On their web page concerning the April 8, 2001 image of the Face, Malin Space Science Systems posted an enlargement of the Face from Viking Frame 70A13 side-by-side with a reduced-size version of the latest MGS image of the Mars Face, E03-00824, acquired on April 8, 2001. This comparison image is shown below in Figure 1. I have increased the contrast on both. It is clear that the new MGS image is very similar to the old Viking image, despite the differences not only in resolution but also in lighting.
Figure 1. Viking/MGS comparison from MSSS web page with contrast adjustments.
While MSSS has not released the ancillary data for the MGS image at this writing (5/29/01), the sun elevation is evidently very high, almost certainly higher than its elevation in the June 2000 image previously released, where the sun elevation was 42 degrees.
The sunlight is coming from the lower left in the MGS image. In the Viking image, the sun is at an elevation of 27 degrees and sunlight is coming from the upper left. It is important to keep in mind that image contrast due to topological (shape) variations decreases with increasing sun elevation, and shadows diminish in length.
Despite these great differences in illumination, the two views of the Face are very similar. Since the Viking image is generally acknowledged to have a face-like appearance and the two images are similar, then it has to be conceded that the new MGS image must also have a face-like appearance, NASA proclamations to the contrary notwithstanding. Of course it looks like a face. The facial resemblance persists over the wide range of sun angles represented by the two Viking images and now, three MGS images. This is fairly remarkable in itself. The sunlight was coming from the lower left in the MGS image, almost exactly parallel to the direction the "mouth" runs, which explains why that feature is not as evident in the latest MGS image as it was in the April, 1998 image. Had the new MGS image been taken with the sun at the "high noon" position, most of the contrast from shadowing would have been absent, and so too would virtually all traces of a facial resemblance. It is not hard to imagine how the JPL public relations office would have exploited an image like that.
Asymmetry of the Facial Features
It was evident in Viking Frame 70A13 that while the partially shadowed east side of the Face had what might be seen as facial features, they were only roughly symmetrical with the more humanoid-like features on the better-illuminated west side. Unsurprisingly, that asymmetry has not disappeared in the new high-resolution MGS image. The Face does seem to consist of two different faces. That very well might be due to the partial collapse of the structure, or it might be due to an intentional representation of the faces of two different creatures -- the human/lion split face suggested by Richard Hoagland.
The split-face idea does, I think, have some merit. Even a recent article (May/June 2001) in the Skeptical Inquirer observed:
"Some have remarked that this version [a non-Catbox version of the April 1998 MGS image] does indeed look a bit more like a head, though that of a lion rather than a humanoid."
The "plates" that compose the eastern side of the Face have a lobed (rounded) appearance when the image is viewed at full resolution. This lobate appearance is a hallmark of landslides, so an alternative to the "lion" hypothesis is that the facial features on the eastern side were originally more symmetrical with those on the west than they now are. While a past symmetry is only conjecture, the Face has definitely experienced major changes in its shape over time from its original appearance -- assuming that the landslide hypothesis is correct.
Personally, I prefer the landslide explanation to the "split face" hypothesis because the former introduces fewer entities -- namely, the need to explain what an image of a lion is doing on Mars. We already know that landslides are not uncommon on Mars. However, there are details of these lobate surfaces that can be seen in the image at full resolution that make me think the "split face" effect might be an intentional effect and not the result of a landslide. I will explain exactly why in a subsequent article, as this article is focused on an assessment of the Face's overall appearance, not the finer details.
The "faceness" of the landform is really a secondary issue. I have seen several images offered as examples of other faces on Mars as good or even somewhat better than "the" Face, such as the so-called "King Face." None of these candidate faces has impressed me very much because the facial features always seem to be integral parts of a larger, natural landscape. For example, the top of the "crown" of the "King Face" is just part of a much longer, clearly natural ridgeline. The crown and "eyes" appear to be part of an area with a rougher textured slope just below the ridgeline. Even though the overall effect is very face-like, there is no single facial feature that can really be pointed out in this image as something that stands apart from the surrounding natural terrain. Whether an object looks like a face, or a temple, or a missile base, or anything else has little or no bearing on whether it has an artificial origin.
Figure 2. "King Face" from M0203051 showing the surrounding ridges and slopes of which its facial features appear to be integral parts.
The primary question that must be answered for any candidate artifact is not what an object "looks like" in press release photos; rather it is whether an object exhibits some features that are difficult to explain by known natural processes. Of course, for any putative ruined artificial structure on another planet for which much is still to be learned, the possibility of unknown natural processes can never be fully ruled out. This is no justification, however, to exclude archaeological interpretations from scientific consideration when such objects are found.
It's my opinion that such an object was found 25 years ago when the Viking Orbiter A captured the first image of the Face. The primary reason I think this is because of the unexplained overall symmetry of the Face platform. The symmetry of the Face platform is only one feature that points to an artificial origin, but is the most immediately obvious.
Symmetry of the Face Platform: "Just an ordinary (symmetrical) hill" -- Where is NASA's Evidence?
A scientist affiliated with JPL has commented that the Face "reminds" him of a landform called Middle Butte Mesa in the Snake River Plain region of Idaho. This landform is of a type referred to by geologists as volcanic dome. Carol Maltby, a member of a Cydonia email list, found the image of this mesa shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Snake River Plain, Idaho. Foreground: East Butte; Center: Middle Butte; Background on left: Big Southern Butte
The original image of Middle and Big Southern Buttes can be seen at the bottom of the web page here.
While the average person would be inclined to take the word of a NASA scientist at face value, it seems that there is very little resemblance between this landform and the symmetrical platform of the Mars Face when a comparison is actually made. The lopsided conical shapes of Middle Butte and East Butte are readily identifiable as volcanic in origin. They bear no resemblance whatever to the level platform of the Face as it would appear when viewed from the side. (We know what the Face looks like from a side view from the April 1998 image, which was taken from a line of sight 45 degree off the vertical).
This particular view of Middle Butte is from a low angle, and does not provide a good basis for comparison to the symmetry of the Face as viewed from directly above. No overhead view has been located yet, but Big Southern Butte in the background of Figure 3 appears more similar to the Face when viewed from the side. This landform is about 4.5 kilometers in diameter, or roughly twice the length of the Mars Face. Figure 4 shows a satellite image of Big Southern Butte viewed from directly overhead. Even the faint resemblance it has to the Face in a side view disappears completely when viewed from this angle.
Figure 4. Satellite image of Big Southern Butte, resolution is 32 meters.
These, evidently, are the sort of landform that NASA now wants the public to "remind" them of the Face at Cydonia.
If NASA really wants to promote the critical thinking necessary to produce the next generation of space scientists, it might be better if they were to back up their claims with evidence rather than expecting the uncritical acceptance by the public of their media pronouncements.
While NASA's claims about these landforms are obviously false, a much better example of a symmetrical natural landform was offered by an amateur Mars Face skeptic (in the positive sense of the word) on one of the Cydonia message forums. It is shown on the far right of Figure 5 , with the Cydonia Face in the center for comparison.
Figure 5. Left: Emerald Mound (American Indian earthworks) in Tennessee Middle: Mars Face from MGS Frame E03-00824 Right: Brandenburg Structure, igneous intrusion in Namibia, Africa.
This is an igneous intrusion called the Brandenburg Structure in Namibia, Africa. It is 15 miles in diameter -- about 10 times the length of the Face at Cydonia. The original color image of the Brandenburg Structure is here. It has a definite oval shape, presumably because the molten rock that formed it spread out in all directions to approximately equal distances. But unlike the Face landform, it can be seen that its oval perimeter is only a trend; the boundaries consist of fingers of rocks spreading out into the surrounding plains.
The edge of the upper platform of the Brandenburg Structure is poorly defined over most of its circumference. The only place where there seems to be an upper edge is at the bottom of Figure 4, and unlike the boundary of the Face's platform, it is not parallel to the base perimeter of the structure.
The Brandenburg Structure is clearly fractal (self-similar) below a scale of a few hundred meters whereas the Face is not fractal down to a scale of the 2 meters of the most recent MGS image. This confirms Dr. Mark Carlotto's fractal analysis of the Face in the Viking images to be valid.
On the left in Figure 5, a known artificial structure, the Emerald Mound -- an earthen mound constructed by the Mississippian culture of North America -- is shown for comparison with both the Face and with the Brandenburg Structure. While it can be seen to slump somewhat at its upper left edge, it bears a striking similarity to the Face that the Brandenburg Structure does not. The Emerald Mound was described in an earlier article here.
In this previous article, a comparison was made between the Emerald Mound, the Face as it appeared in the April, 1998 MGS image, and a mesa in Thailand. The Thai mesa is a water-carved landform, formed by a very different process than the igneous intrusions now favored by NASA as an "explanation" of the Mars Face.
Despite the fact that 25 years have past since the Face was discovered, the symmetry of the Face landform remains unexplained, and claims that it is similar to known natural landforms seem no more than wishful thinking on the part of scientists who want the issue to go away.
This article has focused on the overall characteristics of the new Face image, primarily the as yet unexplained symmetry of the landform. No argument has been made here, however, that the facial features might not be explainable as the result of natural processes. At the reduced resolution of the image shown here, they could well be natural. A subsequent article will be posted that will describe features of the Face seen at the full 2-meter resolution of the image that appear hard to explain as the result of natural forces. An earlier article on a 1.5 meter resolution partial image of the western side of the Face describes an "eye" feature that seems rather hard to explain as natural. Now, there is a second eye-like feature on the east side that has been revealed by the April 8, 2001 image. And there is more.