face on mars!!

Wow, this is like going back to the 90's. Can I have the economy from the 90's back too?

As far as proof goes, I don't think you could call that long-distance photo "proof" of anything.

The more recent images give a better picture of what's actually there at the "face" and it really has no appearance of being man-made.

IMHO There are much more interesting features on Mars, and those that would indicate intelligent design.

Agreed! I find the skull like thing on mars waaaaay more interesting as well as many other things I have seen on various Mars posts.

So. There were a couple of pictures on here trying to prove that this thing was not what it actually looked like; a face carved into a mountain.
One was blurry and depixilated like a close-up on a cheap version of Google Earth, and the other (taken as recently as 2006 was cool) was so fake looking and cartoony colorful it made me question even further the credibility of the officials who released it in the first place.

That face in canada was pretty cool, but I have seen pictures of natural faces in rocks that were even more spooky than that (can't find them now though.) sorry.

I also agree that there are more intriguing things on mars than this face. Like those glass tubes. What the hell are they.

My point is, If this face is really what it apears to be, it deserves, at the very least, a few more pictures; close ups, straight out of the camera accounting for however many years of errosion.

And those little rovers did seem to be wasted with so many decent question areas to chose from.

the mind deliberatly tries to see patterns in thing which dont have a pattern, just cause it looks like a face dosent mean it is one or was put there on purpose

How many times have you seen clouds form a shape for a short time..? It's just a random landscape with shadows that happens to look like something...

Please don't let this spark of an elephant cloud thread

Those photos do look like cheap renders. I have some experience in animation, and i could easily produce something like that. even the bmps are stretched. I hope those are just representations of the actual images, because theres no believing them at face value. They even have the empty black void in the background.

...confusing, do they actually get images from mars or just terrain maps to put images onto?

Originally posted by president
Like I said, "It looks like a face."

And that is your proof?

Does it mean that if I say "it's just a mesa" then that means that it's not a face?

Why should other people have to prove that it's not a face and you do not have to prove anything?

Seriously, one thing I find funny in this "face on Mars" story is that many, many people accuse NASA of altering the photos (and that accusation already appeared on this thread), but they use as "evidence" for the face a photo that was released by NASA after some treatment.

This is how the original image looks, it's available on-line (and has been for several years) for anyone that wants to download it.

Photo f035a72
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/feb8769f41f4b9b3.gif[/atsimg]

After being processed it looks much better.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/26fdfbf9cdb5c8bb.gif[/atsimg]

But there are more photos (if my counting is correct, 12 from Mars Global Surveyor, 14 from THEMIS, 3 from the context camera and 1 from HiRISE, both on-board Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. I haven't counted the ones from Mars Express), this one being taken just one month (36 days) latter.

Photo f070a13
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/833d40108432604e.gif[/atsimg]

And the most recent photo is the one from HiRISE.

Photo PSP_003234_2210
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/3f97db7a27c35b63.png[/atsimg]
Do you see that small bright spot on the top left corner of the face? This is how it looks in the full resolution image, at 30 cm per pixel. Funny how people ignore the existence of this 2007 photo.

Photo PSP_003234_2210
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/90176108841ca433.png[/atsimg]

As you said (in other words), 4 out of 10 times, even if it looks like a face, it is probably not a face.

reply to post by fill0000


Those images are not real photos from Mars Express.

They take the photos from the vertical, but use the stereo cameras data to create a 3D computer model, over which they "paint" the real photo.

reply to post by normal_human_being


What picture are you talking about, the one that we can see on the page or the full-size one that we can see after clicking on the image from that page?

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by fill0000

 

Those images are not real photos from Mars Express.

They take the photos from the vertical, but use the stereo cameras data to create a 3D computer model, over which they "paint" the real photo.

I'm totally aware its not a real photo, but we must presume the model is also accurate too what it would look like from birds perspective.

If you can't trust satelite imaging then ...really...we wont know until we can see the thing for ourselfs. I think you could keep calling 'proove it' for every image we can find on the face, since we only get shown what they want us too see anyway.

I will give the benefit of the doubt that this is nothing more than an illusion, but everyones entitled too their own beliefs ofc =]

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by president
Like I said, "It looks like a face."

---Why should other people have to prove that it's not a face and you do not have to prove anything?

I just said, the proof is the picture. It is a picture of a face. Even the very original that you have posted on this site looks like a face.

and I ask the same question though.
This is such an important find, why is there not more solid proof from nasa either way.
I think that with the one in what ever number you choose chance that this is something real, then it warrents a more thorough investigation.
Exactly why have they not done more to answer the question of, "what is it."

---Funny how people ignore the existence of this 2007 photo.

O.K. I like that. A couple of new pictures with new equipment may not be a super thorough investigation, but at least it shows they are trying.


---As you said (in other words), 4 out of 10 times, even if it looks like a face, it is probably not a face.

hell, I will go better than that for you. I will say that 8 out of 10 times that just because it looks like a face dosen't mean it is a face. But, that leaves me with a 2 chances out of ten that a thing is actually what it looks like.

Should we just deny the posibility of a life changing discovery and blow it off as just a regular mountain, or should we research it more.

(bbcode)

[edit on Thu Jul 9 2009 by Jbird]

I'll tell you what. I will just go ahead and concede.
"That is not a face carved into a mountain."



Actually I will go even further than that and say, "There is no life on mars, there never was, and there never will be."

Originally posted by president
I'll tell you what. I will just go ahead and concede.
"That is not a face carved into a mountain."

Actually I will go even further than that and say, "There is no life on mars, there never was, and there never will be."

You're conceding a lot more than I would.

I don't believe it is a face, but I also think that it is possible that life (at least microbial -- if not more) existed on Mars at one time, and may still exist underground today.

reply to post by fill0000


I have seen so many people presenting those 3D images from ESA as true photos that now I always point to that whenever I see someone posting them.

Sorry for that.

The only problem I have with those images is that not being a real photo we cannot know for sure if there was any exaggeration of height in the making of the image (they do it some times to better show differences in height), and that could change some things on the images.

reply to post by president

I think that the first two photos look like a face, but after the first higher resolution photos from Mars Global Surveyor it became noticeable that there are no traces of artificiality in that area, all things look natural geological features.

when nasa started posting images from the hirise mars satallite,i used their zoom viewer to look at some of the first images they posted,i saw in one image in the left corner what looked like a profile of a face,i thought it was a coincidence,but i zoomed all the way behind what would have been the eye in profile,what i saw floored me,it was a face,but a perfect example with 2 eyes ,a nose and mouth,their was no question in my mind,i was zoomed pretty close and it was a direct overhead look,i wish i would have had a video of it taken on my computer screen,because you couldnt save the image,i didnt think about it,but the very next day they cropped that part of the image off.leaving a smaller version of the original picture without the face or profile in front of it,i probably zoomed the image about 15 times,because i couldnt believe what i was seeing,maybe they had some software that picked up what i was doing and removed it.,i know what i saw,i just call nasa the big lie,oh, by the next week they removed the whole image from their website.

reply to post by radtech34


I have never seen any image disappear from the HiRISE site, and I have seen them all (although not all in detail, there are more than 10,000 images).

Some of the first images in TIFF format were replaced by images in JPEG2000 format, but they are all there.

I suppose you do not have the image name, with that it would be easy to look for your missing image.

That first enlarged photo by Electrickoolaidzombie definitely looks retouched to me. Some of the face looks hi-resolution and some looks blurred.

Now here's a great series of videos put out by Richard Hoagland's associates. It shows how NASA intentionally hides and blurrs photos.

www.fourwinds10.com...

[edit on 10-7-2009 by Sargoth]

reply to post by Sargoth


I have never seen any real sign of artificial blurring on NASA science photos, and if they did then nobody would notice, why do some people think that NASA would use unprofessional photo technicians to hide important information?

Well just look at the photo, if you can't see the blurring than get some new glasses. They do it to hide the truth. Watch the videos of my post and see.
Then tell me NASA tells us everything.