Ok, I have. What am I supposed to be seeing? As with the rest of the images you've been posting, you're just overprocessing highly-compressed JPEG images and getting noisy, meaningless output.

Cropped version of high-resolution tiff image file, enlarged 2x without interpolation (North is up):


Enlarged 4x without interpolation (North up):



I think Nucular summed it up very, very well:

Ok, regarding Man on Mars shots, I guess, it 's a fake, like lots of such "products". Besides, I saw a new vid debunking this sensation. Here's the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ-CiG7seUU

They're not fake, as "fake" implies someone has made them. People are just seeing what they want to. Anybody actually come up with a reason why there should be a lion's head on mars?

Oh, and that man on mars thing was dropped ages ago. You'd have to be a special kind of idiot to believe that.

Is this thread still going???? Can't believe. Oh! I better believe, cause I am posting here. Geeeez! Thx God I am still sane to know what I am doing. O.o

Look closely............
Images little bit noisy....Infact, All the images taken of Cydonia are of poor quality. We, the public, have yet to see one crystal clear image of this
region. I visited both NASA/MRO, and ESA/Mars Express and seen many examples of cyrstal clear, razor sharp images. I am quite certain they can
take high quality images of Cydonia as well. Given that said, The Mars Express images of Cydonia are the best yet making all other images of Cydonia obselete.

Overview:


Image 2:



Find the faces.................

It looks like a half buried wheel but it is an awfully big one.

Uhm, do we know the details (and dimensions) of the posted pictures? Are they full images or parts of otherwise high resolution images? And maybe Cydonia is not exactly a priority for scientists - what of interest is there really there?

Cheers,
Badeskov

Ha! Now that's a good one! The High Resolution Stereo Camera on board Mars Express is a suberb instrument and has been returning excellent data, but it cannot match the resolving power of the HiRISE camera onboard the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.

Here's the "face" at Cydonia as seen by HRSC (image H3253 at it's full resolution of 12.5 meters/pixel):

(This is a crop from the same image you've been using for your enlargements)


And here's a thumbnail version of the "face" as seen by HiRISE (image PSP_003234_2210)


That HiRISE image has been reduced in size a LOT. See the little bump on the "cheek" which I've circled in red? You can just barely make it out in the Mars Express HRSC image. Well, here's that same little bump as seen by HiRISE at it's full resolution of 25 cm (10 inches) per pixel!





Now, what was that you were saying about poor quality images at Cydonia?





Of course, if you use the actual science data rather than a public relations image off the web, you'll get much better results:

HRSC H3253_0000_ND2 Nadir Image Full-Scale at 12.5 m/pixel resolution





Your imagination must be much better than mine. I don't see any faces at all -- just Martian geology:

HRSC H3235_0000_ND2 3x Enlargement (No Pixel Interpolation)

This thread is a whole new breed of pointless.

Hello Pericynthion.

You are fighting a losing battle.

You are posting images of extremely poor quality......alot worse than mine (ESA/Mars Express)

Your DEBUNKING only confirms the Mars Express images.


Degraded NASA image left.......Better ESA/Mars Express image right.

The face again. LOOK....LOOK.....LOOK.....The left half has an eye...There is an iris, eyelashes, a shaped eyebrow....



Further out.....

Huh?! You do mean degraded image right, better quality left, don't you?
Remembering, of course, that I have a hard time seeing faces in aerial surveys/sattelite imagary of natural formations.
Here's an excellent example of ancient artificial structures viewed by an orbital sattelite. See if you can find them all

KS15,

As explained before, repeating “look look look” isn’t going to convince anyone of anything. You think you can see something which we don’t see.

So you need to explain your reasoning, because at the moment Emma_Acid is dead on – this is a pointless thread. You’ve got a point you’re trying to make (have you???) but you’re not making it, because you’re not explaining why you think these things.

Look at the HiRISE pictures posted by Pericynthion again. Look specifically at the extremely high resolution crop he has posted of the ‘teardrop’ formation below the ‘eye’.

Now zoom in to the same level on the processed HRSC photos you’re using. Can you make out the same level of detail on them? Perhaps you could post your findings?

Also, could you explain – this might be my own unfamiliarity with some of the photos, but what are you doing to the pictures you download? You seem to add colour and do other things you may regard as ‘enhancement’ – could you explain what?

I hear dead horses being kicked. Man alive, really, you need to give this up.

Firstly, your images are WAY more digitally compressed, and therefore lower quality than Pericynthion's. Everyone can see that. Likewise, there is no eye in your images. None. If the original 1970s picture hadn't looked like a face, none of us would be here discussing it, as the up to date images look nothing like one. You seem to be absolutely hell bent on seeing what isn't there, and those terrible images and "LOOK LOOK LOOK"s are going to convince anyone.

Sorry if that sounded harsh, but like I said; horse, dead, kick.

Image of a damaged/ruined pyramid.

Overview:


Closeup. Note carving center of image. Note detail.

Sigh. Image of a not-terribly-unusual Martian hill:



Available in much, much, much better resolution here (MSSS link). Note the erosion patterns on the sides of the hill.

Triangle??? Where, I see nothing remotely resembling a triangle!!!

Keithisco, Pericynthion, You guys are hilarious....down right funny...

STOP!



This is getting silly.

My apologies. You're absolutely right. Please allow me to present something that's not even the slightest bit silly:


NO.1 -- THE LARCH



... the larch

Some of these are interesting, but people thinking they are seeing faces and pyramids might want to rethink what they are looking at.

Can you present something even close to the resolution of what Pericynthion has presented? Until then, honestly, you have nothing. Pericynthion makes a huge effort in finding the original image data and it is very obvious that they are of a quality surpassing the ones posted by you by several leagues.

So if we have to take those images seriously, I for one would really like to know why it is worth our time!

Cheers,
Badeskov

Edited for typos.

Hello Badeskov.

Pericynthion is using inferior black and white images and enlarging them in the most primitive way possible.....Pixel duplication.
That method distorts and ruins the original image. That method washes out detail. His only purpose is to debunk and nothing else.

The images he is using are fabrications, even lies....I do not trust Malin Space Systems MGS or the NASA MRO versions of Cydonia.
These people have history of stonewalling and debunking going back as far as 1993.

My software uses a Bicubic algorithm when enlarging images preserving original detail....A far superior method than pixel duplication.
I have better software on order.....something better I hope than the 5 MB freebie download I am currently using.
So...Expect better images on my website sometime in the future.
I was reluctant to buy exspensive software....Afterall, I do not need better software...I need better source images.

Here are the links to the source images. The only true honest images of Cydonia to date.
You can explore these images using Microsoft Paint.

http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&...e=y&start=4

http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&...=y&start=10

My website:
http://www.marsesa.9f.com/slide_show.html

STOP????....Its to late my friend.....It's already started....This is my first and last post to you.

Pericynthion isn't enlarging anything, he's posting image data at original resolution. You can obtain the images and data here: http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_003234_2210


But you are enlarging, far beyond the original resolution of the images, which explains why they're such awful quality. Bicubic algorithms or not, if the data isn't in the image you won't find it.


Agreed. Try the HiRISE images.


Why do you think these are the only 'true honest' images of Cydonia? Because they're poor enough quality to allow you to 'enhance' anything out of them?

Well, it's not your first post to me.

I suspect with my geeky Monty Python reference I've become a part of your conspiracy theory. Oh well.

Nucular, I did respond to you...My mistake....Your rebuttals are so ridiculous I momentarily forgotten.

Staying on topic....

Look towards the top of this image.Note portrait/Face surrounded by an enclosure....



Another view...







This is also a dual face design. Both halfs are designed to be mirrored resulting in two
different faces.

The Cydonia images I've recently posted from the Mars Express HRSC instrument are direct crops from the PDS-format Level 2 science data files of the nadir panchromatic channel taken during orbit 3253. I didn't obtain my copies from the web, so I can't immediately give you a direct link to the data.

All of the images acquired by HRSC are gray-scale. Color images are generated by combining together three separate gray-scale images taken with different color filters (red, blue, green). This post-processing can easily distort the original data, especially when used to create "pretty" images for public affairs use. You can read more about the HRSC instrument here.

By using the nadir channel view shot through a panchromatic filter (allowing all colors to pass), I'm giving you the best possible data from the camera with the least amount of post-processing. When I've presented an enlargement of an image, I've intentionally NOT used any interpolation filtering to smooth out the image. By simply enlarging the pixels, I'm preserving the data quality, not distorting it. The original pixels contain all the information that can possibly be obtained from that particular image. No amount of filtering can add ANY new information. It might make a "prettier" picture, but it will distort the image and possibly even add misleading artifacts.



Ok. Please tell me specifically how this MOC image and this HiRISE image of the "face" have been distorted.



As Nucular has already pointed out, you HAVE better source images. You just refuse to believe them because they destroy the illusion. Hopefully you can return your expensive image processing software for a refund. It won't help you here. As I explained above, no amount of filtering or processing can add any new information to the images you're working with. You can fold, spindle, and mutilate the images until you see whatever you want to see, but you're just creating an illusion. Your images, not NASA's, lie.

I know, it's viral marketing isn't it? You had me fooled until a recieved this in my email inbox-



Guess this is the current trend in marketng, presenting 'evidence' in aerial photographs.
So what are you selling? New game? Movie? Book?
C'mon you can tell us...

(obviously this 'newspaper' report is from Atari, not KS15)

I mean no offense here, KS15, but I just have to ask: are you joking around with us or are you really serious about this?

Anyway, since I'm having fun with this, allow me to present my versions for those who might be interested in some objective data. I'll give you three channels this time: the nadir channel (looking straight down), stereo channel 1 (looking 18.9 deg forward), and stereo channel 2 (looking 18.9 deg aft). All three images were taken by the Mars Express HRSC using a panchromatic filter on orbit 3253 (same as your image above). These are full-resolution (12.5 m/pixel) crops from the radiometrically-corrected science data files. If you overlay the three images, you'll see that they are indeed taken from slightly different perspectives. None of them shows a face in the crater.

HRSC Image H3253_0000_S12.IMG (Stereo 1 Channel, Orbit 3253)


HRSC Image H3253_0000_ND2.IMG (Nadir channel, Orbit 3253)


HRSC Image H3253_0000_S22.IMG (Stereo 2 Channel, Orbit 3253)

While we're at it, do you honestly believe this is an artificial structure? If so, what specific features prove conclusively that this can't be just a hill/mountain?

Mars Express HRSC Image H3253_0000_S12.IMG (Stereo 1 Channel, Orbit 3253)



Mars Express HRSC Image H3253_0000_S22.IMG (Stereo 2 Channel, Orbit 3253)

Hello.

Note structures upper right of image. Look in the center of this image......Smile!



A larger view....

KS15,
Have you no response to Pericynthion's last three posts?

I have 3 simple equations.

KS15 Mars Express images = GOOD

Pericynthion NASA images = BAD

Badeskov, Pericynthion, Nucular, Evangium, Emma Acid 88, keithisco = Silly debunkers

I will no longer respond to debunkers.

I will stay on topic.

Enough said.

Given your recent posts, I suspect you're just trolling here, but for the record I haven't been using the "BAD" NASA images. I've been posting Mars Express imagery, which you label as "GOOD." Bit of a dilemma for you, isn't it?

Old news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5268892.stm



As for all of these Skipper images they are just ludicrous. He uses falsely colored images to prove a non-existent point. He colors the 'water' and 'vegetation' in all of his pictures which apparently made enough people believe. This guy has no scientific background whatsoever and his website is all guesses and wishful thinking.

thats where the martians burried the Texas Star hyper drive space ship we are going to build in a hundred years. You know the ship that we put up aginst the Heart of Gold ship,then we race to millieways,the restarant aat the end of the universe.DONTEATUS

Wow, so since I genuinely can't see anything out of the ordinary iin your highly processed pictures, I'm debunking you...? If anyone is being silly, it's the person who refuses to provide anymore proof of his claims, other than "look,look,look".
So typical of hoaxers and charlatens to cry debunkery when called upon to show some substance to their claims...
I can't help but notice that the only people who have tried to indulge your fantasy, by taking the time the time to post a reply, are 'the silly debunkers'. Odd that lately there's been a noticable lack of 'believers' reponding to this thread.
Here's another formula for you-
Bulls**t baffles brains.

(and frankly yours is some of the most baffling fertilizer grade product I've come across in recent times)

By all means of respect, but compared to Pericynthion, you images are lacking.



First of all, I am flattered by the company you put me in inspecially as I only had the chance of posting one question to you.



No wonder - you have nothing to show.



I just wish you would recognize what is shown you....



Indeed, this thread is dead - there is nothing in in.

Cheers,
Badeskov

This reminds me of a statement made by Jaylemurph while responding to a tantrum by the other user.

Pathetic and childish. With proper arguments and evidence presented against him, all he can do is stick his fingers in his ears and go "la la la la" and hope we go away.

I was expecting your usual "toys, pram...enough said" comment here; but I like the "la la la la" response as well.

Its just depressing on so many levels. "Believers" always argue that skeptics are just debunking for the sake of it - when actual proof that not only are the images in question unreliable, but also that the higher quality images show no shapes or faces whatsoever, its thrown back with a simple "I'm not talking to you any more".

KS15 - you're images are so obviously lower quality it beggars belief - just because they are colour doesn't make them more reliable. Look and you'll see they are made up of blocks - this is digital compression, which occurs when a digital image is shruken in size (for internet use for example). Anyone here who works with digital images will back me up on this one.

I work with photoshop a lot, and I can say that this shows that your images are massively low quality. I just had a go at reducing Pericynthion's images down to a comparable quality and it ended up being a third of the original file size. Thats a lot of compression, therefore a lot of distortion. No wonder you're seeing things in them.

Yup, that seems to sum it up.

KS15, near the beginning of this thread I warned you about alienating both Mars civilisation sceptics and believers alike with your painful disregard for evidence or even just coherent discussion.

Now it’s happened. And there it is.

Indeed. I think this thread is dead.



Sad, but true

Cheers,
Badeskov

Whos first out the Door?

Woot, I'm not on the debunkers list.

*debunk* *debunk* *debunk* *debunk* *debunk*

A good view of the Pyramid. A designed or engineered structure.
I recieved my software...I am pleased. I plan on doing a complete overhaul of all
images on my website.

interesting pics...thanks for sharing

Your welcome. Thanks for the positive response.

Wow, looks almost like those 'bad' images Pericynthion was posting, only in colour.
Guess it's true, the camera never lies
'Nuff said