by Mac Tonnies
The Cydonian Imperative website consists of an ongoing journal detailing Cydonia research, essays on planetary SETI, FAQs, links and more. To go to to the main page, click here or on the title banner above.
by Mac Tonnies
The Cydonian Imperative website consists of an ongoing journal detailing Cydonia research, essays on planetary SETI, FAQs, links and more. To go to to the main page, click here or on the title banner above.
4-7-98
Introduction
The first image of the Face on Mars since 1976 arrived yesterday. Predictably, it is already the subject of debate and puzzlement among independent researchers. NASA has proclaimed that the Face is a natural "hill" -- a conclusion I find hasty and based on insufficient evidence. Of course, with a query of this nature, "proof" will perhaps never arrive in the form of a photograph. One can endlessly debate the nature of a face-shaped formation no matter how face-like it appears. With this in mind, I look forward to the arrival of additional images of the Cydonia region's more architectural-looking formations.
Enjoy my ongoing "estimate of the situation."
4-7-98 (earlier today)
Confirmation?
The "contrast-enhanced" image released to the media. Unfortunately, news agencies didn't have an intelligible enhancement to work with when they denounced the Face as a "pile of rocks."
I met the new image of the "Face" on Mars with a measure of intrigue and disappointment. The stoic, sculptural mask evidenced by the Viking photos crumbles under a combination of new factors. The Mars Global Surveyor photo was taken during the morning, with sunlight cast across the formation at a roughly twenty-five degree angle. The most compelling feature revealed by the MGS is the highly symmetrical "framing mesa," with its sharp, engraved-looking lines. These lines, suggestive of a headdress or helmet, extend around the entire formation, with the possible exception of the "chin." The overall impression is one of unusual symmetry.
The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal attempts to "debunk" the Face with this uninspired animation derived from Viking and MGS images.
While certainly less-than-perfect, the Face is still remarkably face-like . . . cluttered, perhaps, but rich with enigmatic detail. One of my first interpretations of the MGS image was of a severely eroded sculpture. It retains a Sphinx-like aspect that is difficult to deny.
We now know that the Face isn't the striking, well-defined feature seemingly promised to us in 1976. But it still beckons; despite our disillusionment, it still looks like it could be artificial: a huge earthwork probably meant to be seen from orbit. The MGS has provided us with much food for thought and only the sketchiest framework upon which to base an answer. Our next evaluation of the Artificiality Hypothesis awaits us on April 14, when the MGS can rephotograph one or more of the other anomalous formations in Cydonia.
Facial Features Argue for Artificiality
I've been viewing a high resolution view made public by Jet Propulsion Laboratory's MGS site. I'm presently of the opinion that the Face is probably artificial. Though I had hoped for an overhead view, the MGS image nevertheless provides detail unavailable in the Viking photos, such as the "headdress" markings mentioned above.
These anomalous lines, shown here in Viking frame 35A72, have been verified by the MGS.
The "mouth" feature also becomes more interesting in the new (rectified) image. While it doesn't seem to extend fully into the right side of the Face, it exhibits two apparent "gumlines," a detail unlikely to occur in a highly erosive environment. A candidate feature for the "eyeball" foreshadowed by frame 35A72 also becomes apparent. This feature is mirrored by a similar (if less distinct) feature on the right side. It's clear that the salient facial features indicated by the Viking photos are still in evidence -- just not as clearly defined by shadow. A similar phenomenon could be demonstrated using any rock-hewn sculpture of a human head; sculptures, by their very nature, depend on the interplay of shadow across their surfaces. I suspect this is what we are witnessing.
The bulge midway beneath the "eye" and "mouth" (the so-called "teardrop" on the Viking images) appears to be a bit of rubble, trailed by two smaller pieces of debris "chipped" off the "nose" area. The resulting debris trail gives the unfortunate impression of a ridge where one doesn't belong, if the Face is indeed a face. Whether the Face is natural or artificial, this does not appear to be a part of the original formation, and this should be taken into account when attempting to confirm a facial resemblance.
Despite evidence of general symmetry (i.e., the "brow," possible "eyes" and "headdress" markings), the right portion of the Face is undeniably less facial-looking than the left. I think this can be accounted for by weathering; indeed, it would be odd for a mile-long sculpture of the Face's apparent complexity to survive tens of thousands of years of Martian weathering unscathed. If the Face is completely natural, then it becomes extremely difficult to account for its gross symmetry. I propose that we are observing an artifact exhibiting the degradation one should expect from prolonged exposure to Martian sand-blasting and possible meteorite impact.
The D&M Pyramid Partially Reimaged
A small portion of the D&M Pyramid is also visible in the MGS image-strip. As luck would have it, the area photographed is probably the most degraded portion of this unusual landform.
The portion of the D&M Pyramid photographed by the Mars Global Surveyor.
"Nostrils" and Simian Appearance
Other facial details include two "nostrils" of equal size. These are reasonably deep formations and don't look like craters. One skeptical explanation is that they are "blowholes" resulting from hydrothermal activity.
The left side of the Face is eerily simian, while the right remains too obscured to allow a definitive assessment. Richard Hoagland has suggested that the right side has feline characteristics. If the Face is artificial, then it's reasonable to assume it was meant to communicate a message. Perhaps its builders intended to incorporate two visages into a single mammoth sculpture by building each half to represent a specific deity or species.
4-11-98
Future Targets: What to Expect
NASA has announced that the Mars Global Surveyor will next photograph the "City Square," a small cluster of mounds centered in the "City" complex. I'm pleased with this decision, as it allows a fairly wide margin of error. Even if the City Square is not imaged, it is likely that something else of value will be -- maybe even the Fort. I find the agenda to rephotograph the City area more potentially enlightening than that to rephotograph the Face; the City is topologically complex and provides a decent chance of imaging possible architectural anomalies.
A colorized synthetic perspective view of the City, Face and D&M Pyramid.
Our experience with the Face has shown that the Cydonia region is highly eroded. Perhaps the City Square, sheltered by neighboring "pyramids," will offer us a clearer understanding of the processes that have degraded the Face and D&M Pyramid. I'm cautiously optimistic that the Cydonia enigmas are artificial. While I could speculate endlessly on what we might see, it's perhaps more important to dispel all traces of "terrestrial chauvinism." We should not expect potential Martian architecture to mirror the architecture of Earth; we need the cool objectivity of explorers encountering something for the first time.
4-13-98
Mark Carlotto's Enhancement
Mark Carlotto has posted the results of his analysis of the Face. I was struck by how misleading NASA's "enhanced" version is, despite its clarity. Carlotto's high-pass filtered image is much more representative of how the Face appeared to the MGS.
The Face's characteristics are made clear in this animation by Mark Carlotto.
The "mouth," "gums" and framing mesa are clearly visible in Carlotto's independent rendering. The morphology of the left eye-socket is also somewhat clearer. The Face's chimp-like muzzle appears more defined in Carlotto's version, consistent with the Viking frames, while the exact nature and spacing of the "pupil" features is debatable.
Personally, I think the Face looks alarmingly artificial. But will the MGS return "irrefutable" evidence of design in its scheduled imaging of the City? The odds are certainly good that it will return something of scientific interest, barring hazy weather. Perhaps we should resist hoping for immediate proof. Possible tell-tale signs of artificiality include any of the following: fine-scale structural detail such as ramps, roads, buttresses, terraces and evidence of landscaping or mining operations. Unfortunately, the very fine-scale detail that could confirm the Artificiality Hypothesis is the very detail likely to be obscured or damaged by erosion. Nevertheless, the appearance of the City Square, with its five distinct formations, lends hope to the prospect of finding reasonably well-preserved structures. If the new images of the City Square reveal anything of interest, we can probably expect additional overflights to be made later in the MGS's mission.
4-15-98
New Data
The new Cydonia image has arrived and is available in its raw form as well as in three other enhanced versions. Although the MGS missed its target by over a kilometer, a portion of the City is visible. The photo reveals what appears to be a large domed formation, an anomaly not featured in the Viking data because it was obscured by the Viking camera's resolution. I'm awaiting an explanation for this feature. Am I seeing an actual dome or merely a basin? Perhaps this is a trick of perspective.
The formation to the lower left of the NW City formation. Is this a depression or a dome?
The Dome lies to the lower left of the NW City formation (which the MGS has revealed to be quite unpyramidal) and may comprise some of the shadowy landmass of the large, apyramidal SW City formation. It appears sunken and surrounded by rubble, almost as if "unearthed" or hewn from an existing landform. This effect is similar to the apron of debris at the base of Mount Rushmore. The base of the Dome is in shadow, and it appears that only its highest portion is receiving direct sunlight. My impression is that the Dome is fairly shallow and shield-like.
To the Dome's right is canyon-like terrain reminescent of an excavation of some sort. It's possible that the Dome's builders utilized the surrounding terrain for its construction.
An example of the terrain to the direct right of the Dome. Note precise right angles and rectangular furrows.
A likely alternative to artificiality is that I am misinterpreting a crater. However, I don't see any of the features associated with craters. There is no visible crater rim and no apparent ejecta blanket. In fact, a natural enough-looking ridge adjacent to the Dome intrudes on the area one would expect to see wiped clean if the Dome is actually the result of a meteorite impact. In comparison, a small crater directly below the Dome looks perfectly "normal."
4-16-98
Insight from NASA
Thanks to NASA's Dr. Julius Dasch for the following. Dasch, a planetary geologist, does not think the Face or attendant landforms are artificial and his skeptical perspective (below) is very much appreciated.
"If we are looking at the same feature, one interesting thing I noticed was the lower left-hand side of the circular feature is 'straight' -- not the circular curve. It looks to me like the slope below and to the left of the circle looks like a landslide slope (with tributaries) leading down to the flatter area on which the circle is found. It looks like the circle (which I think is a depression, probably an impact crater with a raised rim) is older than the landslip material, which partly covered up the lower left edge."
While the odds are that Dasch's estimation is right, I still can't get my mind to perform the perceptual "flip-flop" necessary to turn this feature into a depression. And I've noted further detail on the "Dome" that looks consistent with a shallow, convex surface. Only further research will resolve this issue.
4-19-98
Other Anomalous Landforms
The more I look at it, the more I'm perplexed with the ruler-straight arrangement of white lines present beneath the Face. Photographed during the MGS's first flyover of the Cydonia region, these lines underscore a landform suggestive of a coathanger or, to some, a dolphin. Are they a geological phenomenon or evidence of artificiality? They certainly don't appear to be mounds of ejecta thrown out by the nearby crater. One could even argue that the crater predates the "coathanger" formation, since the latter looks undamaged by the impact.
In any case, the crater in question shows signs of having been "scooped out." Note that the furrow extending from the top of the image passes through the crater rim itself. I contend that details such as this should be vigorously pursued, especially when they occur in the vicinity of other strange or unexplained formations.
The "coathanger" formation shown in context.
The MGS photographed another intriguing site dubbed "Mound P" by Dr. Horace Crater and Prof. Stanley McDaniel. This elongated formation fulfills proposed geometric alignments as seen from orbit and features unique morphology. Its visible half appears to rest on a platform. While this could be an accumulation of sand, I see nothing like it on neighboring landmasses. Adding to its uniqueness is the six-sided structure to its direct lower right. Examination reveals that this is a raised formation, with the crater-like feature atop a circular mound.
Mound P, a formation under study by Dr. Horace Crater and Dr. Stanley McDaniel. Note the raised, geometric-looking "crater" to the lower right.
To the right of this is a shallow geometric formation. Hopefully closer inspection of these formations, preferably at different sun angles, will assist in our understanding.
The angular, somewhat indistinct formation to the right of Mound P.
Nearby is an imperfect formation some are claiming is an artificial pyramid. To me, this looks like a natural formation. Nevertheless, its presence in the general area of the City complex raises suspicions.
A pyramidal formation in the same area as Mound P. Though fairly natural-looking, one shouldn't discount it offhand. If it's artificial, significant erosion should be expected.
Aesthetic and Structural Implications of the "Face"
Between the crisp detail provided by NASA's rectified version and Mark Carlotto's high-pass filtered enhancement (significantly "noisier" than NASA's version), there can be little doubt that the Face is basically face-like, as predicted by the Viking data.
The Face shown inverted to simulate Viking lighting conditions. The overall facial resemblance is striking.
The Face is decidedly stoic. The mouth and eyes contribute to an impression of mute terror. If the Face is artificial, then perhaps its builders decided that a bland, unempathic design would best survive the Martian climate. Whether "they" built it for us or for themselves is immaterial; what's of central importance is that the Face appears built to last, which indicates that our hypothetical "Martians" wanted their work to remain on Mars for a long time. Erosion on other anomalies supports the theory that the Cydonia region is extremely old. Mark Carlotto, for example, has tentatively dated the Face's construction at 30,000 years. Of course, it could be much older.
Detail Noted on the D&M Pyramid
The portion of the D&M Pyramid visible in the first MGS Cydonia image-strip reveals a severely degraded landform, not the smooth surface one usually associates with a manufactured pyramid. But the D&M is easily ten times as large as the Main Pyramid at Giza and presumably thousands (if not millions) of years older. The bottom of the new image reveals complex topological detail: ruler-straight lines obscured by masses of windblown soil, a long, looping line that ascends the D&M's formidable slope, and subtle hints of geometry that may represent artificial structure.
One of several hints of an underlying linear substructure at the
base of the D&M Pyramid.
Triangular formation on the D&M's slope. Anomalous features such as this may
prove relevant if future data indicate an artificial origin for the D&M.
