Web Hosting by

New Mars Face Image Analysis and Comment
by Mike Bara

On Monday April 6th 1998, many of us interested in the possibility of confirmation of extraterrestrial artifacts waited anxiously for the first new images of the Cydonia region on Mars in 22 years. However, when the image was released most of us were shocked to see that the data presented was far below the standard we had been led to believe we would get. A black strip, with only the faintest hint of the "Face on Mars", appeared on our screens. When a better image was eventually provided, it bore little resemblance to the formation we were used to seeing in the various publications and papers. Many of the major news organizations jumped on the distorted image as "proof" there was no "Face on Mars", and prepared stories accordingly. Others were more careful in their approach. A close examination of the data indicates that the more cautious newsmen among the fourth estate will most likely be better served by history.

Rather than rehash the entire debate step by step, I will instead highlight a few select issues and provide links to other locations which have already dealt with major portions of the questions involved. As I see it the major issues in dispute are:

1. The manner and timing of the acquisition of this data is in stark contrast to the claims by Malin Space Science Systems and NASA that obtaining the pictures would be difficult, if not impossible. I will show that this image was acquired with an exquisite degree of precision, that the timing and placement of the spacecraft was premeditated, and that it was done for two reasons: to rephotograph the "Face" under lighting conditions least conducive to bringing out fine detailed structures, and to do so in accordance with a ritualistic practice in place at NASA since the dawn of the space program.
2. The image is only marginally better than the previous Viking data, and in some cases not as good. I will also show that this was part of a carefully considered political campaign designed to minimize the widespread dissemination of data favorable to the Artificiality Hypothesis.
3. There is reason to suspect alteration of the provided image, though as yet no proof.
4. Regardless of these considerations, this new image strongly reinforces, rather than discredits, the claims of artificiality.
5. That representatives of NASA and Malin Space Science Systems continue to distort data in order to promote the "Funny Looking Hill" argument.

   ---

Acquisition

Contrary to the claims made in the last few months by NASA and Michael Malin, President of Malin Space Science Systems (MSSS), the image strip shows that NASA is capable of targeting specific objects with extreme precision. The hi-res image strip cuts a roughly North-South swath across Cydonia, picking up both the "Face" and upper right hand corner of the "D&M" Pyramid. Curiously, had the image been taken just a few seconds later, we would have had the astonishing result of getting both the "Face" and more than half of the "D&M".

It is also interesting to note that this corner of the D&M is the most heavily damaged and least artificial looking of the 5 sides. Further, the image edge is just above the ejecta blanket of the "Bottomless Crater" adjacent to the formation.

All this is quite convenient, because a slightly different orbital path would have given us not just the "Face", but also its contextual relationship to an undisputedly anomalous and almost certainly artificial edifice.

But are we being reasonable? Did Malin and NASA just get lucky and hit home with what Malin insisted was a one in 20 million (Lottery odds) chance of targeting a specific object like the Face? Or is there more to the story? Could this be instead an elegant confirmation of NASA's ability to pick and choose it's landing sites and imaging opportunities in accordance with some bizarre religious practices only hinted at in the symbolic record of NASA's past?

The answer is in the stars.

As laid out by Richard Hoagland previously (see "John F. Kennedy's Grand NASA plan") and Bara ("New Evidence Supports Artificiality of Tycho Anomalies") NASA has carefully planned major events in the space program around the location of the stars. Specifically, the Apollo program has had a mysterious fascination with the constellation Orion and the star Sirius.

The Original Apollo logo commemorating man's voyage to the Moon held the first clue to this "symbolic connection" to NASA. Only after some 25 years did Hoagland and Ken Johnston do the first real test of this odd linkage to Orion, and by implication Sirius and the religions of ancient Egypt to the Apollo program.

                                                          It was.                                 

Night sky over JPL at MGS acquisition of new Cydonia image

A quick check of Red Shift 2 revealed that JPL, the Heart of Darkness in the post Apollo exploration of the Solar System, was elegantly entwined in this conundrum. As MGS flew over the Face and Cydonia, man's first return to this hallowed ground in two decades, Sirius was aligned below the horizon (signifying a negative event) at the compelling "Tetrahedral" latitude - of 19.5 degrees.

Even as Isis/Sirius hung mysteriously below the skyline from JPL, her consort Orion/Osiris was gracefully positioned on his side at Giza. With the center belt star Alnilam and the shield star Betelgeuse faintly kissing the horizon, signaling his compliance.

The odds against this are incalculable. This eerie recreation of the identical (though inverted) relationships between the Apollo 11 and 12 landing sites (the temples on the Moon) and Giza and JPL (the temples on the Earth?) is disquieting. To have two major events linked by such a bizarre relationship is far beyond mere coincidence. The simple reality is that these specific alignments combined with the many other such "Celestial Coincidences", is an emerging truth that points inexorably to a cabal within NASA and elements of the greater space science community.                                

All of which points to a single and constantly reinforced - if somewhat incredible - judgement.

The position of these constellations was of critical - if not paramount - concern to the navigation team.

Once you reach this point, the rest is easy. The masterminds of such an incredible scheme must surely have realized that the lighting conditions would be unfavorable to acquisition of a clear and detailed image. Fine structures like the Teeth in the mouth and the browridge and pupil in the eye socket were washed out badly by the low noon Martian sun. These poor lighting conditions were only the beginning, however. Someone at JPL or MSSS must have decided that poor lighting alone wasn't enough to wipe the smile off the "Face on Mars" .....

Click here for Part II