Web Hosting by

New Mars Face Image Analysis and Comment
By Mike Bara

Part III

Specific Features Lost and Found

The Face on Mars from 35A72 and 70A13
(Carlotto)

Orthographically rectified and color inverted JPL image.

In examining the new MGS Face image and comparing it to the Viking Data, there are many striking confirmations of observations made initially by Hoagland, Dipietro, Mollenaar and others. Mysteriously, other features made quite clear by the previous data set seemed to have disappeared altogether. This is quite disturbing, because there are no discernible structures which could have thrown a false shadow to create an optical illusion in the first place. In the absence of a logical explanation for some this missing data, we are forced to consider less appealing interpretations. Could the image be highly degraded or somehow compromised by local conditions, lighting or even deliberate manipulation? In this section we will explore these issues in some depth.

What's There

For an excellent general overview of the new image I recommend Dr. Tom VanFlandern's preliminary analysis at his MetaResearch site. For an extensive examination of the lighting conditions you should go to Dr. Mark Carlotto's site. As always, Richard C. Hoagland's Enterprise Mission site will provide an excellent synopsis of many of these issues. For the purposes of this report, we will assume that the lighting is from below in the new image and from the upper left in both earlier Viking images, although at differing heights above the structure.

While I concur with much of Dr. VanFlandern's excellent report, I will point out that at least one of his assertions is incorrect. He states that there is no way from the data in this image to assess issues of symmetry. As I will later show, the Face platform is measurably and overtly symmetrical, and the Face itself has striking overall symmetry.

In comparing 35A72 and 70A13 with this new image we must first review earlier data regarding predictions for specific features.

The Eye Socket, Pupil and Tear Duct

The Eye Socket in 35A72 was a heavily shaded area in the appropriate location if in fact the Face was a sculptured artifact. Assuming that this was not the chance result of a peculiar shadowing effect, the new image should have revealed a recessed structure consistent with the representation of an eye socket. There was also a dark curvature reminiscent of an eyebrow.

In 70A13, the Socket was more clearly defined and was revealed to contain an appropriate tear duct shape and spherical node resembling a pupil.

The new image is heavily washed out by the unflattering sunlight angle, but the specific features are confirmed. The spherical object is correctly scaled and oriented to be a representation of a pupil, the eyeball and eyebrow pan out and the location of the overall socket is precisely spaced and located. It must therefore be concluded that the Face on Mars does indeed have at least one good eye.

The Teardrop

In the Viking data, the Teardrop appeared somewhat fuzzy and indistinct. Later observations spotted a potential node at the crown of the feature.

In the MGS imagery, we see a smooth, rounded uplift, with possible fissures along the west side and at the top. The brighter area at the upper left may account for the "node" observed in the Viking data. Note the high degree of noise and lack of overall sharpness in the new image. This is a fine example of the very minor improvement in the newest images over the 22 year old Viking data.

The Headdress

Various features resolved in the Viking data had been interpreted as reminiscent of an Egyptian death mask or ceremonial headdress. There were crossed lines on the forehead, radial striping all around, and the faint hint of a protrusion or ornament at the centerline.

The projection in 35A72.

Radial ridges.

Lateral stripes.

The lateral stripes seem to be a series of furrows running perpendicular to the centerline of symmetry and parallel to the "Mouth". The MGS image does little to resolve the issue however, because of the lack of contrast and high degree of noise in the image. The radial ridges are plainly seen on the lower portion of the Headdress, but are indistinct on the upper edge where they were noted in the Viking data, probably due to the lighting conditions. The two sets of data seem to be mutually corroborating, but the features have been attributed to the erosive work of an ocean. It should be noted that it was not previously thought that the local ocean stretched as far as the Face, so this may not be a valid explanation.

Dr. Mark Carlotto has recently released his rectified version of  the new Face image. While still distorted and missing some data on the east side of the Face, it provides a better basis for looking at the headdress in context. However, this image is small and not suitable for defining minute detail. (Note, the white curve on the right of the image [East side] is a data error in the raw data distorted by the rectification process).

Because the oblique viewing angle, the upper third of the Face - roughly from the "Teardrop" up - is pushed more to the viewers (West) side, giving the impression of asymmetry. From the Viking data (taken at a much more orthogonal perspective) we can correct for this distortion and find the true centerline of symmetry. Once we have this, it is fairly easy to evaluate whether the "Bilateral Crossed Lines" actually meet at the centerline of symmetry..

They do.

Using this improved rectification version, we can run some symmetrical splits and evaluate the results.

These striking contrast enhanced versions of Carlotto's rectification compare favorably to the previous Viking data and add somewhat more detail. The prominence of the "Teardrop" is a distraction on the West symmetry and the data error obscures most of the "Nose" on the East half. However, they both reveal an enveloping structure, an apparent projection or ornament on the crown, and both mirror images have all the requisite features for a Face. While these symmetries are interesting, they tend to fall into the Rorschach test category unless you consider one major point. If the "Face" was not a facial representation, then one or both of these mirrors would not resemble a face at all. The fact that both sides have clearly facial features proves that the symmetry test is not falsifiable. There may be more erosion on one side than the other, or the two halves may be meant to represent differing countenances in mirror (as asserted by Hoagland), but there can be no doubt that both sides have facial features.

What's Missing
or
Does the Face on Mars need Dentures?

The "Teeth" in 35A72.

And in the new MGS image.

And in 70A13. Note the corner of the mouth comes together and there is a "dip" in the lips.

In both of the original Viking images (35A72 and 70A13) there were fine but obvious structures in the mouth which seemed to represent teeth. One of the key tests for the artificiality of the Face has centered around this issue. In fact, it's hard to imagine a more decisive test of artificiality then the representation of teeth in the mouth. Dr. Malin apparently realized this as well, because he made a special effort to debunk the presence of teeth in the Viking data by placing fake images of the "teeth" on his website (see "Dr. Mailin's False Teeth" on the McDaniel Report website). He also went well out of his way to misrepresent the arguments made by the researchers advocating the presence of "Teeth".

One of the first contentions made against the presence of actual teeth was the claim that they were merely artifacts of the image enhancement process. The problem with this argument is that it lacks any logical basis. The possibility that a teeth-like set of artifacts could appear on two very different (although covering much of the same area) images in precisely the same location are non-existent. It is even less likely when you consider that there are no other appearances of teeth-like "artifacts" anywhere else in either image and the features are well beyond the range of any individual data errors. Finally, the two images are oriented at differing perspectives relative to the pixel grids. In spite of this, Malin and others have persisted in their mis-characterization of the issue.

Obviously, the teeth were one of the key areas of interest in the event that new images of the Face should be obtained. When they were, I was quite astonished to see nothing resembling the teeth anywhere in the mouth area. You may also notice that the West end of the mouth had an unmistakable closure in the corner which is missing from supposedly "better" MGS image.

This is flatly impossible. Since it has been categorically shown that they were not imaging artifacts, the "Teeth" could only be actual features on the Face itself.

Surprisingly, Dr. Stanley McDaniel - who made such an issue of the teeth and the "Trick of Light and Shadow" argument in his own report and on his web site - almost immediately caved into the view that the missing teeth must have been a trick of light and shadow after all.

Now this is patently absurd. To begin with, a "Trick of Light and Shadow" can only have produced the teeth under a specific set of circumstances. Namely, there must an object or set of objects to throw such a shadow in the first place. Since no such objects are visible in the new data, the assertion, or merely even the suggestion that shadows could explain the features in the Viking data is insupportable and insipid. Consequently, since the Viking data establishes without doubt that the teeth must be there, the only reasonable conclusion is one that McDaniel seems unwilling to face (pun intended).

The Teeth are there, we just can't see them for some reason.

What could account for this? Under extreme enhancement, there are the faintest of hints at what might have been the Teeth in the Viking data.

If just plain noise is insufficient to explain the lack of teeth, are we then left with only deliberate alteration of the image as a conclusion? If this was done, how was it done and what tests can be run to confirm such an claim?

We will examine that issue in Part V. Next, we will consider what new details about the Face have emerged from this image.

Click here for Part IV