Posthuman Blues

Misleading text from the ESA Face on Mars release:

One of these visible remnant massifs became famous as the 'Face on Mars' in an image taken on 25 July 1976 by the American Viking 1 Orbiter.

A few days later, on 31 July 1976, a NASA press release said the formation "resembles a human head." However, NASA scientists had already correctly interpreted the image as an optical illusion caused by the illumination angle of the Sun, the formation's surface morphology and the resulting shadows, giving the impression of eyes, nose and mouth.

This is a stark historical inaccuracy. The Face, discovered by Tobias Owen, was presented to the public by the late Gerry Soffen, who assured the media that a second image of the Face, supposedly taken a few hours later, demonstrated that the face-like qualities in the original Viking frame were illusory.

Embarrassingly for NASA, this second, incriminating image never existed. Worse, the Viking orbiter was busily photographing the other side of the Martian globe at the time arbitrarily offered by Soffen; there was no way it could have taken a disillusioning image of the Face even if JPL had wanted it to.





Interestingly, Viking did manage to capture another image of the Face, but only days later. It was never publicized, perhaps for understandable reasons. Taken at a more revealing sun-angle than its predecessor, Viking frame 70A13 not only confirmed the salient facial resemblance noted by Owen and Soffen, but showed a continuation of the "mouth" feature and, despite apparent odds, a second "eye."

In any case, NASA had never "correctly interpreted the image as an optical illusion caused by the illumination angle of the Sun," having never investigated. And if the facial likeness was merely an illusion, why does it persist in more recent images? One would rightly expect a natural surface formation to look less like a face when seen in high resolution.





While the Face (natural or otherwise) exhibits the erosion and degradation expected of a mile-long morphology -- especially on the eastern side, which appears to have collapsed inward under a hefty layer of accumulated debris -- it features secondary facial detail consistent with the impression of an artificial construction. Most notably, the western "brow" shelters an anatomically correct "iris," properly positioned within a unique almond-shaped basin. And at least one "nostril" -- never actually visible in the original Viking image -- is plain to be seen; while its origin remains an unanswered question, flatly refuting its existence smacks of a deliberate attempt to "make the Face go away" in the public mind. The ESA's latest offering isn't the first such effort, underscoring the Face's obstinate tendency to look like a face -- regardless of the will to debunk.

The ESA release continues:

Nonetheless, the 'Face on Mars' was the subject of widespread speculation on the possible origins and purpose of artificial structures on the Red Planet, with the face being the most talked-about formation.

The array of nearby structures has been interpreted by some space enthusiasts as artificial landscapes, such as potential pyramids and even a disintegrated city. The idea that the planet might have once been home to intelligent beings has since inspired the imagination of many Mars fans, and has been expressed in numerous, more-or-less serious, newspaper articles as well as in science-fiction literature and on many Web pages.

The references to "enthusiasts" and "fans" suggests the idea of artificial construction is confined to a population of untrained Web-surfers. This is a drearily typical "debunking" myth. Since its appearance on the cover of the esteemed journal "Applied Optics," the Face (and related enigmas) have received much attention from qualified scientists and researchers, including Mark Carlotto, Stan McDaniel and Horace Crater of the Society for Planetary SETI Research.

It's worth nothing that few, if any, credentialed proponents of the "Artificiality Hypothesis" are adamant that Cydonia is home to extraterrestrial ruins. But their pooled research reveals an enigma deeper and far more compelling than that mentioned by the ESA.

Despite all this, the formal scientific interpretation has never changed: the face remains a figment of human imagination in a heavily eroded surface.

It took until April 1998, and confirmation with additional data from the Mars Orbiter Camera on NASA's Mars Global Surveyor, before popular speculation waned. More data from the same orbiter in 2001 further confirmed this conclusion.

Neither of the images cited has confirmed either conclusion except for those unable to conscience the specter of archaeological sites on another planet. The 1998 image received justified scorn and skepticism from the Mars anomaly "invisible college," having been needlessly subjected to a high-pass filter that served only to suppress detail -- precisely reflecting JPL's stated intent to "scotch this thing for good."





Wary of JPL's verdict, Lan Fleming, an imaging specialist contracted to Johnson Space Flight Center, went so far as to try to deliberately reproduce the 1998 image . . . only to find that he was unable to match JPL's apparent incompetence despite access to sophisticated software. This strongly argues that JPL's treatment of the controversy has more to do with PR than science. This conclusion is made almost palpable by the space agency's continued "bungling," including showing an unprepared public a false-color rendering of an upside-down Face, ostensibly to highlight the capabilities of the Mars Global Surveyor's laser altimeter.

Later:

In fact, in addition to the well-known 'face' and 'pyramids,' a naturally skull-shaped structure also appears in some of the Mars Express images.

The "skull" appears to be a red herring invented by the ESA in order to illustrate the human brain's alleged predisposition to see faces. Given its dubious value as a simulacrum, I'm distinctly unsurprised that I've never encountered it in my research.