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

And this is the latest photo of the FACE on Mars

" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Originally posted by PureET
To see what the structure once looked like, take the right (good) half of the monument and mirror it to the left side.

We need to assume two things with this mirroring to get its original look.

1. The half we use to do the mirroring is in its original condition
2. The "face" was originaly symmetrical

If any of those two things are not true then the resulting image has nothing to do with the original formation.

And I don't know if you are aware of the existence of very high resolution (29.9 cm/pixel) image of the "face" released in April. You can find it here.

I knew it!!! The mean, nasty lying U.S. government is covering something else up.

I knew the face was real. It's "Roswell" all over again. They let it slip out and then they deny it.

Is it misinformation? Disinformation? Information? Deformation?

Damn the govermnent !!! Nasa stinks too !!!

Great job Armap and PureET, you have me even more convinced, and I'm the one that saw the friggin video... lol...awesome stuff, keep it coming.

reply to post by ProfTom


I guess I could see how it could be equated to Roswell in some degree, but based on what I saw it doesn't point to a grander cover-up. These scientist wouldn't be as interested if they already knew about life on other planets in the form of greys and what not. Unless of course they aren't let in on such matters, but either way it was new and different to them.

Originally posted by ArMaP
1. The half we use to do the mirroring is in its original condition
2. The "face" was originaly symmetrical

If any of those two things are not true then the resulting image has nothing to do with the original formation.

And I don't know if you are aware of the existence of very high resolution (29.9 cm/pixel) image of the "face" released in April. You can find it here.

1. I'm sorry i had to bring that different, ofcourse you can't tell if it's in the same state as 1 mil years ago but hey, you can never prove it has been different, now can you?



2. If it was indeed a face, we can expect that they'll make the other side just a bit like the 1st, so it would LOOK like a face.

You can see the "frame" around it IS symmetrical, so why should'nt the interior?

I have seen the picture. But it doesn't prove your statements, this picture doesn't show how deep the edges go, and again, sadly, they used wrong lighting.

[edit on 9-10-2007 by PureET]

Originally posted by ProfTom
I knew it!!! The mean, nasty lying U.S. government is covering something else up.

I knew the face was real. It's "Roswell" all over again. They let it slip out and then they deny it.

Is it misinformation? Disinformation? Information? Deformation?

Damn the govermnent !!! Nasa stinks too !!!

Geez...who'd you piss off to get -1250 points?

Originally posted by PureET
2. If it was indeed a face, we can expect that they'll make the other side just a bit like the 1st, so it would LOOK like a face.

Unless it was really a face and it was modeled from someone who had an asymmetrical face.

Anyone who read the whole of the first post, as I did, will be left in no doubt that this person is a liar.

Please, if you did not read the whole of the first post of this thread, go back and do so - you will notice by the information he gives that he is lying.

reply to post by VelvetSplash


I don't know what makes you think that I'm lying, if there is anything that I need to clarify I'll be more than happy to do so. I'm just conveying what I saw; If somehow it came off as unbelievable I apologize.

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

I can't believe this discussion is still going on.
Put ur 3D glasses on (get them @ eBay) and check the images below.
There is NO FACE at all (images were released in 2003 ...)

One of the more interesting things is that, back in the day when there were the first images, Richard Hoagland showed an image generated from the dark side of the face, that after being enhanced gave the apperence of half of a lions head. This is documented as it was during a presentation being given at the UN which was recorded...

When the newer pictures came out, there is in fact some resembelence to the distorted half actually being more of a lion shape. Hoagland eluded to bible scriptures which spoke of having the face of a human and having the face of a lion...

Although many today who believe the face is there believe that half of it has caved in...

Some other things to consider... Following the discovery of the face like image in the origional NASA shots, a NASA spokes person spoke of a second photo taken of the area at a different time of day & different angle, which showed no face like formation to actually be present. This was in fact a fabrication as the so-called alternate photo never actually existed...

Another thing... We currently know what resolutions that NASA satellites are capable of taking. That said, for some reason NASA will NOT release the full resolution images for some reason. Another thing to note is that after these photos are taken, there is in fact a fairly long delay between that time and the time NASA does release the reduced resolution images... If there is in fact nothing to hide, both of these things seem rather odd...

As Richard Hoagland had put it, at the resolutions NASA does release at (even as high as they currently seem), an object the size of a football stadium would appear the equivalent size of a single pixel... Google Earth images do in fact give higher resolution images than the photos of supposedly nothing that NASA releases to the public...

Originally posted by bobbyt
As Richard Hoagland had put it, at the resolutions NASA does release at (even as high as they currently seem), an object the size of a football stadium would appear the equivalent size of a single pixel...

With a resolution of 29.9 cm/pixel good enough?

That's the resolution of the latest (as far as I know) photo of the "face".

We can see rocks with less than 1 metre in these photos.

The previous image is the small rectangle in the image bellow.

That photo was taken on April 5 2007 and published on April 11 2007.

Some other things to consider... Following the discovery of the face like image in the origional NASA shots, a NASA spokes person spoke of a second photo taken of the area at a different time of day & different angle, which showed no face like formation to actually be present. This was in fact a fabrication as the so-called alternate photo never actually existed...

That's what I ment with pictures from NASA... You can't trust them.


If it isn't convenient with the story the gov's tell them, they Photoshop it. And MAKE it fit.

Reason is global panic. What will it do to religion?, Christianity discovers there was a civilisation before dinosoars even existed so what WILL happen?

It makes me laugh everytime I think about it... haha..

Originally posted by ArMaP
That's the resolution of the latest (as far as I know) photo of the "face".

We can see rocks with less than 1 metre in these photos.

The previous image is the small rectangle in the image bellow.

Deffinatly better than what they used to have...
Does the entire face exist in this resolution???


There are other things I didn't delve into as well, such as the fact that color images taken from the surface of mars have the red hue turned WAY up (hint: Mars's sky isn't really red). This was easy to tell due primarily to the fact that, because we know the colors of the rover equipment, the color distortion becomes totally obvious... This page shows this: mars-news.de...

Originally posted by PureET
That's what I ment with pictures from NASA... You can't trust them.

Apparently, to some people, we can trust NASA when they show what those people want, in this case something that looks like a face and that can be used (with some imagination) as a possible evidence of the presence of intelligent life on Mars in an unknown past.

Those people will ignore the photos that show that the "face" looks natural and say that those photos are "photoshopped" with the same vehemence that they hold to the first photo as a proof, neglecting the fact that the photos have the same origin.

People are really interesting creatures...

Originally posted by ArMaP
Apparently, to some people, we can trust NASA when they show what those people want, in this case something that looks like a face and that can be used (with some imagination) as a possible evidence of the presence of intelligent life on Mars in an unknown past.

The Face on Mars was leaked before it was officialy published.

Those people will ignore the photos that show that the "face" looks natural and say that those photos are "photoshopped" with the same vehemence that they hold to the first photo as a proof, neglecting the fact that the photos have the same origin.

Then how is it possible that NASA releases 3 different images, and as T stated above,

They allready shopped a 2nd version of the face, so it's probable that they shopped the last one!

People are really interesting creatures...

And so are you Armap, very interesting!, Deny Ignorance huh? haha!!

Originally posted by PureET
The Face on Mars was leaked before it was officialy published.

And NASA could not deny the leaked photo?

Who leaked the photo? Who published the leaked photo? Is it really the same exact photo?

Then how is it possible that NASA releases 3 different images, and as T stated above,

Do you look exactly the same every time you take a photo or yourself? Does a close up of your face look the same as a photo or your face taken from 10 metres?

They allready shopped a 2nd version of the face, so it's probable that they shopped the last one!

Yes, and the first too. How can anyone be sure that the leaked photo was not already "shopped"?

And so are you Armap, very interesting!

See, something in which we agree.

Deny Ignorance huh? haha!!

I try...

Originally posted by ArMaP
Who leaked the photo? Who published the leaked photo? Is it really the same exact photo?

Yeah I don’t know where he’s getting his information from. Actually it was NASA who discovered the unusual looking feature in the original Viking image and labeled it a "face" and released it to the public because they thought people would find it interesting...

www.msss.com...

In July, 1976, Viking Orbiter 1 was acquiring images of the Cydonia region of Mars as part of the search for potential landing sites for Viking Lander 2. On 25 July, 1976, it photographed a region of buttes and mesas along the escarpment that separates heavily cratered highlands to the south from low lying, relatively crater-free, lowland plains to the north. Among the hills was one that, to the Viking investigators scrutinizing the images for likely landing sites, resembled a face. Owing to the importance of the landing site search, and with a desire to provide the public with at least one familiar-looking landform amid the craters and exotic terrains found all over Mars, an image including the face-like hill was released as part of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's public relations effort. The text of that release notes the face-like hill.

Boy did that ever blow up in their face.

(pardon the pun)

reply to post by Access Denied


I never knew they officially released anything, I just know what I saw on the vid.... thanks for your post.