FACE ON MARS
NEW STUDIES BY MARTIN KEITEL, 1998

CONCLUSIONS

First, here are the conclusions I made based on the original study of the Viking image:

1. The Mars face is very unlikely a natural formation only.

2. The formation must have been influenced by some sort of intelligent beings or forces - whether extra-terrestrial aliens or something else

3. The formation can be assumed to resemble a humanoid face intentionally. However, it's possible that this is a coincidence.

The new conclusions:

1. It's practically impossibe that the Mars Face is totally natural, considering the regularities.

2. The formation must have been influenced by some sort of intelligent beings or forces - whether extra-terrestrial aliens or something else

3. There is not enough proof to claim the formation has been structured as a face. The slight resemblance is more likely a natural coincidence.

4. The photograph taken by the Mars Global Surveyor 5th April, 1998 portraits the same mountain as the Viking orbiter did in 1976. The photograph probably has not been altered.
However, the bad quality of the photo compared to other images received from the MGS, has to be explained.
Martin Keitel, April, 1998



THANKS

At this point I would like to express my most sincere thanks to all those people that have sent their kind remarks about my site, given new ideas and encouragement!


ATTITUDES

As I have observed people's attitude to this issue, I have noticed that most represent one of the following types:

    1. They wish that there were artificial structures on Mars and it is very important to them to find the evidence.
    2. They try to show that the structures are just rocks and mountains and it's important to ridicule the "type 1" people in all possible ways.

Yes, I also hope we find the evidence of artificiality. But why is it important? If the evidence is found, what does it mean to me or others that think like me? Because most of us anyway believe there is extra-terrestrial intelligence. What does it mean to us if we find out that intelligent life has existed or visited our neigbour planet ages ago? Is it just that we want the world to see that we're right? Or is it our wish that this evidence would turn the course of ideologies based on the human supremity and would help us achieve contact with the E.T's?

On the other hand, why do the skeptics, debunkers etc. wish to ridicule people that are open-minded and curious about these things? What purpose does it serve to them?

It is unfortunate that most of the people presenting studies of the Cydonia region very strongly belong to type 1 and they let it affect their research and presentations all too much, while most of the people presenting their opinions in the media and elsewhere very strongly belong to type 2. This leads to arguments and controversies that don't take us anywhere.

What I am going to present on the following pages must give the reader an impression that I also let my "type 1 nature" affect my research. Yet, I am trying to remain reasonable and make the most rational conclusions about these images. Again I want to thank the people that pointed my attention to the following region in the 1st new image of Cydonia...