NASA releases new close up of Mars Face

Originally posted by selfless
i rather keep open mind to all possibilities then be convinced from a computer generated image that for all I know, the purpose could be for a cover up.

Look, I didn't manufacture these images, and I seriously doubt that sinister operatives within NASA, JPL and the ESA are "covering up" anything. It was their idea to promote the "Face" in the first place, in an effort to garner public curiosity and support.

This, I want to remind you, is the current science on Cydonia, presented by scientific agencies... Any argument to the contrary is not based upon science, but upon the ranting of a known showman by the name of Richard C. Hoagland, whose scientific credentials are lacking, to put it nicely, and whose scientific method is non-existent.

— Doc Velocity

Look Doc Velocity,

I don't know why you think i am following hogland or whoever he is, i don't even know.

However, i know not to trust NASA.

And things don't have to be science to be perceived correctly.

I rather be open minded to all possibilities then to be blinded by one option only ''science''

[edit on 16-4-2007 by selfless]

Cmon guys there's nothing there.

It's been widely debunked for years.
www.badastronomy.com...

And "Greys" originated from HGWells scifi and allegid occult spiritual experiences.
en.wikipedia.org...-1950
Note: Pencil sketch on paper = gray
www.boudillion.com...


Hoagland is further destroying his credibility in his other work by continuing on with this outlandish theory. Talk about bias.
www.msnbc.msn.com...

He's taking everyone he can for a ride.

As far as NASA goes, few could possibly distrust them more than I (I cant stress this enough, see my videos), but if there was a conspiracy here why would they have even showed us the old image in the first place? The old image was interesting at first, but even it was never that impressive to begin with. The only time it actually looked like something was when it had the shadow angle. It ends there:


And then when you take all of Hoaglands -and the other advanced charts with overlays from the great pyramids- and apply them to the new crisp images I dont even think they work how these propagators have claimed.



Ity usually goes that there were/are other pyramids right there, but the problem with this entire ordeal is the fact that the Egyptians and others built pyramid shaped buildings because they're the most survivable shape you can build with. Because of this, the face would have degenerated long before the other pyramids... meaning we'd all be wondering over how the pyramids got there instead of this allegid face... if there actaully was something there that was built by intelligent beings. Especially in the asserted case that these same beings built our great pyramids.


[edit on 16-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

What I see is the shape of a head thats been airbrushed out. The eyes, nose and mouth were smeared out to hide th truth that we arent alone in the universe.

If you look at the original unedited photos that were accidentally released to the public, the face is truly there.

And lets not forget the evidence out that says NASA edits its photos.

1. A witness with the Disclosure project has come forward to claim that NASA frequently airbrushes alien evidence out of pics.

2. a hacker in Great Britain hacked into NASA computers and indeed did find edited and unedited versions of pics exactly where the woman from disclosure project said it would be.

The proof lies in the original pics.

Originally posted by admriker444
The proof lies in the original pics.

Can you post the original pics on here?

Just as a curiosity, I made an animated GIF that shows that image from 1.5% to 100%, so you can see the type of detail of that big 300MB JPEG 2000 file.

Originally posted by admriker444
The proof lies in the original pics.

Yes, by all means let's go back to the original, low-resolution photos where we're extrapolating two or three pixels to find "teeth" and "pupils." That way we can continue to embrace our ignorance rather than face the truth provided by multiple, high-resolution images provided by different agencies.

Tinkerbell was assassinated!

Originally posted by SuicideVirus

Originally posted by admriker444
The proof lies in the original pics.

Yes, by all means let's go back to the original, low-resolution photos where we're extrapolating two or three pixels to find "teeth" and "pupils." That way we can continue to embrace our ignorance rather than face the truth provided by multiple, high-resolution images provided by different agencies.

Tinkerbell was assassinated!

low resolution or not, a face is still a face. And lets not forget the NASA employee who has come forward and is willing to testify before Congress about NASA airbrushing its pics. Or the guy who will probably go to prison for a very long time for hacking into NASA's computers and finding that proof

Who should we believe...

a military industrial complex controlled by elitist bankers using an oil-based infrastructure to make slaves us all.

or

my own eyes

Look I myself dont see the so-called evidence of purported structures on the Moon and other weird anomolies. But those pics of the original face of mars are simply amazing and undeniable

[edit on 16-4-2007 by admriker444]

Originally posted by admriker444
The proof lies in the original pics.

Nice try. However, the contention that the extremely low resolution 1970s pic of "The Face" is a better representation of the formation than the subsequent higher resolution images is utterly backwards thinking.

Even Hoaxland himself predicted that the "Face" would probably not resemble a face at all when higher resolution images were eventually returned. So, Hoaxland was admitting in advance that the face wasn't actually there, and he knew it would be exposed as a natural formation.

And the original "Face" photo wasn't accidentally released to the public. NASA/JPL knew (and still knows) the value of "pumping up" public curiosity with enigmatic photos from around the solar system — it's called marketing, garnering public support for further exploration (and government funding). The "Face" was discovered by NASA/JPL imaging techs and was intentionally released to the public as a matter of public relations.

The "accidental" bit was added by Richard Hoaxland when he began his own marketing campaign later.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 4/16/2007 by Doc Velocity]

well how about we try to find some faces in mountains on earth through google earth.... then we can try to prove that these natural formations can happen on earth also....

might be kind of a dumb idea but hey i tried lol

Originally posted by SuicideVirus

Originally posted by admriker444
The proof lies in the original pics.

Yes, by all means let's go back to the original, low-resolution photos where we're extrapolating two or three pixels to find "teeth" and "pupils." That way we can continue to embrace our ignorance rather than face the truth provided by multiple, high-resolution images provided by different agencies.

Actually, i rather not trust these so called agencies you speak of, their purpose is to suppress information from the public and hide the fact that they know very well that we are not alone, even in this very solar system...

I rather see low res photo's of actual photographs then reconstructions of computer generated disinformation images by an agency that has for purpose to blind the public with ignorance.

Originally posted by admriker444

Originally posted by SuicideVirus
Yes, by all means let's go back to the original, low-resolution photos where we're extrapolating two or three pixels to find "teeth" and "pupils."

low resolution or not, a face is still a face.

So what your sayng is you'll only accept the oldest version that just so happened to have the right angle witht eh shadow lined up so that it gives the appearance of a face?

If the shadow isnt proprely alligned you wont accept it?

Only the first and crappiest image even begins to resemble a face, and that's only because the shadow just so happened to line up.


mars.jpl.nasa.gov...
paranormal.about.com...
hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu...
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Try getting the monster size version and then see how it was "airbrushed".
hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu...

And lets not forget the NASA employee who has come forward and is willing to testify before Congress about NASA airbrushing its pics.

Or the guy who will probably go to prison for a very long time for hacking into NASA's computers and finding that proof

Links please.

Originally posted by selfless
Actually, i rather not trust these so called agencies you speak of, their purpose is to suppress information from the public and hide the fact that they know very well that we are not alone, even in this very solar system...

So now speculation that ET's/ALF's visit here is a fact?

Did you not actually read any of the comments about how they released it themselves to begin with, or anything else that refutes this face concept?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by selfless
Actually, i rather not trust these so called agencies you speak of, their purpose is to suppress information from the public and hide the fact that they know very well that we are not alone, even in this very solar system...

So now speculation that ET's/ALF's visit here is a fact?

Look, you can think whatever you want, I'm not forcing you to see.

And for your information, i am open to all possibilities, face or not.

But NASA is the source of information i will not consider reliable.

You can believe whatever you want, by all means, but to speak of assumptions as facts is irrational and outlandish. It damages your level of persuasion and believablilty just so you know.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
You can believe whatever you want, by all means, but to speak of assumptions as facts is irrational and outlandish. It damages your level of persuasion and believablilty just so you know.

They are not assumptions.

And i don't believe, i perceive.

And my frequencies are open to infinite possibilities.

Face on mars or not, nothing is confirmed and no one can say otherwise.

And just so you know, i am really not here to persuade you, that's for sure.

So it's you who is assuming, assuming that there is no face on mars. NO ONE KNOWS THIS AS FACT.

So for you to say that i am wrong and my stance is to be open to all possibilities means that you are the one who is wrong.

The suface area of Mars:

1.448×108 km²) = 144,798,465 square kilometers (55,907,000 square miles)
en.wikipedia.org...

Given the surface area of Mars, which is completely dry, I expect for there to be "faces" all over it. Not just one either, lots. Especially, in our view:
The human brain has a large area that is dedicated specifically to identifying faces. It's important to understand that we dont "see" with our eyes, we "see" with our brains. When the brain region that is dedicated to interpreting faces is damaged you cant even interpret your own face. You can be shown a picture of yourself and not even recognize it, and this is after living into adulthood without this disability and knowing full well what your own face (or your spouses) looks like.

In short not only is the brain specialized in general pattern recognition, it's highly specialized for seeking out and identifying faces, but the 2 processes are completely seperate.

Its all in your head, and that's science (that has nothing to do with NASA)!

Yovel and Kanwisher's article, "Face Perception: Domain-specific, Not Process-specific" reveals findings from their latest collaborative research that the area of the brain engaged in face perception (the fusiform face area or FFA) functions specifically to identify faces. When people make similar kinds of discriminations on images other than faces (e.g. on pictures of houses) the brain relies on different neural pathways.
web.mit.edu...

The study presents such a clear and striking dissociation between face and object recognition," says Daniel Schacter, a memory expert at Harvard University. "This dissociation was suspected before, but this research is an exceptionally clear example."

"The code is the upright configuration of facial features, especially the mouth, nose and eyes -- a facial template of sorts," says Moscovitch. "Anything that conforms to the code, even an arrangement of objects, will trigger the face-recognition system."
www.sciencedaily.com...

www.prosopagnosia.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.google.com...


[edit on 16-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

In short not only is the brain specialized in general pattern recognition, it's highly specialized for seeking out and identifying faces, but the 2 processes are completely seperate.

Regardless, that doesn't prove there is no artificial structure on mars, it's only one possibility.


And since nothing has been proven about the face on mars, If you are not open to all possibilities, you are wrong, it's that simple.

IgnoranceIsntBlisss my friend,

If you just say ( I am open to all possibilities regarding the face on mars)

Then i will think you are right :0

Originally posted by Jeffery2102
guys i am a die hard believer in ufo, aliens, etc...
and i know that the gov't. covers everything up, and i mean everything.

but don't you think that we are "making" ourselves see things now?

i mean believe me... when you turn the image upside down it does look like a grey.... and that is a huge coincidence. but also when we look at clouds, do we not see objects and people also if we try hard enough?

trust me... i'm not trying to debunk or "flame" anybody.... but until i'm walking on that mountain, structure, or whatever it is myself... then i'm just going to have to take the skeptic standpoint on this one.

I happen to agree. It's just a coincedence, one of the strange annomolies that pop up from time to time.