(Posted 03/05/10)


The number one argument leveled against the relevancy and validity of the reflections found on The Face and throughout Cydonia is Rorschach.

Be they die hard skeptics or true believers, the ones arguing against my discoveries just can't seem to wrap their minds around the context.

All they choose to see are the reflections.

Falsifiable geometric model be damned.

Application of  precision geometry to measure be damned.

Long range connectivity be damned.

Unmistakable universal symbolism be damned.

Redundancy be damned.

Predictability be damned.

Methodology be damned.

In other words...

Science be damned.

Their argument and assumption is simple:

"The symmetry inherent in 'mirrored' images or, 'inkblots', produces all kinds of recognizable faces, shapes, and creatures."

"Therefore, nothing can be gleaned through testing any hypothesis that involves 'mirroring' any image."

A more clear example of a combination ad hoc and straw man argument there could not be.

The argument is ad hoc because the rationale is simply fallacious:

"Reflected images of natural objects and landscapes produce recognizable faces, creatures, and shapes; Reflections throughout Cydonia reveal faces, creatures, and shapes; therefore, Cydonia is natural."

First of all, the fallacy behind this line of reasoning is demonstrable through the following analogy:

"Lions are cats and they have claws; falcons have claws; therefore, falcons are cats"

Second, the notion that reflected images produce recognizable faces, creatures, and shapes is not in dispute.

What is in dispute are two things:

The above argument is a straw man because it fails to take into account the geometric context, applied precision geometry, connectivity, predictability, and the objectively observed redundant symbolism.

After all, what is science if not all of these things?

A fellow named Nick Previsch wrote on The Final Frontier's Facebook page (while trying to 'debunk' artificiality at Cydonia) exactly what he perceives science to be.

Mr. Previsch writes:

"Science is NOT about seeking support for a favored conclusion, it's about developing a hypothesis to explain observations, then testing it, and ALSO carefully... re-examining initial assumptions at all stages of the process."

While I disagree with the semantics in the first part of his statement, I won't quibble because I cannot disagree with the latter points.

Overall, Mr. Previsch is correct.

Had Mr. Previsch actually bothered to read the information on my website, he would know that is exactly what I've done.

In fact, one of the first things I did after I discovered the hidden sphinx was to actually EXPERIMENT and  TEST the assumption that mirroring any image will in fact produce results similar to what is found on The Face and throughout Cydonia.

While my journal entries are, admittedly, not very well organized, the work is there.

The experiment was simple but time consuming.

Take this geometric 'wheel'...

... and apply it to as many circles or craters I could find...

... on as many different images as possible until I could say definitively one way or the other if the following assumption is true;

The Face is unique in that it reflects multiple symbolic images when mirrored along specific geometric lines.

Application of the methodology learned through studying The Face... other images should produce occasional 'hits' because of the inherent nature of Rorschach, but should not produce multiple 'hits' like what is found on The Face.

If they do, then The Face is not unique, and in all likelihood, not intelligently designed.

Test after test, the above assumption became more and more validated.

What qualifies as a hit is simple.

A hit is any image that leaves little to the imagination.

A hit must objectively show an easily recognizable face, creature, or shape.

Of the hundreds of examples I produced utilizing dozens of images, here are some of the best hits.


While the misses FAR outnumber the hits, it is hard to argue they aren't pleasing to look at.

A miss is characterized by any image requiring lots of imagination.

A miss must objectively lack an easily recognizable face, creature, or shape.

To see all of my results and judge for oneself, simply browse through all of the slide shows I have posted.


Needless to say, the naysayers have provided a few examples of their own in a feeble attempt to support their fallacious assumption regarding reflected images.

This example was posted by Telfrow of's forum sometime in 2005.

His example definitely falls into the category of 'hit' because it clearly looks like a lion.

And one more example of a random hit goes to Keith Laney for posting this image.

These next examples given by Vianova at Keith Laney's Hidden Mission forum clearly fall into the category of  misses.

Even though Vianova tries to argue his examples are 'comparable'...

... when they are objectively compared to a myriad of examples, (See the hundreds of others found in my journal entries) an unbiased evaluation should have no trouble classifying them...

... as clear misses.


The most prudent example of a 'hit' turned out to be in a series of reflections I produced on 10/28/05.

I carried out my experiment upon an image disingenuously used by skeptics to refute artificiality at Cydonia.

 The image is of a crater on Mars called the 'Happy Face'.

(If this image isn't flashing, refresh the page)

That's pretty cool, isn't it?

Two rather intense faces... a bull on top and a half hidden face on the bottom peering out with a pair of glaring eyes.

The dagger for the skeptic's point of view came with a much higher resolution image of the 'Happy Face'.

The same reflection on better data reveals nothing.

The bull and the glaring eyes disappeared.

 The same does not hold true for Cydonia or The Face.

From Hoagland's early assumption and experiment...

... through all subsequent data sets...

... the iconography remains.

Even from the most oblique angles.

(image source)

In fact, instead of the iconography disappearing, better data revealed more hidden images, including two other SPHINXES which reinforce the original iconographic observation.

As well, these images also remain...

... on even the most oblique data sets.

(Image source)


The conclusion is obvious and inescapable.

The Face is unique in that it reflects multiple symbolic images when reflected along specific geometric lines.

When one applies the methodology learned through studying The Face to other images, occasional 'hits' do occur because of the inherent nature of Rorschach, but do not produce multiple 'hits' like what is found on The Face.

Therefore, The Face is, in all likelihood, intelligently designed.

The probability of intelligent design quickly moves from likelihood to certainty when viewed in context along side the rest of Cydonia.

The Face was NEVER alone.

Given the unique nature of the reflections found on The Face, it stands to reason other features near by should also exhibit similar characteristics.

Undeniably... they do.

(If the next two images aren't moving, refresh the page)


Of course, if all these reflections are intentionally designed into The Face and surrounding monuments, it seems logical to assume there is a reason for it.

It turns out there are several.

These reasons are documented in detail throughout the papers I've published to my website.

The supposition the Cydonia landforms are naturally occurring features is no longer tenable for any reasonable person.

 To all you unreasonable people out there...

Get over it, so that we can all finally...

Get ON with it.


Navigation Web Page