Fwd: UFOR: Geomorphology at Cydonia
Date:	98-04-13 13:58:22 EDT
From:	Dee777
To:	Phikent


-----------------
Forwarded Message: 
Subj:	 UFOR: Geomorphology at Cydonia
Date:	98-04-13 00:54:37 EDT
From:	stardust@psnw.com
To:	ufo-info@holman.net

Return-Path: d005734c@dc.seflin.org
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:27:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Francisco Lopez <d005734c@dc.seflin.org
Subject: UFOR: Geomorphology at Cydonia


     _________________________________________________________________
   
             GEOLOGIST QUESTIONS "DIFFERENTIAL EROSION" AT CYDONIA
     _________________________________________________________________
   
  GEOMORPHOLOGY AT CYDONIA
  
    By James L. Erjavec
    
      Copyright &copy; 1996 by James L. Erjavec
      
        (Notes and editing by Stanley V. McDaniel, author of The McDaniel
        Report)
        
   
     _________________________________________________________________
   
   
   
   ABOUT THE AUTHOR: James L. Erjavec has an M.S. in geology from The
   University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, and a B.S. in geology from The
   Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio. He is a geologist and
   Computer/Geographic Information System (GIS) Analyst with over 13
   years experience in those fields. A specialist in mapping and computer
   graphics, he has developed an extensive geomorphic feature map of the
   Cydonia region to assist in the establishment of a geologic baseline
   for continued studies.
   
   The paper presented below is a shortened form of a longer piece titled
   "A Geologic and Geomorphic Investigative Approach to some of the
   Enigmatic Cydonia Landforms." It is important to consider Erjavec's
   paper in relation to NASA's claim that the debated landforms at
   Cydonia have already been subjected to a thorough scientific study.
   From Erjavec's discussion it would appear that NASA geomorphologists
   who maintain that the debated Cydonian objects are simply a result of
   "differential erosion" have not had the last word on this subject and
   that there is much to learn. For further information regarding the
   longer version of this paper or the accompanying geologic map of the
   Cydonia area, write The McDaniel Report, 1055 W. College Ave. #273,
   Santa Rosa CA 95401.
     _________________________________________________________________
   
      NASA's Position Based on Differential Erosion
      
   Broad generalizations by NASA, which have been based in part on
   previous geologic studies of the Cydonia region of Mars, have been
   inadequate to definitively explain the origins of the varied surface
   features of Cydonia. During the development of a geomorphic feature
   map of the area of Cydonia bounded approximately by the 40N to 41.5N
   degree latitude lines and the 11W to 7W longitude lines (an area
   covered by Viking Frames 70A11, 70A12, 70A13, 70A14, 70A15, 35A72 and
   35A74), a preliminary study of the landforms has been conducted,
   including both anomalous and "ordinary" forms.
   
   The argument that NASA has evidently relied on to debate the anomalous
   nature of the morphologies of the Face and other enigmatic Cydonian
   landforms is based on the premise that the Martian northern lowland
   plains were at one time covered with a kilometer or more of "erodible
   sediment." The origin of the landforms has been attributed to a
   differential erosion process that removed an overlying cratered
   plateau material, leaving a knobby terrain that is a combination of
   exhumed remnants of cratered terrain, igneous intrusives or cratered
   plateau material (Guest, 1977).
   
   Inasmuch as popular scientific literature appears to have accepted
   this view without reservation, it is not uncommon to find references
   to Cydonian landforms that typically cite their origins as the
   exclusive result of wind erosion (Henbest, 1992) without considering
   the validity of the data and assumptions that support such claims.
   
      Differential Erosion not a Likely Cause
      
   But more recent evidence (McGill, 1989) has been provided that refutes
   claims that over a kilometer of sediment was eroded from the Martian
   northern lowland plains. McGill has used crater dimensional equations
   to conclude that only a slight to modest erosion of the northern
   lowland plains could have occurred since Noachian times and that at
   best, 200 meters of material may have been stripped off the plains.
   This is corroborated by Maxwell (1989) who shows that there is little
   correlation between the Martian landform dichotomy (northern lowland
   plains and southern cratered uplands) and the trends of scarps and
   ridges of the landforms.
   
   Cattermole (1992) states that because a series of closely related
   geologic events have affected the northern plains (McGill, 1987;
   Phillips, 1988; Frey and others, 1988; Wilhelms and Baldwin, 1989) and
   because there is a lack of evidence for where the 2 to 3 kilometers of
   eroded sediment has been transported, there is little probability that
   erosion was the driving mechanism for the lowering event. Instead he
   believes that the evidence suggests the lowering of the northern
   plains was a result of some (to-date) uncertain internal mechanisms.
   
   This study corroborates the findings of the above-mentioned authors on
   the basis of geomorphological and geological analysis of Cydonian
   landforms. To start with, the dimorphic distribution of impact craters
   between the knobby terrain and cratered plain in this area of Cydonia
   weakens support for an extensive pre-plain overburden. The knobby
   terrain contains several large impacts greater than 1 km in diameter,
   but relatively few craters below this threshold. The pediment surface,
   situated mostly eastward of the knobby terrain, has a similar
   distribution of large impacts ( 1 km), but contains a significantly
   greater number of smaller craters (< 1 km).
   
   On its most basic level, this dimorphism suggests there is a distinct
   geomorphic difference between the cratered and knobby terrains that
   cannot be accounted for if exhumation by erosive forces has been the
   primary factor in this area's morphological development. If one rules
   out random impacts alone as a means of origin for this dimorphism (and
   statistically there is no reason to attribute it to random cratering
   because age determination for Martian surfaces have been based on
   impact crater rates and densities (Carr, 1981, Tanaka, 1986), either
   different geologic/erosional processes have been at work in these two
   terrains or the two surfaces had origins in markedly different
   morphologies or more likely a combination of both have occurred.
   
   To verify the authenticity of this apparent cratering dimorphism,
   crater counts (<1 km) were performed for the knobby and cratered
   terrains with the following results: The average for the cratered
   plain: 8800 craters/100,000 sq. km The average for the knobby terrain:
   2000 craters/100,000 sq. km Ratio cratered/knobby: 4.4/1.
   
   Even factoring in craters that appear to have suspect impact origin
   (i.e. craters following distinct linear trends or fractures, crater
   morphologies signifying possible origin from liquefaction(?) or
   volcanic(?) processes, etc.) the following results have been obtained:
   Cratered plain: 9700 craters/100,000 sq. km. Knobby terrain: 4900
   craters/100,000 sq. km. Ratio: 2/1
   
   Since this study is still preliminary in nature, definitive
   conclusions as to the origin of this cratering ratio have not been
   drawn at this time, but the cratering bimodal distribution appears to
   cast doubt on claims that this area was subjected to a differential
   erosion of at least 1 kilometer of soft, overlying sediment and that
   the landform morphologies (knobs, hills, ridges, etc.) are primarily
   the result of that process.
   
   Using NASA's view one would have to accept that differential erosion
   selectively eliminated nearly all evidence of small impacts on the
   knobby terrain while leaving the cratered plain nearly untouched. A
   more likely answer (from the evidence at Cydonia) is that landform
   development was the result of a geologically interrelated set of
   processes of both constructive and destructive nature which provided
   the present character of the Cydonian surface.
   
   
   
      Cydonia Landforms Remain Enigmatic
      
   NASA's geological interpretation of Cydonia is even inadequate to
   explain the definitive "natural features." Furthermore despite NASA's
   approach, the particular Cydonian landforms in question have retained
   their anomalous character.
   
   
   
        The Face
        
   The Face has been argued to be nothing more than an optical illusion
   or a trick of shadows. Those arguments appear to be based more on
   conjecture than on substantive geomorphic or geologic evidence. Since
   the two images (Viking frames 35A72 and 70A13) containing the Face
   were taken under a 17 degree difference in solar lighting angle, the
   persistence of internal features in the Face precludes the latter
   possibility. Thus the questions remaining are the authenticity of the
   morphology of the Face and its possible origin.
   
   After considerable review of the Face and other Cydonia landforms, the
   conclusion can be drawn that the morphology of the Face is not a
   result of an optical illusion. To the contrary, under the variation in
   illumination angles between images 70A13 and 35A72, the features of
   the Face change little, indicating that the origins of the "eyes,"
   "mouth" and other features are likely the result of a variation in
   surface morphology rather than shadows cast by as of yet indeterminate
   protruding surfaces.
   
   A comparison of the Face in frames 70A13 and 35A72 to some nearby
   mesas also depicted in those frames corroborates the validity of the
   Face's morphology. Using one mesa approximately 13 km due east of the
   Face as an example, NASA's argument that the Face's morphology is an
   illusion is further contradicted. This mesa has a steep-walled ridge
   running lengthwise through its center and appears to contain a remnant
   impact crater (1 km diameter) in its northern half. Because of the low
   solar angle in 35A72 the shadows are heavy, obscuring some of the
   central features on the eastern slope of the landform. In 70A13, the
   greater solar angle allows for more of the shadowed eastern side in
   35A72 to be discerned.
   
   Though it is apparent that the two images of this mesa are slightly
   different due to shadowing effects, the general trends within the mesa
   are persistent. Not only does the definition of the sunward side of
   the mesa appear to change little between images 35A72 and 70A13, the
   definition of the ridge becomes more pronounced, revealing the
   ruggedness of its eastern slope.
   
   It is obvious that in viewing the images of this mesa, its general
   morphology is authentic despite slight definition changes between the
   images. Similar observations of the definition changes in the Face
   between those images indicates that the same logic can be applied.
   Thus to conclude that the morphology of the mesa is authentic (and it
   is difficult to dispute that) after inspection of the images, it
   follows that the morphology of the Face must be authentic as well. In
   fact, there are less visual changes in the morphology of the Face
   between images 35A72 and 70A13 than are noted in the mesa. Using
   NASA's arguments of light and shadow or optical illusion, one might be
   predisposed to conclude that the features of the mesa are more
   suspicious than those of the Face.
   
   An analysis of other landforms in this area supports the above
   conclusions, but could the morphology of the Face be the result of a
   random series of geologic events? Undoubtedly that is a possibility,
   but the landform's obvious humanoid characteristics and societal
   implications, in combination with other enigmatic landforms at
   Cydonia, requires that a more thorough geologic evaluation of Cydonia
   be pursued to acquire a resolution to this problem.
   
   
   
        The "Cliff"
        
   The "Cliff" is actually an elongate mesa 18 km NE of the Face,
   apparently overlaying an ejecta blanket of a 3 km impact crater. The
   Cliff contains a thin, almost linear central ridge running the length
   of it. NASA has relied on the Cliff's relation to the nearby impact
   crater in an attempt to explain its origins. Anonymous NASA evaluator
   "Mr Q" (see The McDaniel Report, page 109) has stated the adjacent
   crater to be a tuff ring or similar volcanic feature.
   
   This statement is erroneous on even the most basic level. Cursory
   observation of this crater immediately indicates its formation from
   impact. The impact is surrounded by rampart-style ejecta ("Yuty-type")
   and displays all of the features of a rampart crater, including
   characteristic overlapping sheets of ejecta with lobate margins,
   raised rims along the ejectamenta's outer edges and the extension of
   ejecta about two crater diameters away from the impact. Though it has
   been determined to date in this analysis of Cydonia that there is more
   geomorphic evidence suggesting (at least isolated) volcanic activity
   than recognized in previous studies, this crater is of unquestionable
   impact origin.
   
   Malin (see The McDaniel Report, pp. 109-110) indicates that the Cliff
   is a product of stratigraphic superposition and differential erosion.
   In this current study, the detailed analysis of the variety of
   geomorphic features in Cydonia does not support a primary reliance on
   differential erosion as a means of landform development. Evidence of
   differential erosion is present in Cydonia, but not to the degree that
   Malin suggests. Additionally, if the Cliff is a relic mesa derived
   from an extensive preexisting surface, there is no supporting evidence
   for that, either in the crater or on its ejectamenta.
   
   Also, no evidence has been found for the remnants of this preexisting
   surface in association with any of the other ejecta blankets of
   significant impact craters ( 1 km) in this area. To date, the "Cliff"
   appears to be an isolated event. Another argument might be that only
   this impact had any of the preexisting surface deposited on it, but
   without sediment deposition in the impact crater itself. Is such a
   restrictive solution geologically plausible or provable? And what
   questions would that pose for the feasibility of the depositional
   process?
   
   A third possibility is that the "Cliff" existed before the impact, but
   there is no evidence of the ejecta having overlain the Cliff, though
   the ejecta flow extends beyond the Cliff for at least a kilometer.
   There is also no evidence to imply that the Cliff is associated with
   the impact event itself. If the Cliff predated the impact, it would
   seem logical for some of the impact's ejecta to have overlain the
   Cliff or at least to have flowed around the base of the Cliff as is
   known to have occurred in other landforms/impact associations in
   Cydonia, but there is no evidence for that either.
   
   Since ejecta appears to resist erosion as shown by the numerous
   pedestal craters on Mars, if ejecta had been thrown on the Cliff,
   trace evidence of that event might be expected to be found. Again,
   nothing. Because of the general lack of evidence for any definitive
   explanation for the Cliff's origin and its timing in relation to that
   of the adjacent impact, the Cliff and associated cratering event
   remains enigmatic.
   
   Other evidence that undermines the Cliff's origin as a differential
   erosion product are the trends within the various groupings of small
   pedestal craters (< 1 km) that dot the cratered plain. These groupings
   suggest that this area was not buried with soft sediment to the degree
   that Malin claims. The alignments and groupings of pedestal craters
   moreover provides evidence of a preexisting topographical surface that
   was much thinner than that suggested by Malin.
   
   
   
        The Tholus
        
   The Tholus at Cydonia (name not to be confused with other "Tholus"
   names designating volcanic vents on Mars) is an isolated,
   semi-circular, mound-like landform that lies in the cratered plain
   (J-12). The mound ("tholus" means "mound") is of relatively low relief
   in relation to the knobby terrain to the west. It appears to contain a
   thin depression or groove that circles the landform at its base and
   spirals up toward the landform's peak in a clockwise fashion cutting
   through the mound.
   
   
   
   Another similar mound, Tholus-A, lies approximately 20 km to the south
   of the Tholus and is about one-third the size of the Tholus. It too
   contains a groove that spirals from its base to the peak, but the
   spiral is counterclockwise. The smooth gradation in elevation present
   in the Tholus is less evident in Tholus-A. The spiral almost appears
   to be the result of a low escarpment which winds up the feature.
   
   A third elliptical hill lying about 8 km of the Tholus sits on the
   edge of what appears to be a meandering scarp line that runs
   southwest/northeast. Though the general shape is similar to the Tholus
   and Tholus-A, this landform has a steeper gradient. A fourth
   low-relief mound (F,G-14) is located about 25 kilometers southeast of
   the Tholus in a line with the above mentioned landform. This mound
   appears to be eroded remnants of a larger landform and does not
   exhibit any of the symmetry of the Tholus.
   
   These features are surrounded by a number of small impact craters in
   various stages of degradation. Some are fresh, others eroded into
   pedestal craters and others eroded to remnants of their original form.
   The Tholus, and to a lesser degree Tholus-A, stand in stark contrast
   to the surrounding landforms. They display no evidence of volcanism,
   are not impact-related and are difficult to explain as remnants of
   larger non-distinct landforms because of their symmetrical shapes and
   uniform, low gradients. Their lack of ruggedness or mesa-like
   appearance makes both landforms enigmatic and problematic to other
   landforms in this area.
   
   
   
        Conclusion
        
   The above-discussed Cydonia landforms are but a few of the problematic
   landforms in this area. To lessen their possible significance by
   explaining them as erosional remnants of a preexisting surface,
   without supporting evidence, is clearly not a rigorous scientific
   approach. To the contrary, what exactly is needed are "more rigorous
   geologic evaluations" to determine the origins of these controversial
   landforms.
   
   This review has pointed out inconsistencies in previous geologic
   arguments and indicates, at the very least, that geologic
   generalizations are not an acceptable method to explain surface
   features in Cydonia, enigmatic or not. Such "ballpark" solutions add
   little to the resolution of the landforms under study. The Cydonia
   landforms may ultimately turn out to be no more than an odd assortment
   of enigmatic natural features, formed by random geologic processes,
   but they may as well turn out to have significant implications for
   humanity. An unbiased approach assumes neither, but strives for the
   truth.
   
   
   
        References
        
   Carr, M. H., 1981, The Surface of Mars. Yale University Press, New
   Haven. 247 p.
   
   Cattermole, P., 1992, Mars, The Story of the Red Planet. Chapman &
   Hall, London. 222 p.
   
   Erjavec, J. L., 1994, Cydonia Region: Geomorphic Feature Map
   (unpublished).
   
   Frey, H., Semeniuk, A. M., Semeniuk, J. A. and Torkarcik, S., 1988,
   Proc. Lunar Planetary Science Conference, 18, p. 679-699.
   
   Guest, J. E. and Butterworth, P. S., 1977, "Geological Observations in
   the Cydonia Region of Mars from Viking." Jour. Geophys. Res. 82, 28,
   p. 4111-4120.
   
   Henbest, N., 1992, The Planets. Penguin Group Ltd., London. 207 p.
   
   McDaniel, S. V., 1993, The McDaniel Report. North Atlantic Books,
   Berkeley, CA. 174 p.
   
   McGill, G. E., 1989, "The Martian crustal dichotomy."LPI Technical
   Report 89-04, p. 59-61.
   
   McGill, G. E., 1987, Proc. 18th Lunar Planetary Science Conference, p.
   620-621.
   
   Maxwell, T. E., 1989, "Structural Mapping Along the Cratered Terrain
   Boundary, Eastern Hemisphere of Mars." MEVTV workshop on early
   structural and volcanic evolution of Mars. LPI Tech. Report 89-04, p.
   54-55.
   
   Parker, J. P., Gorsline, D. S., Saunders, R. S., Pieri, D. C. and
   Schneeberger, D. M., 1993, "Coastal Geomorphologies of the Martian
   Northern Plains." Jour. Geophys. Res., 98, E6, p. 11061- 11078.
   
   Phillips, R. J., 1988, 'The Geophysical Signal of Martian Global
   Dichotomy" Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, 69, p. 389.
   
   Tanaka, K. L., 1986, "The Stratigraphy of Mars." Proc. 17th Lunar
   Planetary Science Conference, Jour. Geophys. Res., 91, E139-158.
   
   Wilhelms, D. E. and Baldwin, R. B., 1989, "The Relevance of Knobby
   Terrain to the Martian Dichotomy." LPI Technical Report 89-04.