Cydonia: Ancient ET Architecture or mere Geological Oddity ?

[ufojoe]

Using the fancy stereoscopic(3d) camera on board the Mars Express, the ESA has yet again proven that the face on mars is not really a face, and there are numerous features very similar to the "face" in that same region.

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Expres ... URE_0.html

Scott

Somebody here mentioned how The Face on Mars inspired/entertained some people in the 70s. But it seems somebody knew (or guessed) about it in 1958 and wrote about "The Face" in a comic book. Coincidence? Most likely.

The comic and details are towards the end of the page/article. I haven't read that article yet and knowing Hoagland, there's tons of speculation in it. Enjoy the comic.

http://www.enterprisemission.com/forbidden-planet.htm

* * * * *

Mark Carlotto has done some work on certain objects on Mars that some feel to be artificial.

Paper published by the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society in 1990 which describes a technique for identifying areas in an image that do not fit a fractal model. The technique, which was previously developed to detect man-made objects in satellite imagery, finds the Face and several other nearby objects to be the least natural over the region considered.

http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/ma ... IS1990.pdf

[Darb]

Before I'm tempted to overreact ... are you one of those fringe people who are still clinging to the inane notion that that shadowy & grainy viking-era photo of Cydonia is somehow evidence that it's a monument of some ancient ET civilization ?

[tollbaby]

ahh.... some find reading, that Von Daniken, if you can suppress your giggles long enough

I'm always fascinated to see the rewards (in knowledge) that we're reaping from all of Nasa's projects I haven't got a clue what the Canadian Space Agency does with its time (cause, well, 60% of Canadians haven't even heard of them).

[ufojoe]

Before I'm tempted to overreact ... are you one of those fringe people who are still clinging to the inane notion that that shadowy & grainy viking-era photo of Cydonia is somehow evidence that it's a monument of some ancient ET civilization ?

How much reading have you done on the subject? Have you read Carlotto's book or any of his papers? Have you ever read any of Tom Van Flandern's writing on the subject? TVF is an astronomer who received his PhD from Yale University and worked at the U.S. Naval Observatory for 20 years. And yes, some of his other work/theories are controversial to some.

If you'd like to overreact to my post the same way Christians and many archaeologists have overreacted to the Jesus tomb info. then feel free.
And by the way, the Carlotto link is the kind of evidence I would point to. The Hoagland material, while some of it is interesting, is too speculative.

I am interested in the alleged artifacts (there are many) on Mars. Are they artificial? Without ground truth, we cannot say. But I have no problems with it being a possibility. I don't have any pre-conceived notions of what Mars was like in the distant past so I don't rule out that "somebody" could have spent time there a long time ago.

If it was 30 years ago and I told you that Mars could possibly have flowing water on the planet as I write this, I would have been laughed at by everybody. But now?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID ... AAF571C531

I interviewed Dr. James Strange on this subject back in 1996 or so. He was very open to some of the objects being artificial. Who is James Strange?

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/bio.html

In 1996, 1999, and 2000 he (James Tabor - ed) participated in the archaeological excavations at Sepphoris, near Nazareth in the Galilee, in the ongoing efforts directed by Prof. James Strange of the University of South Florida, as well as survey and radar ground scan efforts at Christian Mt. Zion in Jerusalem in 1995 & 1997, also with Prof. Strange.

Here's Strange's page at USF

http://www.cas.usf.edu/classics/jstrange.html

He's also a professor of religious studies. He's not the only academic interested in this subject.

So, Brad. You may think that the idea of artificial structures on Mars is
a crazy idea. But what you think is irrelevant when it comes to the truth. What I think is irrelevant also. You seem to prejudge this material and seem to have a bias that doesn't allow you to examine the data with an open mind. It reminds me so much of the critics of the Jesus tomb. They come to conclusions before looking at all of the evidence.

If being open to this subject puts me on the fringe, the so be it. I enjoy it out here.

[Darb]

Before I'm tempted to overreact ... are you one of those fringe people who are still clinging to the inane notion that that shadowy & grainy viking-era photo of Cydonia is somehow evidence that it's a monument of some ancient ET civilization ?

How much reading have you done on the subject? Have you read Carlotto's book or any of his papers? Have you ever read any of Tom Van Flandern's writing on the subject? TVF is an astronomer who received his PhD from Yale University and worked at the U.S. Naval Observatory for 20 years. And yes, some of his other work/theories are controversial to some.

If you'd like to overreact to my post the same way Christians and many archaeologists have overreacted to the Jesus tomb info. then feel free.
And by the way, the Carlotto link is the kind of evidence I would point to. The Hoagland material, while some of it is interesting, is too speculative.

I am interested in the alleged artifacts (there are many) on Mars. Are they artificial? Without ground truth, we cannot say. But I have no problems with it being a possibility. I don't have any pre-conceived notions of what Mars was like in the distant past so I don't rule out that "somebody" could have spent time there a long time ago.

If it was 30 years ago and I told you that Mars could possibly have flowing water on the planet as I write this, I would have been laughed at by everybody. But now?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID ... AAF571C531

I interviewed Dr. James Strange on this subject back in 1996 or so. He was very open to some of the objects being artificial. Who is James Strange?

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/bio.html

In 1996, 1999, and 2000 he (James Tabor - ed) participated in the archaeological excavations at Sepphoris, near Nazareth in the Galilee, in the ongoing efforts directed by Prof. James Strange of the University of South Florida, as well as survey and radar ground scan efforts at Christian Mt. Zion in Jerusalem in 1995 & 1997, also with Prof. Strange.

Here's Strange's page at USF

http://www.cas.usf.edu/classics/jstrange.html

He's also a professor of religious studies. He's not the only academic interested in this subject.

So, Brad. You may think that the idea of artificial structures on Mars is
a crazy idea. But what you think is irrelevant when it comes to the truth. What I think is irrelevant also. You seem to prejudge this material and seem to have a bias that doesn't allow you to examine the data with an open mind. It reminds me so much of the critics of the Jesus tomb. They come to conclusions before looking at all of the evidence.

If being open to this subject puts me on the fringe, the so be it. I enjoy it out here.

If the extent of your "scientific proof" is hawking sites making conspiracy theorist soundbites like "the fix is in" (your first link), and using vintage 1950's works of entertainment fiction (your second link), then i don't see much worth investing further time and discussion on. Using conspiracy theory tactics to try to prove something scientific is like trying to prove a positive with a rumored double negative.

If you'd like to overreact to my post the same way Christians and many archaeologists have overreacted to the Jesus tomb info. then feel free.

There is no comparison here between the situation with the Talpiot tomb (where we have some Christian pundits mindlessly speaking to pre-fab dogma-driven talking points, while ignoring questions stemming from the results of objective scientific inquiry), and the cydonia topic. If anything, you hoist yourself on your own petard there, because most conspiracy theorists cling tenaciously to their conspiracy theories, despite all attempts to provide clearer pictures and evidence to the contrary. It's flat-earth-society and man-in-the-moon redux.

Could cydonia be the real thing ? It's an extremely distant remote possibility ... but highly unlikely to be the case in this instance. Does intelligent life exist elsewhere ? It's virtually a statistical certainty, if you run the numbers, like Asimov did. Has that life visited or existed here at some point ? Very very highly unlikely. I volunteered for SETI for 3 years.

In any case, please consider this a polite warning: the staff here have no intention of letting this site be bogged down by material from pseudo-science fringe pundits who pay lip service to sincere, objective, and qualified scientific inquiry.

If you want to discuss cydonia, fine ... but use the latest high-res photos, and current scientific analysis. Please don't repost 50's & 70's vintage nonsense that's been obsolete for 30+ years, and built around shadows and hearsay. This is a moderated forum, and we can, and do, use pooper scoopers (with fair warning, mind you), to keep the place tidy.

We generally tend to favor real science & history here. For instance - I'll take Dr. Pellegrino's Chariots for Apollo over pseudo-science fluff like Von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods every time.

[tollbaby]

I'll admit, I was crushed when I learned, at age thirteen, that Chariots of the Gods was NOT, in fact, science fiction. I still maintain that it is

[ufojoe]

If the extent of your "scientific proof" is hawking sites making conspiracy theorist soundbites like "the fix is in" (your first link), and using vintage 1950's works of entertainment fiction (your second link), then i don't see much worth investing further time and discussion on. Using conspiracy theory tactics to try to prove something scientific is like trying to prove a positive with a rumored double negative.

Scientific proof? Where did I write that? Seems like you're putting words in my mouth. As far as the enterprisemission site? Yeah, I already explained about that and pointed you in the direction of the reputable (IMO) sites. However, the 1958 comic of the Face on Mars was interesting to me and I thought others might get a kick out of it.

There is no comparison here between the situation with the Talpiot tomb (where we have some Christian pundits mindlessly speaking to pre-fab dogma-driven talking points, while ignoring questions stemming from the results of objective scientific inquiry), and the cydonia topic. If anything, you hoist yourself on your own petard there, because most conspiracy theorists cling tenaciously to their conspiracy theories, despite all attempts to provide clearer pictures and evidence to the contrary. It's flat-earth-society and man-in-the-moon redux.

IMO, it's a very good comparison. Many people have judged the tomb without looking at the data. Same thing with Cydonia. Besides what NASA has put out on the subject, what papers or books have you read on the artificial structures that aren't biased against the idea?

I haven't said anything about a conspiracy. I linked to a site noted for conspiracy site speculation that is rampant on there. My fault. Call it full of paranoia if you like. I won't disagree.

I have written that there are people who have done very good work on the artifacts at Cydonia and it's intriguing to me. It's very simple. You seem to like using words like, "conspiracy theories," and "fringe," when you should just stick to the data. You want dispute the data and papers that have been written on the subject, feel free.

Could cydonia be the real thing ? It's an extremely distant remote possibility ... but highly unlikely to be the case in this instance.

Why is it unlikely? Because nobody else believes it to be possible? Like the overwhelming majority of academics who have weighed in on the tomb?

Is there data that points towards artificiality? That's the only question that needs to be answered. IF, Mars was once Earth-like, there is no reason why beings couldn't have lived there and built structures. At least not in my mind. And IMO, the evidence is intriguing.

Does intelligent life exist elsewhere ? It's virtually a statistical certainty, if you run the numbers, like Asimov did.

Until we find intelligent life elsewhere, the numbers are meaningless. We have a sample of one right now. Do I think there is intelligent life elsewhere? Probably.

Has that life visited or existed here at some point ? Very very highly unlikely. I volunteered for SETI for 3 years.

So what happens if a civilization develops and they never use radio signals? SETI would totally miss it. They may be looking in the wrong place.

In any case, please consider this a polite warning: the staff here have no intention of letting this site be bogged down by material from pseudo-science fringe pundits who pay lip service to sincere, objective, and qualified scientific inquiry.

I linked to Dr. James Strange and Dr. Van Flandern. Is the EM filled with speculation? No doubt. But there are also some very good articles on that site. Hoagland was one of the first to propose that Europa had lots of flowing water under the ice.

If you want to discuss cydonia, fine ... but use the latest high-res photos, and current scientific analysis. Please don't repost 50's & 70's vintage nonsense that's been obsolete for 30+ years, and built around shadows and hearsay. This is a moderated forum, and we can, and do, use pooper scoopers (with fair warning, mind you), to keep the place tidy.

You mean my post will be censored/deleted if somebody doesn't like what I post? Sorry, but there is some good data in some of the NASA Viking photos and if I want to post them, I will. If I get banned for that, then so be it. I won't be told which NASA photos I can use. That is ridiculous.

We generally tend to favor real science & history here. For instance - I'll take Dr. Pellegrino's Chariots for Apollo over pseudo-science fluff like Von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods every time.

[/quote]

Von Daniken? Who said anything about Van Daniken? Not me.

If I ever posted anything about UFOs or such, I'd probably quote Bernard Haisch, who is an astrophysicist who has done research in solar-stellar astrophysics and stochastic electrodynamics and also dabbled in some UFO research. Would he be acceptable to the censors? Uh oh. I used the U word.

[Darb]

[mod note: side discussion on cydonia split out into dedicated thread]

You mean my post will be censored/deleted if somebody doesn't like what I post? Sorry, but there is some good data in some of the NASA Viking photos and if I want to post them, I will. If I get banned for that, then so be it. I won't be told which NASA photos I can use.

We dont "censor" around here. We "moderate". The latter ensures that people play nice in the communal pool, like civilized adults, in tidy fashion. It does not involve editing the content of other people's commentary (except in the case of porn, spam, and obvious abuse). If you deliberately choose to avoid grasping that relatively simple distiction, and persist in posting obsolete material for the purpose of stoking controversy, your stay here will be a short one.

In the meantime, you now have your own thread, to explore the cydonia topic. Feel free to begin posting current images.

[ufojoe]

So, if I post Viking photos, my post will be "moderated?"

Is there anything in the moderators handbook that says anything about other posters putting (Von Daniken) words in my mouth?

Thanks for the split.

[ufojoe]

Some may find this interesting...

It's a look at an ESA press release last year and how they describe The Face and the folks who are interested in it.

http://posthumanblues.blogspot.com/2006 ... -mars.html

Warning: It contains a Viking image or two.

[tollbaby]

Please leave the persecution complex out of it. This board encourages healthy, intelligent debate in all forms. However, we do *not* encourage hysterical paranoia or conspiracy theorists using our site to "get the word out" or "expose the truth". Should you wish to debate, please feel free to do so, but enough with the "so you're gonna ban me?"

As long as everyone behaves, and no personal attacks are made, then no one gets banned. We're not a despotic banana republic

[Darb]

Ok, try this on for size. This is from 1998:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD ... tp_bot.gif <--- dialup warning: 7.6 mb image

IMHO, It's a natural rocky outcropping, that casts suggestive shadows when side lit from certain angles and viewed from very low resolution (re: viking). That's all. It's just as easy, and anti-intellectual, to call a circular coral atoll out in the pacific evidence of an ancient circle-carving race.

{re: "historical inaccuracy ... deliberate attempt to make 'the face go away' ... JPL's incompetence ... space agency's continued bungling ..."}

Incompetence ? Bungling ?

More links, for further exploration:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/target/CYD1/
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/atlas/ ... ensae.html

I'm guessing there are probably more recent and better images than the one I liked above out there somewhere, but I don't have the time or interest right now to track them down.

[ufojoe]

"While face to face meetings with [extraterrestrial life] will not occur within 20 years, unless its technology is more advanced than ours, qualifying it to visit Earth, artifacts left in some point in time by these life forms might possibly be discovered through our space activities on the Moon, Mars, or Venus."

--Brookings Institution report to NASA, 1960

* * * * * * * * * *

http://newfrontiersinscience.com/Papers ... d/hemi.mov

3-D Perspective Views from Around the Face - Generated using shape-from-shading, views at 20 deg. increments around the Face at zenith angles of 0, 15, 30, 45, and 60 deg. are provided. Presence of sand dunes on the right side of Face are best seen looking down at the Face from below the chin.

* * * * * * * * * *

Use your arrow/cursor keys to change the angles...

I saw most of the newer "Face" & Cydonia images when they were first released. The first NASA image (since Viking) of the Face wasn't so great and unfortunately, that was the one released to the press. Luckily, independent researchers adjusted it and so did NASA, eventually. But by that time the press already had its story and "cat box" image. It looked like a cat box! Most people haven't seen the photos that Brad has linked to. There are others.

Image released to the press...



The adjusted image, obviously, is a more accurate representation of what it looked like:



Some independent researchers predicted (before the MGS images) that if this really was a face, you may find features that are found on a face, such as nostrils. They're there.

If this was just about the "Face," I wouldn't be as interested. There are
plenty of other objects at Cydonia that fit into the hypothesis of artificiality.

[Darb]

It's still a pretty tall stretch to call it artifically created, much less half a face. There's no clear evidence of either. The clearer the photos, the more self evident that becomes.

If this was just about the "Face," I wouldn't be as interested. There are plenty of other objects at Cydonia that fit into the hypothesis of artificiality.

Such as ?

In any case, naturally occuring geological phenomenoa with suggestive shapes are hardly rare, and should not be construed as evidence of alien visitation. For instance:



Website

[tollbaby]

I'm curious as to what is allegedly happening with the evidence of what you're suggesting is at Cydonia, ufojoe... Is NASA withholding scientific data that would substantiate the claims? Is the government preventing NASA from investigating? Quite frankly, it *does* smack of conspiracy theory, thus the derision and dismissal from the scientific community at large. With all the exploration NASA has done on/around Mars and elsewhere, don't you think they'd have found something concrete by now? Yes, it's a really neat natural phenomenon. That doesn't mean that some greater power or advanced civilization had anything to do with it.

Look at the Giants' Causeway in North Ireland... Fascinating geologic structure, no explanation, but it doesn't mean aliens beamed down to put it together hundreds of thousands of years ago...

Heck, we can't even explain some of the MANMADE phenomena in the world (Stonehenge, the Mayan pyramids, etc.) There doesn't always have to be some X-Files explanation for it. You have alluded twice to additional sources or evidence, but haven't mentioned what they are yet. I'll bite. What are they? (no, I'm not in any way trying to mock or deride you... I'm genuinely interested).

[Mr. Titanic]

"While face to face meetings with [extraterrestrial life] will not occur within 20 years, unless its technology is more advanced than ours, qualifying it to visit Earth, artifacts left in some point in time by these life forms might possibly be discovered through our space activities on the Moon, Mars, or Venus."

--Brookings Institution report to NASA, 1960.

Ahh, so the extraterrestrial beings had the technology to reach and settle on Mars, but couldn't breech the distance between Mars and Earth, or even the Moon and Earth to prove their existance? Strange, perhaps their petroleum reserves are peaking as well?

Really now, if one wanted to believe something so badly, eventually it will become reality to that individual. It appears as though you wanted to see evidence of life on Mars, and eventually you preceived it because that desire was so great. Marching in with concusions and then constructing your data to suit those conclusions is not valid science. I see nothing in that image, and from what I know Mars has very active sandstorms that could have weathered and molded rocks on its surface into certain shapes. Even on Earth the ocean, rivers and wind tend to sculpt rocks into various shapes such as the Grand Canyon. The very humans that live on this Earth had little or nothing to do with the formation of such structures. And that isn't to mention collisions from space (comets, meteorites...) So let me ask you this, even IF alians inhabited Mars as you suggest, how do we even know they were responsible for this "Face." The information is not conclusive.

Also, if one wanted to make that structure look like a real face, I'd think they'd do a better job by clarifying the image. Even in ancient times the Egyptians made the Sphinx (a fictional creature) look more realistic than that pile of terrestrial debris.

[ufojoe]

Glad you guys are engaging me in this conversation.

Haven't talked much about the Mars stuff in a while.

As you can tell by my screen name, I also have an interest in
UFOs. But I won't go there. Except to say that the pilot of my
flight (I just landed in Modesto) also rode with me over to
the hotel in the van. I asked her if she knew anything about
the object sighted over O'Hare in Nov. 2006. She didn't.
But she was intrigued enough to want to know more.

I'll stick to Cydonia unless somebody wants to delve into the
UFO stuff.

On this forum, I will discuss the data on Cydonia. I'm not
getting into any alleged conspiracy theories. I may be dumb,
but I'm not THAT dumb.



More later...

[Darb]

I'll stick to Cydonia unless somebody wants to delve into the
UFO stuff ... I'm not getting into any alleged conspiracy theories.

Much obliged.

[ufojoe]

It's still a pretty tall stretch to call it artifically created, much less half a face. There's no clear evidence of either. The clearer the photos, the more self evident that becomes.

I don't think the evidence is clear. But when taken together with the other
evidence, it's compelling, IMO. I think that the clearer photos have shown that some of the other objects at Cydonia may not be artificial. But the Face? I think the newer photos show more details of the alleged face.

I love this adjusted photo of The Face...

MGS Face corrected for lighting and viewing angle: Using advanced image processing techniques, three computer graphics professionals contributed to showing how the Face object would change appearance if the lighting were optimized (1 and 2) and if viewed from overhead instead of a 45° slant angle (3).



Here's the animated sequence:

http://www.electrobus.com//face/face443x443_6.2.00.mov

* * * * *

If this was just about the "Face," I wouldn't be as interested. There are plenty of other objects at Cydonia that fit into the hypothesis of artificiality.

Such as ?

Such as the intriguing mound geometry...

http://spsr.utsi.edu/articles/jbis2007.pdf

and...

The D & M pyramid (I'll have to finish this tomorrow or in a few days.
Too tired.)

In any case, naturally occuring geological phenomenoa with suggestive shapes are hardly rare, and should not be construed as evidence of alien visitation. For instance:



Website

Yeah, I've seen that one as much as I've seen this one...




Not quite the same and if you read some of the papers on Cydonia, you might see that those are weak comparisons.

[ufojoe]

I'm curious as to what is allegedly happening with the evidence of what you're suggesting is at Cydonia, ufojoe... Is NASA withholding scientific data that would substantiate the claims? Is the government preventing NASA from investigating? Quite frankly, it *does* smack of conspiracy theory, thus the derision and dismissal from the scientific community at large. With all the exploration NASA has done on/around Mars and elsewhere, don't you think they'd have found something concrete by now? Yes, it's a really neat natural phenomenon. That doesn't mean that some greater power or advanced civilization had anything to do with it.

Look at the Giants' Causeway in North Ireland... Fascinating geologic structure, no explanation, but it doesn't mean aliens beamed down to put it together hundreds of thousands of years ago...

Heck, we can't even explain some of the MANMADE phenomena in the world (Stonehenge, the Mayan pyramids, etc.) There doesn't always have to be some X-Files explanation for it. You have alluded twice to additional sources or evidence, but haven't mentioned what they are yet. I'll bite. What are they? (no, I'm not in any way trying to mock or deride you... I'm genuinely interested).

Real quick.

NASA doesn't think the Cydonia area is worthy of scientific study. So it's tough getting them to focus on the area more than the usual flybys. It may be all but impossible to prove artificiality unless we go there. So, this maybe an exercise in futility.

As far as other sources, I like this page for various papers/articles on Cydonia. There's a paper on there from Dr. James Strange, who James Tabor worked under on a few digs in Israel.

http://spsr.utsi.edu/articles/index.html

[ufojoe]

Ahh, so the extraterrestrial beings had the technology to reach and settle on Mars, but couldn't breech the distance between Mars and Earth, or even the Moon and Earth to prove their existance? Strange, perhaps their petroleum reserves are peaking as well?

Who said they couldn't/didn't come to Moon and Earth?

Really now, if one wanted to believe something so badly, eventually it will become reality to that individual. It appears as though you wanted to see evidence of life on Mars, and eventually you preceived it because that desire was so great.

It appears? Considering the fact that you don't know me, I don't know how you can make such a statement. When I first heard about this, I thought it was crazy. Then I did some reading on it and became more interested in it. I have not come to any conclusions. If it turns out to be natural, so be it. My life is busy enough with other ventures.

Marching in with concusions and then constructing your data to suit those conclusions is not valid science.

Most of the researchers that have written on this subject have not come to any conclusions. A few have. But I discount that part of their work. I am not convinced. Have you already come to a conclusion without reading the research? It's out there. I linked to one decent site in my last post.

So let me ask you this, even IF alians inhabited Mars as you suggest, how do we even know they were responsible for this "Face." The information is not conclusive.

Maybe it's natural. Maybe not. Maybe "people" who were there in the distant past constructed it out of a natural mesa. Maybe not.

Many of these objects seem to be half buried under sand due to the sandstorms. Then you have objects that seem to have ejecta on them from one of the numerous comet/meteor impacts. It may take ground truth to get any answers on this one.

Also, if one wanted to make that structure look like a real face, I'd think they'd do a better job by clarifying the image. Even in ancient times the Egyptians made the Sphinx (a fictional creature) look more realistic than that pile of terrestrial debris.

If this "Face" is a half million years old or a million years old, I would suspect that erosion may have changed its appearance over time. The right side of it seems to be caved in. Could that be from a comet impact?

???

[Darb]

It's still a pretty tall stretch to call it artifically created, much less half a face. There's no clear evidence of either. The clearer the photos, the more self evident that becomes.

I don't think the evidence is clear. But when taken together with the other
evidence, it's compelling, IMO. I think that the clearer photos have shown that some of the other objects at Cydonia may not be artificial. But the Face? I think the newer photos show more details of the alleged face.

I love this adjusted photo of The Face...

MGS Face corrected for lighting and viewing angle: Using advanced image processing techniques, three computer graphics professionals contributed to showing how the Face object would change appearance if the lighting were optimized (1 and 2) and if viewed from overhead instead of a 45° slant angle (3).



Here's the animated sequence:

http://www.electrobus.com//face/face443x443_6.2.00.mov

Your source being "three computer graphics professionals" is more than a little vague, and (IMHO) it also looks to me like they may have done more than simply correct for lighting and viewing angle - the "nose" and "mouth" look (to me) to have been altered more than a bit, cosmetically ... as has the right side of the mesa, to make it look more symmetrical and complete.

Again, just MNSHO, but I'm not convinced. Unless the people doing the work have names and faces (and verifiable credentials), and unless the work can be reproduced independantly (as required by peer-reviewed trade journals), it doesn't meet a sufficiently high level of scientific reliability ... and until it can, this material, just like conveniently grainy photos of 'flying saucers', will remain locked in the fringes of unproven scientific folklore.

[ufojoe]

Again, just MNSHO, but I'm not convinced. Unless the people doing the work have names and faces (and verifiable credentials), and unless the work can be reproduced independantly (as required by peer-reviewed trade journals), it doesn't meet a sufficiently high level of scientific reliability ... and until it can, this material, just like conveniently grainy photos of 'flying saucers', will remain locked in the fringes of unproven scientific folklore.

I linked to several papers in peer reviewed journals.

Also, I never said there was proof.

You haven't commented on any of the peer reviewed papers, including
the mound geometry paper.

BTW, I'm not convinced either.

[Darb]

You haven't commented on any of the peer reviewed papers, including the mound geometry paper.

Because I haven't read them yet. Perhaps in a week or so, limited freetime (and interest) permitting.

BTW, I'm not convinced either.

Why so gung ho on posting & championing this material then ?

This isn't meant to be a dig (after all, I don't know you at all), but scientific doubt should always be genuine and tenaciously defended. Most of what you've posted thus far, and even your very handle, seem to encourage the conclusion that you're already convinced, and therefore the doubts you refer to appear to be primarily for the sake of debating convenience. That may not be true, but I'm not the only person to share that perception at the moment.

Anyway, if I'm wrong (and I assume you'll tell me I am), please feel encouraged to elaborate on what your own doubts are, regarding cydonia.

[ed_the_engineer]

Could cydonia be the real thing ? It's an extremely distant remote possibility ... but highly unlikely to be the case in this instance.

I'd take the claim (an extraterrestrial civilization existed on Mars) to be an extraordinary one, and therefore it requires extraordinary evidence, and a shadowy picture from 1970s tech isn't it. However, the Mars Global Surveyor's high-resolution pictures put this claim to bed as far as I'm concerned, check them out here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydonia_%28Mars%29

Does intelligent life exist elsewhere ? It's virtually a statistical certainty, if you run the numbers,

Actually, there is also a good Wikipedia article on the Drake equation. According to the citations in the article, the current estimate for N, the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might expect to be able to communicate at any given time has dropped from Drake's original 10 to 0.08, which perhaps is a better match the current experience of our civilization.

...remote possibility ... but highly unlikely to be the case in this instance.

mod note - snipped duplicate paragraph ~ tollbaby

Has that life visited or existed here at some point ? Very very highly unlikely. I volunteered for SETI for 3 years.

You might be interested in Arthur C. Clarke's Sentinel Theory (the basis for 2001: A Space Oddysey), as well as Charlie's Three Laws of Alien Behavior from Flying To Valhalla and The Killing Star (note to self, have to add those laws to Charlie's wikipedia page).

Charlie's Three Laws (aka the "Paranoid Universe" theory) imply a massive disincentive for large-scale colonization of the Galaxy. This is a result of the planet-busting Valkyrie relativistic rocket technology, against which there is no defense given known and forseeable physics (even given billions of years of technological advancement), which is a massive disincentive for civilizations to build many interstellar colonies (at least on planets) or even to attempt contacting others -- why draw incoming fire? Though it doesn't mean that others aren't listening...across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us. And early in the twenty-first century came the great disillusionment...