I notice that they very specifically DO NOT have any new images of the Cydonia region...

I could mention something about NASA not giving us the full information, but Im tired....

So when has *any* official agency given out *all* of the pertinent information? Just business as usual...

A website (wish I had bookmarked it, this was long ago) dealing with the possible disinformation from NASA regarding the Cydonia region on Mars (thats the Face and other assorted structures photographed in the 70s and downplayed by NASA ever since).

Nasa always claimed that the "face" was an artifact created by various wind erosion patterns. Now, as a geologist, I will admit that there are some very interesting wind erosion patterns to be found in nature, but NOT something like that.

This website considered the fact that the average desktop PC has more than enough computing power nowadays to fully process these images and enhance whatever may be there. However, the main problem was that the images currently available in books and on the net had been converted from the original data to a much smaller format, in order to fit these methods of distribution. During the reformatting, it was estimated that about 50-75% of the *data* contained in the original images was lost... Therefore, the author embarked on an attempt to find the original images on tape from NASA.

Surprise, surprise, NASA said they no longer existed... they had been purged during *housecleaning* to make room for additional materials.....

I've seen the best resolution pictures of Cydonia they have, the face is a plataeu (only to an ignorant bafoon who's never taken a map class would think the topography could be anything less than a few volcanic mounds on a now flattened cauldron or an interesting wind formation).

The thing I marvelled at was the 5-sided pyramid. Unlike the face, which now looks completely natural, the 5-sided pyramid looks even MORE artificial than before.

Only because Mars idiots think that the 5-sided pyramid is angled towards the "face" which is nothing and so they are wrong, that is why their math screws up the beauty of the pyramid there.

If you map the pyramid as it is, oriented north, it is a marvelous structure. Me and a few friends mapped it out ignoring the face and if I had a scanner, and could find it I'd show you

Also it seems that the pyramid must have been cased by something solid, like solid steel. Because one wall looks collapsed, and erroded, the others just look covered in sand.

And on the side that looks corroded you can clearly see the relief in the sand with the base adjacent, that mirrors that side. It's amazing.

And there clearly is a cave opening facing exactly east. And if this was an engineered structure, the entry hall would be the grandest we've ever seen, for it would be a mile wide abouts.

I've seen the best resolution pictures of Cydonia they have, the face is a plataeu (only to an ignorant bafoon who's never taken a map class would think the topography could be anything less than a few volcanic mounds on a now flattened cauldron or an interesting wind formation). Posted by Hammerite

First of all, I spent a year and a half MAKING topographic maps...

The structure known as a Face at Cydonia is entirely too regular and symetrical to be caused by any known natural phenomena.

The 1990s data from NASA was intentionally spoofed to remove public speculation on the true presence of other articles at Cydonia. Russian scientists have proven, using the original 1970s data, that there is TOO much detail, including visible teeth, eyelids, and iris on the eyes.

Try again hammerite...

LoL you're telling me, with a major in geology and chemistry. That I have no clue what I'm talking about?

You may have been around a lot of "guns" but I think you've smelt too much sulfur in your day.

There's a mountain near where I live, called Mount Rose, now it had to be man made, because from anywhere in Reno, it looks so much like a lady lying on her back, with her hands folded across her chest. I'm not kidding she's got a mouth and eyes and everything. Beautiful. Breasts too...it's really something.

Now also in Reno, is a little hill called "Rattlesnake Hill", it is nearly a perfect dome, now that can't be natural, it's to semetrical and circular. Well it's because it's from old lava flows. When the valley reno was in used to be filled with volcanic ash.

Don't give me the bull$hit that the Martian face is too semetrical. Anyone who did contour work would know that nature has many tricks up her sleves.

Nice try air-head.

That's the most hillarious crap I've ever heard. A piss-poor image that has a resolution of what, 60 meters? Wasn't even that I don't think, is going to determine the fine features of a hill//mountain (what is it's height anyways?) that is over 1mile long.

The Russian source you claim is not a legitimate source, I suggest you get your Cydonia region maps back out, and start making your contours again. I do believe the shadows are at a good angle for you to figure out the heights, you'll see the heights between the features (which should be the same since after all it is symetrical) are actually quite different.

--It's hammer time--

PS. When it comes to geology about other planets, I know my stuff.

Hell, you are saying that a "thing" was taken with a resolution of such a poor quality, must be the thing it looks like.

And yet you get higher resolutions and you say "oh that's crap.

And there was a messed up picture, the one where the face looks like a sand box.

Yeah, it was messed up because of the high angle of the sun when the picture was taken, no shadows, no relief. But then you should know that right?

God I told you flat out why your retarded statement was wrong.

Go get your little map, and mark the contours.

What is semetrical from the sky is not so from any level view.

You come off quite as trying to be the "everyman" which is very supiscious of someone who so elloquently says "college sucks".

Yes I suppose a kid in the ozarks would just grow up to be a great observer of all things God has created. And because a Soviet, using a horrid resolute photograph says that it MUST be designed by intelligence, you just have to believe it.

Go now, scurry along little kid, and make your contours. You'll see what I'm talking about.

First off, since I am the "little kid" here are a few pertinent facts you might be interested in....

BS Geology, emphasis on petroleum geology, minor in anthropology

Experience in petroleum geology, seismic reflection surveys, geotechnical studies, geological resource exploration and management, landfill design studies (hey, you do what you have to during the lean years!) and environmental geology.

As far as the contour mapping goes, the Soviet Academy of Science did a very detailed study of the *face* in 1983... They found the face to be 1500 meters in length, and based on a 20 degree sunlight angle, to be in excess of 550 meters in height. They did complete a very detailed contour map of the face, which showed that it was in fact something too complex to be naturally formed. Of course, this is also where they found the nice little details that NASA is so ready to ignore, such as teeth, eyelids and pupils.

By the way, I did not say college sucks, however, I am certainly of the opinion that college does not adequately prepare students to enter the actual work environment in the real world, especially in the field of geology. I am assuming that your continued slights are based on a nervousness that I may be telling you a very unpleasant truth... Well, you will find out yourself...

Wait, unpleasant truth? You say you're experienced? Then you should KNOW that you can determine heights from shadows. Why haven't you done this? I'm telling you the "face" is irregular, it is like a 2 dimensional face portrait ok?

Only when you make it 3 dimensional, it is quite irregular. You have one "eyebrow" too high the other is lower in elevation you have no consistency with the actual surface.

Just because it looks like a face, doesn't mean it is semetrical in any way, just means it is a damn coincidental fluke of nature.

Besides I gave you a high resolution photo of the face on mars, what more do you need to see that the Viking photos are not that "accurate".

If you want to believe a giant conspiracy is going on, then why didn't they smuge out the pyramid? Because after all the pyramid on mars looks more intelligently designed then the face ever did.

Geometry is all intelligent being's strong point, not portraits.

Humans never built a giant face to the heavens, yet everything in Cydonia "supposedly" matches stuff "humans" have done. The pyramids, buildings.

Except of course this face-like mountain.

You know though, you should ask yourself, how does something get 5 sides in nature?

Odd there's not a single speck of information regarding the Soviet Acadamey of Science's study of the Face on Mars, ever. Nor any such project in the year 1983, in '88 the Soviets did launch Phobos 2 but it didn't map anything on Mars.

In 1983 the most that happend is a scientist (not soviet) posutlated that the Face was maybe made by an intelligent species. This was using the out of date and poor resolution Viking photos.

Perhaps you can give a source to this data from the soviets you speak?

You say you're experienced? Posted by Hammerite

Guess you didnt see my mini-resume in the previous post...

I already posted this, but one more time I guess...They found the face to be 1500 meters in length, and based on a 20 degree sunlight angle, to be in excess of 550 meters in height. Posted by DragonRider Yes, they found this through shadow analysis....

Besides I gave you a high resolution photo of the face on mars, what more do you need to see that the Viking photos are not that "accurate". Posted by Hammerite

In answer, I refer you to my previous post....NASA has admitted using a ìhigh passî filter during the imaging of Cydonia in 1998. This is another example of NASA flaunting a cover up i n the face of the public, simply because the general public doesnít know what to look for... If you ever talk to a Air Force Photographic Interpreter, ask him/her what a ìhigh passî filter is for... it is specifically for blocking detail. Posted by DragonRider

Now, I will admit this: it is very curious that NASA allowed these pictures to be publicly released in the first place in the 70s. I can only guess as to why this is, but I would speculate that it could have been released accidentally, they didnt have the appropriate image technology at the time to cover it up to a point where it would not be detected by slueths and therefore would be easier to attempt to explain it away, or, maybe someone at NASA had a conscience and wanted the world to know.

The 1998 imagery is strictly a coverup.

in '88 the Soviets did launch Phobos 2 but it didn't map anything on Mars. Posted by Hammerite

Absolutely correct. Why not? They never made it to Mars, although it DID image a large 2 km object in orbit around Phobos immediately before it went offline....

Because after all the pyramid on mars looks more intelligently designed then the face ever did. Posted by Hammerite

No arguement there. It would of course stand to reason that if an intelligent entity were present capable of constructing the "face", it would construct other similar facilities.... which I would contend is represented by the various pyramids on Cydonia...

how does something get 5 sides in nature? Posted by Hammerite

A geology major, and you post this??? *clucks tongue* Your lab TA should be kicked out! Ever looked at a complete quartz crystal? Hexagonal (5 sided) crystal habit.... and not the only mineral to do so....

Perhaps you can give a source to this data from the soviets you speak? Posted by Hammerite

OK, fair enough.
3 Dimensional Structural Analysis of Anomalous Features of Cydonia Region, Mars
by Vladamir Avinsky, Engineering Geologist, Soviet Academy of Science
Originally published 1983 in Na sushe i na more (On Land and at Sea)
Republished 1991 in A Study Guide to UFOs, Psychic, and Paranormal Phenomena in the USSR, compiled by Antonio Huneeus
Abelard Productions
ISBN:0-938294-84-9

Find me a five sided figure that is equiangular that is also naturally formed and I'll give you a sticker

I've never heard of such a feature. Either way man you still didn't give a source I want to read this "soviet" report but you haven't provided one.

Until then I can only feel you are remembering this incorrectly or hearing it from some "conspiracy theorist".

I don't see why because Nasa made a "boo-boo" in its '98 fly over that it has to be a "cover-up."

That's an assumption, in court, totally useless

*EDIT* Oh wait there it is Good very good, let me go read it now. --in case you don't notice I don't erase stuff, if someone saw what i had wrote, and but not what I edited they'd be confused-- anyways...off I go to find this stuff. I still am doubtful however, the face isn't "carved" nor constructed, it's a lump of dirt or a dome of rock

[Edited on 15-3-2003 by Hammerite]

Find me a five sided figure that is equiangular that is also naturally formed and I'll give you a sticker Posted by hammerite

Quartz crystals have hexagonal crystalline symmetry, with good crystals ending in hexagonal pyramids.

Any basic textbook on minerology will explain this phenomena to you in great detail, esp if you explore the chapters on crystalography... But then, thought you were a top notch geology major? Guess you havent gotten to mineralogy yet?

Either way man you still didn't give a source I want to read this "soviet" report but you haven't provided one. Posted by hammerite

Guess you missed the ISBN number, the author, editor, and publisher I listed???

Look man, Im not in the mood to fight tonight.. you already got one thread shut down... if you care to debate in an adult manner, I would love to... but Im not interested in the 'tude tonight...

No man, I mean large geologic structures. Like a mountain, just like the penta-pyramid on mars. I know crystals have such structures, but I'm not so sure that any large scale feature does. I've not seen one on earth anyways, maybe somewhere there is a mountain that is so geometrically defined but I can't recall, and I do doubt it. I would think I'd have remembered such a place and that it would recieve more attention.

Not even mars boasts such geometrically correct hills//mountains, except for that ONE pyramid.

Man you missed my edit, I told you I noticed your ISBN number and all that, I'll look it up. Also you'll see I wrote in my edit WHY I don't simply erase stuff. For one I don't like it, two someone who sees what I wrote incorrectly, will not notice it was changed if all I do is change it. Instead I just comment about what was wrong and that I acknowledge that.

Please read my *EDIT* you'll see, I noticed you gave a source.