To return to the main page, click the banner above.
Q.: Isn't the Face old news? Haven't new pictures proven it to be a natural formation?
A.: The Face, along with a number of other anomalous Martian surface features, have been "old news" -- as far as mainstream science is concerned -- for twenty years. The original two photos of the Face, taken in 1976, effectively dispelled the official explanation that the formation was a "trick of light and shadow." Despite digital enhancement showing that such a "trick" was not possible, this has remained NASA's public position. New high-resolution images show an intriguingly face-like, symmetrical formation consistent with previous imagery.
Q.: Why was the 1998 photo of the Face so un-face-like?
A.: There is compelling evidence that the first two images of the Face released by JPL in 1998 were presented in substandard and misleading formats as part of a deliberate attempt to kill public interest in the issue. The first photo, known as the "catbox" image, was produced using a high-pass filter that suppressed detail. JPL has yet to offer its justification for using such a misleading technique, or why it was deemed necessary.
Q.: Isn't all of this just a waste of time for people who want to believe we're not alone?
A.: On the contrary, this website seeks the truth, whatever that might be. The apathetic climate exhibited by NASA, JPL and Malin Space Science Systems may quite possibly constitute the defining intellectual catastrophe of the 21st century. In the meantime, the prospect of artificial structures on Mars remains open to question. "Belief" does not enter the picture.
Q.: Who made all of this stuff on Mars, supposing it's artificial?
A.: I don't claim to know, unlike some individuals and groups involved in Cydonia research. The Cydonian Imperative does not condemn speculation, but frowns upon those who proclaim the mystery "solved." This is an open inquiry, not an arena for our desires. For the sake of argument, however, here are three interpretations of the Cydonian anomalies (assuming artificiality):
1.) They were made by an indigenous Martian race.
2.) They were made by a star-faring civilization that visited Mars long ago.
3.) They were made by members of an undiscovered, technologically advanced terrestrial culture that visited Mars in antiquity.
Of course, there is also the "Null Hypothesis," which maintains that the anomalous features on Mars are natural formations.
Q.: What is the government's official policy regarding evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts in our solar system?
A.: In the 1960s, the Brookings Institute prepared a paper for NASA regarding the potential discovery of extraterrestrial artifacts, advising secrecy. The authors of the Brookings paper viewed indirect contact with nonhuman intelligence a significant threat to social well-being. Needless to say, the Cydonian Imperative advocates a serious rethinking of the Brookings conclusion.
Q.: Before the Mars Global Surveyor took photos of the Cydonia region, many Cydonia researchers had expressed reasonable confidence that the mystery would be solved one way or the other. It obviously hasn't. Why not? Doesn't this prove the Null Hypothesis was correct all along?
A.: In my opinion, critics who claim that the Null Hypothesis is correct since the Artificiality Hypothesis wasn't "proven" by the MGS are either not familiar with how science works or else have an aversion to the implications of future research.
FAQ last updated: 11-15-03