Face/Pyramids on Mars! What do you think?

by qwerty 137 Replies latest jw friends

ianao

terraly:
Indeed, they do appear to be the same image.
Check the ancillary (SP!) data, they ARE the same image as acquired by the MOC, just in a different format for display.
One logical explanation would be that they made public the entire data set on April 4, but due to the extreme interest in the area surrounding the "face" they made sure to put those pictures up first.
Sounds great to me, but *if* this is the imaging they were referring to in the response to FACETS, it's very dishonest to imply that they've recently acquired these images, as they are derived from data acquired and released earlier.
I still think that these are the pictures NASA is referring to in the letter-
I would agree, but somebody has to clarify when an image is. Images are obtained by the MOC, and relayed here. Display images are derived from the scanned image acquired from the MOC. To say that an image is newly acquired in a context such as the letter from NASA is only accurate if you are referring to the display image, not the original dataset. The context however implies NEW information. It's misleading, to say the least, especially with the mention of a "complex set of MGS spacecraft operations" performed in response to the initial request from FACETS. (*IF* NASA is referring to the image you pointed out earlier.)
although the letter writer was obviously not also the web master and his explanation of the situation is rather confused.
Ah! We agree.
Are we to believe there are more images of the area unreleased?
Believe what you wish. That is not for me to decide (of course).
On what do you base this belief?
If your revise "belief" to be "suspicion", then I would say human intuition based on what I've read/heard. I will also say that NASA's response could be a hoax, but I think FACETS would be in some deep legal troubles to "forge" such things. Another idea is that the writer(s) of the letter to FACETS' lawyer was/were lead to believe something which is visibly not true, leading to the doublespeak in the response from NASA regarding images. They could have also simply made a mistake (being humans, after all).
*Only time will tell*.
--I hate grammar and speyulling--
terraly

Indeed, as you say, we will have to wait and see.
Perhaps millions now living will see proof that NASA has been covering up evidence for intelligent life on Mars.
Sadly, of course, my side can never be vindicated. Your side has an easy time, all you have to do is provide substantial evidence that intelligent life did exist- my side has to [i]prove beyond the tiniest possibility[\i] that it didn't, when all the evidence we bring to support our assumptions will be treated with suspicion.
If we go to Mars and walk on the "face", certain people will doubt the accuracy of the reports NASA sent back. Even if the face proves to be very normal looking up close, perhaps the aliens modified it in the intervening time so that humans wouldn't become aware of them too soon.
Is there anything that could prove to you that the claims of intelligent life and conspiracy are wrong?
AlanF

I would like to demonstrate how easy it is for the human mind to see face patterns in all sorts of things.
The following image is composed of almost nothing but a single landform image:
I'll be extremely surprised if anyone can figure out what the original landform is. Eventually I'll provide a link to the original.
For a much higher resolution look at the image, get hold of this file:
members.home.net/alanf00/images/marsface_2.jpg
In this image you'll find, just above the 'nose', a tiny 'face' within the big face.
These images are retouched only to the extent of smoothing border connectivity among the various images that I combined to get the final one.
AlanF
ianao

terraly:
Indeed, as you say, we will have to wait and see.
Personally, I don't see anything regarding these matters coming to light any time soon. It may be a long time before we ever really find out anything at all.
Perhaps millions now living will see proof that NASA has been covering up evidence for intelligent life on Mars.
Perhaps not Millions, but maybe hundreds of thousands have already seen "proof".
Sadly, of course, my side can never be vindicated. Your side has an easy time, all you have to do is provide substantial evidence that intelligent life did exist- my side has to [i]prove beyond the tiniest possibility[\i] that it didn't, when all the evidence we bring to support our assumptions will be treated with suspicion.
With all due respect, I almost pitty you, yet I understand. I can't blame anyone for not wanting their world view shattered. This applies to both of us, as I am aware of the large number of *IF*s on "my side" of this coin. Besides, you can always just make fun of "us" (whoever that may be). Ridicule works well, as I usually use it myself.
If we go to Mars and walk on the "face", certain people will doubt the accuracy of the reports NASA sent back.
These "certain people" will have a damn good reason to do so also.
Even if the face proves to be very normal looking up close, perhaps the aliens modified it in the intervening time so that humans wouldn't become aware of them too soon.
Well, detecting the sarcasm, I will only say that people in favor of the face's artificial origin are (for the most part) in agreement that it would be an OLD structure, constructed LONG AGO. You are melding two separate "theories" and lumping them together as a true pseudo-skeptic should.
Is there anything that could prove to you that the claims of intelligent life and conspiracy are wrong?
LOL. Interesting question. As far as the "face" is concerned, I would probably have to go up and see it for myself. Then again, a high-res color up-close scan of the entire mesa, and detailed close-up videos of the feature would rest my case one way or the other. Sound impossible? Remember what I said at the beginning of this post? *wink*. (BTW, Mars Oddessey (sp?) has a GOOD chance of rectifying this situation.)
As far as conspiracy is concerned, only disclosure would due, as denial doesn't work anymore for many people. There are "Top Secret" classifications on a "need-to-know basis" for a reason.
"Where secrecy is known to exist, one can never be absolutely sure that he knows the complete truth" (Condon & Gillmor, 1968, p. 522).
ianao

AlanF:
One aspect of the artificiality hypothesis of the "face"'s design is that it was constructed to deliberately fool the eye of the viewer into seeing a humanoid head on the surface of the planet from above. This perceived viewer being a martian diety. (A tribute to "the gods"). And just like your rather impressive picture, the theory is that it was designed by an intelligent being such as yourself (only on a larger scale, of course, to appease the perceived gods).
In all honesty, you really should have chosen a landform that fools the mind's eye WITHOUT requiring an intelligent hand to make the deception, IMO.
(ASSuming your motivation for posting on this thread.)
AlanF

To ianao:
When you look carefully at the latest photos of the mesa, it's evident that the 'face' is not humanoid at all, but porcine. So it's obvious that any proposed 'Martian deity' must be in the pig family rather than the human family. Which in turn implies that the ancient Martians must have been pigs. I mean, we have humans making gods in their image, so the reverse must work, too.
As for the picture, no, the basic core of the picture (which makes up about 90% of it) was not designed by an intelligent human. It is, in fact, a high-altitude photo of an interesting geological formation. If you concentrate only on, say, the upper left corner of the 'face', you'll see half a face. And as I said, if you download the hi-res image and look carefully above the big 'nose', you'll find the tiny 'face' of a gargoyle, which in the original is half a 'face'.
Now, in the Martian 'face', you don't see much left-right symmetry. You see a little bit. You see a lot more assymmetry of the features. But the human mind is so attuned to picking faces out of patterns that we tend to see faces where there are none. I could easily have doctored my image so as to leave only a little left-right symmetry, but I wanted to make a point about symmetry.
The mind is so well attuned to face recognition that we even 'see' faces in smilies like :-) which have nothing to do with faces at all -- except in the mind.
If I really wanted to spend a lot of time on this, I could find plenty of examples of 'faces' that are even more striking than the supposed Cydonia one. But I know that, once a person becomes a true believer, to the extent that photos that show purely natural phenomena reinforce the belief, then further facts become irrelevant. It's no different from the true believers in the extraterrestrial origin of crop circles, spontaneous human combustion, and so on. No matter what specific examples you find that even they will admit don't show what they once believed, they'll still hang on to the belief. That's the irrational human core of religious belief at work, and understanding this core helps understand why most religious belief systems -- even though quite irrational -- retain so many adherents.
As for my using a convenient but striking image rather than doing an extensive search for purely natural landforms, I recently installed Adobe Photoshop and used this exercise to learn something about the program. Better to learn this tool than waste time looking for photos you'd poo-poo anyway.
AlanF
ianao

To AlanF
Calm down Alan.
I could argue symetry(sp!) with you until the sun goes down. Your arguments for lack of symetry are used in favor of those who condone the possibility of an artificial origin. It's trinity vs. arianism all over again.
Now, as I do not consider condoning the possibility of artificial structures on mars as a religion, I will refrain from further discussion of my personal point of view, as this obviously upsets you.
[no sarcasm intended]
As for my using a convenient but striking image rather than doing an extensive search for purely natural landforms, I recently installed Adobe Photoshop and used this exercise to learn something about the program. Better to learn this tool than waste time looking for photos you'd poo-poo anyway.
Not true! I respect your educated opinion AlanF. Anything you had to provide would truly be an excellent example of your point, I am sure.
Just remember that for every person that you think is crazy for "believing", there are others who think you are crazy for not "opening your eyes".
With that in mind, I will say:
"Good luck with photoshop!"
slipnslidemaster

I can't believe that this thread is 5 pages long, over 1500 views and over 94 posts!
I totally agree with AlanF and like I posted earlier, it's like looking for shapes in the clouds.
Slipnslidemaster:Doin' the humpty hump...just doin' the humpty hump...
ianao

Something for you cloud folks to chomp on...
http://www.infosourceresearch.com/current/tortilla-skeptics.html
ianao

Natural or artificial? Here is a link to the newly acquired "face"...
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/extended_may2001/face/index.html
If it's a hill, it's an excellent illusion.
If it's a sculpture, it's incredibly eroded.
(picture link removed as MSSS' site is PACKED!!!)
Time to whip out photoshop and look at the raw images. Would be interesting to postulate on the erosion processes that cause one side to be so dry and cracked looking while the other so sandy/smudgy.

Face/Pyramids on Mars! What do you think?

Share this