Was the Cydonia Region of Mars Designed by Some Sort of Intelligence?

a reply to: astrostu

you should pop by the curiosity anomalies thread with your protractor, make sure there are no intelligently designed rocks

although you might find it tricky finding a definite angle on the egg

I also promise not to dump on your efforts , albeit in my opinion relatively pointless efforts , it was kinda slack of me to rant on so much, but anyway , a region that is of interest, congratulations on spinning a different light on it

funBox

a reply to: funbox

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree on the conclusions or the interpretation of the actual data available. It's the distortion of the real data, not telling the whole story, using numerology (19.5 anyone?), or wrong or unfounded conspiracy (claiming there's only one modern image showing the "face" and it's been distorted) that I think needs calling out.

That's why I tried to be pretty specific in the movie, that if THAT is your claim (the numbers can only be there because of an intelligence, therefore intelligence), then you are wrong because of all the reasons I pointed out.

If you think a rock looks like an egg but I think it looks like a weathered rock, then that's interpretation of a feature and neither of us have any way to objectively convince the other, so there's no real point in arguing.

My goal is to be reasonable here, and I think that you understand that. Scientists, and especially skeptics, have really bad reputations among what I might term the "alternative" community, and I'm trying to point out that at least some of us are reasonable.

a reply to: astrostu




yeah eggy looking what else can be said, precise erosion , erratic erosion , chaotic erosion , combination erosion, sporadic dust devils . so many variables .. yet there it sits

funBox

a reply to: funbox

Hoagy may be BS on occasion, but...

enterprisemission.com...

...this particular photo is highly suspicious.

There also looks to be an artificial wall, complete with road for it's construction leading to it's top, that was easily interpreted as artificial.

The slumping in much of the Face appears to be result of the collapse of internal structure. This is not explainable in geological terms (at least I haven't seen any). Where did the voids come from?

The only real thing I know about the NASA photography is that it's regularly 'fixed' by obfuscation, deletion and 'stamping'.
The one fellow who does a fine job on describing these machinations is J P Skipper on Mars Anomalies. Once again he does draw a lot of conclusions that you may differ with. He does demonstrate the repeated dishonesty on what is presented as truth by YOUR government agency and it's constellation of contractors.
Keith Laney hammers the NASA defense with a HUGE group of definitive proofs of manipulation by OUR providers.

www.keithlaney.net...

So, yeah, when people stretch to allow their inbuilt pattern recognition to sift through the crap provided by NASA or the various Defense agencies, flaws in their reasoning occurs. I feel this is a normal outcome when they have to plow a tight course when all the markers are written in crayon on sandstone in Sanskrit. Accepting collateral damage to their names is part of any intellectual adventures by the inventive. It's the cost of doing business on the fringes of allowable exposition by the peer reviewed mainstream.


And if you trespass on the more controversial........www.scientificexploration.org...

And a definitive Remote Viewing session, by the dean of that form of exploration...

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
Now we are talking about where my head is at. A very strange place indeed.

originally posted by: largo
Hoagy may be BS on occasion, but...

enterprisemission.com...

...this particular photo is highly suspicious.

Why?

The only real thing I know about the NASA photography is that it's regularly 'fixed' by obfuscation, deletion and 'stamping'.

I haven't seen any on the PDS images, that's one of the reasons I use those.

Keith Laney hammers the NASA defense with a HUGE group of definitive proofs of manipulation by OUR providers.

www.keithlaney.net...

Some years ago I picked a list of NASA images with clear signs of tampering, and went looking for their sources. Almost all were on non-NASA sites (I think only two were on NASA sites), some were on Keith Laney's site.

originally posted by: largo
Hoagy may be BS on occasion, but...

enterprisemission.com...

...this particular photo is highly suspicious.

I explain VERY clearly why Hoagland is wrong about that photo in part 1 of my Face on Mars podcast 2-part series -- search for "Mars Odyssey THEMIS" and read that section. I'll quote some of the relevant parts:

The fact that it's much brighter than the rest of the mesa and the surrounding surface, Hoagland claims to mean: [Coast to Coat AM, October 5, 2003, Hour 2, starting 13:46]

"We're looking at something that is 99+% reflectivity."

He doesn't really show any of his math for this claim on his website, though he makes it repeatedly. He basically assumes a linear stretch and compares the brightness on the sunlit side with the surrounding surface. As you might expect at this point, there are several problems with this -- at least three, in fact, that I identified right away.

First, the majority of the image is only lit by sunlight scattered through the thin Martian atmosphere. ONLY a few small regions are directly lit by the sun because the sun is just below the horizon, so the only objects that can be lit will be perched above the horizon. This means that OF COURSE they're going to look much brighter than what ISN'T lit by the sun. It's like sun coming through a window -- it's really bright in direct sunlight, but the area of the floor right next to it is darker. Only, on Mars, the effect is exaggerated due to the thinner atmosphere.

The second problem is that Richard only looked at one stretch of the image. A lot more data was recorded in the high dynamic range camera than is visible in a basic 8-bit image which is the default when you go to the image online - something discussed more in Episode 48. If you look at other stretches, does NOT show that side saturated, but shows it just brighter. Not 99+% reflective. For those of you who are at a computer, click the link to the THEMIS image from the shownotes, or do a web search for V03814003. On the Mars Image Explorer page that opens, you'll see the image strip and the face towards the middle, in Black and White. Click the False Color button and then the S1 button. Then click the image itself and it should expand in size. You'll clearly see that it's not completely reflective and saturated as Richard claimed.

The third problem has to do with an analysis that a man named Mark Carlotto did from the old Viking images. I'm going to discuss this in much more detail in Part 2, but briefly, Richard and other Face on Mars people pay a lot of homage to Carlotto's work, referencing it often. A lot of what he did was to make 3D models of the "Face" mesa based on the Viking images. He did this by looking at the different shades, and assuming a certain reflectivity, then the different shades correspond to different slopes and angles. Just like you learn in grade school art class for shading based on the way things are pointed relative to a light source, he used the technique in reverse to make a 3D model from a 50-pixel-tall feature.

In other words, Carlotto's work ASSUMES a reflectivity to reconstruct the 3D nature of the mesa. But, if Hoagland is right in this case, that an entire side of the mesa, maybe a full 1/3 of it, is 99+% reflective, then that completely screws up everything Carlotto did, and the 3D reconstructions are wrong! You can't have it both ways -- Carlotto's "shape from shading" work cannot be right if part of the mesa is 99+% reflective, OR, Carlotto's work could be accurate but then this hugely reflective stuff by Hoagland is wrong. I'm not saying Carlotto's work is accurate at this point, but Richard does, so he can't be right on both counts.

As an added bonus, Richard reads into image compression artifacts and says that there's regular geometry in the bright, 99+% reflective part of the face, indicating panels of some sort. Refer back to episodes 47 and 48 on image processing for more on those kinds of artifacts, specifically later in episode 48.

originally posted by: ArMaP
Some years ago I picked a list of NASA images with clear signs of tampering, and went looking for their sources. Almost all were on non-NASA sites (I think only two were on NASA sites), some were on Keith Laney's site.

Ditto.

a reply to: ArMaP

The extraordinary reflective attributes of the 'Face' does not fit with ANY geological features (not being anomalous in their own right) on the planet. You didn't read the item?

It's fun for we fringe players when you admit to having seen deliberate manipulations (plural) when you only have to have ONE deception to cast a pall over the entire character of these agencies. When it was announced to Congress that the NSA was NOT spying by it's boss, did that make them honest?

Go to Skipper's site. He always links back to his official sources. He also states that the agencies will later submit 'improved' images where ALL of the previous anomalous evidence is removed. They will do this especially with older data where the coverups are crude. He recommends that any time you see information that is not true, you should download a copy as the agencies WILL, with their improved techniques, completely bury the data.

In all honesty, if you have merely opinions and have not devoted considerable time to these subjects or any other official explanation, you just need to move along. Disputing raw data and its carefully drawn conclusions requires familiarity with both the proposals and their antipodes. Then its a discussion and not just 'feelings'. Faith is what destroys credibilty.

I concede to the OP because he worked out the statistical distributions to disprove Hoagy's thoughts on this issue. His framework for this was always a bit odd. He was dealing with imprecisions that were incorporated into the data and may have leapt too far. You gotta have balls to do so. I much prefer Galileo types to stay at home sorts. It's stimulating.

I had written to the Principal Investigator of the Dawn Mission. He assured me that the BEST IMAGING of Vesta would be soon available. Guess what!!!? The number of released actual photos of raw imagery amounts to to less than forty shots. Most of these for folks like me are useless for finding or discarding terrain. All of the close ups are VEREY limited in number. So what happened to the rest? All I recall is that he was 'proud to be able to do a cost efficient survey' and that's what he told his kids. Blow me. I don't want cost efficiency on centi-million dollar projects. I want data I can peruse.

Get back to me about any of this. I like the honing of disputes and knowledge (or better opinions) garnered thereon.

Cool thread OP..

If this was an isolated incident/theory,the debunkers may hold the high ground..but it isn't and there is so much evidence pointing towards the structures makers, that it would be a conspiracy that all the information/evidence was laid out to deceive everybody...which i highly doubt.

We have monoliths on many planets and moons in our Solar System...Phobos,Iaepetus,Enceladus..just to name a few and of cparse the wealth of irregularities with our own Moon which to me seems like it was brought into orbit (as the ancient records declare) and is most likely a hoolowed out craft as Phobos was proven to be by the Russians.

I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned that the Cydonia region of Mars is an exact replica of the Avebury stone henge area, albeit scaled up..i forget the ratio?..We have many structures on our own planet which MSM fails to recognise how these came to be (intentionally so imo, as there is a grand cover up with regards to our true past-even how homo sapiens came to be)

Does this ring any bells??..Although Sitchin may have had a joint agenda with the Rockerfellers, there is a lot of truth in His works,also i recomend reading Wes Penres free e-book online which will join all the dots together for those searching for the truth.

So in answer to your question OP,the region of Cydonia was built by the Anunnaki,who had a hold on this Solar System and still do!!.. as they are the ones at the very top of the tree regarding our planetary affairs..from Atlantis to Sumer to Egypt,Greece,Rome/Romans and todays royal families and blood lines in power..even look to where the Jews stem from..not forgeting the secret societies left in place to do their bidding.

Not forgetting the UFO phenomenon!! i do beleive many,not all,but many of these are 'Watcher' craft,again Anunnaki,hence the phenomenon dating back way when..hope you see the bigger picture.

Good Evening

originally posted by: largo
The extraordinary reflective attributes of the 'Face' does not fit with ANY geological features (not being anomalous in their own right) on the planet. You didn't read the item?

Did you read my response?

originally posted by: largo
I concede to the OP because he worked out the statistical distributions to disprove Hoagy's thoughts on this issue. His framework for this was always a bit odd. He was dealing with imprecisions that were incorporated into the data and may have leapt too far. You gotta have balls to do so. I much prefer Galileo types to stay at home sorts. It's stimulating.

Thank you.

originally posted by: largo
I had written to the Principal Investigator of the Dawn Mission. He assured me that the BEST IMAGING of Vesta would be soon available. Guess what!!!? The number of released actual photos of raw imagery amounts to to less than forty shots. Most of these for folks like me are useless for finding or discarding terrain. All of the close ups are VEREY limited in number. So what happened to the rest? All I recall is that he was 'proud to be able to do a cost efficient survey' and that's what he told his kids. Blow me. I don't want cost efficiency on centi-million dollar projects. I want data I can peruse.

Perhaps you don't know where to look. NASA uses PDS to distribute data. Do an internet search for "PDS Dawn" and you will find it. For example, sbn.psi.edu... . From the links at the top, you click, you go to to the Browse link, DATA, IMG, and choose a mission phase. Granted, you have to know how to process IMG data, or FITS if you choose that. Or, I think sbib.psi.edu... will let you select the images you want.

Remember that all because you don't know something doesn't mean it's hidden and there's a vast conspiracy.

originally posted by: largo
The extraordinary reflective attributes of the 'Face' does not fit with ANY geological features (not being anomalous in their own right) on the planet. You didn't read the item?

I did, but the reflectivity is relative, anyone that takes photos knows that.

If you are taking a photo of something under a lower light (like just before sunrise) and you have a light source on one side, everything facing that side will appear much brighter than the rest, and even if it was overexposed that doesn't mean that it's very bright, it means just that was overexposed, any thing on a photo can be under or over exposed.

I didn't read the whole page you linked to (I suppose that's what you mean by "item"), but it was enough to see that he was (as usual), not showing evidence of what he says but evidence of something else that he presents as evidence of being right.

You can see that all the photos he presents of sunrise or sunset are pointing to the Sun, so all the faces getting direct light are facing away from the camera, so we cannot see if they are bright or not.

It's fun for we fringe players when you admit to having seen deliberate manipulations (plural) when you only have to have ONE deception to cast a pall over the entire character of these agencies.

Yes, I have seen some cases of deliberate manipulations, they are posted somewhere here on ATS, but, as I said, it was not on the science-related sites like the PDS, it was on the more "public relations" sites.

And yes, I think it's wrong, lying is lying, regardless of doing it to make things "prettier" or for some other reason.

When it was announced to Congress that the NSA was NOT spying by it's boss, did that make them honest?

No.

Go to Skipper's site. He always links back to his official sources. He also states that the agencies will later submit 'improved' images where ALL of the previous anomalous evidence is removed. They will do this especially with older data where the coverups are crude. He recommends that any time you see information that is not true, you should download a copy as the agencies WILL, with their improved techniques, completely bury the data.

I have seen that site many times, and while he links back to official sources he ignores the information on those same sites that prove him wrong.

In all honesty, if you have merely opinions and have not devoted considerable time to these subjects or any other official explanation, you just need to move along.

I have devoted what I consider a considerable amount of time to this subject in the last 10 years, but, like anyone else, I have only my opinions.

Disputing raw data and its carefully drawn conclusions requires familiarity with both the proposals and their antipodes.

What "carefully drawn conclusions"?

I had written to the Principal Investigator of the Dawn Mission. He assured me that the BEST IMAGING of Vesta would be soon available. Guess what!!!? The number of released actual photos of raw imagery amounts to to less than forty shots. Most of these for folks like me are useless for finding or discarding terrain. All of the close ups are VEREY limited in number. So what happened to the rest? All I recall is that he was 'proud to be able to do a cost efficient survey' and that's what he told his kids. Blow me. I don't want cost efficiency on centi-million dollar projects. I want data I can peruse.

That one looks like an interesting subject, I think you should start a thread about it.

a reply to: ArMaP

ArMaP, I think we're talking past each other. I responded to largo's claim here, giving links to where ALL the data are. See the post immediately above yours. There's no need to start a new thread on ATS when the data are clearly there for anyone to use, they're not hidden in any way.

There was a delay in releasing the data to PDS but that was because of politics: The IAU defined one feature as longitude=0, the Dawn team defined another point as longitude=0. PDS requires the IAU definition, the team didn't want to do that. Eventually they did, but they p---ed off A LOT of people by delaying, such that scientists could not propose to use the data in their grant proposals because NASA guidelines require that all data you're proposing to use MUST be released to PDS >30 days before the proposal deadline.

My rule of thumb: Never blame a conspiracy when politics or stupidity are just as likely or more likely explanations.

originally posted by: astrostu
ArMaP, I think we're talking past each other. I responded to largo's claim here, giving links to where ALL the data are. See the post immediately above yours.

I saw it, after I made my post.

But a personal rule I apply to my posts is never to change what I wrote except to add something, if I made a mistake I let that mistake as it was, as I really made it at the time.

There's no need to start a new thread on ATS when the data are clearly there for anyone to use, they're not hidden in any way.

If that was the only purpose of the thread, I agree.

There was a delay in releasing the data to PDS but that was because of politics: The IAU defined one feature as longitude=0, the Dawn team defined another point as longitude=0. PDS requires the IAU definition, the team didn't want to do that. Eventually they did, but they p---ed off A LOT of people by delaying, such that scientists could not propose to use the data in their grant proposals because NASA guidelines require that all data you're proposing to use MUST be released to PDS >30 days before the proposal deadline.

See, that's a very interesting information, that you probably wouldn't post if I removed the last part of my previous post.

Thanks for that.

My rule of thumb: Never blame a conspiracy when politics or stupidity are just as likely or more likely explanations.

I never do.

The Marrs - Earth Connection is a very plausible theory.

That was really good; I never realized I was that dumb. I think that you made your point, although I wouldn’t know if you were right or wrong since you and I apparently don’t speak the same language.

a reply to: astrostu

S&F. Good work Stu.