I shall not be talking about the article Carlotto 1988, in particular but a general overview of the topic. The subject in question here is the controversy surrounding the image taken by the Viking martian orbiter in the 1970s in the Cydonia region on Mars(described here). The image is shown below in Figure 1 –
Figure 1 : Image taken by Viking showing the region where the ‘FACE’ is seen. Image Credit: NASA JPL
This 1988 article discusses the analysis of this image and his attempt to reconstruct the image in 3 dimensions. It does this using FOUR images where the ‘FACE’ can be seen. As can be seen in Figure 1, half of this structure is in a shadow and hence the author of the article – Mark Carlotto attempts to use image processing techniques to generate images of the face in varying degrees of illumination.
In 1997 in an article titled ‘Evidence in Support of the Hypothesis that Certain Objects on Mars are Artificial in Origin’ , he presents the following images with the presence of the ‘FACE’ , a pyramid and a city indicated.
Fig 2a and 2b: Mosaic of Viking images (Carlotto 1997)
Interestingly, the concept is taken a step further. This city on Mars, has not only a Pyramid and a trapzeoidal Fortress, but also a City Square! In the same article the author moves on to present evidences for the FACE being artificial. Since no human has ever walked on Mars, let alone inhabited or formed a city there, the suggestion of artificiality implies that it is Extra Terrestrial in origin and nature. Somewhat ironically the author talks about the human tendency to see humanoid structures and facial forms in nature. However for the FACE this is ruled out due to a number of reasons; among others, some of them are – the symmetry of the shape, the semblance of teeth and eyeballs.
He even performs a fractal analysis (discussed here) on the object. The fact that it does not seem to be a fractal object suggests that it is “least natural object” in that Viking frame. There is further talk about the orientation, geometry and supposed hollowness of the pyramid.
It gets better. He then performs Bayesian analysis to determine the probability given the evidence (the pictures) that the hypothesis of its artificial origin is correct. I think that this is a prime example of how statistical inference techniques can be misused or led to produce results at will if the theory behind them is not understood.
To conclude this discussion, here is a comparative image showing the original face and more recent snapshots.
Fig 3a : Viking in ’76, and then follow up by the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) in ’98 and ’01. 3b: Taken by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter showing the absence of teeth or eyeballs on this Martian terrain.
I think it is also worthy to note that this study by Carlotto was cited in 1988 as how though our eyes are great at finding patterns, they often get fooled into finding structure where this none.
Such kinds of ‘studies’ have contributed to the giggle factor associated with SETI, and the subsequent grandstanding by the venerable politicians at Capitol Hill (see here). I believe it is important to decouple such efforts from those being led in a scientific manner to find evidence of Intelligent life outside Earth, as it dilutes the importance of the search.