It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why haven't we sent anything to Cyndonia?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 09:23 PM
Why hasn't anyone sent anything like a rover over to the Cydonia region on Mars? The face could be natural, but theres no way the five sided pyramid is. So something had to have lived or visited there.

Is the government afraid of disturbing something over there? What do you all think.

posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 10:26 PM
THe main reson is because the region is very rocky in the sense of boulders and mountains. Safely landing something there would be VERY hard to do.

If you sent a rover it could just end up rolling down one of those "pyramid" mountains and smashing to bits.

Also you say the five sided pyramid couldn't be natural. Aside from the fact that a multiple flat surface mountain is indeed possible, look at other parts of nature for similar things. For example, quartz crystals for pyramids regularly.

Also, from the pictures I've seen the pyramid mountains look rather uneven for being made by an intelligent civilization.

In the end though, regardless of what is in cydonia, its just too risky to land things there.

posted on Jun, 28 2004 @ 10:39 PM
I'd just be happy with some repeated flybys and photos out the ying/yang. I have to admit that back in the old days (yeah, I'm that old) I thought Hoagland was onto something. Recent photos sort of put a damper on that if accurate. I'd still rather be absolutly sure though. Take some more photos!!!!

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 01:49 AM
I've posted this before, but this is why CYDONIA has been ignored for so long...

Attached is a short article (about 1500 words) regarding a controversy I do not believe has been given enough analysis. It regards the intriguing saga behind the selection of the landing site for the Viking 2 Lander. It is absolutely certain that Cydonia was imaged extensively before the first Viking Lander touched down on Mars. What follows is the genesis of the story of the discovery of Martian anomalies. It lays the groundwork for the intense cover-up we have seen regarding Cydonia, which continues up to this day.

(The Mission B-1 Landing Site Selection of the Viking 2 Lander)

From the research I have done, I understand that there were 8 separate groups which had input into the final decision of the landing site selection for the Viking 2 Lander. They were, in order of importance and input (with 1 being the most influential down to 8 being the least);

(1) Viking Project Office, Langley Virginia (headed by Jim Martin)
(2) Office of Space Science, NASA Headquarters (headed by John Naugle)
(3) Landing Site Steering Committee (aka Landing Site Selection (LSS) Committee)
(4) Science Steering Group
(5) Landing Site Working Group
(6) United States Geological Survey, Astrogeological Studies Branch, Flagstaff Arizona (headed by Hal Masursky, Senior Geologist)
(7) Martin Marietta Corporation (Denver Division)
(8) Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)

The Viking landing sites were selected from Mariner 9 images of the landing sites and earth-based data (radar-mapping). Data analysis experts that had previously worked on Apollo knew that NO pictures of a potential landing site meant immediate exclusion from consideration. As a result, Mariner 9 began its “extended mission” on 4 June 1972 to complete the mapping of Mars AND, on the recommendation of the Landing Site Working Group, to photograph ALL 35 potential landing sites for the Viking Landers. 1 potential landing site was CYDONIA, according to NASA’s own public records.
By July 15 1972 Mariner 9 had taken 3 narrow-angle high-resolution Camera B frames and 1 wide-angle Camera A frame of Cydonia (which was designated number 16 of 35 potential landing sites, and located at 44.3 degrees N, 10 degrees). The B-frame images obtained covered the entire potential landing ellipse, had a resolution of 60 metres and covered an area 16.4 x 20.8 kilometres. The A-frame image had a resolution of 800 metres and covered an area 164 x 108 kilometres.
By 28 September 1972 all the potential landing sites for the Viking Landers had been examined IN DETAIL by the Landing Site Working Group. Ten potential landing sites were selected. Cydonia was not one of these sites.
In October 1972 Hal Masursky and William Baum of the Planetary Research Center at Lowell Observatory recommended changes in the 10 selected potential landing sites. By December 1972 Mariner 9 had imaged all of Mars and mapped the entire planet. The biologists wanted to find water, so Cydonia became a target once more, primarily due to the belief that fossilised water could be found there. It was theorised that if the pressure was 7.8 millibars or higher, and if the temperature rose above freezing point, then liquid water would be found at Cydonia.
In February 1973 the Landing Site Steering Committee met at Langley, Virginia. Carl Sagan was there and believed that the landing sites should be selected based on radar imaging (which showed irregularities on the 10-cm scale) rather than photographic images. Hal Masursky considered Cydonia to be the optimal landing site for Viking 2, due to its low smooth plains and because, according to the available data, there was a great chance of finding atmospheric water at the site.

In a Memo dated 20 February 1973 John Naugle reported to NASA Administrator James Fletcher about the “presence of water issue” that:

“It appears that the regions most recently studied by the Viking Landing Site Working Group may not be good sites from the point of view of availability of liquid water because of low temperatures, even though large amounts of water ice are known to exist.”

(Remember that NASA denied water ice existed for over two decades!)

On 22 February 1973 James Fletcher returned the Memo to John Naugle with a handwritten message in the margin that said:

“John N-
I have two questions.
(1) Does Lederberg (& his committee) agree that the chances of life are best at 73degrees?
(2) Does liquid water have to exist now or could it have existed once, for life “signatures” to be detected?
From my own point of view, the main reason to consider polar landings was to increase the probability of finding life, not to study vastly different geological regions.


On 2 April 1973 the Landing Site Working Group recommended potential landing sites 16 and 17 as the Mission B (Viking 2 Lander) landing sites. The Science Steering Group MADE THE DECISION that potential landing site number 16 (44.3 degrees N, 10 degrees) as the Mission B-1 primary site and potential landing site number 17 (44.2 degrees N, 110 degrees) as the Mission B-2 backup site. The Viking landing site destinations were announced to the public on 7 May 1973.
Hal Masursky asked David Scott to make a special hazard map for the B-1 site from the available Mariner 9 photographs of the Cydonia region. After sighting this map, Masursky become nervous. He directed that pictures of the B-1 site be taken on periapsis 9 (orbit number 9).
On 28 June 1976 The Viking 1 Orbiter’s cameras took their first photos of the Viking 2 Lander’s B-1 primary landing site at Cydonia from a height of 2050 kilometres above the Martian surface. Two photographs taken on 28 June 1976 were released to the public (the first was taken at 43degrees N latitude, 7.6degrees longitude, the second was taken at 42.4 degrees N latitude, 7.3 degrees longitude). On 25 July 1976 Jim Martin told the press and public that the Viking 1 Orbiter’s mission objectives had changed and that:

“We’re going into an orbit which will allow us to spend some time observing three possible north latitudes. Two of them are known as B-1 and B-2. …We’ve spent a fair amount of energy looking for landing sites in B-1; so far we haven’t seen anything I would like to put an ellipse in.”

At the 27 July 1976 Landing Site Working Group meeting Hal Masursky said that he had found a number of suitable landing spots at the B-1 site.
On 17 August 1976 the Landing Site Steering Committee (which was made up of a group of “independent scientists” whose job was to advise Jim Martin) met and secretly decided to drop Cydonia as the primary landing site for the Viking 2 Lander. At this closed meeting 6 new sets of pictures taken of Cydonia were produced and shown to the Committee. The Landing Site Working Group would never see these photos. Later that day, at the 42nd meeting of the Landing Site Working Group, Hal Masursky was informed of this decision. Hal Masursky screamed in protest that Jim Martin and the Landing Site Steering Committee had not:

“…even looked at the rest of the pictures in the B-2 area.”

After storming out of the 42nd meeting which lasted a mere 15 minutes (the 41 previous meetings had each lasted for many hours), Hal Masursky was confused and upset. Asked about the decision made in the lightning meeting, Hal Masursky answered like a shell-shocked war veteran:

“We had committed the project to landing at B-3 where we had zero data.”

A new landing site had been selected for the Viking 2 Lander. It was designated B-3 and was situated at Utopia Plantia (47.9degrees N, 225.9degrees). At the time of the meeting, the few pictures available of the B-3 landing site were terrible. They were Mariner 9 images (A frames) obtained in low resolution. Hal Masursky was TOLD by one of the members of the Landing Site Steering Committee before the 21 August 1976 meeting of the Landing Site Working Group that:

“Viking 2 Lander must land somewhere at B-3. Period.”

A special meeting of the Landing Site Steering Committee was held on 22 August 1976 and Hal Masursky was asked to attend. Amongst those present at this meeting were Jim Martin, Carl Sagan, Hugh Keiffer, Tom Young, Gentry Lee and a number of unidentified participants. Photos of the various landing site selections obtained from the Viking 2 Orbiter’s camera on periapsis 20 were shown. At the meeting Jim Martin was asked by Hal Masursky about the new landing site selection and how it was not as safe as the original Cydonia B-1 site:

“Do you call 155 foot high sand dunes a better landing area?”

To which Jim Martin replied:

“Well let me say that there was not unanimity in the selection of this landing site. My job is much easier when everybody gets up and says let’s go this direction. Well, here we had a case where people were wanting to go in a couple of different directions. I still believe that from my own knowledge of sand dunes, that we can land on essentially any sand dune in the United States. I think it is very intolerant to big rocks. So I would trade sand dunes for big rocks any day.”

On 30 August 1976 the final coordinates of Viking Lander 2’s landing site were chosen. It was to land at the eastern end of Utopia Planitia, at 47.89degrees N, 225.86degrees.
On 3 September 1976 the Viking 2 Lander touched down at approximately this location on the Martian surface.

Sebastian Wood
Independent Investigator

Postscript: I have plenty more to add to my article. Included are the events that transpired after the selection of the landing sites and the public announcement of them in 1973 and the first photos returned by the Viking 1 Orbiter. Many strange meetings were held. The Russians came into the “game” with their Mars orbiters and landers (which most people regarded as failures). In fact, Mars 4 was the first lander to achieve a soft-landing on Mars way back in 1973.

Postscript for Masursky (after the Viking 2 Landing)
Masursky also worked on polar axis shift measurements of Mars and seemed to have become obsessed with Cydonia, after it was scrapped as the Viking 2 Landing Site. He had “hidden” a diagram in his 1977 piece “Classification and Time of Formation of Martian channels based on Viking data”. The diagram related to future Mars/Earth Polar Axis shifts. This was his protest, his Cydonian “clue” to the scientific community. Now, I understand from reading Hoagland’s “Monuments Of Mars” that he was friends with Masursky, and that he first said there was water on Mars after sighting Mariner 9 images, and that subsequently he changed his tune. Hoagland is wrong on this key issue, Masursky always claimed that liquid water existed to this day on Mars. In fact, I understand that at a 1985 “SDI” (Star Wars) conference that Masursky was still pushing the Cydonia issue, even to the extent that Sagan collaborated with him to promote a joint US/Soviet manned mission to Mars to explore specifically, Cydonia.

I'd be more than happy to answer any questions anybody has, regarding my above research.

[edit on 29-6-2004 by Ixataar]

posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 04:12 AM
A friend who works at ESA assured me that Mars Express will be taking lots of pictures of Cydonia later in the year - it's not yet in the right orbital position, but it will be! Given that they're able to produce 3D pictures from the data sent back by Mars Express I'm sure there's going to be some interesting discussion when those from Cydonia arrive

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 01:29 AM
Posted by Essan;
"A friend who works at ESA assured me that Mars Express will be taking lots of pictures of Cydonia later in the year - it's not yet in the right orbital position, but it will be!"

Mate, I really wish this was TRUE.
Sadly, your friend is misinformed.
I GUARRANTEE YOU that Mars Express has passed over the Face on AT LEAST THREE OCCASIONS ALREADY!

There will be no pictures of CYDONIA (from Mars Express) released to the public. None. Zero. Ever.

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 03:42 PM
But rather the "Fort".

Most people are familiar with the Face on Mars... this 'wind eroded mesa' as proven by a Martian flyby a few years ago (snicker). Some of us are even familiar with the 'City' and the 'D&M Pyramid'... but how many have heard of the 'Fort'? Unless you've read Richard Hoagland's 'City on the Edge of Forever', it's doubtful.

Most, if not all, of Hoagland's artifical structures can, and are always, being explained away by some natural formation (snicker)... but no one mentions the Fort...

The Fort, if you look at the Cydonia complex, lies N/NE from the City, and it resembles an open triangle. A walled triangle, with the center also being triangular. You can tell by the photographs that the Fort IS walled... the entire center is in shadow. Along one wall is a pointy oval shape, running through its center (both the wall's and object's center). With the portion of the object that sticks out from the triangle, moving downward, are a series of windows or openings. Along another wall, on it's outside, is a crater, much akin to battle damage (which is why they labeled it the Fort). This structure sits along an ancient coastline, with the shore being clearly visible.

Now, okay... we have pocket sized cystals which can resemble the D&M Pyramid. We have wind erosion which can alter the appearences of stone structures (like the fact that the Egyptian Pyramids were once round... snicker). We even have cone shaped mountians surrounding smaller rounded mountians surrounding a domed hill in near perfect geometry (snicker)... but have we EVER experienced or witnessed a naturally forming triangular wall?

I haven't been able to find the picture of the Fort yet on Hoagland's site, but have seen it in his books. And I am still waiting to hear somebody explain that structure away.

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 04:05 PM
I would have used the edit function, but it seems everytime I do, it deletes my previos text... anyway...

as you can see, a very natural fomration... happens all the time!

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 05:21 PM

Originally posted by soothsayer
I would have used the edit function, but it seems everytime I do, it deletes my previos text... anyway...

as you can see, a very natural fomration... happens all the time!

Cool photo. But what are the other buildings next to it?

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 05:34 PM
There is nothing interesting in cydonia.That area was photographed few years ago but because information wasn't "shocking" it was avoided by all people who are looking for something like alien pyramids.On these photos we can see that the "dace" is only some little hills + shadows. There is nothing more..

And we should have really great imagination too see something more than only mountains.Look at these "pyramids":each of them is situated in different direction,there is nothing regular !!!!

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 07:14 PM
I think we probably have and we just don't know about it. A satellite launched into space to be a communication satellite around earth could be a cover story for a launch to another planet. Also how do we know that the 2 or 3 Mars missons that crashed actually did crash. Just because they told us they did, doesn't mean they did. If I had a say so in NASA and was of any importance my vote would be that area, I can't help but think that would be alot of other decision makers place to go too.

posted on Jul, 5 2004 @ 07:17 PM
This is my first post, so please forgive me if it all comes out wrong(usually the case).... Just curious as to approx. how old those pictures are? I know I've seen them a zillion times before. Where exactly is this "fort"? I've read it in fiction (Area-51 series), but never heard anything based in fact on it?

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 01:41 AM
Miscellaneous CYDONIA Links to Various Studies and Maps

“MARS 1M CYDONIA 40 10 R 1975 946”

“Geological observations in the Cydonia region of Mars from Viking”;

“Response to Geomorphology of Selected Massifs On the Plains of Cydonia, Mars”;

“Digital Imagery Analysis of Unusual Martian Surface Features”;

“Apron heights around stepped massifs in the Cydonia Mensae region: Do they record the local paleobathymetry of Oceanus Borealis?”;

“Mars Shoreline Tests: Contact between Cydonia and Acidalia Plantia”;

“Mars Shoreline Tests: Massifs in the Cydonia Region”;

[edit on 13-7-2004 by Ixataar]

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 10:46 AM
What the hell is fossilised water?

The biologists wanted to find water, so Cydonia became a target once more, primarily due to the belief that fossilised water could be found there.

As for the "fort" picture it looks like any bunch of random hills to me.

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 10:51 AM
Ok simply put the chances of there being anything there are slim. So its just not worth sending a multi-million dollar rover to a place with nothing else of interest. That and like somebody else said its to risky because its very rocky at cyndonia.

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 05:12 PM

Originally posted by mwm1331
As for the "fort" picture it looks like any bunch of random hills to me.

The Fort structure is that triangle towards the upper right of the picture. Clearly not a random rock pattern... not mocking, that's just what the "experts" say. As for the other structure in the picture...

In the photograph's center, you have what is commonly called the City... see the four mounds, forming a sqaure... and within the center of this square is a smaller mound.

Then, too, there was talk about the cone to the right of the City. You can see, in the other mountians, obvious distinctions in shading and formation... mountianous patterns. But this cone is round, with no break in the light/shade patterns, as is expected with a cone-like structure. I don't know too much about this cone.

Now, speculation to the Cone and City can be debated back and forth, and has, for many years... but I am still waiting to hear logical proof as to how the Fort was created naturally.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:46 AM
I love NASA, full of OFFICIAL Pics... ha ha

Here are a few links there: This image was taken by the Mars Global Surveyor's Mars Orbital Camera under cloudless conditions on 8 April 2001 and has a resolution of 1.56 meters per pixel. (MGS MOC Release No. MOC2-283, 24 May 2001

This is one of the best pics that I have seen of the area. At the beginning of its 239th orbit of Mars, the Global Surveyor's Mars Orbiter Camera obtained another image of the Cydonia. At 7:02 AM PDT on 14 April, the MGS spacecraft attempted to image an area, sometimes referred to as the "City," centered at 40.86° N, 9.91° W (USGS MDIM Coordinates)

Here are the Raw images of the region from 1998:

But, nothing recently seems to be found. Maybe there ARE rovers already there.....
We only know about two of them.....

[edit on 20-7-2004 by JCMinJapan]

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 11:12 AM
I know this is going to annoy a load of people but here we go. In my opinion the features seen in cydonia are natural. The problem is that the images are to low res, so don't pick out fine detail thus making these lanforms appear to look like unatural manmade features. One high res strip image I have seen over one of these pyramids features simply look like its shape has been carved by ice, i.e glaciers.

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 07:32 PM
Forget the face on Mars, what about these glass-like tubular structures in the Cydonia region. I think these are the biggest Mars mystery that I have seen. Here are some good photos:

posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 10:11 PM
They are interesting, but not really convincing images. One should keep in mind that our brains are sort of trained to see certain things that we expect. Im pretty sure a good little portion of our sight recognition is designed to scrutinize faces. We are used to cities 'looking' a certain way. It is part of the reason that people can 'see' shapes in clouds. I hope these sites are eventually explored, but im not holding my breath in expectation of finds. If we ever do encounter an alien civilization, we may find it doesn't reflect our expectations well at all.

Those lava tube things are really cool and do make one wonder. I have to think back to my dad taking me to the lava domes in Northern Nevada, they are these domes that look like cement of varying sizes and hollow on the inside. From 4 to 6 feet in diameter, you can walk up on them. Some are broken open and you can see they have a 6 to 8 inch thickness, they are like giant cement bubbles, except they are hemispherical instead of completely sphereical. They go on for miles. Very cool, but not evidence of aliens as far as i can see.

[edit on 20-7-2004 by slank]

new topics

top topics


log in