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

Does anyone actualy read the posts in a thread? It has been proven several times that this IS the same feature known as the face. Somone even made an animated gif to demonstrate this. How can anyone say "it doesn't look like the same area." If you think it doesn't look the same it's because you either don't want to belive or you are just too lazy to read through the thread. Or you could just google it.

Also almost no one seems to care that this isn't a new picture at all. It's from 2007. Why are there articles saying an old picture is a new picture? That's the only thing interesting here, but almost no one seems to even care or even act like they are aware of this despite the fact that it's been mentioned several times.

This is a picture of the face, the question should be why are they trying to debunk the face with an old picture and pass it off as new?

reply to post by misinformational


If you're logical. But for many of us logic left town eons ago.

I saw one of the other images that was put out there, that was supposed to show us what "is really there." It was obviously tampered with. A "face" is not acceptable according to some of the powers that be, apparently. So much of our fantastic history hidden away, like we don't deserve to know. I wonder why that is, by the way? What the devil are you guys hiding so tenaciously? All we are supposed to believe is that we descended from bacteria or something. We have no mention of anything outside of earth in our history books. Yet, we have enough ancient texts to suggest otherwise. Bullocks, hog manure, whatever you want to call it.

Troy

reply to post by cybertroy


The problem is if you look at enough Martian images you find anything: smiley faces, valentine hearts, even bunny rabbits on Mars.

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
a video I dedicate to NASA

[edit on 30-7-2010 by watchZEITGEISTnow]

(At 3.16) OM#G! Space Sheep!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1b50f0878c09.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by cllj7

 

Wasn't Hoagland claiming in the late '90s that NASA destroyed the face with a nuclear weapon?

I agree with Art Bell, he told Richard they look like a pile of rocks, that is what they look like to me, Richard wasn't to happy when Art told him that.

reply to post by cllj7


doesn't look anything like the place...

Originally posted by VoyagerIX
reply to post by cybertroy

 

The problem is if you look at enough Martian images you find anything: smiley faces, valentine hearts, even bunny rabbits on Mars.

VoyagerIX.....

I recall the Bunny!

Remember how that idiot Hoagland claimed they ran over it & "killed" it?

Cheers
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by reject
doesn't look anything like the place...

You do realize you are comparing a far-shot of the area to a close-up shot of just one section of the face, right?

To quote an earlier post...

Originally posted by fieryjaguarpaw
Does anyone actualy read the posts in a thread? It has been proven several times that this IS the same feature known as the face. Somone even made an animated gif to demonstrate this. How can anyone say "it doesn't look like the same area."

[edit on 31-7-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

Some people call me an idiot, others applaud to that, is this really a good argument? Take a look:

Cropped version of the original batch-processed image (#35A72) of the "Face on Mars". The black dots that give the image a speckled appearance are data errors.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...(region_of_Mars)

One of it most important distinguishing features, a nostril, was only one of many black dots that actually represent missing data in the image. Before long, to the dismay of astronomers worldwide, there was a firmly established pop-culture belief that there was a real gigantic human face on Mars, carved in perfect detail by aliens.
Source: 365daysofastronomy.org...

But an enhanced version of that photo, revealing more of the shadowed side and eliminating the black dots (missing data points) is available from NASA....
Source: www.gpposner.com...

The original Viking photograph of the Face on Mars is riddled with black dots. These dots correspond to areas where data was lost during the transmission of the picture from the Viking orbiter to Earth (such transmission losses are common given the problems of communicating with spacecraft over interplanetary distances). If we look carefully at the original image, we see that a black dot of lost data happens to fall right about where we would expect to see a "nostril'' on the Face. This makes the rock look even more like a face, but doesn't correspond to any real feature on the Martian surface.
Source: www.astrosociety.org...

Add:

Full highres Version from 2001: upload.wikimedia.org...
The new pictures show just the "mouth" part.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by cushycrux]

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by cllj7

 

Wasn't Hoagland claiming in the late '90s that NASA destroyed the face with a nuclear weapon?

I suppose "photoshopping" and trick photography is the new special pleading...

Maybe the ATS slogan should be changed from "Deny Ignorance" to "Ignore Contrary Evidence."

Originally posted by Chance321
But think about it, you have a "clear" picture that was in my opinion released by accident showing a clear image of a face.

Do "accidental releases" usually come with a press release?

Caption of JPL Viking Press Release P-17384

The huge rock formation in the center, which resembles a human head, is formed by shadows giving the illusion of eyes, nose and mouth. The feature is 1.5 kilometers (one mile) across, with the sun angle at approximately 20 degrees. The speckled appearance of the image is due to bit errors, emphasized by enlargement of the photo. The picture was taken on July 25 from a range of 1873 kilometers (1162 miles).

They even released it BECAUSE it looks like a human face. And yet...they're covering it up?

And now we see the same area in high-definition, and there's nothing remarkable.

Tip: a photo taken, transmitted and enlarged with 1976 technology might not be the most accurate thing to go by.

[edit on 8/2/10 by mothershipzeta]

They have to be kidding. This doesn't look like that original image at all. Where did everything go? Did it just magically disappera in those 30 years or what? NASA smokes some really good weed if it thinks people will buy this type of crap.

reply to post by Cybernet


What do you miss? Did you read someting or just ignore all the "please do not ignore" posts before? what is happening to ATS? It makes no fun and no sense this was...

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not


I still don't believe the human race is intelligent. We still can't fix racism.

reply to post by zaiger


Yeah 'AN

MALIES'

have a nice day!!

[edit on 5-8-2010 by watchZEITGEISTnow]

reply to post by oxbow


I dare to think!

But yeah they certainly have a cattle like feel to them eh!?

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by zaiger

 

Yeah 'AN

MALIES'

have a nice day!!

[edit on 5-8-2010 by watchZEITGEISTnow]

Speaking of which, that's not the only face on Mars.



I saw a face on a pancake today, must have been aliens.

reply to post by GoldEagle


That is an amazing image old timer!

You got any more there?

Cheers

reply to post by Discotech


Whoever is making the positive claim has the burden of proof.

NASA claims this is a photograph of the face.

Similarly, I could take a high resolution picture of my desk and claim it is a high resolution picture of the bark on a redwood tree.

If you accused me and said "Sremmos, that's not a picture of a redwood tree's bark" who would have the burden of proof? Or, better yet, "Sremmos, can you verify that that is actually a high resolution picture of the bark of a redwood tree and not something else?"

Now, obviously, my claim would be easier to refute because there are lots of people who have seen redwood tree bark and know its composition.

No one knows the composition of the face except from what we have already seen of it. We haven't already seen a high resolution picture of it before now. Verification is necessary.

I believe NASA because in this case but I won't try to pretend that the people questioning it also have the burden of proof.

The positive claim is that this is a high res of the face's geography.

There are several methods of verification for this sort of thing, and if it is NASA's true intention to cast aside doubt and teach us something cool (that natural geography can do # like that) then it would be very good of them to show such steps of verification.

For all I know NASA took a picture of some random mountain and said it was the face. For all any of us know that is the case unless we are well enough trained observers to actually recognize such a thing, Phage might be. I am not.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by sremmos]