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.

 

Did NASA Destroy The Face On Mars??

page: 6
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I think that the "face" looks the as it did back in 1976.

If instead of the more famous photo we use the other photo taken at the time, I think we can see the same type of marks on the "face" from the land slide or whatever it was that clearly changed the "face" at some point in time.


(This is image is a direct conversion from the IMG file, the white spots are transmission errors and the black spot is a reseau mark)

Between the above image (from 1976) and the following image (from 2008, resized to be more or less of the same size) there isn't that much of a difference, only the higher resolution of the newer image.


Also, if NASA destroyed any part of the "face", where are the debris? They should be some debris visible on the HiRISE image, and that side of the "face" does not look any different from the surrounding area, with no visible debris or any marks of an explosion large enough to destroy part of a hill.

PS: for those interested in comparing the available images of the "face", here is a list of all I could find.

Viking 1
035A72 - 1976
070A13 - 1976

Mars Global Surveyor
SP122003 - 1998
M1600184 - 2000
E0300824 - 2001
E0401179 - 2001
E1003730 - 2001
E1701041 - 2002
E1501347 - 2002
E2001532 - 2002
R0700989 - 2003
R1201738 - 2003
S0601061 - 2005
S1501533 - 2006

THEMIS
I01024002 - 2002 - IR
I01723003 - 2002 - IR
V01024003 - 2002
20020724A - 2002
20021031A - 2002
I05081018 - 2003- IR
I08776010 - 2003- IR
V10598012 - 2004
V12445004 - 2004
I10286009 - 2004 - IR
I10598011 - 2004 - IR
I18273010 - 2006 - IR
I28269018 - 2008 - IR
I29130012 - 2008 - IR

CTX
P06_003234_2212_XN_41N009W - 2007
P19_008429_2226_XN_42N009W - 2008
P22_009642_2216_XN_41N009W - 2008

HiRISE
PSP_003234_2210_RED - 2007

All can be seen from this site, just use the photo ID on the search box.




posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


While I am not sure if NASA destroyed the face on Mars, this is an interesting speculation. I am a firm believer in multiple bases on Mars so I don't see the point in destroying it from a NASA probe. But none the less it is an excellent speculation my friend and is definitely needed as a 'variable' in this very large conspiracy.


[edit on 5/31/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Haunebu

Originally posted by Melyanna Tengwesta
The 'Face' on Mars indeed looks somewhat like a face.

In my opinion there is nothing changed about the face c.q mountan itself if you compare the 2 pictures.

1. Difference is in the QUALITY of the 2 pictures

2. The old picture looks to be taken when the Sun was very low on the horizon. The new picturen looks to be taken when the Sun was high up.

3. So can it be that pic 1 is taken in a Mars morning and the pic 2 at a Mars noon?

Sometimes simple answers are overlooked


I have an interesting Video that answers that question.
Important Note: This video is from before NASA released the picture where there is nothing but rubble to see.



In case some missed it, I "bump" this post, as it contained a very good video, explaining the reasons for why the face "cannot" be natural.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Ok, I'll bite. I'm feeling a little humor coming on. I'm going to say that the black specks in the original OP post of the Viking lander face photo are Martians on a rally, or a jamboree, maybe a picnic on Face Day. Probably some kind of four wheelers.


I'd hate to think NASA was spending tax dollars on Martian civil engineering for deceptive purposes.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by Jim Scott]

[edit on 31-5-2009 by Jim Scott]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkSecret
 

Yep! I agree that's a possible explanation. But have a look at the false color IR image, one of the two taken by Phobos II of the area around the Mariner valley, and surrounding areas...



The image below is a continuation of the one above..


Courtesy:Anth-Martian

Notice the very long and clear trail behind the shadow? I wonder if there is an explanation for this? It obviously cannot be a shadow of the moon!

Cheers!



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightchild
In case some missed it, I "bump" this post, as it contained a very good video, explaining the reasons for why the face "cannot" be natural.

It does not explain why the "face" cannot be natural, it only shows the same data that has been known for years, and it even presents it in a way that makes it look like this was discovered by someone outside NASA, when it was NASA itself that published the photo.

In fact, saying that it cannot be natural is as close minded (or even more) than to say that it is impossible to have been created by intelligent begins.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Is the "trail" behind or in front of the shadow?

It looks more like a scan line on a TV screen than a trail.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Compare the two images. Note the right side which I've marked with a red arrow. The right edge of the face in the Viking image shows no break. However, in the later image taken by Mars Express, the right side is broken up.

Viking image:



Mars Express image:



Though the res of the Viking image is poor, the face still seems unbroken and smoother than the Mars Express image.

Here I've added blur to the Mars Express image to match somewhat the Viking image, though the attempt sucks!




There seems to be considerable degradation of the face on the right side.

Cheers!








[edit on 31-5-2009 by mikesingh]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Maybe the face itself wasnt actually physically destroyed per se. Rather it would be much easier to alter and manipulate the photo, if theyre gonna cover up something like this then I think they'd do something much simpler than to attempt to destroy something on another planet. If JL was here I'm sure he would say that its heavily airbrushed in earnest, lol.

[edit on 31/5/09 by Majorion]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


I think almost everything is there, the only thing I cannot see is the fault from the "mouth" to the "chin" on the Viking photo.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 

Maj, as I had mentioned earlier, there are half a dozen countries getting their Mars expeditions ready. So it wouldn't serve NASA's purpose airbrushing the images. They would need to tamper with the actual stuff on Mars to prevent them taking photographs of what's actually there.

But hey, this is all conjecture!
Mars may actually just be a dusty, barren, red planet with a red sky after all!


Cheers!



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by mikesingh
 

I think almost everything is there, the only thing I cannot see is the fault from the "mouth" to the "chin" on the Viking photo.

Good anim overlay!
Not only the fault from the 'mouth' to the 'chin' is not there, but also the right edge of the 'face' isn't broken in the Viking image. So there are two discrepancies thus far! There are more!

Cheers!



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I hate to shift the topic a little, but what about the pyramid or two nearby? - I never see people bring that up enough, there are many people who remain convinced of that. Any differences between Viking and the newer ones on that?

Regards,



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Good point about automatically assuming something is artificial is the same as assuming it is natural without proper evidence. They are both forms of ignorance. There must be a clear line of neutrality when dealing with this and other scientific phenomina.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 



Couldn't one assume that all the other agencies would be willing to partake in the cover-up themselves for the same reason as NASA though?



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


I noticed now that the fault from the "mouth" to the "chin" is more to the right on the Viking image, as the image is somewhat distorted I haven't aligned them as good as I thought, but I think all the faults are there on the Viking image, just almost unnoticeable, I will try to make them more visible.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taymour
POINT OF VIEW:





Taymour


Taymore you are being discussed at length in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com

You really should help these guys clear some things up. They're going crazy over there.

Now, as to your 'point of view'...I immediately thought of Goro Adachi when I saw you link those to images together.

He discusses the correlation here:

www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki

Do you agree with him? Is this what you are suggesting?

It's a very long read but I think everyone interested in the thread needs to read it. The man is amazing and brilliant in his theories.



[edit on 31-5-2009 by nunya13]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by mikesingh
 

Couldn't one assume that all the other agencies would be willing to partake in the cover-up themselves for the same reason as NASA though?


Or they could all be part of the same cover-up, working in cahoots with each other? After all, there are American greenbacks to be had if one falls in line!! Check out the crap that JAXA, ISRO and CNSA have dished out so far. The latest is ISRO. Over 400,000 images and they've shown just about half a dozen so far! Busy air brushing them, what? Jeeez!

But then again, they may not all be in it together. And they aren't controlled by the cabal as the American space program probably is!

Cheers!


[edit on 31-5-2009 by mikesingh]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


If you will check out Richard Hoagland's latest book, "Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA", he has done professional analysis of these pictures and contends that we're not talking about a 'physical destruction' of the face but more just tampering with the picture-anything from using low quality low resolution cameras to tampering with the photographs after development.

Another good book of his that deals with this is his "The Monuments of Mars: A City on the Edge of Forever" (5th Edition), but "Dark Mission" is a much easier read.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by c3hamby]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


I tend to think this conspiracy is global, it has to be for the size and scope of it you know? I always thought the face was either airbrushed or weather had gotten to it. I don't know, it kinda looks more like an implosion, rather than explosion doesn't it? If so maybe this could prove the face was indeed hollow and thus likely artificial. I don't know I am just throwing stuff out here for you.




top topics



 
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join