Continued
Continued
2-3-01
Anomalous Geomorphology and the Cliff
The new, partial image of the Cliff taken by the Mars Global Surveyor.
The Clif as photographed by Viking. Note roughened terrain to the right of Cliff and central defile.
If the Face and associated features are artificial, it's likely that they were sculpted from pre-existing land formations: a strategy that makes sense from the perspective of a civilization seeking to insulate itself from an inhospitable environment. The Cliff seems to be the lone exception to this hypothesis, as there doesn't seem to be any way a feature of this sort could form after the meteor impact to its immediate right; as previously noted, the Cliff lies within the perimeter of the crater's ejecta blanket.
If the Cliff is artificial, then it's possible that it was assembled out of ejecta material. Indeed, the terrain between the Cliff and the crater is riddled with furrows that may represent an ancient quarry. The crater's "splash"-style ejecta suggests that this area of Cydonia was wet (or even underwater) at the time of the meteor strike. The Cliff might be most accurately appraised as an "earthwork" similar to the enormous structures built by Native American Mound Builders and early European tribes.
On close inspection, it's unclear if the Cliff's platform mesa (as opposed to the elevated ramp) was a pre-existing formation. The new image shows a scattering of debris on the Cliff's right half that might be evidence of meteoric "blast shadow," in which case the Cliff's "foundation mesa" was firm enough to survive the impact relatively unscathed. But the defile appears newer and harder to explain.
The upper portion of the Cliff is also of interest: it has a striking similarity to the "headdress" of the better-known "Face." Is this due to runoff or could it be deliberately built?
2-7-01
Alternative Explanation for "Nostrils" on Face
The image of the Face acquired in 1998 revealed two anatomically correct "nostrils" that argue in favor of artificial origin, as they were predicted on the a priori assumption that the Face was deliberately sculpted to resemble an anthropoid head.
Inverted picture of the Face taken in 1998, showing features thought to be "nostrils."
Landform showing two closely placed pits similar to the Face's "nostrils."
Efrain Palermo has discovered an interesting Martian surface formation with a similar set of nostril-like holes (albeit without a surrounding facial context). It's assumed the closely spaced pits are the remains of a volcano or possibly extinct hydrothermal vents. Their proximity to one another adds some weight to the hypothesis that the Face's "nostrils" are natural features.
2-8-01
David Jinks Comments on 2-7-01 Article
Author/researcher David Jinks has this to say regarding the above article:
"Good points, Mac. On the other hand, clever and efficient 'face' builders might have utilized already present (natural) features to save the time and effort of carving their own. So which came first, the chicken or the egg, and how do we prove it?
"The fulfillment of an a priori prediction (i.e. Van Flandern's prediction that we'd find nostrils at higher resolution) carries far more weight than the fact that similar formations may appear naturally.
"Of course, the ultra-skeptical response will be 'yes, since adjacent 'pits' are seen elsewhere on Mars, we can assume that the 'face' is a natural formation.' But this is like saying that because I once saw a man throw a rock from a rooftop, all rocks that fall from the sky are dropped by people on rooftops. Before we knew what meteorites were nobody believed rocks came from the sky.
"What really counts is not the morphology of the features but their positioning and their presence in the one mesa that *should* have exhibited such features. I think your article alludes to this point, though I would argue that its importance is understated."
2-9-01
The Face on Mars: A Closer, Better Look
The new image of the Face offers a clear, well-illuminated look at the formation's western half, revealing abundant detail around the "brow," "headdress" and "teardrop." Perhaps most provocatively, the new Mars Global Surveyor image reveals the proposed "eyeball" with unparalleled clarity, showing it to be an actual feature with a flat, triangular bump for a pupil and a convincing, anatomically correct almond-shaped perimeter.
The new Face image. Note detail on "headdress," "brow" and possible "eye." The edge of the Face's "lips" is also visible.
The "eyeball" is an important element in assessing the Face for potential artificiality. Since fine-scale features such as the "eye" were invisible at the resolution afforded by the Viking photos in the 1970s, advocates of the Artificiality Hypothesis suggested, reasonably, that if the Face was an intentional representation, secondary features sustaining a facial likeness should be seen on better images.
The unexpected "nostrils" visible in the image returned to Earth in April of 1998 confirmed the a priori model posited by Tom Van Flandern, Richard Hoagland, Stanley McDaniel, Mark Carlotto and other researchers willing to entertain the possibility of artificial structures on Mars. Van Flandern, in particular, concluded that the 1998 image was proof that the Face was artificial "beyond reasonable doubt."
The "eye" seen on the new image provides us with another chance to address artificiality on a practical level. The "anatomy" of the eye is remarkably human, but not perfectly so. Kurt Jonach of The Electric Warrior immediately set to work on a speculative reconstruction of the "eye" -- complete with digital eyeliner. Although he subsequently made it abundantly clear to Internet Cydonia-watchers that his rendering was a purely artistic exercise, the image has nevertheless been interpreted as a strict forensic model by researchers seeking a blatant anthropomorphic analogue.
eWarrior's speculative version of the western "eye" visible in the new image.
Mike Bara, writing on behalf of Richard Hoagland's Enterprise Mission, maintains that Jonach's "eye" is essentially a tracing of actual features on the Martian Face. While there is no doubt that Jonach's drawing is based on the feature thought by some to be a deliberately created eye, the corresponding feature on the Face contains notable differences. For example, the "pupil" -- if it is a pupil -- is not the round structure seen in Jonach's speculative illustration. Nor is it the dark circle featured on Bara's mosaic, in which the orthorectification by Mark Kelly is fitted with pixels from the new Face overpass.
Mark Kelly's orthorectified Face based on the 1998 image. Shadows matching those of frame 35A72 have been added to simulate the Face's appearance under Viking lighting conditions.
Bara's reconstruction is made doubly questionable because the "eye" feature he immediately cites as proof of the Face mesa's artificiality is misplaced. Instead of the pupil resting in the almond-shaped depression beneath the peaked "brow" shown (accurately) in Jonach's illustration, Bara places the eye against the nose-ridge.
Chris Joseph's analysis demonstrates faulty position of "eyeball" in the Enterprise Mission mosaic.
A quick look at the unaltered MGS photo (as well as Mark Kelly's orthorectification) shows that the candidate "eye" is much less clearly defined and located significantly farther to the Face's western perimeter. While the spurious placement of the "eye" in Bara's supposedly objective mosaic may be the result of hasty computer work or graphics error, I find it more likely that, in the rush to present the eye as a necessarily artificial feature, Bara succumbed to artistic liberties rather more damaging and fallacious than Jonach's.
The questionable "eye" as shown on The Enterprise Mission's mosaic. The "pupil" is neither round, as shown here, and the perimeter is actually significantly larger.
The irony is that by interpreting the "eye" in purely anthropoid terms, Bara ignores the "pupil's" actual shape, which seems to be more triangular than circular -- almost a tiny "flattened pyramid." This rough triangular shape is positioned in the "eye socket" in such a way that it might have served to reflect sunlight, and in the 1998 MGS image we see it doing exactly this.
The "eye" is overlooked by a peaked brow that, if artificial, seems to have been built especially for casting long shadows under low sun-angle lighting conditions, as seen in the dramatic first photo of the Face in 1976. Oddly, NASA's fiction that the Face is a "trick of light and shadow" is deceptively true--but only insofar as any megalithic sculpture of human features depends on shadow to define its contours.
Viking frame 35A72.
Mark Carlotto's photoclinometric prediction for a Face imaging opportunity in May of 2000. Note presence and location of possible "eye."
The almond-shaped depression is surrounded by interesting "radiating" terrain that suggests decoration -- or, according to Bara's article, some form of honeycombed construction. If the unusual terrain below the "eye" is indeed structural, then it approaches the limits of the MGS' resolution. Caution should be taken in distinguishing specific shapes among the "cells" until better images are available.
Anomalous "decorative" (?) lines seen at Viking resolution.
Further intriguing features seen in the new Face image include an ornamental-looking stripe running down the middle of the "headdress" along with a series of peculiar lines that suggest possible aesthetic significance. The smooth texture seen on the headdress differs dramatically from the craggy, eroded "brow." It's likely the elevated "brow" has sheltered the relatively fragile "eye" from sand deposition, inadvertently preserving the overall facial resemblance.
The anomalous "teardrop" is also plainly visible, and appears to be a distinct feature as opposed to a piece of erosional debris. If the Face itself is artificial, it's extremely likely that the "teardrop" is as well. But what does it signify? The prospect of a human face on another planet caught in the act of "crying" has a certain symbolic poignancy.
Carlotto's animation shows the Face as seen from the direction of the "City" based on Viking and MGS data. Note "eye" and "teardrop."
2-10-01
The "Face": Best View Yet?
Alert reader Chris Joseph's independent attempt to unite the Kelly enhancement, considered the best rectified Face image to date, with new data from the MGS.
2-11-01
Speculative "Mirroring" by Chris Joseph
The central "grayed-out" portion and the corners of this image depict Mark Kelly's rectified enhancement. The rest of the imagery is obtained directly from the new Face photo.
While the "mirror" effect above (used time and again to "reconstruct" the Face's appearance) proves nothing in particular, it's still interesting. Joseph's image shows what the Face would look like if it possesses perfect bilateral symmetry.
While the Face indeed displays a high degree of symmetry, Viking and MGS data indicate that the left and right halves are not mirror-opposites. Whether this discrepancy can be attributed to erosion, aesthetic intent, or a combination of these is beyond the scope of the available imagery. A high-resolution, high sun-angle shot of the entire Face is needed to evaluate the extent of the Face's bisymmetry.
