Monday, 25 September 2006.

The famous 'Face on Mars', seen by some as evidence of intelligent life on the Red Planet, can now be seen close up.

The European Space Agency has released new detailed images of the controversial, face-like formation first captured by a Viking orbiter at the Cydonia region of Mars in 1976.


http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1747752.htm

Convincing the true believers that it's not a face put there by aliens, but a raised, eroded surface might not be that easy, some may never be convinced, no matter what.

Some people will believe it's archaeological evidence no matter how much evidence to the contrary you present them. It doesn't fit with their beliefs, so they'll pick at anything they can possibly find to refute the science behind it.

There have been pictures of the face taken from different angles before, and it didn't stop the stooges from insisting they had the wrong site.

Some take Faith over Facts - the need to believe over rules common sense, evidence and facts. Sad but true.

I even took a picture locally where I live of a 'face' that ONLY with the shadows right will you see it. Other wise it's just a rock. That meant nothing to some, the accepted my picture and in the same breath - 'that is not the case on Mars...'

I have never been one who believes that the face on Mars was actually a "face." But I will not close my mind to any possibilities. I believe that without any concrete evidence, it would be foolish to suppose that their are any archeological relics on our neighbor planet.

One thing did strike me as curious, though.

Why, if we have satellites that can read a license plate from a 2,000 mi. orbit over the earth (0.5cm - 2.0cm resolution), does the ESA have a spacecraft with a stereo camera, that can get to a much closer orbit to Mars (because it is significantly smaller than earth), why does it only have a resolution of 13.7 meters?!?!?

Just a question, I don't know nuthin'.

Yea sure the photos are nice, although i personally think they used 3dsmax and Topagraphical Data, which isen't very accurate. Look how rounded the tops are where you clearly make out crevises and cracks. It is not accurate at all but is still enough to convince me. It seems to me that the first picture presented in 3d shows massive hills but no signs of rocks like on the lower portion of the lifted up areas. Until they can show something better for Elevation , i wont change my views on it. They need something that shows better elevation data then say google earth? Like cmon now that doesn't even show the ridges or crevises within the mountain.

I still think they are good photos, i just think they could do better then that, as the last poster has noted.

Hey! How did a bust of my face get on Mars?

Figured i would take a try at getting the elevation data into gmax, although i would need a super computer to even run it lol. I thought it would be intresting to get a vew of it all myself.

Either way the photos are very nice, it gives me something new to look at on mars, and some more time to fool around in gmax/photoshop with the new images.





I still would like to have better elevation, although as i said i need a super computer to run it, as this is already 1 million polygons. Just thought i would run this through, hopefully soon nasa will have better elevation data tossed up.

Money + Purpose.

Think about how much time it would take to map Mars at such a magnification...

Plus technology - The last time they did a retro of the HST - it had the equalivant of a "486" processor in it. Why because they knew it would work.

The further they send out the technology is a tad older that what is around the earth - more reliable at that distant.

Jerry -

Are the Martians invading yet? I'm getting bored.

They have been, seeded the planet and moved to the Andromeda Galaxy. Their ETA to return to see what has happened is 2012 AD June 2nd.

And I bet that they are less than 13.7 meters tall.

Actually i have taken the topographical data and put back into Gmax for further research. I loaded it into a mapping program afterwords so i can adjust the sunlight direction and whatnot. The results are stunning and very similar to the old viking photo. So that does further explain that this mountain really depends which way the sunlight is facing to even come close to having it look like a face.

Made an example here showing how the sunlight can make all the difference with the mars face. Now i have my full opinion that it really is just a mountain with nothing unusual other then a shadow casted depending on sunlight. I always thought it was like an actual face carved into it, but now i am wrong lol.

Hey Blazea -

VERY NICELY DONE!!

I only have Vista Pro 4 and Bryce 5 - they don't come close to this.

Ya, funny how lighting is very important. Wrong light or 'right' light can reveal a lot!!

Jerry

Again, excellent job!

PS: I have a "job" in Section 5 of some very 'high tech / ATS' projects - interested??

Yea lighting seems to be the culprat of the mars face, and that i can varify given i have the new photos lol. Otherwise it sure would be nice if i could double the polygons or tripple without my computer slowing down to snail speed lol. So yea its not as accurate as the Nasa images, but having the option of changing sunlight makes all the difference in this case.

PS: What do you mean Section 5, and what are these ATS projects you speak of.

I didn't really have an opinion on that face on Mars. When I was younger I always thought it could have been planted there by extraterrestrials, seeing as it was EXTREMELY similar to a face of that of a human's... but, eh.

What can ya do?

I heard about the "face" for the first time when I was about 15 years old, I can still remember telling my friends the news, like I knew for a fact that it was
an alien artifact.

OMG they are comming from planet zorklon, they planted an alien face in the rocks of mars .. lol i just like to spot anything and give something else to debate about. I know it's not really anything, it was just the only thing that has caught my eye within the area.







They are comming for you first

Pareidolia describes a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being mistakenly perceived as recognizable.

Like seeing the "man" in the moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia


Ps: I wonder what Mr.Richard"face on mars"Hoagland has to say about this.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/

Riiiight... *Backs away slowly*

Yeah I agree. I see Hoagland's trying to cash in on 2012

However I noticed this on his website. A quote from Arthur C Clarke

"I'm fairly convinced that we have discovered life on Mars," Clarke told SPACE.com Sunday as Buzz Aldrin listened. "There are some incredible photographs from [the Jet Propulsion Laboratory], which to me are pretty convincing proof of the existence of large forms of life on Mars! Have a look at them. I don't see any other interpretation."

Clarke's flat statement stunned Aldrin into silence, much as his earlier statements on the "Glass worms of Mars" at a Planetary Society event in December, 2000 made Society chairman Louis Friedman acutely uncomfortable.

This is slightly odd for a man like Clarke to state. I don't know maybe he was being sacastic.

Well, sure, you can tell me anything with a camera that has a resolution of 13.7 meters (45.2 ft). I can just imagine the 70 pound flash card I would have to insert in my 6.0 megapixel digital camera if its resolution was 13.7 meters.

ME: "Hey, look at this picure of my girlfriend, isn't she pretty?"

BUDDY: "What girlfriend?"

ME: "Right there, in pixel 1425 x 87769."

BUDDY: "Oh...yeah...dude, she's, uh, cute "

Kinda like: "Hey, there's nothing on Mars, surely you would see something in the 13.7 meter pixel."

Umm, becareful as you back up!! Geesh, you are going to step on my 13.7 meter pixel there!

OK - for those who didn't catch on - "Seeded and went to Andromeda" is from a movie. The 2012 is the current 'buzz' of the world 'ending' on 2012. The month and day was just random, (I hope!!??)

The only reason there is any obscure stretch to imagine the world ends in 2012 is the tired fact that the Mayan calendar ended then. They certainly never said it was the end of anything except the calendar. If we use the popularist logic we must conclude that the world will end on December 31, 2006 since ALL the calendars on the planet stop there!

Yep, does anyone remember the fisaco of 1999? Now, it's 2012.
Once again, the end of the world is delayed due to unforeseen circumstances.

LOL, are you referring to the Y2K computer bug, that was supposed to cause the collapse of western civilization?

Yeah that and the infamous Nostradamus prediction. I remember at the time how his supporters claimed “He’s so specific! Yep the world’s gonna end definitely in 1999! No mistake!”

Now they say "Oh well, it comes down to how you interpret his prophecies, anyway lets move on the Mayan calendar! Yep, no mistake; the world will end 2012!"

Did i fall for that one

the world is gonna end 1999 now its 2012

i say what a load of CRAP!

Yeah... I remember first seeing the picture as a kid some years back... I was like "Wow!" and then I was like "Wait... why would they build a structure that points upwards which they cant appreciate rather than towards the horizon like the sphynx?"

But it's not what you CAN see in the pics it's what you CAN'T see.

With a resolution of 13.7 meters, which is over 45 ft PER PIXEL, you could hide an object as big as a bus. A full-size, 90 passenger Bluebird school bus os only 39.5 ft long.

There could be a whole parking lot of a hundredschool buses next to that Mars formation and it would look like a tiny yellowish dot with no real form.

C'mon, now. You know they are using cameras with much smaller resolution, don't you?

I'm not saying there's anything down there out of the ordinary, but why bother spending 10 billion $ to go there with a camera that counln't even detect a tree?

Has anyone seen the trailer for the Transformers movie due out next summer? Did you see how it starts?

MUHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Are you still talking about the resolution thing? Man... I havent been talking about that for pages now...

Yes, no one has answered satisfactorily.

But I guess I'll let it go now, since there doesn't seem to be one.


Seizure later!

What about all the answers given to you?

Right, the operative word is satisfactorily. But I suppose that is a subjective matter, ay?

lmao plus a roflcopter! Hahaha how to make a martian bunny disappear

http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/LAxpo/10.jpg

If i would look in the desert of earth i'm sure i would also find rocks resembling 'things'

http://www.enterprisemission.com/spirit2.htm

Ffs that's just rediculous!

And the face on Mars? Well who knows... Like i was trying to say in another thread similar to this one, we don't know lot's of things. I just hope that most of the maybe's will be gone by the time that i die

Yes l admit this "WHite bunny" is a pretty weird thing. But when the pseudoscientist community got a hold of it, speculation ran rampant. The object was quickly dubbed "the bunny", and people wondered if it could be a fossil, an animal, or an artifact.

Hoagland, of course, had to pipe up about this, so he put up a picture on his site claiming that the object was "optically removed" by NASA from later images, and the "bunny" had been run over twice by the rover.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/LAxpo/10.jpg


Have a look here as Phil Plait talkes about "Hoaglands bunny".

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/bunny.html

Less popularized, but obviously more menacing, is the face found on asteroid Eros.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/stra...s_010213-3.html

http://www.visual--media.com/blog/?cat=18

What in the world is that all about???

A NASA scientist's .. an astronauts' photo album of weird things they 'saw' at work????

Unofficial ... Mar's photos etc...

pretty cool pic, but it looks more like it depends on light to make its image rather than on rock shapes.

I still say:

13.7 meter resolution = "you don't know nuthin"