Eric W Crew, BSc, FIEE, FRAS
Several objects about the size of small mountains on the surface of Mars are arranged in positions such that they form an astronomical scale model representing the Sun and the planets Mars, Earth and Venus in an area about 30km square, shown on NASA Viking photograph 70A13. Another more remote structure, shown on NASA Viking photograph 561A26, is of the size and position to represent Jupiter on this scale model. Note: Viking image reference 561A26 is not correct it should be 072A10
The distances on the Mars surface between the objects representing Sun and planets are proportional to the actual astronomical distances of their solar orbits and the scale is a mathematical value, i.e. the orbital distances are 2pi x 1,000,000 times the corresponding distances measured on the surface of Mars. The surface distances can be measured accurately based on the Viking photographs, but the boundaries of the 'mountain' objects are not distinct enough for accurate measurements to be made. However, it seems that the scale of astronomical diameters is probably another mathematical value, i.e. 1,000pi times the surface value, as the calculated surface diameters based on this scale give a reasonably good fit to the features on the photograph. The scales involve values based on the digit 2, the universal mathematical ratio pi and powers of 10, which are applicable on all planets.
Another factor which clearly indicates that these objects are intended as an astronomical model is that the angles between lines joining the Sun object and the planetary objects are digital fractions of a revolution, as shown on the diagram. The diagram also shows a Y shaped object which is located at a mathematically significant location and indicates knowledge of advanced physics, as explained in the following notes.
I discovered this model (in 1992) by studying the NASA photograph enlarged to poster size, which enabled the astronomical aspect of the location of the objects to be very apparent. There are, of course, many more distinctive objects on the 70A13 photograph, but the idea that anyone, however bright, could choose a number of randomly sited objects such that they represent a scale model of part of the Solar System is just wild imagination. Even when there are thousands of objects, the chance of selecting a similar scale model with digital angles is infinitesimal even if large numerical tolerances are accepted. It is clear that the model has been designed and constructed to display astronomical and mathematical knowledge to any other intelligent beings viewing the surface of Mars from space.
The initial reason why I obtained the NASA photograph was because it showed the object which had a remarkable resemblance to a head, with the face staring out into space. Most astronomers assumed this was just a natural feature formed by erosion and they scoffed at the idea that it might possibly be an artifice, somewhat like terrestrial examples such as the sphinx in Egypt, but on a much larger scale and facing outwards. Professional scientists have often been wrong in the past and generally ignore evidence which does not fit in with the views they have been taught and have continued to teach. Amateur astronomers are applauded if they spend many nights at a telescope and discover a new comet or supernova, which if the observation is true can easily be confirmed by professionals. However, the work of an amateur or outsider with theoretical views considered unorthodox is usually ignored, even if he or she has recognised scientific qualifications. It certainly seemed to me that this 'face' could have been intended to show observers in space that a civilisation or civilised visitors had been on Mars, so I thought it was worthwhile to search for other evidence. If the 'face' was formed by natural processes, it was rather remarkable that the two eyes, the nose and the mouth were all in the 'right' places for a human type visage, not to mention the rather attractive headgear. To claim that this must have been formed by natural processes is like saying the Mona Lisa with her embryonic smile is merely an accidental result of some old canvas being exposed to the weather for a few centuries. If this celebrated painting is examined very closely with a magnifying glass, all one would see is brush strokes and unless the observer is able to step back and view it from a distance it would be a meaningless jumble.
As well as the 'face' there are many other objects on Viking photographs which look as if they have been designed and are described in what most scientists regard as fringe literature, no doubt associated in their minds with the spate of sci-fi books and sensational films about Martians and weird aliens.
The evidence of the model was to me quite conclusive: there has been intelligent activity on Mars and the evidence I described could easily be checked by any reasonably intelligent person with handbook of astronomy, a simple calculator, a ruler and a protractor. As a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, I first wrote and submitted a carefully prepared paper to the editor of the RAS Quarterly Journal, offering to visit their office or send a poster sized photograph so that referees could check my work. Instead of showing interest and excitement over this striking discovery, the editor eventually sent me a short report from an anonymous referee who stated he had "at last had time to look at Crew's paper" and it was not suitable for publication in the Journal. It was clear that this Simple Simon (presumably not Simple Sue) had made up his mind before reading my paper that there were no artifacts on Mars and he did not want to be bothered by studying the evidence, or was afraid of upsetting his superiors by doing so. I answered the objections and the brief editorial reply was just as unsatisfactory. After more time-wasting correspondence they refused to discuss the matter further. An account of the responses by professional scientists, authors and journalists should make interesting and amusing reading when the importance of this discovery is generally accepted.
Diagram of scale model of Solar System (part) on Mars
S represents the Sun and is a roughly circular mountain. The Sun is far too large for the object S to have been made on the same scale as the planets, but the size of this object is significant in relation to the location of object Y, as described in the following note on this feature.
M represents the planet Mars and is the notorious 'face'. The image is shown in greater detail on the later NASA Surveyor photographs and indicates that if it was intended as a face, then it has eroded and looks much more like a natural formation. However, other features revealed by these observations are of importance and the appearance as shown in the Viking photographs from a height of about 1000km shows that it still resembles a face to an incoming space traveller, probably to indicate an inhabited planet. The diagram also confirms that M is an artifact, as it is part of the scale model of the Sun and planets.
On the surface of Mars the distance MS is 36.1km. Multiplying this by the scale value (2pi x 1,000,000) gives 227 million km, which is within 1% of the average orbital distance of Mars (228 million km).
The mean radius of Mars is 3390km. Dividing this by the scale value (1,000pi) gives 1.08km. A circle of this radius drawn on the surface of Mars is a good fit on the rather hazy outline of M. It is not possible to be more precise, but it does support the scale of 1,000pi when combined with other measurements.
E represents the planet Earth. It is part of a rock outcrop and does have some resemblance to a face (indicating an inhabited planet) and the line of the nose is parallel to that of M. The object E shows more erosion than M, suggesting it was formed from softer material, as noted later.
The distance SE on the surface of Mars is 24.1km. Multiplying this by the scale value (2pi x 1,000,000) gives 151 million km, which is within 1% of the average orbital distance of Earth (150 million km).
The mean radius of Earth is 6371km. Dividing this by the scale value (1,000pi) gives 2.03km. A circle of this radius fits the M 'face' reasonably well and shows that the size of E in relation to M is similar to the relative size of Earth and Mars.
V represents the planet Venus. This is a mountain of conical shape and has a circular or spiral terrace at about the half way height. It does not have a 'face', perhaps indicating that Venus was known to be shrouded in white cloud.
The distance SV on the surface of Mars is 18.1km. Multiplying this by the scale value (2pi x 1,000,000) gives 114 million km, which is about 6% higher than the average orbital distance of Venus (108 million km). This may mean that the orbit of Venus has changed since the model was made. Venus is a very strange, hot planet, which may have suffered a serious cosmic collision causing an orbital change, retrograde motion and high surface temperatures in addition to other evidence of past surface disturbances. Not all astronomers accept the 'runaway greenhouse' theory for the high surface temperature, as discussed in papers published in scientific journals.
The mean radius of Venus is 6049km. Dividing this by the scale value (1,000pi) gives 1.93km. A circle of this radius is a good fit on the V object and also shows that the representation of Venus confirms that it was known to be slightly smaller than Earth.
J is a vast uncompleted segmental circular structure shown on NASA photograph 561A26 and apparently intended to represent the planet Jupiter at the same scales as the model described. The centre of J is far outside the boundary of the 70A13 photograph, and the measurements are based on a photocopy of several NASA photographs. The distance SJ on the surface of Mars is approx 125km. Multiplying this by the scale value (2pi x 1,000,000) gives 785 million km, which is within 1% of the average orbital distance (778 million km). The mean radius of Jupiter is 69,500km. Dividing this by the scale value (1,000pi) gives 22km, which is about the same as the radius of the circular structure J, 44km across.
Figure 2. Tracks of particles in a cloud chamber when cosmic ray splits an atom. From Atomic Physics by J M Valentine (The English Universities Press, 1960, p110)
One of the most remarkable features of this scale model is that the angles between lines from S to M, E, V and J are digital fractions of a revolution, as follows: Angle MSE = 45 degrees, i.e. 1/8 rev Angle ESV = 30 degrees, i.e. 1/12 rev Angle MSJ = 120 degrees, i.e 1/3 rev These values had obviously been selected to reveal and confirm the design aspect of this scale model and it led me to check for other significant structures at angles of 'mathematical' values. I noticed a peculiar Y shaped structure which seemed to be an unlikely natural 'geological' feature and I found that a line from the central junction of the Y to S makes an angle of 57 degrees to the MS line. This angle is clearly intended to be one radian, 1 rev / 2pi, or 57.3 degrees, so it must indicate something of significance. A close examination of the junction showed that there is a much smaller Y shaped indentation with a common junction. It reminded me of an illustration in a book (see figure 2) showing an example of the track of particles in a cloud chamber when an atom is struck by a cosmic ray. I concluded that the Y shape was intended to show that cosmic rays from the Sun are able to split atoms, indicating a knowledge of advanced physics to any future observer intelligent enough to see that this, and the scale model, had been designed for that purpose.
The diameter of the Sun is 1,392,000km and that of S on the model is about 2.8km, giving a ratio of nearly 500,000, which seems more than a mere coincidence. The distance from S to Y is 28km, which is 10 times the diameter of S. The boundary of S on the surface is not very distinct, but the factor 10 suggests that the value of 2.8km is probably accurate.
The convincing evidence for the intelligent activity on Mars leads to the question of when the artifacts were made, by whom and have they visited Earth or are still active? These topics have been discussed at length by a number of writers, good recent examples being Zecharia Sitchin and Alan Alford. Discoveries of the earlier warmer climate and ample water on Mars make it likely that an advanced civilisation on that unfortunate planet would have suffered from the deteriorating climatic conditions but using technical knowledge and engineering skills they would have retreated underground, much as the inhabitants of Earth are doing where surface traffic is increasingly congested and space is limited. The surface gravity on Mars is much less than on Earth, so it would have been easier to excavate huge caverns and tunnels, using artificial sources of power for light, heat and production of chemicals. If their civilisation existed for several centuries a system of tunnels could have been constructed as shelters and for transport of goods, using air locks at intervals to sustain living conditions. An immense amount of material would have been excavated and could have been dumped on the surface as huge mounds. Some of these appear to have been located to form an indication of the presence of intelligent beings and I make the scientific prediction that if the photographs of Mars taken by spacecraft are examined, many more 'dumps' of this nature will be seen. In the Solar System model, the Earth object was probably the first to have been made by carving part of an existing rock outcrop and the other objects were sited in the required positions and made from deposits of excavated material, possibly mixed as a form of cement or concrete. This would account for the greater erosion of the natural rock forming the Earth object. In the recent Surveyor photographs of the Mars object, the 'face' is located on what appears to be a raised platform of a geometrical shape with sloping sides, which suggests it is not a natural feature.
The claim about tunnels is reminiscent of the ideas long ago of the astronomer Percival Lowell, who spent many years observing Mars in ground based telescopes and claimed that there was a system of faint lines which he thought may represent canals or vegetation on the track of canals. The lines were sometimes single and sometimes double parallel or absent. Although he was an assiduous observer it has become a fixed idea of most astronomers that he was deluded, or had bad eyesight, since the lines are not seen in Viking photographs. There is another rational explanation which is based on scientific characteristics, examples of which can be seen on the Earth. If there is surface frost of ice or carbon dioxide on Mars, any small temperature difference would be revealed by a change of the surface appearance. A tunnel would alter the heat conductivity and would produce a faint line of melted frost in probably rare suitable circumstances. It is rather like terrestrial underground achaeological features being sometimes revealed in aerial photographs of fields. I have seen evidence of a buried duct below a concrete path by a line of melted frost and my paper on this was published in the Journal of Meteorology, pointing out that this phenomena could explain the lines observed by Lowell and other astronomers. The fixed idea of most professional astronomers that if there is or was any life on Mars it might possibly be only microscopic is a mental block preventing them from rational consideration of the evidence about large scale intelligent activity and Lowell's claim concerning the system of lines.
Comments on the accuracy or otherwise of these measurements and any other views would be appreciated, especially if from an interested publisher.
Eric W Crew, BSc, FIEE, FRAS, 26 St David's Drive, Broxbourne, Herts EN10 7LS, UK.
21 July 1998. Revised 17 July 2001.