People have joked about N.A.S.A. over the years and made comments like , “It actually stands for 'Never A Straight Answer' you know”. I'm not going to comment on the wit or otherwise of such a statement. What I will do instead is present some official photographs of the 'face on Mars', a feature that was first noticed in 1976 in the photographs taken by the Viking spacecraft. Over the last 26 years N.A.S.A. officials have been of one voice, that it's just a natural feature and not a sign of life having been on Mars in the past or present. We need to take into consideration the fact that technology has advanced enormously over the last 26 years, hasn't it? How then can NASA explain why the old Viking photos of 1976 clearly show a 'face', yet the latest Infra Red high resolution images taken by the Mars Global Surveyor show a completely flattened area that only resembles the face in it's overall shape?

Viking Image from 1976.

Latest Infrared Image from Global Surveyor. July 2002. If you can still see a face in this flattened image you have a fantastic imagination.

In 1998 N.A.S.A. released the following new view of the face on Mars and called it the “So-called Face on Mars” as if they had once and for all settled any argument about whether it was an artificial structure. This was also a new “High resolution view”, but was taken from a low angle, with different lighting to the previous Viking shots.

\NASA imaging technicians said this photo was passed through a 'low pass filter' and a 'high pass filter'. This filtering was used to remove some striping which was evident in the raw data image. According to Tom Van Flandern PHD, a former Chief Astronomer with the US Naval Observatory, there's a lot wrong with this method of filtering the images. He said, “ according to the makers of 'ADOBE PHOTOSHOP', using both a low pass filter and a high pass filter removes ALL image data.”

1998 Image low angle, filtered.

Tom decided to attempt to restore the 1998 image. There were no artists involved. A computer image such as the one above was made but with the filtering removed. Then the angle of view was changed to more closely match that of the Viking images. Finally the shadow angle was changed so as to illuminate the 3d image from an angle, which also more closely matched that of the Viking photo. The following image is the result.

It's funny how this new high resolution picture looks like the original Viking shot from 26 years ago, whereas the new IR global surveyor pictures are completely flat and have no correlation to the original Image. You've heard that old saying…“lies, lies, damn lies and statistics”. Maybe we should add …“and technology”. According to Van Flandern the odds of this structure being artificial are 1000 billion billion to one , therefore the natural origin hypothesis is disproved beyond reasonable doubt.

Image without filtering, and shadow angle adjusted.

Then there are a couple of other features on Mars worth a mention. One image resembles a tree. It's enormous by earth standards. Lower gravity on Mars may help trees there to become gigantic. We don't know if this is a tree, or what it is but it sure looks like a tree as viewed from above. There are other images that are difficult to interpret as well. There is one called “the tubes”. These structures resemble something that's been planned and built because there's nothing else that would explain their appearance. No amount of water or wind erosion could produce such structures with this shape or these pipe like features.

Apparent large Tree on Mars.

And finally there's the other face. This one might be just a natural formation that occurred on Mars by chance, as Exo-geologists from NASA would have us believe. I'm not a mathematician, but even Baldric would be wondering why two human faces are staring out from the Martian surface.

Tubes photo.

Ex Astronaut Brian O'Leary was a part of an ambitious NASA project to send men to Mars. When the Viking photos came in back in 1976, he suggested that NASA should investigate the original 'face' images from the 'Cydonia' region. His project was then shelved, and he was very quickly out of NASA and out of work. He states very clearly that there was a direct connection between his suggestion and the end of the project. The next 'Now Then' will be a review of the video of David Sereda on the NASA shuttle images of UFOs…unless some amazing ufo event comes up in the meantime.

Second Face on surface of Mars

Cheers.

References.
The Face On Mars. Brian Crowley and James Hurtak Sun Books. 1986.
The Face on Mars. Randolfo Pozos. Chicago Review Press . 1986.
Video: Artificial Structures on Mars. Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research.
Washington DC May 8th 2001.

All NASA photographs are government publications and not subject to copyright. Their use here does not imply NASA's endorsement of this article or views expressed here.