HOME PAGE Web Site Contents Mars Report Contents Mars Report Abstract CV for Dr. David Roffman Diplomas PhD Thesis PhD Thesis Powerpoint Mars PowerPoint MSL Weather Reports Base on Mars? Seasonal Pressure Altitude Calculations Seismic Activity on Mars? Perserverance Weather Data MSL Year 5 FALL MSL Year 5 Summer MSL Year 5 Spring MSL Years 4-5 Winter MSL Year 4 FALL MSL Year 4 Summer Weather MSL Year 4 Spring Weather MSL Yr 3-4 Winter Weather MSL Fall Yr 3 Weather MSL Yr. 3 Summer Weather MSL Yr. 3 Spring Weather Martian plume March 25 2017 MSL Ultraviolet 3 YEARS OF MSL UV Desai, EDL, Parachutes & ExoMars Mars winter vs. summer temps Helo to Mars Sea at Utopia Planitia, Mars Tree Stump at MSL? Spherical life on Mars? Mars Report Abstract, 1-1.2 Mars Report Sec.2-2.1 Report 2.2-2.4 Report 2.5-2.5.2 Report 2.5.3-2.7 Report 3-4 Report 4.1-4.1.2 Report 5 to 6 Report  7-7.2.1 Report 8 Report 9 Report 10 Report 11 Global Dust Storm Report 12 Report  13-13.2 Report 13.3-13.5 Report 13.6 Report 14-15 Report 15.1 Report 15.2-15.3 Report 15.4-15.6.2 Report - Report Report 16-16.1 Report 17-20 Report References Rebuttal of REMS Report Running water on Mars MSL Year 0 Weather MSL Yr 2 Winter-Spring Weather MSL Yr 2 Summer Weather MSL Yr 2 Fall Weather MSL Yr 2-3 Winter Weather Adiabatics MSL Hi Temps MSL Low Temps Organic Chem found by MSL Oxygen in Mars Air MSL Day length & Temp Warm winter ground temps 155-Mile High Mars Plume Radiation Diurnal Air Temp Variation Mars Temps Fahrenheit Beagle found JPL/NASA Pressure Mistakes Enter MarsCorrect Sol 370, 1160 & 1161 Histories Mars-Radio-Show JPL Fudges Pressure Curves MSL Temp. ∆ Mast to Ground High & Low Pressures Normalized Mars soil 2% water Moving rock Mars MAVEN MSL Relative Humidity Claim Ashima Concedes Original MSL Weather Record Old MSL Weather Record MSL Summer Weather Pressure Estimate REMS Wind MSL Pressures REMS Reports Curiosity Geology CERN-2013-pics Daylight Math MSL Errors P1 MSL Errors P2 MSL-Chute-Flap MSL daylight Ashima Sols 15 to 111 Ashima Sol 112 to 226 Ashima Sol 227 on New Ashima Sols 270+ MSL Summer to Sol 316 Updated Secrets of Mars Weather Forecast Wind Booms MSL Credibility MSL Temp. Swings MSL Temperatures Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM) VL2 - MSL Ls Comparson Ashima MIT Mars GCM Dust Storm Nonsense Mars Slideshow Moving Sand & Martian Wind 3 DEC12 Press Conf. MSL Press Conf. 15NOV2012 Sol Numbering MSL Pressure Graph to Ls 218.8 MSL Sky Color Mars Sky Color DATA DEBATE! Zubrin's Letter Phoenix Vaisala Vaisala Pressure Sensors Phoenix &MSL Flawed MSL REMS Viking pressure sensors failed MSL landing site Mars Landings Phobos Grunt Martian Air Supersaturation Mars & CH4 Mars and MSL Time Viking Pressure Audit Links Mars Society 2008 Quant Finance Frontiers Home Front. Preface Frontiers Ch. 1 Frontiers Ch. 2 Antimatter Lightning Frontiers Ch. 3 Frontiers Ch. 4 Frontiers Ch. 5 Frontiers Ch. 6 Frontiers Ch. 7 Frontiers Ch. 8 Frontiers Ch. 9 Frontiers Ch 10 Frontiers Ch 11 Frontiers Ch 12 Frontiers Ch 13 Frontiers Ch 14 Frontiers Ch 15 Frontiers Ch 16 Frontiers Ch 17 Frontiers Ch 18 Frontiers Ch 19 Frontiers Ch 20 Frontiers Ch 21 Frontiers Ch 22 World Tour Spring-Break -13 Other Travels Asteroid Impact? ExoMars data Unit Issues Viking Pressures Tavis CADs Landing Long Scale Heights LS of Max/Min Pressures Tavis Report Tavis Failures Lander Altitude Martian Trees? Code Experiment Gedanken Report Mars Nuke? Martian Flares Mach Numbers MOLA (altitude) Original Mars Report Mariner 9 & Pressure Mars  Temps MSL Time MPF Pressure Blog Debates Spring Pendulum Plasma Model Reporting Errors Orbital Parameters Anderson Localization P. 1 Anderson Localization P. 2 Moving rock old Navigating Mars Mars Report Section Links Mars Report Figure Link Gillespie Lake rock outcrop MSL Sol 200 Anomaly Sol 1300&1301 Anomalies Gilbert Levin & Labeled Release Brine on Mars Ceres Lights Yr 1 Table 1 Missing data Mitchell Report Old Mars Report All MPF Temps ExoMars fails Did Spirit find past life? MSL ground temps go haywire OPACITY AT MSL Luminescence on Mars Dust Storms & Microorganisms 2018 Global Dust Storm Links to Sections of the Basic Report

The more you know about Martian weather data, the more plausible crazy ideas become.

       On June 5th, 2011, my father received a curious e-mail from Dr. Robert Haralick, distinguished professor at City University of New York. He wanted to know what we thought about a YouTube video by David Martines (no longer available in 2021) with an alleged base on Mars at 71° 49'19.73"N, 29° 33'06.53"W. covered the story here. There was initially some confusion about the coordinates. They are discussed further below. Our first thought on looking at the video was that it was of terrible quality, and probably a hoax, but as the object is allegedly 700 feet long and 150 feet wide it's it looks like it's still worth checking in some detail. 

The Coverage on FoxNews.Com and MSM. On June 6, 2011, first covered the Mars base story. By the next day, they had backtracked because of one weak refutation by one man with great credentials, Alfred McEwen, a planetary geologist at the Lunar and Planetary Lab at the University of Arizona and the director of the Planetary Imaging Research Laboratory. Worse, they had pulled the video, which made it appear that they had caved into Government pressure. McEwen provided no examples of similar visual defects on other images. Nor was there any discussion on his part about checking the area in question. About all that was surprising was that it took a day to have someone affiliated with our Government empty the base in a way that was reminiscent of how General Ramey emptied the Roswell Saucer on July 9, 1947, a day after the Roswell Army Air Base commander had announced that it had captured a flying saucer. The June 11, 2020. FoxNews.Com coverage is shown next. It's followed by a critique found on-line for the MSM coverage.

Secret Space Base Found on Google Mars Debunked

By Natalie Wolchover

Published June 07, 2011

Is Bio Station a Martian base?

A self-described "armchair astronaut" claims to have identified a human (or alien) base on Mars. David Martines noticed a mysterious rectangular structure that appears to be on the Red Planet's surface while trolling the planetary surface using Google Mars, a map program created from compiled satellite images of the planet.

"This is a video of something I discovered on Google Mars quite by accident," said Martines, the armchair astronaut, in a now-viral YouTube video. "I call it Bio Station Alpha, because I'm just assuming that something lives in it or has lived in it."

He zooms in the surface anomaly — a long, pixelated, white object — and lists the (erroneous) coordinates as 49'19.73"N, 29 33'06.53"W. "It's over 700 feet long and 150 feet wide. It looks like it's a cylinder or made up of cylinders," he says. The 49'19.73"N, 29 33'06.53"W erroneous coordinate note was added to this article by Barry S. Roffman. The actual site in question is at 71°49'19.73"N, 29° 33'06.53"W. The correction adds the required number of degrees before minutes and seconds of North latitude.

Has Martines really found evidence of alien life, or a secret space base, as he and some media sources are claiming? No, say experts: "Bio Station Alpha" is simply a glitch in the image caused by cosmic energy interfering with the camera.

"It looks like a linear streak artifact produced by a cosmic ray," said Alfred McEwen, a planetary geologist at the Lunar and Planetary Lab at the University of Arizona and the director of the Planetary Imaging Research Laboratory. McEwen is the principal investigator of the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE), a powerful telescope currently orbiting Mars.

COMMENT: I found the speed at which the video was pulled from most places on the Internet to be both astounding and most troubling. I say this because I know about how controversial Mars data and images have been handled by NASA and JPL in the past. Before discussing those issues, let's look at an excellent analysis of how this situation was handled by MSM. Unfortunately the critic here does not provide his real name, but the points are valid:

Mars Base Video: Comparative Cosmic Ray Images Missing From MSM Debunking Reports

June 7, 2011


Armchair Astronaut Ridiculed by MSM

The Youtube video ‘Bio Station on Mars’ was been removed by the ‘user’, David Martines, dubbed the ‘Armchair Astronaut’ and ‘Armchair Astronomer’ by the MSM–Copy of video posted below. The MSM news media ‘debunked’ the video after it went viral, up to almost 900,000 hits shortly after the video was posted on Youtube. After perusing several MSM news reports debunking the video, the question, did the MSM do a thorough job of debunking the image? Based on the comment sections, the answer, not exactly, as the MSM failed to provide ‘very common’ evidence to back up their claim the image was caused by a cosmic ray. While the MSM failed to provide evidence they did spend an inordinate amount of print ridiculing Martines.

While Martines has removed his video, intrepid users at Youtube copied Martines’ original  reposted it on Youtube:

Martines and his Mars base video underwent the scrutiny of the MSM after the video went viral. While Martines used Google Mars, the MSM used a single source as the expert to debunk Martines video, Alfred McEwen, a planetary geologist at the Lunar and Planetary Lab at the University of Arizona and the director of the Planetary Imaging Research Laboratory. McEwen’s explanation was then parroted by several new media outlets.

Did the MSM debunk the object in Martines’ video?

The answer lies in what was actually said by McEwen, and, what the reports from the MSM failed to provide, photos or images which would have backed up McEwen’s claim.

The original report parroted by the MSM, Did an Amateur Astronomer Spot a Secret Mars Base?, filed by the website Life’sLittleMysteries which is under the same corporate umbrella as and

Life’s Little Mysteries:


”Has Martines really found evidence of alien life, or a secret space base, as he and some media sources are claiming? No, say experts: “Bio Station Alpha” is simply a glitch in the image caused by cosmic energy interfering with the camera”.

The ‘experts’ cited in the article, is Alfred McEwen.

Did McEwen state, unequivocally, the image ‘was caused by cosmic energy interfering with the camera”?

Not exactly.

McEwen: “It looks like a linear streak artifact produced by a cosmic ray.”

“Cosmic rays are extremely energetic particles emitted by the sun and other stars. For the most part, the Earth’s protective magnetosphere blocks them from hitting the planet’s surface, McEwen explained. “But with space images that are taken outside our magnetosphere, such as those taken by orbiting telescopes, it’s very common to see these cosmic ray hits. You see them on optical images and a lot of the infrared images too,” he told Life’s Little Mysteries.”

Where you haven’t seen them, in Life’s Little Mystery’s debunking report, or, any of the other debunking articles in the MSM. If these types of images are ‘very common’, why not produce a few to add some extra weight to the cosmic ray claim?

McEwen then chastised Google:

McEwen said that the cosmic ray streak would be much easier to recognize in the raw, pre-compressed image, but many orbiters and telescopes have contributed imagery to create the Mars map, and Google doesn’t identify the source image.

“I can’t tell whether this image was taken by Viking or what,” McEwen said. “The people at Google need to document what the heck they’re doing. They should be able to identify what the source of their information is, and let people know so they can go back and look at the raw data.

Over at the Google Mars website, the info:

We’ve included three different types of data in Google Mars:

Elevation – A shaded relief map, generated with data from the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA) on NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft. This map is color-coded by altitude, so you can use the color key at the lower left to estimate elevations.

Visible – A mosaic of images taken by the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) on NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft. MOC is like the digital camera you have at home. Basically, this is what your eyes would see if you were in orbit around Mars.

Infrared – A mosaic of infrared images taken by the Thermal Emission Imaging System (THEMIS) on NASA’s Mars Odyssey spacecraft. Warmer areas appear brighter, and colder areas are darker. Clouds and dust in the atmosphere are transparent in the infrared, making this the sharpest global map of Mars that’s ever been made.

      A thorough debunking would have included contacting Google Mars for the pertinent ‘raw data’. Publishing a couple of images, ‘very common’ images caused by cosmic rays. When an expert tells the news media, something unexplained is ‘most likely’, the observation, ‘most likely’ does not infer case closed, nothing seen here, move along.

COMMENTARY ABOUT DR. BRANDENBURG'S TWO MARS BOOKS. The thrust of DEAD MARS, DYING EARTH is decidedly environmental. However on reading it my first concern related to all the time that my father and I have spent researching Martian atmospheric pressure. On pages 39-40 the author details concerns that the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) deliberately altered the initial blue sky color (with greenish patches on rocks) seen by Viking 1 to a butterscotch sky color with rusty red rocks seen since then. Further, on page 41 he indicates that a few hours after the Cydonia face image was taken at local sunset in Cydonia, JPL lied to the public by indicating that a second image of the area, taken when it had to be dark at Cydonia, had shown the face had disappeared. JPL, he alleges, said the earlier image was obviously a trick of light and shadow. The immediate significance of this charge here is that we have solid proof that the pressure in Mars is a good bit higher than NASA argues. We know that Viking, PathFinder and Phoenix pressure measurements were flawed by clogged dust filters on the pressure transducers. It's one thing to argue about the poor design of the Tavis transducers used for the Vikings and Mars Pathfinder, and similar problems with the Vaisala transducer used for the Phoenix lander. But it's quite another to take on deliberate disinformation.

WHAT IS THE AREA OF CONCERN ON MARS? Dr. Brandenburg points to Mare Acidalium. This is in the northeast portion of the western hemipshere of Mars between 300° and 360° East, and between 30° and 65° North. The famous "face" at Cydonia lies within this region at 40.75° North latitude and 350.54 degrees East (9.46° West) longitude. The face at Cydonia is shown on the cover of his newest book. 

THE ISSUE OF COORDINATES ON MARS. There are two systems used to report the coordinates of an object’s location on Mars, however the coordinates given in the original story and below conform to neither of them, apparently due to an oversight.

  1. System in use prior to 2002: Planetographic latitude with West longitude. This is the coordinate system originally used in the Gazaetter of Planetary Nomenclature, and the system used for maps produced before approximately 2002. An ellipsoidal equatorial radius of 3,396.0 km and a polar radius of 3,376.8 km are assumed.
  2. Planetocentric latitude with East longitude. This is the coordinate system used for maps produced after approximately 2002, although the planetographic latitudes and West longitudes are also shown on printed maps for reference, and the radii on which these are based are different  (3,396.19 and 3,376.20 km).
  3. Magitude of the latitude error first reported by the Martines articles. As is indicated by me in red below on the Fox story, the initial coordinates were given as 49'19.73"N, 29 33'06.53"W. The 49'19.73" North latitude coordinate should have been given as 71°49'19.73"N. The correction adds the required number of degrees before minutes and seconds of North latitude. As each degree of latitude difference on Mars is about 38.6 nautical miles, 71° equates to about 2,612.8 nautical miles. The longitude coordinate should also include the degree sign after the 29, and is thus best reported as 29° 33'06.53"W.

RELATING THE MARS BASE COORDINATES TO THE BRANDENBURG NUCLEAR ASSERTIONS. My basic write-up on Dr. Brandenburg’s assertion that Mars was wracked by nuclear explosions (both natural and of alien origin) is found at Dr. Brandeburg: Nuke on Mars. A map below shows how close the areas of concern are.

Figure 3 - Radioactive sites on Mars.

THE REAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BRANDEBURG ASSERTIONS.  If the Google Mars image is merely the result of a stray cosmic ray, then there is no relationship between it and the Brandenburg assertions other than the fact that where the thorium concentration on Brandenburg’s map is at about 0.8 ppm, it’s not much more than a hundred miles to where the where the Martines “Mars base” is located.  The object seen might be involved with mining the thorium for power usage. Thorium-232 was used for breeding nuclear fueluranium-233 in the United States from 1964 to 1969. Russia, India, and China have plans to use thorium for their nuclear power, partly because of its safety benefits. But the real significance is that the base in this area, if not an illusion, lends more credibility to Dr. Brandenburg’s assertion, not just what he documents in his paper entitled EVIDENCE FOR A LARGE, NATURAL, PALEO-NUCEAR REACTOR ON MARS (2011), but also what he emphasizes in private and in his most recent book – LIFE AND DEATH ON MARS. He argues for a nuclear (weapon) air burst that he discusses on page 179, which he writes “involves not just great intelligence, but also great malice.”  He points to an interstellar “genocide.”

WHEN DID THIS NUCLEAR WAR OCCUR?  Brandenburg thinks it was at least 180,000,000 years ago based on isotopic interpretations, but the rate of crater formation may well point to a much younger date. He also thinks that the face at Cydonia is that old, but if we were to believe JPL, the image there has certainly changed a lot there since it was first seen in 1976. If there were humanoids on Mars then, and they were our ancestors, I rather doubt that we would have changed appearance so little in 180,000,000 years. 

       I think Cydonia is younger, and there is still a question to be answered about whether or not nuclear-armed aliens are about in our solar system even now. WHY? Here a few points to consider:

  1. The entire Roswell Incident took place in the area where, at the time, the only nuclear weapons on Earth were stored.
  2. Captain Robert Salas, testified that were UFOs in the area at one of our missiles bases when 10 nuclear tipped missiles were shut down. The same thing happened a few days later at another base.
  3. I once knew Clark McClelland, who claimed some pretty unusual UFO experiences with our Government.  But before he went down that trail, which is documented on my site at the link just provided, he published an article in Sky & Telescope Magazine in 1954 about a large explosion that he saw on Mars through the 13 inch Fitz-Clark refractor telescope at the Allegheny Observatory. There were similar observations by Saheki on July 1, 1954; Ichiro Tasaka on November 21, 1958; and Dobbins on June 7 and 8, 2001). The area of greatest concern then was at Edom Promontorium. While the earlier assumptions were about volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, or reflection from the sun on ice, it might not be so wise to quickly rule out nuclear detonations again.
  4. There was in Japan some speculation about a nuclear explosion or test on Mars as the U.S. had set off its biggest hydrogen bomb ever, a 15 megaton Bravo shot in the Castle series back in 1954.  However, there is no public knowledge of an American (or Russian) rocket that could carry such a warhead at that time (unless we were using a reconstructed version of what supposedly crashed near Roswell in 1947).  The world's first ICBM, the Russian R-7, did not fly until August 1957.  The largest bomb anyone ever tested on Earth was the Tsar Bomba.  That Russian blast on October 30, 1961, was equal to 58 megatons.  It sent out a shock wave that circled the Earth 3 times. 
  5. If Brandenburg's assertions about JPL lying with respect to Cydonia face images are correct and about the actual (blue) color of the Martian sky, then the real reason that NASA is so anxious to put out disinformation is simply  to keep the public from a general panic every time a weather balloon is mistaken for a UFO.
  6. On July 25, 2009, Buzz Aldrin managed to tell a CSPAN interviewer that there is a monolith on a moon of Mars (Phobos) before they cut him off at 61 seconds into the interview after ripping the transcript from in front of him.

APRIL 20, 2021 UPDATE: Questionable Weather Reports From The Mars Environmental Dynamics Analyzer (MEDA) System Aboard NASA’s Perseverance Rover.

The MEDA system aboard NASA’s Perseverance rover first powered on for 30 minutes Feb. 19, approximately one day after the rover touched down on the Red Planet. Around 8:25 p.m. PST that same day, engineers received initial data from MEDA.

MEDA weighs roughly 12 pounds (5.5 kilograms) and contains a suite of environmental sensors to record dust levels and six atmospheric conditions – wind (both speed and direction), pressure, relative humidity, air temperature, ground temperature, and radiation (from both the Sun and space). The system wakes itself up every hour, and after recording and storing data, it goes to sleep independently of rover operations. The system records data whether the rover is awake or not, both day and night. Yet, not until sol 46 when we were first told about Sol 1 weather. We were told it was initially just below minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 20 degrees Celsius) on the surface when the system started recording. There was a temperature drop to minus 14 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 25.6 degrees Celsius) within 30 minutes, a cleaner atmosphere than Gale Crater around the same time, roughly 2,300 miles (3,700 kilometers) away, and a 718 Pascals pressure (7.18 mbar), well within the 705-735 Pascal range predicted by their models for that time.

Why do we question the MEDA Pressure Report? It says above that on the day after touchdown engineers received initial data from MEDA. That would be Sol 1. But no weather data was posted for over 45 days which is much longer than is traditional. Further except for the paragraph claiming 718 Pascals all weather reports for Mars for the first 45 sols have either cited only Curiosity on Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) or the Insight lander.

Finally on April 6, 2021 weather data was posted for Perseverance at Jezero Crater, Mars. The table below also includes some pressure for MSL at Gale Crater. Differences will be discussed when I can find a MOLA altitude for Perseverance (it’s likely about -2,500 meters below areoid). That Perseverance landed on February 18, 2021, turned on its weather instruments the next sol, but gave us no weather report until April 6, 2021 really odd in conjunction with the need to reprogram the Ingenuity Helicopter after it only was able to reach 50 rpm instead of 2,400 rpm planned for a test on April 9, 2021. It did fly on April 19, 2021 supposedly with 2,400 rpm but it is not yet clear as what caused the delay. Was the pitch of the blades changed? Exactly how and what did the program change? Did NASA hold down the rpm on April 9 because they found (but did not tell us) that (as we assert) pressure was much higher than expected? If the atmosphere is two orders of magnitude higher than we have been told then cranking up the rpm to 2400 might cause overheating and engine failure. So JPL took a bit over a week to recalculate the proper speed and/or propeller pitch, then tried again (leaving the true nature of adjustments made classified).



Ls in o

Earth Date

Jezero Pressure in hPa/mbar

Gale Crater Pressure (MSL)

High Air Temp. o F

High Air

Temp o C

Low Air Temp. o F

Low Air

Temp o C









































































































































AGAIN, NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON'T. Even more suspicious was the appearance of what looked like a rainbow near Perseverance. While NASA argues against this interpretation of the photo based on water in the atmosphere, back on September 29, 2011 ESA argued for supersaturation of water there. If we are seeing NASA having a hard time keeping its inconsistent stories straight it may well be because they are hiding something there.  In 1947 the military let us see headinees about them capturing a flying saucer, then they said it was a balloon. Then we see what looks like a base but we are told it's just radiation, and finally we are shown what looks like a rainbow but it's just an effect of using a crappy camera angle. Our recommendation?  Read the works of Dr. Michael E. Salla.