THE McDANIEL REPORT , DEL 2
Here the article based on the McDaniel Report continues.
The report analyses NASA’s and the, so called, indiependent researchers work and thesis regarding the calimed monuments on Mars. The report is a notible attack on NASA’s unscientific approach to the matter. This article is a short conclusion of the report.
NASA’s possible motives
1960 a report was delivered entitled Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs was delivered to the Chairman of NASA’s Committee of Long-Range Studies. The report was prepared under contract to NASA by the brookingsinstitution. The report outlines the need to investigate the possible social consequences of an extraterrestrial discovery and to consider whether such a discovery should be kept from the public in order to avoid political change and possible “devastating” effect on scientists themselves – due to the discovery that many of their own most cherished theories could be at risk.
To withhold information about a possible discovery an extraterrestrial civilizations conflicts with an understood NASA policy that says that if they should discover such atrifacts it should be shared with all humanity.
A report regarding the cultural consequences from the search of extraterristrial intelligence (SETI) has recently been finnished for publication by NASA Ames Research Center. In this report we can read that they strongly support NASA’ policy about not withold any information of such kind to humanity.
But NASA’s behaviour regarding the monuments on Mars can’t hardly be accused of going along with that policy. NASA has regularly delivered documents that consists of false or missguiding statements as a result of their own research regarding the monuments, to the congress and the public. The absence of legitimate scientific research of the landscape and shapes, NASA’s dismissal of relevant research, their appearant “over the edge” sceptisism about such pictures can be very difficult to regain once more. The peculiar confiscation of data under the cover of “private contracts” and the “muddy” language used by NASA-predecessors has built a picture of selfcomplacent. All this supports the conclusion that NASA actually has another policy than the previously presented.
When further questions has been asked by men of the constitution, like senators and others, NASA has delivered the answers that, in one way, is plausible to people not informed in the case, it can’t stand for a logical scan. Among the vary amount of missguiding statements there’s things that are connected to the policy and the release of the pictures from Mars Observer cameras. In the presence of the first trip to Mars in 20 years, and with a fast growing interest among the public to any eventual life on the planet NASA makes a radical turnaround when it comes to the questioin of how the photographic material will be treated. In opposition to all earlier mission where the photos were immediatly released as soon as they reached the earth and was changed into viewable pictures (which often went under the name “live television“). Instead there’s a private contractor that have exclusive access to all pictures as long as 6 months after they reached earth!
The same private contractor has been given exclusive rights, not only to chose which pictures that will be released and when, but also which object that will be of interest to the special high-resolution-camera! The contractor is a Dr. Michael Malin, who is a known debunker of the thesis of artificial monuments on Mars. It should also be noted that Dr. Malins argument against the thesis of these possible artificial monuments has been missguiding.
As the case has been handled the public interest is now in the hands of one person and his view on the matter!
The credibility gap that opens when NASA insists on that the Mars Observer data will be handled exactly as the data from earlier probes, despite the fact that the ways and access to the data has radically changed along with the responsability to the public , is to say at least – disturbing. It’s totally impossible, from a logical point of view, to go along with NASA’s statement “no changes in the previous policy has occured“.
In the light of the increasing demand from the public NASA has given a wink that they consider the Cydonia-area as among the interesting landshapes that is on the list of areas to be photographed with the high-resolution camera.
Obviously NASA is making an effort to ease peoples minds that the Cydonia-area will probably be photographed, if not for the geological aspect. The problem is that the Cydonia-area is a very large area and the high-resolution camera can only cover a small part of the area. Any particular priority on which part of the area that is the topic isn’t cleared. In the light of the new policy that the landshapes won’t be photographed despite all insurences on the opposite.
As there are an alarming need to do something about it, I have set up a list of issues to be demanded.
-If the Mars Observer is considered “lost”, NASA should produce a duplicate that can take photographs with instrument capable of handling the same high-resolution technique and with at least the same flexibility when it comes to aiming the camera to various targets.
-NASA, or any private contractor should sign a contract where the photographs of these shapes is given high priority and where all effort is being taken to reach that goal. The given reason to this should be that the landshapes can be of artifical origin.
-All photographic data from this “hot area” should be kept in the category “news-worthy” and shouldn’t be placed under the influence of any private contractor with the NASA. This includes raw-data before it’s eventually processed but after separation from any other data that has eventually been processed.
-The scientific value must be presented to the public regarding any calculated fly-by and that we should be prepared for that.
-Raw-data from this special area must be released to scientists and the public without delay.
-Video-recordings must be released to certain TV-stations who has previously shown their interest. NASA must be held responsable to any unnormal delay. No delay, except the time it takes to reform the data to visuable form must be accepted. NASA must account on which process that will be used and how long it will take.
-A panel of indiependent scientists taken from various fields, disciplines and amateurs, should meet to question NASA’s acting when it comes to the landshapes in question, and NASA’s concept of SETI-methodic when it comes to our solarsystem, our Moon and especially Mars.
Among the panels functions should be an indiependent, scientific valuation of the data that has surfaced from the so called indiependent researchers up til now and a briefing committee to guard NASA’s willingness to follow their recomendations. Suggested members of this committee are the indiependent researchers Vincent DiPietro, Dr Mark Carlotto and Richard C. Hoagland which will represent the three main aspects of the case.