There is no proof that these objects are either natural or artificial. On
the other hand, there is an abundance of evidence supporting artificiality.
The distinction between proof and evidence is often blurred with respect to
There are basically two hypotheses, the first having four corollaries:
Read about the merits of the four Artificial Origins corollaries by clicking above.
- The Artificial Origins Hypothesis
- Cydonia Hypothesis - Objects built by indigenous life having developed on Mars.
- Previous Lost Civilization Hypothesis - Objects built by previous technological civilization from Earth.
- Colonization Hypothesis - Objects built by visitors from outside our solar system.
- Exploding Planet Hypothesis - Mars was once a moon of a now destroyed planet, its remains in the asteroid belt. This planet, or another of its moons, was the home of the builders.
- The Null Hypothesis - All objects on Mars are of natural origins.
The Null Hypothesis "requires that some mechanism be proposed to account
for [the objects'] formation" (Torun 1988). The Null Hypothesis is a
prevailing assumption, not a scientific conclusion. NASA, or any research
organization that I know of, has provided no supportive evidence for the
Null Hypothesis. Apparently this assumption persists only because "it must
be" by default, the notion of artifacts on our neighboring planet too
profound to entertain seriously. The planetary science community, NASA
in particular, as well as many in the media, have generally failed to
recognize that the artificiality hypothesis is a testable, falsifiable
proposal and therefore falls within the "scientific arena"
It has been our experience that discussion as to the artificiality of these Martian features leads inexorably to questions as to their origins. These are indeed the ultimate and important questions, questions with profound implications: who made them? why? when? how? why of terrestrial creatures? why of humans?
Of course at this point in the analysis of these inegmaitic objects, no mechanism for origins can be made with any certainty. Indeed, theories attempting to explain the origins of these features in terms of artificiality require a paradigm shift and reassessment of conventional thought many find very difficult to make. It seems our findings upset certain well-ingrained theories, hence the strong reactions.
Skeptics will often make the mistake of asserting that since there is no acceptable theory as to the origins of these features then the evidence of the objects’ existence must therefore be in question. This is like telling a crime scene investigator that since the crime has not been solved then the evidence collected at the crime scene is of no value. The skeptic will have you believe that since the perpetrator of the crime has not yet been identified then no crime was committed. Of course, this is irrational. The process of discovery will hopefully lead to answering questions regarding origins, not the other way around. In any investigation, the fact that no mechanism for a phenomenon has been determined does not in any way negate or undermine the evidence for the existence of the phenomenon. In the case of Mars anomaly research, it seems the skeptic must forever be reminded that the discovery of the origins of these features is the end product of the investigation, not an initial condition by which the value of the evidence is to be measured. One can argue the improbability of the different artificial origins theories ad nauseam, but the enigmatic objects remain.
It is possible that the true origins of these Martian objects will never be revealed. Terrestrial objects such as the Great Sphinx, and places like Tiahuanaco, continue to be mysterious and enigmatic today, their origins constantly in question. Similarly, the Martian anomalies may produce more questions than they do answers, their true origins forever shrouded in mystery.