Intelligence on Mars

[crazymikey]

Ok, I've done it for you:

This is using the following image:

The following filters have been applied

1: Low pass
2: High pass
3: Contrast

 

[ElectricFetus]

The nose and mouth are out of tilt with its eyes, why does it have a second mouth on its chin? What on its head?

WCF - The proof I have, is actually admitted by JPL on their web site.

Really, show me.

 

[Pete]

All the mars examples are plays of light an shadow.

Is this not well-defined enough for you?

 

[crazymikey]

Pete, I am being honest with you, I do not see the picture you are showing me. I see what looks almost half a face, but not quite a face. While the Mars, picturely, clearly show faces.

I leave it to you, to show me geological areas, where this occurrs. As well as the "glass tube" structures. You called them valleys, I've seen satellite images of valleys, and well, they're not the same.

 

[blackholesun]

Crazymikey. How can you honestly look at the Mars pictures and clearly see faces but see NOTHING in pictures that also clearly show faces? If you can US one-minded for not thinking those Mars faces are authentic ET well you're being pretty hypocritical; as you are rejecting simple ideas that they are effects of light and shadow and oh yeah that there is NO NASA SUPERCOVERUP. Pete's examples show us how the mind can play tricks on you but your mind just BEGS to see things that are not what they seem so I can't believe that you don't see resemblence of Pete's pictures.

 

[crazymikey]

Blackholesun,

I said in my opening post: These are NOT tricks of light and shadows, or perceptions of an ink-blot test. They are clearly defined as faces, and that is why, they are under such scrutiny. Meanwhile, the faces Pete shows, while provoking, are merely tricks of light and shadow and perceptions. I honestly do not see a face in those images.

I am not biassed. If you can prove to me, such faces occurr in terrestrial geology, I'll accept that those faces are naturally formed. Secondly, can you prove those "glass tubes" are terrestrial geology.

If you cannot prove it to be natural, then it must mean, it really is intelligently designed.

 

[Avatar]

These are NOT tricks of light and shadows

and posting NOT with capital letters makes this a valid evidence? are you a teenager?

They are clearly defined as faces

defined by you of course

Meanwhile, the faces Pete shows, while provoking, are merely tricks of light and shadow and perceptions.

of course not like the perceptions we have of the Mars images. What have they so different than the earth ones? please expand your explanation to more than just an empty statement.

I honestly do not see a face in those images.

when did you have your last visit to your brain care specialist? I with all the others here clearly see faces on the Pete's images, especially this: http://forteantimes.com/gallery/greenrockface.shtml and this http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/im-indian-heads/rock-face.jpg

about your famous mars face, you have to acknowledge that the most human like looking image of it was taken back in I think 1976, since then we have imporved our technologies greatly and the latter images clearly show that the first blurry one was just an optical illusion. Do you know how our vision works? from biology I mean. One of the things that our brain does is: we fill in things. We look at smthing and automatically run what we see through our memory and to understand what we see the same way as image recognicion software works today (not as successfully though - the software). That is the reason why we see faces. I bet if we were spider like creatures from planet Gobl we'd see spiders designed by aliens everywhere, just because a spider shape would be so close and enbedded in our consciousness. I sitll don't see the reasons why you refuse to accept that the mars images have the same chance of being natural formations as the formations on earth.

If you can prove to me, such faces occurr in terrestrial geology

silly wabbit, you have all the evidence you need, but I'm afraid not the brain processing power to analise it. Though I think that one of us living in a closer proximity to you than I do can take you to one of these earth formations and you can analyse them all you want.

Secondly, can you prove those "glass tubes" are terrestrial geology.

1. why do you think it's glass? have you any spectral analysis of it.
2. simple geometrical/mathematical logic begs us to make straight tubes of anything, because that makes the closer route and also transfer of anything with less resistance and with less power needed.

terrestrial geology.

of course they're not, they're of martian geology. you know what the word terra in latin means, yes?

If you cannot prove it to be natural, then it must mean, it really is intelligently designed.

on the contrary. you see everything occuring naturally/geologically has more chance of being true than being created by intelligence. why? just because there are more rocks in this universe than intelligent civilizations. and that is by any estimate. and besides in law we have to prove OUR argument not make OTHERS to prove their right. You have to give us evidence of artificial design simply because it has a greatly less chance of occuring naturally. (you have to have an intelligent civilization in the first place) And we haven't yet done archeological digs on the surface on Mars, but we KNOW that there is wind on Mars, that there has been liquid water on Mars, that there has been geological and geothermal activity on Mars, and all these are natural and are known to make human like shapes here on planet Earth.
/end

 

[crazymikey]

Avatar, honestly, if you want a discussion with me, you are going to have to be a wee bit more mature, wabbit Unless you want to be ignored

 

[Avatar]

Frankly I don't want any discussions with you because I'm afraid it would be damaging to my brain and from observing these 3 pages of discussion I doubt that I would gain anything from the talks with you.
I've said what I intended to say and I have no time or wish to revise it for your pleasure. All what you need is in this thread. Understanding the given information is your problem. Besides I was just being playful not insulting.
I wanted you to read what I have posted, ignoring me or not is of completely no importance now. Do as you wish.

 

[crazymikey]

That's fine with me Avatar. Nice knowing you, whoever you are

 

[Boris2]

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast24may_1.htm

 

[lek]

However, the examples I cited from Mars do not, they have it all well-defined:

Now thats one outrageus edit, and far from any procedure to "backstep the procedure made by NASA to flatten the image".

All the above three images are made from the 1998 images.
First of all, the Sun is shining from opposite angle than in the 1976 photo. However whoever made this picture inverted the bitmap and then started adjust it to better show the details. None of those 3 is the original photo, 3rd one is skewed to appear directly from top view (with the nice touchups to increase alledged symmetry)

So did you
A) Just repeat something you found from the vast collection of woowoo sites in the net without ever considering the authenticity of the images?
B) Do the imaging yourself without having any clue of image enhancement, how negating the shadows destroy any possibility to evaluate the shape of the 3D object?
C) Do (B) on purpose?

IF you choose to keep on claiming that this is what the originals looked like before NASA edited them, you better come up with some solid evidence of it, just saying "i have solid evidence" doesnt work so well...

* edit: Actually 1st image is very close to inverted original 1998 pic, second one is same with some brighness/contrast/gamma adjustment, 3rd may actually be image from 2001 which has the skewed and touched-up face from 2nd pic overlayed on it.

 

[Lemming3k]

One of the 3rd and 2nd is an obvious fake, the face has moved slightly(as if its been highlighted), obvious paintjob.

 

[Persol]

And regardless, it still looks like less of a face than the rocks you posted from earth.

 

[crazymikey]

Lek: I know this much, that NASA applied many filters to the image taken in 98, filters that I KNOW flatten details. Hence, why I do not trust them.

However, I do trust, these computerized imaging techniques. Simply, by looking at the first image. If you reverse the effects of the low pass, high pass, and change the perspective to an overhead, you can mentally form the 3rd image. This does not add any extra details.

Now, if you are in doubt, I suggest you consult the computer imaging team, and get more details on the process.

 

[Persol]

And the fact that the 3D image doesn't actually have those features just flies over your head? We have rock features on earth which actually ARE the shape of human faces. You have a mountain on Mars which has shadows creating the look of a face... and ONLY at a very low resolution.

Poor man on Mars. He has one really small eye and one triangle eye. No wonder we didn't find any life on Mars. They couldn't see straight and kept walking off cliffs.

 

[Avatar]

sure , sure, and that computer editing involves rearranging the edges (so they look more straight and right) changing the levels of different parts and the like...
if this is called backtracing, then I'm a half mad opusum.
--
and even if those computer edits were true, then it still would be nothing extraordinary because of the natural images on our own planet.
--
it's called: wishful thinking mixed with an obsessive idea in your case. some still think that we haven't been on the moon.
-
besides, why would nasa hide that there are alien buildings on the surface of Mars? if that would be proved they'd have no troubles with financing or whatsoever for the next 60 years or so till we have a archeoteam on Mars.
--
and Persol is so much right about the 3D image

 

[Persol]

At least mikey's pictures are better than those by Fluid.... although the thought process still seems to be the same.

 

[lek]

Lek: I know this much, that NASA applied many filters to the image taken in 98, filters that I KNOW flatten details. Hence, why I do not trust them.

However, I do trust, these computerized imaging techniques. Simply, by looking at the first image. If you reverse the effects of the low pass, high pass, and change the perspective to an overhead, you can mentally form the 3rd image. This does not add any extra details.

Now, if you are in doubt, I suggest you consult the computer imaging team, and get more details on the process.

The process as described at the site the pic is quoted from shows that they altered light angles etc, which cant be done without a 3D model, which was made of an inverted image ( the 1st pic, which they admited used, unlike you when you posted the pic)
All that pic "proves" is that however smart tools and computers you got, they cant compensate for user's stupidity.

Its not up for me to start arguing with the ones who generated the fake image, its up to you to defend it, for you were the one who posted it as reference.

Also, said faults of nasa pic 98, different uneven lighting angle etc... if the mountain really was a symmetrical 3d face, it would look like one from any agnle, any lighting ( without digital murdering of the pic).

But showing that your pics were fake wasnt even necessary, you also need to explain why newest (2001) pics dont show a face.

edit: in my earlier post i was wrong about image 2 and 3, editing of image 2 was accordingly to the site they are at lot more complex than i imagined and image 3 is just another edition of 98 pic instead of overlay on newer images.

 

[crazymikey]

Also, said faults of nasa pic 98, different uneven lighting angle etc... if the mountain really was a symmetrical 3d face, it would look like one from any agnle, any lighting ( without digital murdering of the pic).

But showing that your pics were fake wasnt even necessary, you also need to explain why newest (2001) pics dont show a face.

Lek, the 2001 pic is by Nasa, that may have "digitially murdered" the 98 pic. Hence, if they can murder one, why can't they murder the other? For your benefit I will contact the site, and ask them for details on their computing imaging techniques.

Meanwhile, we can discuss the "glass tubes" and the other "intelligent" structures on Mars.

and even if those computer edits were true, then it still would be nothing extraordinary because of the natural images on our own planet.

Not were true. They are true. JPL admits on their web site that they have used filters on the image. Now tell me about these natural images in areas of geology, on our own planet?

it's called: wishful thinking mixed with an obsessive idea in your case. some still think that we haven't been on the moon.

We have not been to the moon. It was faked. Only kidding

besides, why would nasa hide that there are alien buildings on the surface of Mars? if that would be proved they'd have no troubles with financing or whatsoever for the next 60 years or so till we have a archeoteam on Mars.

For the same reason, UFO's are ETI are covered up. Knowing that there is ETI, even if it's on Mars, would confirm ETI exists(duh)