|
On 2006 September 21, the European
Space Agency (ESA) released a color image of the Cydonia Face taken by their Mars Express spacecraft with a resolution
of 14 meters per pixel. See (http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM09F8LURE_index_0.html). The press release was informative and fair, saying
nothing stronger than that “the formal scientific interpretation has never
changed: the face remains a figment of human imagination in a heavily eroded
surface.”
Simultaneously, a secondary
press release, attributed jointly to ESA and Malin Space Sciences Systems (MSSS),
a Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) contractor, began promoting a “composite”
image apparently combining ESA and NASA/JPL/MSSS imagery. Those articles
contained mockery of the idea that the Cydonia Face might be artificial. Here
is a sample: “Wouldn't it be fun if clouds were turtles? Wouldn't it be fun if the laundry on
the bedroom chair was a friendly monster? Wouldn't it be fun if rock mesas on Mars were faces or interplanetary monuments? Clouds,
though, are small water droplets, floating on air. Laundry is cotton, wool, or plastic, woven into garments. Famous Martian rock mesas known by names like the Face on Mars appear quite natural when seen more clearly, as the
recently-released digital-perspective image shows. (See Figure 1.) Is reality boring?”
The
examples used as ridicule represent the phenomenon called “pareidolia”, the
perception of face illusions in natural or noisy settings. But in Figure 1, we must ask where the familiar features from other
imagery (e.g., Figure
2) are in this new view, and where those tall bumps on
the “forehead” came from. None of the half-dozen previous images showed shadows
consistent with these large bumps.
To the first question, the answer seems to be that the viewing angle was
altered to that of an observer SW of the Face (a perspective none of the photos
had) and looking at it from a low altitude, unable to see over the nose ridge
or the forehead. This viewing angle makes it difficult to recognize individual
facial features, and also makes the symmetric mesa wall-enclosure less
conspicuous. The net effect is a far more natural appearance than in any actual
spacecraft image or in any processed images except the 1998 press release from
JPL, for which the posted recipe consisted of passing the actual spacecraft
image through high-pass and low-pass filters and averaging the two filtered
images.
To the second question about
where the bumps came from, all that is certain is that they are not real as
depicted. One possibility is that the aspect ratio of the image was adjusted
when the viewing angle was changed, because this has the effect of exaggerating
vertical relief. Compare, for example, the same image with the horizontal
aspect ratio doubled (Figure
3), in which the bumps are must less prominent.
So why was this rather inaccurate
image released at this time? The answer may lie in an examination of the actual
spacecraft images, as it did when a similar thing happened back in 1998. First,
let’s see what the real spacecraft image taken on this occasion looked like.
(See Figure
4.) It shows the same general appearance as we saw and
analyzed in the 2001 MGS spacecraft
image (http://metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/2001_Face/Preliminary.asp), except for the addition 
of color. (See web version of the present printed article
to view the new images in color.) That analysis concluded that the east (right
on the page) side of the Face might have had excellent bilateral symmetry but
for damage apparently done by an impact that left a crater in the SE corner of
the mesa. We conjectured that the impact displaced the mouth feature and that a
“melt flow” from the crater covered the east cheek area and flowed northward to
partially fill the east eye socket.
Nothing seen in this
particular 2006 image adds to or subtracts from that 2001 conjecture. Figure 4 merely shows that the Face has broadly the same color
on its surface as the surrounding terrain, which probably indicates that
Martian dust storms have coated most objects with a fine layer of orange dust.
However, examination of the color composition of light and dark areas in this
image reveals something of possible interest. As is generally true of natural non-reflective
terrain, blue has a relatively minor presence in this image, even in shadows
(which are predominantly a mixture of red and green). However, the west (left
on the page) eye socket feature contains about 50% more blue coloration than
other areas of comparable darkness. In light of previous suggestions that
colors might be a test of artificiality if they are either appropriate or
inappropriate for particular features, it is tempting to wonder if the mesa
(assuming artificiality) at one time depicted a Face with blue eyes.
But as is our habit in
researching spacecraft imagery, we sought the original data rather than
renderings of it by others. In the course of seeking this data, we discovered
that the Face had been imaged in stereo, from which a 3-D anaglyph has been
prepared. This may be found at http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM9WG8LURE_index_0.html, and requires a pair of red-green viewing glasses
(obtainable at many convenience or variety stores) to view. And it is well
worth the nuisance to get them for anyone who wants to see what is really at
Cydonia on Mars. It is the closest view yet to what the human eye would see in
a direct over-flight of the best known mesa on Mars. And this viewer found it
rather astonishing. Here are my research notes upon detailed inspection.
Optimally, one should view the anaglyph, read the notes, then view the anaglyph
again to match visual details to these descriptions.
Begin research notes: Careful study
of the 3-D anaglyph of the Cydonia Face reveals many details impossible to see
in any 2-D views, and tells us much about the mesa and the artificiality issue.
The mesa itself has an
amazingly symmetric shape, and is surrounded by a smooth wall of uniform height
and slope on all sides. (Previous renderings showed a wall height sharply lower
above the Face.) At the top of this wall is a flat platform on which the Face
monument rests, rectangular on three sides and rounded at the base. The 3-D
shape of the Face monument is symmetric with respect to the mesa boundary. (Only
the Carlotto rendering showed this previously.) The monument’s peak height
occurs at the lower end of the nose ridge and is about 1 km above the ground or
0.5 km above the platform. This total height is about 2/3 of the width or about
half the length of the mesa.
The west eyebrow feature sits on the forehead feature and is “bushy” in
appearance. The east eyebrow feature appears broken in two, with the larger
piece now slid off the forehead feature into the east eye socket feature. (We
had no previous knowledge there was a block in the east eye socket feature
before this 3-D view.) The west eye socket feature goes all the way down to
platform level and is open on the west side. The west iris feature is not in
evidence in this view, perhaps from lower resolution and lack of contrast. The
nose ridge feature has a tapered shape toward the forehead and dips in height
at the correct location for humanoid noses. Both nostril features seem to be
present. The mouth feature also extends all the way down to platform level and
is open on the west side. A chin feature is now in evidence.
The east side of the mesa is definitely not collapsed, contrary to some
conjectures based on 2-D images. The east side of the platform feature has
apparently separated from the mesa wall, perhaps because of the conjectured
“damage” (impact?) event. Also, material comprising the east cheek area appears
to have dislodged, separated into two contiguous segments, and slipped
downward. The segment of maternal immediately to the east of the nose ridge
feature has separated from the ridge and shifted slightly northward, partially
covering the east eye socket feature. The segment south of that has shifted
farther south, with the east-side mouth feature now located where the east-side
chin should have been.
The dislodging and sliding of both these segments may have been caused by one
or two apparent impact craters seen in southeast corner of the platform. A
section of the mesa wall is also open or missing in that corner, perhaps from
impact damage. But the presence of some kind of entrance or access-way in that
vicinity cannot be ruled out.
If one reverses the 3-D viewing glasses, one can view the Face as a “negative”
image, which looks like the hollow insides of a mask facing downward. The
eyebrow features and mouth feature are then quite conspicuous. This view shows
that the interruption in the center of the mouth feature is apparently caused
by the presence of a block, perhaps from the top of the nose ridge, that has
fallen into the mouth feature. The slide material on the east side is seen to
have a very steep slope. A formation made from natural rock would tend to
fracture and pile up, decreasing the slope. So this increased slope suggests a
light-weight artificial material that remained intact when it cracked and
separated from the nose ridge on the east side. End research notes
The conclusion of this
examination of the anaglyph view of the Cydonia Face is that it is now much
easier to see why the 2-D views lacked some bilateral symmetry, because some
sort of damage event (probably an impact) has dislodged and mildly displaced
some material on the east side of the mesa. The basic symmetry of the Face can
now be seen as not just bilateral, but symmetric and face-like in the third
dimension too.
For the first time, we can now see that all the pieces are there. The original Viking spacecraft view in 1976 showed us
just the impression of an eye socket, a nose, and half of a mouth on a fairly
regular mesa. We now see that the famous Face has two eye sockets topped by
eyebrow features and probably a blue iris in at least one of them; a nose with
nostrils, tapered and indented toward the forehead; a continuous mouth with
parted lips; a chin feature; and a uniformly symmetric mesa wall of even height
to a flat top on which the Face is mounted. Allowing for some minor
displacements from erosion or a damage event, all these features potentially
have the correct size, shape, location, and orientation to be a deliberate
portrayal of a humanoid face. And the mesa and its surroundings provide no
background of features from which we could pick and choose those fitting our
preconception of a face.
As we have reported in previous issues, there are other artistic images on Mars
too. Are these real or illusions? I personally think that, if the best of these
turned up on Earth, no one would question that they were of human origin (as is
the case for the animal images at
The Cydonia Face mesa is unquestionably artificial. Special interests
determined to make that conclusion seem implausible are doomed to fail in the
long run, but are apparently attempting to buy themselves more time and to
preserve the justifications for future Mars exploration missions already
approved, before the news of discovery of an artifact on Mars has a chance to get
to the public from authoritative sources.
|