The clearer images of the face on Mars show a deliberately disfigured face. It seems that whoever could hit the face with a bomb to deliberately discredit it did so. Notice how the base is still unnaturally symmetric. You can clearly see the placement of the blasts.

Similar to the Talaban blasting the ancient Buddas the powers that be destroyed the face to protect the status quo to protect their hold on power.

Very disfigured, yes.

__________________
The views expressed are the febrile product of an overactive imagination of a person who in shadows sees the gyrating Elvis-like ghost of Leonid Brezhnev.

rotflmao

Fun to ponder, bu I can look at pictures of the Earth and find the tin man, garfield the cat, and my 1994 Z28 parked on top of Mt Everst. You kinda have to squint and use your imagination a bit on the last one though.

My point is, that the Mars pictures that showed "faces" and other forms of purpose in design, are nothing more than shapes in white fluffy clouds on any given day.

I don't know if you're joking or not, but I've read people who seemed to seriously claim that Mars Observer was actually a bomb to destroy the Face and that's why the MGS images look less like a face than the Viking ones.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

It is a joke. Since there is no way to prove such a thing. The new images do look like bombed out versions of the first. Notice how the nose is gone but the mouth and both eyes impressions remain.

It is readily apparent that two processes have been at work on that particular mesa, one natural, the other artificial.

The natural process is called "erosion" and is the result of such factors as wind, dust, heating and cooling, occasional bombardment by material from space, and gravity.

The artificial process is called "increased resolution" and is the result of such factors of better cameras, ancillary electronic and other equipment, etc., orbiting Mars.

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

LOL! There's an improvement in there, but I'm not sure where.

At least RCH will gain immorality that way, unlike his speculations about the "Herman" factor:



Then, next to "Mickey Mouse" speculation, there are those who hold to the idea that this amazing mesa, this beaut of a butte, is a memorial to that famous simian lobotomist:

The Good Doctor

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

You post really has no substance. Do you troll the conspiracy sections just to make an *** of yourself.

I suppose you think you post is very clever. I find it insincere and tedious. If you have nothing of substance to say please go be clever elsewhere.

I can’t help thinking you have posted this before. I suggest a conspiracy and you start posting altered pics to ridicule me. I the idea bothers you so much why don't you stay away from this section.

If you are a moderator why are you allowing Bozola and Maksutov to simple ridicule my position with altered pictures instead of real facts of insight.

JHotz, please calm down. It wasn't readily apparent from your posts whether you were serious or kidding around. I don't think anyone was trying to have fun at your expense. Please note that accusing people of trolling is definitely not the way to go, and your last few posts here are way out of line. Please review the forum rules. You need to follow those guidelines.

Now, back to the topic:

Why would you allege there's a conspiracy involved? You didn't offer much to go on.

Have you read The Bad Astronomer's pages debunking Hoagland, including the one specifically dedicated to "the face?" That might help put things in perspective.

Who is Richard Hoagland and what does he have to do with my post?

Richard Hoagland has staunchly advocated the "face" on Mars for years. He's the guy depicted in the photographs posted above (again, which I didn't feel were directed at you).

The BA's section debunking Hoagland contains a great deal of information on the subject. You should definitely give them a look, as he clears up numerous misconceptions there which have direct bearing on this topic.

JHotz, if you are serious here then why did you say
If you tell us you're joking, don't be surprised when other posters make light of your subject thinking they are laughing along with you. So, again: are you seriously making this claim?

__________________
"We need rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

If the face is so important why is this anomaly not?
Is this a natural phenomenon?

http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e13_.../E1401276.html

__________________
Round...everything is always round!

I'm with JHotz on this one. Comebacks such as Bozola's & Maksutov's are, by definition, "trolling". They are not contributing, they are ridiculing.

Sure we must trust NASA on this one. But then...government agencies are notorious for lying, yes? Or am I just a conspiratorial paranoid "Hoaglandian"?

Fact is, there was a "face" in old Voyager photos (as well as strange pentagonal "sand-dunes"). NASA responded with silence. Apparently archived photos "disappeared". NASA Director replaced with ex-CIA chief. Then, we are presented with a "smiley face" crater - har hardy har. Then, behold, new high-res photos...that look nothing like a face. But, rather (as JHotz points out), a bombed-out mess...

Who here has access to all NASA archives? Is there anything that is not public domain? Do any of you know for certain? Or just rely on faith "in the System"?

Also described here: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA05281 . Yeah, I reckon it is. More likely an explanation that it being made by aliens. I'll be interested to see what the higher-resolution camera on MRO makes of it.

__________________
"We need rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Ok, here's a question, do we even have the ability to bomb "the face" on Mars? If so, wouldn't the resulting explosions be obvious to every astronomer on Earth?

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

We are ridiculing Hoagland, yes, trolling no. Sorry, JHotz, I had though that you could not possibily be serious about something so fundamentally stupid.

You post here without knowing who Hoagland is? Inconceivable!

__________________
The views expressed are the febrile product of an overactive imagination of a person who in shadows sees the gyrating Elvis-like ghost of Leonid Brezhnev.

I'm glad you put "face" in quotes. There was someting that, at that resolution, and at that sun-angle, vaguely resembles something looking like a face. That's the fact, there aren't any others. And it was Viking, not Voyager. Write it down, V-I-K-I-N-G.
Responded to what?

Has this been discussed elsewhere? If not, give specifics. If it has, point us to the thread.

Irrelevant.
That's right, as part of a special campaign of disinformation through humour. You know too much. Look at that black helicopter outside your window.

How lucky of them to have damaged the face in such a precise way, to not have altered any of the bits that were visible at lower resolution in the original Viking image! Getting that amount of explosive to Mars must have taken quite a big rocket and a lot of planning. Care to give us evidence of that? Also, where is the epicentre of the blast?

That's begging the question, assuming that your evidence has been hidden, and so anything that's not been published on the Internet or on NASA datasets is evidence of a conspiracy. False logic.

Nope, I rely on evidence and scietific reasoning. Absence of evidence is not evidence of presence.

__________________
"We need rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

Are you doubting the sheer sophistication & might of the good ol' U. S. of A.'s armed forces?

Maybe they bombed it while we are unable to see it, ie other side of the Sun?

Heh, I'm not vouching for this idea, I'm just pointing out that your comeback is not very scientific. It is "knee-jerk" debunking typical of this forum. Kind of reactionary self-applaud "peer-group" mentality...

If U.S. did bomb it out of embarassing existence, it is crime of the aeon!!!!

Perhaps we should prove this did NOT happen!!! A couple of NASA-sanctioned photos & smart-alec remarks don't prove it.

Let's be scientific, please.

Sorry, sir. Slip o' the tongue, me matey.

Let me see if I understand you correctly...you want to "attempt" to prove the non-existance of something?

An "attempt" to prove something doesn't exist is not scientific.

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

I offered no "comeback". I simply asked a couple of questions. I'll ask another; What is the evidence that "face on Mars" was bombed?

BTW, asking questions is scientific. As for suggesting that we need to prove a negative, now that actually isn't scientific.

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

Yes I am, if you are suggesting they managed to deliver a bomb targetted and focussed to within a few hundred feet on Mars, leaving no blast crater and no visible signs of explosion, but simultanously erasing all signs of 'artificiality'. I hope you have a good theory as to how they did that?

__________________
"We need rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

R.A.F., we (the general layperson public) are presented with a "before" and "after" photo. They look completely different and don't even match up.

That is "our" evidence.

"Your" evidence must be forthcoming that our doubts of NASA honesty is unfounded.

Your simple faith in the "status quo" is not scientific. That is my argument here.

This is a war of ideology, I feel. You are blindly pro-Establishment, I am more questioning of everything the "Establishment" dishes out... due mainly to the crap it has dished out to us throughout history, all the lies & deceit & criminal activity.

It is endless debate which I feel will never be resolved. It is not simply about "Face on Mars" issue. This is just a tool I use to examine ideological motives of this forum.

Consider me "Devil's Advocate"...heh...

Can anybody here verify these missing images from Mars Global Surveyor archives? --

[quote]Missing images from MGSC1013 only: m0102236 m0102256 m0102296 m0102302 m0102318 m0102340 m0102428 m0102448 m0102459 m0102461 m0102464 m0102467 m0102468 m0102469 m0102471 m0102473 m0102475 m0102477 m0102480 m0102482 m0102483 m0102486 m0102488 m0102489 m0102490 m0102492 m0102494 m0102496 m0102498 m0102500 m0102502 m0102506 m0102510 m0102532 m0102534 m0102536 m0102586 m0102587[/unquote]

This link surely makes it clear the NASA-CIA connection:

http://www.space.com/news/wsc_cia_1014.html

...Unless, of course, you believe such covert activity occurred "only during the Cold War"...

Presumably you're suggesting that these images have been purposefully withdrawn, because they show things which The Man would not like us all to see. But what is the point in speculating about such pictures? Surely all you can possibly know about them is that they are missing?

__________________
I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice. I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

Bombing..!..that would arouse more suspicion...last week it looked like this !!! however, this week it looks like this !!

Maybe that's where Beagle impacted?

__________________
Round...everything is always round!

No..."we" are presented with a low resolution image and a hi resolution image...it is your assumption that the 2 images reflect a before and after "event".

Well, of course they do...they were taken at 2 different resolutions, as I stated above.

You're going to have to explain what you mean by "don't even match up".

That's not evidence of anything...except perhaps your own bias when it comes to this subject.

No...you must prove that NASA is in fact dishonest about the Mars images...that's the way science "works".

HUH??? Faith has no place in a scientific investigation...I look for evidence...you have presented none to "back up" your claims.

You might want to sharpen that tool...it appearently has become rather dull.

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