Intelligence on Mars

[crazymikey]

I've already said that the mountain picture posted by WCF is not the same. It is provoking, but much of the details are filled in, and further more, the image has to be rotated 90 degrees. Meanwhile the faces on Mars, show the face in full view, all of the primary and secondary features, and has neither been rotated.

Now, I'll repeat once again(as you always need it repeated) show me evidence that such "face" formation, "glass tube" formation is natural. It's no good just saying it, this is a matter that requires hard evidence, not just your opinion.

 

[Faulty]

It is provoking, but much of the details are filled in,

What do you mean by that? The details on the terrestrial picture are filled in? The Martian pictures do not have any detail at all!

and further more, the image has to be rotated 90 degrees

This bit's really simple... you just tilt your head. I presume you think that the Martian structures are buildings or monoliths of some kind, facing upwards towards the sky. Just which way do you think WCF's terrestrial 'face' is facing?

show me evidence that such "face" formation, "glass tube" formation is natural. It's not good just saying it, this is a matter that requires hard evidence, not just your opinion

You want me to go there and take some pictures up close? Sure, we'll share a ride. You can try and prove their artificiality at the same time. It feels like you're being deliberately obtuse. I have suggested ways in which interesting and regular shapes can occur on Earth and Mars. Now what do you say?

 

[1100f]

This is right, there is extra-terrestrial life on Mars, they look like human, this is why they are doing statues with human faces.

You have farther away, in our galaxies, extraterrestrial life form which also look like horses.

We know that there are horses in North America.
The space horses live in space North America.

 

[crazymikey]

Faulty: I would rather not go in circles. So I'll say for the last time - show me evidence that these are natural geological formations. If you do not, next time, I am just going to ignore you post.

1100f: Wow, not the "horse" but the galaxy is so beautiful! To be honest, I did not see a horse, it looked more a dog with a beard As I said, the faces on Mars, are not just perceptions of ink-blot test - they are real, well-defined, as anything we can see.

 

[crazymikey]

Now that you've down-sized it, it looks like a dragon waiting to strike, of course, also a man with a hunchback. Depends how you see it.

 

[Faulty]

Despite the absence of anything more concrete than wishful thinking from your side, here's some evidence about the face from mine.

Here is some about the glass tunnels.
I appreciate that you won't consider this to be real evidence, but I don't understand what you want me to provide short of actually taking you to Mars in a spaceship and rolling you down a sand dune. In fact, I expect that you would then accuse me of skirting the issue and choose to ignore me.

 

[crazymikey]

Faulty, debunking theories do not necessarily rightly debunk. It is evidence that debunks. We often apply prosaic and unfounded explanations to all matters that are beyond our paradigms to rationalize for us. However, if those theories suggest they are natural phenomena, then they should be able to show identical formations here on Earth too. Thus I again ask,for the 4th/5th time - show me that is the case.

 

[Faulty]

I could point you towards any number of photographs of rocks which look just as rock-like as do the MGS photos of the famous 'face'. I could also show you many pictures of sand dunes which look just as much like sand dunes as your 'glass tunnel' does. Is that what you want to see? -Pictures of natural formations on Earth that look just as unplanned as their Martian counterparts?

If not, Well Cooked Fetus already showed you a rock formation that looked many times more like a human face than any that you posted. I am assuming that you're not about to dispute the natural origin of that mountain. Unless anyone else has some similar photos, that will have to suffice as I lost my extensive catalogue of interestingly-shaped rocks when I had to wipe my computer.

Does this seem a little one sided to you though? When are you going to show your evidence of artificiality? I don't mean meaningless equations.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I still haven't seen the math on how the probability was calculated!!!

 

[blackholesun]

Faulty: I would rather not go in circles. So I'll say for the last time - show me evidence that these are natural geological formations.

Ok Crazy, show me evidence that they are NOT natural geological formations and they are et made faces....other than repeating yourself over and over again the pictures should explain themselves: they don't. I can pour pudding on the ground and call it crap that that's not the case. And don't pull that probability bullshit either. You're just making that up and you know it. Not providing WCF with the detains just proves my point.

My point being...what is more likely; that an intellegence that we have NO evidence for made a bunch of faces on Mars which is the ONLY evidence we have for them....OR they are natural geological formations which makes a lot more sense.

 

[Greco]

This rock reminds me of something but I'm too stoned to figure it out.
Can anybody help?

 

[Pete]

I recommend that you read through Phil Plait's essay on the topic.


Further reading:

Pareidolia
Pareidolia Project

Examples:

Lenin


Jesus






And some others:











Face on the Ocean Floor
The Woman in the Moon
Stone Faces Gazeteer

 

[Pete]

Note, this image is often discounted as an optical illusion, however there is proof now, that this is not an optical illusion at all, and the images released in 98 were deliberaly flattened and unevenly lit to make it look less like a face

Tell me you're joking. They were deliberately unevenly lit???

 

[Pete]

And about the glass tube...

Is it really a valley?

 

[ElectricFetus]

Thanks pete that’s a lot of faces, 10^21 odds eh, crazymikey? How did Bush the idiot say it: "fuzzy math!"

 

[crazymikey]

Out of all you presented, this is the only one, that carries some weight. However, again it is lacking much of the definition of those on mars. A lot of it is a play of light and shadow. However, the examples I cited from Mars do not, they have it all well-defined:

I sincerenly appreciate your efforts Pete, and I may even accept the faces, maybe rock formation, provided you show me such formations on Earth, in areas of natural geology. Please also, show me "glass tube" formation here on Earth too.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I like that photoshop work there. You want definition eh, someone get out paintshop or Photoshop and start adding definition just like they did with the mars face.
This pic was taked from strait up with the sun in a position high enough to provide full lighting by MGS.

this below is computer modifed fake:

 

[crazymikey]

The MGS spacecraft took a high-resolution photo of the “Face on Mars” in April, 1998. That image suffered from four handicaps: a low viewing angle; a low Sun angle from the direction under the “chin”; an almost complete lack of contrast; and enough cloudiness to scatter most of the light and eliminate shadows. To add to these difficult circumstances, JPL-MIPL personnel, apparently judging that the controversy over artificiality would not be ended when the actual photo was released, processed the image through two filters having the effect of flattening and suppressing image details. This step is documented at a JPL web site.


Before I studied image processing myself, I worried that the biases of the person doing the processing might contribute significantly to the image seen. Now that I am more familiar with the process, I can see that it uses objective, standardized computer techniques, and does not add features to an image that are not present in the original. The techniques used are more like focusing a camera – they change the camera’s view to one more like what the human eye would see if viewing directly. The exception is the left portion of the east (right-side) eye, which was hidden behind the nose ridge, and for which no data exists other than that in Figure 1. It was therefore filled out artistically by assuming symmetry with the other eye socket. ** [See footnote at end.] **
The JPL personnel who decided to release Figure 3 to the media were right about one thing. If they had released the unfiltered spacecraft image to the press, the controversy over artificiality of the Face would not have been settled in the minds of many fair-minded people.

In fact they are not computer modified, they are simply reversing the image manipulation JPL did to make it look less convincing, and showing how it really should look from an overhead angle and lit up evenly. This does not add any extra details to the picture - it simply shows it how it would look if we saw it. Meanwhile if you accuse them of modification, JPL has actually admitted to modifying the high-resolution images, by apply a high-pass and a low-pass filter to the image. Open up photoshop, and apply these filters to an image.

 

[ElectricFetus]

The MGS spacecraft took a high-resolution photo of the “Face on Mars” in April, 1998. That image suffered from four handicaps: a low viewing angle; a low Sun angle from the direction under the “chin”; an almost complete lack of contrast; and enough cloudiness to scatter most of the light and eliminate shadows. To add to these difficult circumstances, JPL-MIPL personnel, apparently judging that the controversy over artificiality would not be ended when the actual photo was released, processed the image through two filters having the effect of flattening and suppressing image details. This step is documented at a JPL web site.

Who said this? Do they have proof what they side is true? is this the same phote that they descibes? Nasa took more the one phote at diffrent times here: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast24may_1.htm

Above: A 3D perspective view of the Face on Mars landform produced by Jim Garvin (NASA) and Jim Frawley (Herring Bay Geophysics) from the latest MOC image (April 8, 2001) and all of the available laser altimeter elevation measurements by MOLA. There is no vertical exaggeration in this ray-traced image. Garvin and Frawley express special thanks to Mike Malin and MOLA science team. See also these false-color 3D views of the Face with approximately 10:1 vertical exaggeration.

 

[crazymikey]

WCF - The proof I have, is actually admitted by JPL on their web site. They passed the MGS photograh's through a high and low-pass filter. Why, did they apply computer filters on the images, before it was released to the scientific community?

As I said, in case you don't know what these filters do. Open up one of these face images in photoshop, and apply a low-pass filter. You will see for youself, what these filters do.