It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I Put the Crown Face Image on Mars Through Photo Editing And This Is What I Got

page: 10
41
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: Pearj

Nice conspiracy theory.

I particularly like your labeling of those who disagree with the OP's belief... er, scientific methodology as "pareidolia pushers" (extra points for the alliteration).

And thanks for the assurance of no response. One evil skeptic rant is more than sufficient.


And this is ad hominem.

Please, you've already insulted me by insinuating I am a hoaxer or that I am lying or some other nefarious, agenda pushing person.

I asked you for counter evidence and all you say is that I have illustrated your point. And what point would that be?

So I issue the challenge to YOU, provide us with evidence it is natural formation. Prove to us any evidence of a landslide, earthquake, volcanic activity, water erosion...something, anything.

Use the original picture and show us the geological reasons for it to be naturally formed. And then please provide us with the evidence of what types of rocks they are and the underlying structure.

Will you please kindly give us the evidence and then I will consider it.

That's your assumption and your assumption is based on what? You know nothing about Mars except for some pretty pictures. Will all of you people who believe it is pareidolia please do the one scientific thing required, and that is rule it out. Until the moment you can rule it out, my theory still stands.



Right, place the burden on the other side. To disprove a theory with no proof of its own. Right. So now someone has to explain the entire geological history of a virtually unexplored planet in order to prove to you that what you are seeing is nothing more than a trick of light and shadow--one duplicated MANY TIMES here on Earth--as opposed to you providing ONE SHRED of evidence that this thing is artificial. Come on, man, that's extremely disingenuous. Look, it's a neat looking formation. But hi rez photos have pretty much utterly shattered the notion that it is artificial or a face. I'd love to be wrong, but it certainly seems that logic and reason say it's just rocks, my friend. . .


Still, you have to do it to rule out pareidolia or justify pareidolia.

That's called "jumping the gun".

We can easily do it for Earth, but then when you say it for Mars, then you are assuming.




posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: Pearj

Nice conspiracy theory.

I particularly like your labeling of those who disagree with the OP's belief... er, scientific methodology as "pareidolia pushers" (extra points for the alliteration).

And thanks for the assurance of no response. One evil skeptic rant is more than sufficient.


And this is ad hominem.

Please, you've already insulted me by insinuating I am a hoaxer or that I am lying or some other nefarious, agenda pushing person.

I asked you for counter evidence and all you say is that I have illustrated your point. And what point would that be?

So I issue the challenge to YOU, provide us with evidence it is natural formation. Prove to us any evidence of a landslide, earthquake, volcanic activity, water erosion...something, anything.

Use the original picture and show us the geological reasons for it to be naturally formed. And then please provide us with the evidence of what types of rocks they are and the underlying structure.

Will you please kindly give us the evidence and then I will consider it.

That's your assumption and your assumption is based on what? You know nothing about Mars except for some pretty pictures. Will all of you people who believe it is pareidolia please do the one scientific thing required, and that is rule it out. Until the moment you can rule it out, my theory still stands.



Right, place the burden on the other side. To disprove a theory with no proof of its own. Right. So now someone has to explain the entire geological history of a virtually unexplored planet in order to prove to you that what you are seeing is nothing more than a trick of light and shadow--one duplicated MANY TIMES here on Earth--as opposed to you providing ONE SHRED of evidence that this thing is artificial. Come on, man, that's extremely disingenuous. Look, it's a neat looking formation. But hi rez photos have pretty much utterly shattered the notion that it is artificial or a face. I'd love to be wrong, but it certainly seems that logic and reason say it's just rocks, my friend. . .


Still, you have to do it to rule out pareidolia or justify pareidolia.

That's called "jumping the gun".

We can easily do it for Earth, but then when you say it for Mars, then you are assuming.


Well, I think it's *probably fairer to say* that calling it anything other than natural is jumping the gun, but I completely get what you're going at. It's a very interesting formation for sure and I would be THRILLED to see astronauts walk up to it and discover that it's a monument some day. . . Richard Hoagland be damned, lol.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: WarminIndy

Do you mind posting the link to the original Nasa file? Do you know what spacecraft took this photo? I'm guessing it's from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter?

Edit: Found another natural formation that forms a face: Nasa link

I find this subject interesting even though they are just rocks and mountains. Still beautiful...


Go here



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: Pearj

Nice conspiracy theory.

I particularly like your labeling of those who disagree with the OP's belief... er, scientific methodology as "pareidolia pushers" (extra points for the alliteration).

And thanks for the assurance of no response. One evil skeptic rant is more than sufficient.


And this is ad hominem.

Please, you've already insulted me by insinuating I am a hoaxer or that I am lying or some other nefarious, agenda pushing person.

I asked you for counter evidence and all you say is that I have illustrated your point. And what point would that be?

So I issue the challenge to YOU, provide us with evidence it is natural formation. Prove to us any evidence of a landslide, earthquake, volcanic activity, water erosion...something, anything.

Use the original picture and show us the geological reasons for it to be naturally formed. And then please provide us with the evidence of what types of rocks they are and the underlying structure.

Will you please kindly give us the evidence and then I will consider it.

That's your assumption and your assumption is based on what? You know nothing about Mars except for some pretty pictures. Will all of you people who believe it is pareidolia please do the one scientific thing required, and that is rule it out. Until the moment you can rule it out, my theory still stands.



Right, place the burden on the other side. To disprove a theory with no proof of its own. Right. So now someone has to explain the entire geological history of a virtually unexplored planet in order to prove to you that what you are seeing is nothing more than a trick of light and shadow--one duplicated MANY TIMES here on Earth--as opposed to you providing ONE SHRED of evidence that this thing is artificial. Come on, man, that's extremely disingenuous. Look, it's a neat looking formation. But hi rez photos have pretty much utterly shattered the notion that it is artificial or a face. I'd love to be wrong, but it certainly seems that logic and reason say it's just rocks, my friend. . .


Still, you have to do it to rule out pareidolia or justify pareidolia.

That's called "jumping the gun".

We can easily do it for Earth, but then when you say it for Mars, then you are assuming.


Well, I think it's *probably fairer to say* that calling it anything other than natural is jumping the gun, but I completely get what you're going at. It's a very interesting formation for sure and I would be THRILLED to see astronauts walk up to it and discover that it's a monument some day. . . Richard Hoagland be damned, lol.


I simply said "I am less inclined to believe it is natural..."

I was just too amazed at the pupil and the nose bridge. I don't think we will have any astronaut in our lifetime ever go to Mars, we just don't know enough about it to go there.

We are made for Earth, whoever or whatever else is out there, they were made for their planet (OK, you say evolved), but the point is, perhaps Mars had a civilization that might have had a cataclysmic change that they could not recover from.

There was a reason though that Mars was considered the God of War and why the ancients named the Red Planet after Mars. Maybe it is a coincidence that the god Mars was believed in the Iron Age, and Mars the planet has so much iron on its surface.

Mars makes the iron grow, how did the ancients know to associate the planet with iron, without knowing how much iron was on the planet? Where did they get that information from?

The Symbols of Mars


The symbols of Mars are the wolf, woodpecker, and lance. Iron is his metal.


How did they know about iron on the planet?

Interesting things we learn from history.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo
It's a very interesting formation for sure and I would be THRILLED to see astronauts walk up to it and discover that it's a monument some day.


Not sure we will see this happen in the near future -

Astronauts who spend a significant time in space lose their muscle coordination and strength and have to basically relearn to walk once back on Earth.

A 3 to 6 month travel to Mars would be the same strain on muscle's; astronauts would not be able to leave the spaceship....unless they had a 'space-wheelchair'


We will have to rely on these pics until better pics come along



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: AquarianTrumpet

Unless of course any Manned future mission to the Red planet provides the ships crew gravity by way of rotational sections built around a central engine core.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: AquarianTrumpet

Unless of course any Manned future mission to the Red planet provides the ships crew gravity by way of rotational sections built around a central engine core.


And even without it, it strikes me that with the difference in gravity between mars and Earth, astronauts ought to be just fine hopping around the red planet a bit before coming home. But I could be vastly overestimating the difference, so. . .



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

Possibly decrees the gravity during the 3-6 month journey time from our own Earths to the gravity of Mars? Such a method could theoretically acclimatize any future astronauts to the gravity on Mars.
edit on 28-5-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Hi Andy & Jaffo -

From what we have learned so far from space travel; humans can't sustain long periods in space
(Not living on Mars - the space travel itself)

Even using a false gravity causes problems to our muscle system...or so we have seen.
It is possible however in the future we will rectify this problem, but as it stands today,
we have not conquered this issue...and others say we could not survive beyond the Van Allen belts due to complications caused by radiation. Robotics as it seems, is our best bet for a serious disclosure.

Mind you, I would take the trip on the chance I could survive! (after all - we don't know what we don't know - until we know it!)


Back to the OP's picture -
Has this not been presented in the past as an Egyptian wearing a headdress?



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet

Back to the OP's picture -
Has this not been presented in the past as an Egyptian wearing a headdress?


Maybe it has been, but I don't know. All I know is that I saw the picture and wanted to see if it really was what I was seeing. I have seen some that have been colorized but I thought that was too much artistic license.

I just wanted to see it in 3D, that's why I did the brightness and contrast only, to see if the image would blend or pop out, it popped out. I thought the pupil was just amazing, it looks like what is on statues.

The indentation on the nose bridge really shows up as well.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: AquarianTrumpet

Back to the OP's picture -
Has this not been presented in the past as an Egyptian wearing a headdress?


Maybe it has been, but I don't know. All I know is that I saw the picture and wanted to see if it really was what I was seeing. I have seen some that have been colorized but I thought that was too much artistic license.

I just wanted to see it in 3D, that's why I did the brightness and contrast only, to see if the image would blend or pop out, it popped out. I thought the pupil was just amazing, it looks like what is on statues.

The indentation on the nose bridge really shows up as well.



Yeah, it absolutely was presented as a "head dress" for years until better pics showed up. Ignoring the folly of their wild speculation, folks just switched said speculation, pretty much. It's entertaining and keeps people looking up anyway.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

That's not the original NASA source, but doesn't matter...zoomed out it clearly is a case of pareidolia...There's too many natural looking features on the "face" and it's not that crazy like the "airstrips" in Nazca. Flip or rotate the image...looks like a mountain from a different perspective...I'm for ET visitation and non biased investigation fyi...I don't think you found anything by putting it through your design programs.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: WarminIndy

That's not the original NASA source, but doesn't matter...zoomed out it clearly is a case of pareidolia...There's too many natural looking features on the "face" and it's not that crazy like the "airstrips" in Nazca. Flip or rotate the image...looks like a mountain from a different perspective...I'm for ET visitation and non biased investigation fyi...I don't think you found anything by putting it through your design programs.


If we saw your face and zoomed way, way out, your face might not be recognizable either, and the closer we got to your face, the less details we would see.

Distance does matter, it is called perspective. The proportions are correct because the perspective is correct enough to see it.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

That still doesn't make those hills on Mars a face.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: WarminIndy

That still doesn't make those hills on Mars a face.


Admire the distance....

Interesting username for a thread about admiring a photo taken from a distance. Is that synchronicity?

I think they took a basic formation and carved around and inside it, using the natural formation and enhancing it. Why could they have not?

Is there any law in this universe that says that could not have happened?



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy






There are so many more faces, skulls, grey alien faces, ghost faces, God faces, etc...It's like the valley of faces...According to Libya Montes Wiki the mountainous area has a lot of fluvial landforms which has to do with a lot of water.
edit on 28-5-2015 by game over man because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   
How is it perfect proportions? Like most things (or all things) produced from Mars pictures, people just seem to accept rough edges, crooked walls in "buildings" and pyramids, faces with broken noses, etc.. Even our ancient ancestors could produce stonework much more accurate. If someone on this planet produced such a work of "art," it would be proclaimed terribly proportioned, and some pretty awful artwork.

But because it's on Mars, it's obviously a human face?

It's just your imagination.

What's funny is how on our planet, art is created for its current inhabitants. But people believe on Mars, that the inhabitants look exactly like humans, and that the art was produced not for their own people.. but oddly for other space faring races to see in the far future after their extinction.

I guess people will keep seeing what they want and hope to see, rather than the reality.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I found this detailed analysis on the face...alreaud.net...

I didn't really read it but I thought this made a good point...


the "nose" is probably a boulder that rolled down the "bucket"
edit on 29-5-2015 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: AquarianTrumpet

"Even using a false gravity causes problems to our muscle system...or so we have seen."

This is also true although to be fair we have yet to build a sufficiently large structure/station in low Earth orbit to test the premise completely. Somehow i imagine once we manage to produce, build and test a propulsion system capable of reaching Mars in an acceptable time period the technology will have have matured somewhat.
edit on 29-5-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 06:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
I found this detailed analysis on the face...alreaud.net...

I didn't really read it but I thought this made a good point...


the "nose" is probably a boulder that rolled down the "bucket"


Or a drumstick.


Yeah, I can see that being the case now. Might be fairly recent too.
edit on 29-5-2015 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join