Mars/Cydonia region images, OpenAI-5

Cydonia, Mars: Geometry, Construction, and the Failure of the Pareidolia Argument

The first indication that Mars might have been something other than a lifeless pile of rocks in a quiet orbit just outside our own came in 1976, with low-resolution images from the Viking Orbiter of a region later named Cydonia. These early images were not good enough to hang a decisive case on, but they were striking enough to trigger immediate controversy.

Even in those low-resolution images, several large-scale features stood out: a colossal megalithic structure resembling a human face wearing a helmet, a massive five-sided pyramid, and additional pyramidal and rectilinear forms nearby. Richard Hoagland built his early work, including *The City on the Edge of Forever*, on these images. According to Hoagland, some of the first scientists who saw the Viking images reacted with extreme emotion, and from the outset the subject became entangled with accusations of ridicule, recrimination, and cover-up.

Whatever one thinks of the anecdotes, it is clear that NASA adopted a defensive posture very early, long before higher-resolution data existed. The term “pareidolia” became the default explanation, even though pareidolia is a psychological concept and not a geomorphological one.

High-Resolution Images: 1999–2003

The meaningful phase of the Cydonia debate begins with the arrival of higher-resolution cameras in Mars orbit between roughly 1999 and 2003. Public pressure forced NASA to re-image the region, and it is these early high-resolution images—not the Viking data—that form the basis of my own conclusions.

My collected Cydonia images from this period are available here:

https://bearfabrik.com/cydonia.pdf

From top to bottom, that document contains:

• The original low-resolution Viking image of the Face

• A higher-resolution image of the same structure

• The five-sided DePetrie/Molinar pyramid

• The “Main City Pyramid,” shown first unmarked and then with my own annotations

Geometry, Not Psychology

My argument does not rest on anthropomorphic resemblance. It rests on geometry and construction logic.

Nature does not produce long straight lines, smooth continuous curves, or planar surfaces meeting at consistent angles on a three-mile scale. It especially does not produce clusters of such features with spatial coherence.

The late Dr. Tom Van Flandern, former director of the U.S. Naval Observatory, argued that what was seen in the higher-resolution images represented the *opposite* of pareidolia: as resolution increased, the structures appeared more artificial, not less. He stated that the probability of certain structures being natural was effectively zero. I mentioned to him that the high-resolution image of the Main City Pyramid should have ended the debate entirely, and he agreed.

The Main City Pyramid

The Main City Pyramid shows four distinct sides and a feature resembling a tunnel or conduit extending from an upper corner. This tunnel appears to terminate at two rectangular platforms. A sharply defined boundary—marked in blue in my annotated image—shows where wind-blown sand has accumulated between the tunnel and one face of the pyramid.

Sand does not normally accumulate with such clean, linear boundaries unless it is interacting with constructed surfaces. Natural dunes smear and feather; they do not stop cleanly at straight edges.

The Face Megalith and Construction Method

The high-resolution image of the Face shows lips, nostrils, eyes, and a helmet with remarkably straight lines and smooth curves. There is also evidence of how the structure was built.

As I see it, there is only one plausible construction method: large stones piled at the base, progressively smaller stones above, and a hard facing applied over the entire structure. Erosion has removed much of this facing, revealing the underlying stonework.

On the windward side, from which sand and wind primarily come, the facing is almost entirely eroded, and the exposed stone has been worn smooth. On the leeward side, portions of the facing remain, with fallen slabs visible where the facing broke away. One can see a cutout in the facing for the left eye, and evidence where the facing detached from the nose—exactly what one would expect from a faced structure, not a natural mesa.

This is not erosion creating illusion. It is erosion revealing construction.

Why the Debate Never Ended

NASA continues to rely on “mesa” and “pareidolia” explanations while avoiding serious geometric or construction-path analysis. For reasons that remain unclear, online searches for “Face on Mars” still overwhelmingly return either the original low-resolution Viking images or fuzzed, contrast-flattened versions of later data, rather than the best early high-resolution imagery.

No elaborate conspiracy is required to explain this. Institutional risk avoidance and career pressure are sufficient. As I often tell people, yuppyism poisons science.

Beyond Cydonia

Cydonia is not the whole story. It is simply where the official narrative first broke down. There is much more.