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.

 

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

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


"we must submit..."


When was born I didn't know we had to submit to anything. I wasn't afraid, didn't know ridicule, humor or control. These where all taught to us.

Coming into the world we were all human beings. Growing up in it, we've become something else.

Whoever taught you you had to submit lied and left you a weakness. Who cares who says who is right or wrong. The point is you will never know the truth until you go to mars and see it yourself.




posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Here is the old black and white image:


Here is the black and white version from the website noted in the OP of the new image:


Where are all the peppered impact areas that are all over the area including on the face itself that are so prevalent in the earlier photo?

The only way it would have weathered that quickly is if there is water flowing on Mars or it was sand blasted. This is not the same area, or it is a very obviously manipulated photo.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by webpirate]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Cross8712
 


And just when I thought all hope was lost - You have my applause!
Second's are for suckers



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 


Look again. It's definately the same structure (or whatever you want to call it). Compare it to the older picture posted on the first page. For some reason the older picture posted has been rotated 180 degrees and the new picture is is zoomed in on only a portion of the "face" but if you compare the two you should be able to tell they are certainly the same feature. Like I said, the older picture is posted "upsidedown" though so that might be the source of some of the confusion.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 


The black dots in the original viking photo are not craters they are places where there is no data. Thus they show up black.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

Just read some of the analysis of the photos and the evidence of image tampering. NASA is not honest and tampers with images a great deal.

That sphynx like face certainly was put there by intelligent beings, even more so, this one is not wind, not weather, not a feak of nature either:

here



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
OK something REALLY ISN't right here! the article says this image was released today, but the "black and white version of the NEW photo" is the exact same picture I've had on my hard drive for years now. This is not a new photo at all.

Either mail online is retarded or NASA just re-released an old photo and called it a new one.






posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by fieryjaguarpaw
 


Interesting.

Universe Today has covered the same story, but has dated (or least given an approximation for) each re-released image here: www.universetoday.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


FlySolo.....


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 simply wanted to clarify chance123’s position so that I could understand & pay due respect to his opinion & also not misrepresent him in any of my replies.


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.


Whilst it is possible, the odds are against that in view of the available evidence.


My point is, once we have considered a possibility as being true, then we must consider other possibilities too. Right?


I must apologise.....I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that.

If you will clarify your point, I will see if I can respond.


I don't know about the photo as being true, or false, therefore I'm on the fence.


I think we’ll find the photo is “true”, as in it is an actual photo of the geographical feature that was once claimed to resemble a face.


However, in Richard Hoagland's defense


He doesn’t need our defence.....he’s doing very well for himself by selling his silliness.


don't really care for the guy btw


Neither do I.



He draws other valuable arguments regarding the geometry in the Cydonian region. Angles measuring 19.5 degrees.


If you look into Hoagland’s “geometrical claims” about Cyclonia, you will find it is all just silliness.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
OK something REALLY ISN't right here! the article says this image was released today, but the "black and white version of the NEW photo" is the exact same picture I've had on my hard drive for years now. This is not a new photo at all.

Either mail online is retarded or NASA just re-released an old photo and called it a new one.





Come to think of it, I remember a couple of years ago there was a "new" high res image that was debated by Richard Hoagland:


Like Obama's comment about wikileaks "this is old news"


HiRISE captured this image (in 2007) of an eroded mesa made famous by its similarity to a human face in a Viking Orbiter image with much lower spatial resolution and a different lighting geometry.



Source



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw

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


Fieryjaguarpaw.....

I think the many pictures as obtained during the past several years now show "for sure" there is nothing "artificial" there.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Sorry to use Hoagland's name but to play devil's advocate I think he has some very interesting topics. Only if he would shut up about them...

To clarify earlier about possibilities, If we are open to one possibility, then we must be open to others in lineage to that possibility. I can't explain it any better than that without using an analogy.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 


Webpirate.....


Where are all the peppered impact areas that are all over the area including on the face itself that are so prevalent in the earlier photo?


Those "peppered impact areas" are not "real" features. They are a product of the manner in which the image was obtained & reconstructed.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


FlySolo.....


Sorry to use Hoagland's name but to play devil's advocate I think he has some very interesting topics. Only if he would shut up about them...


You might be surprised how much time I have spent reading Hoagland’s material & background information about Hoagland himself.

Unfortunately, everything he has claimed has eventually turned out to have no substance at all. He also grossly exaggerates his background, his “achievements”, his “influence”, etc...

Additionally & as per my previous comments, if you listen carefully to Hoagland in latter times, you will find he is cleverly backing away from much of his earlier material.

He is a clever & entertaining speaker who manages to speak a lot, whilst actually saying extremely little.


To clarify earlier about possibilities, If we are open to one possibility, then we must be open to others in lineage to that possibility. I can't explain it any better than that without using an analogy.


I think I get your meaning here!


Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 


The second picture is just a lot closer....not that big of a mystery.



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   

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



To clarify earlier about possibilities, If we are open to one possibility, then we must be open to others in lineage to that possibility. I can't explain it any better than that without using an analogy.


I think I get your meaning here!


Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not


Cool, but do you agree?



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


FlySolo.....

You crack me up..... you're gonna make me work in this thread!


Alright.....

Examples!

Cheers mate
Maybe...maybe you



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by misinformational
reply to post by DoomsdayRex
 


Proof that NASA fake's photos: blogs.discovermagazine.com...


Oh, my!!!


Boy, oh boy. Wow....

Dear misinformational...

I am sorry if this has already been pointed out, for I just found this thead...but this one HAS to be mentioned again (if already) or definately now, if not already:

IT IS A JOKE!!!

Not sure how anyone could have missed that sarcasm, in Phil Plait's post --- it virtually dripped off the computer monitor!

Ah well....I hope you were joking too?? If not, then hope this helps comprehension....
~~~~~

OK, after a bit more reading, I see that goathief mentioned it, on page two.
for the thief of goats!!


ANYWAY....as to Cydonia? And the "face"?

Shadow, trick of light, paradolia, etc. No doubt about it...and NO, NASA doesn't try to "hide" pictures from Mars! That's just silly, and is claimed only by those truly desperate sorts who want to "believe@@"




[edit on 29 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
I'm having a really hard time looking at this photo in the proper perspective. Can anyone help me out? I'm seeing an EXTREME close up of a small area as if they took a photo of only a very small portion of the face. I'm sure that is not what is shown, but that is how my eyes are perceiving it.

Can anyone maybe whip up some outlines in Paint or Photoshop for me? I know how to do that stuff but given that I can't make out what I'm seeing, that would be pointless. I would GREATLY appreciate it!!!



posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not
 


Wondering about your saying Hoagland's claims of geometrics is "silly". I have seen the photos of Cydonia and the geometric overlay of the area. To me, it seemed legit. Using the center of the formations to the center of surrounding formations and so on; there is apparently obvious geometry.

I am not saying I'm right and you're wrong. By any means. I am asking if you could explain the flaws in what I saw. I don't have as critical a mind as I would like to have so it is possible that I was "taken in" by such a thing given he probably relies on people that can't analyze as necessary to believe his claims.

I hope this isn't comeing across as a "calling you out" response. I HONESTLY want to know if there is something I missed because it's something that pops up in my mind when I think about whether there REALLY is life out there. ( I do believe it, but I still wonder if I'm wrong sometimes
) I think, "well what about Cydonia? That certainly seems to indicate there is life out there".

Anyways...



edit: typo

[edit on 29-7-2010 by nunya13]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join