Subj:	 Re: The controversy will continue.
Date:	98-04-07 23:50:47 EDT

"The new item that this latest photo shows that supports the form's
artificiality is the continuation of the left-hand double-edge outline
from the "forehead" all the way to the bottom of the "chin".  In the
previous two photos of 1976 this was lost in the shadows of the "chin." 
Since the outer edge of this double congruent curve is seen to extend on
around the right-hand side of the "Face" (as viewed by us), this continues
to bolster the artificiality theory.  The reason is that erosion cannot
produce rectilinear and smoothly curving features like this (to anywhere
near this degree of precision) over distances as great as a mile or two. 
The "escarpment"  between the two congruent left-hand edges indeed appears
to be eroded, and as expected, this erosion produces irregular
rivulet-like or wavy corrugations.  It's the largest-scale features that
best survives the erosion and therefore needs to be discussed.  Of course,
the TV newscasts and today's newspapers didn't make any mention of this. 

In my limited experience, you can't find any natural features anywhere on
Earth like it (nor on Mars outside the Cydonia region) -- double
parallel/congruent lines, proceeding with smoothly increasing curvature,
then reversing this in right-left symmetry.  It's as smooth as a French
curve (in particular, my old Ridgway's 52-4118 French curve).  The odds
against anything like this being carved naturally out of geologic and
erosional processes are astronomical, as I see it.  Keep in mind the
perfect congruency of both edges of the "escarpment" plus the outer edge's
continuation around in symmetry.  The "litter-free" area surrounding the
"face" is also part of its uniqueness.
  
There's a lengthy "crack" of some sort, which, along with the angle of
view, helps obscure the inner edge of the escarpment's right-hand side. 
So it's hard to say if it continues on there in a well defined manner or
not.  Apparently the method of imaging/processing caused the structure to
be elongated relative to the 1976 photos, as pointed out by someone
writing for McDaniels' group.  If so, the original concept of a carved out
Face still seems to be the leading candidate of what it represents, upon
realizing that it is more highly eroded than previously believed.  But not
knowing now what it was, I'll just call the outer framing the "pedestal." 
 
Are some of the blotchy, light or white areas inside the "pedestal" 
Martian clouds?  Clouds do occur there from time to time, and may have
obscured some of the details of whatever was once on the "pedestal."  If
not, the imaging expert could try to blur or de-focus the present, higher
resolution picture so as to produce the same resolution of the 1976
pictures and retrieve their essence.  This should be feasible to do IF one
or more additional pictures with the higher resolution get taken, and if
the false elongation gets well corrected for.  Then the altitudes of the
terrain features can be calculated and shadows fed in to simulate the
different solar angles and viewing angles of the 1976 pictures.
  
So I would urge that attention be paid to the features that indicate the
Martian "pedestal" is a construct, and not ignore them the way the
newscasters have done."
  
     Jim Deardorff