Mars - What is this? Pareidolia or a real face on Mars?

reply to post by ArMaP


Thats's all well and good but your post didnt exactly prove anything either way....

I finally downloaded the JP2(extra file) it was 700Mb... after all of that not one JP2 program would open it.... that wasted data could have to gone to a movie ya know... what a waste

Seriously though, why bother posting an image with worse res than the one I posted??

The res was actually quite good! I would rather greyscale than false "improv" color

You all seriously have no idea yeah...

Kinda sad really but things will change soon

Originally posted by Havick007
Thats's all well and good but your post didnt exactly prove anything either way....

It wasn't to prove any thing, so I guess that's OK.

I finally downloaded the JP2(extra file) it was 700Mb... after all of that not one JP2 program would open it.... that wasted data could have to gone to a movie ya know... what a waste

You can use HiView, IAS Viewer, Kakadu, IrfanView or Photoshop. All except Photoshop are free.
I downloaded the greyscale, the RBG, IRB, the anaglyph and the other photo used to make the anaglyph, each took around 35 minutes to download, and as I don't have any download limits it doesn't matter if I downloaded the images or a movie.

Seriously though, why bother posting an image with worse res than the one I posted??

Because that's closer to the original, what you see in Google Earth/Mars is a resampled version, which means that the algorithm used decided what pixels it should create to make what it thinks is a good photo.

The res was actually quite good! I would rather greyscale than false "improv" color

That I don't understand, sorry.

The last one looks like gumbi's pet horse pokey ..... fascinating ..

reply to post by ArMaP

All except Photoshop are free.

Adobe CS6 would not open it....

Along with many other apps I tried to download...

Because that's closer to the original, what you see in Google Earth/Mars is a resampled version, which means that the algorithm used decided what pixels it should create to make what it thinks is a good photo.

That makes no sense.... Your images were not better quality, they were the same lo-res image posted in g/scale, IRB and RGB but no higher than what I posted....


Improv color.... it means improvised color... If you think about it then you might get it.....

reply to post by dayve


wow you have an awesome imagination

It's the ignorant and stupid that give people on ATS a bad name......

Great rant thread title yup

Originally posted by Havick007
Adobe CS6 would not open it....

I think that with CS4 it needed a plugin that wasn't installed by default but that was on the disk.

Along with many other apps I tried to download...

I use all the ones I listed on my previous post, all are capable of opening JPEG2000 files, although IrfanView takes a long time to open them.

That makes no sense.... Your images were not better quality, they were the same lo-res image posted in g/scale, IRB and RGB but no higher than what I posted....

It makes sense if you know how Google does things.
The cameras capture the images and send them back to Earth, where they are saved as IMG files. Those files are probably converted to CUB files to be processed (like making the map projected versions), and the processed versions are saved to IMG files. From those IMG files they produce the JPEG2000 versions and the smaller scale JPEG files.

I don't know which version Google uses, but the JPEG2000 files have the same resolution as the original IMG files. As those lossless formats take to long to download, Google uses JPEG compression to make it faster, but the worst thing is that they go beyond 100% zoom without saying it, as you can zoom into some areas at levels that are many times the original resolution.

As whenever you zoom into an image past 100%, what you see is the result of the resizing or resampling of the image, in which the algorithm used decides what to do with the pixels to transform them into 4, 9, 16, etc., according to the zoom level.

It may look better to you (to me it does not) because they alter the images to make them look better, but they aren't really better.

Improv color.... it means improvised color... If you think about it then you might get it....

I don't get it.

reply to post by ArMaP


Frustrating!!?!!.....

reply to post by Havick007


Maybe, if I knew what you are talking about I could give you a better answer.

ArMaP, I think that what Havick007 is calling 'improvised color' we would call 'false color'.

reply to post by Havick007


I need to share this with you. Its my last time in doing so. Unfortunately its a link to my blog. I am not going for traffic etc,I want to show you something important. Please read it and look.
The face on Mars? We have more than that here on Earth.
Hidden Artifacts Statues on Saint Helena






My theory on the link? We are headed in the same direction where technology got too much for us to handle.

I have to say that I cannot see what the OP can see. Earlier in the thread Syrinx raised some interesting questions relating to the possibility of past life on Mars.

The image strip shown below shows the area from a distant viewpoint. It is a monocrome version of the 3-D analyph. I have placed an ellipse around some of the features. If these features are real then someone at some time in the past has put a lot of effort into sculpting the landscape..

Do any of the highlighted features appear as representations of faces or figures to you?

It is better to view the whole image to analyze using the 'Direct view' shown below.




Direct view:
i985.photobucket.com...

The OP should be given credit for finding this particular view.

The reference for the above image is PSP_006703_1875 should any members wish to check it out. If you look closely there are more facial representation to be observed. I have also found that when the image is rotated by 90 degrees each time the view changes and other integrated artistically designed landforms show up. I will start a new thread later to explain more as I do not wish to clash with what the OP is showing here.

The real Face on Mars is the original one and is not a pareidolia, which i can prove. I discovered this in 2001 and have finally finished it to share.

Here is the link to it.

www.youtube.com...

Are you going to be reviving old FOM threads all night? This is like the 4th one you've done now

That said, I'm not 100% convinced that the original FOM is just a rock formation, the base alone is far too symmetrical in too many ways that it just doesn't sit comfortably with me. Entropy doesn't do symmetry very well.