Don't believe the disinfo. The face on Mars is real!

Originally posted by The_Guy

What the heck does this have to do with anything, mindless- Just a hint try it this way next time she might finally fall in love "gravity"

reply to post by truth2u


An image that keeps changing? Sorry, I do not understand what you mean.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Do you mean this "face"?



I think is just a geological formation, like many others on Mars.

 

Edit:
And I don't think that they "bombed" the area or changed the photos.


The new photo used in the animation above is from ESA.

[edit on 6/10/2007 by ArMaP]

Which of these images do you believe to be the original?

You say that this supposed meeting took place 15 years ago. Well 15 years ago they were going on grainy photos without much resolution, and yes, it did indeed look like a face. The pics we have today of the same area clearly show that it is not a face at all, but a natural formation.

I doubt the same Nasa scientists would say the same thing today after seeing the higher resolution photos.

reply to post by The_Guy






OK that was funny.

I hate one line posts so I'll just say the face on Mars has been altered.

reply to post by truth2u


OK, I understand it now.

All the images are originals (as far as a copy of a digital image made from an original can be considered original ).

This image is part of the original Viking raw data.


This is the image after some processing, and this was the image released by NASA.

The image was released with the following text.

Caption of JPL Viking Press Release P-17384

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
VIKING NEWS CENTER
PASADENA, CALIFORNIA
(213) 354-6000

                                                                                    Viking 1-61
                                                                                    P-17384 (35A72)
PHOTO CAPTION                                                          July 31, 1976

This picture is one of many taken in the northern latitudes of Mars by the Viking 1 Orbiter in search of a landing site for Viking 2.

The picture shows eroded mesa-like landforms. The huge rock formation in the center, which resembles a human head, is formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose and mouth. The feature is 1.5 kilometers (one mile) across, with the sun angle at approximately 20 degrees. The speckled appearance of the image is due to bit errors, emphasized by enlargement of the photo. The picture was taken on July 25 from a range of 1873 kilometers (1162 miles). Viking 2 will arrive in Mars orbit next Saturday (August 7) with a landing scheduled for early September.

Source

This image I did not post, but to keep the order I will post it also, here is reduced to 25%.

This is the Mars Global Surveyor image.

Source

This is a ESA image, the one I used to make the animation with the Viking image.

Source

And this (the first I posted) is the most recent image that shows the "face", from HiRISE.

This is a much reduced image (around 2.5%), the original, in JPEG2000 format, is a huge 26267 x 20676 (358.7 MB) image.
Source
I should have made my post clearer.

These are all the photos (as far as I know) available with the "face", from the first in 1976 to the last in 2007.

Originally posted by DaVillen
reply to post by yuefo

 

Those new hi-res pics are most likely altered by nasa or they bombed those areas.

Yes, NASA took thousands of pictures, then by accident released them to the public. Then realizing their mistake, airbrushed thousands of pictures and released them again. Why would you release the photos in question in the first place? Would make alot more sense to me. NASA could have called me, I could have saved them the trouble.

NASA: "What should we do with this photo of this Martian Face.?" ME: "throw it in the trash" problem solved.

[edit on 6-10-2007 by TheHorseChestnut]

[edit on 6-10-2007 by TheHorseChestnut]

reply to post by Osiris1953


Explain this then sauceruney.com... . www.michaelbrein.com... .looks like natural structures to me.




[edit on 6-10-2007 by Osyris]

Sorry about this, but I had much to do since my last post, and just finished a 10 hour day at work.... so now I can post my opinions of the newer photos of the same region and what not.

I have seen the photos and what they show is rather disappointing... which does at credence to the belief it is nothing more than simple, and rather non-exciting geological feature, as well as the other features that I mentioned. Based on what I viewed alone, the NASA scientists were pretty friggin excited about what they saw. The fact that none of what they believed at the time ever reached the public even to announce speculation of manufactured structures on another planet, kinda leads me to believe that it was never meant to reach the public whether their theories were concrete or not.

So... this leaves only two options the photos they got later on did in fact to be nothing more than geologic structures and they were wrong. Hence it didn't go any further than that, and there would be no need to alert the public. Which seems unlikely since NASA scientists tend to be some of the best educated and intelligent people working for our government... and for them to call a meeting to discuss findings of a lost civilization of something of that nature, I'd imagine they were have to be at least 90 percent sure. The other option would be a cover-up. If you don't think they can fake photographs, think about how many idiots with basic computer and photography knowledge easily fake photos of ghosts, reptilians, UFO's and the like on a regular basis. Out of those, a good portion of them are at least somewhat believable. Is it really that unlikely that NASA would be able to fake photographs that would fool everyone into believing that these were nothing more than geological structures. C'mon... I'm not discounting the possibility that they were indeed wrong, but at the same time it seems pretty unlikely to me. My vote is for manufactured alien structures on Mars.

Sorry if this isn't as cohesive as my other posts, I'm pretty tired, hopefully my point gets across though. Thanks everyone, on both sides of the issue, for continuing to post on this matter.

I have heard of th It is before in a show before. They show pictures of faces in Mars. Okay, I'm Chinese. The show I watched is from TaiWan. It's discussion is about Paranormal events and unexplained mysteries.

They show us pics of the faces on Mars. They say that Mars may be Earth in the past. Because they waste natural resources, so the O-Zone layer break and they die. This is all I can tell you because I don't know what esle to say anymore.

Don’t forget people, is it just a shy coincidence, that there seems to be a face and some pyramids on mars, just like we have the sphinx and our pyramids on earth, strange…..?
I mean, out of all things to have survived through the thousands of years on our planet, the pyramids and sphinx just happen to be one of them, (pyramid has only sank 3 inches since its construction) and these structures, just happen to look just like our own, c-mon……for me it’s just to hard to look at the coincidence and say there’s no connection. If there were no pyramids just the face, I may be a little more lenient towards a trick of the light, or some other bull# like that, but as you can see, the similarities are far too striking.

Also the very fact that the face is looking upwards….c-mon, that, it looks like some kind of ancient Sumerian, Aztec or Egyptian civilization sort of art work.

That’s my 2 cents.

I think we came from mars, we don´t fit in on the earth.

If you believe NASA and any other government controlled agencies latest releases then you might as well keep looking for Nukes in Iraq.

Too many lies!!

reply to post by danachua


It certainly is a possibility, or we could go the direction of Venus I suppose, either way the Earth is probably screwed.

reply to post by andre18


Well, even if you would prefer to believe that there is nothing unusual on mars, there isn't any real accounting for the structures in question aligning with the pyramids on earth. I've been killing myself trying to remember what method they used to find these links in location, but it amazed me nontheless.

I remember watching a interview with a nasa scientist who claims that the new high res pics of mars look like natural structures because of WRONG LIGHTING & EFFECTS.

They claim the face is in fact there, it does however looks a bit different due lighting.

Here is the TRUE face on mars... Only then flipped. Does that look natural to you?


Another face on mars;





Another coincidence?

[edit on 7-10-2007 by PureET]

[edit on 7-10-2007 by PureET]

reply to post by PureET


Just out of curiosity, how long ago was that interview?

reply to post by Osiris1953


That would be a month ago,

if i can find that same page where i found that ill let you know

reply to post by PureET


I was trying to find out the month for perspective in relation to things... and yes I would love the link. Thanks.

Originally posted by PureET
Here is the TRUE face on mars... Only then flipped. Does that look natural to you?

That looks like a mirror image of one of the halves of the face, so, no, it does not look natural because it is not natural.

One of the reasons I think that face is just an artifact of our minds is what people see in it. Some people see the face of a lion, some people see a human face, some people see other types of faces.

reply to post by ArMaP


Actualy armap, it is mirrored, ill explain you why

Here is image MOC2-283/E03-00824. This is the "face" that we have seen since Viking's pictures in 1976. It really doesn't look much like a face, does it?


Let's flip the image upside-down. We see shoulders at the bottom, a thin neck and a pear-shaped head with a large forehead, large eyes, small nose and mouth, and a tapered chin. Maybe earrings also?

Look at the face. The left side is badly damaged. It doesn't look like it was eroded by water or wind. It looks like it collapsed. That might indicate that the structure is hollow. And it's very old; there are impacts on the face -- around the nose, left eye and forehead. Are they asteroid impacts? Or bomb craters? What caused the damage to the face?


Let's make a histogram adjustment to the image to exaggerate the light and dark areas. Now we see how catastrophic the damage was to the left side of the structure.


To see what the structure once looked like, take the right (good) half of the monument and mirror it to the left side. The alien head and shoulders become even clearer. The wall that encloses the face couldn't have been made by water, wind, volcanic action or asteroid impact. It's too finely shaped, too regular, like a frame around a picture.


If we apply a false 3D terrain derived from the grayscale alpha channel of the mirrored image, and apply light to the scene from what would be about 7 o'clock if the face were situated with the top pointing due north, the outer wall rises up noticeably. The area between the wall and the face isn't flat -- it's a valley. The alien bust is indeed outlined by a frame.


If we blur it out a little bit, we can see the face even more clearly.


Looking at a negative image of the face, we can see the wall that frames the face.


Here's another view of the face from an angle.


Here's a more recent extreme closeup of the lower right part of the face and wall (M16-00184n). Too bad the camera couldn't get all of it... I wonder why?


Here's the most recent image of the face from NASA orbiters, finally from the proper angle.


It convinced me.

SOURCE

[edit on 8-10-2007 by PureET]