It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:38 AM
reply to post by jokei

I see that interpretation, and give you one better...

(Perhaps Edvard Munch was really a Martian??? The color of the sky seems suspicious....
) :

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:05 AM
reply to post by cllj7

Its ironic that your a member of ATS and yet you beleive and trust in images released by nasa and jpl.
They know there is something there and they are studying it and gathering data. Why else would they totally abandon the moon project and focus all this time and money on Mars. How much per day do you think it costs to have teams of people running the rovers and processing all the data the rovers and mro sends back, let alone the cost to send them their in the first place.

People are starving in the streets, jobless or even worse homeless, cant afford health cover or to live and here they are spending billions if not trillions eventually on a so called dead planet....

Its a joke and disgusting!

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:22 AM
Is this a joke? I don't see how that picture resembles the region of Cydonia at all !
NASA has no credibility and shoult shut up and stick to doing experiments with frogs on the ISS

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:22 AM
reply to post by Discotech

so then can you also prove that nasa is telling the truth?

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:30 AM
With today's technology, creating a seemingly real image showing nothing more than a rock is easy, and smudging is easier, take Google earth for instance where they blot out the people all the time. I think I'd rather believe the images from the 1970's than anything from today. It's hard to fake something that wasn't intentionally looked for in the first place such as with the earlier images.

So IMO the debate remains open and nothing has been proven, or should I say, disproven.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:32 AM
I hope that Zak McKracken reads this!

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:35 AM
how do we know that that pic is really of Cydonia? where's the proof??

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:36 AM
reply to post by Chance321

The frightening thing is that people believed it was a face at all.


Why would a massive structure on Mars have an APE-like human-like face if it were created by alien beings? Unless those aliens were also apes, in which case they originated on Earth and weren't aliens to begin with.

The fact that people will still believe its a face shows just how religiously people defend their biased opinions. The more evidence that proves the position wrong the more the believers deny said evidence and cling to their blind belief.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:40 AM
reply to post by cllj7

I believe in ET life, for all I know I walk past them everyday, however these things we see (or some people see) on other planets or the moon sometimes are really taken out of control and then somehow they get some story behind them, and it become a whole phenomenon.

It's basically just like how all the stories about religious figures happened... one person said one thing, and then the next few twisted it a bit and before you know it you have war all over because everyone believes in different stuff

We will see what we want in anything - a book, a wall, a cloud, the moon, the stars and planets etc etc...

Not saying there isn't truth to some things being said, but I will have to say this time I just want to say we should drop it because there is no way to prove/disprove NASA unless you work there and are the person collecting these photos, can prove who you are, and will come pick me up in a black SUV, fly me to a NASA base on a private jet and then take the pictures in real time in front of me, and I'll need 3 computer engineers to be with me checking to make sure the feed is real at all times.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:46 AM
Either way true or not....took long enough to look into it....I mean...where do these guys get their money? Us. So after all the curiosity and wonder regarding the face...why not look into it...? Its been like at least over a decade or two..we've had the tech to do this crap a loooong time ago.


posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:47 AM
Offcourse its just a mountain. Lights and shadows are like clouds. Thats why we even have the picture taken back then because it made people curious, not to mention interested in the work of NASA.

If anything i would rather believe it was a pr stunt from the beginning.

Ive seen clouds with extreme resemblanse to symbols and shapes, but offcourse its not God or aliens playing "skydrawing"

But it would be fantastic if the thing had been a large statue but so is the world of Tolkien too.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:49 AM
I don't buy this for one second. Also, OP! You need to provide the link to the space agencies website this came from......

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:57 AM

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
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.


doesn't NASA have a habit of changing the orientation of photos to guide the human mind in one direction or another. By re-orientating an image NASA can make you believe that down is up and vice versa, as well as making a previously obvious pattern seem to simply disappear.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:19 AM
ESA released a 3D image 4 YEARS AGO

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:21 AM

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by misinformational
Do you have evidence (a) that the photo hasn't been altered or (b) is of what NASA says it is?

Without evidence either way, there cannot be a conclusion.

That conclusion itself is far-off, itself a logical fallacy. The claim is being made that NASA is lying; being there is no evidence of that or even reason to doubt it, we must submit to the null hypothesis, that being that NASA is not lying.

in all fairness, i often use that argument to persuade people to believe me whenever i am lying.

i'm just saying...

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Chance321

Why would a massive structure on Mars have an APE-like human-like face if it were created by alien beings? Unless those aliens were also apes, in which case they originated on Earth and weren't aliens to begin with.

This has been discussed many times in science fact and science fiction over the years. I'm not suggesting that I agree with the following but these are some of the reasons I've read and seen over the years that address the face being apelike.

1. Convergent evolution. With similar obstacles to overcome evolution has been shown to often come up with the same solutions.

2. Panspermia. The idea that life is seeded throughout the universe by asteroids, comets and other small bodies which harbour bacteria that eventually evolve into what we see on Earth. If such a body entered the solar system it's not very much of a stretch to argue that material from it could land both on Mars and Earth, and given the same original source of life that both planets (remembering that Mars once had oceans and an atmosphere) could eventually be home to similarly evolved hominids.

3. A variant on Panspermia mentioned many times in New Scientist Magazine over the years where an impact on Mars caused some material to exceed escape velocity and eventually land on Earth, where either of the first two example processes shown above then take over. This idea over the years in that once respectable journal seemed to be the favoured way life began here on Earth. I even remember clearly one article a few years back in said publication claiming a 90% probability that the first lifeforms on Earth came from Mars. I remember it so well because it inspired some fiction that I wrote.

4. Deliberate Panspermia whereby some distant civilisation deliberately seeded the cosmos with life based on it's own DNA/RNA stucture and encoding that structure in a way as to prefer convergent solutions to life's similar problems.

5. Another outlandish theory is that Mars was inhabited by apes and humans before Earth. Later this civilisation forseeing it's doom relocated in part or as a whole to Earth. This could have been due to a whole host of reasons from war and collision, to environmental disater and the fact that Mars' mass is too low to keep an atmosphere over the very long term without replenishment.

6. Both the humanoids on Mars and Earth both came from somewhere else under their own steam with their own ships and technology.

7. The face may have to be apelike for us to recognise it as such. Therefore if any aliens wanted to get our attention when we had evolved enough to reach space why wouldn't they make a face like that of the infant species they discovered hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago while on a galactic cruise.

8. The explanation I most often see in sci-fi novels, the idea that this planet and possibly the whole solar system has seen human civilisation rise and fall more than once- perhaps many times. The following quote comes to mind "This has all happened before and this will all happen again."

That's just off the top of my head, there are many more reasons why if you stop to think about it. The face could simply be Mars version of the Nazca lines, or the equivalent of Arthur C Clarke's monolith. and of course we should never forget that it is mathematically highly probable that we live in a simulated universe and as such everything is possible.

All I know for sure is that the Universe is not stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by spookfish]

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:38 AM
The common theme to NASA -JPL's pictures of the anomaly on Mars- is that with each succeeding image the item looks less and less like the face. It reminds of the Brookings reports recommendations for disclosure in reverse. Slowly make sure that there is nothing there. I would sure like to believe that the face is indeed genuine.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:57 AM
reply to post by spookfish

1). Convergent evolution generally only works on planets that are similar. At no time in Mar's history has it been, to our knowledge, Earth-like. We get some convergent evolution on Earth, the wing evolved multiple times as did the eye, but those are responses to evolutionary pressures and environmental conditions. The animal that evolves an eye has an advantage over those who don't and once one species has them there is pressure for the others to also evolve some kind of sensory apparatus in order to survive.

2) Panspermia hasn't been proven, its merely one of a number of hypotheses. Even if the seeds of life that landed here also made it Mars the environment on Mars is different enough to create vastly different lifeforms. The odds for life on Mars to have evolved to be ape-like just like on Earth are likely small.

3) Okay, its a fun hypotheses. But again Mars seeding Earth doesn't guarantee or even suggest that life will evolve into something similar to us. Life evolving on Earth evolved to survive on Earth, something evolving on Mars would evolve to survive on that planet.

4) Speculative at best. I'll wait until we find some evidence, other than a hill that looks a bit like a face from one angle, to start buying into the ancient astronaut theory.

5) That is a wild idea, would make a great sequel to Planet of the Apes.

6) We've got a pretty good grasp on human evolution, the fossil evidence indicates our ape ancestors were, generally, less intelligent than we are now. Again I'd wait for evidence to believe this one.

7) If an advanced race wanted to get our attention they would have left a thousand faces... or how about landing on the White House lawn? If getting our attention was the purpose I can think of dozens of ways better than carving one hill that looks a bit like a face.

All I know for sure is that the Universe is not stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine.

Indeed, which is why we should wait for evidence to vindicate an idea before believing it. All ideas are worth being entertained but some are more likely than others given what we know about our own planet. One would think that after all the photos we've taken of the "face" the believers would have given up on it and started looking for new evidence. And if they're so concerned about cover-ups why doesn't every conspiracy theorist start pooling their money to build and send their own rover to Mars?

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:58 AM
reply to post by yeti101


Didn't you know there's a "conspiracy" involving NASA and JPL to manipulate all of the images, before being released to the public?!

Now, you go and blow it for them, showing that ESA video animation, and it blows the lid off the complicity of NASA and JPL to hide......oh, wait.

ESA, independently of NASA and JPL, show pretty much the same thing?? No "face"??

Hmmmm...only one explanation, then...They're ALL in on it!!

See how easy that was? The claims of "conspiracy" are on ATS, so they must be true...

[edit on 30 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:26 AM
Reply to post by Chance321

Ahhhh... Because we have the technology to take the picture now?

Sorry but nasa would not just have accidentally released a photo. I know its hard for you and many others to comprehend, but nasa employs people a billion times smarter than you. That's why their a unintelligent conspiracy people always looking in from the outside...

Or you could just build your own rocket and orbiter and check it out for yourself.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in