Home

 
The 3 NASA images. /id1.html
MGS negative. Interpretation. /id2.html
Not Van Flandern but Ignatius. /id3.html
New partial images. /id4.html
Contact Me. /id5.html
For possible updates (5-2001). /id6.html
Links. /id7.html
For possible updates (6-2001). /id8.html
For possible updates (6-2001). /id9.html
For possible updates (6-2001). /id10.html
For possible updates (6-2001). /id11.html
For possible updates (7-2001). /id12.html
For possible updates (8-2001). /id13.html
For possible updates (8-2001). /id14.html
For possible updates (11-2001). /id15.html
For possible updates (12-2001). /id16.html
For possible updates (12-2001). /id17.html
First images from Odyssey. // id18.html
Commentary for mathematicians. // id19.html
Underground of Cydonia in IR ? // id 20.html
Face on Mars. Critique.
Not Van Flandern but Ignatius. /id3.html

Motivation of present Web-site?. Below we show what incorrectly was said and published about priority of competent
announcement for "conclusive evidence" regarding Fine-Art in the "Face on Mars". Such competent proof was given,
firstly, by Mr. Ignatius Graffeo on 8-apr-1998.

The Critique goes somehow as follows: 1) The pair of Viking photos did not rule out a natural geological formation. Thus they were inconclusive as far as the exclusive and obvious Fine-Art was concerned.

2) A major goal of MGS was to settle the issue of the Face. It was reimaged and promptly released. Skeptics had excuse in denying artificiality due to the obvious meaningless of that infamous positive at sunrise.
3) Ignatius Graffeo solved the puzzle by showing that excellent Fine-Art was present in the 'negative' of the MGS photo. He correctly announced (just 3 days after NASA release) that "The Face on Mars is Real!".
4) Ignatius, leader in Ufology, became ignored, due to poor divulgation, by skeptics and defenders of the Face as well.

5) Dr. Lahoz published monograph: "Sacred Martian Face = Sagrada Faz Marciana" (UNIAM, dec-2000) explaining in every detail the riddle of the Face, but, unaware of Ignatius' publication, he said in there that Dr. Van Flandern had firstly announced 'conclusive evidence' of Fine-Art (artificiality) in the Face. Now such priority case is here corrected; and the work of Kelly-Fleming-Van Flandern remains moderately respected since the negative was used anyway, even for the wrong purpose of pretending a SYMMETRIC Face-Mesa. Such symmetry is not there as already explained.
6) Dr. Lahoz gave artistic interpretation of both intended Art-Faces (sunset and sunrise respectively). Above picture does not need more comments. There is, conclusively, extraordinary Fine-Art and Craft in the Face-mesa.



Article source- http://eltasico.tripod.com/id3.html

Original source- The Face on Mars is Real by Ignatius Graffeo
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20010203155800/http://www.ufoseek.org:80/marsleo.htm

UFOSEEK.org (Archive.org)