First in 1998, we get this image from MSSS of a mesa that looks like it was flattened by a tire. Now the ESA and Malin have a 3D projection which shows just the opposite, a phantom elevation that does not show up in ANY other data and just plain does not belong. I have always been 50-50 on the face, as I think better evidence of intelligent manipulation or creation exists in other images on Mars. Some of the articles that referred to the 3D ESA/MSSS were pretty negligent, and all of them outright attacked everyone who thought there may be more to the "face." It's not clear if they think the Cydonia region is not worth their time as scientists, or are trying to cover-up the possibilities. Either way, they seem to be railroading us, to some extent. Makes me lean 51-49 in favor of intelligent manipulation. The best image so far, is the MGS 2001 image, which should be examined in high resolution. When the whole image is viewed reduced, the details appear confusing. Hooray for R. Lee!
I am not a big face believer, but I would agree with you about there being other images that better show signs of intelligence. Many rock formations don't seem to form in shapes that a rock would form in. Then there are rocks with perfectly square holes. There are also things that don't look at all like rocks, but more like pieces of machinery. I have always felt there is too much emphasis on the face when there is so much more.
2 comments:
First in 1998, we get this image from MSSS of a mesa that looks like it was flattened by a tire. Now the ESA and Malin have a 3D projection which shows just the opposite, a phantom elevation that does not show up in ANY other data and just plain does not belong. I have always been 50-50 on the face, as I think better evidence of intelligent manipulation or creation exists in other images on Mars. Some of the articles that referred to the 3D ESA/MSSS were pretty negligent, and all of them outright attacked everyone who thought there may be more to the "face." It's not clear if they think the Cydonia region is not worth their time as scientists, or are trying to cover-up the possibilities. Either way, they seem to be railroading us, to some extent. Makes me lean 51-49 in favor of intelligent manipulation. The best image so far, is the MGS 2001 image, which should be examined in high resolution. When the whole image is viewed reduced, the details appear confusing. Hooray for R. Lee!
I am not a big face believer, but I would agree with you about there being other images that better show signs of intelligence. Many rock formations don't seem to form in shapes that a rock would form in. Then there are rocks with perfectly square holes. There are also things that don't look at all like rocks, but more like pieces of machinery. I have always felt there is too much emphasis on the face when there is so much more.
Post a Comment