The Face on Mars is located in the northern desert plain called Cydonia Mensae, 41 degrees North latitude, 9 degrees West longitude. It is about 2 kilometers long and rises to over 350 meters high. It was first photographed by the Viking Orbiter spacecraft in 1976 (pic.1), and the amazing resemblance to a face was dismissed by NASA as a 'trick of light and shadow’.
(pic.1 'The Face' Viking 1976 - Courtesy NASA/JPL)
In 1982, digital image processing and computer professionals DiPietro and Molenaar, produced a scientific paper entitled Unusual Martian Surface Features, which summed up an initial investigation of the Face on Mars and other nearby objects. In this paper, the scientists presented data which suggested there was evidence of an artificial origin to the Face on Mars and these other objects in Cydonia. In other words, someone at some time had made them. However, despite the data and studies presented in the paper, it failed to interest NASA or the scientific community as a whole.
Due to the objects remarkable similarity to a humanoid face it subsequently became the focus of study for a number of scientists and researchers such as professor Stanley V. McDaniel and imaging scientist Dr. Mark J. Carlotto, and over the years there followed several scientific studies, peer reviewed papers, books and videos supporting what came to be known as “the artificial hypothesis”.
Leading researcher and science writer Richard C. Hoagland, led the cause to inform the general public and the media at large about the Face on Mars and Cydonia, his research culminating in his book The Monuments of Mars in 1987. He also gave presentations to both NASA in 1991 and to the United Nations in 1992.
But neither NASA nor the world-wide scientific community at large would accept or recognize the data presented to them or would take the subject at all seriously. Indeed historically there has been a running battle with NASA to persuade them to even make it a mission objective to re-photograph the area of Cydonia so as to verify or refute the astonishing claims of the Face on Mars researchers.
In addition to the Face, there are several other anomalous objects in this region which warrant investigation, such as a layout of mounds which have some amazing mathematical and geometrical properties, and also a large five-sided mountain which looks remarkably angular and pyramidal.
In truth by itself, the Face would probably not have sustained the level of interest that has now lasted for well over two decades, were it not for these other mysterious objects that lay in relatively close proximity to the Face, a few kilometers to the west and to the south.
But the validity of the artificial hypothesis - that the Face and nearby objects were not natural, but were formed by an intelligent race of beings - had relied heavily upon the photographs taken by the Viking Orbiter spacecraft in 1976, images that could only manage a 50 square meters per pixel resolution.
These images seemed to show a stunning array of polyhedral objects in the Cydonia region, in addition to the Face, but the researchers all knew they needed pictures at a much higher resolution to either verify their theory that the objects were indeed artificial, or to disprove the theory altogether.
Hope rested on NASA’s Mars Observer spacecraft which was due to image the planet with the required detail in 1993, but NASA seemed to show reluctance to make any promises at all that Cydonia and The Face on Mars would be re-photographed, raising all manner of suspicion that other factors were now involved that complicated the whole subject of Cydonia for the authorities.
Mysteriously, as the spacecraft was due to enter Mars orbit, all communication was lost with it and the opportunity to get new pictures of the Face on Mars delayed for the time being. Fortunately though, NASA had lined up a flotilla of spacecraft that were due to visit and study Mars over the next decade, and Mars Global Surveyor was next in line with an onboard camera identical to the one lost on Mars Observer. This spacecraft was due to return pictures in 1998.
Meanwhile in 1997, NASA agreed to accept a presentation by several SPSR scientists (The Society for Planetary SETI Research), led by professor Stanley McDaniel, to view the scientific case for Cydonia. Following this presentation and a persistent publicity campaign by Richard Hoagland, there followed a public agreement by NASA to re-image Cydonia.
So, in April 1998, three new images were provided by the Mars Global Surveyor camera, of The Face and of nearby objects.
Oddly, MSSS(Malin Space Science Systems) in conjunction with NASA, first released a poor, featureless image of the Face to the awaiting world media (pic.2), who were keen to see if there was a story to tell here. But when they saw the grainy, uninteresting picture, they promptly lost interest in the subject.
(pic.2 ‘The Face’ imaged by MGS in 1998. Courtesy NASA/JPL/MSSS)
A day or so later, NASA released a much better enhanced version (pic.3) which showed many of the features which had originally led investigators to theorize that it was an artificially carved humanoid face. Indeed in the new image, although not perfect for analysis due to the angle it was taken, additional facial features were found too. By then of course, all the news people had gone.
(pic.3 ‘The Face’ imaged by MGS 1998. Courtesy NASA/JPL/MSSS)To most scientists and geologists it was still just a natural formation—a geologically formed knob or mesa. To others it still resembled an artificial face. A new overhead, highly detailed image was hoped for to finally lay this one to rest.
The attitude of NASA scientists was and still is derisory and dismissive regarding the possibility of the Face being artificial. Unfortunately too, Michael Malin, the head of Malin Space Science Systems (MSSS) who built the Mars Orbital Camera on Surveyor and was responsible for taking all the pictures of Mars, has been publicly hostile towards Cydonia and the whole subject of The Face.
Even to the extent that he had some coffee mugs made, depicting the Viking image of the ‘Face on Mars’ and comparing it with his company’s own Mars Global Surveyor image, with the caption “In Your Face!” tattooed on the mug!
Not the attitude one would expect from a presumably open-minded scientist responsible for managing such a unique window to the universe on behalf of the human race. The pictures of Mars received from Malin's cameras have been magnificent and of immense value in the study of Mars, and great credit must go to his team for this achievement. It is just strange that such a fierce response is engendered by the subject of the Face.
However, in 2001 the Mars Global Surveyor orbiting spacecraft at last took an overhead image of The Face
(pic.4), which was what researchers had been asking for all along.
(pic.4 ‘The Face’ imaged by MGS 2001. Courtesy NASA/JPL/MSSS)
So now that we can view the Face in about as much detail as we will get for a while now, what exactly is it that we can we see?
There is the suggestion of facial eye sockets, nose and a mouth area in relatively symmetrical proportion to each other. On the right hand side, there appears to be an accumulation of material obscuring what lies beneath. But perhaps the most striking feature of all, is the whole platform upon which this feature sits. The symmetry is very strong, left and right halves pretty much evenly balanced.
Other images from the orbiting science missions such as MOLA have been able to construct 3D simulated models, indicating that the similarities to a human face lessen considerably when viewed from lower altitudes and angles, and hence scientists have tended to take this as solid evidence for dismissing the artificial idea completely.
However, we should not forget that if we are to even consider the possibility that this is an artificial construction, then we must attempt to put ourselves in the minds of its creators: that they may have specifically designed it to be viewed from above.
Despite a more recent image from the HiRISE camera, we have not been able to discern significantly more detail that will help us to settle this argument once and for all. We may well have to wait until archaeologists and geologists can actually land there at the site and take a look at it.
However there are three factors which should serve to remind us of the seriousness of what we could potentially be dealing with here, and so caution us away from dismissal of this subject based simply on studies of what the close-up images look like now in this present time.
Firstly, if we are looking at possible ancient archaeology, then we must consider what such a monument might look like after many thousands of years of severe wind erosion—and Mars has some severe dust storms which can last for months at a time. But not only that. The Red planet has suffered immense cataclysms during its history, as we only have to bear witness to the massive asteroid impact zones that scar the planets surface.
Secondly, and perhaps one of the most telling aspects of all, is the inescapable fact that it looks much more like a face from high up in the sky, rather than from close up. Most of us have experienced at one time or other, seeing an oil painting which from a comfortable distance clearly conveys an image of whatever it’s about; a sunset, a landscape, a still object. But when you get up close to it, the sense of it often disappears and all your eyes see on the canvas are splashes of colour and brushstrokes. This is because the painting is meant to be seen from a certain distance.
Thirdly, Cydonia is not just about ‘The Face’ or the other large anomalous objects. It is about an array of several much smaller ‘mounds’ scattered about the area which display a high order of geometric and mathematical relationship to each other—a relationship which is on the order of many millions to one against a random chance occurrence in geology, according to statistical analyses done by physicist Dr. Horace Crater. This would constitute a highly significant signature for intelligent design and layout.
So, bearing all this in mind, the book on Cydonia and the Face on Mars, is far from closed.
And what of NASA's position regards the Face on Mars?
Well officially, according to the NASA website, NASA has 'no official position' as to what the Face on Mars is, or is not! It leaves scientists to make comments to the media or otherwise. However the most prevalent argument given for ignoring the Face on Mars, has been the reason that only 'valid scientific research' can and should be assigned NASA space mission priorities. Now, whether this position is one that planetary scientists and geologists tend to uphold, because they are more interested in studying rocks and atmospheric gases, one can only surmise.