OMNI

Magazine Overview

This issue of OMNI magazine, dated July 1995, features a prominent article titled "CASTING A NEW LIGHT ON THE MARS FACE" by Robert C. Kiviat. The cover also highlights that the face-shaped mesa on Mars and nearby landforms are considered by some to be artificial structures, created by intelligent beings, according to data collected by author Richard Hoagland and his team of researchers.

The 'Face on Mars' Controversy

The article delves into the long-standing debate surrounding the 'Face on Mars,' a geological feature discovered by the Viking 1 spacecraft in 1976. When Viking 1 orbited Mars, its cameras captured thousands of images. One frame from the Cydonia region revealed a mesa, approximately a mile long and 1,500 feet high, that strikingly resembled a human face. At a JPL press conference, project scientist Dr. Gerald Soffen initially dismissed it as a trick of lighting on a natural formation. However, Richard C. Hoagland, then a member of the JPL press corps, became convinced this explanation was insufficient.

Hoagland, who has since led a ten-year independent investigation, contends that his interdisciplinary team has found substantial evidence suggesting the face, adjacent pyramid structures, and other objects on Mars' surface were created by intelligent beings. He argues that simple explanations of wind erosion and lighting are 'flatly, demonstrably, in gross error.'

The Mars Observer Mission and its Loss

The article touches upon the ill-fated Mars Observer spacecraft, which was preparing to orbit Mars in August 1993 when it abruptly fell silent. Despite frantic efforts, contact was lost, and an independent review board concluded a propulsion system line rupture was the cause. The loss of the Observer was seen as a significant setback, potentially hindering the chance to uncover the truth behind Cydonia and its mysterious face. However, NASA was already planning substitute probes, with the first potentially launching as early as 1996. The waning public enthusiasm for space exploration, contrasted with growing interest in the Mars face, raised questions about whether future missions would prioritize examining Cydonia.

Hoagland's Background and Investigation

Richard C. Hoagland's background includes experience as a consultant for CBS News, designing space simulations and advising Walter Cronkite. He was also credited, along with Eric Burgess, for an initial suggestion to include a recorded message on the Pioneer 10 probe. During the Viking mission, Hoagland was under contract as an author/consultant to NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. His involvement with the Cydonia controversy began in 1981 after seeing the work of Vincent DiPietro and Gregory Molennar, who had obtained data tapes of the face and found more detail than was evident on the raw images.

DiPietro and Molennar discovered a second picture taken 35 days later that showed more of the right side of the face due to a higher sun angle. Hoagland's skepticism grew, especially after DiPietro sent him photographic blowups in 1983. He began to wonder why the phenomenon wasn't taken more seriously. Hoagland noted the face's bilateral symmetry and humanoid features, speculating that if it were constructed by sentient life, it might have been designed to be seen from the ground. This led him to identify other geometric pyramid shapes nearby, which he theorized could be the ruins of an ancient city.

Supporting Evidence and Counterarguments

Erol Torun, a physical scientist with the Defense Mapping Agency, corroborates the findings regarding a large, rectangular pyramid ten miles southwest of the face. Torun describes its dimensions and geometric regularity, noting its alignment with the face and other features. Hoagland believes the proximity of the face and the pyramid suggests unnatural origins. He points to a 'geometric regularity' in the patterns of angles between objects in Cydonia, which he likens to constructions indicative of intelligent life, citing Carl Sagan's criteria for identifying intelligent activity.

However, not all scientists are convinced. Michael Carr, who headed the Viking orbiter imaging team, dismisses the claims, stating that no one of scientific credibility believes the face is artificial. He also claims not to know of any Viking images showing pyramids. While acknowledging the mesa's resemblance to a face, Carr admits the lab published the image 'only for laughs.'

Mark Carlotto, a former division staff analyst with TASC, began examining the Viking data in 1985 and became a key player. He used a 'shape-from-shading' technique to create a 3-D image, concluding that the impression of a face is not a trick of lighting and persists over various illumination and viewing conditions. Carlotto also characterized a feature termed the 'fort' as a 'polyhedral object' with straight sides and regular markings, appearing as an enclosed structure that had lost its top. He further indicated that tests suggest the face and other Cydonian objects are 'strongly non-fractal,' meaning they don't appear natural.

A Call for Public and Scientific Responsibility

Stanley V. McDaniel, a professor of philosophy, has conducted a two-year study of NASA's policies regarding the Cydonia issue. He argues that many of NASA's arguments against independent investigators are 'seriously flawed' and that the methodology used by DiPietro, Molennar, Carlotto, Torun, and Hoagland is sound, based on established scientific criteria. McDaniel believes that the potential proof of extraterrestrial intelligence warrants NASA ensuring that any new Mars orbiter prioritizes high-resolution photographs of the Cydonia landforms.

McDaniel advocates for a principle where any reasonable doubt regarding the natural origin of debated features creates an ethical obligation for NASA to prioritize new high-resolution images. He criticizes NASA for failing to account for this 'ethical equation' and grant appropriate priority. The situation is critical because control of imaging facilities has been transferred to a private contractor who could delay data release.

Future Missions and the Ongoing Debate

NASA plans to send two orbiters to Mars in 1996 and 1998, essentially splitting the Observer's payload. A Mars Pathfinder mission in 1997 will deploy a small rover. The camera for high-resolution imaging is expected to be aboard the first orbiter. Squyres notes that while the new spacecraft will have cameras capable of taking sharper pictures than Viking's, targeting limitations might still prevent capturing the necessary images. He emphasizes that the spacecraft's ability to point accurately is crucial for imaging specific targets like Cydonia.

Michael Malin, principal investigator for the Mars Observer camera, acknowledges the face's resemblance but doesn't consider it a top imaging priority. He points out the camera's limitations in transmitting data and its inability to point precisely. Malin also questions the shape-from-shading argument, stating it doesn't prove anything and that the face barely resembles a face, lacking features suggestive of artificiality. He suggests that fractal analysis, while indicating the face is anomalous, needs to be applied to many locations to prove artificiality.

Hoagland, however, remains firm in his decade-long conviction. He believes that only fractal analysis of high-resolution photos showing that the objects are part of the natural terrain would dissuade him. The debate could potentially be resolved by a Russian Mars orbiter planned for 1996, equipped with a German camera, which could provide high-resolution images.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The recurring themes in this issue revolve around the persistent mystery of the 'Face on Mars' and other anomalous structures in the Cydonia region. It highlights the conflict between established scientific explanations and the findings of independent investigators who propose extraterrestrial intelligence as a cause. The articles underscore the importance of scientific methodology, the role of public interest, and the ethical responsibilities of space agencies like NASA in pursuing potentially groundbreaking discoveries. The editorial stance appears to be one of presenting both sides of the debate, encouraging further investigation, and emphasizing the need for clear, high-resolution data to resolve the enigma, while also acknowledging the skepticism within the mainstream scientific community.