Wednesday, September 27, 2006





Much ado over the new ESA Mars Face images has centered on the odd, steeple-like protrusion seen in the image above. As the steeple, or "horn," only detracts from the Face's resemblance to a humanoid face, it would seem to be good evidence that the controversial Face mesa is indeed nothing more than a lumpy hill. But only if the horn is a genuine formation.





Mars-watchers who've followed the Cydonia controversy have seen the Face formation modeled repeatedly by computers in an attempt to assess its shape and peer at it from angles inaccessible from orbit. Interestingly, the ESA's "horned face" is the first such computer-derived image to indicate a steep conical protrusion near the purported "brow"; this invites the question of whether we're seeing actual surface topology, an error introduced by the ESA's software, or even a deliberate attempt to make the Face appear less face-like (a challenge to which JPL rose in 1998 with its infamous "catbox" release).





Curiously, a review of "shape-from-shading" images based on reliable spacecraft data fails to show a feature corresponding to the ESA's "horn." Or, for that matter, anything particularly close.





For example, the photo below (taken by the THEMIS camera aboard the Mars Odyssey), shows essentially what we expected to see from the Viking and Mars Global Surveyor images. No obvious sign of a "horn."





Here's another, perhaps less flattering, THEMIS image. Again -- where's the "horn"? The low sun-angle should all-but-ensure that we see its shadow on the Face's distorted eastern side. Alas, we don't.





Neither do we see it here, in this partial image of the Face's western half.





More tellingly, we don't see it in any of Mark Carlotto's digital models or in painstaking forensic sculpture by Kynthia.

Why not?





Because, simply, it's very likely not there. But assuming it does certainly expedites the "debunking" process.

(For more images of the Face formation -- none of them suggesting the ESA's mysterious "horn" -- click here.)

21 comments:

W.M. Bear said...

The horn belongs on the forehead of the ESA "devil" who doctored the image.

Mac said...

Here's something else: The ESA doesn't post its raw data. So it's impossible to duplicate (or invalidate) their results. Very scientific.

jezzie said...

Very scientific.

Not to mention convenient.

ChuckB said...

Well Mac, guess you and I will have to take a fly to Mars and find out for ourselves. Do you have time? I love your new book!

Mac said...

Chuck--

You supply the rocket! :-)

Glad you like the book, even though it's not exactly "new" anymore!

sauceruney said...

One of the news sites... either CBS or ABC, is still using the "catbox" image, even though NASA later released their "corrected" drawing. It's not surprising that we could have forseen the direction modern politics has taken just by studying Mars photos.

stankan said...

Although there might be a "horn", the picture itself still looks like a face. The nostril and lip are so distinct. The outer edge of the Mesa looks like it was sculpted.

Stan

Mac said...

Although there might be a "horn", the picture itself still looks like a face.

I agree. Although it's being used as ammunition against "believers," it's still a striking image. (Just think what it would look like without the bogus "horn.")

Mac said...

One of the news sites... either CBS or ABC, is still using the "catbox" image, even though NASA later released their "corrected" drawing.

Forget the "Picasso" rectification; the Face has been repeatedly imaged by the MGS and the Mars Express. Funny how none of the good images get much (if any) press.

Basil Fitze said...

This is a joke, a total joke. Its a efford to disprove nothing, money wated. We see what we want to see. I just don't underdstand NASA and the other Space agencies giving us crap for space technology. In 2006 we are seeing a repeat of the use of 1960 technology to go to the moon. We spend billions on Mars robots but ignore and lie about the finding. Why waste the money the space program is a sham totally bogus and personally I would fire the whole lot.

We are wasting billions to pad the pockets of people who don't want to see progress its just a game to these idiots, a make work project that is just getting out of hand.

I would can the whole public space program because we just are not getting our monies worth.

John Titor said...

Richard Hoagland won't be happy..then again he'll insist it's a cover-up. He'll announce it on Coast to Coast with Geogre

Mac said...

Richard Hoagland won't be happy..then again he'll insist it's a cover-up. He'll announce it on Coast to Coast with Geogre

In a sense, he'll be right, too. But I really doubt he'll stick to critiquing the sad state of the science press as it pertains to anomalies. I hope Noory gives me a call.

Minz Honolulu said...

You are looking at it upside down ! The "Horn" shadow is the "Mouth" The Nostels looking part is actually making shadows that look like Eyes!

Mac said...

You are looking at it upside down !

No I'm not.

The "Horn" shadow is the "Mouth"

Wrong again.

Anonymous said...

Mac, an awesome blog about these latest images. I wonder why space agencies even bother to take photos...only to doctor them and introduce crap like "the horn" and "the skull".

And..just finished reading your book "After the Martian Apocalypse", an awesome read. I couldnt get enough of it! Cant wait for your next book!

Mac said...

Sam--

It's amazingly easy to expose fraud like this. Space agencies (and their PR departments) rely on widespread apathy, not reason.

And I'm glad you liked the book. My new one will be much different but hopefully better.

Anonymous said...

Mac,

Donovan here. Tilt your head say, between 20 and 30 degrees to the left while looking at this image, and imagine you are looking at a humanoid face from below and left of the chin. Keep in mind that all of the other images seem to show that the right side of the face is badly eroded. The "horn" may be all that is left of the crest of the forehead/brows where they meet at the top of the nose. If you cut this image down the axis at the "horn" and mirrored it, you would have a *striking* anthromorphic image. (I suspect someone here will try it, and it will bear out my predictions if they do).

Saw Richard on National Geographic, and they were giving him a fairly non-biased shake. The guy who countered him actually treated him pretty respectfully. Tell him I said hello, if you talk to him soon.

Donovan

Robin_Shadowes said...

W.M. Bear said...
The horn belongs on the forehead of the ESA "devil" who doctored the image.

LOL

Please allow a 2nd horn as to add some more symmetry to the poor devils face.

Anonymous said...

About the Sun angle and the supposedly long shadow the horn would've cast - look at the shadow of the entire hill, it doesn't extend out onto the plateau, rather only the slope is in dark. If there was a horn, its shadow would've also been fairly short.

Other than that, apart from whatever this structure is - ok, let's say it may be a face, I'm more intrigued by the entire formation's outline. Is there another geologist here who could outline possible causes for such a regular shape?

It appears that there are 'two levels' to the structure: a lower base and the higher relief ('the face'). This could and probably is indicative of two different types of rock that weather and erode at different rates. The entire base is very regular, a rectangle with two parallel sides and two convex, all of them gently sloping. The parallel sides are indicative of some parallel geological structure, either faults or bedding (less likely). The convex sides were probably formed with time by weathering and erosion, probably by wind.

I'm all for scientific approach. So if someone here can show that it is impossible for this structure to have formed by normal geological processes, I *will* believe it is artificial. So far, all of this talk here has been non-scientific, prejudiced that this i*is* an artificial structure and that everything is a not-so-elaborate coverup. What makes your approach any better?

Anonymous said...

I've been of the opinion for a number of years now that there has already been a limited colonization attempt been made on Mars. The face itself remains compeeling due to the fact that even the 'debunking' photos only appear to make it look like a more weathered structure than it possibly is. It's certainly been there an impossibly long time, and makes you wonder why there hasn't been more investigation of the area even after the first round of photos years earlier. My pet theory has been that there's been a limited presence by NASA or the US military for at least a decade or more. Would go along way to explaining some attrocious spending overages, a huge increase in military 'satellite' launches, and an increase in former Soviet republics. These areas offer far better security in regards to keeping launches of materials away from prying eyes. The best approach is to hide in plain sight. I know we drifted in to a few different topics here but I thought it deserved a bit more attention.

Jake at said...

Are you on Twitter? You SHOULD be. my social dynamite gets a lotta mentions from there, I think. :) And this blog of yrs is just so AWESOME, of course.