html & http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M08/M0804688.html.

33.  Possible trees. Here we see enough detail to detect what appear to be branches and limb structure unfolding from a center, as for large plants with a trunk. This resembles no known type of geological feature on Earth or any other planet or moon yet explored. Source: http:/www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M08/M0804688.html.

 

VI: Artistic imagery

34.  “Seahorse”: This familiar shape appears in an area of Cydonia just below an apparent artistic image of a “waterfall”, and in immediate proximity (in other images) to shapes associated with aquatic organisms and underwater scenes: a “fish”, a “crab”, and the “dolphin” below, among others. The context and relationships, rather than just the shape, are suggestive of an artificial origin. Source: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ ab1_m04/images/M0304566.html.

35.  “Dolphin”: A second familiar shape from the aquatic area of cydonia. The shape just below the “dolphin” image shown may be a companion dolphin.

36.  “Scorpion”: In an apparent insect-like species area, we see this possible “scorpion” near a possible “spider” image (not shown). The comparison figure reveals that detail in the “stinger”, “body”, and “claws” may be seen. Source: <http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD2/index.html>.

37.  “Animal with antlers”: This shape has broken lines, suggesting windblown sand covering it in places. Nearby shapes are present, but not easily recognizable as anything familiar, perhaps because they too are partially covered by sand. Source: <http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/index.html>.

38.  “Small animal”: This has the appearance of a distinct animal shape, with legs, body, head, eye, and possibly horns. The inset is a guide to the eye to evaluate the actual image from Mars on the left. Source: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/ M0307455.html.

39.  “Bird”: In a different part of the same strip image that contains the preceding “small animal”, we see this familiar shape too. The body markings are rich in detail, and suggestive of “feathers”. Eventual color images will determine if colors are appropriate for the artificial interpretation. Colors that stay consistent within lines is something unlikely to happen by chance. Source: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/ images/M0307455.

40.  “Scene”: This artistic image is so rich in detail that, when sections are magnified, multiple interpretations are possible. The advanced artists who did this, assuming it is artificial, may have intended that the appearance change with viewing angle or lighting. Source: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/AB108403.html.

41.  “Child”: Located immediately adjacent to the main Cydonia Face on its north side, this proximity supports intelligent layout of Cydonia shapes. While very low in contrast (presumably because of overblown sand), the lines and darkened areas comprising this figure are complete, with few, if any, random lines. Source: <http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/index.html>.

42.  “Nefertiti face”: One needs to study this image with an excellent monitor and good imaging software to see the amazing degree of detail present. For example, even features as small as the eyelashes over the eye, visible in the artist’s inset, come from the actual Mars image, and involve no artistic license. Source: http://barsoom.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/jpegmaps/M0305549.jpg.

43.  “Profile face”: With forehead, eye, nose, mouth, chin, neck, and ear, this profile of a face (also in the Cydonia area) shows that his nearby, more famous cousin is by no means the only significant face portrayal on Mars, or even in the Cydonia region. Source: <http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD2/index.html>.

44.  “Crowned face”: While not near the Cydonia area, this face portrayal is again striking for the richness of its detail, far better than the typical face arising in clouds or geological formations on Earth. The latter tend to be distorted and grotesque when they are more than simply impressionistic. Source: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/ images/M0203051.html.

 

VII: Patterns and symbols

45.  “Infrastructure”: Mars generally has no evidence of towns, roads, or dwellings, except perhaps in a few localized areas such as this one. The thickest connecting lines seem to join the thickest concentrations of small surface objects. Source: http://www.msss.com/ moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M12/M1202694.html.

46.  “Complex”: This image displays all of the primary indicators of artificial structures: symmetry, linearity, angularity, and layering over a variety of scales, present here in the extreme. Source: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M08/ M0803500.html.

47.  Arranged triangles: While these triangles might be shadows, the arrangement of so many nearly identical objects in lines and along concentric arcs of circles compels our attention. Source: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/M0102950.html.

48.  “Cobra mound” and hexagonal crater: Possible symbolic marking in crater interior on left. A crater with an unusual hexagonal appearance on right. In a higher-resolution view (next image), the artificial appearance became stronger, not weaker – a characteristic of images of artificial features. Source: MGS 990627.gif. & <http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD2/index.html>.

49.  “Cobra mound” and hexagonal crater close-up: The “hexagon” is revealed to be in the interior of a crater-like excavation surrounded by crenulation-like markings. The interior of the hexagon has parallel rows of white markings suggestive of text. This should be a priority target for future spacecraft with higher-resolution cameras. Source: M2200378n.gif.

50.  Context for “symbols”: In the same strip image that contains the Cydonia Face on Mars, we see a white “V”-shape near the bottom. Just above it we see some faint black markings. The following two images concentrate on this area. Source: <http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/index.html>.

51.  “Symbols”: This image extracts and magnifies the white “V”-shape and the black markings above it from the previous image. We can already begin to see that the dark markings have the appearance of symbols. This can be seen directly in the original strip image on the NASA/JPL site with the aid of a magnifying glass. (See previous link.)

52.  “Symbols” with noise filter: A video camera pointed at a computer monitor showed the symbols much better. It was using an automatic noise filter to suppress randomness in the background of any image to improve overall appearance for video viewers. When we applied the same noise filter with Adobe Photoshop to the entire image (nothing special was done to the black markings), we get the result shown here. While individual symbols might appear by chance in random backgrounds, symbols laid out in horizontal strings with a larger one at the left end have negligible likelihood of arising by chance. Windblown sand may occasionally cover and uncover various parts of these apparent markings.

 

VIII: Summary

53.  Main conclusion: To determine the truth, high-resolution pictures to verify or refute artificiality are urgently needed during the short remaining lifetime of the MGS spacecraft.

54.  Speculations (applicable only if artificiality becomes established):

a.      Much evidence indicates that Mars is an escaped former moon of a now-exploded parent planet. That fits with what we see in these images, which have the character of what humans will one day construct on our own Moon, rather than the character expected of the builders’ home world. It also hints at what happened to the builders.

b.      Many of the images have a familiar humanoid or terrestrial appearance. The best available dating for the most recent major explosion event in the solar system is 3.2 million years ago, which may then mark the end of the builder’s home world. That is also the best dating we have for the first appearance of humanoids on Earth. The images on Mars therefore raise the possibility that humans are a transfer species.

c.       This transfer-species speculation fits with the most ancient surviving legends in all cultures about a “golden age” (the “Garden of Eden” myth) and a “global flood” (the “Noah’s Ark” myth); and with our natural biorhythm cycle having a length (24.9 hours) close to that of the Martian day.

55.  Churchill quote: “Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue.”

 

Appendix 1. Purpose of press conference

·        announce the finding of probable artifacts on Mars

·        place the subject of planetary artifacts on the scientific table for proper debate

·        re-open the journals to peer review for qualified papers in this subject area

·        encourage the acquisition of new spacecraft images to test the artificiality hypothesis

Specific goals for new images to test artificiality

            Each of the following images in the Cydonia region of Mars, if taken by the MGS spacecraft during its remaining lifetime, has the potential to confirm or falsify the hypothesis of artifacts on Mars:

·        East side of Cydonia Face – Imaging this with good lighting and viewing angle should determine if the secondary facial features, much like the primary ones, are symmetric on the two sides of the Face. In particular, an east-side “eyebrow”, “iris”, and “lips” are predicted to be present if the object is an artifact, and to be absent if it is of natural origin.

·        Symbols – Imaging the “symbols” just east of the D&M pyramid at higher resolution should determine if the unresolved portions are also symbols, as predicted by an origin from a species with language; or are random markings, as predicted by the natural origin hypothesis.

·        Scene hypothesis – When photographed at high resolution, the area just to the east and west of images M0401903.gif and M09-05394.gif at Cydonia, which overlap, should be contextually appropriate for the undersea/waterfall/land/sky scene apparently depicted in the two images cited. Specific shapes that contextually filled out this set of related artistic imagery would fulfill the predictions of the artifact hypothesis, whereas unrelated or random shapes would fulfill the predictions of the natural origin hypothesis.

·        Artistic images – When color images are possible in a few years, colors should either be appropriate to the image (e.g., flesh tones, eye colors, etc.), with abrupt color changes at image borders, if the images are artifacts; or show no particular correspondence to the apparent images if they are natural.

·        Other categories of imagery can be checked with ground truth.

Contact for more information

·        Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research, PO Box 3604, Sequim WA 98382-5040; phone 360/504-1169; email <tomvf@metaresearch.org>; short faxes 866/758-3792.]

 

 

Appendix 2. Sponsors

·        Scientific: Meta Research – a scientific non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation run by a 7-member board of directors, founded in 1991 in response to the broad problem of getting support to do research on promising but unpopular alternative ideas in astronomy. The organization supports and encourages research or observations in connection with astronomical theories that are in accord with observations and experiment, add insight or understanding, and make testable predictions; but that are not otherwise supported solely because they lie outside of the mainstream of the field of Astronomy.

·        Financial: Tim Seward, Chilefish s.a., Santiago, Chile, member of Meta Research Board of Directors

Appendix 3. Bio & Acknowledgments

·        Tom Van Flandern [Research astronomer; Ph.D. Yale 1969; founder, president, and research astronomer for Meta Research 1991-2001; research associate for Univ. of Maryland 1992-2000; contractor for Army Research Lab 1997-1998; visiting faculty for Univ. of South Florida 1981; astronomer for U.S. Naval Observatory 1963-1983; consultant for Jet Propulsion Lab 1971; see <http://metaresearch.org>, “Home” tab, “About Meta Research” sub-tab, link at bottom of page to <Tom Van Flandern> for biographical sketch and full résumé; address Meta Research, PO Box 3604, Sequim WA 98382-5040; phone 360/504-1169; email <tomvf@metaresearch.org>.]

Additional Contributors

·        Arthur C. Clarke [first to draw our attention to images 20, 21, 32, 33, 40.]

·        John Bejko [computer graphics specialist; image 28 plus artwork for images 38, 39, 41, 42, 43.]

·        Mark Kelly [computer graphics specialist for Lighthouse Studios, Baltimore, MD; image 7 (also contributed to by Mark Carlotto and Boris Starosta); image 8 animation; processing for images 40, 44.]

·        Greg Orme [artwork for image 44.]

Appendix 4. Peer-reviewed publications

·        Books by SPSR (Appendix 7) scientists containing material about possible artifacts on Mars:

o       DiPietro, V., Molenaar, G. and Brandenburg, J. Unusual Mars Surface Features. P. 1 (1996/12/15 supplement; Molenaar Inc. Press, Willmar, MN, 1988).

o       McDaniel, S.V. The McDaniel Report. North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, 1993).

o       Carlotto, M.J. The Martian Enigmas. Pp. 28, 43, 111 (North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, 2^nd ed. 1997).

o       McDaniel, S.V. and Paxson, M.R. The Case for the Face. (Adventures Unlimited Press, Kempton, 1998).

o       Van Flandern, T. Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets. p. 346 (North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, 1993; see also chapter 24 of 2^nd edition, 1999).

·        Technical papers by SPSR scientists about possible artifacts on Mars:

o       Carlotto, M.J. Digital imagery analysis of unusual Martian surface features. Applied Optics 27, 1926-1933 (1988).

o       O’Leary, B.T. Analysis of images of the “Face” on Mars and possible intelligent origin. J.Brit.Interplan.Soc. 32, 203-208 (1990).

o       Carlotto, M.J. and Stein, M.C. A Method for Searching for Artificial Objects on Planetary  Surfaces. J.Brit.Interplan.Soc. 43, (May 1990).

o       DiPietro, V., Molenaar, G., and Brandenburg, J. The Cydonia Hypothesis. J.Sci.Expl. 5, 1-25 (1991).

o       Van Flandern, T. New evidence of artificiality at Cydonia on Mars. MetaRes.Bull. 6, 1-15 (<http://metaresearch.org/>, “solar system” tab, “Cydonia” sub-tab, 1997).

o       Carlotto, M.J. Evidence in support of the hypothesis that certain objects on Mars are artificial in origin, J.Sci.Expl. 11, 121-145 (1997).

o       Crater H. W. and McDaniel S.V. Mound configurations on the Martian Cydonia plain. J.Sci.Expl. 13, 373-396 (1999).

o       Carlotto, M., Crater, H., Erjavec, J., McDaniel, M. Response to Geomorphology of Selected Massifs on the Plains of Cydonia, Mars by David Pieri. J.Sci.Expl. 13, 413-420 (1999).

Appendix 5. Contacts with NASA and Journals

·        SPSR (Appendix 7) brought preliminary evidence of artificiality in the Cydonia region of Mars to NASA in the fall of 1997. NASA weighed that and other considerations, and announced in March 1998 that the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft would take three high-resolution images of the Cydonia region. The first was taken of 1998 April 5, and included the “Face on Mars” object, which had attracted attention as early as 1976 during the two Viking spacecraft visits to Mars.

·        The April 5 image was processed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena on 1998 April 6. A processed version of that image was released to the media that same afternoon, providing convincing visual evidence that the “Face on Mars” was just a pile of rocks.

·        Subsequent investigations by independent scientists, especially those affiliated with SPSR, turned up new findings about the “Face” object and nearby features:

o       The JPL-released “Face” image bore little resemblance to the raw image data.

o       After proper processing, the raw data looked like the 1976 Viking “Face” images.

o       Scientific analysis of the “Face” turned up strong evidence of an artificial origin.

o       Additional objects with artificial appearance were discovered nearby the “Face”.

o       The JPL-released “Face” image acquired its natural appearance from the use of inappropriate image processing filters.

·        SPSR and Meta Research approached NASA in 1999 about their findings. Without examining those findings, NASA responded that it was time to get the findings published in a peer-reviewed journal.

·        Following NASA’s suggestion, the present authors wrote a new technical paper, “Evidence for planetary artifacts”, announcing strong evidence favoring artificiality in the “Face” and in other nearby anomalous features on Mars. We obtained preprint feedback from about two-dozen scientists in SPSR, Meta Research, and other organizations.

·        The paper was submitted to Nature magazine for review and consideration for publication. It was rejected instantly without review. In a request for reconsideration, we learned that the magazine has a list of topics judged “not suitable for Nature”, and that the “Face on Mars” has been on that list since the 1998 JPL-released image appeared. Upon further inquiry about the type of evidence that would be required to return a subject on that list to “respectable science”, we were told that the risk to the reputation of a commercial publisher such as Nature was too high for evidence alone to change the status of such a subject. A group of “big name” scientists and their institutions would have to assume the risks involved in such a controversial action.

·        We continued the research, added new evidence, new images, and the specifics on the JPL-released image, then submitted the paper to Science magazine, the other broad-impact, science-wide weekly. Science also rejected it immediately without review. Their form letter explained simply: “We select papers on the basis of, for example, discipline, novelty, and general significance, in addition to the usual criteria for publication in specialized journals.” A request for reconsideration because our paper met those criteria rather well was rejected as “not competitive for our limited space”. Discussions with the rejecting editor made it clear that our paper had not been read even once before rejection.

·        More specialized journals are inappropriate for such a cross-disciplinary paper of wide interest, and the slow process would not leave NASA enough time to rethink imaging priorities during this last year of the MGS spacecraft’s lifetime.