98 lines
3.5 KiB
Plaintext
98 lines
3.5 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: MESSAGES ABOUT THE MARS FACE FILE: UFO2333
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Sorry to all sick of the Mars face. I'm sick of the B-2 discussion.)
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
Now that I've had a chance to take a close look at Mark Carlotto's article
|
|
("Digital Imagery Analysis of Unusual Martian Surface Features," Applied
|
|
Optics, Vol. 27, No. 10, 15 May 1988, pp. 1926-1933), I'd like to comment on
|
|
it.
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
In spite of his title, Carlotto makes the elementary mistake of assuming
|
|
what he is supposed to prove. Instead of discussing the "object, the
|
|
"anomaly," or whatever, he begins by talking about "the face." Later, he
|
|
identifies "teeth" in the "face."
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
There are not enough data for a conclusion as sweeping as the author makes
|
|
in this paper. It's a case of making meaning out of background noise. As
|
|
Martin Gardner notes, "If you search any kind of chaotic data, it is easy to
|
|
find combinations that seem remarkable."
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
There are only 4 images of the object from the Viking photos, and 2 of
|
|
those do not have sufficient resolution to be useful. Of the 2
|
|
high-resolution pictures, 35A72 and 70A13 are both in afternoon light with a
|
|
sun zenith angle difference of only 17 degrees. It's unfortunate that we
|
|
don't have hi-res photos of the area taken at other times of day. They would
|
|
undoubtedly settle this once and for all.
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
Figure 3 on p. 1928, a local contrast enhancement of the object by Carlotto
|
|
(from 70A13) is an interesting picture. Turn it upside down so that your mind
|
|
doesn't see a "face" so easily. Now you can see that the object looks more
|
|
like an unusual - but probably natural - geological formation. The tendency
|
|
for humans (even humans with Ph.D.'s) to find patterns where there are no
|
|
patterns is certainly powerful, particularly where faces are concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subj: Part 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The author concludes that "the close proximity of unusual objects...to the
|
|
face increases the likelihood that this collection of objects is not
|
|
natural." I don't see anything terribly unusual in anything southwest of the
|
|
object at all. All I see are natural wind-sculpted formations. Typical
|
|
Martian terrain.
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
Even if one of the objects does turn out to be a pyramid, it proves
|
|
nothing. It looks much cruder than the many pyramids found in natural rock
|
|
formations in Arizona.
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
Finally, I was extremely surprised that Carlotto cites "The Face on Mars"
|
|
(Pozos) and "The Monuments of Mars" (Hoagland). Scientific papers don't
|
|
normally cite flim-flam. It's like finding a reference to a Shirley MacLaine
|
|
book in a scholarly paper on geology.
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
I find it significant that Carlotto cites none of the experts who actually
|
|
work with the Viking photos. Pietro and Molenaar, who Carlotto does cite,
|
|
have no expertise in Martian geology or in photo-interpretatio (according to
|
|
Conway Snyder who was a key figure in the Viking project at JPL).
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
I'd like to see the referees' report on this paper. Perhaps they were so
|
|
facinated by the computer enhancement techniques (which are state of the art)
|
|
that they ignored the ridiculousness of what was being enhanced. So far, in
|
|
the latest issues of Applied Optics I could find, there have been no
|
|
rebuttals.
|
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
I wish Dr. Carlotto would now use his image enhancement techniques on my
|
|
two other favorite Martian formations: the 5-mile wide Happy Face and the
|
|
Kermit the Frog formation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
**********************************************
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
|
********************************************** |