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.

 

ESA: no mars face!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
New ESA picts of mars face at cydonia.

Can you still see a face?

Link to ESA


Hope this has not been posted before.




posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Nice find. I can still see the face pretty clearly, and the skull. However, I have never really given much thought to either (the skull is new for me), because a "face" is the single-most suggestable image to the human mind. Really all you need two spots set slightly apart, with a line roughly parallel to the two spots and you have a face...

I'm surprised there aren't thousands of "faces" on mars, actually.


apc

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I see a face.

A Decepticon face.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Great photo's! I downloaded the 25mb tif file and the detail is amazing, even though the resolution is only 14 meters per pixel. I think the face and pyramids are totally natural, but the interesting thing is that every rock in the area around the face looks like it was submerged in water. They're islands!



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Great photos.......much better than the ones NASA had taken using the Mars Surveyer. Actually even those pics looked doctored compared to these ones. It wouldn't surprise me if NASA did doctor them somewhat...... their photos looked alot rougher than these.

Well, that should put Richard Hoagland to bed on this....... one wonders what he'll say now.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Great photo's! I downloaded the 25mb tif file and the detail is amazing, even though the resolution is only 14 meters per pixel. I think the face and pyramids are totally natural, but the interesting thing is that every rock in the area around the face looks like it was submerged in water. They're islands!


Funny you should say that the features in the Cydonia region look like islands. On very hires pics of the area, you can actually see very long continuous lines that look like the edges of benches. What the lines are, is the shoreline of the ancient coastline in the Acidalia Planitia area. They're the beach deposits along the coastline of the ancient sea. However, the geological features such as "the face" and the "pyramids" were all out of the water, unfortunately. They were basically coastal hills close to the sea. The beach deposits create bench like structures, with one deposit on top of another....... there had been several highstands and lowstands in the sea level in the area over time.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostITM
Great photos.......much better than the ones NASA had taken using the Mars Surveyor. Actually even those pics looked doctored compared to these ones. It wouldn't surprise me if NASA did doctor them somewhat...... their photos looked alot rougher than these.

No Way...Your kidding me...Are you saying that these pictures look clearer then the ones Nasa took with its spacecraft thats over a decade old! WOW, I would have never thought that.


Nasa didn't doctor any images, there pics looked "rougher" because they had less detail (per pixel) then this orbiter does.

Nasa will be taking some great pics soon...Its been a long wait, but there new craft: Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO), will begin its science portion of the mission in November.




Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Great photos! I downloaded the 25mb tif file and the detail is amazing, even though the resolution is only 14 meters per pixel.

LOL.
Well thats a waste of time and HDD space.
The detail in the 2 images are virtually identical...Your not going to see a better picture when you view the TIFF versus the Jpeg.
The reason that big companies and governments like the TIFF image format more is because its lossless. It can be copied over and over and centuries from now it will still look the same...there isn't any compression done to it.
While the JPEG image format is the choice of the very large majority of people in the world. It does compress the pictures...but it does it in away that very little (if any) of the picture is lost due to compression.
Example: If we had a robot on Mars that took a picture of a Mars Volcano erupting...That would be something that couldn't exactly be taken again...So you would want that picture in TIFF...So future generations can see the original picture...and not a degraded one.

As for us...the average person...There isn't any need to have TIFF's...Jpeg's are great quality, and take up a fraction of the hard drive space.
hope that cleared things up abit.


[edit on 21-9-2006 by Murcielago]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Now Way...Your kidding me...Are you saying that these pictures look clearer then the ones Nasa took with its spacecraft thats over a decade old! WOW, I would have never thought that.

Nasa didn't doctor any images, there pics looked "rougher" because they had less detail (per pixel) then this orbiter does.

Nasa will be taking some great pics soon...Its been a long wait, but there new craft: Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO), will begin its science portion of the mission in November.


Instead of being condescending and trying to make out like I don't know what I'm talking about, maybe you should do a little bit of research for yourself, before you go shooting off at the mouth (live upto your signature).

The Mars Global Surveyor's pictures were taken at far higher resolutions than the ESA's Mars Express........ 1.4 to 5 metres/pixel versus 13.7 metres/pixel. That's why I said what I did. The pics of the landform appeared doctored because they weren't nearly of the same quality as the others taken of the surface. They were grainy and distorted....too much pixelation. I've had quite a bit of experience looking at aerial photos and satellite imagery in my line of work as a geologist, dealing with image analysis and other aspects of remote sensing. I think I'd know what I was looking at.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   
GhostITM - I could list a few possibilities that explain why the pictures dont look as smooth as Mars Express' pics...But they would be just speculation.

Yeah...I guess it sounded a little harsh....But ya often need to talk like that around here, Where its common to run into people who think everything is a conspiracy (IE:moon hoax, Mars face/pyramids, etc.).



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   


Found some more pictures.

news.bbc.co.uk...




posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   
still looks enough like a face to be amusing, now that I've figured out what the hell the angle was.


Took me somehting like 2 minutes.

I feel very dingy.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
GhostITM - I could list a few possibilities that explain why the pictures dont look as smooth as Mars Express' pics...But they would be just speculation.

Yeah...I guess it sounded a little harsh....But ya often need to talk like that around here, Where its common to run into people who think everything is a conspiracy (IE:moon hoax, Mars face/pyramids, etc.).


I can think of a few too..... the main one being they just didn't feel like taking the time to make it look good, because it was the "face". Just run a quick average weighted filter over the piccie......that'll look Ok. Blur the hell out of the pic, or add too many spurious pixels.

I know what you mean about the conspiracy side of things......people take it too far. Same with the abduction phenomenon. You have to be careful about what you read.

I'd like to go there and take a spin over and around it in a buggy, just to have a good close up look.


[edit on 22-9-2006 by GhostITM]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 02:14 AM
link   
I want a top shot of it.

It could well still keep the same "face" shape from that view. If it does, there's still an issue.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   


Maybe this will help.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 02:27 AM
link   
that angle makes it absolutely impossible....
but it's still not dead on.
If the directly on top still gives off that orignal look, then there's going to be people going nuts over it.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 03:18 AM
link   







[edit on 22-9-2006 by Shar]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 03:51 AM
link   
anyway- that area just beyond the "face" is sooo flat and would seem like a great future landing zone.

this year i placed a bet that (at 35,000 to 1) that Sam Cassell would be the first person to go to mars.

let's get crackin!



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:11 AM
link   
wow those tiff files are just breathtaking!


Dunno if you an see the curly-Q looking thing thats offset left from center. If you have the Tiff file you will see it better since upload space is limited here.



That thing that is circled looks odd...if you have the tiff have a look at it



Pie



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by looofo
New ESA picts of mars face at cydonia.

Can you still see a face?

Link to ESA


Hope this has not been posted before.


They set a nuke off above the face as was witnessed by many astronomers. You can clearly see the blast pattern moving away on all sides from the center.

[edit on 22-9-2006 by Xeros]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
No Way...Your kidding me...Are you saying that these pictures look clearer then the ones Nasa took with its spacecraft thats over a decade old! WOW, I would have never thought that.


Nasa didn't doctor any images, there pics looked "rougher" because they had less detail (per pixel) then this orbiter does.
............

LOL.
Well thats a waste of time and HDD space.
The detail in the 2 images are virtually identical...Your not going to see a better picture when you view the TIFF versus the Jpeg.


Well you managed to be condescending to two different people in one post. And you were wrong on both counts. Nasa's MGS/MOC images of this area were taken at a resolution of 1.5 meters per pixel, versus these ESA images at 13.7 meters per pixel.

And believe it or not, some of us average people do understand what a JPEG is and can actually appreciate the difference between an original image and one that's suffered over 80% compression.

hope that cleared things up a bit.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join