Yeah I know. I am not on this guy’s side just saying it could be completely different.
For example, we know UV is lethal to All (Earthly) life, but IF alien life exists there, it could use UV in a health way completely different from us.

Anyway, leaving the “wonder thing” aside. I was reading the site our buddy posts these images and I came to the conclusion this guy is just talking crap. He is seeing on the images what he wants to see and not the real thing. He even “have drawn” in the supposed humanoid image, angles that do not exist at all. I think he is suffering of a very very intense crisis of pareidolia.

I know, you're just playing devil's advocate!

Its tricky ground really. Life on earth has developed with cells, DNA, skin and eyes for example - all of which are massively damaged by forms of UV. How sure can we be that life elsewhere develops with DNA for example? We can't really.

i found that interesting but not convincing

I am very fond of the object that appears to be an Egyptian sarcophagus. I am a Art History professor and have examined sarcophagi personally and can say that the object in that photo has distinct characteristics that could easily be compared to many Egyptian sarcophagi. Also, for the record a few Egyptian records mention a visitation with a friend from the "heavens" and have many Gods from the sky. Could it be possible man once had a relationship with those not from this world?

What, you went to Mars? I dare to say you know very little about Mars, if anything, except that it is an planet in our solar planet.

Many amateur astronomers have actually in contradiction to what you say shown an Mars and observed a Mars and photographed and Mars that seem to have quite some atmosphere, and pretty earthlike as well.

And I dont think you ever did any magnetic field research or tested out the radiation up there or even checked if there were any life supporting ecosystem up there. I think you only read that somewhere and by some reason tend to believe what you are just told.

Pace

Almost every religion and ancient cultures around the whole world talks about "gods from the sky" (or heavens, which basically is the same)

Is there something to this? Why would they say this if not? Where did they all get the idea of this independently from eachother, unless something like this actually happened?

That is questions I find interesting and would like to know the answer of.

Look closer my friend...

Here is one example: http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidenc...huge_nozzle.htm

Look at bottom of page, saying "DOCUMENTATION" and linking to original NASA image: http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/im...1/M1100099.html

The same goes for all images on that website, they are all linked to original NASA footage.

In addition, you can do like me (though it takes a lot of time!) and manually look through the Mars Rover photos at:
http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/all/

Click on "View al... raw images" linkes for each of the two.

Good luck hunting!

Hi darkbreed,

The overwhelming majority of the world's professional astronomers and planetary scientists agree that Mars has a very, very thin atmosphere. This fact has been known since at least as early as the 1920s. I see that you've posted several images in this thread which were taken by Mars Global Surveyor (MGS), Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO), and the Mars Exploration Rovers Spirit & Opportunity. All four of these spacecraft absolutely depended on Mars having the very thin atmosphere which you'll find documented in any good scientific report.

MGS and MRO both used aerobraking to put themselves into the low orbit they required to take the amazingly-detailed photographs of the Martian surface you've been posting. Both spacecraft were designed to dip into the upper fringes of Mars atmosphere, using atmospheric drag rather than a rocket engine to slow down into their final orbits. If Mars had a thick, Earthlike atmosphere, as you suggest, both MGS and MRO would have ripped apart and burned up at the beginning of their aerobraking sequences.

The rovers Spirit and Opportunity used an entry aeroshell heat shield and a parachute system that were also designed to work in a very thin atmosphere. If Mars' atmosphere was thick and Earthlike, neither of the rovers would have survived entry or descent to the surface.

So, how is it possible that we're getting all this data from Mars? You're posting photos from spacecraft which wouldn't exist if Mars had a thick atmosphere.

I havnt looked into the details of that I admit, but at the same time, I have seen more than detailed enough and similar photos from earth taken from satellites as those from mars..

So how can you know that what you say is true, unless you were actually involved with the construction and development of these?

In any other case, you are just taking what you have heard/read/learned to be facts..

And that is a big difference from experience and true knowledge.

However, what the atmosphere of Mars is REALLY like I do not know any better than anyone else who have not been there themselves or been directly involved with work being done there, so of course it will only remain as speculations.

In any case, thin atmosphere or not, the images themselves that has come from mars is most interesting, and it certainly doesn't matter much how thin or thick the atmosphere is when there is more interesting thins regarding these photos than whatever the atmosphere might be at the present.

And, the thin atmosphere, even if it is so, do not explain these images in any way, if it does please enlighten me and tell me more about the various images posted in this thread.

Thanks Darkbreed.

Never post an image before....Experimenting....


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

Hello. I have some images to post.

Look for figure lower right of face.

Right, no-ones replied to your last 3 posts in the last week or so, so why bother? You're not even explaining what they're supposed to be of or what point you're trying to make. I think this thread is well and truly dead and should be locked.

Hello. RELAX.....I am just sharing some info.....I am taking the assumption that most people are reasonably rational and
intelligent. I do not need to give lenghty explanations from A to Z. All they have to do is visit my little website and
judge for themselvs. Instead of replying to my posts, I will just edit them instead. In this way this topic will not jump
up front and annoy people. A mistake on my part.

I don't think you should edit your posts.....making a new post is the best thing to do or what you
have to offer may be missed by members who.....are reading the thread, but might not necessarily
have anything to contribute....or may not want to leave a comment after each new image.

As for annoying people.....you're not annoying people...if you are worried about annoying 'Emma'...
don't be....most of her posts are scathing and she often demands that a thread is closed. (for some
reason??).......

Hello Bee. I did notice Emma's other posts elsewhere.....I do like here sense of "style" though.
As far as posting more images...I think I posted enough....I really don't like plastering images on messages boards.
They just take up space.

Thanks for the positive response. Ken

I don't like Emma much (no offense) but I have to agree at one point, which is what was the purpose of those pictures without any information? I don't even see anything interesting at all in them, specially not compared to other photos in this thread that has some very interesting features that certainly needs more study and research.

But well, maybe you saw something I missed

None taken. The thing that gets me is the total lack of focus on this board. This is why I say a thread should be closed - many people try as hard a possible to research and back up their posts and keep it on point (and that means you too darkbreed), but so often people will just post endlessly meaningless images and garbled, badly (if at all) reasearch about utter utter nonsense. It makes reading stuff here an absolute chore. I know people don't like what I say, but at least I keep it on topic, relevant and try to objectively research what I post. Not that any of you will believe that.

Emma, I like your old Avatar more than I like this one. But that’s me...

Now, on topic... I agree. Posting images without any reference and research about it is the same that I come here saying I talk every morning with the ghosts of Leonardo Da Vinci and Nostradamus...

Hello. I went to the Hirise/MRO website and found
their version of the "Face".

MRO/Hirise version:
http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_003234_2210

Mars Express version:
http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/More_Cyd...s/figure148.jpg

The Mars Express version is enlarged 2.5X, Filtered,
contrast enhanced and thats it.

The MRO version is severely distorted/flawed. It is initially shown upside down and the full image lacks detail. This is supposed
to be a high resolution image??? No it is not.

The Mars Express version shows more detail at much
lower resolution than MRO/Hirise. However, The Mars
Express version is NOISY. I have seen cleaner images
at the same resolution as the Cydonia Images.
Conclusion: This noise was deliberately introduced.

The image ID's that I am working with are:
SEMVHE8LURE and SEM6IE8LURE. Hows that for an ID......."LURE"

Here is the Mars Express website where these source images are located:
Ignore all the other pics except for the two images:SEMVHE8LURE and SEM6I8LURE.

http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?topic=&a...ia&subm2=GO

Finally, Here is another image to study:

http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Cydonia_...s/figure199.jpg

http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Cydonia_...s/figure193.jpg

You continue to beat a dead horse.

Don't make blanket statements, I believe you. You point out not only what is wrong, sometimes, with this forum but all forums. It seems that the intelligence level is kinda low worldwide. The question really is: "Why do intelligent people come to these forums at all?" As an intelligent person I answer as such: "Once is while, a kernel of interest is planted. Unfortunately, it quickly deteriorates for the reasons you give.

This topic has over 5700 views. My website has over 6000 hits. Australia, Netherlands, U.K, Canada, Germany and of course the USA to name a few.

Far from a "Dead Horse"

People are LOOKING. They may not have any comments but they are looking none the less.

Again, Here is my website:

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

And why do intelligent people have conversations with themselves?....

Some threads are more informative than others....I think this one is a gem....regarding the pictures
and links about Mars....

Oh, I don't mind what you say (just try to remain civil/polite). And, I do believe you!

Remember, for every pearl that is trampled by swine, another is snatched up and saved.

Quantity does not make quality. At your website one sees awful, pixelated images that show nothing of interest. People are looking because until they get to your site all they have is curiosity which, in my opinion, has to be unsatisfied. That's where your "hits". Dead AND buried!

OK Ed. You are absolutely right....quantity does not make quality. However, Time spent on my website has a quality all its own.

Here is the breakdown:

Number of visitors - 3,800 approx. (Jan 18th - Feb 18th)

87.7% 1 - 20 minutes 3,333 vistors

2.7% 30 minutes or greater. 103 visitors

9.6% Less than 1 minute 365 visitors

I had 3 visitors spending over an hour on my website.

Over 3,000 are spending up to 30 minutes looking. I am quite certain not all of them see "Pixelated Images".

So, less than 10 percent or spending less than 1 minute. If I had better quality source originals, That number would be smaller.
As I said earlier, Far from "Dead and Buried".

Pixalated images??...NO.... I only enlarged them 2 to 3 times (4X Max), apply some filtering, adjust the contrast. I do give untouched originals on my website. You can blame the ESA/Mars Express team for releasing a poor quality noisy image.

Here is a Mars Express example of an image with a resolution of 15.3 Meters/pixel (Versus the 13.7 meters/pixel of the originals I am using):

http://www.marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Cydo...s/figure265.jpg

A section enlarged 2.5X (Typical of enlargements on my website):

http://www.marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/Cydo...s/figure264.jpg

By all rights, Images on my website should be just as clear and noise free.

Maybe next time the Mars Express people will release a clean clear image.

Stats can give a false sense of accomplishment, satisfaction, etc. The bottom line is that no matter how high the resolution of images if there is nothing more than unusual shapes which can be fascinating it is not worth having a website giving the impression that there's more to the images than what one sees. There's plenty of websites with that end in mind. And as long as the official websites provide high-resolution images, why bother replicating them?

Hello. I was able to mirror both sides of the face. Actually, It was never a single portrait. The face is composed of
two faces. The left half human. The right half feline. I decided to post the images instead of just providing the links.


Dual face. Cydonia.




Portrait of a woman. Portrait of a Lion.

http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/More_Cyd...ges/face75k.jpg

http://marsesa.9f.com/slide_shows/More_Cyd...ages/face78.jpg


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

The face on mars is still interesting, even after the newer high resolution photos got out (god knows how much image tampering they did to it before releasing it) as geologically it still seem possible it is artificial, and it is an interesting shape when you study it.

And, of course, the fact that NASA tampers with images in the first place (something that is really proven without any doubt) it makes you wonder why they would do that if there is nothing to hide.

I suppose this thread will go on a while, specially as new images are discovered.

I recommend www.marsanomalyresearch.com for a lot of interesting photos from Mars.

Cheers.

Wow these photos are pretty cool.

But if there is any life on mars I rekon there a bunch of Cave men...I dont have anything to back this up Im just guessing and looking at the photos heh.

...cave men? why?

Hello. An undisputable, undenialable, equilateral or isosceles triangle with 900 foot sides...........
This is NOT a natural formation...







By the way....I am 42 years old.....Not 15....I should of chosen KS42 instead of KS15......

It is an interesting shape. But then, so are many natural things; and you must surely admit that the newer hi-res photos look hugely less 'artificial' than the Viking ones?


It makes me wonder, if NASA tampers with images in order to remove details of whatever it is they're supposed to be covering up (life, civilisation, Vin Diesel, whatever), why they would release so many pictures of 'trees', 'sandworms', 'forestation', etc. Wouldn't they have simply doctored or withheld those images?

Unless of course, they actually are what NASA claims they are: interesting but natural geological formations.

I just don't think you can have it both ways.

Hello. If it's "undisputable" and "undenialable", why aren't you sure if it's an equilateral or isosceles triangle?


I'm afraid I don't see what you see. In some of the images on this thread I can agree with the conspiracy theorists that the content is very interesting, and we can differ on the interpretation of that content. But in the pictures you're posting, I really see nothing except rocky waste and a great deal of noise. At least the Face on Mars is the weirdest mesa in the local area.

It is still a TRIANGLE. Maybe oneside is 50 feet shorter. An equilateral triangle has 3 equal sides.
I am absolutely certain of its artificial nature.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IsoscelesTriangle.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EquilateralTriangle.html


Visit my website.

I just don't think there's enough detail on that picture to be able to make out the less obvious two sides. I think we have noise, pixelation, and a brain which tries to make patterns.




I have, and quite honestly I saw more of the same. It's not that I think you're wrong to draw attention to this stuff if it's your thing - it's that I think you're undermining any case you might have by vastly overstating it. To proclaim from that blurry picture that you're "absolutely certain of its artificial nature" is only ever going to appeal to people who are already as sure as you are. It's my opinion that anyone on the fence will find your absolute certainty a turn-off, at least without lots of discussion as to why you're so damn certain.

It is still a triangle with 900 foot sides.
Blurry or not...........

has anone got the starbucks pics on mars if we are all ready to go?

the First image looks like a coincidence, Second one's TOO blurry, and the third one looks interesting only because of that skull-rock at the bottom right

Hello everyone.
Here is another image of the Lion. All I did was mirror the right or eastern half of the "Face".

So, what have we learnt today kids?

We've learnt that if you take an arbitrary natural formation, cut it down the middle (along an arbitrary axis) and mirror it (again, for arbitrary, unexplained reasons) then - WOW - you have something that looks a little bit like an animal that lives in Africa.*

WHAT IS YOUR POINT.

*(but only if viewed - AGAIN - along an arbitrary axis - I'm pretty sure that the mound isn't framed long a perfect north/south axis is it? So why are you looking at it that way? Why not turn it upside down so it looks nothing like a lion?? Its all so arbitrary its POINTLESS.)

Edited for extra bile.

Is it like one of those magic 3d pictures you have to go crosseyed to see? 'Cause I'm not seeing anything other than a hill made symetrical by photoshop. Heck I can't even see the perfect triangle...
See what too many years of learning to read topographical maps as well as looking at arial survey photos does to you, kids? If you want to find 'proof' of ancient alien civs, stay away from those things, otherwise you'll end up like me...*wooo...scary...bad...evil...bad...wooo*

I know. I just don't get how a mirrored image of an arbitrary formation looked at in a random way is proof of an ancient civilsation. I'd love KS15 to fill me in on this point actually.

I'd rather like to hear that too. But, as KS15 seems to be a man of few words and many pictures, I suspect we'll be waiting for a long time.

In the meantime, I'll get the Rorschach Inkblot Tests out.

It's a duck!

I think it's that same 'logic' that somehow manages to create advanced extre-terrestrial civilisations, somehow get them visiting earth and building the pyramids, sphinx, stonehenge, whatever, then putting them on Mars doing the same thing there so we down here can 'know' that they're up there

Sort of the similar to the thought process the sunday morning doorknocker goes through when he/she is telling you that an eternity of paradise awaits you if you sign up to believe their beliefs.

Unlike the doorknockers, though, if the ancient ET civ guys ever do post something that's obviously artificially created (in the physical sense) then I can guarantee they'll be just as shocked as me ..

Hello. Study the images carefully..........

I added images that covers a larger area. This should help indentify the formation.

KS15, as people ask for more information, you give less; as people ask for more than a pixelated image, you give the worst ones yet.

I have literally no idea what that's meant to be... do you?

Could you maybe give some background on why you think these things amount to evidence of some kind of lost Martian civilisation? Take it as read that we don't consider the images to be self-explanatory as you do. Pretend we're slow. Why are any of the pictures you've shown anything other than rocky landscapes and/or arbitrarily constructed simulacra?

Hello KS15,

There isn't anything obviously artificial here, just ordinary Martian landscape. As Nucular pointed out a few posts back, you're seeing nothing but the illusion of a triangle resulting from seriously overprocessing a relatively low-resolution, highly-compressed JPEG image. You're just "enhancing" JPEG artifacts.

Here's a cropped version of the high-resolution tiff image file, enlarged 2x without interpolation (North is up):


And here's the "triangle" enlarged 4x (North up):