In finance there's something called "expected return," a measure of investment valuation. The expected return of any investment is calculated simply as the sum of an array of possible rates of return multiplied times their respective probabilities of occurring.

Consider a simple example involving an investment in XYZ Gravel Company. There are three scenarios for XYZ: the worst case, which provides a return of -10%; the average case, with a return of 0%; and the best case, with a return of 20%. The probabilities of occurrence for the worst, average and best cases are 30%, 10% and 60%, respectively.

For XYZ Gravel Company, the total expected return is calculated as the sum of the possible scenarios times their probabilities:

If we invest $100.00 in XYZ Company, then, we expect to make 9% on our money. We expect to have $109.00 at the end of our investment term. Not bad. But nothing to write home about either.

However, say we have an investment, ABC Technology Company, that is riskier but has a possibility of a very high return (an Internet stock, perhaps?). Assume the stock has a 20% probability of hitting the jackpot -- it can triple our money. Of course, the flip side is that we can lose big money (say -40%), but given the tech sector's recent dominance we assign that possibility a smaller probability, say, 30%. Then there's the probability (say 50%) that the stock flounders and earns 0%. The pertinent data is summarized below.

For ABC Technology Company, the total expected return is calculated as the sum of the possible scenarios times their probabilities:

If we invest $100.00 in ABC Technology Company, at the end of our investment term we expect to have $128.00. A 28% return, now that's something to write home about!

But what does this have to do with Cydonia?

Well, the best thing about investment analysis is that it applies to every type of investment, whether it's an investment of money, time or energy. In fact, every day we use the concept of expected return. We get out of bed every day, despite our desire to stay there, because our expected return on investment is higher if we show up to work on time! We get in our cars, despite the possibility of being in an accident, because the risk is worth not having to walk.

Now consider making an "investment" in studying Cydonia -- a serious study capable of answering once and for all the question of artificiality. Suppose NASA changs its current stance dramatically and shifts some of the space agency's vast resources toward a comprehensive, systematic study of the region. Using the concept of expected return, we could quantify our return on this investment using the same method illustrated in the examples above.

In order to do this, let's start by attempting to assign hypothetical rates of return for various possibilities regarding the Face:

Worst case: the Face is natural...In this case our rate of return is negative. The price we paid in lost imaging time, embarrassment to fragile scientific egos, and so on, was more than we gained. Our return is -50%. We lose half of our investment. Let's say the probability of this scenario occurring is 80%.

Average case: We still can't tell if the Face is artificial or not...This scenario may be a toss up...we learned some things about imaging technologies, experienced a few "sequencing errors" and learned how to avoid them in the future, and generally learned about natural Martian geology. But we didn't get the really big payoff. The return on this one is zero percent. How likely is this scenario? Let's assume NASA puts forth an honest, all-out effort to settle the artificiality question once and for all, giving us a probability of only 10% that we do not get a definitive answer on the question of artificiality.

Best case: It's artificial...In this case most people agree that the rate of return is huge...hard to quantify, even. Say it's a mere 1000%. (We retrieve information ten times as valuable as it cost us to show artificiality.). What is the probability of this scenario occurring? Though serious Cydonia researchers agree that there is at least a 50% chance of artificiality at Cydonia, for the sake of argument let us use a much more conservative figure, say, 10%.

So, what's our overall expected rate of return for pursuing the "Cydonia investment"?

Not bad! On a par with even the most lucrative investments available in any arena today. And all for just having an open mind...

Now here's where the skeptics come rushing in. This group can already be heard screaming: "But the probability of the Face being natural is far greater than 80%. It's more like 99.9%!"

Indeed, for the majority of planetary scientists, the a priori possibility of artificial land forms at Cydonia is close to nil. For various reasons I argue that this stance in not reasonable. In fact, there is no a priori reason why we should not find ruins on another planet in the solar system. An exhaustive study conducted by the prestigious Brookings Institution, and delivered to a fledgling space agency in 1959, predicted that NASA would eventually find extraterrestrial ruins in its survey of the solar system. A young Carl Sagan suggested that other civilizations have probably visited the solar system every 10,000 years or so. Recently, premier theoretical physicist Michio Kaku (some say, Sagan's successor) suggested that there are probably ruins on Earth's moon. However, in a compromise to staunch ET-ruin skeptics, let us accept their dire 99.9% proclamation.

As a trade off, however, I insist that finding proof of artificiality would give us a much, much greater return on our investment. I argue it would be nearly infinite. For one, it would answer perhaps the most important question known to man..."are we the only ones"? Factor in the gigantic boost in interest in space exploration, and renewed interest in a Mars mission. Factor in the likelihood of finding libraries or some other records at Cydonia. Factor in the archeological gold mine sure to result from study of the architectural masterpieces...the renewed sense of purpose and place for humanity, and so on. I'd argue that's good for a thousand-fold return.

With our revised percentages let's calculate the new expected return:

Clearly, any argument about expected returns revolves around the percentages assigned to rates of return and probabilities of achieving the returns. Skeptics will always look to minimize the reward and maximize the risk to support their positions. Supporters, of course, will emphasize the available Cydonia image analysis of researchers such as Dr. Mark Carlotto, Dr. Tom Van Flandern, Dr. Horace Crater, Richard Hoagland and others, all of whom conclude a much higher probability for the artificiality scenario.

But it is extremely difficult to argue that the return for discovering artificial ruins on Mars would not be astronomical. It's also difficult to argue that discovering the Face is natural would result in such a large negative return, especially given the rather mundane alternatives available to NASA. In any case skeptics and supporters alike agree that the land forms are unique. Focus on them would return valuable science data peripheral to the artificiality question. So regardless of the risks, regardless of the "opportunity costs" of an intense study on Cydonia, the return could hardly be less than zero.

Given these thoughts, and the conservative consensus estimate of artificiality of 50% made by the Cydonia researchers, my personal estimate of the real expected return of the "Cydonia investment" follows:

Such a phenomenal gain is exceedingly rare in financial markets. In government it is virtually nonexistent. It's hard to argue that any agency devoted to "the expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space," as is NASA's Charter, would not want to pursue this opportunity to its fullest extent. If NASA refuses to invest in this opportunity it is obvious who misses out on the potential for such rich rewards: the theoretical owners of the space agency, U.S. citizens. Is NASA ignoring the cardinal rule of investing: maximize shareholder value?

Maybe. But just as there is a buyer for every seller and a loser for every winner in investing, there is always a flip side to the equation. Perhaps NASA (or at least a very influential group in NASA) has a different take on the expected return of a "Cydonia investment." Suppose, for example, that certain space agency officials view the scenarios outlined above in a very different, political, light.

There is much evidence (the Brookings Institution report, for example) to suggest it is the belief of bureaucrats that discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence would produce a very large negative return for society in general. A solid argument can be made for the possibility of tremendous upheaval in varied groups who currently exert significant influence in societal matters. One group is the fundamentalist religions, which might be jolted by the revelation of ET intelligence. Another, ironically, is the scientific community, which accrues its power mainly through mastery over nature. What happens to these groups when confronted with super intelligence which threatens spiritual beliefs, or possesses superior technology, or upsets accepted timelines and cherished theories? What kind of return are bureaucrats, who are charged with maintaining societal stability over all else, likely to pin on these events, which to them are likely outcomes of ET discovery? Negative 10,000 percent? Negative 1,000,000 percent? After all, could there be any worse return on an investment than having civilization collapse?

Given this very different, negative take on the discovery of ET ruins let us calculate a new expected return for the "Cydonia investment." From the perspective of a politician seeking to not "rock the boat" we might view a "Face is natural" verdict as the best possible outcome. Let's assign this outcome a return of 500%. An "inconclusive" conclusion would also be highly desirable, since it would constrain the artificiality hypothesis to its current position as a scientific non-issue. Let's give it a 100% return. The "Face is artificial" scenario, of course, would represent the worst of all worlds to a politician. Let us assign it a return of -100,000%. Using my estimation of the real likelihood of artificiality, the bureaucrat's expected return is summarized below.

For comparison let us look at the bureaucrat's expected return based on the view of Cydonia as purported by skeptics.

Obviously, from the perspective of a political figure concerned about The End Of The World As We Know It, the positive return from any "Cydonia investment" comes from confirmation of the Face as a natural feature. In fact, an administrator who values societal stability over scientific truth might be tempted to prop up the skeptic's view, regardless of any evidence contradicting it, in order to achieve the positive return on investment. Conversely, the politician might engage in activities designed to suppress evidence requiring the expected return to rise as the possibility of artificiality rises, in order to not realize a large negative return.

Expected returns depend on…expectations. Expectations, in turn, are based on assumptions. Clearly, the assumption of the scientific community is that artificial structures are unlikely. I argue there is no a priori reason for this position.

Skeptics often insist that "there is no evidence" for such structures. But this is circular reasoning! The alleged artifacts at Cydonia may BE the evidence. Since there is not a single dated, authored NASA rebuttal to the voluminous available Cydonia research, skeptics cannot claim that space agency research has dismissed claims of artificiality -- there IS no space agency research. On the contrary, the consensus of independent Cydonia researchers is that there is a reasonably high likelihood (50% or higher) that the Face is artificial.

That said, even if we accept skeptics' most severely negative estimations of the likelihood for artificiality, because of the exceedingly high scientific payoff that would result from a finding of artificiality at Cydonia, the expected return for the "Cydonia investment" is still strongly positive!

In other words, assuming an honest, scientifically oriented space agency involved in a sincere pursuit of its Charter on behalf of its "shareholders," the American public, the expected return of a "Cydonia investment" far exceeds the cost incurred in all scenarios.

NASA's persistent lack of willingness to image the "Face on Mars" (only one sub-par image of the Face has been obtained in the last 24 years), and the current wave of irrational pessimism among members of the scientific community, can be attributed to only two possible scenarios:

1. Planetary scientists inside and outside the most prestigious agency in the world have no concept of expected return

2. The bureaucrat's view of the "Cydonia investment" is the dominant factor in policymaking regarding Cydonia imaging

In either case, science is not being served. It is time to set aside irrational biases and make an investment in our future, despite the fears of timid bureaucrats who put politics above scientific inquiry.

 

To contact InfoSource Research, write: PMB 210, 4820 Yelm Hwy SE, Suite 2, Lacey, WA 98503 Phone/Fax (360) 786-1758 or E-mail: contact@InfoSourceResearch.com