Hello. I have some images to share. I am experimenting with interlace PNG formats....Much better than JPEG.

The "Face"



The Triangle.



Two views of the Pyramid.

PNG files are no different to JPEGs when you have so much compression on them. Its like comparing two paintings, one oil paint and one acrylic, and both paintings are covered in mud.

You can jazz it up as much as you like - your images are nothing new, and are both terrible quality AND false colour.

expecting to see walkman jitter across the surface lol

I think we can just refer to Peri's (vastly superior) images and call this case closed.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Hello. Here is another view of the face.




A quick note on color. I do not add color to these images. The color is already present in the original source.
All I am doing is seperating them. If anything, The color balance may be off.

Also, PNG images are a lossless format. I am switching some images over to PNG formats because it copies exactly from my
imaging software to my website.

* Waves a friendly Hello *

This thread is becoming quite large to load, due to the image sizes within it. Some of our members, alas, are using dialup to access the forum.

I'm aware, however, that it's necessary to have images of this size to display the amount of detail required.

Could I please request that posters:

a: Give all images a Label when posting them, for easy reference.
b: When responding to a post, rather than copy the image, refer to the image via it's Label.
c: When possible, use a thumbnail of the image that hyperlinks to the detailed image in question.

Thanks in advance,

Tiggs
[Forum Mod Team]

Hello Tiggs. My thoughts exactly. From now on will post the links instead.....There is enough images on this topic....Links will do..
I am still using dial up myself....Switching over to a high speed connection soon.
Thanks for the input.

Hello.
I have some images to share. The face is designed to be mirrored.
This design extends from the face onto the surrounding plains.
The first three links are in JPEG format. The other three are in lossless PNG format. The PNG formats are slower
to download.


Link to full image:
http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Face/fig630b.jpg

The left side mirrored:

Full image:
http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Face/fig638b.jpg

The right side mirrored:

Full image:
http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Face/fig639a.jpg

Lossless PNG formats:
http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Face/fig630a.png
http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Face/fig638a.png
http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Face/fig639b.png
http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Face/fig642a.png

hello everybody!erm, I'm a little bit confussed!!
These pictures are all amazing! I had no idea Mars even had a forest-like formation, I knew about the lakes though! so that means some day we might move to Jupter's neghbour!!!
Now, I saw this photograph that shows a "skull".. can it really be a skull or is it a rock with holes and in combination with the appropriate light seems to human mind like a skull..? Note that Mankind has the tendency to explain formations that look like itself as human made or human related!! I find it possible to be a natural formation!!
More over, I recently read this article about the "statue" iconized on the panoramic pictures taken from Spirit.. To tell you the truth I might find that convincing... I mean.. have you seen it? It's really weird! Yet, can a thing like that really exist on Mars??

P.S. I am talking about the pictures on page 1!!! and I need an answer!!

There are no forests or lakes on mars. The amount of radiation would make life there impossible.

And you are utterly right - "Mankind has the tendency to explain formations that look like itself as human made or human related". Spot on.

As for the Spirit statue image, that was solved ages ago - the figure is only about an inch high - its a rock, nothing more.

Don't expect to get any answers out of KS15, all he's doing is posting badly compressed, false colour images (without any explanation as to why), claiming that mirroring them somehow makes the formations more interesting (when it doesn't, and again isn't actually explaining what he's trying to achieve), and that there is a difference between jpegs and png files (there isn't, not with source images as bad as his) and this technical detail somehow makes his observations more valid (it doesn't).

I think what he's getting at is that there used to be life on mars and these childish fingers-in-the-ears-I'm-not-listening-to-you posts are supposed to be his proof. Apparently he is also not a teenager, which is worrying in the extreme.

Thank you for answering! However I have two objections(not personal!! generated from your answer as logical complaints p)

1. we are already aware of the endurance some species present when it comes to radiasional exposure! For instance, the cocaroach(or however it's spelled, you know what I mean). Additionally, high levels of radiation can cause deformation, or generally genetical mutation. Given the latter, It is possible that it would cause other than death!! Plus, organisms find ways(if meant to exist! ) through "auto"-mutation to survive. Don't forget that microorganisms sometimes can amaze us! some of them do not even need the sun(light) in order to live and continue evolving! what I am trying to tell you, is that some kind of vegatation could exist but not in a way that plants exist on Earth!(and this is my thought, my opinion, it's not an official theory).

and..

2. Lakes: I didn't mean full with water lakes nessecarilly. What about almost dry lakes? Just think that water does exist on Mars! I think I 've read somewhere that part of the south pole is frozen!The problem is that it is not enough for earhlinks and not that it doesn't exist at all!! Am I wrong?

If in some way you find my answer insulting, I am sorry I didn't mean to be mean!! Just don't treat me like that "childish fingers-in-the-ears-I'm-not-listening-to-you" proving guy!!

Thank you!

Highly highly unlikely, but it is not outright impossible. The building blocks of life as we know them would be torn apart due to the intense radiation constantly hammering Mars. Could there be some sheltered environment somewher on Mars that could sustain primitive life? Maybe. Improbably, but who knows



Current estimates says there is quite a bit of water on Mars, the problem is just that it is all frozen. Water cannot exist in liquid form on the surface of Mars as it boils away almost immediately due to the thin atmosphere (~1% of that of the Earth).



I don't think Emma is going to find your questions insulting

Cheers,
Badeskov

[/code]Could there be some sheltered environment somewher on Mars that could sustain primitive life? Maybe. Improbably, but who knows [/code]

ok! I did some digging last night.. It is said that some kind of organic substance exists on Mars, in deed( CH4 ). This can be the resulf of two cases : either active volcanos or existance of microorganisms..

So far as I understand, scientists have no proof of active volcanos..Actually, the last time volcanos could produce Laba or gass was 100 million years ago!! Yet, experts hope that in some kind of highland mountain there could be a forgotten semi-active volcano.. But there is no evidence!!

On the other hand, any kind of existance cannot be proved!! All we know is Mars consists of minerals and a limited quantity of oxygen.

Still the chances are 50-50! Or it could be both!

)

The problem is that life always exists as part of an eco-system. You're not going to get an utterly dead world and then find trees in one tiny patch - this is what a lot of people don't get when they see things that aren't there on these pictures.

And B is right - you have to go pretty far to insult me!

thank u so much for taking the time to answer back to me!

The thing is that I trully believe you, it's just that I am apt to believe human race is too egoistic to think we are the only ones existing "universwide"! That's why I pay too much attention on this kind of stuff, without this meaning I also believe it!

Now I 'd like to add something. It's quite irrelevant with the subject, but I find it interesting!!

I read this article and it mentions that scientists have been scrutinizing the possibility of creating bacteria, strong enough to survive in Mars! Theoritically, when such a thing happens this new species of bacteria, under certain circumstances and intensivly placed around nutrient material, the organisms would create appropriate enviromental circumstances, such as heat that would lead to the increasing of the greenhouse effect! Then after a time of 100.000 years, Mars should be livable!

Although this should not happen, because it is under question whether we should affect the natural course of a planet (it could have undesirable results- like the disturbance of the physical enviroment on the Galapagos islands), It could be a solution looking into the future of humanity!

I have not seen a lot of those pictures of Mars before. Very interesting to say the least.

*cough* no *cough*

Did you have a look at the pictures Pericynthion posted? If not, have a look and do a simple visual comparison - I think you'll find your interest diminish unless you are actually interested in naturally occuring Martian geological features. Which is actually quite interesting in itself, albeit no artificial structures will magically appear

Cheers,
Badeskov

Hello.

I have 3 images of the damaged pyramid. Yes....It is a ruin or damaged pyramid on Mars. Location: Cydonia.
The ID's of the source images: SEMVHE8LURE, SEM6IE8LURE....LURE.....To attract???

It should be noted that most of the features can be seen directly on the originals......Without any enlargements or enhancements :

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/marsex...2-Cydonia_H.jpg

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/marsex...1-Cydonia_H.jpg

JPEG image:

http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Pyramid/fig730a.jpg

Lossless PNG image (Slow download):

http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Pyramid/fig757a.png

Another View:

http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Pyramid/fig830.jpg

Website:

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

Source Images:

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

great pics.. thanx for posting- i like the colored cydonia

The pics in this thread are amazing! I've never seen them before. Thanks

Remember, I do not add color to the images. Color is already present in the originals. All I am doing is seperating them.

White light contains all colors of the rainbow....A prism is needed to seperate them.

My imaging software has something called Auto Levels and Auto Color....I used that frequently and then I would manually adjust the balance. Most of the time,
I would adjust the color manually. I also apply low and high pass filters, adjust exposure and contrast and thats about it. I do nothing else to the images.

My website is a work in progress.....visit often for the latest images.

Thanks.

I have one question for you:

-How can you affirm: Yes....It is a ruin or damaged pyramid on Mars. Location: Cydonia.

Do you have any proof that they are in fact pyramids?


Thank you.

Sooo...you don't have an idea what you are doing... huh? Try to use emboss, blure, sharpen, and other stuff:D You will get more amazing pictures:D
Unbelievable...

Not only is it hard to think of natural processes that would cause a mountain to look like an eroded pyramid, but take a very close look at the details. Among other anomalies, in and around the "pyramid" are a great many small structures, square or nearly so in shape. Their shadows prove them to be real, and not artifacts of the video process. They have right angles and parallel straight lines, and look like one room houses with no roofs. The odds of all of this being due to natural processes is practically zero.
William B Stoecker

How top notch scientists/geologists/image analysists/etc using top of the line equipment could have missed such obvious artificial structures is beyond mindboggling, to put it mildly...oh, wait, they haven't - they know nothing is there!!!

Cheers,
Badeskov

NASA KNEW about Mars face and other buildings, so they've sent mission (in secrecy) to nuke all those structures out. But mission wasn't succesfull - three nukes detonated too early (NASA employees make mistakes too) and face was not completely destroyed...

BTW, William B. S., if you will use this idea in your new book, don't forget me - I can provide more top super- hyper-secret material on that mission (not for free, of course)

I don't know, but I have a feeling that you read this on Richard Hogland’s sites and really, HOW can ONE POSSIBLY prove that this actually happened????

Come on, give me proofs! Put something here that are not pixilated images of poor quality showing natural formations… SO far I saw nothing similar to a pyramid. Not even close to one to be honest.

I can say: Yeah! Martians came here long time ago and seeded our planet with life! But the questions remains: CAN I PROOVE THIS? Nope…

You are saying things but give us nothing… Come on, where’s your real evidence?

Are you serious??? You want real evidence on that b s???
Ok, I can provide " real evidence, udeniable proof", but only when I'll finish download photoshop cs3 extended and some typewriter fonts

I don’t want real evidence on that specific. I am tired of the BS about Mars having pyramids, etc.
When I said, post the evidence, I mean: Post more than: “Yes, Mars has pyramids, bla bla bla….” This is not proof, this is POV and this doesn’t count as scientific evidence.

Sarcasm on-
Obviously artificially created pyramids Link
An obviously artificial right angled tower wall Link
I'm pretty sure this rock was made by a race of now deceased monument makers Link
And obviously pyrite is made by 'alien sculptors too Link.

Seriously, I find it hard to see how people can see these artificial structures that the trained eye sees as landscape.
-sarcasm off

Seriously, I'd recommend that people first get really proficient with interpretting terrestrial aerial survey photos, sattelite and topographic maps before graduating to mars and the moon...

Either that or find out for me who's stealling all the air from these celestial bodies...

Hello.
The Pyramid is not a natural geological feature. It is a designed and built
structure. I have come to this conclusion by simply looking at the photographic evidence.

Thw following images highlight areas of interest:

http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Pyramid/F166.jpg

http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Pyramid/F162.jpg

I strongly recommend you to read "Experimental Psychology, Part III - PERCEPTUAL PROCESSES, pp.179-236, in Handbook Of Psychology, Volume 4, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2003)."

given that KS15 isn't making any attempt to either answer any posts or justify exactly why he's filling the board with this stuff, I think this thread should be locked.

Maybe move this to a blog would be the correct thing to do, as this is clearly not a topic for discussion...

Cheers,
Badeskov

Hello.
Click on the link below for a look at the face. This is not a typical eroded mesa.....This structure is designed. There is no other
explanation for it. This image has a resolution of 45 feet per pixel. Higher resolutions will still reveal an intelligent designed
structure.

http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Face/F117b.jpg


Another view:

http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/More_Cyd...Images/F190.jpg

First of all, no, your image does NOT have a resolution of 45 feet per pixel. The original science data may have had that resolution, but you're still working with highly compressed JPEG images that have nowhere near that resolution.

And now I'll ask again: Would you please tell us WHY this must be an artificial structure? You've been asked multiple times by multiple people to provide some explanations for the pictures you're posting, but you have yet to do that. Why are you posting this stuff to a discussion forum if you're not interested in actually discussing it? As I posted a few weeks ago here, the "face" has already been imaged at much, much higher resolotion (10 inches per pixel!) by the HiRISE camera on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. That imagery shows no evidence of anything artificial. It's just an eroded mesa.

Anxiously waiting (well, maybe not), but not holding my breath...

Cheers,
Badeskov

PS: Peri, as always, great source material and analysis - your posts are always an interesting read

For what its worth, I will respond to you......Keep in mind, I will not to do this on a regular basis......Read very carefully....

The original ESA/Mars Express JPEG source image has a resolution of 13.7 meters per pixel or 45 feet per pixel. I than take a 24 BITMAP high resolution snapshots (Crops) of the source.
SO....I am working with images that have resolution of 13.7 meters pixel. All my images on my website have a resolution of 45 feet per pixel.

There is absolutely no difference between a JPEG, PNG, GIFF, TIFF, or good old bitmap in visual quality.They are the SAME. I work with these formats all the time.
You can not create a true/false logic table where one image is true because its a TIFF and one image is false because its JPEG.
Enough of this highly compress JPEG nonsense...The images on my website are maximum quality JPEGs.Even medium quality JPEGs are good. I also have Lossless PNG formats.

The MRO is a stated resolution......Much of the detail/information in both the MGS and MRO images of Cydonia have been intentionally stripped away or blurred.

The face is designed or built.....All you have to do is go to the ESA/Mars Express image and look for yourself. This conclusion is my own.....But you will come to the same conclusion in time....Not only of the
face, But other artifacts of Cydonia.

Thanks for the kind words, Bade. The feeling is mutual.

Thanks for the reply KS15. Yes, the original science data collected by the High Resoloution Stereo Camera system on Mars Express has a resolution of 13.7 m/pixel for this particular data set. No, your final images do not. HRSC takes images only in grayscale. To get the color images you're working with, three separate grayscale images (using red, green and blue filters) are combined. These individual raw images each have a resolution of about 13.7 m/pixel for this particular data set. The process of merging these images together to form the pretty public relations images you're working with has lost some image resolution. Even the large TIFF files ESA has posted are not as clear as the less-processed science data I've been posting. And then, to make things even worse, you're using as your sources the highly-compressed JPEG versions of these images. These are much smaller files to download, but they suffer from really noticeable compression artifacts.


The problem is not with your final output images. They actually have a lot more quality than they really need, and you're ending up with some huge file sizes. For most images, you won't see any significant degradation even if you save them and post them as medium-resolution JPEGs. As I mentioned above, the problem here is that your SOURCE images are highly compressed. You're then overprocessing those images and losing even more quality.

Here's a comparison of one of the images you just posted (F190) alongside the HRSC nadir channel science data from orbit 3253. I've enlarged both images by a factor of 4 with no pixel interpolation and have cropped just a portion of the "face" to keep the image size reasonable:

KS15 Image F190 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HRSC Image H3253_0000_ND2.IMG (Nadir channel, Orbit 3253)


I think it's pretty obvious that many more small features are visible in the original science data than are visible in your processed version of the ESA public-relations JPEG.




So you say. For comparison, here's the same portion of the "face" as seen by the Mars Orbiter Camera on Mars Global Surveyor:

MOC Image E03-00824 (link to original)


This is a crop from the full-size, 2 m/pixel resolution image. Please show me exactly where the image detail has been intentionally stripped away or blurred in relation to the Mars Express image I posted above.

I'd post the same portion of the "face" as seen by the MRO HiRISE camera, but it won't fit on the page.

Besides, I think the resolution of HiRISE has been pretty clearly demonstrated with images like this one showing the Opportunity rover and it's tracks along the edge of Victoria crater (link).


Here's a prototype MER rover with some people to give you a sense of the scale:


That rover is only 2.3 meters wide and 1.6 meters long, so the MRO image clearly has better than 1 m/pixel resolution. The actual image resolution is 27 cm/pixel (10.6 in/pixel).



I HAVE looked for myself. I see absolutely nothing in any of these images that looks even a tiny bit artificial. Neither has NASA, and neither has ESA. You're welcome to have a different opinion, but if you're going to keep posting this stuff here and making these claims, I think you owe the readers here an explanation of your evidence. Until you can do that, your claim that there's an artificial face on Mars is no different than my claim that this is a giant white bunny rabbit living in the sky:

Well you've just contradicted yourself; you say that there is no difference between JPEGs, PNGs, GIFFs (sic) or TIFFs (which is wrong by the way, there is a difference), and then state that PNGs are "lossless" implying that they are somehow superior.

I will say this again: the images you are using are heavily compressed. Whether it is JPEG or PNG will make no difference when they are in that state to begin with.

Look at this image:



You can CLEARLY see horizontal and vertical lines breaking up the image. THIS IS COMPRESSION. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO JPEGS. You can't just change a jpeg in to a png and expect the compression to disappear.

You still haven't stated why you believe the images to be photos of intelligently made artifacts. A photo of a cloud that looks like a dragon doesn't suddenly become a photo of an actual dragon just because someone says so.

Oh, and KS15, I find your



comment mildy offensive.

This is a forum. If you want people to respect you and your daft posts, there needs to be a bit of give and take - don't make out your doing us a favour just by replying.

That is so ridicilous... Why would anyone want to spend billions of dollars to set up a secret mission to Mars to bomb a random mountain that resembles a pyramid/face?

On second thought, I've never really seen what this face is really about. Might be blind but for me, it's just random Martian landscape elements. *shrugs* Again, sorry if I'm being ignorant but this all sounds like something someone with a hyper-active imagination would think of.

Basically, the "face on Mars" is a large mesa (of volcanic origin from the planet's distant past) that has eroded in a manner that when photographed from a certain angle resembles a face. That's the reality, but people like Richard Hoagland have parlayed this resemblance into books, speaking engagements, and videos. Amazing stuff when one really thinks about it.

Maybe this is why we are not visited by advanced alein races? they must be able to read these post too. Please DONTEATUS

My fault, I forgot to quote my post with Sarcasm ON/OFF

If I can correct you here - when photographed once in the 1970s, it looked like a face.

If it had never been photographed then, then no-one would ever have taken any more notice of that bit of Mars than any other bit, and people certainly wouldn't be seeing pyramids or "nuked" areas or whatnot today.

A good example of how people can convince themselves that something is true, and then find other things to fit into their "theory", which again, they convince themselves are true.

I really don't see anything at all.

Honestly, pictures like this remind me of those seteroscopic pictures you see - some people glance at it and see the 3d picture immediately. I never see the pictures...

Honestly, me neither, but then again, I was never very good with seeing shapes in such either But with respect to the images at hand, I have not seen anything looking remotely artificial in KS' image posts, and Peri's posts have only certified that we are indeed looking at natural Martian geology (which in and of itself is rather fascinating).

I have seen more intriguing rock formations here on Earth during various hikes and road trips than I have from a single image from Mars.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Exactly, it was the Viking images (1976 I think) that showed a 'face-like' appearance. Future imaging of the Cydonia region showed this to be nothing more than a large mesa.