It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

Face on mars

page: 2
1
share:

posted on May, 2 2005 @ 08:16 PM

Originally posted by djbarney

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
thanks jehosaphat for this info;

www.space.com...

I know the hard core believers won't put any stock in these photos (nasa edited them, that what they want you to belive) but for me, this is proof positive

Hello syrinx high priest ! :-)

The photo of the face in the article you give is upside down !

The Hoagland/Torun mathematical model proves that something
is going on with Cydonia ! The face, that does look like a face (if viewed
the right way up), cannot stand in isolation, but the other anomalies
around it and their relationships proves it, to me anyway.

barney

[edit on 2-5-2005 by djbarney]

hoaglands' Cydonia math has allready been thoroughly debunked:

Hoagland took an image of the Cydonia region, found his objects, then connected them with lines. He then measured the angles between the objects and manipulated them mathematically. He took ratios (dividing one angle by another), performed trigonometry (taking the sine, cosine, and tangent of the angles), and then went about seeing if those numbers have any special significance. And he found that they do indeed appear to relate to one another! In the image above are some of the relationships he found; click on it to see a high-res version that is easier to read.

He did this math based on satellite photos, so if I move an 'object' one millimeter on his photo, it translates to miles on the ground(you cant just put a ruler on a sat. pic. and call that accurate.)

[edit on 2-5-2005 by Rren]

[edit on 2-5-2005 by Rren]

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 09:19 AM
Thankyou Rren ! :-)

Actually I think a millimeter on the Cydonia image that Hoag used translates
to a few hundred meters...I'll have to check that...

Thanks for the link ! I've been avoiding this link ! Because I hav'nt
understood any of the mathematics up till now. Now is obviously the point
I'm going to have to look at it! Anyway, thought I'd debunk some of the

> This relationship is so extraordinary, so special, he says, that it forms a new type of
> "hyperdimensional physics "...

Wrong ! It is not 'NEW' ! The mathematician Maxwell developed equations a 100 years ago
exploring the nature of 'hyper' (read -extra-) dimensions and the effect they might
have on our dimensions. Heaveside, a later mathematician took a fraction of Maxwells'
work and turned it into the mathematics that forms our modern electromagnetic
theory.

> that opens up the mysteries of the Universe.

I've had some curious moments with Hoagland, Mars, and these theories. I'd recommend giving
it some time...and a chance !

> This is the drum he has been beating for some time.

Some beat just to make a noise. some beat to keep the beat. Some beat because they really
have got something important to say !

> This hyperdimensional physics rests solely on the relationships he sees in the "City".

Wrong ! Hoagland and Errol Torrun also found the same mathematical 'message' (ie, certain
'harmonic' numbers pertaining to angles and relationships of the platonic solids, especially
the tetrahedron, that is used in Hyper Dimensional Physics (HP)...found the same message
in ancient ruins on Earth ! All pyramids across the globe....Stone Henge....even crop
circles...but this stuff has infinite regressions (see The Monkey and the Tetrahedron by
David M Jinks).

Hoagland and his team as a result of finding this message (the Message of Cydonia, or
MOC) went on to discover innumerable examples of their HP at work across the Solar
System; anomalous energy production of planets, ie. MORE than they get from the Sun
and internal compression - that extra energy 'should'nt' be there....energy upwellings on
planets at certain points predicted by HP.

> As you'll see, his claims that these relationships are special are totally bogus.

At risk of sounding cliched I think the badastronomer does'nt 'get it' as RCH would
say...which of course irritates the piss out of anyone who has already said
its 'bogus' ! The bad astronomer lurks on my bbs 'home' ( anomalies.net... ) where
I've yet to converse with him.....mmm....maybe soon.

Bad Astronomer then goes on to 'debunk' the Cydonia Math. I must admit maths is
really not my strongpoint so it will take me a while to get throught this bit. I'll
post back here after that.

But the issue is this. Yes the MOC mathematical model could all be 'coincidence' but
that does'nt change the fact that the Enterprise Mission have their heads in some very
interesting places (NO, NOT up their asses debunkers *-P)....and they do seem to be
onto something with the HP that does seem to be producing actual scientific observations.

Actually, the work of Errol Torrun has also had the 'coincidence' thing thrown at it as well...but
that does'nt change the fact that his work does reveal some incredible things about
ancient sites, that has corroborating connections.

I can't produce some 'wonder proof' of the Face or Cydonia (actually the MOC is that and
I still think it is, but I'll look at the math debunking it and get back to you!),
but it FEELS extraordinary to me !
Not scientific proof maybe, but that feeling has led me to some amazing places
and freed up my mind in ways I could only imagine.

barney

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 09:45 AM
I think Hoagland's problem, IMO, is that he takes incredible leaps of logic and then presents them as scientific fact.

He's math on the Cydonian "city" is properly done, IOW there are no problems with the geometry or the trig., but those type of relationships and alignments cannot be made based on the photos he's using. He is being very misleading by stating that these realtionships are there and also by handpicking which 'objects' are used and which are not.

I am not completely convinced that these Cydonian(others also) features are natural, but Hoagland makes so many outrageous and unfounded claims that serious research has been hindered.

Here's a link to a site that, IMO gives a more scientific approach to 'artificiality on Mars'. He is a believer of artificiality, who often has to spend time 'debunking' hoagland. I recommend checking it out.

mactonnies.com...

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 09:53 AM
Those who believe that the 'face on Mars' is an artifical object that should be investigated asap, ask yourself this: do you also think that we should investigate the much larger face commonly known as the Man in the Moon?

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 01:02 PM
Thanks for another link Rren...I'll look at that. :-)

my head mathematically, although I can see what
he's saying....

I'm more in the psychological / visionary / connections area
myself...it's not all mathematics !

It may all be random coincidence but I can't quite
discount the hoag/torun model because of the story
it fits into. The face looks like a face and more than just
a face you'd see in a tree or something...it has a different
quality to it than that (do look at it reader....and the others!:

(note: key in the id number to your search engine. You may have
to leave out any dashes or minus signs)

A recent 'merged' overveiw of the entire site:
keithlaney.com...

Cydonia:
E0901780 - edge of face
M1600184 - partial face, eye close-up
E1003730 - partial close-up, west face
E1501347 - " , east face
E0401179 - "
e0300824 - a supreme view of the face, above, straight on
E1701041 - " , slightly different angle
SP122003 - oblique angle, west face
20020413_662-930_788-1011_930-1103 - face IR, laney?
20020413a - THEMIS face, d&m
20021009a - THEMIS cliff
I01361003 - cliff, straight features in s. image
M18-00606d - cliff close-up
20021009a - the cliff
cliff - wierd
cliff_2
cliff_3
e_face
20021031A - " face, fort, d&m day/night IR
I01024002 - face, city, d&m, 'square'
I01723003 - "
20020724A - face to square
20030321a - crater hit trails ?
compositestrip1web - face, d&m IR colour
E0500156 - city close-up of central 'square'
E0101908 - city - harbour
E1401223 - "
m2200378 - " and hexagonal feature close-up
SP123903 - "
e0201847 - city pyramid, good view of smaller pyramid on big one
M0204227 - "
SP125803 - "
E1100032 - pyramid like structure
E1300640 - unusual geology
E1400281 - "
E1400508 - "
M0300766 - tholus
m0304566 - unusual mountain object
m0401903 - fort, "
m0905394 - "
E1700450 - "
M1900850 - unusual mountains
V01024003 - face, d&m
V01723004 - just s. of face

Still with me ?

Natural formations ? Come on.

A guy called carl Munck has done a similiar exercise with
ancient sites on earth finding evidence of ancient highly advanced
sciences at work.

There's a mathematical investigation of why the relationships can't
be coincidence in the Jinks book (see prev post above). I'll try and
post it.

All I can say is if you can ignore the debunkers and make that intuitive
leap I think you'll be pleasently surprised. You see I think we've reached
rules. It IS a leap of faith I'm afraid...NOT SCIENTIFIC ! But that is one
way out of the intellectual cage that we have built for ourselves.
LEAP OUT. BE A NUT. GO MAD ! IT'S WORTH IT !

Normal programming will NOT be resumed, EVER :->

barney

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 02:04 PM
You got to give those Martians credit. Not only is it art, it’s art within art.

Here is an excerpt from the Etemenaki website:

The process of this particular discovery began in the spring of 2001 when NASA released a new picture of the 'Face on Mars' taken by Mars Global Surveyor. The first reaction, for the most part, was one of disappointment – the image of the 'Face', the clearest one to date, showed a rock formation only slightly resembling a hominid head. After reading Richard Hoagland's analysis on the image, however, I was compelled to agree with his view that the monument is half-man and half-lion. I found this exciting, and decided to show the mirrored images to my brother, expecting him to see the same depictions. Instead, he saw something quite different.

Let me quote from my second book (a work in progress):

[E]ven to him the lion head was clearly visible. But when I showed him the mirrored hominid face, his response was certainly not what I had expected. To him, it was a depiction of, not a head, but a human torso. "You see what?" I reacted with puzzlement. "It is a body," he repeated, "of a human with arms, and it's missing its head and legs." In confusion, I took another look at the image – and indeed, there it was, a human torso. It was rendered with apparent nipples, a navel, and hands clasped at the genital area. What caught my attention next were the seemingly accentuated breasts and the swollen belly. I inevitably wondered: "Is this a depiction of a pregnant woman?"

Then it hit me. This was the body of Virgo, the Virgin, and it was pregnant with Horus-Jesus! Indeed, just as is the torso image, Virgo traditionally "is a headless constellation, the stars marking the head being very faint."[13] [...]

In other words, the 'Face on Mars' produces a lion head and the pregnant body of Virgo - i.e. the mirror image of the Sphinx, which traditionally has Virgo's head and Leo's body! (It must also be recalled that the cosine of the Giza latitude equals the tangent of the Cydonia structures' latitude – both equaling e/pi.)

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 08:44 AM
This weekens the European Space Agencies Mars Orbiter is unfurling its Radar antenna. Phase one was sucessful and the first half of the antenna deployed properly. It will finish this Sunday. Then we will be able to peer about 3 miles under the surface of Mars and get a closer look. They will map the entire sub subsurface of the planet. I am certain that this new forthcomming Data will finaly put to rest the silly science being used to promote the 'face on Mars' nonsence. Folks... Its just a hill.

But then again I guess those who insist it is an alien artifact will deny the Data and keep thinking that the earth is flat as well.

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 07:08 PM
You have to hand it to Hoagland. Hes clever at what he does. He knows how to milk something to the end. Despite all the evidence against it , and there is tons of it now, hes still managing to convince people that there is something going on on Mars. Hes the master of suedo-science. He sees objects in pictures that are nothing more than over magnified compression artifacts. He sees "glass tubes" that are nothing more than sand dunes. He rotates,crops,stitches,superimposes,mirrors a picture then presents it as proof of intelligence. Heres an exhample of Hoagland logic: A dog has four legs. A cat has four legs therefore it must be a dog. The "evidence" says this.

1 Life on Mars now? no evidence (yet)
2 Life on Mars past? no evidence (yet)

posted on May, 7 2005 @ 08:21 PM
I have always thought that the face on MArs could actually be 3 pyramids ...

but thats just me ... i guess...

posted on May, 8 2005 @ 05:35 AM

Originally posted by Verbal_Hologram
i think the rovers should go to this area...
(...)

Well, even if the rovers could go there (they're not close to Cydonia, and they wouldn't travel that far), what do you think they'd see? Dunes...

Think about it: the rover is smaller than a small car. The face is kilometers large "structure". Unless the rover has some supercopter options that we don't know of, from the ground and close to it, all that would be seen is dunes... It's a helicopter or a plane that we would need to see it.

posted on May, 8 2005 @ 06:56 AM
As son as anybody says oh look theres a blah. The majority will see it. Same applies to the Mars face.

posted on May, 8 2005 @ 09:06 AM

Originally posted by The Block
Hes clever at what he does. He knows how to milk something to the end. Despite all the evidence against it , and there is tons of it now, hes still managing to convince people...
More likely it's just that this animal called human is dumber than amoeba as specie.
Also this Dubya's era dumbing down of US education system surely makes life easier for quacks and self proclaimed prophets.

posted on May, 9 2005 @ 12:02 PM

A plausible reconstruction of the Face, assuming deformation on the eastern side is due to sand deposition and wasting.From: www.mactonnies.com...

This is a good link to various "face" images

I say the jury is still out on artificiality.

[edit on 9-5-2005 by Rren]

posted on May, 12 2005 @ 05:24 PM
So have you looked at the images ?

See www.angelfire.com...
for a nearest to accurate as can be rendering of the
face in 3d VRML - spin it around !

barney

posted on May, 12 2005 @ 07:11 PM

Originally posted by djbarney
So have you looked at the images ?

See www.angelfire.com...
for a nearest to accurate as can be rendering of the
face in 3d VRML - spin it around !

barney

Yes I have looked at alot of images......Bye the way I never said they were natural formations(i'm not sure either way). I'm just not a fan of Hoagland, and IMO he makes it hard for any serious inspection. He seems to find artificiality everywhere he looks, makes many bogus claims, therefore(again IMHO) he makes it easy for mainstream science to reject the idea of artificiality on Mars.

posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 05:43 AM
Hey Guy's I just compiled a vid of my new find on Mars Cheers.

posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 10:25 AM

Hi, can you please give the original image name / number? I'd like to investigate it myself at hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...

Thanks.

posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 01:27 PM

Didn't you take a slice of an image, copy it, invert it, and then paste together with the original? I'm not sure how that makes it a face.

Also, you might want to correcty your video -- it says Mars is the Greek god. Mars is the Roman name -- it is Ares for the Greeks

top topics

1