THE MARS CYDONIA "FACE"

Report #139

May 14, 2008

..........

The Mars Cydonia "Face" object your see above and its controversy has been very well known all over the world for quite a few years now and has a lot of followers. Reputations have been forged on it, websites created on its foundations, books written, and money made on it. Why? Because of the obvious that it is interesting and visually suggestive evidence. Some of you have noted that, in the time since the inception of this work in year 2000, this subject has been conspicuously absent from this website's evidence reporting.

I'm often asked why? In fact, in email I'm asked why so much that it is becoming a burden on my now increasingly very limited time to answer and try to explain myself in this regard over and over again. To those that have asked, I usually cryptically advise that it has been explored to death by others and, in my opinion, the "Face" evidence was a trap for the unwary laid by the secrecy agenda who floated it into public awareness intentionally. I also indicated that I did not want to step on the toes of others who have spent so much time exploring this evidence. After all, the Cydonia "Face" is their thing, not mine.

However, I did not go on to explain myself in detail because that would have opened up more doors and questions. So I suspect my responses were less than satisfactory to many of those who asked. But, now that I am running out of room time wise to deal with this over and over again in email, I've come to the decision that I need to put in my two cents on this and better answer those that have asked. However, the question is can I add anything new of substance to this issue that has been examined by so many? You be the judge.

As you can see, the above first image is a split field. The left panel is the Viking image number 035A72 of the Face and the right panel is a different Viking image number 070A13 of the same Face. You should be aware that there are also other different Viking images of this object but these two have the best view of the Face by far and are the ones that many clarified images have been published from over the years. This is also true of the Face orientation you see here.

Now both of these are raw official science data images shown at 100% of their original size and just as released to the public. Each of these images have been flipped vertically by me to present the same view that has always been presented by NASA and the media. They have no image clarification work in them by me. On the other hand, I did rotate the right panel image just 15º clockwise so that the entire field of view and orientation of that right image would be close to the same as the left panel view facilitating a more meaningful side-by-side comparison. This had no impact on the evidence.

At first there appears nothing much to see in the images because of the poor resolution. However, I want you to study the position of the Face and the location and shapes of the other terrain forms in the above raw images scenes and try to commit their shapes and locations to memory. Also do note that the position of these terrain forms nearby the Face agrees between the two left and right views. Since these are suppose to be original raw data images, the terrain patterns and locations here will set the reference standard by which the rest of the images further down here in this reporting will be judged.

Note that this entire reporting will deal only with the Face subject matter and not the other terrain forms around it as others have done. It is not my intention to duplicate or comment on the work of others that has often been quite extensive. For that, you need only to visit a search engine of your choice and use key words "Cydonia Face" to bring up a wealth of information.

The above second image is also a split field view. These are the same two Viking 035A72 left and 070A13 right images but these have been processed and cleaned up at official level to eliminate the distracting camera artifacts so visible in the proceeding raw unprocessed images. Neither of these images have any graphics work in them by me including no rotation. As you can see, this demonstrates the official manipulated orientation of the Face that I spoke of earlier.

Note that the faint shadow the Face is throwing in the above second image left panel is long while the shadow in the right image is much shorter confirming the different times during the Mars days that these images were taken. The two color images at the very top of this report are developed from these two official images and of course do have graphics clarification work by me in them as well as the color work. In those two top color images, note that the shadows thrown are more pronounced and identifiable.

Also note that the above second image right view is ever so slightly closer than the left. This explains how some terrain form evidence at the periphery in the right view doesn't include exactly everything seen in the left view. Now with that taken into consideration, note that everything in the official left field is essentially faithfully reproduced in the right field. However, now take a look at the image below.

In the above third split image, it seems the Face is no longer the principal evidence but rather the nearby associated terrain forms are and that is where you need to look. Note that this terrain form evidence has changed positions in the right panel official processed image as well as what appear to be new terrain forms are now in evidence relative to the left panel raw reference image. Note that the flat top mesa in the bottom left corner of the left image is not present at all in the right image and a crater is now in its place.

The obvious initial reaction is to think okay we've caught them right in the act of artificially manufacturing evidence here but that isn't exactly correct. What we have done is caught them carelessly manipulating the evidence without apology or notation that they have done so. To further demonstrate this, now take a look at the larger field of view image below.

The above fourth image demonstrates a wider field of view of the third image's right panel. Note that the Face orientation is as it always has been. However, despite the Face orientation being the same as always, note that the flat top mesa in the upper right corner is now far removed to the right from the Face. Even so, if you will look more closely, all of the terrain forms in the raw images are there but just in different positions. Because the Face is in the same apparent position/orientation as the previous raw data images, this obviously has the appearance of some serious artificial manipulation of the image and that is true but only to a limited extent. Now check out the next image below.

The above fifth image again demonstrates the reference 070A13 raw image in the left panel and the previous fourth wide field image reduced in size 40% and then flipped horizontal and also rotated 60º around counter clockwise in the right panel. That's a lot of flipping, rotating, and manipulating. But, as you can see this flipping and rotating of the fourth wide field of view image reestablishes the Face and terrain features in relation to each other so that they once again agree with the left panel raw reference image.

What this does do is demonstrate the evidential point here that this degree and kind of image manipulation has in fact been done at official level. Explaining this away as just simple carelessness by professionals is inadequate and just not believable unless we are to consider that these professionals on our public payroll are incompetent and I very much doubt that. This obviously suggests that "processing" or "cleaning" up raw imaging may include much more manipulation than just simply removing camera obscuring artifacts in the imaging, which is all that is suppose to be happening to official science data in such processes.

Now the above sixth image demonstrates the other 035A72 official processed and cleaned image on the left and on the right the same image but with some minor very simple clarification work in it by me. This is to provide a clearer view of the evidence and specifically of the faint shadow evidence thrown by the three largest terrain forms in this view as pointed out by the short white arrow labels. Note that the longer shadows obviously demonstrate a lower on the horizon sunlight angle.

However, take special note that the shadows are not as dark as they should be but are abnormally light and faint in color in the official imaging and even in my clarified image. Note also that the left panel official image looks like one is looking through a thin fog between the camera and the ground level evidence relative to the clarified right image.

The natural assumption of course for the innocent and perhaps naive is that, if atmospheric conditions are not a factor here, this foggy obscure look must be due to camera and/or data transmission inadequacies. However, in my opinion, this is not true and the "fog" and faint shadows are the real evidence here because they are due to image tampering. The old 1970s Viking data is full of a wholesale blanketing type semi-opaque (partially transparent) smudge applications and my 2003 Report #054 titled "Viking Tampering Evidence" demonstrates a few samples of some of this.

The reason why the shadows are so light, vague and less pronounced than they should be is because this whole scene has been subjected to a fairly heavy semi opaque smudge treatment. It covers over and hides all ground level normal size evidence of any kind while leaving the largest size terrain forms a bit visible but slightly altered and the artificially lightened shadows due to the smudge applications covering them are an example of this. The larger major terrain forms are not as severely affected, except in the loss of finer more normal size detail, while the shadows thrown being less substantial are more affected.

That's at ground level but then the whole scene is subjected to a very light almost transparent opaque smudge treatment creating the fog look to further obscure detail. The look is interpreted as plausible by the innocent who want and need to have faith in their leaders and that encompasses the bulk of the population including the science and academic communities not in the secrecy need to know loop. After all, most people are mostly interested in their own personal affairs and place a lot of trust in leadership to handle more technical matters and are not inclined to question them as "experts."

The top final layer in the scene is the thin stuff creating the general fog look, but its application flattens the layers of obfuscation below it. That means that my very simple clarification work can in part defeat the top thin layer (just like in the Hale Crater reporting) providing the generally better looking right panel image you see above but not very much with the layers below that. That means that the whole scene appears sharper but the still too light shadows in the right panel demonstrate that the main lower obfuscation layers are very resistive to such clarifying work. This means that, while the whole right panel image scene looks much better including the large Face formation, the truth is that the bulk of everything normal size in the terrain around and what ever might be on the major terrain forms is still well hidden.

Just look more closely at the first image here in the right panel (the raw Viking 070A13 image) at the beginning of this report. Note how dull, non light reflective, smooth, and uniform color everything is regardless of what it is. True bare geology, such as what this scene is suppose to represent, does not behave like this in sunlight. That's because raw geology is bright and reflective and changing in reflectivity over uneven terrain.

Do you really REALLY think you are actually looking at Mars geology? What you are looking at is uniform smudge covering everything like a coat of paint in this scene compromising it to almost blank uniformity. The only thing real you are seeing are the vague outlines of major terrain forms printing through this "paint" like coating.

It has always amazed me how professionals in space science and visual imaging could buy into and not question that relatively smooth dull terrain and believe that it is real. I have to ask, don't they ever look at satellite imaging of Earth for comparison? For example, raw solid particulate geology is full of rough angles and very light reflective in differing degrees due to the angles. On the other hand, artificial smudge applications are of course not real and therefore cannot reflect light at all. Now go back and note in the above first raw images that everything, and I do mean everything except the largest terrain forms, is not only very smooth but uniformly dull and not light reflective. The FBI would call that a clue.

Then too there are the image file sizes here in this report to consider. Some of you may have noticed that my report images here are a bit wider and vertically deeper than normal. This was necessary to include more terrain area information around the Face. That image size increase would usually mean that the image file sizes would also be increased and larger. However, the reverse is true. Even though the images here are larger, the file sizes are smaller than normal. In my experience, that is because the graphics software is reading only the top surface of the smooth smudge image tampering applications and not what is below them. The FBI would call that a clue as well.

So the very suggestive "Face" evidence becomes a story more about yet more boring image tampering issues rather than civilization evidence. In such crummy manipulated Viking imaging, the Face is an issue that will remain speculative because of insufficient quality of the visual evidence. Unlike the MGS MOC official science data mistakes fixed in time and place in public posting that my usual discoveries are drawn from, this Viking Face evidence was never visually definitive enough to be conclusive and any subsequent imaging that might clarify is always in the control of those associated with secrecy meaning that any subsequent imaging would always be suspect.

You need to know that this Face evidence was purposely floated into public awareness by official level people and not by those independent types like Richard Hoagland of www.enterprisemission.com who later did well by promoting it into public awareness and popularizing it. For the secrecy types who initiated floating this speculative evidence into the media and public consciousness, the resulting speculation and capturing the public imagination over the years benefited them.

How? By keeping interest in Mars and future Mars and other space exploration missions alive and well and the money pipe open through the lean years of taking the hits of having to report missions as failures likely because of inadequately developed obfuscation technology. It also allowed the time to refine the image obfuscation technology to develop to the more refined and effective level it is today as with the ESA and MRO imaging without harming the overall programs funding.

For the rest of us, in my opinion, the Face evidence does amount to a trap to catch the incautious and unwary because the subject was never out of official manipulative control. It was never a mistake slipping into the data record but an intentional manipulation. Of course hindsight like this I'm doing here is easier. In the earlier days of the 1980s, this insight would have been less clear as others thought they had something to really work with in the Face evidence.

The fact is that the original 1970s Viking data is just too poor and obfuscated as released to resolve the "Face" issue. Further, in light of the official manipulation samples that I have discussed here in this report, anyone who expected very much out of the subsequent MGS MOC, THEMIS, ESA or MRO imaging of this object to resolve these matters would, in my opinion, be too trusting and likely also be a good candidate for a slightly used bridge I have in mind to sell you located in London at a real bargain price.

Speaking of others hoping the subsequent official imaging would clarify this issue, take note of the above seventh image demonstrating the various views of the Face in the more recent years MGS MOC, THEMIS, and MRO imaging. The THEMIS image in the lower left panel is infrared and so it is short on visual detail on this object. However, both the MGS and MRO images appear to clearly demonstrate and are actively promoted as demonstrating that this object is just a badly eroded natural land form.

So is the case closed? That depends on who you are talking to. The trusting believe and, in my opinion, need to believe that the case is closed. On the other hand, the less trusting are not remotely convinced by this subsequent reimaging. For a good example analysis and discussion representing the latter view, go to this link at Meta Research to learn more. This is Tom Van Flandern's page on this issue. He has a Ph.D. from Yale, long associated with U. S. Naval Observatory, teaches astronomy, has been a consultant to JPL, and appears to entertain the concept of at least past intelligent life on Mars.

As for my position on this subsequent supposedly definitive imaging of the Mars Cydonia Face, it is nothing more than I would have expected. My point here is that you can never rule out the human manipulation factor. When it comes to the Face and considering the manipulation associated with it discussed above dating all the way back into 1970s science data, I frankly do not trust any of these updated views to be legitimate or informative and regard them as merely spin. However, you must decide for yourself.

Additionally, take a closer look at the above seventh image evidence. Note the general outline shape of this supposedly natural land form and its clear isolation and uniform shield shape. These are factors well and clearly represented in the old Viking images and that means that they could not be messed with in any subsequent imaging manipulation while finer detail too vague to be seen in the Viking images could be manipulated. That uniformity of outline and its oh so uniform proportions doesn't look natural to me at all and does not look like any natural land form I've seen on Mars.

In fact, it looks like what I suspect it is, an artificially shaped mesa land form serving as a artificially shaped raised frame and platform for what ever was or is on top of it that we have yet to achieve a legitimate view of. So, as far as I am concerned, even the supposedly definitive imaging that the official position would like us to believe proves this to be a natural formation still supports the suggestiveness of artificiality. Now note that I said suggestive as opposed to conclusive and that is as far as I can go.

Conclusive either way is not going to come until the day comes that we achieve the real unobfuscated science data imaging that I suspect is hidden away somewhere and/or the secrecy agenda voluntarily gives up and reveals the truth. Until that day comes, the Mars Cydonia "Face" remains an unresolved enigma that still, in my opinion, leans in favor of artificiality.

DOCUMENTATION

http://www.msss.com/education/facepage/face.html: This link takes you to a more convenient page to view and/or download both the two raw and the two processed and cleaned official Viking 035A72 and 070A13 science data images that serve as the basis for the 1st through 6th image evidence in this report. This will also provide you with a look at the other available Viking images of the Face site and the insight that they are of even poorer quality and more limited usefulness.

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/extended_may2001/face/: This link takes you to the official MGS MOC #E03-00824 best quality .gif 4/28/2001 reimage of the Cydonia Face that is part of my 7th image here. This site also has a narrative discussion. This is the first of the two definitive images that is suppose to demonstrate that the "Face" is nothing more than a badly eroded land form. Note that other MSSS and USGS images for this do not have working .gif quality browser compatible images and only lesser quality .jpg images.

http://themis.asu.edu/zoom-20020413a: This link takes you to the official 3/8/2002 THEMIS #V01024003 image that is also part of my 7th image here. Note that this is a infrared image and so it does not have much visible detail meaning that it is not much useful on this issue but here it is.

http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_003234_2210: This link takes you to the official MRO #PSP_003234_2210 image that is the greater part of 7th image evidence here. This again is suppose to be the second of two supposedly definitive images reinforcing that the "Face" object is nothing more than a badly eroded land form.

, Investigator