Cydonia "Face" compared to Egyptian Hatshepsut's Sphinx.
FIG A
FIG A: On the one hand, I am disappointed that the image looks less like a sculptured artifact and more like a natural eroded mound, but on the other hand, all the features that are apparent in the Viking images appear to be counted for in the new image. The angle and possible distortion due to angle elongate the face-like features, and the face-like proportions evident in Carlotto's images seem to be gone. And yet the left eye does indeed appear to contain an eyeball-like form, and the pupil-like feature is even more apparent. The nose, if there ever was a nose, is either missing or has been destroyed. Erosion, probably by water, seems to have created gullies along the near side, and produced what now appears like a cleft upper lip on the mouth-like feature. In that cleft one can see a shape that resembles a tooth, accounting for the claim that the mouth ../may contain teeth. But on closer examination, no additional teeth can be resolved in this image. The chin-like feature is not proportionately human either, extending much too far below the mouth-like feature. And the hope that a symmetrical right side to the face would be revealed by sharper images has been dashed to oblivion. There is no corresponding right side to the face. There is no obvious separation into headdress and chin as is implied in theoriginal Viking images. The border around the "Face" ../may appear to be a naturally eroded bedform, possibly created from layering within the mountain, but Jim Deardorff is correct in saying that the uniform thickness of this bench as it rounds the bottom of the "face" is very unnatural and more likely to be of artificial design.
The original or unenhanced and uncorrected image (2:00 pm image) shows what appears to be an object of low relief - a pile of rubble as some people have already called it. The absence of any clear face-like features in this first image since Viking has led many people, including the media, to conclude that it is a naturally eroded landform and not a sculpture, although geologists and scientists who rush to claim victory by saying "I told you so" ../may be premature. This feature has undergone enough erosion and damage, which has removed critical features and spoiled others, that I expect further analysis and rectification will resurrect the sculpture theory (as has already happened).
If what I was led to discover in the Wallkill River valley of New York State is for real, and it does represent a possible duplicate of the Cydonia anomalies on Mars, several more detailed correlations are now possible. In my Cydonia II Report I speculated that the ../martian features were copies of the Terrain features, because the anomalies or their remnant expressions on Earth fit too well into the geomorphic features of the Wallkill valley. The Face II feature on Earth is the mirror image of the Face on Mars, according to my analysis, and the non-symmetrical side is due to erosion caused by the Wallkill River. If the Face on Mars was created as a template for what the original features on Earth looked like, then whoever sculptured them on Mars would have kept certain features intact, even damaged features, so that a match could be made. I am still impressed by the degree of correspondence between the ../martian and Terrain objects, even with the new evidence. That new picture seems to match the Terrain features better than the original out-of-focus images.
I predict that the new GS images will not be ../decisive in answering the question of whether the Face on Mars is artificial, because of possible damage by erosion. And we know that water erosion has occurred over extensive regions on Mars. I also predict that the controversy will continue, and the opposing sides will move further apart, each citing new evidence to support their case.
What I now see happening is that NASA scientists will move more strongly towards a natural explanation, while those who have advanced the artificial theory, such as Carlotto, Hoagland, and Van Flandern, will retreat and regroup. They will claim that there are still too many anomalies that continue to hold up the artificial theory to abandon all the work they have done. I would not be surprised if the absence of a nose and the outline of its possible base will be compared by proponents to the Egyptian Sphinx, which has lost its nose also.
One last comment with questions: I wonder what NASA would have done had this first GS image proven beyond all shadow of doubt that the Face is artificial? And I wonder what conspiracy theorists such as Hoagland will now say when faced with this disappointment? We know that NASA technicians have altered and air brushed images in order to remove controversial data, and Hoagland has already accused NASA of digitally doctoring Pathfinder images in order to remove artificial-looking objects.
FIG B: I also attached another comparison jpeg. It goes one step further by superimposing Hatshepsut's Sphinx image over the Cydonia Face in order to show where human features should be located if this is indeed an artificial constructof a face. When this is done, there is a surprising amount of correspondence, if you take into consideration distortion of the ../martian enigma by erosion. Although the face of Hatshepsut's Sphinx is more oval in shape, and the beard or mane does not extend out as far, the facial features show the eyes, nose, lips, and chin to be proportionately correct for this to be a depiction of a human face. What we have learned from the new images is that the so-called headdress is not the typical ornate and evolved ../decoration of later Egypt dynasties, but more of an ethnic feature representing a hairstyle. And for the first time we can make out what ../may be features of a beard with a slightly extended goatee, similar to what is depicted on statues and stele of ancient Sumerian kings, but it is much shorter and not braided. The Sumerian goatee evolved into the ornate and ../decorated chin horn of Egyptian pharaohs and gods. A simple cap, one which is not ornate or extended and which resembles a Jewish yamalka, seems to crest and cover the top of the ../martian "head." And the hair of this figure has been sculptured to resemble the mane of a lion rather than a recognizable human hairstyle. It appears that the beard on Hatshepsut's Sphinx was also designed to resemble the mane of a lion.
Overall the new images of the ../martian "face" resemble and seem to confirm previous suggestions that this object represents the depiction of a sphinx, or the blending of human-like and lion-like features - still evident even in its apparent eroded and damaged state. But because the features are not stylized as on most versions or depictions of Egyptian sphinxes, I suggest that it represents a more primitive form or concept of the sphinx - one which simply gives a human countenance lion-like features without exaggeration. Even the nose, which now appears to have a pair of nostrils, looks more like that of a lion nose than a human one. Think of the television character in Beauty and the Beast, where Hollywood combined feline and human features to produce an appearance not unlike the second image released by NASA.
One last thought: Could the ../martian "face" be a depiction of the Father of Humankind, known to Israelites as Abraham? Could his face have been depicted with lion-like features in order to emphasize his strength and male stature at the apex of the human genetic pyramid? And the myth goes on and on.......
Geologist and Paleontologist
Dr. Bruce Cornet, UFO Investigator Home Page
PLANETARY MYSTERIES, GENISIS ("The Genes of Isis"): The First Book of Revelations GENESET ("The Genes of Set"): Target Earth; A Review and Synopsis by Dr. Bruce Cornetbook reviews by Dr. Cornet
COMMENTARY: Jim Deardorff