- On Thursday, May 28, at a conference
of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), SPSR scientists Dr. John E. Brandenburg,
Dr. Mark J. Carlotto, Dr. Horace W. Crater, and geologist Harry Moore presented
papers in poster sessions covering their latest results in processing and
interpreting the new Global Surveyor photos of Cydonia.SPSR scientist Mitchell
Swartz was also in attendance. The emphasis of the sessions was on the
Face, the mound distribution, and and a possible geological discovery of
importance. The sessions with the SPSR scientists were well attended and
their papers were read and discussed with considerable interest, as well
as with a certain amount of the expected skepticism.
-
- A Crater Holding Water Ice?
-
- The paper by SPSR geologist Harry Moore
discussed his finding of an apparent ice-filled crater in the third MGS
Cydonia image. This is the same crater that I had also identified as likely
anomalous. It is discussed briefly in the article "Peculiarities at
Main Pyramid" in this newsletter. Geologist Moore had already found
this crater some weeks back, but I was not aware that his find was the
same one discussed in that article.
-
- An interesting sidelight to Moore's finding
is the fact that Michael Malin of Malin Space Science Systems, the MGS
camera contractor, at the same meeting also announced a finding of possible
ice in a crater in the southern hemisphere of Mars. That discovery suggests
that such craters containing water ice may be fairly common on Mars. The
Press widely reported Dr. Malin's announcement, but failed to recognize
that Mr. Moore had also presented evidence for an ice crater at the AGU
meeting. Moore's finding provides yet another reason for NASA to continue
its investigation of the Cydonia area.
-
- Presentations on the Face and the Mounds
-
- The presentation by Dr. Mark J. Carlotto,
showing enhanced and orthorectified images of the Face, will be reported
soon on his web pages at http://www.psrw.com/~markc/marshome.html. Dr.
John E. Brandenburg has performed a parallel orthorectification with results
that support Dr. Carlotto's. Finally, Dr. Horace W. Crater's latest results
in his continuing study of the mound configuration was very well attended.
Dr. Crater has given us the following account of the reactions of conference
attendees to the SPSR material.
-
- "We had three poster locations.
Vincent DiPietro and John Brandenburg manned two of them with their material
and also Harry Moore's. I manned the 3rd with Mark Carlotto's material
and mine. I gave altogether about 10-15 mini talks to small groups of people
or to individuals. We had over 100 people during the four hours we presented
the material. Most people were very interested. There were a number of
senior people from the Planetary science institute in Arizona, and also
from JPL. There was interest together with skepticism. One said we should
try as hard as possible to come up with geological explanations rather
than those related to ETI, and wondered about the falsifiability of the
intelligence hypothesis.
-
- It is obvious that most came with predetermined
positions but at least they came and were attentive and responsive to our
explanation. Most people I explained the mound data to were quite impressed
by the pentad and Cesar Sirvent's sets of colored parallels. I talked a
long time with several of the JPL and Planetary Institute people.
-
- All in all this was a very hectic and
worthwhile meeting. About 10-15% of the visititors just smiled and/or shook
their heads but most were very interested and responsive. In some cases,
the comment was 'I agree with your method, but disagree with your conclusions.'
When those saying this were asked why it was so difficult for them to consider
the possibility that some features on Mars might be artificial, they usually
seemed puzzled and unable to answer."
-
- Vincent DiPietro's Comments on the MGS
Face Image
-
- We hope to have further reports on the
AGU presentations in the near future. We will also be publishing soon the
full report of SPSR to NASA, expected to be completed and sent to NASA
later this week. In the meantime, we have received an early report from
Image Processing expert Vincent DiPietro, the pioneer in Mars anomaly research,
who presented a discussion of problems with the single MGS photo of the
Face. DiPietro's comments follow below.
-
- THE FACE IN CYDONIA - PROBLEMS WITH THE
MGS PHOTO by Vincent DiPietro - May 30, 1998
-
- I have presented a poster at the American
Geophysical Union (AGU) conference in Boston, Massachusetts on Thursday,
May 28, 1998 concerning the images of the "Face on Mars" made
by the Viking and MGS satellite cameras. The single image made by MGS of
this object lacks the dynamic range of gray shades rendering an apparent
pixel size larger than the 4.32 m/pixel as cited by Malin Space Science
Systems, effectively reducing the resolution of the image. At 14% of the
256 gray scale range, it is hardly acceptable to resolve any detail. With
only 40-45 gray values, especially with one side in darkness, the gray
shade spread of values is even further reduced. Pixels of slight variations
would be represented by the nearest rounded off value, thereby losing the
definitions of gray shades which would define an edge or other detail.
The result would be a very large ratcheted pixel.
-
- The east side, which has never been clearly
seen because of dark shadow in the Viking images, is in the MGS image partially
obscured by the west side and we see only a small sliver of the entire
object. Dr. John Brandenburg and I have called NASA Administrator Goldinís
office and asked for two more shots to be taken from directly overhead
by MGS; (90 instead of 45),one in morning sunshine, and one in evening
sunshine, and a gray scale dynamic range setting greater than 75% of the
256 gray step capability of the A/D converter in the camera (which I understand
is adjustable).
-
- The single image of the object taken
at 45, seems to have prevented a fair assessment of the object. I believe
that the two further images we have requested might be able to put this
22 year old controversy to rest. Whether the object shows work of intelligent
design, or is just an ordinary mesa, I would gladly say either, if these
images can be made and the results confirm one or the other conclusion.
-
- In addition the following problems with
the image must be noted:
-
- 1. The initial image presented to the
public and the news media which printed it, show the image presented as
the "flipped" version. (In other words, if the image had an annotation
on it, the annotation would be read as a mirror image.)
-
- 2. The side that we have always seen
in sunshine on the Viking images 35A72 and 70A13 is, in the MGS image,
in darkness, and therefore, very little detail can be seen unless a contrast
stretch in this darkness is done to reveal some detail. But just like the
other side in the Viking images, the detail in the dark areas could be
overly stretched to produce artifacts which are really not there. The tall
spiked peaks on the dark side of the Face are just such artifacts.
-
- 3. The image was taken as an angular
shot to the side at a displacement of 45 degrees to the vertical. The images
of the Face by the Viking spacecraft were taken directly overhead at 90
degrees to the vertical. The Face appeared at almost dead center in 35A72,
and that is why in my opinion the Face looks best in 35A72. The Face appeared
off to the upper right corner of 70A13, and that is why the Face is slightly
different in perspective ratio compared to 35A72). Most all of the images
of Viking, and most of the images of MGS were taken directly overhead,
at 90 degrees to the vertical, not off to the side at 45 degrees to the
vertical as in the case of this single image of the Face taken by MGS.
-
- The first clue to this angular perspective
was the oblong shape of the small crater to the lower left side of the
Face. In the Viking images, this crater is as round as a "soup bowl",
and the shallow curvature of the terrain in the center of the crater was
seen as a rolling smooth curved surface. In the MGS photo, this oblong
crater appears to have a stack of peaks in its center. I do not believe
that these peaks are actually there, and the crater is actually round,
not oblong. Likewise, many of the peaks in the central area of the Face,
may also not be peaks, but might be artifacts of the MGS imaging.
-
- 4. The side that was in shadow in the
Viking images, and that which we have never seen clearly, is now lighted
in the MGS images, and is only a narrow portion representing less than
25% of the Face object on the east side. By a process of "rotating"
as has been done, these pixels on the lighted side are effectively stretched
out; hence the resulting image that was later presented by NASA. But now,
only all of the peaks are presented, but none of the valleys, and all of
these peaks are stacked up like a deck of cards and stretched out. Considerable
distortion is the result.
-
- Dr. Mark Carlotto has also done further
"rotation" to give the Face a more correct geometric look. The
fact is that in much of the space on the lighted side there has been data
substituted of the "peaks" and not the "valleys", so
it is difficult to see the rolling contour of the surface features between
the peaks.
-
- 5. A similar study of this type of angular
"stacking the deck" can be seen in this scenario: If you have
ever seen a baseball game on television where a scene of the pitcher, the
batter, and the catcher taken from the outfield are shown in the scene,
you will notice that all three of the players are "stacked up"
like a deck of cards, and nothing in the "valleys" between them
can be seen, only some "peaks". Obviously, there is a lot of
grass and some roll in the ground which is obscured by the mound. In addition,
most of any point on each of the players is returned to the camera as nearly
a parallel line of sight; there is no perspective view. This causes further
distortion in aspect ratio, because some features may be sized differently
from others, but from this "parallel projection", the size ratio
cannot be determined.
-
- 6. There have been a number of details
found in the "head dress" area of the Face just above the eyebrows.
These include a "lazy X" which is centered above the nose, a
vertical object bisecting the lazy X, and other possible "ornaments"
in this area.
-
- 7. I firmly believe that the image made
by MGS at the 45 degree angle renders very little in additional data of
the central portion of the Face, and nothing of the side we have never
seen. The image is useful only in verifying the bilateral symmetry of the
Face in the verification of the profound hairline around the Face, and
the symmetry of the objects found on the forehead. Given these positive
results for the artificiality hypothesis, If further images are not produced
by this MGS or other spacecraft, it is my declaration that the Face is
at this point neither "proved" or "disproved" as being
"artificial" or "natural".
|
Sightings HomePage