Face on Mars is just a Rocky Mountain [New High Resolution Pictures]

reply to post by sremmos


I am partially trained to have a keen eye since I work on detailing my work. Those two pictures don't look alike at all. So JPL finally got its wish and just deleted the face of mars from its existence. humanity is sad.

Hey theres a rock in the US that looks like a penis. Now going by the weirdos that think a 'face' on Mars is real, that rock in the US must be a real penis right?

When the new 2010 colorized image of the eastern side of the Face (7/28/10) is compared to the highest resolution picture obtained by NASA’s MOC camera in 2001 (Figure 1.B) and the European Space Agency’s 2006 false color image (Figure 1.C) - it becomes quite clear that the eastern facial features are consistent and appear to be permanent structural formations (Figure 1)




Figure 1
Comparison of three views of the eastern feline side of the Face on Mars

A: Detail of MRO HiRISE false color image PSP_003234_2210 (2010)
B: Detail of MOC image E03-00824 (2001)
C: Detail of the ESA false color perspective view (2006)
D: Analytical drawing


Looking at all three images, note the broad forehead and a crown feature is observable in each image. Notice the rectangular, squinting eye, the muzzle and zig-zag shaped mane is present in all three images. Also notice that each image shows evidence of a parted mouth and flailing tongue.

So what prompted the University of Arizona HiRISE team to revisit a three year old image of the Face on Mars and manipulate it by cropping it and colorizing it and then release it as a new image?

Zip Monster

reply to post by Chance321


Who am I going to believe?
A bunch of greatly skilled scientist[nasa]
or a nerd who thinks of conspiracies all day?


I think i'll place my bets with nasa.

reply to post by DuceizBack


Nasa why would you trust them? and yet all the time they keep editing and even covering up much of the photos we see when they release the photos to the public.

Have you ever wondered why are there no stars in some of our planets when NASA took the photos?

Not to mention the mars rover photos maybe mars has a blue sky and yet NASA covered it up to make to it seem that mars is a red dusty planet.

What a joke. This is a bold faced lie by NASA--can their "high defnition" photos change the shape and size and form of a formation? Give me a break. Maybe the next time NASA computer generates an image of the face they can make it into an indent instead of a plateau sticking out so they can continue to spill their bull#.

If the Face on Mars wasn't real then weren't the last photos good enough for NASA? It's kind of strange that something that is totally not real keeps getting so much attention from Never A Straight Answer. Releasing photos and press releases regarding the Face almost 15 years after the fact and everyone has forgotten about this now--what is the obssession with proving people wrong?

The pictures of the face that I saw, looked like it had a distinct roundness around it that defined the figure. There is zero evidence of this from the new 'hi-res' version. It looks 3D generated.

Is it just me, or are pictures from Mars looking more and more green/blue lately??