SUBJECT: MORE ON THE FACE ON MARS FILE: UFO2738 This file is an ASCII version of the Executive Summary from "THE McDANIEL REPORT," a 200-page analysis of the methodology employed by researchers studying enigmatic objects on the surface of Mars, including the well-known "face." The report also analyzes NASA's policy regarding these objects. The author is Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Philosophy Department at a California State University. The file should be of interest not only to those curious about the "Face on Mars," phenomenon, but also to any persons studying Mars and Mars exploration. ------------------------------------------------ INTRODUCTION to the ASCII version: The subject of the "Face on Mars" has been regularly discussed on computer forums. In general, the discussion has been hampered by rampant misinformation, and frequently by apparently deliberate disinformation. The excerpt from "The McDaniel Report" provided below is offered in the spirit of rational inquiry, in the hope that it will assist in upgrading the level of the discussion. However, the issues surrounding the "Face on Mars" phenomenon go beyond those in the "paranormal" and "ET" forums. The role of govern- ment in science, the appropriate methodologies for studying and evaluating objects on planetary surfaces by remote imaging, and the ethical principles affecting SETI research, are among the issues raised in the report. It is hoped that this file, therefore, will be made available in the "general" sections of computer forums on science. Statements made in the summary below are documented and explained in detail in the full report. This material is under copyright and all rights are reserved. Copies of this file may be transferred to other computer forums provided the material is unchanged. Inquiries may be directed to: Professor S. V. McDaniel, 1055 W. College Avenue #273 Santa Rosa, CA 95401. (Internet 75320.3666@compuserve.com) ------------------------------------------------ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - The McDaniel Report Since 1979, a number of highly qualified independent investigators have engaged in an extensive analysis of photographs taken by the 1976 Viking Mars mission. These photographs appear to be evidence that some landforms in the Martian region called Cydonia may be artificial. A comprehensive analysis of the data supporting this hypothesis, using established criteria for scientific methodology, shows that the methods of research pursued by the independent investigators are basically sound. There is a reasonable doubt as to the natural origin of the Cydonian objects. Reputable scientists in several fields, including physics, astronomy, and geology, have expressed their confidence in the overall integrity of this report and have called for further active investigation of these landforms by NASA. Among them are Dr. Robert M. Schoch, Associate Professor of Science and Mathematics (geology), Boston University; Dr. Horace Crater, Professor of Physics, University of Tennessee Space Institute; Dr. David Webb, Professor of Space Education, Research, and Technology at Embry-Riddle University, Daytona Beach, Florida; Dr. Thomas Van Flandern, former Head, Celestial Mechanics Branch, U. S. Naval Observatory; James Berkland, former Assistant Professor of Geology, Appalachian State University; and L. J. Angstrom, the great-grandson of the famous physicist A. J. Angstrom and Director of the prestigious Angstrom Foundation in Stockholm, Sweden. However, during the seventeen years since the controversial landforms were discovered, NASA has maintained steadfastly that there is "no credible evidence" that any of the landforms may be artificial. A close look at NASA's arguments reveals that NASA's "evaluation" has consisted largely of initial impressions from unenhanced photographs, heavily weighted by faulty reasoning (thoroughly documented in this report). NASA has failed to apply any special methods of analysis; it has relied upon flawed reports; it has failed to attempt verification of the enhancements and measurements made by others; and it has focused exclusively on inappropriate methodology which ignores the importance of context. There remains no scientific basis for NASA's position regarding the landforms. Finally, NASA has based its evaluation almost exclusively on the alleged existence of disconfirming photographs which it has never identified, and has recently admitted it is unable to identify. Instead of carrying out legitimate scientific inquiry, NASA has regularly sent false and misleading statements regarding the landforms to members of Congress and their constituents. NASA has condoned efforts to unfairly ridicule and discredit independent researchers, and has insisted that there is a "scientific consensus" that the landforms are natural despite the fact that the only real scientific study of the landforms indicates a clear possibility that they are artificial. Of the various landforms investigated by the independent teams and individuals, the one that began the research, referred to as the "Face" because of its resemblance to a humanoid face, has undergone one of the most exhaustive series of tests for the evaluation of digital images originating from an interplanetary probe available to scientists today. The data collected in the course of these investigations appears to be highly reliable. The most advanced techniques of image enhance- ment, photoclinometry and fractal analysis, confirmed by cross-checking and thoroughly documented, have been used. The investigators are acknowledged experts in their fields with strong academic and professional qualifications. In every test, the data has consistently tilted in the direction of artificial, rather than natural, origin. Moreover, the various tests performed, including anthropometric and aesthetic evaluation, have been mutually cross-confirming. In September 1992 a new spacecraft, the Mars Observer, was launched. Now reported lost, the Mars Observer carried a camera capable of taking high- resolution photographs that would almost certainly have settled the question of artificiality. But NASA's position regarding the priority assigned to photographs of the landforms has been throughout to resist any consideration of their possible artificial origin. NASA's equivocal statements on the issue of priorities indicated a clear likelihood that new photographs of the suspect landforms would not be obtained, or would not be released if they were obtained. If NASA's Mars Observer policy remains unchanged, future missions to Mars will almost certainly not include any meaningful effort to settle the question of artificiality. NASA is in the process of evaluating options for a new Mars launch as early as October, 1994. As of this writing, the selection of the spacecraft and instrumenta- tion to be used for a new launch is under way. Allowing the previous policy to dominate in a new mission would constitute a reprehensible abdication of a clear and compelling social responsibility. In 1960, a report titled Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs was delivered to the Chairman of NASA's Committee on Long-Range Studies. The report was prepared under contract to NASA by the Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. The report outlines the need to investigate the possible social consequences of an extraterrestrial discovery and to consider whether such a discovery should be kept from the public in order to avoid political change and a possible "devastating" effect on scientists themselves due to the discovery that many of their own most cherished theories could be at risk. The concept of withholding information on a possible extraterrestrial discovery conflicts with an understood NASA policy to the effect that information on a verified discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence should be shared promptly with all humanity. A report on the cultural aspects of the search for extraterrestrial intelli- gence (SETI) is presently being prepared for publication by the NASA Ames Research Center. In this report, the position that NASA would not withhold such data from the public is said to be strongly supported. NASA's actual behavior in the specific case of the Martian objects, however, does not appear to be consistent with this policy. NASA has regularly distributed documents containing false or misleading statements about its evaluation of the Face to members of Congress and to the public. The absence of legitimate scientific evaluation of the landforms by NASA, its ignoring of the relevant research, its apparently exaggerated warnings that such photographs would be extremely difficult to obtain, the possible sequestering of the data under the aegis of "private contract," and the ambiguous language used by NASA officials to generate a sense of complacency around the issue all support the suspicion of a motivation contrary to the stated policy. When forwarded inquiries from constituents by United States Senators and Representatives, NASA has provided answers which may appear plausible to the uninformed, but which cannot withstand even the slightest logical scrutiny. Among the various misleading assurances given by NASA are those having to do with NASA's policy for Mars Observer Camera data release. On the first mission to Mars in seventeen years, with growing public interest in the artificiality hypothesis and NASA's vigorous resistance to that hypothesis, NASA made a radical change in the way photographic data from the spacecraft would be handled. Unlike previous missions, there was to be no conveyance of camera data to the public as soon as it was received and converted into viewable images (what is often called "live" transmission). Instead, images from the Mars Observer Camera would be under the exclusive control of a private contractor for up to six months after acquisition. This same private contractor had been given sole authority to determine, not only what images would be released and when, but even what objects would be photographed by the high resolution camera. That contractor, Dr. Michael Malin, is an outspoken opponent of the hypothesis of possible artificiality. Dr. Malin's arguments against the hypothesis of possible artificiality have been uniformly fallacious (as is thoroughly detailed in the report). Thus the interests of the American public in relation to Mars Observer Camera data were effectively turned over to the evidently biased decisions of a private individual. The credibility gap widened as NASA, using contractual technicalities, insisted that it was treating Mars Observer imaging data "no differently" than data from previous missions despite the fact that the end result would have been radically different as far as immediate public access and public accountability were concerned. It is impossible, from a logical standpoint, to see NASA's efforts to claim "no change in previous policy" as anything but a transparent attempt at misdirection. In the face of growing public clamor, NASA also began to make assurances that the "Cydonia region" where the landforms are located was scheduled to be photographed by the high-resolution Camera. NASA clearly attempted to put the public at ease by making it appear that the landforms would likely be photographed because of NASA's general interest in the geology of the "region." But the Cydonia region is a vast area, and high- resolution photography would cover only a very small percentage of that area. No special priority for the landforms in question has ever been contemplated. Under the standing policy, the likelihood is high that the landforms will not be photographed, regardless of assurances about the "region." Given the importance of the subject and the urgent need to take action, I have put forward the following recommendations. These recommendations apply to the Mars Observer mission in the event the spacecraft is recovered, and to any future missions, including a mission specifically to replace the Mars Observer. 1. Assuming Mars Observer is not recovered, NASA will select a replacement spacecraft carrying instrumentation capable of achieving high-resolution imaging of the Martian surface at least superior to that of the Viking missions of 1976, and having the highest degree of camera flexibility possible, including pointing capability. 2. NASA and any private contractor who may be involved in imaging, by agreement, will assign a level of priority to the suspect landforms that will ensure the obtaining of high-resolution photographs of those landforms, using all means at their disposal, subject only to uncertainties beyond their control. This priority level will be entered into the imaging Target Data Base and taken into consideration in mission sequencing. The stated purpose of taking such photographs will include the possibility that they are of artificial origin. 3. The camera operator will plan for and initiate high- resolution imaging sequences on every occasion (20 to 30 times in the case of Mars Observer) during which the spacecraft groundtrack is within the area from 8 to 10 deg. longitude, such that the image strips include the area 40.4 to 41.2 deg. N. latitude. 4. All imaging data gathered during camera passes over the area specified above will be placed in the category "newsworthy" and will not be subject to the proprietary aspects of any Principal Investigator's contract with NASA. This includes the raw data prior to processing, but after the camera data has been separated from that of other instrumentation. 5. The scientific community and the general public will be given advance notice, within the constraints of predictability, as to when each such pass will occur, in order to prepare to receive the data. 6. The raw data for the specific area indicated above will be released to scientists and to the public upon receipt at JPL with no time delay. 7. Video image conversion of data received in the same passes will be released in a continuous stream to NASA Select-TV, PBS, and others who desire to receive it. NASA will be held accountable for any inordinate delay between receipt of the raw data and release of video imagery. No delay should occur other than the minimum time period necessary for computers to convert the data to video form. NASA should provide in advance specific technical details of what procedures are necessary for conversion and how long they are likely to take. 8. Video image conversion of all high-resolution camera activity, regardless of location on the planet's surface, will be released in a continuous stream to NASA Select-TV, PBS, and others who desire to receive it throughout the course of the mission. Because of its extreme importance, this data release will take precedence over regular NASA programming for as long as is necessary to achieve the goal of providing the public with open access to the data that may settle the question of artificiality. 9. A blue-ribbon interdisciplinary panel of independent scientists and lay persons should be appointed to inquire into the circumstances surrounding NASA's questionable behavior in regard to the suspect landforms in particular, and NASA's concept of SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) methodology with respect to the solar system, particularly Mars and the Moon. Among the panel's charges should be the undertaking of an unbiased scientific evaluation of the data gathered by the independent researchers to date, and an oversight committee to monitor NASA's compliance with the additional recommendations set forth above. ------------------------------------------------------ ********************************************** * THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo * **********************************************