Talk:Cydonia (Mars)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mission to Mars

The two references to "Mission to Mars" are confusing; are they the same movie? Did the movie directly reference Cydonia or not? They should be merged.

Media Usage

I think it is important to have a section dedicated to Cydonia in media. I can think of a few examples: (Mission to Mars and Battle of the Planets (Invader Zim) and Where the Buggalo Roam (Futurama). If someone can start the section and add these and others to it that would be great. 71.225.125.176 13:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC) -Stexe

Cydonia is also a primary focus in Ian Douglas's book "Semper Mars" Dtheweather9 (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It is proposed to merge The Face on Mars into Cydonia as both are essentially duplicates, and the former article gives undue weight to the crackpottery of Richard Hoagland. Dr Zak 23:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Merge them! ^_^--Havermayer 17:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

do it, do it Kennykane 05:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There is too much duplication. MrStonky 02:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Do it--86.42.47.14 15:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

New picture by Mars Express

Folks,

There is a new pic by Mars Express here (in Portuguese) --Pinnecco 10:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the ESA's copyright policy? —ptk✰fgs 12:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically "For informational and non-commerical use, feel free to use, just give credit; for commercial use, contact first". [1] Tricky. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not that simple. Look around. Very few ESA images on Wikipedia, for reasons I can't fully comprehend. Those that are here could be deleted any moment. Besides, the older image for MGS is (somewhat ironically) several times higher resolution. No need to add anything. Mars Express is really a step back, now that I think about it. --Planetary 06:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ayp. "Free for non-commercial use" licenced pics are deleted, and there's no way to use {{Non-free fair use in}} or like. Perhaps the pics would fare better if there was a licence tag that explained the ESA policy, but even that might clash with our policies. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I never understood that. If somone gives us permission to use their image after May 19 2005, we can't use it? Seriously, what the hell?--Planetary 17:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to be forkable. That means our content has to be redistributable by others, whether they're profit or nonprofit. Permission specifically for wikipedia doesn't help. —ptk✰fgs 02:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What about fair use? Could that apply to ESA images? --Planetary 20:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Call For More Editing

This is titled Cydonia and yet only the Face is mentioned ? I would like to see more edits about the "City" and "D&M". Cydonia is also interesting geologically. There is also a "Square" feature to the South of Cydonia main. Even though these features remain unproven from a Scientific standpoint, there is a STRONG counter current to the prevailing "there's nothing to see here" argument. In my opinion this article has fallen prey to political editing. There are MAJOR holes in the references. For example see my addition of the ref to the Carlotto paper that shows that the Face still looks like a face at different lighting angles. I know I may fall prey to those who say that any Cydonia Face "believer" has not got any facts to add to an article. An attitude sadly started in reaction to the likes of Richard C Hoagland, who I regard as having seriously damaged the field (I'm with the Bad Astronomer on that one!). But not all Mars researchers follow the same methodologies, or think in the same way, or think that NASA is a "conspiracy" (ABSOLUTE NONSENSE in my opinion!). The Face and wider Cydonia has generated some very intense speculations and research that should be recorded in the article in my opinion... EVEN if unproven or flawed. Wikipedia is not the place to "prove" anything, one way or the other. Thankyou! DJ Barney 23:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about a scientific topic, hence NPOV requires us to present the scientific consensus. The scientific consensus is that there is nothing to see. If you disagree with this consensus, I suggest you do some research, publish it in a peer-reviewed science journal and try to convince the scientific community. THEN if you convince them, come back here. Mikker ^(...) 11:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

ROTFL. Good call Mikker. Regarding the article, I've removed the cite to the Applied Optics paper. Not because there's anything wrong with the paper per se, but it was published ~20 years ago and uses the old Viking data rather the more recent imagery. And, in the context of the article, the cite appeared to be disputing NASA's statements about the recent imagery, when it was doing nothing of the sort. Cheers, --Plumbago 13:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think you're wrong, but I shall seek advice, and see how to proceed. In fact, for give me User talk:Mikker, but you seem to have contradicted yourself. If an article is not supposed to have one point of view (NPOV right?) then why would an article carry ONLY the Scientific consensus. It is well known that Wikipedia is a place to record facts. It doesnt matter if those facts are considered plain wrong, or whatever. If they are part of the field of argument and knowledge then they should be in the article! Some people think there IS a LOT to see at Cydonia. I should NOT use this article to argue for Cydonia one way or the other. But I would like to see the point of view documented here, that does "see something at Cydonia". I find the accusation that no one apart from NASA can have the say so on how certain areas of another Planet are viewed rather insulting, even scary. The Universe is a big place and anyone can make observations. Not all of them will be widely heard or even useful, but Cydonia has always had a controversial status since the Viking images, and I think you should be able to see that, curiously, only ONE point of view is being documented here. Can you NOT see that ? EVEN if that point of view is wrong. Would an article about Cancer exclude any details about alternative Cancer treatments ? Would an article about Computers exclude Linux because "it does not have full Unix certification" ? Would an article about the Paranormal exclude any mention of Psychics.... "because it hasn't been Scientifically proven" ? Come on guys! Where on Earth does it say I have to go through the peer review process before I can edit in research that is in the field ? You make Wikipedia sound like some kind of peer review journal...it is not ! PLEASE point me to the article that says that ONLY accepted Scientific knowledge is allowed on Wikipedia! Thankyou for your response. DJ Barney 00:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the cited reference because it was touted as refuting NASA's statement. However, given that it was written in 1988, and used the limited data available then, it could not be said to "refute" a statement made by NASA than a decade later with the benefit of much better data. Were the work to be repeated with the new data, then that might be something (the author has several subsequent papers, but none appear to do this). As for the importance of the scientific viewpoint over others, that only applies on science topics, and exists so that the encyclopedia reports minority viewpoints with their due weight. Were we to give naive equal treatment to all science topics we'd be drowning in pseudoscience and herbal remedies before we knew it. --Plumbago 10:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Plumbago There is no time limit on Scientific research ! Are Darwins papers "too old" to be used ? The article you critiscise is CLEARLY refuting NASA's claim's by carrying out an investigation using 3D data ... This is a quote from the article ( http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/martianenigmas/Papers/AO1888.pdf ) "Once the 3-D shape has been derived questions such as: "What does it look like when viewed under different illumination conditions and from different perspectives?", or "Does the underlying 3-D structure also resemble a face, or is the impression of a face merely a trick of light and shadow?" can be answered." That seems very clear to me. The article is countering the "Trick of The Light and Shadow" NASA argument. This term is even mentioned in the text. I want to say this again as well: I'll make this clear. I regard any speculations as unproven at Cydonia, but they are in the field and should be included in the article in the usual balanced non-political way. Thankyou :) DJ Barney 00:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. There is no reason whatsoever to give equal credence to fringe hypotheses and the general scientific consensus. The latter will, and should, trump the former every time.

Yes, a scientific paper becomes obsolete when new data contradict it. There are indeed large portions of Darwin's work that should no longer be cited. Evolutionary biology has progressed quite a bit over the last 150 years, as piles of new data have accumulated. Same with this. An analysis based on an out-of-focus, low-resolution, poorly-lit image taken from a single angle becomes obsolete when clearer, higher-resolution, better-lit, multiple images are available. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I will not reply to these until I have got advice and consultation from an experienced editor and the community. DJ Barney 12:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the face feature, to anyone who takes a look at it in the newer higher-resolution pictures (See the HiRISE one, if you want), is not a Face at all. I happen to know the suggester of the HiRISE picture actually requested it not knowing that it was the famous "face". As to expanding the article further, I believe it would be fair to include more of the geography of the region, but discussing the other "artifacts" that have been seen is probably a bit out of line. However, as there are many people who are interested in the "Popular landform in the Cydonia Region", I think it's definitely worth it to include something about it here. The other "features" don't have a tenth of the following, and only have any standing due to the interest in the "popular landform". As to doing anything about it, well, I might, but right now I've got my hands full elsewhere. Also, if there is a paper from 1988 refuting the "face", it is acceptable to use, as that is the current almost unanimous consensus in the scientific community. Tuvas 16:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The 1988 paper used the original Viking image, and some clever data processing tricks, to suggest that the shadowed features of the "Face" were not associated with unusual illumination or viewing conditions. I believe the 1988 paper was added to the article in response to a quoted statement by NASA that made the reverse point. However, the NASA statement was made with the benefit of both higher resolution and stereo imagery of the "Face". To this end, the 1988 paper is no longer a valid source; although if its author has repeated their analysis then that might be worth adding. As an aside, an ESA article, also cited in the article here, makes the point that NASA judged the "Face" a product of viewing conditions even from the Viking imagery. Anyway, I hope this helps explain the situation. --Plumbago 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This won't satisfy the conspiracy theorists, you realize. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

<reduce_tab> Of course it won't satisfy conspiracy theorists, you could take Richard Hoagland, fly him to mars to take a personal tour of the popular landform, and he would still refute it, who knows how. But the point of this is to try and help with the merely interested, let them know how it really is, and let them judge things for themselves. Tuvas 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. As the reference I removed is a bona fide paper on the topic I've restored it to the article. I've repositioned it to make it clear that it used the old data though (which was all that was available at the time; c.f. my remarks above). Anyway, I'm much happier with this than my earlier edit; I hope others are too. Cheers, --Plumbago 21:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was looking for. That seems much more balanced to me. I am still thinking / getting advice, but I wonder if I should start a new page specifically about the "minority view" on Cydonia? I would put in a link especially announced as the "official" accepted view (this page). A link from this page would (hopefully) be allowed for people curious about the Cydonia controversies. After all they were espoused by many (not just Richard c Hoagland!)on Coast to Coast AM, for a long time. Don't know about now as I don't listen to it anymore. This does not mean the minority viewpoint is real of course. In fact Cydonia is somewhat of a cottage industry along with Area 51, or the Loch Ness Monster! But as I think you noticed, there are legitimate papers that have been produced. And this whole field (ridiculous or otherwise) does have value IMO. It deserves to be documented. What would happen if we came across real artifacts ? What would happen then ? Could future Astro Archaeologists learn from this example (how not to do it probably .. LOL!) DJ Barney 20:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As a further change, I've rewritten the three isolated paragraphs about new data into a longer, (hopefully) more concise paragraph. That may/may not be a good idea given that more data will become available with time. Anyway, regarding my previous edits, thanks for your comments DJ Barney. I'm very pleased that I was able to get the reference you added back in; my apologies for hacking it out so bluntly at first. Regarding the view of Cydonia as artificial, I suspect starting a new page isn't a good idea. That people think this is already noted here, and there are plenty of external sites listed for people to check if they wish to pursue this further. To be honest, apart from discussing the endless "detail" Hoagland et al. have created, I'm not sure what extra information such an article would contain. That said, I'm probably just being unimaginative - if you do take this idea forward, perhaps you could give us some idea what you had in mind here first? Cheers, --Plumbago 10:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above, I've now removed the short paragraphs I earlier fused into a longer paragraph. I'm fairly happy with the result. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I mentioned something about having a seperate article for the fringe view. This is clearly against Wikipedia guidelines, so that's a no no ! See Content forking. DJ Barney 16:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Article states that "after detailed analysis NASA stated that Face on Mars is natural formation".

The reason I have removed part of this sentence (about "detailed analysis" is because I believe that Wikipedia is (and should be) stating documented facts. NASA has never conducted any scientific research on the feature in Cydonia region. In fact, it has always dismissed even the slightest possibility of it being artificial. It stated without ANY analysis during press conference after the Face was discovered in 70's that it was an "optical illusion". It also added that "on the next photo taken just hours after the first one was taken, the facial resemblance of this feature dissapeared because of different light conditions". In fact, that second photo NEVER EXISTED and NASA simply lied. All I want to achieve here is that NASA has never done anything to prove/disprove the artificiality theory, apart from stating that "it looks natural" (the Face). On the other side, many scientists (including Carlotto) produced numerous scientific papers on this subject treating it in a scientific way.

2. The Badlands Guardian Geological Feature.

It is stated that it is a "similiar feature". Since when we know that the Face is natural / artificial ? Wiki is about facts, so I believe this comparison is not appropriate at all. Similarly, if I was to include sentence: "A similar feature on Earth is the Sphinx, which resembles a human head wearing a headress" - surely it would have caused anger. Because it is not similiar, nothing is similiar to the Face as we know nothing about its origin.

3. "Today, it (The Face)is generally understood to be an optical illusion.

Generally understood by whom? NASA, of course and millinons of other people. Equally it is generally understood that the Face is artificial - by many credible scientists and millions of other people as well. By adding "generally understood by mainstream science" I am simply stating the fact. Also by adding sentence about other scientists believing it is artificial - I simply make it more ballanced. Since when NASA is Earths "oracle" on Mars? Whatever NASA says goes (as I can clearly see in this article about the Face. ). This is bias behaviour and calling non-NASA-believers "pseudoscientists" shows it all very clearly, that article is one-sided.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.203.82.194 (talk • contribs).

Ah - you had started editing here. My apologies.

On the first point, are you sure that NASA haven't analysed the Cydonia feature? There are certainly publications (e.g. Ferrand et al., 2005, Pitted cones and domes on Mars: Observations in Acidalia Planitia and Cydonia Mensae using MOC, THEMIS, and TES data, JGR 110, Art. No. E05005) that study the region. And what exactly would you expect NASA to say about the feature? In all but the original poor-quality images it looks like a tumble-down geological feature. It certainly looks nothing like a face in high-resolution. Please explain what sort of analysis is necessary here.

On the second point, you're right, the Badlands Feature isn't like the Face on Mars - it actually looks like a Face while the one in Cydonia looks just like a crumbly mountain. However, as an illustration of the human ability to see pattern where none exists, it's an excellent example.

On the third point, I think you'll find that the Face "is generally understood to be an optical illusion" by those people who study Mars. But I'd put money on the general public thinking exactly the same. Hence "generally understood". Note that it doesn't say "is understood"; the statement is qualified to indicate non-universal acceptance of the blindingly obvious.

This is a science topic; therefore the scientific view predominates; hence the current form of the article. There is plenty of information in the article that allows readers to bone up on the "face as artifact" literature, and it's abundantly clear from the text that there are a minority of people out there who take the view that the face was built (= mistake regular mountains for the handiwork of space aliens). If this article were actually suppressing views, none of this would be here. --Plumbago 15:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP says "NASA simply lied". There is NO evidence for this. All the "supression of evidence" can be traced back to simple human error. Take the "MER are altering the colours" myth. THAT can be put down to some processing mistakes by NASA and inconsistencies ( see http://www.atsnn.com/marscolors.html http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=10795 ). I would keep this "they are lying" attitude far away from Mars enthusiasts and people who have given their whole life's to the study of Mars. It is insulting and divisive in my opinion. The only reservation that I'd have with what Plumbago says is this. Is'nt the article about the AREA of Mars. That means it is NOT JUST Scientific, although Wikipedia guidelines certainly say that the Scientific consensus should be properly represented. Shouldn't the page give all the facts about this area? What about the Geology ? What about the known processes that could create the strange objects we see ? This page is still really a battle between the Face proponents and the "there is no face" Scientists. It should not be this ! There is more to be found at Cydonia ! DJ Barney 15:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The new picture for the face on Mars in question was processed by NASA to make it look as if there wasn't anything special there. This was proven by noted and reputable astronomer Van Flandern (see his videos on You Tube) and others. They also clearly demonstrate another face on Mars as well as many other structures, including pyramids, that are 90% certain of being man-made. The question is not their artificiality as this has been well established but who made them? Mars is too small to harbour complex life, at least not any that would resemble us in stature. Yet it is claimed they are our ancestors. Also, it is probably a former moon but the parent planet is supposed to be too large to support complex life. Go figure. As well, fringe hypotheses are often right, like heliocentrism, the round Earth, and comets as celestial instead of atmospheric. It took some 2000 years for heliocentrism to be generally accepted. So the orthodox view is often often wrong but conservatives on both the left and right want to maintain the status quo and the conventional paradigm even if it's proven wrong. Scientists should have a more liberal and progressive attitude. Mars Bars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell (talk • contribs) 11:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring and WP:WEIGHT

I've restored some of Plumbago's edits per WP:WEIGHT. Rather than edit-warring about it the solution is simple: Find sources that suggest different treatment. Minority viewpoints should only be given as much treatment as warrented, which may be no treatment at all for viewpoints held by a tiny minority. -- Ronz  16:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Carlotto reference

Needs removing IMO, reads very poorly and not from any recognised organisation as far as I can see sbandrews (t) 14:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The Carlotto reference is a regular peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal, so it's a very good source. It's limited by the fact that it made use of the early low resolution data (which was all that was available at the time). However, as such it illustrates why the "Face" was taken seriously in certain quarters for a while. I think it deserves to stay. Cheers, --Plumbago 15:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

taken seriously in what quarters? This is a paper published in applied optics - what do they know about geology, let alone the geology of Mars? Exceptional claims require exceptional proof, so for me to judge this as a very good source it should have been in an appropriate journal. I think we are giving this paper undue weight, I can find no other mention to it in scientific papers on the subject - If anyone has the capability it would be nice to know how many citations the carlotto paper has had, and where. sbandrews (t) 18:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You make some very good points, but I think they are outside the scope of Wikipedia. This entry is an encylopedic entry about Cydonia and seeks to document it. It does not seek to prove the Face one way or the other. The paper is included to make a NPOV balance IMO. I'd also like to know what other papers cite it. I do know that it was widely quoted, at least in the circles I mixed in for a while, because I was involved in the debate at the time. The problem we discuss here is a well known problem in Science. For example take this arbitration... "There's a lot of gray area here involving a Demarcation problem of science that hasn't fully been solved outside of Wikipedia." Don't we face similiar issues here ? DJ Barney 10:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks DJ, that's some good reading for me to do! In the meantime it seems the consensus will have the reference stay, but I still want to grumble about how it is presented - 'While analysis of the early Viking images suggested that the features of the Face might not be an accidental consequence of viewing conditions[1], today, it is generally understood to be an optical illusion, an example of pareidolia.' - makes it sound like the carletto analysis was the one adopted by most people, when in fact, correct me if I'm wrong, NASA and all other clear headed scientists were happy to go with the geological 'mesa' explanation - the following from NASA 'There must have been a degree of surprise among mission controllers back at the Jet Propulsion Lab when the face appeared on their monitors. But the sensation was short lived. Scientists figured it was just another Martian mesa, common enough around Cydonia, only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like an Egyptian Pharaoh.' [2] sbandrews (t) 11:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, it sort of does give that impression! Better wording could be put in. I still think this paper should be left in there because it at least shows that there was a serious investigation of this object by some people. There are other papers out there, in fact ! See http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/ for example. I just hav'nt worked out how to write them in yet without my (probably obvious to you) fascination with this area creeping into the article. I have been involved in this debate since about 2002 so I am well versed in the history and issues and have, I think, something to offer to this article. DJ Barney 14:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I've just reworded it yet again. While the last edit made it clearer what the scientific consensus view at the time was (= natural), I think it may have put words into NASA's mouth. Anyway, I've reworded but made it clear that it was a minority of researchers that thought the analysis supported the alternative (= artifact) view. I think it reads better, but that might just be because I wrote it!  ;-) Cheers, --Plumbago 07:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm off WP for a week, so won't be able to reply to any comments. Sorry. --Plumbago 07:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left messages at talk page of all the editors that appear to have been edit-warring about this article. I'd like to resolve this through discussion, though the opinion of an outside party may be necessary to get consensus. How do regular editors of this article want to proceed?--Chaser - T 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you read this page? The problem has been under control for a few days. --Ronz 21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

I've just trimmed the "Cydonia in Popular Culture" section down to a single sentence and a reference. The sentence notes the frequent mention of the Face on Mars in popular culture, while the reference cites a few choice examples over a range of forms of popular culture (specifically films, TV, videogames and music). I've trimmed these examples to two per medium (there's only one film to my certain knowledge), and may have possibly not picked the best examples (though I'd like to think that most people would trim the Power Rangers wherever possible). I've supplied dates to the choices to make it clear that this isn't a completely flash-in-the-pan phenomenon (i.e. mentioned immediately after the Viking picture was published but never since). Anyway, I hope the result satisfies both pro- and con-trivia camps (or, more likely, is something that we can grudgingly agree on). Cheers, --Plumbago 10:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Great job! --Ronz 15:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh, and thanks also for sorting out the arXiv preprint in the main body. I'd grudgingly left that in the last time that I edited the article, but was having second thoughts about it given that it still wasn't published more than a year after its submission to arXiv. Well, that and it being rather speculative (to say the least!). Cheers, --Plumbago 17:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted link

I think that the link you've deleted >>> Why the "Face on Mars" wasn't made by Aliens >>> should be added again to the main article since it give good reasons against the popular myth of an alien-made sculpture (why other opinions' links and debates are allowed on the main page?) PS - sorry for my ghostNASA article about the alternative ("Direct"-like) ESAS rockets DEATH, but it's (simply) the reality of facts... :-) Gaetanomarano 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link because it added very little useful information that wasn't already covered by other links. We have guidelines on what constitutes a good external link, and on this occasion I didn't think the link that you tried to add was up to these (more generally, we have to be careful that WP doesn't turn into a link farm). There may be others there which aren't particularly good either, but that's no argument for including further weak links. On a style point, the link you added was simply badly written (grammar, spelling). Sorry. --Plumbago 16:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

1. if you delete my link, then you must delete the full article, since, until we will go on Mars and study the "face", EVERY single word written in the article (or in the articles linked) is just a matter of OPINION

2. since english is not my mother language, I'm aware it's not perfect, but, so far, thousands english and non-english peoples have read my website and blog (and 4000+ posts and comments on other space forums and blogs) and actually UNDERSTANDED them ...if you want only PERFECT english articles and links on Wikipedia, that sounds like a sort of USA/UK "intellectual dictatorship" since we would read ONLY american and england texts/point of views

3. since you (Wiki admin) are so fast and zealant to delete an innocent link (with some thought about the Face on Mars) in MINUTES, I really don't understand why you still leave (TEN+ months after it was published!!!) the "Direct Launcher" full article (and dozens texts and links about this concept in other articles) despite it's only a PRIVATE, PERSONAL, COMMERCIAL, NON-OFFICIAL, NON-NASA, ADVERTISING, UNEXISTING, "PHOTOSHOP & WORD" proposal (now DEAD, like all other alternative concepts, since NASA has assigned all contracts to develop the Ares-I "stick") ...WHEN you will delete the "Direct" article, texts and links??? ...why the same question (posted several times on many Wiki discussions' pages) have had no answer so far??? ...nor the "quick-as-my-links" "Direct" article deletion?) Gaetanomarano 16:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that my last response didn't answer you fully. I'll try again.

Firstly, there are a large number of webpages that discuss/mention the Face On Mars. As per the guidelines we should be aiming to include those which are the most informative and reliable. The link that you added (which you wrote yourself, I might add) appears to be a blog or something similar. It also contains a number of statements which are either unsourced or ambiguous ("the face of our forefathers was VERY different", which forefathers specifically?; "the mountain has THIS face-shape from BILLIONS years", is this age correct/verified?). As for whether the Face On Mars is actually a face, well, I think that's already covered in the article, without getting into the "we must go there to be sure" debate.

Secondly, my apologies if I sounded rude about your English. I well-appreciate that English is not the first language of most people. All I meant by this was that it was difficult to understand parts of the link's text, which doesn't help establish that it is informative or reliable.

I'm afraid that you've lost me on your final point above. What's the "Direct Launcher"? I'm sure it's obvious, but not to me I'm afraid. If there are links out there you think should be removed, just be bold and remove them. As I said earlier, it's important to stop WP becoming a link farm. Incidentally, I'm not a Wiki Admin. --Plumbago 17:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't waste your time trying to explain him why his link was removed (right decision off course). This guy is promoting his eye-hurting website all around the web, trying to sell ad slots and his "veryeasyeuro" domain. He is accusing DIRECT project everywhere, everything is DIRECT's fault, well it's a plot and the DIRECT guys are dressed in black I guess ... --192.54.144.229 09:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks 192.54.144.229 for clarifying the whole Direct Launcher thing for me. I'd have never found that particular tangent. Cheers, --Plumbago 10:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Now this guy is attacking Google (check his entries), quite funny. --Scorpene 14:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith please. No evidence is provided to prove that this an ad scam. Plumbago is doing the right thing and is trying to explain it all very well DJ Barney (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

REASONS FOR WANTING A "FACE" ON MARS

The supposed face found on Mars was nothing other than a publicity stunt to revive public interrest in a program that has very, very...little to offer to the average person out there. Thus, by "enhancing" the images from 1988, NASA community has managed to stirr the masses in such a way, call it a comspiracy that needs to be INVESTIGATED, and resolved once and for all. Thus NASA conveniantly managed to conn us all in order to pay for yet another multi-billion boondoggel pet project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.90.28 (talk • contribs)

Whatever you're smoking, save a few grams for everyone else. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith please. This is not the place for personal attacks. Thankyou. DJ Barney (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Discovery" section

I don't understand why details of the "discovery" of the non-existing face deserve any attention at all, let alone the amount just added. If we cannot verify this with a reliable and independent source demonstrating it's importance, I think it should be removed per WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. I've edited it into the main text and added source tags where appropriate. Amongst other things, the new text contradicts itself by naming two engineers as the "discoverers" but then going on to add that the Chief Scientist dismissed the Face when the images were originally acquired. That, to me, suggests that he discovered it (though presumably someone else drew it to his attention), but discounted it at the time as a coincidentally-lit mountain. Additionally, while the history of the original Viking images probably merits some description, since those images have comprehensively been trumped by more recent and higher resolution images, the article probably dwells a bit too much on them. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There should be two pages. One about the region and one about the argument. DJ Barney (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please debunk this

UFOTV: Life On MARS-New Scientific Evidence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u-20g7Bwdw

• "The natural origin hypotheis is disproved at odds of 1000 billion billion to one."
• "The artificiality of Cydonia is established beyond a reasonable doubt."

--Heckubus4 (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There should be separate page about the Cydonia argument. WP cannot debunk or prove an argument, only define the issues. DJ Barney (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

the name Cydonia?

The article should mention where the name came from. That's the only reason I looked at this >_> --Snaxe/fow (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

DJ Barney has modified the article to draw a connection between Cydonia and the Greek goddess Cydonia, also known as Athena. However, there's another connection via the naming of the classical albedo features of Mars. This suggests instead that the name stems from a poetic name for Crete, which in turn references the ancient city-state of Kydonia. I'm unable to find anything definitive on the web that doesn't appear to derive from Wikipedia. Does anyone have any other ideas? Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Plumbago ! :) To be clear, I put the link in because it's purely just an obvious link to another article. It does have some resonances for me, but I hope I have managed just to put in the link impartially. As you say, the reasons for the naming of this region remain unclear. I suppose the link could be moved to a paragraph something like "The Greek Goddess Athena is also known as Cydonia, although the exact reasons for the naming of this region remain unclear.", but would be unnecessary in my opinion. A link is a link ... if the name is the same then it is. Does it have to prove or disprove anything ? DJ Barney (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi DJ Barney. Thanks for your reply. I suppose that my point was just that the article may not link to the correct derivation of the name. According to the classical albedo features article the name stems from Crete and Kydonia rather than Athena (whose article doesn't reference Mars). But I can't find anything independent (and web-accessible) to prop this theory up - although other albedo features seem mostly to be named after places too. Anyway, I'll maybe try to resolve this again later. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Face on Mars?

"There's a face on Mars Looking upward at the stars . . ."

When you first heard about the "face on Mars" or saw the photo, I bet you knew perfectly well NASA would later furnish more photos from different angles to prove there was no face on Mars at all. Am I right? Of course I'm right.

But you also knew that IF (just for the sake of argument) there really was a face on Mars put there by intelligent beings, NASA would just as surely have come forth with similar photos to prove it was no such thing. Except in that case the photos would be faked. There's no way NASA would share such knowledge with little old you and me; they wouldn't want us to know. So my disbelief in the "face on Mars" does not derive from NASA's subsequent photos. Instead, it derives from my deep seated prejudice against the idea that there is intelligent life on Mars, a prejudice that derives from my exposure to scientific thinking.

Actually, the Galle happy face looks a lot more artificial to me--two dots and a semicircular mouth! Galle is actually easier to credit as an artificial structure than Cydonia is! Tom129.93.65.103 (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If it were discovered that there was a face on Mars placed there by intelligent beings, NASA would be thrilled beyond imagination to publish this. Funding problems for NASA would be a thing of the past.--RLent (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Why would someone assume NASA would perform a cover-up? 24.21.10.30 (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention "NASA" is not one person but thousands....how would you keep them all quiet?! This is the problem with conspiracy theories- someone always talks. --Alcareru (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Cydonia Mars Face Warriors

Hi. Just a quick one. What I have noticed is that anyone who wants to change something in the Mars Face article is immediately reverted to the previous, "correct" version of the article. Sadly, seems like this article is managed by one, maybe two main contributors (namely Plumbago) who do not allow ANY changes to the article unless approved by themselves. This situation results in the situation, where we have one Policeman who defends his point of view in the article, mainly defending himself by using words like "pseudoscience". In fact, it is NASA who did not perform any scientific research about this subject and who claims that Face is a natural hill because "it looks like a hill".

What needs to be understood is that the subject still remains open, and anything that is said about this strange feature is a speculation. In the article, it says that "today it is generally accepted to be an optical illusion" (the Face). This is questionable, because I know of many scientists who think opposite. So in fact it is not "generally accepted" but it is "thought by some" to be an optical illusion (some + Plumbago). The fact is that the face has always been considered as "trick of light and shadow" and NASA was very eager to dismiss it's potential (to the point where NASA has LIED about the existence of another photo of he Face where in fact it never existed).

So, to summarise my point, please be more objective to the subject and allow a little window for the "opposition" here and don't treat this article as your own by not allowing ANY constructive changes to it. By changing a sentence "today it is generally accepted to be an optical illusion" to something along the lines of "it is considered by some to be an illusion" makes it more clear to the people who are not familiar with the subject thus allowing them to understand, that it was not proven (the Face) to be an illusion (quite opposite, as various experiments show). Also comparing the Face to the "similiar" features on Earth is misleading - even if the Face is natural, it still remains on another world where everything we know is much different than here on Earth. The face is very original, there is nothing like it in the whole solar system (forgetting about almost exactly the same feature from Iran, which was proven to be artificial man-made structure [3]) and it should not be dismissed because NASA says so. That's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.82.194 (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The article should allow a newcomer to understand what the argument is about. In fact there should be two pages. One about the region, and one about the argument ? DJ Barney (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There are specific Wikipedia policies and guidelines that apply here, especially WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. If an editor cannot follow these, that editor will more than likely become extremely frustrated trying to edit the article in violation of these policies, especially when those edits are unreferenced and appear to be just personal opinion. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Seconding Ronz. The changes that are being "censored" simply do not conform to policies such as WP:UNDUE (I note that WP:FRINGE even uses the Face on Mars to illustrate the page!). And it's not as if fringe viewpoints are excluded from this article: there is a paragraph in the main body, a number of appropriate citations in the references section, and a whole subsection of the external links devoted to them. But the bottom line is that the consensus expert view is that the Martian hill that looks just like a hill is precisely that: a hill. That old, low resolution pictures make it look like a Face is surely secondary now that pictures unambiguously show it as a crumbly mountain. And as for weakening the consensus view by describing it as that of "some scientists", well, that's simply inaccurate. Were even a modest minority of scientists convinced that there was a Face on Mars then science journals would be full of news items and papers on it. It would truly be a miraculous discovery, and scientists eager to stake a claim and advance their careers would be all over it like a rash. Sadly, this is not the case, and the article needs to reflect the fact that expert opinion only sees a hill, and that only a handful of people disagree. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I mean Plumbago and rest of the censors... I haven't seen you asking the public if you can change the look and text of this article ? What you do instead is that you change it and don't even ask anyone if that's ok with them... Besides, many "crumbling mountains" on earth appeared to be human - made, so I would suggest you did not follow that trend of pseudoscience , as you seem to love to bring up every time someone has something else to say, but accept there are other views on this subject. Untill there is an archeological mission sent to Cydonia, the fact that, in your opinion, The Face looks like a mountain is not going to changge very important thing: can anyone prove it? You cant (nor in fact ANy of your fellow God-Like scientists of NASA) prove it is natural, we can't prove it is artificial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.82.194 (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi again 193.203.82.194. I think that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. For obvious reasons, I would argue that copyediting the article for style and appearance is rather different from editing it to favourably include material of a fringe nature. As Ronz and I have already pointed out, efforts to do the latter conflict with policies on neutrality, undue emphasis and fringe viewpoints. While in the fullness of time it may transpire that the scientific community is completely wrong about the artificiality of the Face, it is important that the emphasis of this article reflects the current majority viewpoint. What a possible future archaeological dig at the Face turns up is simply idle speculation at this point. Finally, as I keep banging on about, the article already includes a quantity of material about fringe interpretations of the Face, and any visiting reader can follow this up by clicking on the listed external links. Exactly how this constitutes censorship I've no idea. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The updated Nasa pics of the face are one version. In the link from youtube here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiIHVPvg5Oc&feature, other versions of the pictures are given. Wouldn't it betetr suit being impartial to have both these pictures on the page, one showing it is not a face, one showing that it is?Halbared (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow your point. There are five versions of the "Face" shown in the current article: three are 1970s images, two are more recent images. There is duplication, but this serves to put the old and new images side by side, and to place the "Face" in its wider geographical context. Regarding impartiality, a neutral point of view does not simply mean "equal time"; see the extra guidance on pseudoscience and fringe theories. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"......that pictures unambiguously show it as a crumbly mountain......". The Nazca Lines are just a bunch of rocks up close. A TV screen is just random pixels up close. Anything by Georges Seurat is just a bunch of coloured junk up close. All are different when viewed from the perspective they were intended to be viewed from. Maybe this is also true of 'The Face' ? Also, IF it were of intelligent origin, then who knows what it might have looked like before thousands/millions of years of Martian weathering ? Unfortunately, any published article that doesn't conform to the 'majority consensus' is either immediately deleted or mocked on Wikipedia as pseudo-science, or decried as the ravings of fringe lunatics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.25.180.26 (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Astronaut magazine

Editor 79.177.140.189 recently added the following text to the article ...

The images were first published to little public fanfare by Howard Smukler in the cult magazine Ancient Astronauts.

While the "first published" portion isn't entirely accurate (NASA published the images shortly after it acquired them; see the cited press statement), the reference to Ancient Astronauts is very useful. However, given that 30 years have passed, the magazine is difficult to find information about. I have managed to track this source down, but it's only a fleeting mention in another book. Anyway, if someone could provide any more information, that'd be great.

In the meantime, I've amended the added text to remove the "first published" portion (and the potentially POV "little public fanfare") and to put the information in a bit more context ...

The occurrence of an object on Mars with a seemingly human face caught the attention of individuals and organisations interested in extraterrestrial intelligence and visitations to Earth, and the images were published in 1977 in Ancient Astronauts magazine.

Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To: Plumbago: I'm new to Wikipedia so apologies if I am doing this wrong. I was the editor of Ancient Astronauts (Howard Smukler) and got the first batch of pictures directly from the NASA press liaison. I immediately dropped them into an article of Ancient Astronauts that was literally shipping out the door that day. I also sent copies to all the New York media and my contacts at the National Enquirer and Star, then I made follow-up calls. I was convinced this was picture was really HOT. Nobody responded to either the picture or my calls. The magazine was on the stands within a month, I believe we had a circulation of about 250,000 which at that time was the largest for any similar magazine. I never saw the Face on Mars in any other publication until about 1980 when the more detailed analysis started coming out. When I met Hoagland some years later he acknowledged that he had seen my initial articles and I was happy to I gave him copies for his research. Not only would I like to have my name cited in the Wikipedia article, I do think it is important to note that the initial publication of the pictures was largely without public fanfare. In fact, I could not even get the National Inquirer/Star to pick up the story and as you know, they would print anything. Hope this clarifies the reasoning behind my edit. User: hsmukler 10:31PM August 12, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsmukler (talk • contribs) 19:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Ah-ha, now I understand. Sorry, I didn't realise that you were actually the Howard Smukler in question. I guess that the text could be edited to something like ...

The occurrence of an object on Mars with a seemingly human face caught the attention of individuals and organisations interested in extraterrestrial intelligence and visitations to Earth, and the images were published by Howard Smukler in Ancient Astronauts magazine.

It would be good to have a proper citation for the magazine if that's possible (i.e. issue number; date; author/title of article; etc.). I tried to find this online earlier today, but with little success. My remark about the NASA press release above was just because the source I found suggested Ancient Astronauts published the pictures the year after they were taken (though it's not really a good source). Regarding the bit about "very little fanfare", although you'd be in a good position to know, I'd be reluctant to add this without some sort of source for it (I'm not sure that Wikipedia permits "personal communication" for this). And given the occasional firefights in this article about emphasising the science view of the Face, I'm wary of putting such a statement in unsourced. Anyway, if you can help with a full reference for the original piece in Ancient Astronauts that'd be great.

Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 21:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

To: Plumbago: The article with editorial and pictures appeared in the January, 1977 issue of Ancient Astronauts, page 26, titled "Dramatic Photos of Mars: the Home of the Gods." The magazine would have been on the stands in early December, after I received about 200 photographs directly from NASA public relations department in about Sept, 1976. I don't recall seeing any other public publication of the "face" until the end of 1979 and remember being very disappointed that I could not convince my contacts at the National Enquirer or the Star that this picture was for real. I received about 100 letters to the editor in response to the article, but most of them thought the pyramids on Mars were the really significant discovery. While I agree with you that its difficult to judge the public's initial reaction, I am convinced that this picture was a "sleeper" and did not really catch fire for about 5 years. I appreciate your adding my name back to the entry. submitted by Howard Smukler, August 21, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsmukler (talk • contribs) 21:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Location?

Would it be possible for someone to create an image indicating exactly where this area is on the surface of Mars. There's some indication of latitude and longitude in the article, but a picture is worth a thousand words, right? ;) --SandChigger (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems a good idea. It might be worth asking over at Wikiproject Mars - one presumes that they've got some resources that could help with this. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 16:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

D&M Pyramid

Hi again. Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough - the references I removed don't point to pages that reference the D&M Pyramid, at least not by name. That's why I removed them (actually, I commented them out; they're still there). Anyway, maybe you were referring to a subpage from the links. Can you maybe point the references to there instead? Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Logos5557"

Hi. You're right in that two of the three references do not mention D&M pyramid by name. However, first one (the one currently being number 7) does so on the picture. The other two shows the images of the Cydonia taken by different spacecraft, without mentioning D&M pyramid by name. If they have to, as per some wikipedia rule, I don't have any objection to that--Logos5557 (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Size?

An article, rated B-Class, on features in cydonia should have included data about the sizes. Length, width, heigth? Aren't there such information provided by the sources cited in the article? Perhaps Google Mars may help with this.. Logos5557 (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I don't think I've spotted any such numbers before, but someone must know. Not least because we've pixel sizes quoted. I'll have a look. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 21:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Counting pixels, the Face is 2 km from crown to chin. I will add this to the article. HairyWombat (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work. I hadn't thought of doing that. I just poked around on the web for a bit trying to find a size. The worst bit is that I remember tidying up the wording around the pixel sizes without even thinking about using them to measure its size. Duh. --PLUMBAGO 17:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I first did this well over a decade ago using one of the Viking images. I repeated it a few days ago with a more recent Mars Orbiter Camera image to check my memory. The Face seems to have grown a little :-) HairyWombat (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Good work indeed, thanks for the efforts. But isn't it OR or synthesis to count/measure pixels in order to come up with a figure about the size. My first message above, getting help from Google Mars would also be OR/synthesis I guess. Instead, shouldn't we quote from a source which includes such information? Logos5557 (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is that - good call Logos5557. But given that it's simply summing up the number of pixels, it's the slightest of slight forms of WP:SYNTH. Ideally we'd use a source, but I did look unsuccessfully for one (which isn't to say that one doesn't exist, of course). That said, if this is to be done, we should be absolutely sure that we're using the correct data. For instance, metadata for image 35A72 can be found here, and there's a description of what its "high" resolution means here (20-75m per pixel; hardly definitive). So we might come unstuck both on WP:SYNTH grounds and on accuracy. Can you remember how you did the sums HairyWombat? If we can satisfy ourselves that they are accurate, my suggestion would be to include details of the calculation in the description of the image upon which we've made it. That way, interested readers can at least be aware of their WP:SYNTHy origins until we can find a proper source. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 21:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I must suggest that, in this case, WP:SYNTH is clearly trumped by Wikipedia:Use common sense. The image I used is in Wikipedia at File:Viking_moc_face_20m.gif. HairyWombat (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If synth is not a barrier, then the orientation of D&M pyramid may also be mentioned. In google mars, D&M pyramid seems as aligned north-south, just like the egyptian pyramids. HairyWombat's calculation seems correct to me, when it's low precision is considered. Google mars "ruler" had given me the same figure for D&M pyramid (though I guess it uses the same pixel-distance conversion technique). Logos5557 (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. While I'm sure we'd all still prefer a source for the size of the "Face", estimating its size by counting satellite pixels seems somewhat different from noting an approximate north-south axis of the "pyramid". The former is using WP:SYNTH (but in a common sense manner) to establish a basic fact of scale, i.e. that the "Face" is X km in size, while the latter is casting aspersions about non-natural origins, i.e. that the "pyramid" was aligned by space aliens. I can see why the former is desirable here, but the latter is only relevant to WP:FRINGE interests (so WP:UNDUE applies). Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 15:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. HairyWombat — are you sure about the scale of the image? The "20m" in the filename implies a scale, but is this supported by a source-able number elsewhere? The range I pulled from NASA (see above) was 20-75m for the Viking imagery — not ideal for estimating scale to say the least!

As I said above, I first did this over a decade ago using one of the Viking images. I would have used the correct scale for that particular image, and calculated a size of 2 km. When I repeated it a few days ago with the Mars Orbiter Camera image described above, I calculated 2.4 km. So I rounded this to the nearest kilometre. An image with a sourced scale would be better, and would allow a figure more accurate than to the nearest kilometre. HairyWombat (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference list ?

Tried to edit the reference list to repair a broken link, but i only get a link or something? Here is the correct link for the reference to the MOLA paper: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1998/1998GL900116.shtml maye (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1