OMNI

Magazine Overview

This issue of OMNI magazine, titled 'METROPOLIS ON MARS,' explores the controversial theory that artificial structures, possibly remnants of an ancient civilization, exist on the planet Mars. The article focuses on enhanced images from the Viking missions, particularly the famous 'Face on Mars' and surrounding features that some interpret as a city.

The 'Face on Mars' and the Discovery of a 'City'

The article begins by referencing the initial 'Face in Space' phenomenon, which appeared in a Viking photograph. It then introduces the work of computer scientists Vincent DiPietro and Gregory Molenaar. While affiliated with NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, they analyzed Viking images and discovered a second photograph of the 'face' taken 35 days later, which, when enhanced, revealed a striking symmetry with two halves, each containing facial features like 'eyes,' 'cheeks,' and a 'mouth.' They even claimed to have found an 'eyeball with a visible pupil' in one image, raising doubts about natural explanations.

Beyond the 'face,' DiPietro and Molenaar, along with science writer Richard Hoagland, focused on features west of the 'face.' They identified a grid-like pattern of rectilinear markings, which they interpreted as the layout of a city. This 'city' appeared to have a main 'avenue' aligned with the 'face' and a northeast-southwest axis. Hoagland, using information from Mars expert William Ward, calculated that approximately half a million years ago, the 'face' could have been aligned with the Martian poles on a true north-south axis. He theorized that this alignment would have allowed someone in the 'city' to witness the sun rise directly over the 'face' on the summer solstice for extended periods.

Hoagland also noted a pyramid-like structure southwest of the 'face,' which he claimed was positioned such that a solstice viewing line from the 'city' would pass through its apex. He further described a 'honeycomblike tracery' in the shadow of this pyramid, resembling city remains, covering a rough square area of about one and a half miles on each side. The 'walls' of this tracery were faintly visible in enhanced images. Hoagland remained convinced of the artificial nature of these features, citing the presence of shadows and the lack of similar glitches in enhancements of Earth-based aerial photos.

Scientific Debate and Criticisms

The 'Metropolis on Mars' theory faced significant skepticism from established scientists. Mars expert and NASA engineer James E. Oberg challenged Hoagland's claims. Oberg disputed the assertion that two photos taken at different times and angles proved the three-dimensionality of the 'face,' stating that the photos were taken from nearly identical angles and within two hours of the same part of the Martian day, thus not showing significant differences in shadows. He concluded that Hoagland's assertions did not match the facts.

Harold Masursky, a senior scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey and an expert on Martian geology, was also critical. He described the pyramid structure as a 'piss-poor pyramid' and likely an erosional product, comparing it unfavorably to pyramid-like formations found in central Nevada. Masursky dismissed the idea that such features could be evidence of a past civilization as 'total nonsense.' He also noted that the 'face' was located in an area dissected by erosional agents like water and frost, and that many mesas on Mars are shaped by incipient faulting, with some naturally having lifelike features.

Masursky also expressed reservations about prioritizing Mars Rover landing sites in areas like the 'city,' suggesting other locations might be more scientifically valuable.

Possibility of Extraterrestrial Life and Ongoing Investigations

Despite their criticisms of the 'Metropolis on Mars' theory, neither Oberg nor Masursky dismissed the possibility of intelligent life or artifacts on Mars. Oberg suggested that the most likely evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence would be artifacts, making the search for artificial structures in space pictures a legitimate endeavor, provided the arguments are sound. He characterized the Martian-city theory as 'quite a piece of folklore' for the time being.

Masursky, while doubtful of civilizations on Mars due to the planet's less favorable climate history (further from the sun, longer periods of drought), remained open-minded, admitting he could not definitively say there were no civilizations on Mars.

Richard Hoagland continued to pursue his research despite the criticisms. He assembled the Independent Mars Investigation Team to study his findings. This team reported at the Mars II conference that anomalies in Viking orbiter photos warranted further investigation. A subsequent effort, the Mars Investigation Group, was organized under C. West Churchman and Tom Rautenberg at the University of California, Berkeley. This group planned to analyze NASA image-data tapes, assigning 16 images to four teams of scientists from institutions like MIT's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Bell Labs, Lucasfilm Ltd., and the Earth Satellite Corporation. The goal was to independently enhance and study the Viking photos to answer 'an open scientific question.' A lengthy technical report was expected by the fall of 1985.

Hoagland expressed his intent to continue searching the remaining one hundred thousand magnetically recorded Viking images for further clues.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue highlights the tension between speculative interpretations of scientific data and rigorous scientific analysis. It showcases the public fascination with potential signs of extraterrestrial intelligence and the challenges of distinguishing between natural phenomena and artificial artifacts in planetary exploration. The editorial stance appears to be one of presenting controversial theories and the ensuing scientific debate, encouraging critical thinking while acknowledging the ongoing quest for answers about life beyond Earth. The article implicitly champions the pursuit of anomalies and the utilization of advanced image-processing techniques, even while presenting counterarguments from mainstream scientific perspectives.