-Caveat Lector- ------- Forwarded message follows ------- Date sent: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 13:40:56 -0800 From: David Jinks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [cydonia] "The Real Story..." To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copies to: 'Cydonia Discussion Group' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear Mr. Britt: There is no doubt you will receive many e-mails like mine. I began to read your article on the "Face on Mars" with great trepidation, as its title promised little more than a rehash of NASA's now 25 year-old "optical illusion" stance on the "face." But I forged my way through it, banking that your lofty title of Senior Science Writer might reveal some senior, or scientific, writing on a very controversial topic that screams for an objective look at the evidence. How sorely disappointed I was to find the same old buzzwords thrown around: "conspiracies," "true believers," "trick of light and shadows." And not a single mention of the now decades worth of actual observational evidence compiled showing the "face" mesa to very face-like indeed. This evidence includes fractal (i.e. objective computerized) analysis showing that even if we extract "human imagination," which is the crux of your (and many other skeptics') arguments, the mesa remains anomalous. See this link (http://www.infosourceresearch.com/artifacts/cydonia.html) for some of this analysis. Recent, properly enhanced and ortho-rectified MGS images of the "face" confirm the formation's almost perfect symmetry, as well as a number of predicted "facial" features (successful prediction, as you most certainly know given your scholarly title, is the hallmark of a useful theory). The newest (Feb 2001) MGS image confirms further predicted detail and symmetry, as well as an absolute lack of "random" detail in the "face" mesa, a finding which bolsters the artificiality hypothesis. The JPL image you show in your article is not only blatantly skewed, it was improperly enhanced, a fact easily demonstrated--and wholly inexplicable--given NASA's vast resources and supposed expertise in these matters. NASA contractor Lan Fleming explains why this is cause for alarm in terms so simple that one need not have Senior or Scientist anywhere in his or her moniker to understand them, in this article: http://vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/catbox2.htm The properly enhanced and ortho-rectified MGS image of the "face" is indeed face-like--shockingly so. See: http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/newface.htm I, and I'm certain many millions of Space.com readers, would appreciate an open discussion of the properly enhanced "face" image, as well as the reasons for NASA's (and your) use of the initial, improperly corrected MGS data to bolster your assumptions that the "face" could not possibly be artificial. A balanced piece on the evidence for and against the "face" mesa being artificial would be a refreshing change from the party line you chose to rehash in your newest article. Is there any chance of that happening? I expect no reply, as it's been shown again and again that skeptics (as opposed to critics, who actually weigh the merits of evidence) play little or no role in shaping the future of scientific discovery, and thus have little desire to re-open cans of worms they assumed had long been sealed tight. I expect that it is your desire not to "rock the boat" with discussion of any specific evidence for artificiality, and instead to play it safe with the party line, which amounts to little more than armchair psychiatry by espousing the "people see faces in the clouds" argument. (Which, by the way, has been properly disposed of through objective shape-from-shading and photoclinometric analysis proving the face to be a three-dimensional face-like landform.) Though your decision may be a smart political move, it really has nothing to do with science, since the vast majority of scientists who believe the "face" has been "proved" natural have based their decision on questionable assumptions, ill-defined hypotheses and improperly enhanced images. What is perhaps most depressing in this scenario is that a person of your stature could easily create a forum through which we might ask proper scientific questions and achieve thorough, reasoned discussion of the merits of both sides of the "face" debate. Instead your article will serve to further dissuade scientists who might have been willing to devote some resources to investigate the persistent anomalies the "face" presents. Sincerely, David Jinks, MBA Dr. Paula Sommerville ------- End of forwarded message ------- ANOMALOUS IMAGES AND UFO FILES http://www.anomalous-images.com <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
