A History of Martian Illusions

[Still Waters]

Humans have been seeing strange things on the surface of Mars for centuries. From the 1700s up through the present day, widespread fame has been available to anyone able to produce even the slightest bit of flimsy evidence that there's Martian life.

The most recent example was this week's supposed revelation that a secret Mars base, inhabited either by humans or Martians, can be seen in a photo of the Red Planet's surface taken by an orbiting spacecraft.

But scientific rigor has always stepped in to prove that these objects are not really there. In this vast and lonely universe, are Earthlings just desperate for next-door neighbors to play with? Looking back over the long history of Martian illusions (and human delusions), it certainly seems so.

Read more...

[Pax Unum]

Good article...

[booNyzarC]

Good article...

Agreed.

[Surreptitious]

I have a large collection of UFO literature. Some of the books or magazines I have date back to the early 20th century. I'll have to look around, but one day I was looking through one and I found a large section devoted to past Mars anomalies. I was surprised to see so much information of different structures, etc. There was also a section on Moon anomalies. I was on google Mars/Moon looking for these supposed anomalies. I could only find about 30% of what I read. I could easily pick out what seemed geological and what appeared to be artificial. I was shocked that the subject was so popular 100 years ago and prior. Strange indeed.

Actually, the Moon info was more interesting. Supposed craters disappearing and reappearing, etc.

Great Article!!

[AliensRPeople2]

I say there are Mars anomalies... and its not only my opinion... one of my favorite anomalies are the Mars worms...

[ohio state buckeyes]

Why is it just mars and not other planets ? I mean if you wanted to debunk all

the mars stuff shouldn't use the Earth to show satellite photos my appear

to be something they are not.

[Taut]

Lord, how I hate those freeze screen advertisements.

Good article. I like reducing the "wish fulfillment" and improving the objectivity. I would not, however, be surprised to learn there was once a civilization on Mars. 4 or 5 billion years? Oh yeah, plenty of time for it to have come and gone.

[:PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR:]

Why is it just mars and not other planets ?

Well, Mars have so much similarities to Earth and is the most likely candidate to have potential life blooming once in the distant past.

Edited June 10, 2011 by :PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR:

[Alienated Being]

Mm. This face is too coincidental for my liking. Not saying that it's an actual structure created by intelligent life, however, I am not entirely sure that it was created by a dust/sand storm.

Then again, I rarely believe anything the government tells its people.

[1963]

Yeah!...Good find SW!

It's a fascinating subject, with some of the 'great men' of planetary studies, Lowell , Herschel and Schiaperelli as named in the article, being so adamantly confused ,as to stake their illustrious reputations on such outlandish theories and statements as these.

Hoaxers?, Liars?, Sufferer's from a Delusional Disorder?, or just plain Overimaginative?.

Well perhaps...none of the above!...And perhaps...they were the only scientists that ever spoke the truth about what 'The Red Planet' is really like!

A planet that was , and quite possibly still is, a vibrant , hospitable earthlike planet that is surely peopled by indiginous 'Martians'!, People, or intelligent 'creatures' that are capable of great construction feats, such as the 'canals' that were so vehemently asserted by Percival Lowell.(Much to the detriment of the great mans reputation.)

And then jump forward nearly a century or so....and we have the uber-published and debated 'Martian Face ,Pyramids etc' photographs!...Which gave the 'Mars Anomalies' genre an almighty reboot!

In turn, each 'find' , debated, debunked and added to the 'conspiracy-list' by 'some' over-zealous poster's.(which is never helped by NASA's customary delay in responding to queries!)

The truth is...that no-one on a discussion forum, can even contemplate 'Judgement' on the actions or beliefs of these Great men of progressive-science.

Schiaperelli,Herschel and Lowell lived and worked in a very different time from us!

A time of relative ignorance! A time, not too far removed from Witchcraft, Demons , dragons, and all-things possible in far-off places on their home planet!

This alone, does not mitigate their erroneous claims, ...but also take in to account, the state of their scientific instruments!...They were'nt exactly using 'The Grand Telescopio Canarias' were they?...No!...i'm No expert on these matters, but I would hazard a guess that if he had been using a similar one, rather than his own 5 incher(no pun intended.),then his perception of the Martian Topography may have been a little different!

Anyway...that's all ancient history now. And the point that I started this long-winded post to make is...that while I find all of these mars anomalies quite interesting, and always enjoy the speculation that adorns the topic,...I have to say that, though a steadfast-believer in the ETH!...I've seen nothing or heared nothing to make me believe that there is anything at all in the many photographs and anecdotes that are being churned out, (production-line like)about there is or ever have been signs of intelligent-life on Mars!(or the moon for that matter!)

But the phenomena of belief in the subject is growing and seems to be getting stronger , daily!...And I wondered if there was another reason for this? (other than the obvious book deals for some, and the 15 mins of fame for others)

And the reason that I came up with in my tiny little mind, is perhaps as way-out and whacky than the worst conspiracy theorists! LOL!

For it is my contention that it is 'That Damned Deceitful NASA' that is behind all of this!!

In short, my theory is that ,the bosses at NASA decided that it was the best way to get the tight fisted government of the USA, to hand over the nessessary funds for a couple of jaunts to our neighbouring planet!...Wet the publics appetite by drip-feeding the theorists a few natural but anomalous-looking photographs, thereby lighting the blue touch-paper, and then standing back, making sure that the 'delayed debunkery' raises suspicion, and then eventually the mounting pressure from the public out-cry may force Uncle Sam's purse strings to unfasten!!

Crazy idea??...Yes it is!...But I enjoyed sharing it anyway!! LOL!

Cheers.

[Hazzard]

I would not, however, be surprised to learn there was once a civilization on Mars. 4 or 5 billion years? Oh yeah, plenty of time for it to have come and gone.

That would be awesome.

But, I think we should wait for something a little more scientific than stuff that "looks" like faces, canals and praying women.

[Robbo]

People still cracking on about that face? I thought it was re-done with a hi-res camera and proven to be nothing.

[BrandOfAmber]

Hazzard, you don't need to wait, Richard Hoagland and his team at the Enterprise Mission have been examining this subject for decades. You can agree with his conclusions or not, but there is no debate that what Richard does is Science at its finest. He follows the method, makes a priori predictions that are then tested against further data, and he revises theories based upon evidence observed.

In my view, the D&M Pyramid is the smoking gun. Internal geometry such as that displayed within the Cydonia complex does not appear in nature, it appears from design.

In nature growth happens in fractal patterns. (This might be difficult to fathom at first, but seriously, research it until you fully understand...) Straight lines that last for miles, and 90 degree angles don't come from nature. And neither do 5 sided pyramids that are geometrically aligned in a city-scape with other pyramids, and the 'face'.

In the Science of statistics, each anamoly added to the equation increases the possibility of artificiality exponentially.

From a clearly Scientific point of view, Cydonia is not a natural plateau.

[Hazzard]

Hazzard, you don't need to wait, Richard Hoagland and his team at the Enterprise Mission have been examining this subject for decades. You can agree with his conclusions or not, but there is no debate that what Richard does is Science at its finest. He follows the method, makes a priori predictions that are then tested against further data, and he revises theories based upon evidence observed.

In my view, the D&M Pyramid is the smoking gun. Internal geometry such as that displayed within the Cydonia complex does not appear in nature, it appears from design.

In nature growth happens in fractal patterns. (This might be difficult to fathom at first, but seriously, research it until you fully understand...) Straight lines that last for miles, and 90 degree angles don't come from nature. And neither do 5 sided pyramids that are geometrically aligned in a city-scape with other pyramids, and the 'face'.

In the Science of statistics, each anamoly added to the equation increases the possibility of artificiality exponentially.

From a clearly Scientific point of view, Cydonia is not a natural plateau.

Richard Hoagland...

Wait... that was a joke, right?

Edited June 10, 2011 by Hazzard

[Pax Unum]

Richard Hoagland...

Wait... that was a joke, right?

I hope so, even Hoagland doesn't believe his 'face' theory anymore...

[BrandOfAmber]

Richard Hoagland...

Wait... that was a joke, right?

Actually I wasn't joking, and I was pretty clear and nice about it.

What I said was that you can agree or disagree with his conclusions, but he's been using the Scientific method to study this issue specifically for decades now.

I'd say that makes his work worth mentioning.

Also, you do know that he worked for Walter Cronkite, and NASA before that, right?

At any rate, you can disagree with his conclusions, that's cool, I do on several subjects.

But what he does is Science, his work is repeatable, and Geometry is a real thing that should not be scoffed at.

On the note of being polite about it, I would humbly submit to you that the compelling Exhibit A you are looking for is offered in a case study on the Battle of Los Angeles I did a while back at the ATS boards. Here's a link, it is worth a read:

ATS Boards Link Here

I will certainly rationally discuss either subject further should you like. But on a forum such as this, I would appreciate it if we could steer away from character attacks and keep to the subject matter.

After all, these are Unexplained Mysteries we're discussing. All of us are just like Hoagland here, looking at mysteries and applying our theories. To decry his pursuit of truth goes against what we do here.

To debate his conclusions, and his methodology is another thing entirely, and I welcome that conversation. It's one that both 'sides' in these debates need to have, as a conversation, and not an 'argument'. Ya know?

You seem reasonable though. Perhaps the two of us can have that conversation here?

[Hazzard]

Actually I wasn't joking, and I was pretty clear and nice about it.

What I said was that you can agree or disagree with his conclusions, but he's been using the Scientific method to study this issue specifically for decades now.

I'd say that makes his work worth mentioning.

Also, you do know that he worked for Walter Cronkite, and NASA before that, right?

At any rate, you can disagree with his conclusions, that's cool, I do on several subjects.

But what he does is Science, his work is repeatable, and Geometry is a real thing that should not be scoffed at.

On the note of being polite about it, I would humbly submit to you that the compelling Exhibit A you are looking for is offered in a case study on the Battle of Los Angeles I did a while back at the ATS boards. Here's a link, it is worth a read:

ATS Boards Link Here

I will certainly rationally discuss either subject further should you like. But on a forum such as this, I would appreciate it if we could steer away from character attacks and keep to the subject matter.

After all, these are Unexplained Mysteries we're discussing. All of us are just like Hoagland here, looking at mysteries and applying our theories. To decry his pursuit of truth goes against what we do here.

To debate his conclusions, and his methodology is another thing entirely, and I welcome that conversation. It's one that both 'sides' in these debates need to have, as a conversation, and not an 'argument'. Ya know?

You seem reasonable though. Perhaps the two of us can have that conversation here?

Im sorry, Amber, I was so sure that you where joking. To me RCH and his buddies in the UFO Hall of Shame is an instant red flag.

I happen to know a little about RCH, I have heard him on C2C many times and followed his Website and so on... and I have to tell you that everything he has written about ancient structures/aliens on Mars and other celestial bodies in our solar system is a bunch of rubbish.

His "hyper-dimensional physics model" is nothing but pure and utter nonsense.

Personally I cant stand the guy. He might mean well but when his actual work is indistinguishable from that of a money-loving charlatan, is there really any difference? He fabricates and speculates like there is no tomorrow, all to make money from the gullible.

Working for Cronkite and NASA is no guarantee that someone isnt fantasy prone. Just look at that ex scientist Stanton Friedman, or Apollo astronaut Ed Mitchell.

People like this are doing far more harm than good.

They should leave science to real scientists.

But sure, if you have something specific in mind Id be happy to take a look at it.

[BrandOfAmber]

Well that's fair. I listen to Coast to Coast a lot too, and like I said earlier, I don't always agree with what Hoagland is saying.

The Hyperdimensional Physics model isn't something I support, however (and it's a big however) the internal Geometry of the Cydonia plateau, from which Hoagland draws these theories, is clearly present.

I guess what I'm trying to say here, is that you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

In order to hypothesize (and I agree he does it in a non-skeptical fashion...) he's done science.

That's really all I was saying, is that there is decades worth of actual research there, simply on the anomalies themselves.

Sure, some of the conclusions I don't agree with. I've always personally had a hard time understanding the impetus behind the whole "it's a half human half lion face on mars" argument he came up with a while back. He does tend to jump to conclusions that in my opinion are not suggested by the preponderance of evidence accumulated. That being said, he's an awesome accumulator of data, and not terrible at distribution either (national radio shows and a decent website).

I also wholeheartedly agree with you on the "selling his books" thing. I understand it from a financial perspective of a writer, however personally for me there are some things that you write about and don't sell. I include it in the code of journalistic integrity. It's why I did my research on the Battle of Los Angeles out in the open on the ATS boards, so that anybody could read the entire thread for free, and add to the conversation. If you take a look at that thread, and my initial bibliography there, I could easily have just written a book instead and gone the Hoagland financial route. There was enough data there for several books...

But clarity aside, and back to the subject at hand, I see clear signs of artificiality in Cydonia. You asked for something specific, so let's start with the D&M Pyramid, which in my view is just the craziest thing in our whole solar system.

Let's also, for those reading in, give some back-story...

Here is a good article outlining what has people excited about the D&M Pyramid: http://mars-earth.com/dm/

Here is an excellent article arguing against Hoagland's conclusions: http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/DMPyramid.html

Here is an image of the D&M itself:

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTHLl7DFUTO5W55NiUWYcWAKkZrHh3GamuFsx2ZMOtu_f6k5sy1lw

Here's one with the angles drawn in:

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT7Y0uYrkk_PrP1TXZygkhKHASpONhySxgQcRoK0Z_mBJVnAtiQ

Here is the D&M Pyramid in context to the other 'structures' found at the Cydonia Plateau:

http://www.martinkeitel.net/mars/marspics/vik_pyramids.jpg

Personally, my own case for the artificiality of the Cydonia region is based upon the statistical improbability of the amount of anomalies contained within the same physical region of the planet. Nothing more and nothing less.

To be honest, I'm kind of in the camp of Tom Van Flandern, with the Exploded Planet Hypothesis. His theories explain the observable solar system in my view (and I've got a pretty good telescope to see what's out there for myself...) better than any other I've come across.

But let's start with by far the weirdest thing at Cydonia, the D&M (weirder than the face to me), what are your thoughts?

[BrandOfAmber]

OMG I just saw that your location is 'inside Voyager 1'.

That's awesome. I like your sense of humor. I totally picked the right person to have this conversation with.

[Hazzard]

OMG I just saw that your location is 'inside Voyager 1'.

That's awesome. I like your sense of humor. I totally picked the right person to have this conversation with.

[Pax Unum]

OMG I just saw that your location is 'inside Voyager 1'.

That's awesome. I like your sense of humor. I totally picked the right person to have this conversation with.

Unless you're lumping Hoagland in with martian illusions, I suggest you start a thread to discuss his theories... Otherwise you're getting way off topic...

[Hazzard]

..... But let's start with by far the weirdest thing at Cydonia, the D&M (weirder than the face to me), what are your thoughts?

Ok...

I think that just because something looks like a face/pyramid/glassworm/dome/canal etc doesnt necessarily mean that it actually is one.

We must be careful when all we have to work with is a picture, one picture taken from a specific angle.

Im sure that you are familiar with pareidolia?

Pareidolia is a type of illusion or misperception involving a vague or obscure stimulus being perceived as something clear and distinct. Under ordinary circumstances, pareidolia provides a psychological explanation for many delusions based upon sense perception.

It explains numerous religious apparitions and visions, like an image of Mother Teresa or Ronald Reagan in a cinnamon bun, or a man in the moon as well as the hearing of sinister messages on records played backwards... And it explains why some people see a face or a building in a photograph of the Cydonia region of Mars.

Much to the dismay of mystery mongers, NASA says that the Cydonia region is a "normal geologic feature with slopes and ridges carved by eons of wind and downslope motion due to gravity."

After looking at the latest high resolution photos recorded by the High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) on board ESAs Mars Express I have to agree with them. I see nothing but slopes and ridges. Use the zoom in this photo and you can see what I mean...

Cydonia - http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM09F8LURE_index_1.html#subhead5

Edd to fix pic.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Hazzard

[BrandOfAmber]

Unless you're lumping Hoagland in with martian illusions, I suggest you start a thread to discuss his theories... Otherwise you're getting way off topic...

With respect Sir/Mam, this topic explicitly references the 'Face' on Mars as an optical illusion.

Debating this point by asserting my own theory that due to the statistical improbability of multiple anomalies regionally (local to Cydonia), and sourcing the D&M Pyramid as an item in question, then further referencing (with pointed disclaimers as to the Author's character) work into the subject...

That's not off-topic.

I would be willing to hear why you think that any of the above referenced material is off-topic? If not in this topic, where indeed would you categorize/discuss such material?

I get that folks don't like Hoagland, but seriously, discussing 'Mars Illusions' without referencing his work is like discussing the Iliad without referring to Homer.

If you feel that my thoughtful posts are not contributory to this forum, perhaps I should know now, and move someplace else?

I've seen moderators intervene in meaningful conversations before, to the detriment of those having that discussion.

This discussion seems on topic, and more than civil, and I'm not interested in sparring with mods (I could run my own message board if I wanted to play that game...).

So, without further ado, would anyone like to comment on the content of my above post? Or discuss some of the other 'illusions/possible artificial structures' on the surface of Mars, like the D&M Pyramid?

[BrandOfAmber]

Hi Hazzard,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I can assure you that I'm familiar with this concept, and that I'm not falling under it's spell here.

I don't have the ability to post pictures yet apparently (still a new member at the UM).

But in the picture you embedded there, what has me curious is the internal geometry of the structure itself, and the platform upon which it is laying (the platform clearly shows straight lines between the points of the 'pyramid' (where each angle hits the 'ground') and an 'apex' point.

It's weird to me, I can't find a geologic process that could create such a pattern.

Also, taking the entire Cydonia complex into context, different weathering patterns would necessarily have had to have been in place to produce the very different patterns found on the Pyramid, and on the 'face', as well as the 'tholus' and the other '3-sided' pyramids.

Can you offer a geologic explanation for the appearance of such drastically different patterns within the same physical region?

I cannot, hence my confusion on this.

Also, I cannot offer a satisfactory explanation for the lines. Remember the scale involved here, this is a very large structure, and there are very clear straight edge lines that encounter other very clear straight edged lines at precise angles within the base of the structure (not in the pyramid itself, but in what appears to be a 'platform' beneath it...)

I cannot find an example where such natural structures can be found anywhere else in our Solar System. Giza is clearly the best Earth analogue for Cydonia, and I think that we're all in agreement at least that the Giza plateau was not created by natural geologic weathering alone.

Thoughts?

[Lilly]

Well, to be fair the title of the thread is "A History of Martian Illusions" and Mr. Hoagland certainly promoted one of the major martian illusions of the 20th century. The so-called "Face on Mars" was brought into popular culture by none other than Mr. Hoagland himself. That said, there have been other famous illusions of stuff on Mars way back including Percival Lowell's "canals" on Mars. I'd say it's ok to discuss Mr. Hoagland in the context of the "face"...just so we don't get completely bogged down on just this one illusion.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Lilly
I can't spell!