Preliminary Analysis of April 5 Cydonia Image from the Mars Global Surveyor Spacecraft

Background

Viking spacecraft images of Mars in the late 1970s included a photo showing an object that resembled half a human face, with shadows hiding anything that might lie to its immediate east. This drew scientific attention (as well as much unscientific attention) to this object and its vicinity, now named the Cydonia region.

Many of the objects near the Face object proved to be anomalous as well. A team of scientists found the region so scientifically interesting that they proposed a variety of tests that would measure the relative probability that the landforms found there are natural formations versus artificial structures. We now know eight such tests. The test results remained mixed until the end of 1996, despite favoring an artificial origin. Then a possible connection between Cydonia and the exploded planet hypothesis (eph) came to light in December 1996. This reversed the conclusions of the three test results appearing to favor a natural origin. In light of the eph connection, these test results now favor an artificial origin of Cydonia at better than a 99% confidence level. Details of the tests and the exploded planet connection can be found in this authors paper New Evidence of Artificiality at Cydonia on Mars, Meta Res.Bull., vol. 6, #1 (1997), also posted at www.metaresearch.org.

At this time, all available test results indicated a probable artificial origin for objects in the Cydonia complex. This engendered high public interest. Consequently, on March 26 JPL/NASA announced that Cydonia would be one of the priority targets for the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft during the month of April 1998. The new camera was capable of producing images with 10-50 times better resolution than the earlier Viking images. On April 5, it captured the first such image. This report contains an analysis of this first MGS image and its implications for the artificiality hypothesis.

Description of the image.

The spacecraft is in a near-polar orbit, and its high-resolution camera took a 4.4-km wide, 42-km long roughly north-south strip photo across the Cydonia region in a band that included the Face near its center. The spacecrafts orbit passed well to the west of the Cydonia region on this occasion, producing a viewing angle much lower than in any previous photos having useful resolution. The minimum range was about 440 km. Lighting conditions corresponded to late morning by local time at Cydonia. However, with the Sun well to the south of the Martian equator and Cydonia 41 degrees to the north, sunlight was also from a low angle to the southeast. Its altitude above the horizon was 25 degrees.

Initial press reports.

Yielding to pressure for rapid release, JPL/NASA took the unprecedented step of releasing raw, unprocessed imagery to the Internet hours before good quality, contrast-enhanced images could be posted. Unfortunately, many individuals and even media, inexperienced with handling raw images and with imaging processing techniques, jumped to conclusions based on a casual glimpse at this image. Most of these did not attempt to analyze the image content or compare it against the criteria for artificiality under discussion. Headlines were based on statements made only by biased individuals willing to comment without careful or proper analysis, and happy to seize on the lack of obvious face-like details in the raw image to ridicule the whole artificiality issue. The media need to become aware in general that such individuals are not acting as objective scientists. In effect, they have made themselves cheerleaders for one side of a controversial issue. The choice for the media here, as always, is between getting the first headlines versus getting the story right.

Does the Face still look like a face?

From this viewing angle with this lighting, the resemblance to a face was rather poor in the initial images. Because of the poor contrast in the raw images, the lowness of the viewing angle was not immediately obvious. The whole Face landform seemed to be visible. Part of that is a new mini-mock face consisting of boulders and crevices bears little resemblance to a true face, but which led many to think they were seeing the Face itself at higher resolution. That was not the case, and led to many of the erroneous statements that appeared in the first day. With processed, contrast-enhanced images to study, we now know that the eastern half of the Face is almost completely hidden behind the nose bridge. This is especially difficult to notice due to the absence of shadows on the eastern (sunlit) portion. However, this new image shows only the western half of the Face, the half also prominent in Viking imagery. Once that is recognized and the new perspective and lighting are considered, the features identified in earlier images are plain to see again.

Figure 1 shows the earlier Viking image plus the new image oriented similarly and scaled to comparable size. It also shows the same new image as a negative to simulate the partial reversal of light and dark areas between the two images.

(NASA/Malin Space Sciences Systems)

Comparison of best Viking with two versions of MOC image -- 415 KB

(source: Malin Space Sciences Systems)

Figure 1.

The object would still look very much like a humanoid face if the viewing angle were from above and the lighting angle were from the low west. This would reproduce the conditions for the older Viking images. The higher viewing angle would allow us to peer over the nose bridge to the east side in the new image as we could in the old image, allowing us to see that both sides of the face are reasonably symmetric. This symmetry is near impossible to see in the new image alone. Moreover, as the middle image best demonstrates, the brightness of the sunlight washes out details on the east side that can be seen in the Viking image, such as the continuation of the mouth.

But why should these special conditions be necessary for optimal viewing? One possibility is that the feature is natural and only accidentally looked like a face under any conditions. But faces in general change appearance depending on viewing angle and lighting. Consider what a human face looks like if illuminated only by a flashlight held under the chin. Or if we are too far to one side, we see only a profile.

The aforementioned connection to the exploded planet hypothesis tells us that, if artificial, the Face builders would intend viewing only from locations on the parent planet about which Mars formerly orbited. Mars would always keep the same side toward its parent (as is true of most major moons in the solar system). So all viewing angles from the home world would necessarily be high ones such as those available to Viking, but unlike the current image. Note this is necessarily true if the Face is artificial. It cannot be seen as a face from ground level on Mars, and cannot be seen from any present-day solar system planet even in the largest telescopes.

If the builders intended viewing from a nearby planet, illumination of the Face would logically have been from west-side and possibly east-side artificial ground illumination sources so that the object would have maximum visibility during Martian nighttime. This artificial lighting most closely resembles sunlight conditions for the Viking photo, but is far from MGS lighting conditions. Finally, viewing from the home planet would have been distant enough that a hypothetical architect would have needed only large-scale details. The blocks in the corners of the west eye socket provide a rounded appearance to the socket when viewed from a distance, but look like blocks when viewed from a relatively close distance.

Biases.

Scientists are human. But it is always disheartening to see scientists behave unscientifically. In the first instance, each of us needs to check our own behavior for biases. Scientific Method calls for us to form explanatory hypotheses consistent with the data and propose tests of those hypotheses. We all feel sad when a favored hypothesis fails a test. But the trained scientist knows not to engage in adding ad hoc helper hypotheses to resurrect a hypothesis that has failed a test. That fact notwithstanding, such behavior happens all the time. Indeed, anyone reading the preceding paragraphs might well conclude that it is happening here and now in this analysis paper.

The key to overcoming bias here is to examine what the hypothesis as originally formulated actually predicted, and to compare that to the new data. The need for model changes after the arrival of new data is a good indicator of a failed or failing model unless those changes reasonably could and should have been anticipated before the new data. Conversely, the success of a model even beyond the predictions actually made is a good indicator of a solid model of scientific importance.

For the artificial origin of Cydonia hypothesis, considerations of a possible link between Cydonia and the exploded planet hypothesis led to several specific predictions that were fulfilled before this new image arrived. If artificial, the Face was apparently intended for viewing from a parent planet, making high-resolution detail unnecessary, high viewing angles mandatory, and artificial ground lighting from the sides probable. Therefore, as speculative as the description I gave above may seem to those unfamiliar with evidence supporting the exploded planet hypothesis [see the authors book, Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley (1993)], the argument is at least not ad hoc or after the fact.

By contrast, most scientists who believe in a natural origin of the landforms at Cydonia did not make testable predictions, contrary to what Scientific Method requires. They tended to focus on the physical appearance of a high-resolution, low viewing angle, low illumination angle, well-eroded landform, rather than on specific tests of artificiality. Their opinions are often no more than a reinforcement of their previous conclusions, without benefit of analysis or testable predictions to justify such reinforcement. Typically, scientists in this class say the odds against artifacts on Mars are enormous, a statement that cannot be justified, and exemplifies the problem with their approach. If our galaxy has evolved intelligent life many times, all terrestrial planets in it may have been visited and contain artifacts, making the probability of finding artifacts on any of them close to 100%. Conclusions drawn from invalid assumptions are not often noted for their usefulness.

How did the eight tests of artificiality fare?

The new image could potentially shed light on just two of the eight tests for artificial origin of Cydonia. In brief, the eight tests and their pre-MGS-image results are:

1. The Face has face-like 3-dimensional contours, and does not resemble a face merely because of albedo variations (light and dark areas) or because it is seen in profile (easy to happen by chance).
2. The Face registers as artificial in military software designed to detect artificial objects in camouflage by measuring the degree of fractality in images.
3. The numerous mounds on the Cydonia plain, rare elsewhere on the Martian surface, are non-randomly distributed and repeat significant angles more often than chance will allow.
4. A number of anomalous and artificial-looking landforms are present among the objects nearest the Face.
5. The Face appears to have bilateral symmetry.
6. The Face appears in a culturally significant location on the planet, the old equator.
7. The Face has a culturally significant orientation, aligned north-south and upright.
8. The Face has a culturally significant purpose, to be viewed from the home planet of the builders, for which Mars was a synchronous moon.

The previous test results were positive for artificiality for all eight tests once the exploded planet hypothesis is considered.

The new image potentially bears on tests #1 and #5, but sheds no new light on any of the other tests. However, because the image shows only the western half of the Face, it cannot confirm or deny previous image-enhancement work on two Viking photos that suggested bilateral symmetry is present. As for test #1, the new image does confirm that the west eye socket is a real depression and not a shadow, that the bridge of the nose is the highest feature on the mesa, and that the west side of the mouth is a real ravine and not just a shadow. Unfortunately, little information about the east eye socket and east side of the mouth can be gleamed from this image. But both of these are seen in the Viking imagery.

Our conclusion is that the new image confirms the results of one test, and does nothing to weaken the test results for the other seven.

New features

We all hoped that the higher resolution would show something that would resolve the controversy surrounding the artificiality of Cydonia. It may have done that. However, so many scientists jumped the gun and made statements to the press prior to image analysis that opinions have been formed and hardened, and now many people cannot look at the situation objectively without some loss of face (no pun).

But a great deal of new information has become available to us because of the much improved resolution and different perspective. An asymmetrical or highly fractal appearance of the Face mesa would have been compelling evidence for a natural origin of at least this one feature, and with it the significance of six of the eight tests of artificiality for Cydonia. But the reality is that the object has a high degree of symmetry and very low fractal content, consistent with artificial origin. Lets examine some specific findings:

Below I list some of the highlights of new features seen in this 5-meter resolution image, mainly using those with full contrast-enhancement. But many details are seen to varying degrees in views with different brightness/contrast or other image processing settings.

• Headdress: Old low-resolution photos gave limited details of this feature. The new MGS image shows that it wraps at least three-fourths of the way around the Face mesa, a distance of roughly 5 km. A line along the east side of the mesa hints strongly that this feature wraps all the way around, except perhaps for an entranceway at the southeast corner. The old Viking photos from a higher viewing angle confirm that this is the case the feature wraps around almost the entire mesa. Allowing for perspective, the headdress appears to have a uniform height of hundreds of meters over most or all of this span. Both its bottom and top follow smooth, regular lines or curves. The sides are straight, the bottom is smoothly rounded, and the top has symmetric right-angle bends in both corners. The top has a symmetric round-shape cap containing markings that, when combined with older images, are suggestive of a ceremonial purpose. A smooth, uniform-width trough seems to separate the headdress feature from the rest of the Face mesa, at least on the west and top sides. The headdress feature strongly reinforces the artificiality interpretation.
• Face: Once careful allowance is made for perspective, the features start to look quite regular. The initial chaos that greets the eye soon falls into familiar functional patterns. The comparison between new and old images in the small insets above is helpful if extrapolating the correct perspective for our vantage point. The west top of the Face contains what appears to be a raised eyebrow. In previous stereo imagery, this feature was indistinct and seemed out of place on the forehead, and a possible cause of a shadow producing the false appearance of a west eye socket. The new image removes all doubt: The raised feature has the size, shape and orientation of an eyebrow, including a bend or furrow. Moreover, the eye socket is a deep hollow with no need of a shadow from the eyebrow to create its appearance.
  The deep west eye socket is delimited by elongated rectangular-looking blocks that appear placed to create the appearance of roundness for the socket. The nose clearly contains two indentations placed and oriented correctly for nostrils, and the nose bridge narrows as it approaches the forehead. Neither the eyebrow nor the nostrils were predicted, but clearly could have been. And it is an amazing coincidence that these uniquely facial features exist in a landform resembling a face if the structure is not artificial.
  The interior of the mouth has a faint vertical jagged appearance almost suggestive of teeth. The chin is indistinct, but not obviously incorrect. Three regular, parallel lineaments (long, short, and long) just to the west of the nose bridge, and another just beneath the mouth, are again suggestive of ornamental facial decorations or a costume, consistent with the headdress.
  The features of a near-perfect face are all present, and almost every feature seen on the mesa has a size, shape, and orientation that enhances the appearance of a decorated face in headdress. No imagination is required. But we do require views from different viewpoints at different illuminations with different contrast enhancements, and the ability (which many people do not possess, according to Piaget) to mentally change perspectives. Those who possess such ability can mentally merge the images and see the combined features in 3-D. In such a view, no reasonable doubt appears to remain about the artificiality of this object.
• Crest: This is a new low-contrast feature seen over the top of the headdress and its cap. We can trace its curve around the east side almost down to chin level, but nearly a face-diameter away. Unfortunately, the image does not extend far enough to see if the west side is also symmetric. But if it were, this would add emphasis to an extensive and unusual feature favoring artificiality. Possible other similar but fainter features may surround this one, giving a shroud-like appearance.
• Ridges: A face-diameter to the north we can trace some extremely faint uniformly spaced irregular ridgelines. I count no fewer than 15 in the best contrast-stretched views. Many more of these appear to the south. Their nature must apparently remain a matter of conjecture until NASA can obtain some ground truth.
• Courtyard: Half way from the Face to the bottom of the strip frame is a half-kilometer crater with a rim that looks more like an enclosure than a crater rim. This is principally because it is so out of round, and because the rim starts at an interior point and completes its circumference by joining on to a different point, resulting in some rim overlap. There are two unresolved structures in the interior that are approached by the rim starting point, and a third, larger structure inside the rim behind the other two.
• Animal: The largest feature in the strip, three-fourths of the way down from the Face, has the striking appearance of a pictogram, reminiscent of animal drawings in the Peruvian and Chilean desert sands. Since it appears not to have been noticed or named previously, but is the largest feature in the strip frame, I thought to give it a name for referring to it succinctly. It also seems to have a sharp and well-delineated boundary perhaps hundreds of meters high, similar to but far more irregular in shape than the headdress around the Face.
• Comb and Teeth: A truly remarkable set of 20 short, parallel white lines slant down and to the east from the next feature down below the animal I call the comb. A similar set of lines slant down and to the east from the bottom and lower east side of the animal itself. I call these the teeth, although they tend to give the seeming pictogram the aura-like appearance of rays coming from it.
• D&M Pyramid: At the bottom of the strip we encounter the melt pool on the east side of the largest Cydonian pyramid-like structure. Unfortunately, the frame cuts off on the west and south sides too soon to see any trace of the high-interest pyramid itself. But the crater on the shadowed side of Viking imagery is now resolved. Earlier speculation about its unusual depth because of its very black shadow and invisible bottom appears justified in this new image. Although we now see the bottom, the walls are quite high and steep for the crater width. We also see an unusual gouge into the nearby terrain on the northwest side where the rim appears open. In the context of the pyramid itself, this author has suggested the possibility that an artificial explosion might have formed this crater. This hypothetical explosion might explain damage to the east side of the pyramid (presumed artificial), splitting and shifting its base and melting enough material to produce the surrounding melt pool on that side. Nothing in the new, high-resolution image appears to counter that hypothesis, but no realistic test is possible until the pyramid itself is imaged.

Conclusion

A preliminary analysis of the portion of the Cydonia plain revealed in high-resolution by the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft on April 5 shows that the early claims of conclusive natural origin for the landforms were, at best, premature. The eight original tests of artificiality indicated artificial origin to a degree suggesting that priority targeting of Cydonia was justified. This new high-interest image shows that such priority was justified, and calls for continued high priority for additional images, as is planned.

The humanoid facial features that first drew attention to this area are confirmed by this photo despite poor lighting and poor viewing angle. One feature, the headdress, is so much a symmetrical combination of right-angle linear and rounded features as to suggest artificiality strongly. Using the ability to change mental perspectives, one can see the mesa clearly, without imagining details, as an excellent rendition of a sculpted face. Other new features are so uncommon that they raise more questions than they answer. Nothing yet seen on our Moon or any other solar system surface besides Earth suggests artificiality to a comparable degree.

Objectivity

When dealing with scientific matters, especially controversial ones, it is of great importance that scientists conduct themselves in accord with the procedures of Scientific Method, and remove, to the maximum extent possible, the effects of prior bias from their conclusions. It is unfortunate, if understandable, that some scientists drew public conclusions for the press without background or analysis sufficient to justify their statements. It is even more regrettable that JPL and NASA did not publicly disassociate their agencies from such unscientific statements made by their own employees, thereby fostering the view in the public that JPL and NASA condone such unprofessional conduct by scientists. This engenders disrespect for all of science and all scientists, and should now be dealt with forthrightly in the appropriate manner before further damage occurs in connection with the next set of Cydonia pictures.

98/04/10