Over the course of time various "diversions" have been laid at the door of the Cydonia investigation that tend to distract from the strength of the data and add to the atmosphere of ridicule. Thus we have had numerous attempts to "prove" that the Face on Mars is a joke, by comparing the Face with silly fantasies -- other "faces," imaginary "animals" and so on.
First among these stratagems are the ones used by NASA and anti-Cydonia spokesperson Dr. Carl Sagan. Dr. Sagan is fond of dragging out his Nixonesque eggplant (An eggplant that grew a nose-like protuberance -- certainly a bit decrepit by now) and a tortilla with scorch-marks that resemble Jesus. Because some people can call these "faces," he argues, this proves the Face on Mars is simply "a funny-looking hill."
Prominent among the NASA/Sagan diversions have been the infamous "happy face" and "Kermit the frog" -- sketchy impressions on the Martian surface that vaguely resemble these things. Even Arthur C. Clarke, whose imagination seems to know no bounds, fancied he saw "Winston Churchill" at Cydonia (when I sent him better quality processed images demonstrating the illusory character of his "Churchill" he retorted that it now looked like "Grouch Marx" to him).
The purpose of all this has been to argue that people can see "faces" wherever and whenever they want to, with a little wishful thinking, and then to classify the Face on Mars in the same manner. But such comments are merely a diversion. They have no evidential bearing as far as the Face on Mars is concerned. The latter is an object of a different order altogether. It exhibits elements of detail and proportion that are not found in the "happy face" and its compatriots. On this topic The McDaniel Report states (page 47),
The architectural, anthropometric, and aesthetic observations made by [architect James] Channon, and Kynthia's sculptural translation of the image, should be contrasted with NASA's effort to put forward images vaguely resembling "Kermit the frog" and "Happy Face button" as comparable to the Face. By no stretch of the imagination could one measure, for example, the so-called "Kermit" profile (a brief zigzag line near a small crater) and come up with the biometric conclusion that it falls within classic parameters for some particular species of frog. Nor could one come up with anything resembling a reasonable sculpture of a frog by attempting to translate the so-called "Kermit" into three dimensions, whether by art or by photoclinometry.Given that the accusation of "seeing faces everywhere" is a diversion drawing attention away from the important details of Cydonia research, it is most unfortunate that every now and then someone comes forward seemingly to "prove" the objects at Cydonia are artificial, by using precisely the same moves that NASA ridicules.And though there is an aspect of grandeur in the Face (seen in either two or three dimensions), NASA's "Happy Face" is so distorted that it impresses one as little more than a caricature of what was already a cartoon. Some NASA personnel apparently spent valuable time searching the Viking images for examples they could use to ridicule the AOC hypothesis. The fact that all they could come up with were these two farcical exaggerations serves merely to underscore the point that the Face is, after all, quite a unique phenomenon on Mars, whatever its origin.
For example, the object East of the Face called the "Cliff" is an elongated ridge with a raised area along its length and a variety of suggestive shadows. When this object is foreshortened (by computer) so that the view is from the South at a low angle, there is a vague resemblance to a distorted Picasso-like "face" -- about as much resemblance as the "happy face" has to a real face.
"Cliff" at Cydonia from NASA Viking Frame 35A74. Some individuals imagine an elongated
"Face" in this feature, with the
central ridge as the "nose."This is a regrettable move, as it cannot stand up to scrutiny and simply plays into the hands of those who would discredit the legitimate research by associating it with such fantasies.
South of the Face, not far away, is a formation that in some images with poor contrast control has the rough appearance of a "face" although again a rather distorted one. This is the same object Arthur C. Clarke called "Churchill" and later "Groucho Marx" because a twisted ridge line peels off the left side of it that can be jokingly called a "cigar." Others have interpreted this object as a female face and argued that it represents a Martian goddess. However, on page 18 of Dr. Carlotto's book The Martian Enigmas we see how the facial impression is due to excessive contrast in the image processing.
Those with a serious interest in Cydonia should be wary of such presentations, as they have an air of disinformation about them. It would be an expected strategy for someone wishing to discredit the legitimate research to field any number of pseudo-researchers whose arguments rest on finding "faces" wherever they can. This would only lend credence to the impression that the legitimate researchers belong to the same club.
Other problematic moves that have been made are the inclusion of poorly processed, high contrast images, and the making of exaggerated claims. The original version of Viking image 35A72 appears to show a "nostril" on the Face, making it very face-like. But the "nostril" is just a transmission error dot (data not received for that pixel) which is removed in the first stages of image enhancement. Using a photo in which these error dots have not been removed just makes it possible for the NASA critics to continue their use of this "mistake" to ridicule the legitimate researchers (who have never failed to remove the "nostril" before evaluating the image).
Exaggerated claims also should arouse suspicion. If you are told that the "pyramids" in the "City" are "hexagonal," or that the object misnamed the "Fort" actually "looks like a fort," be wary.
"Fort" (upper right) and Nearby Pyramidal ShapesThe Martian surface lends itself to all manner of imaginary patterns. It is the job of science to differentiate the products of imagination from those that may be significant. For example, with proper contrast control the facial features of the "Churchill" or "goddess" image resolve into something not at all facelike, as mentioned above. In comparison, for the Face on Mars careful contrast control brings out the facial features rather than defeating them. This is shown dramatically in Dr. Carlotto's book on page 19, where five images of the Face at different contrast levels are shown for comparison.
Application of photoclinometry (shape from shading) likewise has a positive result for the Face on Mars, but would yield nothing for the "happy face" or its accompanying menagerie. Dr. Carlotto's method of fractal analysis, again, picks out the Face on Mars as an object high on the scale of possible artificiality. The same technique shows nothing for objects like the "Cliff" and "Churchill."
What is important for further research at Cydonia is to obtain new high resolution images and to develop further techniques of measurement and interpretation. Until human beings walk on the Plains of Cydonia and tell us at first hand what is there, we must exercise the utmost care not to divert attention from careful research by engaging in flights of fancy.
