That's basically a bunch of BS coming from people with a lot of ego capital invested in standard theories. Respect for Arp appears to rise with competence in the field. Tom Van Flandern, for instance, is a former director of the Naval Observatory. Here's what he has to say about Arp:
I should have known better than argue with the King of Cut n Paste Medved. He can out cut and paste anyone, I swear I read Arp's book, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversy when I was a sophomore in college. I wasn't particularly impressed with his arguments, and I still am not now. His statistical arguments that you have citied for clustering around peculiar galaxies have disproven, for example, for quite some time by the same method that I described earlier.
Tom von Flandern, isn't he working on geometries for Cydonia, now? I seem to remember him giving a AAS talk on Cydonia about 6 years ago, that I attended. He may have been director of the Naval Observatory, but now he works with such topics of dubious scientific merit.
Ooooo! You're mean. But seriously I'm glad to see that someone else is thinking this is old, bad science. I thought for a second there that I had slipped into a frightening parallel universe where Bill Clinton was elected to his 3rd term as president. (Heeheehee... I'm back to silly again.)
My own take on the recent Cydonia images
Unlike "big bang", the case for Mars having been an inhabited planet is based upon real evidence.