mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== by Charles Ginenthal Immanuel Velikovsky's thesis concerning Mars requires that the topography of the planet and its satellites exhibit unique evidence of catastrophism. This paper will show that there is a good deal of such evidence and that the episodes of catastrophe were planet wide as well as extremely recent. In Worlds in Collision, Velikovsky writes- When Mars clashed with Venus, asteroids. meteorites and gases were torn from this trailing part [of Venus' tail] and began a semi-independent existence, some following the orbit of Mars, some other paths. These swarms of meteorites with their gaseous appendages were newborn comets; flying in bands and taking various shapes. they made an uncanny impression. Those which followed Mars closely looked like a troop following their leader. They also ran along different orbits, grew quickly from small to giant size. and terrorized the peoples of the earth.1 If Velikovsky's analysis of ancient man's observations of Mars and its "Maruts" is correct, then there should be evidence of this on Mars' two small satellites, on Mars and also on the Earth. Since the debris was preceding and also following Mars, generally moving along in the same direction, it is highly probable that some debris would have encountered both Martian satellites and left many craters as well as a series of grooves that run parallel to each other. It is well observed that both Deimos and Phobos are highly cratered bodies for their small size. Viking has discovered another mystery in the most unexpected place- on one of the two small Martian moons. Mariner 9's mapping of both Phobos. . .and Deimos....showed many craters and left the investigators with the impression that they were merely rocky chunks that bore the scars of meteorite impacts. There was a puzzling feature on Phobos that a few analysts noticed but without better data could say little about. At the limit of resolution were a few small crater pits that seemed to align in one or two chains. This was unusual because crater chains on the moon are traditionally explained as volcano pits- small eruption sites strung along fracture lines. Yet Phobos is apparently too small to generate heat and conventional volcanic activity. Viking's high resolution photos have revealed that the crater chains are real and part of an extensive system of parallel grooves a few hundred yards wide. There may be a tendency for the grooves to lie parallel to the direction of the satellite's orbital motion, although there appear to be several swarms with somewhat different orientations. Scientists are at a loss to explain them. The ones being discussed include: grooves left by much smaller satellite debris also orbiting Mars (though the grooves seem to follow contours of Phobos' surface too closely for this to be tenable); fractures radiating from an impact crater [such as the largest crater. Stickney]. or fractures created in the body of the Martian satellite when it was part of a hypothetical larger body that spawned both Martian moons.2 However. in Science News it is also suggested that the striations of Phobos were generated when this tiny moon passed through a cloud of debris.3 What is most interesting is that each of these analyses could apply and be in full conformity with Dr. Velikovsky's catastrophic theory of the events described in Worlds in Collision. What, then, of Deimos? William K. Hartman points out that, "the terrain on Deimos seems blanketed with boulders protruding here and there.."4 Many of these boulders are "house-sized blocks."5 Impact by house-sized blocks generally creates forces and velocities capable of imparting escape velocity to most of the ejected material. Michael H. Carr remarks that "The presence of [crater] ejecta [on Deimos and Phobos] is somewhat surprising, since the low gravity...must allow almost all the ejecta to escape into space..."6 Although Carr claims impacts could leave debris, the probability of this occurring appears small.7 Thus, not only is it improbable that the ejecta came from the impacts, but it seems extremely likely that Deimos was struck by bodies moving with it and Mars, rather than arriving from remote space. The small difference between the velocity of Deimos and that of the arriving debris permitted the fall of debris without producing impact craters. Thus, the fact that Deimos is blanketed by a great deal more debris than Phobos8 implies that their orbits were different with respect to Mars. Deimos' velocity permitted it to collect boulders and dust, while Phobos could only retain a much smaller amount of these kinds of debris. Though space scientists have offered competing "explanations" for these observations "none of these suggestions is well formulated, and the cause of the difference [between Phobos' and Deimos' surfaces] remains uncertain."9 Velikovsky's hypothesis, however, does fit this data. There is one final problem respecting Deimos and especially Phobos that supports Velikovsky's views on the circularization of planetary orbits. This evidence also supports electro-gravitic theory. Deimos and especially Phobos are considered to be captured bodies. (Statements that these satellites were captured by Mars will be found in all of the common literature.) Since Phobos circles Mars more rapidly than the planet rotates, it cannot have been born in such an orbit nor formed from ejection from the Martian surface. Therefore, the only method for the acquisition of Phobos by Mars is capture. But, based on conventional gravitational theory, Phobos should not be in its presently highly circular orbit; its orbit should be highly elliptical. If Phobos was struck horizontally, it is highly probable that Mars would exhibit an excess of grazing-incidence craters on its surface that are more elliptical than other highly cratered bodies such as the Moon or Mercury. In fact, Mars has approximately ten times as many grazing-incidence craters than are predicted for bombardment of heliocentric projectiles. In Scientific American is a discussion of the fact that about five percent of the Martian craters were found to be highly elliptical with butterfly-wing patterns of ejecta thrown perpendicular to the craters' long axes. This type of elliptical crater is produced by objects striking the planet at a grazing- incidence angle. The 76 such craters represent ten times the number expected from projectiles in heliocentric orbit. Like the grooves on Phobos, the scientists who conducted this study, P. E. Schultz and A. B. Lutz-Garihan, claim that the projectiles that made these elongated craters had to be in orbit around Mars.l0 This is exactly what the debris and Maruts would have been doing as they moved along with and orbited around Mars. Nevertheless, uniformitarian scientists would argue that the elliptical Martian craters are billions of years old and thus deny Velikovsky's hypothesis. We, however, will show that Mars' craters could not have ages of even millions of years or hundred of thousand of years, but are only a few thousand years old at most. And this will be based on uniformitarian calculations as well as experimental evidence. According to Velikovsky, Venus' near encounter with Mars ejected the smaller planet from its erstwhile orbit. As with the Earth, Venus discharged planetary thunderbolts to the Martian surface, while meteorites must have struck its surface also. Therefore, it is expected that some of this Martian debris was hurled into space and followed Mars during its journey to rendezvous later with the Earth. When Mars nearly collided with Earth, some of this Martian debris would have fallen onto the earth- and evidence for this appears to exist. In Science, an article titled "Martian Meteorites" claims that meteorites from that planet are apparently being found on the Earth. The headline states that "....eight SNC meteorites found on Earth are probably from Mars, most researchers now agree, but how they got off their home planet remains a question."12 The article continues: It seems too good to be true. After spending $25 billion to obtain rocks from the nearby moon, rocks from Mars are falling out of the sky to be picked up by anyone that happens by. 'We think [the existence of meteorites being derived from Mars is a very good hypothesis.' says geo-chemist Michael Drake of the University of Arizona, who was not that quick to warm lo the idea. 'It's probable but not proven; it's not likely to be incorrect. But short of going to Mars, no one will be absolutely convinced.' An increasing number of reputable researchers are convinced enough of the reality o~ the Martian meteorites to begin inferring the nature of Mars from them. even though there is a lingering problem- no one is quite sure how the meteorites got off Mars...Ann Vickery and Jay Melosh of the University of Arizona propose one way that it may have happened. The catch is that more needs to be known about rock transport. 12 There are several pieces of evidence that lead the researchers to conclude that the eight SNC meteorites are from Mars. The major problem is the ejection mechanism. The solution of this problem will lend additional support to Velikovsky's hypothesis respecting the Venus-Mars near collision. It was Velikovsky's view that Mars experienced a stupendous near collision with proto-planet Venus; therefore, Mars and Venus must have been affected by tremendous tidal forces. Additionally, because the interaction between the two planets was of a transitory nature, it is to be expected that one of the smaller planet's hemispheres would have been far more greatly subjected to these tidal influences than the other. Velikovsky maintained that cratering is not only an impact event but is, by and large, a volcanic one, caused by tidal interactions between large celestial bodies. The uniformitarian scientists vigorously maintain that Mars' craters are primarily ancient Impact events. They argue that the shapes of the craters that are observed can only be accounted for by impacts. They also maintain that shocked crystals of rock found in and around craters on the Moon could only have an impact origin. Nevertheless, there is observed evidence that shows that craters can be shaped by tidal forces and that shocked material can be generated by explosions bursting outward like eruptions of volcanoes. This evidence can be clearly seen on Io, the innermost Galilean satellite of Jupiter. Io is a body continually being subjected to enormous tidal stresses by Jupiter. Michael Zeilik describes Io's volcanoes thus: "Io's volcanoes have a different shape from those commonly found on the Earth, Venus and Mars, they resemble collapsed craters."13 (Emphasis added.) Billy P. Glass thus writes of Io's craters: "There appears to be a complete absence of impact craters at least down to 5-10 km in diameter...The surface is dominated by volcanic features.. .More than 100 caldera-like depressions up to 200 km in diameter have been observed. They are much larger than terrestrial calderas, but very few appear to be associated with significant volcanic constructs."14 This plainly shows that there is well-observed empirical evidence to support the conclusion that craters are of volcanic origin, induced by large tidal stresses. With regard to shocked material in and around craters, Io also demonstrates that volcanic explosions could easily generate this shocked material. According to Bradford Smith: Probably the most spectacular discovery of the Voyager mission has been the existence of active volcanoes on Io. erupting materials to heights of several hundred kilometers above the surface. The first discovery of an active volcanic eruption is described by Morabito et al ; it appeared as an enormous umbrella-shaped plume rising 270 km above th e bright limb. Since this discovery. additional volcanic plumes have bee n found; most have been seen several times. In the likely case that the trajectories are ballistic the altitudes measure on images taken in the clear filter. imply eruption velocities of several hundred meters- 1 km/sec.15 What is clearly implied is that powerful ballistic waves pass through Io and blast volcanic material upward in stupendous eruptions. Thus tremendously powerful shocks can be created by tidal forces on planetary bodies to produce shocked material. The difference between Io and Mars, of course, is the period during which these bodies were stressed. Mars would have felt tidal stresses over a short period; these, however, would have been sufficient to produce Mars' cratered terrain. The problem for uniformitarian scientists is how to explain the fact that Mars, like the Moon, is asymmetrically cratered. It is well known that "extensive photographic survey [of Mars] showed that the two Martian hemispheres have different topographic characteristics: the southern hemisphere is relatively flat, older and heavily cratered: the northern hemisphere is younger, with extensive lava flows, collapsed depressions and huge volcanoes.16 To this testimony we can add the interesting fact that "The boundary of the two regions is not parallel to the equator, but roughly follows a great circle inclined to it by about 50deg. "17 It is proposed again and again that geological processes affect the northern hemisphere but not the southern. What uniformitarian scientists ask be accepted is that some process acts exclusively on one hemisphere-the northern- dividing the planet into two distinctly different hemispheres. This extraordinarily unique geological process demands an explanation. One of the apparent geological processes that is held responsible for the craters in the northern hemisphere is volcanism, and it is well observed that lava plains cover much of that hemisphere. The major problem with this concept is that the northern hemisphere is some three to five kilometers lower than the southern. Volcanism is, geologically speaking, one of the constructional forces of geology in that it builds up continents by adding material over the surface. Lava building up on the surface raises the level of a planet's surface; it does not lower it. If, on the other hand, the northern hemisphere's craters were eroded away, that indeed would lower the surface and obliterate all the craters. But here uniformitarian scientists encounter another insurmountable problem: where did the three to five kilometers of eroded material go? Therefore, one can invoke some as yet unknown process that caused the core of the planet to develop in such a way that one hemisphere as a whole is naturally higher than the other. J. Guest et al., state that "Why the northern of the two 'geologic hemispheres' should have apparently been depressed several kilometers with respect to the other hemisphere is one of the greatest of the planet's mysteries."18 This unique planetary asymmetry is precisely what one would expect to find according to Dr. Velikovsky's thesis. In the short period of planetary encounter between Venus and Mars, tidal forces would have affected one Martian hemisphere much more than the other and should have left a distinctive dichotomy. The nature of this distinctive hemispheric dichotomy shows up in the southern hemisphere. Here tidal forces generated enormous volcanic activity which explosively erupted and poured huge volumes of lava over the surface that bubbled and burst again and again and sank to form craters in certain places, while the entire hemisphere was pulled and uplifted by gravitational force. Furthermore, the two hemispheres possess unique terrains at their interfaces, indicating that the cause that produced their differing terrains acted recently and has not been erased by time. "Along this interface the terrain is both varied and at places unique. Here are found 'fretted' terrain, 'chaotic' terrain, large 'channels', 'knobby' terrain."l9 Although uniformitarian scientists generally eschew planet-wide, catastrophist explanations of the hemispheric dichotomy, they do suggest this for the boundary between them. "In fretted, chaotic [i.e., fractured jumbles of rock] and knobby regions, the Martian surface has apparently undergone vigorous modification processes leading to the collapse of large areas, sometimes followed by erosional processes (e.g., landslides, wind, outflow of subsurface water) and volcanic flooding with fluid lavas. 20 (Emphasis added. ) If, as Velikovsky proposed, Mars was removed from its former stable orbit into a new one by contacts with Venus and the Earth, one would expect that its rotation was altered. In this case a sudden violent rotational change would leave linear markings running longitudinally on Mars. Velikovsky stated that Mars "is rather a dead planet...The canals appear to be the result of the play of geological forces that answered with rifts and cracks."21 Alan B. Binder and Donald W. McCarthy discuss "Mars: The Lineament System" in Science: The photographs from the Mariner 4. 6 and 7 probes were analyzed for linear features. such as polygonal crater walls, linear rills (elongated depressions), linear ridges, linear albedo boundaries and linear scarps. When these features are plotted, they demonstrate the existence of a well developed planet-wide system of lineaments. This system of fractures might be the consequences of changes in the planet's rotation, polar wandering or similar stresses.22 There is further evidence that Mars suffered an enormous celestial catastrophe. It is generally accepted by planetary scientists that Mars has not experienced plate tectonic motion. Michael N. Carr, an expert on Mars' geology, states: "Martian tectonism differs in a very important aspect from tectonism on the Earth. The Earth's crust is divided into a series of plates that are slowly moving with respect to one another and constantly rearranging the planet's geography. On Mars there is no sign of horizontal crustal motions."23 Therefore, on Mars the polar regions have always been the polar regions because plate tectonic motions have never permitted them to migrate. Nevertheless, in Science News it is reported that-Three spots on the surface of Mars. all of them within 15 of the equator. show signs of having been at the poles, according to Peter H. Schultz and A. B. Lutz-Ganhan of the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Huston...Viking spacecraft photos from orbit, he (Schultz) says. show the region to have carved valleys like those in the present polar caps, 'pedestal craters' whose shapes suggest that they formed in now vanished ice and signs of laminated terrain reminiscent of the present caps' familiar layering which could indicate cyclic climate changes. 24 What Schultz's and Lutz-Garihan's evidence also implies is that Mars may have rolled about on its axis or that its crust slid violently to establish a new equator. Hence we have either a super-rapid plate-crustal movement with a tipping of the planet or more probably some combination of both. (Shades of Peter Warlow's Tippe Top theory.) Needless to say, something powerful had to have occurred to move the polar regions near to the equatorial region, and it is difficult to imagine anything other than an external force achieving the observed results. Should the catastrophic character of these shifts be proven by further evidence, it is also highly probable that it will again be held that the events occurred countless eons in the past. All the evidence thus far is in accord with Velikovsky's hypothesis. In fact, at least one geologist has concluded that Mars has indeed experienced a Velikovskian episode in the distant past. Thus geologist Bill Beatty is reported to believe that Mars had an early dense atmosphere, storms, weather and warm conditions. According to Randolph Pozos, Beaty thinks "a Velikovskian type scenario such as a passing close encounter event [could have occurred] in the early days."25 By "early days," of course, he means billions of years ago. Some idea of the recentness of the catastrophe is represented by the Tarsis bulge. According to Donald Patten, the Tarsis bulge, 5000 km in diameter and 10 km high, was produced by a huge impact on the opposite side of Mars producing the huge Hellas basin-the largest known crater basin in the solar system.26 According to Carr, "No matter what its origin, the Tarsis region is clearly anomalous and various suggestions have been made for the primary cause."27 The fact of the matter is that Tarsis is too massive to remain at its present ten kilometer height above the surrounding region. The problem "puzzling to scientists is that Tarsis is, in effect, top-heavy-its bulk should not be sitting so high on the crust, but rather sink in (much as an iceberg submerges most of its volume beneath the ocean's surface)."28 This means that if Tarsis formed eons ago it should have sunk into the surface long ago. A very reasonable explanation for the fact that it is still standing so high above the surface is that Tarsis formed quite recently and is presently sinking. As on the Moon, "gravitational anomalies [on Mars] are strongly correlated with topographic features.''29 At the AAAS Symposium held in San Francisco in 1974, didn't Velikovsky point out that the mass concentrations (mascons) on the Moon associated with lunar topographic features could be explained as the effects of a passing celestial body pulling out mass from the core toward the lunar surface.30 The basic problem with the Tarsis bulge and the Martian gravitational anomalies is that they cannot remain in place for a long time unless some force is holding them up. Large bodies tend to become hotter deeper beneath the surface, and rheology-the science of the deformation of solids by gravity says that gravity will cause bulges and mass concentrations to sink. S. K. Runcorn explain;s the principle as follows: What caused the (lunar) bulge? Laplace supposed that strains might have developed when the Moon initially cooled from a molten state, and the shape resulting from these strains had been retained after solidification. Later Sir Harold Jeffreys suggested that the strain could have been caused by the tidal action of the Earth. By this explanation the bulge would have had to be frozen in when the Moon was about 40 percent of its current distance from the Earth. Both Laplace and Jeffreys assumed the rigidity for the Moon would have guaranteed that an early distortion (such as a bulge) would remain to the present day. Yet if solid state creep occurred in the Moon at one-trillionth the rate we know it occurs in laboratory materials at modest temperatures, such a primeval bulge would have disappeared long ago [unless some force is holding it up].31 The same solid state creep force also operates inside Mars and would act on the Tarsis bulge and the gravitational anomalies to have them sink into the planet long ago. Unless some unknown force is mysteriously sustaining this Martian feature, it is quite recent, and not anything like three to four billion years old. In fact, Carl Sagan admits the appearance of the Tarsis bulge looks very much like evidence of a recent catastrophe. In his book The Cosmic Connection he states-After the dust storm cleared, Mariner IX was moved into a higher orbit to facilitate the geological mapping...Complete geological coverage of the planet has been accomplished down to a resolution of half a mile. The resulting geological maps reveal an enormous array of linear ridges and grooves that surround the Tarsis Plateau-as if a third or quarter of the whole surface were cracked in some colossal recent event that lifted Tarsis. The most spectacular of these quasi linear features is an enormous rift valley...It ran 80 degrees of Martian latitude.32 These many cracks in the surface of Mars run outward from the Tarsis bulge. Since Mars lacks plates, they cannot be explained as tectonic features Also, the enormous rifts are all generally located near Tarsis. HOW OLD ARE THE CRATERS AND SURFACE FEATURES ON MARS? Unlike the Moon, Mars is subject to weathering and erosional processes. This occurs because Mars possesses a very thin atmosphere. During the northern hemispheric winter, or southern hemispheric summer, powerful dust storms are produced over all or most of the planet. Bruce Murray, director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, et al., describe the Martian dust storms thus: Laboratory experiments done under simulated Martian atmospheric pressures (0.1 to 1.0 percent that on Earth) show that wind velocities required to move particles on Mars range from about 90 to 240 kilometers per hour, depending upon the atmospheric pressure at the surface in question and on surface roughness. The particle size most easily moved by the wind on Mars is about 160 microns in diameter...Once particles begin to move on the Martian surface. the higher wind velocities impart more energy to the particles. giving them a higher capacity for abrasion than on Earth... Dust storms typically begin in Hellas Pontus, Noachic, and Solis Lacus, three elevated plateaus in the southern hemisphere between 20 and 40 S. latitude. A storm is first manifested (to an Earth-based observer) as bright 'spots' or 'cones' less than 400 kilometers in diameter that last about five days. In the next 35 to 70 days. the storm expands into secondary 'cones' that grow until the planet is entirely obscured. Finally, the storm slowly subsides. The polar regions being the first to clear. This last phase is 50 to 100 days long. Mariner 9 observations showed that the dust in the cloud was well mixed up to an altitude of 30 to 40 kilometers. Panicles averaged about 2 microns in diameter, about the same size as particles in major dust storms on Earth... Even after the major storm subsided, several small wind storms took place, causing changes that could be seen on the surface.33 What is quite apparent from this description is that dust storms on Mars are more destructive to its surface than dust storms on the Earth. This is so because the dust particles which are the same size as dust particles on the Earth are moving at greater velocities than on Earth. Furthermore, these storms occur periodically and last from three to six months. Space scientists and geophysicists were thus able to use well-known, experimentally-proven erosion equations to deduce the erosion rate on Mars. In a 1973 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology, for example, we find that, "Using Mariner 9 wind data, Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University calculated erosion rates assuming a dust storm peak wind (velocity) of 110 mph blowing 10 percent of the time. This would mean erosion of 10 km (6.2 miles) of surface in 100 million years."34 Based on this calculation, in 300 thousand years 98.2 feet of the Martian surface- about the height of a 10-story building-would be eroded away. Yet hadn't Carl Sagan attacked Velikovsky about a year later in San Francisco. claiming that Mars "shows no sign of spectacular catastrophes other than ancient impact craters." Using Sagan's calculations, Mars' crisp crater features could not be even 150 thousand years old because in that case five stories of surface material would have been removed. The author of the article adds, "There is no way to reconcile this picture with a view of the planet."35 But here uniformitarian scientists were faced with a dilemma. Based on their uniformitarian philosophy, the crater counts indicated that the southern hemisphere was three to four billion years old. Based on established empirically proven formulae, the crisp craters could not be even 100 thousand years old. One would hope that evidence would control philosophy, especially when that evidence is in total contradiction to the reigning paradigm. And yet Michael Carr, by simply applying the paradigm, claims that "the erosion rate is no more than a billionth of a meter per year."36 Such assertions not only contradict the above-noted experimental data, they contradict the observed state of the planet. The Mariner probes have shown remnants of volcanoes almost entirely eroded away, and also many highly degraded craters and other surface features. At a billionth of a meter per year, erosion would have made virtually no headway. Yet the results are there for all to see. In Science, Allen Hammond writes, "According to Hal Masursky of the U. S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona, eolian (wind) erosion is a dominant feature of Mars and apparently is so intense in some areas as to have completely eroded away preexisting volcanoes on Mars. The edge of the largest volcano on Mars, Nix Olympus, is apparently being rapidly eaten away, exposing a 1 to 2 kilometer cliff around its base."37 The absurdity of assuming that the surface of Mars is ancient is stated by Hal Masursky thus: "'Crater counts in old volcanic terrain indicates ages of 3 billion years,' Masursky said. 'So if this [calculated rate of erosion] were extrapolated over an assumed Mars' age, the same as the 4-4.5 billion years of existence of the Earth and moon, Mars would now be about the size of Phobos, one of its two [tiny] moons,' he said. "38 It is abundantly clear that with such a powerful erosion rate the amount of dust produced would be enormous. Of course, this material would not have been blown off into space, but would settle on the planet's surface. Based on these uniformitarian calculations, Mars should be nothing more than a sandy Sahara completely covered by sand and dust, with only a few volcanoes rising above the desert floor. All surface features should have been obliterated or covered-which is hardly the present condition of the planet as revealed by Mariner photographs. Are the rocky materials of Mars harder than any known Earth-type rocks? If this were the case, Mars' surface features could most certainly be extremely old. However, Henry J. Moore, et al., in the Journal of Geophysical Research, analyzed this question and concluded: "Bulk densities of surface materials of Mars cover the range found in natural terrestrial materials,''39 though "it is clear, however, that the surface materials are erodible and can be transported."40 It is also noteworthy that Michael H. Carr, in contradiction to his statement of a billionth of a meter per year year erosion rate, had, three years prior to that statement, said: That winds erode the Martian surface...cannot be doubted. We have observed storms that stir up so much dust that most of the surface of t he planet becomes hidden from view. We have monitored changes in surface markings that result, though the uncertainty regarding wind is not whether it has modified the surface but where and to what extent. Given the violence and frequent occurrence of dust storms it is somewha t surprising the eolian effects are not more pervasive. An ancient crate red topography probably over 3 billion years old survives over much of the planet. Yet it has been exposed to wind action for billions of years, and perhaps to hundreds of millions of dust storms comparable to the ones we observed in 1971 and 1977. Many of the plains. such as Chr yse Planitia may also be billions of years old, but at a scale of 100 m the y do not look very different from the lunar maria, having crisp wrinkle ridges and well-defined craters. Wind erosion appears to have been hig hly selective. being very obvious in some areas and negligible in others.41 To illustrate the highly improbable nature of Carr's statement regarding selectivity of wind erosion, let us accept his assumption that the craters on Mars are ancient and that dust storms are selective of where and what they choose to erode. Since the southern hemisphere of Mars contains most of the crisp crater ridges, we would naturally expect that here the erosion selectively did not wear away the surface features. The largest and supposedly one of the oldest craters on Mars in the southern hemisphere is Hellas. It is expected that the broad plain inside the crater would, over 4 billion years, be impacted many times by small meteorites. However, Michael Caiden tells us- The portion of Hellas studied by Mariner 6 and 7 covers at least 1200 miles of surface, and at that resolution of 1000 feet, not a single feature [i.e., no craters] could be observed on the desert floor. Scientists were astonished by this fact for another reason- "there is no way in which Hellas could have been sheltered from impact by meteorites." The only acceptable conclusion to explain the featureless surface, of course, is that some process is at work on Mars to erase fairly rapidly the effects of meteoric impacts in the area of Hellas. Scientists admit that higher resolution cameras might well show sma ll craters on the floor of Hellas but that isn't the point. Large craters should be in evidence and they aren't. So the scientists are left with the most likely conclusion which is that the material making up the flo or of Hellas responds more rapidly than other Martian materials to whateve r process of erosion exists on Mars.42 Thus the scenario goes: The scientists have little or no erosion in Mars' southern hemisphere to maintain the ancient crisp craters there. But inside Hellas, situated in that same southern hemisphere, either a high erosion process is at work or the material on Hellas' floor is super-erodible. To make matters worse, there are also volcanoes situated near Hellas in the southern hemisphere that have been highly eroded. "...There are many examples on Mars of volcanoes that are degraded. One example of a volcanic region that is relatively old but still recognizably volcanic occurs near to the Hellas basin in the southern hemisphere..."42 These volcanoes have been highly eroded, and it is argued that the cones may have been constructed of ash and thus easily eroded. Yet surrounding this volcanic region are "Large extents of flood lava"43 which deny the cone was only ash and indicate much lava flowed down the volcanic cones. Unlike ash, lava is not easily eroded. Farther south, near the polar ice cap, "beneath layered deposits at the south pole lies a thick, comparatively old deposit which appears to have suffered considerable wind erosion, being covered in pits and etched regions."44 Finally, we are told that at the south pole "one of the most important observations made of polar deposits is their extreme youth, compared to the rest of the planet's surface. Over an area of almost 1 million square kilometers no fresh craters are visible. Whether craters are being buried or eroded, high obliteration rates must be operating."45 The southern hemisphere appears to have experienced plenty of erosion. In order for a dust storm to obscure an entire planet's surface, winds must blow over that entire surface. Powerful winds blowing everywhere, but eroding selectively only where uniformitarian theory claims, is not good science or even logical uniformitarianism. To unravel this Gordian Knot, evidence must be cast aside and sophistry substituted. On Mars' surface are also observed what can only be described as the dried up beds of river systems. Interestingly, in some of these channels sand bars still exist. These "sandbars are found in the smaller (and narrower) flow channels, as is commonly found in (desert) arroyos on the earth."46 According to Carr and Gary D. Clow- networks are open, the individual drainage basins are small relative to the Earth, and large distances separate the basins, features which all suggest an immature drainage system. The simplest explanation of the correlation and the restriction of valley networks to old terrain is that the channels themselves are old. and the climatic conditions necessary for their formation did not prevail for long after the decline in the cratering rate around 3.9 billion years ago 47 The two authors claim that these narrow riverbeds with sandbars, composed of Martian soil and sand, have been in place for 3. 9 billion years. One would properly inquire: how do sandbars survive in river beds for almost 4 billion years of eolian erosion? Patrick Moore states that these river-bed systems are a "paradox. There is no sign of marked erosion even though the Martian atmosphere is dusty, and dust even fine dust-is highly abrasive. The channels and craters do not look as though they have been filled up, so they can hardly be very ancient, tens of thousands of years perhaps, but not millions."48 In The Planets, Carr discusses other larger flood channels of Mars: In places the channels...extend northward for over 1000 kilometers. In places the channels are 150 kilometers across and contain numerous teardrop-shaped islands. Geologists have puzzled over the origin of these channels since they were discovered, in 1972. Originally there was considerable resistance to accepting the idea that they were formed by water erosion because the Martian surface is so dry; but now most geologists believe that the valleys were formed by floods of water. . . In fact, the channels more closely resemble a large terrestrial flood than typical river valleys. One of the largest floods known on earth is one crossing the eastern half of the state of Washington [believed to have been produced] 10.000 to 20,000 years ago. The flood is thought to have resulted from rapid emptying of a lake that covered much of western Montana. The lake was damned by ice and the flood followed when the ice collapsed. The released water swept over Washington eroding deep channels, scouring wide swaths of ground and carving teardrop-shaped islands like those on Mars. Discharge of about one hundred times that of the Amazon river persisted for several days. The resemblance between the large Martian channels and the eastern Washington flood is so close that few geologists doubt that both were formed in a similar manner. One difference is that the Martian floods were larger.49 Again, one properly asks: how can teardrop-shaped islands, pointing downstream and made of soil and sand, survive 4 billion years of erosion, when the erosive forces are sufficient to literally erode away volcanoes? Based on the erosion rate calculated by Sagan, the Martian flood is probably about as old as the one in Washington. In fact, if we look only at the evidence from Mars, the flood there can be only a few thousand years old at most. These teardrop-shaped islands would have been entirely eroded away in perhaps 50, 000 years. Yet they look extremely young and are likely not more than a tenth that age. Carr points out that the material around many craters could only be called "mud." "Particularly striking is the appearance of the material that was thrown out of some of the craters by impacts. it appears to have mudlike consistency and to have flowed across the surface after it fell back to the ground following ejection. The ejection materials appear to have contained significant amounts of water."50 These craters are called "pedestal craters" and again pose contradictions to the gradualist theory. Carr discusses the origin of these unusual features that stand on elevated mounds which appear to be highly circular. The mounds rise to considerable heights, perhaps as high as 200 feet above the surrounding ground. But the craters' elevation does not suggest a sufficient scale to have ejected all the material that forms the pedestal mound. These crater formations are quite unique, according to Carr: Modification of Martian craters also produces patterns not found at high latitudes. Of particular interest are the so- called pedestal craters. These craters occur at the center of a roughly circular platform that stands several tens of meters above the surroundings. In most cases the platform cannot be formed of ejecta from the crater since the volume of the platform far exceeds that of the crater's bowl. Most planetary geologists now view the pedestal craters as indicating that thick blankets of debris need to lie on the surface. In the area between the craters the old debris has been removed, but the debris has been retained around craters because of armoring of the surface ejecta. The craters are thus left standing at the center of what remains of the old debris blanket. The pedestal craters are found mostly at high latitudes. both north and south. and are regarded as evidence of complex deposit histories at these latitudes. 51 Here, then, is the problem. Both in the northern and southern hemispheres between, say, 100 and 200 feet of surface has been eroded away. (Of course, this could not be done with a billionth of a meter per year erosion rate.) One is left to ask what has happened to this enormous amount of surface material. This material could have certainly filled in all the ancient craters and all the river beds as well. A good place to deposit material is the great rift valley, the Vallis Marineris, a 3000-mile long canyon extending along the Martian equator. In places this chasm is 300 miles wide and 4miles deep. Its walls are precipitously steep with well-defined edges. Debris could easily have filled this chasm over 4 billion years. Furthermore, its sides are also subject to erosion and landslides. Thus, over the eons, it should have accumulated enormous amounts of debris. We are informed that, "While erosion continues to eat away at the canyon walls, that is an unlikely origin for the Vallis Marineris and similar complexes. These enormous chasms have no outlets, and the only way to remove debris is by wind; yet the material to be transported out of the canyon is so great as to cast doubt on the effectiveness of this mechanism operating by itself."52 Thus there is no explanation for the canyon not being greatly filled. Yet 4 billion years of eroded surface presumably has to be deposited somewhere. Perhaps the dust was highly selective as to where it should settle. In concert, erosion and deposition of dust should have given Mars an almost featureless surface. What does the experimental evidence have to say about the Martian erosion rate? In Sky and Telescope, a wind tunnel experiment is described. This experiment was carried out by Ronald Greeley and his colleagues at NASA Ames Research Center. A laboratory simulation of Martian conditions was created using a wind tunnel "to simulate erosive conditions on Mars. Atmospheric pressure on Mars is only a few thousandths of that at sea level on Earth, so Martian winds must possess very high wind velocity to transport dust particles. These high wind speeds should produce a highly erosive environment. Based on these factors, and on wind patterns derived from Viking lander data, the researchers came up with some surprising result They calculated that Mars should be eroded at rates of up to 2 centimeters per century. But if this were the case, they note the craters visible at the Viking sites (which are hundreds of millions of years old) should have been worn away long ago."53 This extrapolates to 100 feet of surface erosion in 150,000 years-the height of a 10-story building-twice the rate calculated by Carl Sagan In fact, it is quite probable that we have underestimated the evidence for erosion on Mars. In Discover for November, 1987, is an article discussing tornadoes on Mars. The brief article states: If astronomers ever make it to Mars, they may want to avoid summer in the southern hemisphere. To begin with, that's the season where huge storms tend to blanket the Red Planet with a nasty yellow dust. And in late summer, when the dust storms die down, conditions don't improve much. According to a new study that's when tornadoes scour the Martian surface. Tornadoes themselves have not been seen on Mars, but planetary scientists John Grant and Peter Schultz of Brown University think they have seen their tracks: dark lines. less than six tenths of a mile wide but as long as 46 miles that cut across hills. faults and craters. The lines are visible on images made by the Viking orbiters between 1976 and 1980. Other investigators had noticed them before, but decided they had to be either sand dunes or thin cracks in the Martian crust. Grant and Schultz think both explanations are unlikely, but also because they appear in late summer and then disappear. Dust devils, less intense whirlwinds that are a common sight on Earth, have been seen on Mars, but they are not likely in late summer. The conditions, then, say Grant and Schultz, are just right for tornadoes; there is a deep layer of warm air above the sunbaked surface, and cold fronts much like the ones on Earth, pass at regular intervals. A wedge-shaped front nudges the warm air upward, which is where it wants to go anyway; the strong frontal winds set the updraft a-spinning; and a first-class twister ensues. So far the tracks have been seen chiefly in a few southern areas, but the investigators think that's only because The light, sandy surface in these areas makes the dark lines easy to spot. Tornadoes are probably just as "common" in the north. Actually "common" is an understatement: Grant and Schultz counted between 55 and 60 tracks formed in a single season, in a typical 400-square mile area an area smaller than Oklahoma City. Visitors to Mars in tornado season won't have to worry about being swept up by dramatic black funnel clouds- there's almost no water vapor in the Martian atmosphere, and so tornadoes would be dry. But they might well encounter winds of 100 to 200 miles an hour. And, says Grant, they'd get very intensely sand-blasted. ROCKS It is a well-known fact that dust and sand abrasion of desert rock produces a distinctive form of erosion. When dust and sand abrade rock its surfaces become smooth and some rocks become shiny from polishing by the softer dust particles. In a basic geology text one finds this description of wind abrasion of desert rock: The effects of wind abrasion can be seen on the surface of bedrock in most desert regions, and in some areas where soft. poorly consolidated rock is exposed. wind erosion can be both spectacular and distinctive. The process of wind abrasion is essentially the same as that used in artificial sand blasting to clean building stone. Some pebbles called ventifacts are shaped and polished by the wind...Some pebbles are distinctive in that they have two or more flat faces that meet at sharp edges. Generally they are well- polished and can have surface irregularities and grooving aligned with the wind direction.54 When we observe photos taken by the Viking landers on the Martian surface, we see rocks that do not show any of the distinctive signs one would come to expect from eolian abrasion. The rocks from the Earth's deserts and those from Mars are so strikingly different as to suggest that on Mars the rocks have been subject to hardly any abrasion-perhaps a few thousand years at most. THE ATMOSPHERE There are also certain characteristics of the atmosphere of Mars indicating it, too, has undergone change rather recently; that is, this evidence makes it highly improbable that the Martian atmosphere could have maintained its present status for billions of years, but has a composition which requires it to be no more than a few thousands years old. As we already know, the Martian atmosphere is quite thin and therefore subject to ultra violet and cosmic radiation penetration all the way to its surface. The problem is basic: Mars' atmosphere is composed primarily of carbon dioxide. However, ultra violet radiation photo-dissociates carbon dioxide into two constituents- carbon monoxide and atomic oxygen. These two molecules do not recombine easily. Therefore, if Mars' present atmosphere is actually billions of years old or even hundreds of thousands of years old, most of its carbon dioxide would be photo-dissociated into carbon monoxide and oxygen. In the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Science is an article on just this problem. Photo-dissociation of carbon dioxide to produce carbon monoxide and atomic oxygen takes place from the top of the [Martian] atmosphere all the way down to the surface. In the upper atmosphere the known recombination reactions are not rapid enough to balance the photo-production of atomic oxygen to explain the low abundances of carbon monoxide. 55 An ad hoc explanation has been offered. It is claimed that atmospheric circulation transports oxygen to the surface where it mixes with other constituents and is recombined into carbon dioxide. Yet the problem remains, for as soon as the carbon dioxide is reconstituted near the surface, ultra violet rays would photo-dissociate it. Although there is a process that can save the carbon dioxide component in the Martian atmosphere, there is no process that can do the same for "Nitrogen- 15." According to an article in Nature by S. Yanagita and M. Imamura, Nitrogen-15 is an unstable isotope and does not have a long-lived radioactive parent. To be present in the Martian atmosphere it must have an abundant parent gas to be produced. Nitrogen-15 is generated when cosmic rays bombard Oxygen-16. Actually, oxygen is a minor component of the Martian atmosphere. Nevertheless, there is an excess of nitrogen-15 which cannot be explained if it is assumed that the present Martian atmosphere has been composed of the same gases for eons or even many thousands of years.56 Nor can this evidence be explained away by invoking gradualistic models. Thus the atmosphere, like the rocks and the erosion rate, tells the same story. And it is pointed out that all this evidence is based on uniformitarian theory. SULFUR Using X-ray florescence spectrometers which examined the Martian soil, it was discovered that there were "surprisingly high concentrations of sulfur...100 times more than in the Earth's crust. . ."57 This abundance is so large that it is extremely difficult to explain by uniformitarian theory. The only explanation we can offer is that Mars had a long period of tremendous volcanism comparable to that of Jupiter's satellite Io, which is spewing sulfur continuously from volcanic vents. The number of volcanoes on Mars, however, would not seem to justify the conclusion. The other possibility is Velikovskian thunderbolts during interplanetary encounters, fusing sulfur from oxygen. This too, however, would seem inadequate; and it is hoped, therefore, that as our mythological/historical data-base expands, we may gain further insight into the mystery. CONCLUSION The picture we have drawn from the scientists' reports indicates that Mars and its satellites have very recently experienced enormous catastrophes. By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that the evidence supports the uniformitarian view, and much of it clearly weighs in Velikovsky's favor. Additionally, we find that quite recently Mars was pluvial and probably had some surface water and an atmosphere quite different from its present composition. These preliminary findings should be set alongside the new research into the myths of Mars and the other planets, to see what additional illumination can be achieved. 1 I. Velikovsky, Worlds In Collision (New York, 1950) "The Terrible Ones," p. 284-5 2 Astronomy, Vol. 5 (Jan, 1977), p. 55. 3 Science News, Vol. 110 (1976). p. 212. 4 William K. Hanman. Moons and Planets, 2nd ed. (Belmont, 1983). p. 380. 5 J. Guest. et al.. Planetary Geology (New York, 1979), p. 192. 6 Michael H. Carr, The Surface of Mars (New Haven, 1981), p. 198. 7 Ibid 8 ibid. 9 ibid. l0 P. H. Schultz and A. B. Lutz-Ganhan. "Star Grazers," Scientific American, Vol. 249 (Oct., 1983), p. 88. 11 "Martian Meteorites," Science, Vol. 237 (August, 1987), pp. 721-2. l2 Ibid. 13 Michael Zeilik. Astronomy and the Evolving Universe. 4th edition (New York. 1985). p. 185. 14 Billy P. Glass, Introduction to Planetary, Geology (Cambridge, 1982). p. 363 l5 Bradford Senith, et al., "The Jupiter System through the Eyes of Voyager I," Science, Vol. 204 (1979), p. 951. 16 Zeilik, op. cit.. p. 169. 17 Ecyclopaedia Britannica. Macropedia. Vol. 11 (London. 1982). p. 523. 18 J. Guest. P. Butterworth. and W. O'Donnell. Planetary Geology (New York. 1979). p. 145. 19 Encyclopaedia Britannica, op. cit. , p. 523. 20 Ibid, p. 524. 21 Worlds in Collision, op. cit., pp. 364-5. 22 A. B. Binder and D. McCarthy, "Mars: The Lineament System," Science, Vol. 176 (1972). p. 279. 23 Michael H. Carr. The Solar System. a Scientific American Book (San Francisco. 1975). p. 88 24 'The Poles of Old Mars," Science News, Vol. 119 (1981), p. 216. 25 Randolph R. Pozos, The Face of Mars (Chicago Review Press, 1986), p.60 26 Donald Patten, "The Scars of Mars," Parts I-II' KRONOS' X:3' XI:1. 27 Michael H. Carr, "The Surface of Mars", Mercury, Vol. 12 (Jan-Feb' 1983), p. 2. 28 McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol. 10 (New York' 1987), p. 477. 29 Encyclopaedia Britannica, op. cit., p. 525. 30 Immanuel Velikovsky and Lynn Rose, "Mulholland: 'A Celestial Mechanician Whose Name is Almost Synonymous With High Precision'," CRONOS X:1, p. 71. 31 S. K. Runcorn, "The Moon's Ancient Magnetism, Scientific American, Vol. 257 (Dec, 1987), p. 63. 32 Carl Sagan. The Cosmic Connection (New York, 1973), p. 127. 33 B. Murray. M. C. Malin, and R. Greeley. Earthlike Planets: Surfaces of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars (San Fransisco. 1981). pp. 104-5. 34 "Mariner 9 Data Stir New Questions," Aviation Week and Space Technology (Jan 29. 1973). p. 61. 35 Ibid, pp. 61 ff. 36 Michael Carr, "Surface of Mars," Mercury, Vol. 12 (Jan-Feb. '83), p. 2. 37 A11en Hammond, "New Mars Volcanism, Water and a Debate Over Its History," Science (Feb. 2. 1973), p. 463. 38 Aviation Week, op. cit.. pp. 61ff. 39 Henry J. Moore, et al., "Surface Materials on Viking Lander Sites," Journal of Geophysical Research . Vol. 82 (Sept. 30,1977), pp. 4521 ff. 40 Ibid. 41 Michael H. Carr, Structure of Mars (New Haven. 1981), p. 156. 42 Michael Caiden, Destination Mars (New York, 1972), p. 119. 42 Planetary Geology, op. cit., p. 138. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid., p. 176. 45 Ibid., p. 178. 46 M. Zeilik, op. cit., p. 171. 47 Michael H. Carr and Gary D. Clow, "Martian Channels and Valleys: Their Characteristic Distribution and Ages," Icarus. Vol. 48 (1981), p. 91. 48 Patrick Moore. the Unfolding Universe (New York, 1982). p. 78. 49 M. H. Carr, "The Red Planet," in Byron Preiss, ed., 17le Planets (New York, 1985), pp. 100-101. 50 Ibid. p. 96. 5l M. H. Carr. "Surface of Mars." op. cit.. p. 2. 52 McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol. 10, op. cit., p. 477. 53 "The Windblown Planet Mars," Sky and Telescope, Vol. 68 (1984), p. 507. 54 Kenneth W. Hamblin, The Earth's Dynamic System, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis, 1975). p. 268. 55 Charles A. Barth, "The Atmosphere of Mars," Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 2, F. A. Donath. F. G. Stehli. and G. W. Wethenll. editors (Palo Alto. 1974). p. 356. 56 S. Yanagita and M. Imamura, Nature, Vol. 274 (1978), p. 234. 57 New Solar System, op. cit., p. 85.