A.DIM...The "cat box image" is NOT the best image available.

So what is your point? Why do you keep bring it up??

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Thanks, I have.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

OK, I'll go along with this.

Now, can you or anyone show me a similar naturally occuring formation on such a scale that has such symmetrical characteristics?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Apparently, you refused to read the articles dealing with it.

RAF, the shoddy "catbox" image was released for public consumption rapidly with the tagline "unmasked."
Had the "better processed" images been provided, even 7 hours later, the public would've seen an image with symmetry and straight lines, still looking somewhat like an eroded face. But certainly not "unmasking" the idea that it might be artificial.

To me, it appears that NASA was hurried to simply negate "the face" in whatever way possible.

IMHO, of course.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Do a search of this board .. like I said before, this subject has been discussed here in the past.

And so that prohibits further discussion? :-?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Tread carefully, A.DIM...I don't like the implication that I'm "refusing" to read certain things. I've read all the relevant links.

Somewhat??...how about not at all. You must "want it" to be a "face" really bad.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Both Fleming and I have links to it. The stripe is not as evident in the raw image because the contrast in the image is very low. It's hugely enhanced in any processing that does a histogram stretch and not much else, like the original NASA processed image.

To make NASA look worse.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

My post was in response to this A.DIM:

Sorry, RAF, but all I have to go on is your response. And from the question above, you either missed the point, or you didn't read the article.
I suppose for now, I'll agree that you missed the point.

Funny, RAF. =D>
Even the BA, on the page you asked me to read, says it still looks "vaguely like a face."
Did you read it?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Yes, I know.
In no thread I've read here has there been presented anything remotely on the scale as "the face."

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

OK, but didn't you state "the broad bright stripe at the center.... is in fact clearly visible in the raw image?"

So if it's "not as evident" now, is Fleming's argument that it's an artifact of processing more valid?

But to what end?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

I have a feeling it wouldn't of mattered anyway A.DIM. This was just an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto others. Why else make an issue of "scale?" That's like me saying that Valles Marineris could not be a "natural" Martian canyon because there's nothing similar to "scale" on Earth.

A.DIM wrote:
If it was the Anunnaki that made this "face", don't you think they would have made one here on earth too? Or were our Anunnaki more of a low key artists spreading word of mouth to mid-eastern sheephearders as oppose to the faschist architecture of the Martian Anunnaki?

But since you asked, here's Jason's hockey mask on top left.

(edited to correct link, since they changed it. It's picture #SEMXJG25WVD at the image gallery)

Second-rate Earth only got visited by some space-faring tribe of foot-fetishists that designed the Great Italian Boot.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

It is a real face and I can prove it!



The real coverup is that the martians were apes, the planet was dieing and they all moved to earth, thus proving Darwin right.

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

Our astronomy club has one resident woo woo, he actually believes his father is an alien! After NASA released the latest pictures of the Face, he was convinced that there was nothing there. When he was convinced I thought that that would be enough to convince every one.

__________________
I'm not a scientist, but I play one on the internet.
http://www.rrac.org

Regarding Mars: Sitchin goofed by hitching part of his Annuaki hokum on a non-existent wagon .. the "Face." Sitchin can always fall back on the "safe" assertion that his mythical Nibiru is just "too far away" to be detected ad infinitum but the day is coming where that won't even save him. A.DIM, was careless here, hence my impression that following the Sitchin/Face debacle in another thread, A.DIM is getting desperate.

What has A.DIM really brought to the table? Let's review this thread and his extraordinary innuendos:

NASA lies - His biggest mistake IMO and he did it right off the bat! :roll: By implying that NASA "lies," A.DIM shoots any "evidence" of artificiality in the foot. How can a case be made for this myth without NASA's involvement? If they "lie," how can anything from them be used as evidence for anything regarding artificiality? That's why I asked A.DIM from the get-go if he thought this through.

Pic Fluff - A.DIM relies on those that dispute the second flyby's pics. Like many woo woo apologists, A.DIM is good at net-mining/cherry-picking/shoe-horning and there's enough net-fodder out there for him to fluff another couple pages .. but he can't have it both ways. If he implies NASA lies, then he destroys the credibility of him relying on any NASA pic (or anyone else that shovels this hokum) to peddle this nonsense. A.DIM tries to have it both ways and for some strange reason doesn't seem to realize how obvious he is.

Symmetry - Here's another A.DIM trick. Shifting the "burden of proof." Does he have any proof for any of his nonsense? No. So what does he try to do? He tries to force us into "proving" that natural symmetry to scale exists elsewhere. [-( To approach this scientifically A.DIM needs to prove: A) natural symmetry doesn't exist (and since it does); B) that natural symmetry is limited by scale. Up for that A.DIM?

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss The Old Man of the Mountains, A.DIM.

For example, here's a photograph of it I took in 1988.



Just a rock formation, huh?

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

There is a 3rd option...that the point the article was making simply wasn't valid. Which is why I was asking you to elaborate.

Let's put that into context...

emphasis mine...

Not "quite" as you represented it. Fact is, I don't agree with the BA, here. I don't think that the HIRES images look anything like a face at all.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Well, we can argue over the definition of "artifact" in this context. I would say an artifact is something placed there by manual processing that wasn't there before. Making something more obvious in a photograph is not only not an artifact but frequently the very point of doing the processing

Oh, come on. The whole point of his screed is the claim that NASA is conspiring to minimize the significance of the Face. That there were higher-quality images from NASA available only hours after the raw image was released undercuts his entire argument, as does the availability of vastly better imagery taken later in the MGS mission, which he also ignores.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Man, how many times have I looked at that Mars photo and thought, "Huh, Dr. Zaius!", but then didn't post anything about it.

Good one, Metricyard!

=D> =D> =D>

PS: How'd your "MT" weekend go?

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

So my intentions were never to "prove" the artificiality of "the face" on Mars, or to prove "NASA lies" or whatever, only to get peoples' impressions of the "catbox" issue and the apparent misbehavior of NASA as presented in the article.

ToSeek: Thanks for taking the time, but I disagree that the "hours later" images undermines Fleming's argument. The fact remains that NASA allowed the "catbox" image to be released first to countless media outlets claiming "unmasked" when even the follow-up images show a very unusual "pile of rocks."

I just don't think the artificiality hypothesis can be "debunked" through mere images. Nor do I think it can be "proven."

All Else: From the responses proffered, I realize "the face" issue warrants only ridicule and pseudoskepticism, which comes as no surprise. But thanks anyway.
I find this an unenviable position considering recent discoveries that suggest lots of water in Mars' past.
And I'm amazed at how many people can allow the ETH "out there but not here, not now & not in the past," and so matter of factly dismiss the artificality hypothesis.
In my mind, true skepticism on the issue would be one of withholding judgement.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

A.DIM wrote:
I used to be very interested in these matters and toyed around with a "what if...?" idea, but the sheer amount of rubbish "evidence" made
me loose all objectivity in this matter or any other hypothesis considering ancient(or present) alien precence in our solar system. I mean come on A.DIM just look at the "face" in the above image! Is that supposed to be the martian elephant man or what? It's just not a face, it has something that could vaguelly be interpreted as eye sockets, but if you turn it upside
down I see the same eye sockets where the "mouth" is now. To me that shows that my brain just tries to form a familiar shape out of a natural formation. The same thing happens when you look at clouds or better yet,
go to a forest at night and the trees and bushes become all sorts of things in your mind.

To the best of my recollection, NASA made no claims at the time about what the image revealed, leaving that to individual scientists and the media.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I'd like to know more about the geology of the region, but it certainly does not have symmetry and straight lines. It does have a ledge along the left side (as seen in the previous image), but that ledge looks to me like it would map to the flat top of the "mickey mouse" butte to the lower right. Probably they are the same formation, with one difference that being that some resistant rock did not erode from above the flat ledge on the face, or maybe it was never deposited on that position in the first place on Mickey.

We've gone around and around, but there is nothing found to date on Mars that even looks remotely artificial, and certainly no evidence that there was once any sort of civilization capable of moving large quanitities of rock (and then covering up their tracks and any signs of their living quarters or food growing and everything else :roll:

The "catbox" issue and the Viking images are irrelevant...and have been since the higher resolution images became available. I don't see why that should be so hard to understand.

You say that it was never your intention to prove "NASA lies", yet you say there is "appearent misbehavior" by NASA...

...so which is it?

Yep...that's us...all a bunch of pseudoskeptics.

But really, A.DIM...from the responses, you realize??? Do you mean to tell this board that you had no idea how your OP would be received until you read the responses?? You've been on this board for a few years now...I just can't believe that you couldn't anticipate what response you would receive.

Past water on Mars in no way validates the idea that the "face" is artificial.

Matter of factly? Not at all. The face idea is not being given the "brush-off", but has been looked at very carefully. To "matter of factly" consider the "face" artificial would be a mistake.

You are correct...it's all in your mind.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Pretty well, only a few drinks at a wedding I had to go to, and a few tokes at a friends house the following day. And the doodles looked exactly like, well, doodles. I could probably try some acid, but those days are long, long, long gone.

It's funny to think that 30 years ago, it (MT's theory) would problably have been a revalation. Or caused instanity. Probably best not to find out.

But anyway, back on topic.

I would think that if anything on a distant planet that remotely hinted at a "lost civilization" don't you think that all the major governments would have made a massive effort to get to Mars? The potential for exploitation of a whole new technology would have caused an unprecedented space race. Never underestimate the power of greed.

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

Absolutely! Consider this as well, if NASA and the powers that be really thought that "the face" was artificial and they wanted to keep "quiet" about it...why release the photos to begin with? Also, all of our money and effort wouldn't have gone into the development of the rovers! The promise of any new technology would have been of primary importance.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

From the North Texas Skeptics Society:

"Today, May 24, 2001, after years of political pressure, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration finally released a long awaited overhead, high-resolution view of the Face on Mars. Unfortunately, while we are generally pleased with the image, it has a number of problems -- which once again call NASA's commitment to a fair hearing of this entire issue into question. After withholding the image for almost two months (it was taken on April 8th, 2001) NASA released the new image today amid a flurry of extremely negative public comments simultaneously posted on several official NASA websites.

While we are disappointed that NASA has chosen to continue the disinformation campaign they began when the initial "catbox" Face image was released, in April, 1998, we are hardly surprised. As noted, especially prepared "hit pieces" were posted today coincident with release of this new image. Obviously, these were prepared days or weeks before today's data release, and we know that senior NASA officials were meeting late into the night last night, plotting "strategy." We would like to remind our readers that these were political strategy sessions, not scientific, and we saw today the results of this two-months-late, carefully orchestrated release. A scientific approach would have been to simply release the data the day it was acquired, and allow the scientific debate to take its course. Instead, we were once again treated to a calculated smear campaign obviously aimed directly at the national media. We deplore this unscientific propaganda campaign and call on NASA Headquarters to put a stop to it immediately."

What does this mean?

I'm perplexed how one skeptical society can perceive the NASA wrongdoing while another remains immovable in their unabashed loyalty.
Why?
Would acknowledging such a thing be so damaging to their "proof" against an artificiality hypothesis?

Also, if "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" wouldn't that in turn require "extraordinary investigation?"
I think one would have to admit NASA's efforts can hardly be called that.

Additionally, I utterly disagree Mars' past water "in no way" validates an artificiality hypothesis. IMHO, it lends validity to the idea.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill