Mars face

Originally posted by Kalistenics
Yes, i think they are definately covering it up to the best of thier ability! And the fact that thier are covering it up suggests it is very important.

Now I know we are here to deny ignorance.. but tell me..WHAT are "they" covering up exactely? Don't become ignorant of reality by following wild ideas like one seeing a face in a rockformation, thus concluding there had to be intelligent life on mars... that's just plain st00pid.

Originally posted by phiniks
Now I know we are here to deny ignorance.. but tell me..WHAT are "they" covering up exactely?

That there is not only life on Mars but that at one point or another that life was not exactly stupid either. Once they admit to intelligent life on Mars they open the door to people asking why there are cave paintings depicting men with round 'things' on their heads and why so many ancient tribes claim that they 'came from the stars'. It's a question of denying truth as long as you can so that all your other lies can be maintained as well.

Don't become ignorant of reality by following wild ideas like one seeing a face in a rockformation,

Faces in rock formations are cute and all but we are talking scale and context as well. Why are their pyramid formations around the face on Mars and why have we caught NASA and their scientist in so many other lies when it comes to Mars?

thus concluding there had to be intelligent life on mars... that's just plain st00pid.

I suggest you do not call anyone stupid as it's not going to reflect well on your own ignorance in the long run. Tell us WHY this obvious 'face' is not in fact a face and why NASA goes to so much trouble and distortion of the pictures to make it seem less so. What gives?

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Faces in rock formations are cute and all but we are talking scale and context as well. Why are their pyramid formations around the face on Mars and why have we caught NASA and their scientist in so many other lies when it comes to Mars?

WEll, from the pictures available from this I cannot draw the conclusion that intelligent design was at hand. They pictures are simply too blurry. Now if there were more clearer high-res pictures provably being held back, there would be a start to discuss this.

Drawing conclusions on "hey, I found a new burry pic of a rock formation" is just a little too far-fetched for me..

I suggest you do not call anyone stupid as it's not going to reflect well on your own ignorance in the long run. Tell us WHY this obvious 'face' is not in fact a face and why NASA goes to so much trouble and distortion of the pictures to make it seem less so. What gives?

I based this judgement on the fact that I see several people trying to interpret some very blurry images... there can be no conclusion drawn from that, only guesses and fill inns to half-baked theories of Nasa withholding information..

It might look like a face, but I cannot think of any reason for a face being on the surface of mars like that.. I cannot imagine there aren;t any better pictures out there..

As far as my ignorence goes.. I try not to be ignorant of the fact that there might not all be intelligently built structures on mars.

I cannot disprove for you what you haven't proven yourself yet.. at this state we are only able too look at what we have...

Don't become ignorant of reality by following wild ideas like one seeing a face in a rockformation, thus concluding there had to be intelligent life on mars... that's just plain st00pid.

The albedo of a surface or body is the amount of incident radiation that is reflected. The albedo may range from 0, perfect absorption of light, to 1, perfect reflection. Polar bears and seals have a small albedo because their black skin absorbs light energy to help keep the creatures warm. Forests tend to have an albedo of ~10% during warmer periods because of photosynthesis and the corresponding absorption of light. The albedo of the forest raises to ~30% as the leaves fall off, the leaves turn yellow, and less photosynthesis occurs. Arabians prefer white clothes because they have a high albedo and keep the people cooler than other-colored clothes.

Scientists use this same principle to determine the composition of surfaces or bodies. Buildings and light-colored rocks can have an albedo of ~40%. Sand, depending on its color, can have an albedo of ~40%. Bodies of water, depending on the angle the light hits it, can be anywhere from 2% (vertical) to 78% (horizontal.) Snow and ice that has covered an area for a long time can be 50% while fresh snow can be up to 90%. Even the thickest of stratocumulus clouds only reach up to 80%. The average albedo of Earth is 30%.

The Face on Mars has an albedo of ~0.999. In other words, it reflects 99.9% of the light that hits it. An albedo that high can only be attributed to a mirror-like surface! Not even a fresh layer of snow on a completely flat surface could reflect as much light as the face and it is a fact that rocks cannot come close to the reflectivity of fresh snow! Instead of calling the Face on Mars a "rock formation" it should be called a "mirror formation." But we all know that ~1200 ft. tall ~8200 ft. wide mirrors don't just "form" so the word "formation" would be intellectually dishonest. The extremely high albedo and the rectilinear geometry found on the shining area suggest the surface is covered with rectangular mirror-like paneling.

And what kind of reports do we get from NASA? There was the "cat box" image that doesn't even apply to reality. The high-pass and low-pass filters that were used to create the "cat box" image removed all 3D detail. Even the Sphinx would look natural after being edited so much! Not to mention that the RAW image was not released and a Freedom of Information Act request was required to get ahold of the original, unaltered, image that not so surprisingly looked like a face. Then we get the infamous MOLA-hill. The MOLA instrument is so inaccurate that the resulting hill didn't have eyes, a mouth, or a nose. Of course, the NASA scientists wouldn't mention that the reason for this is because the eyes and mouth were never measured! They tried to claim that the eyes and mouth were caused by a play of light and shadows. Funnily enough, it is impossible to produce such lighting and shadowing tricks with their MOLA hill. NASA didn't claim these were data limitations but, instead, tried to insist the MOLA-hill applied to reality! Shape-from-shading research on the face has confirmed the eyes and mouth are actual features and are not tricks of lighting and shadowing. The MOLA instrument didn't even hit the tallest portion of the face and this has resulted in NASA saying the face is ~90 meters (~180 feet) shorter than it truly is. These are either cases of gross incompetence or fraud. NASA is most certainly committing fraud as such gross incompetence would result in the incompetent losing their jobs but, alas!, no jobs were lost. Those intellectually dishonest reports were organized attacks.

To think the Face is natural is "st00pid" in my honest opinion. There is a structure that is ~1200 ft. tall that has the shape (not just the appearance) of a hominid face, seems to be covered with rectangular mirror paneling, half the structure is collapsed suggesting it was originally hollow, is surrounded by many pyramids just like the Sphinx in Egypt is surrounded by pyramids, and some of America's most competent scientists cannot release a single competent report about it. That is too much coincidence.

The site apparently doesn't want to come right out and say it, but apparently they feel a second 'face' on Mars may have been located:

enterprisemission.com has danced around this one and won't openly refer to it as a 'face'.

Interesting, hey?

NC

Draw straight lines on the picture where light hits the object and where the resulting shadow is occuring. Upon doing this it is obvious the object does not have the shape of a face and the appearance of one is a trick of lighting and shadowing. Anyone who claims that is a face is wrong. The Enterprise Mission didn't call it a face because it does not have the shape of a face! It is not a difficult concept to understand.

I agree, I don't think it looks like a face either. It's interesting though that the original name for the .jpg is 'Cat_Head-2'. It appears to be just a matter of time before it is touted as a 'face'.

NC

The reason it is called cat-head-2 is simple. The object itself isn't being referred to as the cat-head but, rather, is the 2nd image derived from the original one. The original image shows the object we were discussing but immediately below it and to the right there is a dark portion of ground with two large depressions in it. This section was called the cat-head.

The article never mentions the cat-head appearance of the entire region. As such, it is more logical that the filenames were acting as mental links for organizational purposes than thinking they relate to his current or forth-coming claims.

O.K., my fault. I threw an image on here from the latest probe to arrive at Mars and apparently have confused things. The image I posted is from this page.
My apologies.

This image is from a completely different section of Mars. Not Cydonia.

I simply thought the possibility of two face-like anomalies was very interesting.

NC

MegamanXplosion, that was an interesting post, about the light-reflection of the surface of the face.. didn't know it was reflective like a mirror. That indeed does shine some interesting light on this case.

Thing is, some time ago I studied theories about the objects on Mars and found this interesting correlation between between the layout of the Cydonia area and the occult symbolism that you can find in the layout of the streets an government buildings of Washington D.C.

Is anyone else informed about this?

Originally posted by phiniks
WEll, from the pictures available from this I cannot draw the conclusion that intelligent design was at hand.

If your only looking at pictures should we take your opinion at all seriously? How much books or at least web material have you read on the topic to form the background for how you approach your judgement of this picture?

They pictures are simply too blurry. Now if there were more clearer high-res pictures provably being held back, there would be a start to discuss this.

I think there is enough to talk about now once one understands all aspects of the scenario. Looking at these pictures are but a small part of the whole.

Drawing conclusions on "hey, I found a new burry pic of a rock formation" is just a little too far-fetched for me..

Well anyone who looks at a few pictures and comes to a conclusion based on that alone is not deserving of much in respect in my opinion. To make the entire scenario less far fetched in your mind i suggest you start reading some of the links on this page and thus discover all the details pictures can never contain.

I based this judgement on the fact that I see several people trying to interpret some very blurry images... there can be no conclusion drawn from that,

You should read more before deciding what others base their estimations on. How do you know that this is all the information it took for those people to reach their conclusions?

only guesses and fill inns to half-baked theories of Nasa withholding information..

Well NASA DOES withhold information from the general public ( they are after all a military operation- just look at the directors) and if you are not yet aware i once against propose you research the question instead of pretending we are all hopelessly ignorant.

It might look like a face, but I cannot think of any reason for a face being on the surface of mars like that..

The limits of your imagination is not the limits of reality and such statements will contribute nothing towards me appreciating your dismissive pronouncement.

I cannot imagine there aren;t any better pictures out there..

Well did you look or is imagination the only tool you are willing to employ towards dismissing this issue?

As far as my ignorence goes.. I try not to be ignorant of the fact that there might not all be intelligently built structures on mars.

Hey for all i know the pyramids on earth also came about by natural means so i guess we can not rule that out on Mars.

I cannot disprove for you what you haven't proven yourself yet.. at this state we are only able too look at what we have...

Well you seem completely uninterested in doing much beside shooting down contributions by others in this regard. Why not do some serious research and show in great detail why what is proposed here is in fact simply not possible? If you have no interest then you are unlikely to contribute/counter arguments so why stick your neck?

If that seems somewhat harsh just remember that some of us here keep hearing the same old arguments that we not three days ago ( on another thread) showed to be unfounded in one regard or another. I always try to stick to topics that i am interested thus making me willing to do enough research to normally contribute something useful. I believe such a standard will serve you far better than your current one....

Stellar

hmm... i've done a little bit of research into this and i find it extremely intriguing. but, although i wish it were true, i'm pretty skeptical, judging from what i've seen of other pics of cydonia. really cool to think about though...

Hello!

Under strange circumstances I started looking at geoglyphs in Nazca and then switched to Mars, trying to find something similar. This is quite usual - many people do it as a hobby. After Nazca I had my own hypothesis that some of the objects can be made on the surface in a manner of overlapping structures contributing partly one to the other which could be seen differently from different distances of view.

For Mars I decided to choose the Face image 2001(full size processed and full size not processed) cause it has the best resolution and it is assumed that it might be artificial.
I was looking at the surface of the Marsian Face in an inverted mode and saw something reminding geoglyph of face in profile (aligned to the left). It is interesting to me because it looks like it has some kind of decorative long helmet on it (maybe, it is just long illusionary hair). Eye, mouth and nose are quite prominent.



I'm just interested if you would agree with me if it can be a geoglyph or not. Maybe, you have already discussed this, than my apologize. I also attached some other findings but they are very illusionary.



[edit on 30-1-2009 by epard]

[edit on 30-1-2009 by epard]

reply to post by epard


hei, study more what "pareidolia" is.
please.

Really?
science.nasa.gov...



Deny Ignorance, guys.

Originally posted by VelvetSplash
One thing I wonder about the Mars face - is why would the creators of this monument make the face starring directly upwards?
I've seen it compared to the Sphynx, but that looks out horizontally, not vertically.
Are there any similar structures on Earth that show a humanoid face starring up vertically?

There is one on Earth that is similar, but not exactly like what you are asking for. It is the indian head in South East Alberta, Canada. It can be viewed by looking down on it from above, but it isn't staring out into space. Open up Google Earth and go to 50° 0'38.20"N 110° 6'48.32"W for a cool view of it.

[edit on 31-1-2009 by bronco73]