MSSS just released the new image of the Face at Cydonia, which shows the eastern side in more detail than we've had before, though still very dark. Some evidence of bilateral symmetry, but it looks like the terrain is heavily eroded compared to the western side. Other processing by researchers other than Malin may bring out a different look to it. I've got to be out this afternoon and most of the next two days, so I am not going to be able to keep up with the buzz on the Mars boards, I fear.

In yer Face

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Answers

Bumping out of "unanswered" section.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

re-bumping... pretty intersting.

-- Anonymous, May 24, 2001

Even the face on Mars gets age lines.

*bump* interesting picture

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

A writer on another board posts some questions for a geologist in a thread (as yet unanswered):

"Would you like to discuss with us the nature of the terrain on the eastern half of the Face, and the processes which you believe were at work there?

I'm seeing what appears to be relatively smooth slumping on the east compared to the "gritty" texture of the western side. It seems to have been substantially eroded/disturbed compared to the Western side. What would have caused such marked difference on one side compared to another, so concentrated on one side of the axis of symmetry? Can you show us other examples in Cydonia where this has happened, or is this an isolated (er, anomalous) example of the process compared to the rest of the geology of the region?

The eastern side has those deep winding gullies , which in contrast are substantially absent from the west. Would you say that one of the two sides has been geologically active more recently than the other? If so, which one -- and what characteristics would indicate that to you?

Suggestions of bi-lateral symmetry: the image as seen here does not totally remove the case for bi-lateral symmetry. The mesa itself seems to have kept its symmetry for the most part. The arrow-straight line across the top of the forehead seems to have continued intact until hitting the area in the upper corner which shows substantial disturbance. The brow ridge seems similarly to have continued over, with another disturbed depression where the eye depression would be. The disturbances around the nose also seem to start just where the definition that would make it a nose would be.

I've said frequently in the past that my conjecture that many of the Mars anomalies we've found is not something that depends on the Cydonia Face. My preference has been to give more credence to show things which are of geometrical interest, or which seem to show processes inconsistent with any logical geological explanation. While I don't think we can say for sure that it is artificial, I have, however, agreed with those who feel that the evidence has weighed more heavily toward showing it to possibly be an artifact of intelligent design.

In short, I'm seeing that the areas on the east showing the most marked erosion or disturbance compared to the equivalent areas on the west are _precisely_ the ones which if intact, would delineate a symmetrical face. The smooth top of the forehead and the chin do not show such disturbed terrain, but neither are they needed to exhibit detail in order to show this as a face.

The big question is this: has the terrain on the eastern side remained stable and in this state for as long as the terrain on the western side?

If yes, how do we know this definitively?

And if no, how can we say what features might not have been blotted out by whatever process was at work?"

One indication that the eastern site may be geologically active in a way that may have obliterated the features on that side is that there seem to be seeps in the southwestern corner.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

I have always found the focus of so many talented people on the Cydonia “face” anal-retentive. NASA and Malin have used this dead horse to discredit the efforts of all the Mars anomaly researchers, while Hoagland and others who created their personas by analyzing the damn thing to death are screaming conspiracy. Out of curiosity, I peeked in on the TEM board, and considering what it had devolved in to, it should not have been a surprise to find this the major topic of discussion, if that’s what you care to call it.

When NASA tackles an image like AB108405, Lake Steadman, or Lake Cheri, and shows them to be nothing but shadow and imagination, I’ll be impressed. Cydonia was an old image that had gained legend status over the years. By debunking the legend, they pre-empt the much more damning evidence that has surfaced in the latest images.

Too bad. Hoagland and others who built their reputations on Cydonia would serve us all better by giving up their fixation and concentrating on the newer, and better, evidence. If I had never seen anything but the image of Cydonia, I would not believe as I do today, that intelligent life existed in the past on Mars, and quite possibly, some remnants may still survive today.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

BBC Friday, 25 May, 2001, 12:18 GMT 13:18 UK

Nasa: No face - honest

Does it look like a face?

By BBC News Online science editor Dr David Whitehouse

For those who still think it's a face, built by an ancient race of Martians, the American space agency Nasa just wants to say: Look at this picture.

The latest images sent back from the orbiting Mars Global Surveyor (MGS), show, once again, that what is claimed by some to be a giant face is nothing more than a ruined mountain.

But space agency scientists know their work is in vain. Just as with previous pictures of the "face", there are some who will dismiss this latest image as propaganda.

"What can you do?" one scientist told BBC News Online, "They're loonytunes."

'Illusion of eyes'

Twenty five years ago something funny happened around Mars.

The image that started it all

Nasa's Viking 1 spacecraft was circling the planet, snapping photos of possible landing sites for its sister ship Viking 2, when it spotted the shadowy likeness of a human face.

There it was: an enormous head nearly three km (two miles) long that seemed to be staring back at the cameras from a region of the Red Planet called Cydonia.

A few days later Nasa released the image under the caption "huge rock formation ... which resembles a human head ... formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose and mouth."

But some believed it really was a face, a deliberately-built structure constructed by some long-gone race of Martians. They even found other artificial structures on the plains of Cydonia left by the ancient civilisation.

Although no reputable scientist believed the Face was an alien artifact, photographing Cydonia became a priority for Nasa when Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) arrived at the Red Planet in September 1997.

Another look

"We felt this was important to taxpayers," explained Jim Garvin, chief scientist for Nasa Mars Exploration Program. "We photographed the Face as soon as we could get a good shot at it."

So on 5 April 1998, when MGS flew over Cydonia for the first time, scientists took a picture ten times sharper than the original Viking photos...no face.

Seen from the side--no face

Did it convince everyone? ...no way.

The Face on Mars is located at 41 degrees north Martian latitude where it was winter in April 1998 - a cloudy time of year on the Red Planet. The camera on board MGS had to peer through wispy clouds to see the Face. Perhaps alien markings were hidden by haze.

"It's not easy to target Cydonia," says Garvin. "In fact, it's hard work." MGS is a mapping spacecraft that normally looks straight down and scans the planet like a fax machine in narrow 2.5 km-wide (1.5 miles) strips. "We just don't pass over the Face very often."

...and another look

On 8 April 2000, a cloudless summer day in Cydonia, MGS took its most recent peek: "We had to roll the spacecraft 25 degrees to center the Face in the field of view," said Garvin.

Said one observer: "Gee, it doesn't look like a face to me!"

Laser altimetry data from MGS is perhaps even more convincing than overhead photos in showing the Face to be natural.

Three-dimensional elevation maps show the formation from any angle. There are no eyes, no nose, and no mouth.

But sure as the planet is red, someone will not be able to face the facts.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2001

MOLA resolution described by TEM: "The reality is that it is highly unlikely that any of us would recognize a picture of our own grandmother if it was stretched horizontally, flattened, compressed and shown upside down. So of course it doesn't look much like a Face. And there is one other major problem with NASA's argument. The MOLA instrument they are relying so much on has a resolution of 300 meters per pixel.

Or, to put it another way: NASA is basing its entire public “its just a hill” argument on a MOLA “image” that is six times worse than the 25-year-old Viking data! At that resolution, an object has to be about the size of baseball stadium to even show up. Frankly, trying to make their argument based on this “non-image” (which they still had to distort) is laughable … and obviously desperate."

While the vertical reading is accurate to several cm, the horizontal tolerances are so poor as to be pretty much meaningless.

TEM's response

Jim Garvin is making a peculiar mention that the Face mesa reminds him of Middle Butte in Idaho. While the basic structure of the Face mesa may indeed have been formed by the same processes, I find this a bit ingenuous of Garvin, as the Middle Butte does not visually resemble the Face mesa at all.

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2001

The real problem, at least for me, is that I just don't trust NASA anymore. (I have come to the same conclusion about some of the NTSB reports such as TWA 800) And that's a shame, because I am now convinced from astronaut statements and other witnesses that have been close to the photo evidence being received by NASA that there has been an ongoing withholding/coverup of countless UFO picutures. Thus, anything that NASA says about the Mars face I now consider to be intentional debunking/discrediting/lying. As one wag stated a while back, NASA seems to stand for Never A Straight Answer. I agree.

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2001

Does Martin Gardner have a nose?

"Scientific Method Employed By NASA proves that Skeptic Martin Gardner Has No Eyes, Mouth or Nose!" How to lie with laser altimetry statistics.

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2001