The Cydonia Institute
Through NASA’s own photographs the truth will be revealed

The Cydonia Institute                                                                                   Vol. 4  No. 2  ◘
The 2001 Face on Mars
by George J. Haas
June 2001 (Revised 2005)           


   On May 24, 2001, without any fan fair or public notice, NASA released a long waited high-resolution image of the Face on Mars (E03-00824), in a "full faced" view  Figure 1).  It appeared to the world that NASA had finally hit its mark and "scotched this thing for good." Once again the "Face" was declared "a pile of rocks" and maintained no resemblance to a human face! The New York Times was reported to say:

"NASA released a new image [of the "Face on Mars"]

that shows the area in far sharper detail,

but reduces any resemblance to a human face."1

Figure 1
The Full Face (2001)
MOC E03-00824
Image courtesy Keith Laney
Note: the distinct "Feline" features on the right side.

   The truth was, the new image (E03-00824) really wasn’t new! It was almost two months old. The actual image, which was taken earlier in the year on April 8th, was held back form the public for almost two months (sitting "in the can" as they say, somewhere at NASA/JPL). This down time provided NASA with a sufficient time frame to prepare a carefully orchestrated strategy of ground zero damage control. So, subsequently, a highly negative propaganda campaign was simultaneously released, on the coat tails of the new image, and posted on several official NASA web sites. This media blitz was designed to stop the "Face" dead in it's tracks. Although NASA was actually forced into taking the picture in the first place, by the attorneys for FACETS and finally forced to release the photo by the current administration, there was no way NASA was going to let this Lion lay! NASA and company were "hell bent" on discrediting any scientific analysis of this image and God forbid that someone in the media had noticed the "cat-like" appearance of the eastern side of this "pile of rocks" before they could divert their attention elsewhere. Oh yes, an all out "War" was on and the real debate was just getting started...again.
  As soon the new image hit the web many attempts to mirror the two sides of the new 2001 Face" image were being presented, either too wide or too narrow. Many advocates of the Face, who had mirrored the feline side, totally disregard any sense of a central axis by including portions of the "W" shaped emblem from the "humanoid" side. It has been our experience that all of these bifurcated geoglyphs (and there are more) have demarcation lines that are signaled by precisely placed "markers" (Figure 2).


Figure 2
2001 image of the Face (E03-00824) with demarcation line.
Note the reason the demarcation line appears irregular and arched is caused by
the curvature of the structure and the camera angle (from the east)
Notated by The Cydonia Institute.

   Two "markers" for this demarcation line have been identified. The first runs along the edge of the "half" emblem of the triad leaf symbol (W) that we identified at the center of the forehead on the "humanoid" side. Notice the long  crack or seam that runs down the forehead. A second "marker" is found at the edge of the chin or platform area, which runs towards the central "tooth" feature on the humanoid side and the protruding "tongue" and "fang" on the feline side (Figure 3).

Figure 3
2001 image of the Face (E03-00824) with "markers"
Notice the two vertical bars highlight the demarcation markers
Notated by The Cydonia Institute.

   The main marker is a small vertical bar located at the edge of the mane area, placed between the feline and humanoid faces. You will notice this "marker", in many of the incorrectly mirrored splits of the feline side of the Face, which appears as two vertical parallel lines. This "vertical bar" is the central axis (or marker) between the two faces Figure 3) . It should be noted that because of the 3 dimensional aspect of this bifurcated "facial" structure and the curvature of it's features, the demarcation line would appear irregular, and arched across such an anthropomorphiclly designed topography. This is due to the fact that the overhead shot is a few degrees slightly off nadir, causing the relative perspective of each side of the bifurcated visage to be foreshortened by a few degrees resulting in the split being slightly off the central axis.

1. Associated Press, “New View of Mars,” New York Times, May 25,2001, A16.

Become a member of The Cydonia Institute’s Discussion Board and join in on the discussion with fellow members.