NEW Find on the face on mars?

But...

Whilst it's true the furtherment of any theory regarding a previously inhabited Mars really isn't helped by this sort of 'proof' and its accompanying skewed logic, (for instance; how did the 'face's bulders' factor in millenia of harsh weather and meteoric bombardment?) I do, however, get the feeling that we're missing something.

InfinitePossibilities, you're of the opinion that there is something odd about that strangely symetrical mound. You may think I'm a hater, well, I'm not because if the truth be told, I keep looking at it too but can't quite figure out why. Something is (figuratively) staring us in the face (excuse the pun), but it's as ellusive as that word that's always getting stuck on the tip of the tongue.

There's something wrong with the photo. I don't know what it is, and please forgive me for waffling on about a gut feeling, but it continues to bug me. If I was pushed for an opinion as to what the 'face' is, and it would be my opinion, based on said gut feeling, then I would, reluctantly, say it is a ruin, perhaps once having skyward pointing facial characteristics that have now collapsed inwards. Mars' strong winds have polished it smooth, it's been pummeled by rocks from space, but there's still a trace of symetry there.
If I was designing an ancient ruin for a short story (I'm a writer) that had been subject to otherwordly elements for God knows how long, it wouldn't look dissimilar to that. (There'd be spires taller than a skyscraper, and stairs far too big for humans, obviously, but that's just my imagination for you!)

I'm quite happy to be proven wrong on this, by the way, and more than open to various explanations of natural rock formations etc. And if I were proven to be a dreamer, then I'd be the first to apologise for my mistake. But in the meantime, I'm happy to be counted amongst those who question the unknown instead of ignoring it because it's an uncomfortable subject and doesn't fit into accepted paradigms.

Originally posted by Beamish

I'm quite happy to be proven wrong on this, by the way, and more than open to various explanations of natural rock formations etc. And if I were proven to be a dreamer, then I'd be the first to apologise for my mistake. But in the meantime, I'm happy to be counted amongst those who question the unknown instead of ignoring it because it's an uncomfortable subject and doesn't fit into accepted paradigms.

People project onto images their own ideas all the time. If those images are crafted within the framework of the subject (i.e., Martian landscape) and within the limits of what we know to be possible, then you can begin to exceed what we know as possible in your supposition.

This is really not so much an uncomfortable subject as it is one with so little supporting information on which to start that process of "it could be" or "its sort of like this here, except..." I'm sure that's what you meant by paradigms, although the concept of paradigm to me means including a larger realm of thought. With specific regards to the "face", please remember how many people truly, truly believed in the man in the moon. I am not discounting your belief, because I would love to see Martian fact be fleshed out here. Still and all, this idea, and others, needs more data on which to base guess work even - let alone come to a conclusion.

People can throw mud at a wall until it resembles a painting of the Mona Lisa, but it will still be a pile of mud in the end. As for the ideas about Mars right now, without proof, that's what we're looking at.

originally quoted by neutron25

People project onto images their own ideas all the time. If those images are crafted within the framework of the subject (i.e., Martian landscape) and within the limits of what we know to be possible, then you can begin to exceed what we know as possible in your supposition.

This is really not so much an uncomfortable subject as it is one with so little supporting information on which to start that process of "it could be" or "its sort of like this here, except..." I'm sure that's what you meant by paradigms, although the concept of paradigm to me means including a larger realm of thought. With specific regards to the "face", please remember how many people truly, truly believed in the man in the moon. I am not discounting your belief, because I would love to see Martian fact be fleshed out here. Still and all, this idea, and others, needs more data on which to base guess work even - let alone come to a conclusion.

People can throw mud at a wall until it resembles a painting of the Mona Lisa, but it will still be a pile of mud in the end. As for the ideas about Mars right now, without proof, that's what we're looking at.

And I agree totally and completely...but are you sure that I'm just projecting images? I'm not aware of doing it, and whilst the possibility of life having existed on Mars is a possibility until disproven, I'm not desperate for it to be found.

When Hoagland bandied the 'face' shots all over the media, I found the whole circus that blew up around it uncomfortable. Presenting tenuous evidence never confirms a theory, but he went ahead with it anyway, and for a noble reason; he believes. And we can't fault him for standing up for what he considers true.
But I'm sure the sense of deflation and dissapointment, not to mention the snide comments aimed at him when the latest, High res NASA shots were released, were as awkward for him to read as they were for us to endure. He had shot himself in the foot by relying on blurred images, and now there, for all the world to see, was a gloriously sharp pile of rubble. No sphinx like face. Just a weathered mountian.
I'd never gone along with his theory in the first place, but then I looked again...

I have no supporting evidence for my opinion, which by definition is a personal view or appraisal. All I've done is the same as Hoagland, to follow a gut feeling, instinct, hunch - call it what you will.
While considering myself a rational person who would prefer solid evidence every single time, I'm willing to allow every possibility, no matter how outlandish, some room in my thoughts. That simple attitude stimulates me, gets my creative juices flowing, and opens up whole new viewpoints. It may never change accepted intelectual disciplines, but I would advocate irrationality and wonder as great stimulants for the thought process. Where would we be without having a sense of adventurous curiousity? After all, that's why we're all here, on these boards, isn't it?
(By the way, this does not in any way advocate the use of wild claims and reckless assumptions, that's for the delightful troll element. Long may they grind away at their restraints.)

As I've said before; if I'm proven wrong I will be the first to throw my hands up in surrender. Until that time, I still get the feeling we're looking at an incerdibly ancient building that has been hammered by time.

And that, after all, is just my opinion.

[edit on 6-6-2007 by Beamish]

I believe the name they gave "The Face of Mars" suits it, because it looks like a face. The same reason behind the name we gave table mountain. If you think it may have something to do with Mars' past, then maybe we can also use the rock formations here on Earth to tell something about OUR past

Below is a pic of an old rock here on Earth



Hmmm... maybe this can tell us how we got here!



Okay, seriously. The only thing usefull about that "face" is the fact that is makes a super land-mark. Nothing more.