The Face on Mars
& Secrets of the Golden Section
I used to be rather skeptical about the famous humanoid 'Face on Mars' being artificial. My feelings changed, when I noticed that the face seems set in a nicely symmetric frame, oval on the outside, and rectangular on the inside.
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/extended_may2001/face/index.html
http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/msss/camera/images/moc_5_24_01/face/face_E03-00824_proc.gif
The raw image - 10 Mb - http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/extended_may2001/face/E03-00824.gif
There never was any urgency to checking up on claims of geometrical order in its layout, although I was planning to do so one day in the future; and if not for the uncanny resemblances between the face on Mars found by Dr. Tom Van Flandern, which is known as the 'Crowned Head', or the 'Space King', and my own grad picture, I'd have kept my scholarly pursuits down to Earth. The low resolution of Martian photos is infuriating when exact measurements are called for, but it is good enough to make the "Space King" appear like a photographic or airbrushed portrait. How could I ignore such divine guidance and not look at the geometry of Cydonia's Face on Mars?
In art, some famous faces are set within golden rectangles - Mona Lisa, for example. http://tlc.discovery.com/convergence/humanface/articles/mask.html
The Golden Section in art is a discipline unto itself. Let's just say that in general, whenever we deal with the Golden Section in art, it is the artist's deliberate creation, and a measured effort. It stands to reason that when ancient works exhibit equivalent or even higher degree of organisation by the Golden Section, it is due to deliberate creation. Nature never emulates humans, nor is it ever partial. We are human, and we are being partial to the Golden Section. So is the Face on Mars, it seems.
Orientation
of the Face
How should we go about hanging the oval Face on a
wall? Its outer
perimeter is mostly directionless, probably made of detritus; however, there is a big rectangle within. The
two lines emanating from the top left corner of the rectangle are
especially
noteworthy by how they form a visually perfect right angle. If this rectangle were a canvas, its sides
would automatically set the horizontal, and the
vertical orientations.
diagram 1
This right angle, whose lines propagate far into the face, sets the
main directions. It was the best directional clue I could find. Others like doctor
Carlotto solved the problem of orientation differently (more on that later).
The
Bounding Rectangle of the Face on Mars
The axes seem correctly chosen, for this way the Face
on Mars fits into a bounding rectangle
like the one below. Its idea is simple and pretty: It is
a stack
of three golden rectangles - one
horizontal, and two vertical.
diagram 2 
Second
Instance of Stacked Golden rectangles
If we shorten the bounding rectangle of the face by one level to the
top line of the rectangle inside the oval frame, it is the same as
if
we removed the top two rectangles from the original stack of three, and
then
doubled the remaining horizontal rectangle.
The idea of this rectangle is two golden
rectangles stacked horizontally.
diagram
3
In other words, if we run exploratory straight lines as implied by the
Face,
the resulting grid forms rectangles in an exact geometrical
relationship,
invoking the Golden Section.
The shortened bounding rectangle: 3 outer perimeter lines, 1
second perimeter line
diagram 4
More
Golden Rectangles
§ The rectangle based on the prominent right angle, and
extending to the base
of the Face - is a golden rectangle ( 3 second
perimeter lines, 1 outer perimeter line).
§ Each vertical line of the second perimeter slices a golden
rectangle off the big
bounding rectangle of the face.
The base and the top of the Face end in beautiful
arcs, and the centers of these arcs
seem to be on the long axis of symmetry of the Face.
diagram 5
All in all, these are extraordinary findings.
The Face on Mars is a fascinating geometric
composition
on the Golden Section, entirely in the spirit of golden section based
works
of art, or architecture. It looks artificial; however, it's not so complex that it could not
be natural.
Versions of the Face on
Mars
The
Picasso Version
I began my explorations on the Face using MGS 70A13, a high
resolution image of the Face taken on April 5, 1998.
diagram 6
I thought that I should disclose my initial
findings on a relevant
internet discussion
group. In fact, this brought on a
surprising response from Mac Tonnies - a well
known expert on the Face, and other Martian mysteries - my version of
the image
was
known as the Picasso face due to serious
distortion from its orthorectification
by the MSSS (Malin
Space Science Systems) on behalf of
NASA.
So, my first visit to NASA's website had somehow steered me into
downloading
the wrong face - the Picasso face- with the lure of high resolution.
Back I went until
I found and downloaded the
up-to-date, and state-of-art orthorectified image of the
Face by MSSS - the MGS E03-00824,
taken on April 8th, 2001.
This image is my
present basis for analysis.
We can easily spot the distortion,
when comparing the above Picasso version to
the others based on MGS E03-00824. One thing though, while grossly
distorted
on the inside,
the MGS 70A13 image
is fairly accurate on the outside. That is why
my original solution for
its overall shape remains unchanged. The bounding rectangle
is a stack of three golden
rectangles, and when trimmed to the long straight line above
the forehead, it becomes a
stack of two golden rectangles, the same as before. Still,
the inner symmetry is
lost. For instance, the broken cyan line in the diagram along
with the corresponding
terrain should be, where the broken green line is.
What Mac Tonnies says about the Picasso on his website:
the Face's centerline to the right, as illustrated by the improperly placed "nostrils"
The "Picasso Face" has become NASA's "final word" on the subject despite the fact that
its asymmetry has been proven to be the result of improper orthorectification, and appears
in many publications seeking to dismiss the Face as a potential artifact."
The above may all be true
in relation to Parker's so called 'Picasso' version,
but that version is no longer NASA's 'final word'.
Dr.
Carlotto's Rival Orthorectification of the Face
Interestingly, Mac Tonnies and many others maintain the view that the
most correct
orthorectification of the face is the one done by Dr. Carlotto.
In contrast, Dr. Tom
Flanders, or Lan Fleming say the same about the MSSS version of the
same April 2001
MGS image.
There Can Only be One
Apparently, we have two correct version, because both versions are
widely accepted
by the community of those interested in the Face. I wonder how many
realize that the
two versions are vastly different. For instance, MSSS's platform of the
Face is
quite a
bit more elongated.
At this point in our deliberation things get really
interesting. Which of the two versions
is correctly orthorectified, if any at all? And what is all this ado
about?
In 1998, Carlotto and Brandenburg
had analyzed the high resolution orthorectified
MGS image of the Face from April 5, 1998, and found it highly
symmetrical, despite
high erosion on the right side of the platform.
Carlotto later did his own orthorectification of the image
of the face from April 2001.
He then concluded: In analyzing MGS
image E03-00824 we have found
the Face
to possess a very high degree of symmetry in twodirections and to contain subtle
indications of an underlying
geometrical plan based on rectangles having a long
to short side ratio of 4/3.
These new findings render previous
criticisms concerning artificiality moot; i.e.,
that the Face cannot be a face and
thus cannot be artificial because it doesn't look
like a face. That our constructions seem to sugggest a simple yet elegant
geometry
at a high level of confidence is difficult to explain as the result of some
unknown
naturally occuring random process
on Mars. The hypothesis that the Face on Mars
is a highly symmetrical
artificial object that appears as it does today due to effects
of erosion and dilapidation is simpler and more plausible
than the hypothesis that
it is a natural landform.
Seriousness
of the Issue
Inclusion of scientific geometry in extraordinary architecture on Mars?
Surely,
this issue deserves closer attention? Yet, attention it does not get.
Why?
It occurs to me that scientific community may be well aware of
the discrepance
between the MSSS and the Carlotto versions regarding the shape of the
Face.
Should the MSSS version be more accurate then Carlotto's scientific
geometry
would by default fall on its face! I am afraid, that is why this matter
is not taken
more seriously. Scientists are too busy laughing. Even if the symmetry
remains,
it loses its luster. No one realizes that
the NASA version also inheres architecture
based upon the science of geometry.
My
Vantage Point
Suppose that NASA's MSSS version is the correct one, and Carlotto's is
for some
reason distorted. Why did Carlotto not do a routine check on the NASA
version?
Was he not curious about what properties its symmetry might have? It
would have
led him straight to the system of golden rectangles I had found there.
Let me point out that the Golden Rectangle is far more interesting than
the 3/4 rectangle,
as the subject of any prehistoric code.
From my unique vantage point, the real geometrical message behind the
Face
on Mars
has been deftly withheld from unsuspecting public view amidst antics
and
fanfare.
Seeking
to dismiss
the Face as a potential artifact',
- remember the words?
Regarding the role of Dr. Carlotto in this case, there
are some
inconsistencies. Number
One is the lack of Carlotto's recognition of the golden rectangle
system
in the NASA
version. Yet, he easily recognized a comparable system in his own
edition of the Face.
http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/Members/v01n01/a/NFS0101a_1.shtml
Moreover, as I see it, Carlotto's bounding rectangle
exceeds the physical limit of the
Face at the top by just a little bit. And why not? After all, Carlotto
tries to fit in an idea
he got from the Face itself. It is natural that he tries to make the
two fit as best he can.
I haven't done anything different. There was an a priori assumption I
had about the
geometry of the Face, what it should be, if it was to amount to
anything, and I did my
best to fit that idea to the actual Face. Yes, as luck would have
it, my efforts resulted
in a closer fit than Carlotto's.
diagram
7
diagram 8
NASA's latest version is on the left, Dr. Carlotto's
version is on the
right. It is
apparent that Carlotto did not avail himself of the clearly
rectangular
features
at the top left of the big shield to establish his bearings like we
have done.
Everything remains largely the same in both versions, but the
Carlotto
version is
shortened along the long axis.
Checking
Out the
System in Carlotto's Version
Golden Section in general, play no role. In contrast, we have at least one big
golden rectangle in view below. This layout of the Face is actually also interesting,
its main shape is a composition of a golden rectangle combined with a square:
diagram 9
The golden rectangle is defined by:
the height of the bounding rectangle
& the width of the inner rectangle
The square is defined by:
the width of the bounding rectangle
& the height of the innerl bounding rectangle
Consistently and comprehensively, all four lines of each rectangle are put to use.
But, in the other version, the golden rectangle whose width is defined by the width
of the inner rectangle then also has the height of the inner rectangle.
This arrangement lets us accurately illustrate and quantify the differences in length
to width ratio between the two main orthorectified versions. Somehow Carlotto
took an even step within the geometric grid of the Face as we have it. In other
words, Carlotto made systematic adjustments to the image (or is it the other way
around?)!
In our version of Dr. Carlotto's orthorectified image (above), the crosshairs center
upon much the same point - directly in the centre of what looks like a small crater.
Yet, the discrepancy in orientation between the two sets of axes is big, 4.05 degrees.
In
Favor of the NASA
Version - The Corner, and the Gable
I found an array of golden rectangles from the NASA version, but not in the Carlotto version.
diagram 10
Indeed, the right angled corner, which sets our orientation
is facing on the short side a corner,
which looks sort of like a gable on a
haunted Martian house (general view above, detail below).
The inside of the
corner even serves to position another line of the second bounding rectangle.
In Carlotto's
interpretation, this corner plays no special role.
diagram 11
What is the significance
of this
gable to the subject of golden
rectangles?
The inside top corner of the gable is part of the golden grid. The gable is rectangular
at the top, and is oriented to the diagonals
of the golden rectangles in this system.
One line of the gable is the same as the main diagonal of the
system, and one major line
of the grid is the gable's vertical axis.
This gable supports golden
rectangles, as the subject matter in
the design.
Testing Dr. Carlotto's
Orientation
diagram 12
Since Dr. Carlotto has marked his central axes into
the image
above, we can
compare his and our bounding rectangles, and verify his claim that the
width
to height
ratio of the Face is 3:4. In our measuring we get the ratio
of 0.762,
which is very close to being 3:4, so Carlotto was correct in this
aspect.
To get symmetrical boundaries to the sides of the long central axis, we
must
use the inside edge of the
upper bounding line, and the outside edge of the
bottom bounding line.
Note, how Carlotto's bounding line diverges from the landmark's
bottom
side.
Poor Fit
The below diagram illustrates the imperfect fit of
Carlotto's bounding rectangle
over the top of the Face using his own centre of symmetry. Note the big
gap
between the face and the bounding rectangle. In contrast, there is no
such gap
between the golden rectangle and the Face in my solution.
diagram 13
Faces on
Mars - Is the King a Pawn?
From: Mac Tonnies
To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Mars Photos From Dr. Tom Van Flandern
What a chain of
coincidences - The King and I !
I got to UFO UpDates, because I was letting MUFON know about my
solution to
the Abydos Helicopter enigma involving golden rectangles. Soon after,
on July the 4th,
there was a most interesting post by Mac
Tonnies, whose headers are given above.
Mac Tonnies says that Van Flandern had dreamed up some
novel art on Mars:)
The human tendency to see faces in everything is in
the sphere of my scientific
curiosity, and both Mac Tonnies' and Van Flandern's sites are well
worth visiting.
http://www.mactonnies.com/imperative18.html
http://barsoom.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/M0203051.html
While looking at the above 'non-existent' face from Van
Flandern's site, I realized that
I have already seen it somewhere. Indeed, it apppears that my
high-school grad
picture
passes the grade as a close replica
of the non-existent face on Mars, known as the Space
King, or the Crowned Face.
I have tested my impression by involving a number of friends in a ruse.
Told that using
Photoshop, I have transported the face on the right to
the photo on the left, they were
asked, if they could still tell that the face originated from
the
face on the right.
Most had claimed that they did indeed recognize the fact. "Wait,
isn't that you?
My grad pic resembles the face on Mars more than it resembles
my old self..
Next:
Seeing my grad picture on Mars gave me a priori expectations of golden
rectangles in
the Face on Mars - this would be a natural progression to a series of
coincidences as is
usual in the cases of divine guidance. Golden rectangles
tend to be artificial, could I find
golden rectangles in the Face on Mars?
And if I could - could I go back to the face which is so much like my
grad picture, and
expect that the rectangle above its forehead should fit a golden
rectangle?
Supposing
that all that came to pass, could I meet the deadline of producing this
revised
article for the day, when Mars comes the closest to Earth in 60,000
years?
That is today, August 27th, 2003. The coincidences culminate in the
public getting a
better view into the mystery of the Face on Mars.
Author's qualifications and
entitlement to discussing the Face on Mars
Some people will question me: Who are you to claim a rival
geometrical solution to
the Face on Mars? Are you a Phd. like Dr. Carlotto? Well, no,
folks. But, tell me:
Does Dr. Carlotto have a facsimile of his grad picture on Mars like I
do? :)
Faces in the King's Face
The King's left eye is at the same time the right eye of another face
with
a cross between the eyes. You can't miss it. Actually, there are two
crosses,
an upright white cross between the eyes, and the dark cross, where the
latter
almost looks like a shadow cast by the former.
x 
The female profile below is also an element of the same area.
The area is shown upside down in image M0303483.gif
fttp://barsoom.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/maps/M0303483.gif
More golden rectangles in strange
places
nExpect some updates to this article.
July 13, 2003 © Jiri Mruzek Vancouver,
BC, Canada
Notes:
'Even given accurate data, however, most science does not depend solely on planimetric measurements, even when using photographs. There are many other attributes used to examine features, especially those suspected of being artificial, and the martian features do not display such attributes. No one in the planetary science community (at least to my knowledge) would waste their time doing "a scientific study" of the nature advocated by those who believe that the "Face on Mars" is artificial.'
http://www.msss.com/education/facepage/face_discussion.html
--- In cydonia@yahoogroups.com, Mac Tonnies <macbot@y...> wrote:
>
> --- David Jinks <dsphinx1@h...> wrote:
>
> > This brings up the real issue: what criteria do we
> > use to test the competing
> > theories (natural versus artificial)? In other
> > words, if we're operating on
> > the assumption of natural origin, what tests do we
> > use to determine what
> > makes a feature "so unusual as to make a natural
> > explanation questionable"?
>
> I think nonfractality has to count as a significant
> test, as it's computerized and can't be attributed to
> people "seeing what they want to see." I find it
> fascinating that the Face--which looks weird to
> humans--also looks out of place to an impartial algorithm.
Nature never singles out an aspect of itself - such as theories of
the PHI-ratio (Golden Section, Sweet Sixteen, etc.) in human terms -
and impose it as visible order upon what is basically neutral chaos
(with respect to the specific math). Nature works in other ways.
Nature does not question itself, and it does not describe itself in
human terms.
If you can isolate intelligent designs from a given medium, be it
prehistoric art, or structures on Mars, then that design had to be
implemented by intelligent beings.
What is the minimum requirement for a design to pass testing for
intelligence? It has to have a working idea, and it should be
self-defining, and convergent upon some conclusion, an apparent goal,
or function. For instance, take the 14,000 years old, yet streamlined
and elegant exercise on invoking the so called Osiris Numbers
(Santillana, and Deschend - "The Hamlet's Mill"- published in 1968, I
think). In this (the oldest such known) instance, the precessional
code yields values on three levels of accuracy, at once. The highest
level is equal to our own, one at which we arrived utilizing space
technology.
We tend to be familiar with 25,920 years as being one complete turn of
the Zodiac, but few of us know the more accurate values. You can see
this 14,000 years old exercise at:
http://www.vejprty.com/atma.htm
You have seen perfection, ladies and gentlemen. The point of the whole
exercise was to emphasise that the accurate modern value given is as
deliberate as the rest of the exercise.
What revelations these are. We have what is in effect a self-decompressing file,
making abstract sense. We learn a train of thought. We are in someone's head,
without knowing whose:)
