Face on Mars is just a Rocky Mountain [New High Resolution Pictures]

reply to post by Ophiuchus13


You asked why now? Simple the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter it was sent to mars to map the surface in hi resolution can see things as small as 1 meter. Why wasn't this done decades ago as you asked well it wasn't launched until 2005. And well hasn't flown over the area until now no mystery there. Now if you can prove the image is fake id be happy to talk about it. But the burden of proof is with you to prove NASA faked it until then its a high resolution picture of Sidonia region.

PS will be interested to see what you found to prove its faked. NASA has manipulated photos in the past but they will tell you when they do it. Even when they name the pictures will tell you its been edited. And if you see it in NASA brochures for example good likely hood they cleaned it up and edited the picture. After all NASA has to put on a good face just like any other government agency so we don't ask why were spending all that money.

Originally posted by Arken
Maybe or maybe not... that the Cydonia face is really a mountain but...a Holy Martian Mountain dedicate to "Alalu" the Hero.
And maybe or maybe not... that this is the real perspective of the face of Alalu the Outcast King.
Who knows.... if The Cydonia face is a holy portrait upon the mountain consumed by the Time or destroyed by the wars or photoshopped by NASA!. Who knows...

Arken.....

Thanks for posting that.....I've not read about that idea.

On the one hand.....

I do enjoy the imaginative "what if" scenarios that arise from such ideas.

On the other hand.....

I don't enjoy seeing Hoagland & his type stating such things as facts & nefariously leading gullible people astray & taking their money, whilst at the same time helping to make a laughing stock out of people who want to look at things more seriously.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Well with the new Adobe CS5 program it will make it harder for people to even tell when a photo has been edited. I dont know if you have seen what it does now, but it's a little crazy and makes it easier to make your own photo into whatever you want and you wont be able to tell..so these pics, well I dont believe them personally. I have my own thoughts on that area of Mars and they are out there but I have read enough to come to that conclusion.

reply to post by mblahnikluver


They're just increasing their market share. Assuming, rather obviously, that with purchasing CS5 one intends to doctor images - One would prefer said doctoring of images to as least apparent as obvious.

I say solid marketing strategy - And seeing as you've heard of this 'feature', I'd say the marketing has been successful as well.

Originally posted by Chance321

Nope, no evidence. But think about it, you have a "clear" picture that was in my opinion released by accident showing a clear image of a face. For years NASA's been hounded by people about that one photo, so now all of a sudden we get this new Hi Res photo disproving it. Why now?

Maybe because they've been getting hounded by people thinking it was a face, and finally had the capability to take a higher resolution picture to put the matter at rest?

Not that it will, of course. Stupid NASA.

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


Thanks for the link.
It was . . . interesting, still going over some of it.
My turn , what do you think? Is it a face? A moutain with shadows? Photo shop?

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Chance321]

Originally posted by misinformational
Proof that NASA fake's photos: blogs.discovermagazine.com...

I think you missed the point of Mr. Plait's article.

Other than that, even if NASA did fake that picture to be deceptive, it does not mean the picture at Cydonia is faked too.

Originally posted by Chance321
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

Thanks for the link.
It was . . . interesting, still going over some of it.

Chance321.....

You are very welcome!

Don't get lost in there!

Cheers
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by Chance321
Nope, no evidence. But think about it, you have a "clear" picture that was in my opinion released by accident showing a clear image of a face. For years NASA's been hounded by people about that one photo, so now all of a sudden we get this new Hi Res photo disproving it. Why now?

You are equivocating; no matter what NASA does, you will argue they are wrong. If they don't do what people are asking, their motives are questioned. NASA gives you what you want, their motives are questioned.

Originally posted by Chance321
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

Thanks for the link.
It was . . . interesting, still going over some of it.
My turn

, what do you think? Is it a face? A moutain with shadows? Photo shop?

Chance321.....

As much as I would truly be one of the happiest people on the planet if I could believe it was a face made by intelligent beings.....

.....I can't.

I think it's a natural feature.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
Chance321.....
As much as I would truly be one of the happiest people on the planet if I could believe it was a face made by intelligent beings.....
.....I can't.

I think it's a natural feature.
Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

I've got no problem with that. Hey, that's why were here, right? Everyone believes what they want and that's yours. It may very well be, I'm not close minded to it, but I don't think it is on a gut instinct level. Will we ever really know one way or the other? Seriously doubt it.

I don't think it's photoshoped and I'm not convinced 100% it's a face made by aliens, but why does everyone expect it to look like a smoth face that was made yesterday? Ever heard of erosion? Ever see all those craters all over the surface of Mars? Ever hear about dust storms that consume the entire planet for months? The idea that it doesn't look like the thing in mission to Mars (or whatever terrible movie that was) so it must just be a hill is just not very logical.

There are some seriously intersting things about the "face" like for instance that once we got better pictures you could see the outline of a football shaped eye compleate with a tear duct and even a iris right where it should be. How odd is that? seems like a pretty big coincidence that it looks like a face and then when we get better pictures we see details that we couldn't see before that fit in with the idea of it being a face.

If the thing was at one time a building of some sort then it would be full of rooms right? well look at the picture. I'm not convinced that that's what we are seeing, but it does appear to be made up of little cells just like you would expect and was predicted.

This picture doesn't prove or disprove anything... the only way to no for sure is to go there and check it out.

Originally posted by Lateralus51
reply to post by Chance321

 

why not believe nasa? in the picture its pretty clear that the only reason it looks anything like a face is because of shadows.

The only reason anything looks like anything is because of shadows. LOL That's why your face looks like it does... because of the shadows and how light falls on it. This argument is just so silly it's laughable.

Originally posted by Chance321
I've got no problem with that. Hey, that's why were here, right? Everyone believes what they want and that's yours. It may very well be, I'm not close minded to it, but I don't think it is on a gut instinct level. Will we ever really know one way or the other? Seriously doubt it.

Why are we still giving tax dollars to NASA if nobody believes they're doing anything? If all we get is lies, deception, and failure, why does it still exist as a program?

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


Wow, DoomsdayRex, I had some faith that we were on the track to an intelligent articulation of drawing conclusions based on non-empirical data, however off-topic it may have become.

Photographs, due to possible untraceable modifications, are not empirical data. Thus, no intelligible conclusion should be made from photographs and whatever editorial may accompany them - their source is of little consequence.

That being stated, review my more recent posts in this thread - I do enjoy satires.

Regards

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
2.The rocky hill doesnt match this hill in any way or in form.
www.youtube.com...

It does match; the HD photo is at a closer and at a different angle than the computer-generated video above.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
You are equivocating; no matter what NASA does, you will argue they are wrong. If they don't do what people are asking, their motives are questioned. NASA gives you what you want, their motives are questioned.

I wouldn't really say that. I just question, why after all these years, after all the missions to Mars, why now do they come out now.

This is definately the same area. Anyone can look up pictures and compare them. This is 100% the same area.

However it's not really new. This pic doesn't look any better than anything we've seen in the past.

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by Chance321

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by Chance321
reply to post by cllj7

 

Do they really think people are going to buy this?? A little photo shopping and call it High Resolution. With NASA's history of blurring photos that we've all seen here on ATS I don't buy this one either.

So just out of curiosity, may I ask if you think that feature on Mars is really a face that has been produced by intelligent beings?

I'll answer it this way. I don't believe we're the only intelligent life out here. So, yeah, why not? All it would take is a change in the Earths orbit and our world could be a waste land, who's to say that's not what "could've" happened to life on Mars?

Chance321.....

So to confirm.....

I'm not misrepresenting your position if I state that you believe the object on Mars is:

- Really a face

- Has been made by intelligent beings

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

I'm not really sure what your angle is with this line of questioning other than to "pigeonhole" chance321 into a corner. So, to confirm, is that what you're doing?

I think his answer was the right one. If life can exist in the universe, then we have already conceded that life exists. If life exists, then life might exist elsewhere. If life can exist elsewhere, then life can have existed on Mars.

My point is, once we have considered a possibility as being true, then we must consider other possibilities too. Right? I don't know about the photo as being true, or false, therefore I'm on the fence. However, in Richard Hoagland's defense (don't really care for the guy btw), He draws other valuable arguments regarding the geometry in the Cydonian region. Angles measuring 19.5 degrees.

This doesn't look at all like the same area. There is a large crater in the new picture. It isn't in any of the other images. I do not remember hearing of any large impacts on Mars in the recent past. I will look at it more, but I honestly don't think this is the same area.

Edit: The other things I just noticed. Look at the lower resolution images. They show lots of smaller fresh impacts. That area is almost peppered with them. Like it was hit with a shotgun. There is no evidence of any of those small impacts on the new one. In fact, it looks much more weathered. Like it is a much older impact area.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by webpirate]