Recently in conversation, "The Face" was brought up.
Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't recall the "catbox" fiasco ever being discussed around here.

And so...
NASA vs. Artificial Structures on the Surface of Mars.

To me, this is a well reasoned argument for why "the face" issue persists.

I find myself frustrated upon hearing someone say matter-of-factly "it is just a hill with tricks of light and shadow coupled with pareidolia" or some other such.

Now, while I allow the ETH and consider it plausible that beings once inhabited Mars, in no way do I consider it proven.

So is it wrong to agree, as concluded in the article, that the question is yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years?


"For the time being, the conclusion must be that the basic question of whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered. Significant evidence suggests artificiality, but due to NASA's dogmatic assertion to the contrary, the question can not be discussed in the proper scientific forums, let alone be answered. NASA's irrational, even bizarre behavior in this matter, which runs counter to the most basic scientific principle that conclusions are drawn based on examination of the evidence, not on a priori beliefs, could simply be motivated by a desire to "save face" (pun intended) after firmly and repeatedly committing itself to a premature dismissal of the formation as natural in 1976. However, significant evidence suggests a more sinister explanation involving a long-standing policy of the US government to conceal evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts from the public."

__________________
"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

How did NASA acted dogmatic and bizarre with regards to The Face?
There is no evidence for artificiallity.
NASA would be first to bang the bongos if they find something on Mars with a sufficient possibility of being artificial. If they could find such a thing, they would get more money for funding a massive Mars program than they could handle.

__________________
"Flying in space is risky business, but just staying on this planet is risky business too." - John Young, astronaut

From the link A.Dim posted...

But of course!! It must be a government conspiracy...there is no other possible explanation...

Sorry for the "outburst", but when I read this Hoagland, Van flandern etc. crap (sorry, but there's no other word for it), I tend to get really MAD.

Kucharek is correct...there is no evidence for artificiality. Hoagland's (and others) attempts to show that the "face" is artificial are laughable.

Here is another rock formation that looks like a human face. Why isn't there a big investigation to prove that this wasn't created by some ancient or alien civilization?

For those not familiar, this is the Old Man of the Mountain in New Hampshire Link. It collapsed several years ago. That must have been part of the NASA/CIA/Lizardman conspiracy to cover up the aliens on Earth. :roll:

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009

To answer the original question: yes, it is wrong to agree, on both accounts.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

I was only able to get about half way through the article, but there's one glaring point.
A NASA rep stated something as matter-of-fact without supporting evidence. One mis-step, and the entire organization is discredited, even thought further evidence has been brought forward.
Then turn around and state as matter-of-fact the opposite without supporting evidence of thier case.

By the way, the 2001 picture looks to me like a life-casting of a pregnent woman. So it must be a celebration of reproduction.

Did you not read the article then? The author lists 5 points reflecting NASA's apparent behavior?

Spokesperson Soffen lied when the first image was released.
Termed an "unfortunate misstatement" by Sagan, it was nonetheless a LIE. Are you willing to believe that NASA spokespersons are merely inept and publicly make such "misstatements?"

And while Cydonia was an initial target for the orbiter, being as Sagan said, most interesting geologically, it was curiously ignored. Evidenced by the fact that pictures of the area were "filed away" without scientific scrutiny or further interest, only to be accidentally rediscovered.

And what about the "catbox" image from '98? Are you willing to believe that NASA employed a bunch of "interns" to process those images, and then not check their work before presenting their findings to the public? And then not even offer a retraction or a more accurately processed image?

Is Cydonia no longer most interesting geologically?

Does not the Brookings Report imply that it might be best to withhold such a discovery from the public?
Most amusing to me, within the report, is the notion that "scientists and engineers" would be most threatened.

So in your mind the symmetry and parallel straight lines is readily found in nature, right? Can you show me something on a similar scale that displays such characteristics?

And what about an engineering Geologists remarks that, "The so-called "Face on Mars" is unlike any natural feature I have ever seen or heard about it. To ascribe this feature of such symmetry and uniqueness to 'wind erosion' is to plead a special case for a geologic process with no supporting evidence."

I don't really understand this argument since it is clear that NASA lied regarding "the face" at the outset.
Why didn't they "bang the bongos" then to get more funding?




edited: to change "before" to "apparent behavior" and fix quotes

__________________
"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

Typical.
And ridiculous.
Throw out a few quips to stir the laugh factor and there you have it, debunked!

That particular "face" could only be seen from a single vantage point.

Show me something on a similar scale with symmetry and parallel lines?

__________________
"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

Could you provide a link confirming this?

What I find most interesting is Hoagland's behavior through all of this...

Before the 2001 images were taken, Hoagland cried, and cried that NASA was covering up the "fact" that the face was artificial. If only NASA would take higher resolution images, he would be "satisfied". But no, NASA would never do that because they were involved in a "cover-up".

So, NASA does take higher resolution images and Hoaglands response? He cries, and cries that NASA is covering-up evidence of the face's artificiality.

Hoagland will NEVER be satisified. It makes no difference if we actually sent a manned mission to Cydonia...because why would Hoagland believe NASA Astronauts???

Out of curiousity, A.DIM, have you read the BA's page concerning this?

Well, I can see that this is going to be a "fun" thread.

Mon dieu! The scale of the coverup is unbelievable! The "face" on Mars is just a distraction from the real mystery. If you look to the lower right you will clearly see the, albeit highly eroded, head of Mickey Mouse!

Walt Disney was an alien and his "amusement parks" are naught but vicious medical laboratories wherein obscene and inhuman experiments are performed on unsuspecting humans!

And while Cydonia was an initial target for the orbiter, being as Sagan said, most interesting geologically, it was curiously ignored. Evidenced by the fact that pictures of the area were "filed away" without scientific scrutiny or further interest, only to be accidentally rediscovered.

You have no evidence that Cydonia was ignored. For all we know, the Viking orbiters took plenty of images of Cydonia - the Face was just one small target in a very large area.

And what about the "catbox" image from '98? Are you willing to believe that NASA employed a bunch of "interns" to process those images, and then not check their work before presenting their findings to the public?

You're ignoring the fact that the ETHers demanded that MGS take a photo of the Face at the earliest possible opportunity and release it as quickly as possible. Then when, in perfect response to their request, a raw image from an uncalibrated instrument was released and looked like crap, they started complaining and haven't stopped yet.

And then not even offer a retraction or a more accurately processed image?

As documented here, a much better image was made available only seven hours after the raw image was posted.

Is Cydonia no longer most interesting geologically?

MGS takes photos of the Cydonia region on a regular basis. You can find dozens of such images in the archive, including ones of just about every object of interest to ETHers taken at the best resolution available.

Does not the Brookings Report imply that it might be best to withhold such a discovery from the public?
Most amusing to me, within the report, is the notion that "scientists and engineers" would be most threatened.

Do you have any evidence that anyone other than woo-woos pay attention to the Brookings Report? I have searched for any mention of it on any NASA website without success.

I don't really understand this argument since it is clear that NASA lied regarding "the face" at the outset.
Why didn't they "bang the bongos" then to get more funding?

Because if they'd gone to Congress saying, "Look, there's something on Mars that looks vaguely like a face - we need a hundred billion dollar mission to investigate it further" they would have been laughed back to Pasadena.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Cydonia was actually set to be the landing site for one of the orbiters, but this notion was abandoned when early photos showed the planned site to be much more rocky than expected. This may help explain why the orbiters took photos of Cydonia early but then went on to other areas.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I did not know this...thanks.

On Mars: Exploration of the Red Planet. '58 - '78 .

After much discussion and debate, Cydonia was chosen as the Viking II site. If I read the article correctly, the idea that it was decided as "too rocky" would've precluded it from even making the final cut.

Needless to say, I'm skeptical of such an argument for why it was changed, primarily because it was after "the face" pictured was made public.

__________________
"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 - Tell me, have you actually thought this through? I detect some desperation here. If there's no Annuaki "footprints" on Mars, Sitchin and you by affiliation, "lose face." What's telling is that of all the information available on the net, including the web site attached to this board, you pick a site called suppressedscience.net

Some brief points:

* You imply that NASA intentionally lied to suppress artificially on Mars .. but then, without a devious agenda, your Martian innuendos don't work. I guess it never occurred to you that NASA didn't have to release any Cydonia pics, period - especially the '76 ones. After all, why imply a half-hazard "agenda?" You will also have to expand your conspiracy to include foreign space agencies, or is the ESA "in on it" too?

* Show an biased acceptance of what a geological formation should or shouldn't look like. I'm surprised you didn't bring up Iaepetus.

* Cite a think-tank report that you try to shoehorn into supporting evidence for Martian artificiality and cover-ups. That's like me peddling chicken-little nonsense and citing that a think-tank believes that a hypothetical imminent planet-killing impactor should be "withheld from the public" so therefore "it's going to happen any second now."

By all means keep trying A.DIM.

I agree...like I said...this is going to be a fun thread.

Emphasis mine. Perhaps you meant "one of the rovers?" Or Viking?

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

My bad. I meant one of the Viking landers.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.