face on mars!!

reply to post by Sargoth


Let's clear something first, OK?

Are you talking about this image or about this image?

PS: the closest to the original image is available here.

reply to post by ArMaP


Joe, you are way too good at this thing.

That mound really does look a little out of place. A mile square? That big ass, out of place rock, in Australia and and the pyramids put together are not as wierd as that mound. Even if it's not carved into a face.

I guess that mound could have been carved into a face with just a few melinnea of severe storm erosion. Maybe It got hit by a big ass meteor when it's neighbor planet blew.

I guess we will never know with no more space fleet.
Just a coincedence I'm sure.

Originally posted by president
Joe, you are way too good at this thing.

I don't know if am too good at this thing (and is this "thing"?), but I know that I am not a Joe. )

That mound really does look a little out of place.

Not really, did you saw the other mesas near it?

This one is 22 km to the east of the "face"
(Photo PSP_009497_2210 from HiRISE)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/d910b02c08a06cc4.gif[/atsimg]

And this one, 24 km to the northeast of the "face".
(Photo PSP_010143_2215 from HiRISE)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/7549b768cb9e2ed9.gif[/atsimg]
The face is not that much out of place, don't you think?

Just a coincedence I'm sure.

You should never underestimate coincidences, they really exist.

Both look blurred to me. Did you look at the video series of the moon ArmaP?


Here's some interesting info. on Mars face.

thehiddenrecords.com...



[edit on 14-7-2009 by Sargoth]

reply to post by Sargoth


OK, with that doubt cleared out, I see what you mean, but I have never seen a satellite image that was pin sharp, I don't see what could be hidden by the slight blur visible on the original image (all resized images look more blurred than the original).

But if that is your problem then what you say about the 2007 photo from HiRISE, with a resolution of 30 cm per pixel? At that resolution, everything that could be hidden by any blur on the images you were talking about would be visible.

And no, I did not watch the videos, videos are too time-consuming for me, if I was to spend one hour looking at those videos (that probably do not show anything new) that would mean 1/4 of my daily free time.

reply to post by ArMaP

You should never underestimate coincidences, they really exist.

They sure do, probability distribution proves that one.



Reply to OP:

I think it is highly ambiguous to state "because it looks like a face it must be a face" is proof of a MASSIVE ancient Martian monument being covered up by NASA. While I personally think there was an ancient civilization on Mars, as well as current bases I can not prove it so I do not state it as fact, only a possibility. Those mounds and other anomalies on Mars might be the remnants of an ancient culture, in fact IMO the shae of the now weathered mounds appear consistent with that, well some of them anyways

I think you were trying to apply Occams Razor here erroneously. In this case because something looks like a monument of a humanoid face from poor quality images but is later shown to be not quite what thought by much, much higher quality pictures. So in light of that Occams Razor would indicate that these are natural formations since without the old resolution images this 'face' now appears to be nothing but a mundane mound. In this case what is more likely??

That NASA is covering up on a massive level the fact that a advanced race of Martians built a giant monument looking up at the sky

OR

The 'Cydonia Face' is was nothing but an illusion created by poor images?

Again I think that there is something going down on Mars, but I can not prove it yet and neither can you. I think you would find that these 'skeptics' would not be so 'attacking' if you presented this evidence differently than as scientific fact. But all this IMHO....

ArmaP, It only shows an alien craft the size of Las Angelas blurred out. This is why we have so many people who don't know what they are talking about. Just look at the first one, if you don't like it , skip the rest.

reply to post by Sargoth


Are you talking about the Clementine images?

ArMaP, look at the 1st video of this series. It's only 8 minutes long. You claim to never have seen blurring and don't know why NASA would do such a thing. Well here's your chance.


www.fourwinds10.com...

reply to post by Sargoth


I saw the first video, that was why I asked if you were talking about the Clementine images.

I don't research space stuff enough to know the names of images etc. What did you think of the video?

reply to post by Sargoth


OK, I have answered questions about those image so many times that I think all people have see them.

I made a post somewhere about that specific image, but it looks like most threads about the movie "Moon Rising" were deleted, and I think my post was on one of those.

I can tell you that those smudged areas are probably (I don't have any way of really knowing it) just the result of the wavelet compression algorithm used in the images that were used on the Clementine image browser when it could not find any image for that area.

And they do not need an expert to know the size of that area, the images available here and some free (although somewhat hard to install) software are enough to measure the size of that area, the IMG files have resolution information embedded in them and the software can read it, and it says that that area is some 40km wide.

Here you can see the real images and what that area looks like.

(click for full size)

From what I have seen from that movie, everything is like this, not really investigated and presented in a way to hide things that do not agree with what they want us to think.

PS: did you noticed that they talk about the expert, they show an image of what I suppose is his report, but the only thing they say is size that the expert thought that "feature" measured? Did they paid the expert only to know the size of it or is there something more on the movie about that?

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
heres a close up of the face

thats one cool photo ....... might not look like a face but it does look like a burial mound ......much like the type found all over scotland and ireland ......looks a lot like a weathered and somewhat larger version of the mound discussed in the meath county thread ...... newgrange , if i'm right ......
apod.nasa.gov...

[quoteReply to OP:


That NASA is covering up on a massive level the fact that a advanced race of Martians built a giant monument looking up at the sky

--Sorry, I don't have a whole lot of time to research these things, and I am not really focused enough to do a propper job at it if i tried. But "Cover-up on a massive level?" No way!
The find and the information are massive, but the cover-up is a piece of cake IMO?

Really, approximately how many people have access to the original unedited pictures of mars. (a handful of guys in some room in NASA hq?)

And how many companies or agencies or people have any sort of photographic or imaging devices on mars? (1=NASA)

summary- a handful of NASA guys selectively editing the only available pictures. EASY.

I agree with you President. A few guys at the top abusing their power. Christ isn't there enough evidence of people at the top abusing power. How anyone can believe in them, I'll never understand.

Wow I see they can get amazing pictures of Mars but they cant see the landing sites on the moon???

The only pictures we have on the landing sites look like it could be anything...

reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing


As was said several times before, the photos from the Apollo landing sites were taken from a higher orbit than the one that would be used during the mission.

When it reaches its intended orbit the photos will be closer to what we get from HiRISE.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


No way that is natural. Where exactally is it? Who investigated it and decided it was natural? It looks like a beautiful picture to me. you can even see that the person has their head resting on their hand. Nope I cannot believe that is a natural formation.

reply to post by Iseekthetruth!!!!!!!!

The image has the coordinates, you just have to use them.

But the image only looks like a head because it is shown isolated, seen in context it look less like a head an more like a natural feature.
(clilck for full size)

ArMaP
I see what you are saying, but to Me it still looks like something man made. Looks quite beautiful actually.