QUESTION: 
I have some questions regarding the Cydonia area on the Mars surface. I've
seen a lot of pictures and simulations from the face on TV and in books.
First, I thought that the face is maybe a result of shadowing or light. But
last year, I saw some computer simulations with the dark side of the face
and now I must change my mind. The symmetry from both sides are impressive.
I think now it's impossible that this symmetry is made by shadowing or
something. But it's not only the face. Most important for me are the
pyramids near the face. We see here a impressive symmetry as well. I think
it's too simple to say it's only a shadow. What do you think about that?
Have you planed to observe this area again with better results and pictures? 

ANSWER from Jack Farmer on November 20, 1996:
I have studied the region of Mars called Cydonia where the so-called face
is located, and it is just one of hundreds of mesa-like forms that have an
amazing array of shapes that resemble things like animals, faces, you name
it. The way I see it, it is like sitting outside and watching clouds form.
Have you ever done that? You can convince yourself you see a whole host of
things after awhile. I think the face on Mars is interesting only in the
sense that it reveals how the human mind and perceptions are always
looking for patterns and making comparisons. If we are to accept the face
on Mars as the result of an ancient civilization of builders, we will also
have to account for lots of other weird-shaped mountains there, some
looking like dogs and elephants, and one that even looks like Elvis. The
point is, it is much more likely and reasonable that the face is just
another landform sculpted by landslides and glaciers, and not the hands
of intelligent beings.

ANSWER from Jeff Plescia on January 31, 1997:
The "Face on Mars" is a hill. The "face" is simply the result
of shadowing of an irregular shaped hill rather than it
being sculpted by someone.

Jeff Plescia
Jet Propulsion Laboratory

ANSWER from Bruce Jakosky on July 7, 1997:
The one thing that everybody agrees on is that the "Face on Mars" indeed
looks like a face.  Looking like a face and being an artifact carved by some
ancient martian or extraterrestrial civilization are too very different
things, however.  As a scientist, I look at it and can imagine quite easily
that the erosional processes that are very active in the region could have
left it behind as a remnant.  Same thing with the pyramids--they could very
easily be erosional mountains.

I do not find the "symmetry" arguments very convincing, simply because none
of them look that symmetric to me.  Although there is no way to demonstrate
with the available data that the face WASN'T carved by intelligent beings,
I believe that erosion is a much better explanation.  And, all of the
geologists and scientists who have experience working with planetary
data agree that it was carved by erosion.

Although it will be difficult, we will try to photograph it again from the
upcoming Mars Global Surveyor mission.  If we can, we'll see higher
resolution images that should provide much new insight.

In all of the discussion about life on Mars and life in the universe, keep
in mind that it will be much more likely that we find something like
bacteria than something intelligent or like us.

ANSWER from Jeff Plescia on July 11, 1997:
NASA's position, based on scientific anlaysis of the data, is that the face
is just a geologic formation and that it was formed by natural geologic
processes.  Anyone who wishes to hold alternative view points is free to do
so and NASA is not in the business of actively trying to change their mind.

ANSWER from Steve Wall on July 15, 1997:
The Viking orbiter image you ask about has inspired so much discussion about
its origin that I'm not surprised you ask.

Many people can picture a model of a human face in that image.  When JPL
took a look through other Viking images for signs of familiar patterns, we
also found smiling faces, cartoon characters and other familiar patterns. 
If you have a good imagination, you can find patterns that seem familiar in
many naturally- made objects.  Try picking up ten rocks in your back yard
and looking in their texture for something familiar - I'll bet you'll find
more than one.

The important first step in scientific exploration is looking for things
that catch your curiosity.  The important second step is asking yourself why
these things make you curious - if you find yourself fascinated, and if it
is because you've found something you really WANT to be true (like evidence
of life on Mars), you must be really, really careful not to convince
yourself without being skeptical.

More than that, before you spend a lot of money on doing research on this
thing you find fascinating you really have to think hard and deep about how
important it is compared to other things. Planning a mission to Mars means
committing hundreds of millions of dollars - is it more important to look at
the structure people call the Face, or it it more important to look at the
planet as a whole with an orbiting spacecraft, or is it better to land
somewhere very safe (where we won't crash into a large rock, for example)? 
These are hard questions.  We have decided on a Mars program that
concentrates on finding evidence of any kind of life rather than one that
looks for signs of civilized life.