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

a reply to: WarminIndy

Of course it's random

What about me splashing paint on a canvas is not random? What about me smudging my charcoal layer out, is not random? Besides the delibirate act of me doing it, the result is random, it'll never be the same twice. Build a wall of cobblestones, and it'll never look the same twice. Da Vinci was referring to randomized surfaces, a canvas with charcoal, a wall of stones,...

Nothing you said has any relevance to proving the picture you claim is a face on mars, to be blunt.

What does me learning about tone and contrast have to do with this being a sculpture?? Perhaps it's a semantics issue, but I really don't get your point. You adjusted the contrast on the pic, got that, but I'm afraid that from any other angle, it's still just a mountain and hardly proof of anything other than the fact that you are capable of using PS...


Lasceaux paintings, awesome, truly, but again, no relevance to the OP as far as I'm aware... They made paintings dance, because they spent days in those caves and learned that with the flickering of the flame, the texture on the walls made images dance...


What about that compares to this "face"? Who was this face for? Who saw it?



This is an endless debate, I can see your point, but I don't agree with it. If there ever were a civilization on mars capable of doing this, the planet would be filled with similar artifacts. Perhaps it is, but till that time, I remain 100% skeptical. Some civilization rose to great achievements, even built some kind of technology that made this face, but all that is left is this single instance? Again, maybe there's more, but to go from this picture and conclude what you do, nope, can't buy that...


I'm 99.99999% sure that if you look at that face from ANY other angle, you wouldn't see a face anymore, so would you argue that the creator/artist intended that to happened? It's not very good art if it's the case, you don't need to stand on the spot marked X to see the drawings in the lasceaux caves, they're visible throughout, something I'm pretty sure can't be said about this face aka natural formation...




I'd be the first to say I'm sorry if it turned out to be a structure, but in this instance, it's a plain mountain, at least until proven otherwise... And again, the adjusted contrast doesn't prove anything? It proves that a face was visible in a bunch of mountains, and you made it more visible... Contrast and tone are nice terms to throw around in art but they will never prove that this is a constructed face.

originally posted by: HalfLeaf

I'd be the first to say I'm sorry if it turned out to be a structure, but in this instance, it's a plain mountain, at least until proven otherwise

Well by using your logic, how do you know it's a "plain mountain"? I mean, until it's "proven otherwise"? And no I don't believe that the face on Mars is anything more than a natural formation, but that is just what I myself believe, I can't prove I am right unless I am there. Everything else is speculation.

Also, We have 4 Rovers on Mars (only two currently active), so who knows what exists on that planet because we can only explore so much before they become inactive. What we really need to do is get a Rover up there that can do some serious excavation in order to find out if there are possibly any fossils beneath the surface. That would prove life once existed there.

Unfortunately its going to probably take Mankind to colonize Mars before we can ever send a payload strong enough to do some reasonable excavation. If we had a base camp that could sustain life, we could send smaller pieces of the needed equipment which we could eventually assemble there on the planet itself. That would be more realistic, but still expensive as well. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: WarminIndy

"I really am not inclined to say at this point that this is mere landscape "
Nor are you qualified to do so.

originally posted by: ziplock9000
a reply to: WarminIndy

"I really am not inclined to say at this point that this is mere landscape "
Nor are you qualified to do so.

And neither are those diagnosing the psychological phenomenon of pareidolia. The next time someone says "pareidolia" perhaps I can ask them to show me their degree in psychology, psychiatry, neurology, neurosurgery or any other such profession.

a reply to: SubSea

"The world is a lot stranger than we are led to believe."

Thats great, the particular world in question however is Mars not Earth.

A cannot give you a straight answer as to the purpose of the Nasca lines any more than i can tell you what the Great Pyramid was used for. That being said still looks like a rock formation to me.

History i imagine is whats being hidden from us, but possibly not for the reasons you or i imagine.

a reply to: WarminIndy

So what about this fellow? Is this an attempt to inform our sky god alien masters that we are here and watching them with clubs and erect penis? Or is it possibly just a fertility symbol pertaining to ancient religious practices?



en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

its worse that that - these " enhanced " pics ALWAYS have the aim of " prooving " that is a face - NOT actually investigating what it is

as far as Lascaux and the "flickering flames" where is all the soot? and do you agree the Mars face looks like this boy and crop circle? www.youtube.com...


a reply to: HalfLeaf

for whom to see? why not erect them standing (e.g., totem poles) unless you knew people from above would see it?

a reply to: andy06shake

a reply to: WarminIndy

I don't buy this really.

This is bias in evidence leading to self lying or delusion.

a reply to: WarminIndy

It doesn't resemble a face until the "with crown" is added. Human heads aren't shaped that way at all, so adding an earthly headdress is fudging, as is photo enhancement.

a reply to: bottleslingguy

Traditionally rather a lot of ancient religions associate the home of there gods to be above them hence the reason for the construction.

Considering the people who built these things would witness the movement of the stars and other planetary bodies not to mention comets and asteroids entering into our atmosphere is it any wonder they would associate the home of there gods with the sky, sun, moon and stars?

And there are plenty of erect standing stones located all over our planet pertaining to ancient religious practices or may even be ancient calender's/astronomical measuring devices.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: WarminIndy

The next time someone says "pareidolia" perhaps I can ask them to show me their degree in psychology, psychiatry, neurology, neurosurgery or any other such profession.

That's silly. I have a degree in psychology. Its about as useful as reading the wiki page for pareidolia. Of course its pareidolia. It just means people see faces and patterns in things. whether or not its intentional or not is the question. Yes, there are examples of natural formations that look like faces. And there are artists that sculpt faces. Still pareidolia.

a reply to: bottleslingguy

It's on the roof of the cave. Torch soot is one of many methods that were used to establish the antiquity of Lascaux, Chauvet, Altamira and many other painted cave sites in the world. Are you suggesting that there is no soot on the roofs of these caves? Did our ancestors use 30,000 year old flashlights?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: WarminIndy

The next time someone says "pareidolia" perhaps I can ask them to show me their degree in psychology, psychiatry, neurology, neurosurgery or any other such profession.

That's silly. I have a degree in psychology. Its about as useful as reading the wiki page for pareidolia. Of course its pareidolia. It just means people see faces and patterns in things.

whether or not its intentional or not is the question. Yes, there are examples of natural formations that look like faces. And there are artists that sculpt faces. Still pareidolia.

I did one time say that Mt. Rushmore is pareidolia, the people who read it were upset with me because I said it was a pile of rocks.

They were upset at my suggestion that they paid $11 for parking just to see a pile of rocks.

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: WarminIndy

It doesn't resemble a face until the "with crown" is added. Human heads aren't shaped that way at all, so adding an earthly headdress is fudging, as is photo enhancement.

And there you go..who said it is a HUMAN head?

You just made an assumption. No one on here is claiming it is human.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WarminIndy

Maybe it's because I am seeing something you aren't and that's what makes me special?

You aren't special. I can see it too.
Thing is, humans are pretty much hardwired to see faces. Even where there isn't one. Not just faces. That doesn't mean it isn't a natural formation.
planet1051.com...

Too bad those who call themselves "scientists" are hardwired to look for SOME things and completely delete the rest.

SCIENCE, is not helping when its controlled by governing bodies with agendas.

Even the term " Natural" can mean pretty much, anything.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: WarminIndy

It doesn't resemble a face until the "with crown" is added. Human heads aren't shaped that way at all, so adding an earthly headdress is fudging, as is photo enhancement.

And there you go..who said it is a HUMAN head?

You just made an assumption. No one on here is claiming it is human.

Someone here is making quite a few human-centric assumptions, and it's not me.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: draknoir2
a reply to: WarminIndy

It doesn't resemble a face until the "with crown" is added. Human heads aren't shaped that way at all, so adding an earthly headdress is fudging, as is photo enhancement.

And there you go..who said it is a HUMAN head?

You just made an assumption. No one on here is claiming it is human.

Someone here is making quite a few human-centric assumptions, and it's not me.

Does the picture look like a face or not?

I never said human face, I merely said face. But we don't really know what it is, and to assume pareidolia is limiting scientific research.

But guess what, when I applied the filter for light and contrast...I was using scientific method. I was using scientific research and published it in a peer review forum because ATS is a forum of peers. Then I showed how it could be replicated, by telling you how to do it also.

Now we are left with interpretation. And that's what science is all about, interpretation of facts.

FACT: There are features that look like a face.
FACT: By applying filters to said image, the face is more obvious.
FACT: I published said scientific method.
FACT: I published it for peer review.

So now tell me, am I wrong in saying that it looks like a face? I said I am less inclined to believe it is natural, because of the pupil, nose bridge and columella.

Who then is being scientific in this? You or me? I was scientific because I used scientific method to support my claim. I explained how the experiment can be replicated. I then gave my interpretation based on the experiment.

Right now, the experiment is peer reviewed because it is published (yes, this ATS post counts as publication because it is my intellectual property that is written for purposes of review).

If you would like, please go disprove the fact that it looks like a face.

a reply to: WarminIndy

If you would like, please go disprove the fact that it looks like a face.

If you look at each part individually, each part will probably look less like a facial feature and more like the rest of the terrain. Lets say we isolate the left eye and compare to the surroundings. If you take the left eye from Lincoln on Mt Rushmore and do the same, I think you still have something that looks like a left eye. That should eliminate the dreaded pareidolia.

I still think the face looks cool. Did you ever see the giant parrot?