CLICKY

And you know what? It looks edit ALL like a face.

Watch your language please.

Awesome pictures...but it looks less like a face now and more like...a hill.

It's time to *face* the facts, the face on Mars is actually a mesa. There are no ruins of an ancient alien city on Mars. I really wish it were otherwise, but this is the reality.

Even if there any type of ruins, posting pictures like this and calling it a face puts doubts into peoples minds about everything they find and label.

Maybe it was never ment to look like a face from the surface

Maybe it once WAS a face. Earth will probably die. Maybe after 100 years from now on, maybe after 10000 years... And maybe after 1000 milion years, life begins (again) on let's say Mars. Time has past and the only things not eroded on this planet or vanished are the biggest things on Earth. But nothing that has been built, something that has been carved out. For example the azca lines or something like a rock that has been carved out into a face. They would be in such a bad state that the beeings on Mars will say:"no, that's not made by aliens" I'm not a scientist so i don't know how long it takes for something to erode or to vanish. I think there once was life on Mars, maybe it was in the days we had our dinosaurs here... Maybe they even killed those suckers by flooding the entire Earth and replaced them with animals from Mars. Two animals of each kind, male and female. And just very maybe, they migrated to Earth because life on Mars became impossible. Life was good on Earth until the age of ice. All there equipment went broken and they had to struggle for there lives. Because they wanted to remember as much as possible they told stories, passed on from father to son. How they knew to clone people by taking a man's rib, they could even make a female clone out of a male clone! That they came from another planet, later known as heaven, they had mass destruction weapons that could wipe out entire cities, turning cities upside down. They got split up during the iceage and migrated to different places. Some would bother to tell the stories, others wouldn't. Because the stories where told from person to person, different stories began to emurge. Throughout the history, the story got altered so much that the current version of that story is called: 'The old testament'

So, that's what happend according to me. In other words, time went by and we forgot where the hell we came from.

I would like to add that this would explain a lot of 'evolution'. Maybe we changed so much due to a change of atmosphere and gravity or something like that. Finaly, coudn't our desire to find ET and UFO just be an instinct? Not something we see, but something we feel?

Not to knock your search for an explanation Boemba (and, incidentally, welcome to the UM Forum!), but there are a few problems with this particular set of ideas.

Concerning the erosion of items, synthetics like plastics will be around for several thousands of years, which means that all the wire insulation, all the plastic bags, the styrofoam cups, the car interiors, anything made of synthetics, will be around millenia after man is gone. If you think about it, an alien race with the technology to turn an entire mesa into a face (a feat that would make our Mt. Rushmore pale in comparison) will also see to it that their incredible creation is preserved with a synthetic substance, much as we do with our modern-day buildings, and our preservation efforts with our older structures.

The problem of a global flood suffers from the lack of evidence for a global flood, whcih would be much more distinct that the current evidence of specific floods currently used to support this particular argument. Similarly, it is not supported by a fossil record that does not indicate a single point of evolutionary growth for all animals on Earth,

I'm not sure what you think this theory would have to contribute to evolutionary theory, but it is certainly a subject that you should learn more about, as you have asked very intelligent questions and shown an insight indicative of a deductive mind. There is a slight lack of knowledge, but there is nothing inherently wrong with not knowing something you haven't yet learned, as long as you are open to the idea that there is always something to learn.

It looks upside down. If you'd see it the other way, it'd look like a face.

Very cool pic's.

First of all thank you
Second, indeed you have some pointers ^^ But as always, most things that ARE impossible, COULD be possible. Maybe they where smarter than us and stopped polluting there world with plastic. Or maybe they didn't had the materials to make plastic. I allways used the term maybe, because it is just a theory. About the flooding, it didn't perse had to happen with flooding, although it would fit nicely with what the old testament is saying Maybe it was Mars that flooded and the days mentioned in the OT where the days they travelled... And if Mars DID flood, everything probably got covered with a layer of mud. About the evolution, well... i'm sure we haven't found everything yet.

And yes, there IS always something to learn. People tend to make mistakes, everyone makes them, even i I do not say it happend like this, i'm just guessing. I don't know much of the facts concerning the OT, UFO's etc... I only know pieces that just don't seem to add up and try to complete the puzzle.

from a distance say about 50 miles up it probably would look like a face but saying that my dad from 50 miles away probably would look like clint eastwood

Hahaha lmao! Good one ^^

It would be fantastic for us to finally have proof of life on another planet, even of a long extinct life. But I just dont see this being it. It looks like a face, because we as humans see faces all the time. We are programed to recognize the pattern of a face; its one of the first, blurry images we see as newborns, with all those giant, adult heads in our little baby field of vision. But, like I mentioned in another thread with a similar theme: just because you see something that looks like something you recognize, doesnt mean it IS what you recognize. I used the example that seeing faces in wood grain does not prove the existence of wood nymphs, and seeing a cloud shaped like a giant bunny does not prove the existence of giant flying bunnies.
If we found crop circles or giant line drawings of geometric patterns, or even a drawing of a face, THAT would be something. But a rock that, from a certain angle and with certain lighting, kinda looks like a face... not so much. Believe me, I want it just as much as anyone else. I just dont think weve found it. Yet.

Besides, what are the chances that an alien race is going to have anything that we would consider a "face" to begin with?

I agree and with the recent discovery that mars has a corrosive bleach like substance on it's surface it makes it impossible at this current time for any life to so much as live. Not to mention it's atmosphere is so thin that if you took your space helmut off your lungs would be sucked out of your body. The atmosphere is so thin infact that if you ran a lawn mower unlike earth where you could hear it for blocks you would barely be able to hear it at roughly 20 to 25 feet away.

Well according to my wild theory there, iow if we came from Mars, we would once have looked the same as 'the face' but due to change of atmosphere or gravity our appearances changed.

Very good points you do have but in scientific digs the oldest mammols found on earth are the wholly mammoths which appeared during the end of the prosoic era the end of the dinosaur age, as such the earlier what can be considered humans were neanderthaws which modern humans did not evolve from, as for an alien civilization on mars as someone else had pointed out maybe they stopped using synthetics that pulloted their world and started using bio-degradable materials that would be gone after a few thousand years not made to stand the test of time but made to last long enough to complete what ever task was created to do. As for the evolution of Modern humans the first remains of cromagnium humans was discovered approximatly twenty thousand years ago, think how did a bunch of primative man move stones thousands of miles to build stonehenge or the pyrimids in eygypt the carbon dating on the sprinx suggests it is nearly fiffteen thousand years old and has been altered over and over the millenia to change what it looked like by the pharoahs of the old kingdom, some things are set in stone and others are not but as you pointed out its jsut a theory and maybe we evolved from martians fleeing a dying world or just evolved here all by our lonesom, but might explain why it looks like a face on mars perhaps it was build by ancestors as someone else has pointed out and the change in climate and atmosphere has altered us fundamentally

think about this, if the atmosphere of mars was slightly less thinner then it is currently wouldnt the lower gravity cause the beings if human-like to be taller and more lenghty then humans here, as for sound waves and such wouldnt that make to where had maybe telepath abilitys to cummicate with one another over great distances, but maybe i look into stuff to much and we just evolved here but hey it might be possible that we are actually decendants of an extinct alien civilzation and thats where our searching for life out beyond this world comes from

the first mammals were very small, and lived at the same time as the dinosaurs...

LINK -> Oldest mammal is found:

the Mammoth is a relatively modern animal (compared to the dinosaurs), it evolved about 5 MYA, long after the dinosaurs were gone... Woolly Mammoths are included in the Mammoth species...

LINK -> Woolly Mammoth
LINK -> Mammoth

Not quite, but that was already pointed out.



The problem with that argument is two-fold. The first part is that even after eventually creating such disappearing synthetics does not cause the the previously created non-disintegrating synthetics to disappear, in the exact same way that our degrable styrofoam does not make the tons of old, undegrable styrofoam in our landfills disappear. The second point, and the one most relevant to this particular argument, is that the purpose of coating their giant sculpture with a synthetic is precisely to stand the test of time. The very reason for the coating is to protect the sculpture from the elements as long as possible.



Cromags did not build either Stonehenge or the Pyramids.



No, the Sphynx has not (and cannot) be carbon dated.



This right here is the problem that you are encountering. You are saying "its jsut a theory". By saying that, you demonstrate that you are using the incorrect definition of the word "Theory". A "theory", as used by the average layman around the watercooler, is nothing more than idle speculation, nothing more than a mere notion of an idea that can be applied to who won the office betting pool or why girls do the wacky things that men don't understand. That is "just a theory". But what we are talking about when we talk about dating the Sphynx, or when we talk about evolutionary theory, or when we talk about anything relating to a scientific field, we are not talking about a layman's theory; we are talking about Scientific Theory.

Scientific Theory is a whole other animal. In order to become a scientific theory, something cannot be a mere idea. A scientific theory must meet the requirements of scientific methodology, all of them, without exception. It must have the backing and support of both scientific and logical evidence to support the claims that it makes. A scientific theory must undergo the extremely stringent process of peer review, where the entire theory is subjected to the skeptical gaze of the academic body which scours the claim for validity. It must also be published in a scientific journal, so that the entire scientific community can read about the study, and thus even further decrease the chance an incorrect assumption being made. Lastly, a true scientific theory must be falsifiable. There must be a manner in which the theory can be proven to be incorrect.

Only after a scientific theory has undergone all this can it be referred to as a "theory". There is no "just a..." about it. A scientific theory is a claim that has withstood all attempts to prove it incorrect, and that has yet to be falsified and must, therefore, be considered as valid until otherwise shown to be false.

Yes indeed. But rather you like it or not, a scientific theory can allways be proven wrong. Scientist are humanoids and humans make mistakes. Then knowing that some facts that where proven by scientists turned to be wrong in history, even in the last 5 years, why would we believe a scientist theory? When they even can't get there facts straight. (don't know if my last sentence made any sence but remember, i'm not english )

And even if we had an ape-ish look back then, and by looking at some skulls, i even think they look more like aliens ^^, ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sts5.jpg ) and we evolved in the beeings we are now i don't care The face on Mars looks more like an ape then it looks like a human anyway. If you look at the fossils here on this site: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html you see different skulls, and some of them are believed to be ape's. Not human but ape's.
Then we have Lucy: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html
Not much left there huh? So how do they know for a fact this is human?
I could go on with this but i think i've made my point...

I don't think you understand the concept of Falsifiability that I mentioned in my last post. Falsifiability is one of the pre-requisites of scientific methodology, and must absolutely be present in any theory that wishes to be considered scientific. Falsifiability means that every single theory must have a mannaer in which it can be shown to be incorrect. For instance, take the Pythagoream Theorum. This states that in a Right triangle, the sum of the squares of the two sides will equal the square of the hypothenuse (A^2 + B^2 = C^2). This theory of mathematics has been around for several millenia, and has never been shown to be incorrect. Until such time as it is shown to be incorrect, it can be taken as true. And yes, it may well someday be shown to be incorrect, thanks to falsifiability. All one has to do to show the Pythagoream Theorum incorrect is the discovery of a right trinagle in which the sum of the squares of the two sides do not equal the square of the hypothenuse.

Science is well aware that humans do not know everything and that they make mistakes. This is why it is so important to distinguish between a layman theory and a scientific theory. A layman's theory is merely a whim, and has a rather high chance of being incorrect. A scientific theory has gone through so many check and balances, so many different reviews, so much scrutiny, that the chances of it being incorrect are far reduced. It could still be wrong, of course, but a theory isn't a claim of truth, but rather a valid formal explanation to a given phenomena, no more, no less.

Ok, so it does not look like a face from the new photos.
Is it just me, or does the base of the mountain look
unusually symmetrical? I've seen mesas and buttes,
but I've never seen one so evenly dimensioned.

Nah, it's not just you. Quite a few people believe the same thing. When one looks at detailed pictures of the mountain, the even-ness disappears.

ok, why would an alien ( or other life form) make a "monument" or "sculpture" of the human race, actually i think it would be a waste...
its all just your head and coincidence
you see what you want, i actually saw a lion there,... others nothing...

Actually when I saw the new pictures I thought it looked very even.
Of coarse that does not prove alien life, but it does raise the question
of what kind of geologic forces would have caused it. I'm not trying
to prop up the martian civilization idea, I'm asking about anomalous
geology. Perhaps its a result of magnetic forces. In any case, I hope
that when there is a manned mars expedition, they go to that area
and check it out.

Honestly, had I been shown these mountains without reference, I would have said that they were glacier formed. Compare these pictures with arial shots of, say, the Andes, or the Matterhorn, and you will see what I mean. The only problem is that I don't think such level of glacier formation existed on Mars. How did such sharp (relatively speaking) edges form is what I wonder.

Yes, the top portion does indeed look glacial, while the base of the mountain looks
like a rectangle with the long sides straight and the short ends rounded, more like a mesa,
but strangely symmetrical. What happend? Water and ice seem the most likely forces to me,
but it still looks very unique geologically.

The ESA image of the face is not the best. Best is probably this:




Just wqy too many straight lines and bezier curves for any honest person to want to go on claiming the thing is a "mesa".

A friend of mine marked up the image and noted several points:




First is that there is only one possible way to build such a thing, i.e. to pile up stones into the rough shape you need, large stones on the bottom and then progressively smaller ones, and then put some sort of a hard facing over the entire thing. You can see how this has been done in the image. On the left side from which wind and sand come, the facing is almost entirely eroded and, even where the underlying stone shows, everything has been worn smooth. On the right side, we can see that part of the facing remains, much of it having fallen off to the side in heaps. We can see the cutout in the facing for the left eye, and we can see where the facing fell and broke away from the nose, which is what you would expect. We can also see the rough stones of the nose area, which have not all been worn smooth.

Second is that the megalith is heavily damaged, and has suffered more than one kind of damage. My guess is that the entire rock plate on which the megalith sits was picked up and slammed down, and that the megalith was deformed in the process. You can see the places where the hard casement has been pulled apart on the right side. The megalith has been compressed along the axis from lower left to upper right which is marked with the blue line, and stretched along the other axis from lower right to upper left. The angle A between the line of the headdress on the left side and the line along the top is thus less than the original 90 degrees. The line through the center of the face has been deformed from the original straight line to the curved line drawn. The basic shape of the mouth is still there, albeit moved to the left. You can see where the outer casing has broken away from part of the outline of the mouth on the right.

You can see the ridge along the eyebrows, you can see the indentation for the right eye and the outline of the left eye cut into the facing and still in reasonably good shape. You can see the rise for the nose as well as the area where the casing broke away from the nose on the right, and part of the remains of nostrils, and you can see the basic lines of the mouth.

Unless of course you're STUPID like the feebs at NASA who're still working triple shifts trying to convince the world this thing is a mesa....

The problem they have is that you can't build these kinds of megaliths with space suits on; the planet has to be habitable for this stuff to get built and our standard version of a history of our solar system does not allow for Mars ever to have been habitable; always too cold, and never enough air to breathe.

What is needed is a different sort of theory of a history for our system, which allows Mars to be warmer, and to hold an atmosphere via electrostatic forces or something other than gravity.

The perceived view that humans and protohumans have been walking around here for millions of years and that we only have three or four thousand years worth of history which anybody really knows anything about does not help the NASA feebs' case.

what I like about pictures of other planets..(of course also other pics..)
it can stimulate peoples fantasy...
thanks for posting

"think about this...martian gravity is 1/3rd of Earth's. that same Earth amosphere would be just several 100 millibars above NASA's reported pressure for Mars. In my opinion, Mars can support life, but not at a Human's level." " Mars did have water on it's surface, along with temporate climate, as your 21th century science permits, a cool, but a warm 50F."" at that temperature, life can evolve, but at a slower pace." " to surmise that Mars was habital, is a correct assumtion, however, most humans will judge by Earth standards." "what bothers me the most is the fact that humans are looking for human type evolution. There are several planets not discovered by 21st century knowledge, that support a type of human evolution that rivals your present day bonobo chimps."

As I noted above, you'd need some way of having a planet like Mars support a breathable atmosphere, involving something other than gravity; probably electrostatic or electromagnetic forces. That makes for a long story, but it is plausible.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/LostCitiesofBarsoom.htm






sorry I don't know how to post pictures...but they are worth a look !!!


When this stunning "Martian ruin" (below, right) is compared to similar structures here on Earth -- as in this 1936 aerial photograph of a long-abandoned "~eighteen hundred-year-old Sasanian Palace" in Iran (below, left) -- the eerie geometric similarity is instantly apparent.


Another close-up from the same MRO mosaic (rotated 50 degrees, clockwise -- below) demonstrates that not all "quasi-circular features" on Mars are simple "impact craters."

This remarkably preserved example exhibits organized, interior geometric detail characteristic of a massive, designed building ... surrounded by six, geometrically aligned, surviving elevated "walls" -- minus a possible roof! The massive former structure is attended by an array of additional, still partially-buried rectilinear features just outside.

The scale of the circular building is about 600 feet ... the size of a typical terrestrial football stadium. The surrounding rectilinear features are the size of average city buildings on Earth ....

Sunlight is coming from the right ....

OK, but isnt it a fact that you can make a picture look like anything you want it to? I would want to see the original frames before I made my mind up.

Give me break. Someone is really grasping at straws.

Check this out! http://www.dvhardware.net/article14548.html