Update (Sep. 22, 2006): I’m getting lots of visitors from Slashdot and Fark. Welcome! Also, NewScientist.com has a short article about these images as well, and talks a little bit about how the Mars Express scientists got emails from people asking them to image Cydonia because they "don’t believe NASA". Not that these new images will change their minds! I heard Hoagland was on Coast to Coast AM last night — as I predicted in this blog entry below– whining about the new images too. I’ll have to get a copy of that segment!
Longtime BABloggee John Parejko clued me in to a European Space Agency press release today about new images from Mars. The Mars Express took images of the Cydonia region on the Red Planet, where antiscientist Richard Hoagland claims there is a giant "Face on Mars".
Here’s the overview of the region:
The region is pretty cool, actually. There are craters, buttes, and lots of other interesting eroded features. Note the scalebar at the bottom: it represents 10 km (6 miles). There is a pretty nice high-res image available, too (warning: 2.1 Mb file). The actual data from the orbiter has a resolution of about 14 meters per pixel! To put that into context, 14 meters is about the size of one side of a tennis court. Mars Express wouldn’t get great shots of Anna Kournikova playing tennis, but that’s still pretty impressive.
You can see the face near the center of the image. Here’s a higher-res closeup:
Even better, Mars Express took multiple images from different angles, allowing a 3D perspective image to be built. Here’s that:
[sarcasm]
Wow, it’s just overwhelmingly like a face, ain’t it? Golly!
[/sarcasm]
Or not. Sure, it looks a little like a face, but not a whole lot. Of course, if you’ve based an entire website on the idea that it really is a Face, and that there is a city near it, and this holds the key to a new type of physics that will allow you to build faster-than-light drives, control hurricanes, and tear toilet paper exactly along the perforations, then you might be motivated to say it still looks like a face.
But I’ve seen better faces in my shower curtain. To me, that 3D image looks more like the guy who gets hit by the toxic waste at the end of "Robocop" than a real, human face.
So if you have any sense of reality, you’ll look at it, laugh at how it kinda sorta looks like a face, and move on with your life.
I have to say that I like the way the press people handled the whole "Face" mythology in their press release. They were rather gentle, but still made it clear that this whole thing is nothing more than a modern myth. They also never link to Hoagland’s site, which will no doubt steam him. Stay tuned, though; I’m sure he’ll be on Coast to Coast AM soon enough talking about how the Europeans are in on the cover-up by NASA.
Sigh. As usual, my work will never, ever be done.
September 21st, 2006 at 12:07 pm
“Sigh. As usual, my work will never, ever be done.”
Actually I sometimes wonder if you and Mr Hoagland don’t have some sort of ‘business’ relationship. How can we be sure that you’re not slipping him a percentage of the BA cut? After all he’s providing plenty of fodder for the BA site.
In fact has anyone ever seen Phil and Richard together? Anyone? How do I know that Mr Hoagland even exists?
Mike
September 21st, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Holy Crap! The human race is doomed! I don’t know if anyone else sees it, but there’s a giant lion’s face in the top left corner of the top image, looking at the little human head with hunger in it’s eyes!
AUUGH! Giant Regulan Space Lions are coming to eat us!
September 21st, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Looks like a pretty normal hill to me with creases or dark zones that give a VAGUE idea of an eye and mouth. But hey! I must be wrong!
I bet I can easily find 10 rocks in my driveway that looks like a face too.
But the image?? STUNNING. All these contrasts are gorgeous. Awesome spacecraft, to say the least.
September 21st, 2006 at 12:50 pm
It always looked more like the face of a Cyberman than the face of a human to me.
BTW, aiabx, it’s probably just an Arcturan Mega-lion. They’re mostly harmless…
September 21st, 2006 at 1:14 pm
A cyberman! That’s perfect! I have always thought the face looked familiar but I couldn’t place it. But that’s it!
Time to “upgrade”.
September 21st, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Now we know what hapened to Beagle 2
It was a secret nuke designed to blow apart the face on Mars and hide the evidence.
The loss of this face is just too convenient
Just waiting for RH to try that one
September 21st, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Others have already talked about NASA nuking the face to destory/change it.
You have to get up pretty early to beat the cranks to the punch.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:00 pm
[...] “Hoagland still wrong about ‘Face’ on Mars“, no Bad Astronomy. Quem mais que Phill Plaitt reagiria com rapidez à s novas imagens da Mars Express?; [...]
September 21st, 2006 at 2:02 pm
I see the lion! The ‘pyramids’ (sorry, don’t know the actual aerological names) make up the nose, the right eye, and the brows. Some hills make up the lips and jaw and some more triangular mountains make the ears, and that broken terrain on the left make a mane. Wow. That’s cool.
So what we have here is something that with modern imaging technology looks a lot like a lion and Hoggie is worried about a hill that looked like a face to Viking? I think the aluminum foil deflector beanie crowd has been missing the real truth, and the real mystery: The Mystery Of The Martian Lion.
Sounds vaguely like the title of a Tintin adventure, neh?
Now what would be -really- cool is if ESA distributed a little executable based on the image and the topographical data so you could fly around and get your own pictures.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Here are tonight’s headlines: “Hoagland still wrong about “Face†on Mars”, and “Buckwheat is still dead”.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Isn’t there a word for the willingness to perceive human or even religious images in ordinary objects? You know, how people see images of the Blessed Virgin Mother in things like cinnamon buns and highway underpasses. There’s a word for that, I just can’t remember what it is.
On another matter, I was offering our beloved Mike Janitch my layman’s thoughts on evolution here:
http://www.mikejanitch.com/blog/_archives/2006/9/20/2346287.html#732154
Do you think I’m on the right track about this?
September 21st, 2006 at 2:21 pm
I don’t know aiabx, it looks more like a house cat to me. . .
September 21st, 2006 at 2:23 pm
It is a really cool rock, though. I wonder why that is not enough for some people?
I mean, my God, the human race took an amazing photo of a fascinating rock on another world! Why does it have to have elves on it, too?!?!?
September 21st, 2006 at 2:27 pm
“tear toilet paper exactly along the perforations”
September 21st, 2006 at 2:28 pm
errr, not sure why that didn’t post correctly. I said “so I’m not the only one who has problems with this then?”
September 21st, 2006 at 2:31 pm
I don’t know if any of you remember but a few days ago I posted saying that I had a 3000 word report to write for school. Well, I’ve decided on a question:
Face on Mars; fact or fiction?
what do you think? I think my biggest problem will be getting coherent ‘for’ evidence!!
September 21st, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Ah I think I see. These posts aren’t put into a text only field, they are just placed on the page. I used an angle bracket and hyphons to make an arrow, and that might look like a ‘comment’ to your code, which thus didn’t show the rest of my post. Oh and it broke the formating on this page.
We shouldn’t be able to break the page’s formatting;).
September 21st, 2006 at 3:02 pm
@Chuck Anziulewicz:
The technical term you’re looking for is pareidolia.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:04 pm
How about the man-in-the-crescent-moon in the upper right? Or, in the hi-res version, the skull immediately to the left?
September 21st, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Open the high Rez. Scroll to the face, then scroll all the way left. Do you see the grinch? Imaged just in time to save Christmas.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:34 pm
I mean all the way right, I get confused easily.
September 21st, 2006 at 3:49 pm
The original pic looked like a lower quality of the Master Control Program from Tron to me. Now it looks like a monkeyman. Then again, Satan looks like a bunny to me.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:33 pm
For a moment, I thought the pic was from the MRO. I suppose even greater detail (and more fodder for Hoagland) would be present with that.
Pretty cool seeing this stuff. Reminds me of that phrase of yours, Phil; I like reality just the way it is.
Now, I have a descision; upgrade or delete?
September 21st, 2006 at 5:05 pm
I saw the giant, annoyed, Lion’s face pretty much instantly too!
This means Mars is in the constellation of Leo, right? 
September 21st, 2006 at 5:09 pm
I’m firmly in the “Wow, look, we can take pictures of the surface of ANOTHER PLANET! Isn’t that just amazing?” camp.
Just in that one picture, there are enough things to keep me interested in looking at it and studying the details for days. And the MRO is going to have even better imagery? I can’t wait!
September 21st, 2006 at 5:10 pm
If that IS a face, then the Martian sculptors really stank. Worst. Extraterrestrial. Facial. Carving. Ever.
September 21st, 2006 at 5:17 pm
P.S. I’ve manged to find at least 4 other animimal-like or grotesque faces in that picture in another few minutes. I think it’s time for bed not Pareidolia now though
September 21st, 2006 at 7:51 pm
“To me, that 3D image looks more like the guy who gets hit by the toxic waste at the end of “Robocop” than a real, human face.”
Holy crap, it does look like he’s one of the Toxic Crusaders, doesn’t it?
September 21st, 2006 at 8:22 pm
You guys are missing the most fascinating thing in that image! It’s absolutely fascinating.
If you have the pipes to your modem, look at the hi-res image. Wow, just wow! Who needs a face. The craters are odd looking. There are flow formations which I presume are lava flows. How did all those features form? Are the built up areas dykes? Did water flow there? What kind of rock is that where such odd craters form? Whether the craters are volcanic or impact (I assume there is a mix), they have steep thin side walls. There seems to be some ejecta from a few of them. There’s definitely lava flows around many of them.
Mmmm…Geology! I can’t wait to see more images from that observer. Can’t wait for that Holodeck.
September 21st, 2006 at 8:25 pm
The Viking took a photo of that same area in 1976 and we all DID see a human face. Viking was analog.
Now Mars Express has sent us the “truth” about that face with it’s digital perfection.
I don’t know about you, but, a vinyl record through an analog amp sounds more real than a cold lifeless digital CD or MP3 rendition of the same exact music recording.
That 3D angle spoils the mystery.
September 21st, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Wow! All this evidence, all this new information, and my dad is still convinced. He even has Hoagland’s book. Oh well, I guess it’s useful. For example, when I run out of toilet paper.
September 21st, 2006 at 9:06 pm
I wonder if any of this discussion would have even gone on if that original photo had been oriented differently. A sideways face is a lot harder to pick out.
September 21st, 2006 at 9:25 pm
Here’s another lesson about analogs, Ray Gray – visual and aural elements do not metamorphize into each other well at all. Bad analogy, dude.
Al: Actually, we’ve discussed how the illusion quickly goes away if you just rotate the picture many times before.
September 21st, 2006 at 9:57 pm
Heh. I have a copy of Hoagland’s book! But I suspect I’ve put it to different use.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:03 pm
BA,
Did you notice that in one section of his book he colaborates with David Percy of Dark Moon fame? If that’s not a conspiracy, I don’t know what is.
Pro Moon Hoax guy working with Pro Apollo Guy
September 21st, 2006 at 11:08 pm
poor poor Richard. He’s like the guy in Vegas who gambles all of his money on a machine he’s sure is just about to hit. Well, he only has a few coins left now.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:11 pm
BTW – I heard Richard on CtoC. He was so angry and bitter. You could hear the bile in his throat when he mention that Phil had blasted him. I did laugh a little .. just a little .. is that wrong? hmm.. maybe I should ask the Martians?
September 21st, 2006 at 11:17 pm
Yup, RCH was on C2C tonight, expressing his hurt and disappointment that he wasn’t contacted as a source for stories about the release of the new photos.
And still insisting that these new pictures offer even more proof of his “theory.”
Heck, they even had a couple of plant phone calls to help guide listeners to the other nonsense on his website. I still laugh everytime I hear his reference to his “geometric” proof on artificial structures on Mars, which is a bunch of randomly picked landmarks connected by lines forming triangles and such.
It’s funny and downright sad that so many people believe this nonsense.
September 21st, 2006 at 11:27 pm
I noticed that RCH was snappin’ at George a little; then he blasted that guy at CBS for writing a favorable article. I wonder if that big televison deal he had faded away like the his Martian face. Still there is much more silliness out there to pick up on .. like the sun is exploding that is why there is global warming, Bigfoot spotted at Walmart, Strange ghost sounds on bad tape or the earth creates it’s own oil.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:03 am
Marc, having been following RCH for pure entertainment value for many years, I doubt that the TV thing is even true. He’s always got some huge, world-changing “proof” of some kind right around the corner, and the world will then see the light; that he’s been right all along about everything.
And then … fizzle. And of course, it’s always a conspiracy by NASA and high-ranking people that shoots him down, and hides the evidence from all us poor, unsuspecting dupes.
What’s really scary is sometime I think he really believes what he’s spouting. But one thing’s certain, he will never stop, and he won’t let legitimate scientific evidence deter his dreams of grandeur.
But then again, I’m just one more fool being duped by the powers that be, so what do I know?
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:10 am
lol . you’re probably right .. oh well .. I too am under the influence of the Evil Scientists of .. um .. Science .. curse them and their logic and observation. They think they’re sooooo smart and soooo educated. Listen .. I’ve been to Australia and the water doesn spin backwards!.. and I tried every toliet in Darnling Harbor. So there…
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:19 am
If that whole area is supposed to be a Martian city, then the Martians weren’t very good at designing cities. Can you imagine what traffic would be like around those places at rush hour?
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:53 am
Richard C Hoagland. How well I remember the incredulity and dismay I felt at his initial press release (I was working in local TV at the time). Here was a science writer (or so I thought) whose articles in the short-lived ‘Star & Sky’ magazine I had enjoyed, especially the one proposing the possibility of life beneath the surface of Europa (January 1980) Yes, this that very article Arthur C. Clarke acknowledges at the end of ‘2010:Odyssey Two’ (pg. 335).
“How can any self-respecting person,” I wondered back then, “go so far out on a limb as to strongly suggest an artificial origin to the ‘face’ on Mars? And based upon what: one, perhaps two fuzzy images? That’s all??Were it me, and I likewise inclined, I would have waited for the sharper, better images which inevitably must be! What a helluva way to get egg on one’s ‘face’!”
Some people never…
Perhaps, if I could, I would re-image that larger “hungry lion” seen in the photo above, and have it become the infamous “Bat-Rat-Spider” of “The Angry Red Planet’ (American International 1960): Mars’ surrealistic monument and warning to those who would be “blinded” by their own fantastic visions. Holy “Cleo”!
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:31 am
Once we get all the “Face on Mars” junk out of the way, can we get on with the real sciencetific investigation of that area?
September 22nd, 2006 at 5:40 am
“As usual, my work will never, ever be done.”
No, probably not, Dr. BA.
So you might as well get started on the Eiffel Tower in the image. Sort of a head ‘em off at the pass kinda thing.
September 22nd, 2006 at 6:51 am
I see Jar-Jar Binks where some are claiming to see a lion.
Hummm… maybe Lucas is more connected then we thought…
September 22nd, 2006 at 7:22 am
Anyone else think it looks a little like the MCP?
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:18 am
Am I the only one that looks at the hill that makes up the “face” and want to climb around on it? I think RCH should go into stand up comedy, he is so funny, even more when he is trying to prove a point.
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:39 am
BA Said:
Heh. I have a copy of Hoagland’s book! But I suspect I’ve put it to different use.
Is that vaguely related to “tearing toilet paper exactly along the spine of the book^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hperforations” ?
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:43 am
“Here’s another lesson about analogs, Ray Gray – visual and aural elements do not metamorphize into each other well at all. Bad analogy, dude.”
Analog analogy. Those two words sound exactly alike.
I get your point though.
Jimi Hendrix sounded better LIVE in concert than hearing recordings (analog or digital) of his work in the studio.
So, one day, in the distant future, some human being will see that face rock LIVE & in person on The Planet Mars. Until that day, we can all postulate about what the surface of Mars REALLY looks like.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:44 am
I read about this on MSN and then read the blog and someone swears it really is a face and put a link to a video at cutepiggy.com They have 400 witnesses that have seen UFOs
All I can say is that was one hellava party.
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:04 am
Looks exactly like the face of the crucified Chrlist as imaged on the Shroud of Turrin.
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:37 am
Now, I’m no Hoagland fan, and I don’t know much about him, but I think it looks like a face, with the right side of it damaged some how. Ok, with that said what is that thing just left (about an inch on screen in the 1st pic) and above it (about 1/8 on screen) that looks like a pyramide with damage on right-hand side, just like the so called face. Are there any close-ups of it?
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:17 am
Of COURSE we Europeans are in on NASA’s conspiracy. I mean, what’s a conspiracy without a few co-conspirators…?
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:19 am
Mike:
Please do not ever, ever include a link to that idiots site again. I started reading his response to your letter and nearly regurgitated,,,
Gary 7
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:33 am
OOPS! I meant Chuck, not Mike. Got so disturbed by Mikes anti evolutionary crud I transposed names. Sorry about that,
GAry 7
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:01 pm
Forget the face, and the “lion” (how silly!), and notice the Map of Africa! Just above the scale marker, there’s three hills in a triangle, the top point is clearly a map of Africa. Clearly intended to let us know they plan to nuke everything except Africa!
I mean, what else could it be?
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:48 pm
It reminds me of the woman’s face in that episode of star trek where aliens with very large crainia put together a human baby girl that was the sole survivor of a crash landing, because of course they had never seen a human! Also possibly Hel the Norse goddess with half her face blanked out.
It is an interesting part of Mars. Aliens and conspiricies are like adding hot sauce on the sugary sweet terrain that is Mars.
I can almost imagine climbing the face of Mars (possibly renamed by the future Mars denizens “Hoagland’s Hill”–with a chuckle) and getting a good look at the surrounding terrain.
When it comes to Mars what fasinates me is how the possibilty that antipodal impacts may have created the Mars we know and love. Unfortunately, more people know about faces and pyramids than real controveries of the 4th planet.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:03 pm
I am surprised that no one saw what is clearly visible–the face of a Close Encounters of the third kind type alien super-imposed over the lower half of the human face–not to flog a dead horse.
September 22nd, 2006 at 9:12 pm
Flog away, Helena! The rest of us probably will!
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:01 pm
I realized a few years ago that I can see faces in nearly all random patterns. I first noticed this on bathroom floor tiles. Later, I found them in carpets, wall texturing, fabrics, you name it. Of course there is a face on Mars. And everywhere else I look. I just wish they would stop watching me.
September 24th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
I await the discovery of the “finger of Mars” – a rock formation that looks like a middle-finger salute. I’m curious to see how the Hoaglands of the world will interpret it.
September 24th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Wait, it’s the Virgin Mary’s Face on Mars!!!!
Now if I can just figure out how to open a Seller’s account on eBay … (”You too can own a square foot of the Martian Virgin Mary Face! Can’t afford to buy? We rent too!”)
September 27th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Years of erossion have taken a toll on the visual evidence needed to prove that the face is not artificial from any particular angle at the size of this object. But what about past images supporting eyes, nose, nostrils, mouth etc that are where they should be on a face? And why does the press (so soon) come down with a pronouncement that this new image puts to rest the origins of this object. Whoever they are, they don’t speak for me and in fact I myself am not swayed from believing that this object was constructed by an ancient civilization.
September 27th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
First, the original image did not have “eyes” for one thing. It had one thing that could be considered remotely similar to an eye. The other “eye” was merely a pixel that was lost during transmission, nothing more than an image artifact.
Second, considering the absolutely massive number of pictures taken, it would have been more surprising if one hadn’t looked familar in some way. Given the human mind’s ability to find faces everywhere, it is pretty much expected and there is no reason to attribute it to aliens. You can walk outside and find objects that look like faces all over if you try (and Hoagland is trying as hard as he can). The fact that a curve and two dots, with a wide variety of possible shapes and sizes and positioned and oriented with fairly lenient standards, is sufficient for an object to be registered as a face to the human brain should indicate to most people that the appearance of something that looks face-like does not necessarily imply anything out of the ordinary
The images do put to rest the origins of the object, or rather further put to rest the origins which had been put to rest a long time ago. The origins are known. Whether you accept the origins or not is another matter entirely. But what you and do not accept does not impact how things really are.
You say you are not convinced. Let me ask you this: What would convince you that the “face” is completely natural?
September 27th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Squid, I think this is what you are looking for.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:13 am
Howard, images that have been massaged and photoshopped by Hoagland and his crowd do not constitute evidence that there ever were eyes, nostrils, teeth, etc.
One half of that mesa bears a resemblance to a face. It has a bulge and dimple in the right place to represent an eye under a brow, in decent relationship with a gully that resembles a mouth. Under the right lighting conditions, the face-resembling features stand out and the other side of the mesa is obscured in shadow. Poof – you have a picture of a Face on Mars. Light it the other direction with the eye and mouth in shadow and the other side lit. No face present.
Notice that the “facial” features actually aren’t that great. The mouth is too high for the bottom of the mesa to be the chin. Either that, or this guy makes Jay Leno look under-endowed.
September 29th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Can I ask a serious question, if it’s not too late to ask any question at all?
In the really cool high-res image, there is a cluster of craters at the lower right of the image, right above the scalebar, that caught my attention. It’s a dense cluster of overlapping craters that runs in a near-vertical line for about 10 km and seems like a small patch of Moon-like terrain. Anybody know a likely explanation for this? Why would there be an unusual concentration of craters in this isolated patch?
October 1st, 2006 at 6:23 pm
re crater chain – a small asteroid , or captured ‘moon’, coming in a shallow angle, braking up and raining down in a long string of death? (if there was anything to kill, or course)
there’s crater chains all over mars – Mars’ poor little moons just aren’t stable, and it’s a bad neighbourhood
http://drhoz.livejournal.com/88820.html
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:14 am
These so-called “scientists” are pretending it’s all “inconclusive” or “not there at all”, to hide the Truth: it’s ManBearPig. Something must be done to deal with ManBearPig before it’s too late. In the future they will all thank me for being Super-Awesome!
October 5th, 2006 at 5:10 am
[...] Yep, still just an amusingly shaped mesa. To quote one blogger in his comment on the Bad Astronomer’s post about the latest images: If that IS a face, then the Martian sculptors really stank. Worst. Extraterrestrial. Facial. Carving. Ever. [...]
November 17th, 2006 at 2:30 am
Perhaps on Earth, unbeknownst to us, is a huge ol’ face a martian! Marvin’s maybe?
February 16th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
The so called “3D” rendering of the image is very poor. They have not done any bump mapping for the shadowed areas, and it ends up looking flatter in 3D than those shadows would allow.
Compare the 2D and 3D versions, and you will see a few places where the shadows have been flattened out in the 3D rendering (eg the “jaw line” on the bottom left of the “face”).
This image has not convinced me any further either way about the face.
HOWEVER, the pyramids are not as defined in this one, which makes me wonder about their validity.
You cannot prove anything in science, only disprove it. Until something is disproved, you run with it, seeing if it can yield any further discoveries. I believe Hoaglands analysis has yielded further discoveries that now also need to be debunked – ie the hexagon on Saturn, supposedly caused by the planet sized Merkaba that the Mars “ruins” describe.
I’m still keeping an open mind on this one.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:59 am
What’s sad is that any of you listen to of the “armchair” seudo scientists like this nut case or the infamous Hoagland. Perhaps it is simply an illusion, made up of varying geological formations.
Perhaps it’s a monument left by a long dead civilization, millions of years old.
I ask you, what would the sphinx look like from space a million years from now. After the earths atmosphere has disappeared, altering the appearance until it looked like nothing more than a deformed rock surrounded by curiously positioned rock formations that some crackpot said looked almost like pyramids surrounding an animal-like structure.
Until we have the opportunity to visit Mars and study the formation more closely, I pose to you that both positions are possible and, neither may be correct. Open your mind to the possibilities, not the seudo science OR the science fiction.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
OK, so everyones due for an eye exam, maybe I am hallucinating , but what I see when I look at the face, is the shape of the hill..It’s news to me that natural hills form into a very symetrical oval shape, if it was natural, than why are the pyramid looking structures ” the D&M pyramid ” not also shaped into some “natural” rounded hill? If you look at all the mounds in this picture, and say that there all naturally occuring…I ask you plz…find me one naturally shaped mountain or hill on this planet that has complex geometry occuring in it……
April 24th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
And what about those shiny, ribbed, semi transparent tunnels found in other pics? oh yeah… “sand dunes” (riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight)
May 21st, 2008 at 8:06 am
it think that it was true!
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
How did it get there
June 3rd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
you tell us every thing else but what is your opinion
September 7th, 2008 at 10:23 am
you know, if anyone here has ever researched hoaglands findings its not just the face he talks about. the bigger part is what he discovered from the whole cydonia region. the fact that there is a three sided tetrahedral pyramid sat on the surface (whether or not you just think its a hill or an actual pyramid) which its position amongst everything else (pyramids, the face, and various other structures) all have a geometric mathmatics linking them together, and like he quite rightly says ‘you dont have a science unless you can show the math’. the position of the three sided pyramid sits at exactly 19.5 degrees north of the equator, now this may sound like nothing but when you put a tetrahedral pyramid within a sphere and then another one upside down both lines of the base of each pyramid sit at exactly 19.5 north and south of the equator. now how may you ask does this relate to anything? if you look at the sun to begin with, all its major solar flares occour at this 19.5 degrees (cant remember if its north or south) then we can take our attention to other planets, the hurricane on jupiter, the volcano in hawai, volcano olympus on mars and all the planets within our solar system have these kinds of anomalies and its not the anomilies thes the interesting thing its the fact that they all sit along this 19.5 degree. now im afraid to say to all you wanna be debunkers but NASA actually uses this tetrahedral geometry which was accepted from hoaglands research. amazing huh?! now it seems like from what he suggests that these anomalies produce more energy than whats going into the planet let alone whats supposed to be coming out. this is what he theorises is zero point energy or hyper dimensional, if you dont believe this is possible then i suggest you go look on you tube and just search for ‘Free energy’ you’ll find plenty on there. also its interesting to find that, the ancients that built some of the most fascinating and complexed structures known to man seem to also have a connection with this geometry, for start you have the mayan moon temple, the great pyramids in Giza, Stone Henge, a temple in india (cant remember the name) and various other structures all are sat within this 19.5 area. now im not saying i know the answers to these questions such as why? and how? but neither does he claim to know all the answers as if he had them he wouldn’t keep researching would he? nor i for that matter.
so yes by all means show some skeptisism but the one thing i ask is that you show a little back bone and research what he really says and how he found the answers and theories through his research befor you try to slate and dismiss what he says about his research. and remember, its not just him saying this, this is what many have concluded many great minds and with the 30 or so years of research wouldn’t you have thought by now someone would have actually been able to proove him wrong or for him to realise he’s wrong by now.
befor i go, doesn’t it make you guys that are a bit more open minded laugh, when the people who dismiss these kinds of theories without actually researching anything say really stupid things like ‘These so-called “scientists” are pretending it’s all “inconclusive” or “not there at all”, to hide the Truth: it’s ManBearPig. Something must be done to deal with ManBearPig before it’s too late. In the future they will all thank me for being Super-Awesome!’ and ‘Wait, it’s the Virgin Mary’s Face on Mars!!!!’ and ‘I await the discovery of the “finger of Mars” – a rock formation that looks like a middle-finger salute. I’m curious to see how the Hoaglands of the world will interpret it.’ pretty stupid really and kind of sad and pathetic. any way. hope for some this info might give way for some of their own research, as dont just believe anything i say just look and what i said and look for yourself, if you look hard enough you’ll soon see the bigger picture. as hoagland said ‘google is my friend’ have fun peeps
July 19th, 2009 at 5:03 am
What I still don’t understand is why nobody notices the two perfect 90° angles on the front, the perfect arcs of circle on the bottom and the top, the straight lines on the sides, the mounth-nose-chin are inside a perfect circle, the fact that the mesa seems to be framing the sculpure… ok natural formation, but indeed an very interesting one.
The cases are two:
1. this is an incredibly amazing natural formation like anything else on earth and on mars (so far the only two planets being photographed so intensly by our technology). Any other example is just ridicolous compared to this one, confirming it’s uniqueness and beauty;
2. this is artificial, and the fact that is doesn’t perfectly look like a face is probably because it is thousands years old and it has also been bombarded by meteors (two impacts are pretty close by the way). The right side may just have clumbled because of telluric waves, or wind erosion.
I’m not looking for free energy or for the ultimate toilet paper ripper (through it may be useful, the second I mean), I just want to point out that this picture doesn’t say anything about the rock’s nature, neither that it’s natural, nor that it’s artificial. It just confirms that it’s an absolutely amazing piece of rock.
Ironically, the more scientists collect data, the more this mesa looks cool