The above link will take you to a YouTube video typical of the so-called scientists and researchers such as Richard Hoagland and others who make money on the idea that there is a NASA/government conspiracy to hide the truth from us and that there is actual proof of artificial structures on Mars. Just look at the photos!
Well, it may be true, but until we get some ground truth let’s not jump to wild conclusions. The above video is from a presentation by Tom Van Flandern, Ph.D. The beginning of the video shows him as being associated with Meta Research, Washington, D.C. But in the video itself, he is presented as “a former chief astronomer, US Naval Observatory.” Apparently, the video editors did not think Tom (I shall call him Tom from now on) was good enough so they used the old “appeal to authority” trick to impress the listeners that this is a genuine piece of scientific research. I don’t know Tom from a hole in the ground. So what do I care? I don’t. All I care about is the scientific evidence, and in spite of the title of the presentation, which is the same title as this blog post, I saw no science here. All I saw was a bunch of photographs and this guy who apparently hasn’t a clue about geography, or more accurately, areography. Do I believe that he and other researchers who spout similar theories really understand geology (areology) or that they are even scientists? No, I can’t believe that. Because if I did believe that, I would have to conclude they were misrepresenting wild fantasy as truth with the express purpose of misleading the public for financial gain. If people like Tom and Richard Hoagland have even a high school level of understanding about areology (geology), then they must be deliberately duping the public.
Don’t get me wrong, they COULD be right. But they probably aren’t. I am being severe with them because they are supposed to be scientists and they are not using scientific methods. They should know better. Actually I am very sure they do know better because there is no doubt in MY mind that they are highly intelligent, more so than the average human. I am convinced that they are deliberately misleading the public to make money. And in my books, that means they deserve to be chastised.
You really have to view the 12 minute video to know what I am referring to here. The unfamiliar features are presented as proof that these have to be artificial structures because there is no natural explanation for them. I can think of some, why can’t they?
The first image is similar, yet strangely different from the well-known “face on Mars”. I have no comment to make on these two faces (the more familiar “face on Mars” is presented near the end of the video), except that although Tom and others claim that JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) has doctored the images and ignored the original data to do it, Tom feels he can doctor his image in his favor and not call it doctoring.
After the face, the next mystery is the T-shaped structure. Listen carefully to what he says about it. How about this for an explanation: It is a dike feeding a sill which has been overturned and eroded. It took me about 30 seconds to figure that one out. The sill and dike need not be igneous, it could be sedimentary, that is, mud, sand, ice, or other. Geologists will know what I’m talking about. The picture of the pair of “craters” beside it? How about…oh, let’s say…craters? I don’t know what the linear feature touching the crater could be since the photo is taken out of context and is isolated from the surrounding areography. I can’t make a determination of the relative ages of these two features. The same can be said of the T-shaped feature too!
The “trees” are likely just a shallow plateau caused by the upwelling of molten material, such as mud. That one was really easy. To claim they are huge trees is really stupid.
The “glass tubes” are likely just an extrusion of water from between sedimentary layers, or other ices and the “supports” are probably places where the ice has cracked. The regular spacing of the “supports” reflects the inherent mechanical strength of the formation. Or perhaps they are merely duller regions caused by overlying dunes where the wind whips over the feature. Earth has many similar features, but here we call them eskers. Eskers are products of glacial terrain. I don’t see why we could not think of a similar mechanism on Mars that would produce icy eskers, do you?
Note where Tom says that triangles are not natural? I guess these so-called scientists have never heard of ventifacts. Look it up. Do you think that on a sandy, arid, wind-blown planet, there might possibly be a little sand-blasting going on?
There is one image near the end of the video which shows a series of regularly spaced “monoliths” and the shadows they cast. That one has me baffled, but I have given this a whole lot of thought, say maybe an hour for the whole thing. Apart from these monoliths, I haven’t seen anything that would cause me to drop everything and waste HOURS of my precious time hunting down the references, scales, context, and images data that they should have presented to me up front if they had a serious case. Having said that, it just occurred to me that it resembles a flood plain strewn with boulders. You can’t tell just from one picture, and it is rather dramatically lit from a low angle. Again, there is no context.
There is no justification for these wild assumptions and implications that some intelligent civilization has built weird structures on Mars. The lie is in the title. There is no science here. Occams Razor.
Note one last comment I have to make on Richard Hoagland’s web site, www.enterprisemission.com/
Now that is one awful web site. It is almost impossible to navigate and find what you want. Don’t you think if this guy was a real scientist with an important case to make that he would create a web site that was extremely organized, with his data and interpretation easy to navigate to? Or do you think he cloaks everything with fancy pictures showing him with famous people and pushing a whole lot of his books to sell because he is a con man? Just have a look at some of his picture “evidence” for artificial structures on the moon, including huge transparent domes, factories, industrial areas, and cranes? If you have the patience, you can try to find his so-called picture evidence on his web site. It’s not that easy to find. Yes, he actually bases his theories on these horribly low resolution pictures. Caveat Emptor.
Addendum: I recently went back to Richard’s web page and found this link to some images: Images
The site has no search function that I am aware of. Because of the difficulty of navigating this site, I have not spent a whole lot of time there. Look at his images and decide for yourself if his conclusions are based on poor resolution images which he enlarges too much.
