New image of the Cydonia Face 4-13-06

ZM,

I appreciate the fact that you gave this an honest attempt. Here are my reactions.

1- Here is the link to the original 1998 oblique image SP122003. You may note that it is not the same as the already enhanced image you used as your starting point.

www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/SP122003.html

So you're beginning with an enhanced image, not the raw data image. For example, in your image the iris is drawn in. This is an obvious doctoring because even in the best resolution image of the Face the iris is not that apparent (although the eyeball is). Then in your mirrored image you have two doctored irises.

2- Note that your cropped half was taken from the oblique angle 1998 shot, instead of one of the much better, later, straight overhead images, which are also higher resolution. The best example of the undamaged side of the face is E2001532, IMO.

www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e19_r02/images/E20/E2001532.html

3- You are cropping an oblique angle shot, mirroring it, and then turning it into an overhead straight-on image. Not kosher.

4- Because you are using an oblique angle shot to "split down the middle" so to speak, there is one more little "sleight of hand" apparent here: the "middle" of the face would not be the measured center as you have taken it, but somehere between the two nostrils on the nose. Again this is apparent in any of the straight-on images available from 2001 on. So you take what is not really the center of the face and turn it into your "center" in the mirrored image, thus producing an image with no nose, when the original had one!

But at least you tried.

Thanks,

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Zip Monster</i>
<br />2.) To further rectify a vertical viewing angle I used the tools provided by Paint Shop Pro 7. In the Tool Bar under “Effects” I utilized the “Skew” function in the “Geometric Effects” section. The Skew was set at 17% Horizontal.

3.) Then in the Tool Bar, under “Image” I rotated the image 15% to the Right.

4.) Using the Tool Bar, I went into “Effects” and utilized the “Perspective - Horizontal” tool in the “Geometric Effects” section. The horizontal perspective was set at 52%. The results are presented in Figure 2.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Zip,

Thanks for posting that.

I didn't know about this "brightness reversed" image. I do see alot of the features you're pointing out, but I don't think we've covered everything, yet. Also, I'm not quite sure what to make about the whole concept of brightness reversing. When we show our relatives family pictures, we don't show them the negatives. Plus, remember that the MSSS image we're using was mercator map-projected already.

I did exactly what you described in Paint Shop Pro X, and unless they've broken some features since ver 7, I'd say this image isn't really face-on like yours appears to be. It's still looking off to the side, and any attempt at mirroring it would be useless. The humanoid side would have an upside down V at the bottom of the mesa, instead of a round shape, and the other side would be totally out of proportion to what it really is.

Here's yours:



And here's mine:



By the way, in Skew, you said 17%, but when I did it, it said "angle", to which I set it to 17 degrees. And "Horizontal-Perspective" was "amount of distortion", to which I set it to 52. I also rotated right by 15 deg., like you said to.

In an earlier post in the "Nefertiti's Family" topic, Mark raised the question about standarizing these image processing techniques. I told him that while I wasn't really sure about all of the details, I believed that anything that just amounts to contrast and brightness adjusting, smoothing, equalizing, averaging, noise removal, etc, was legal. Those are all part of the "Adjust" menu.

I also said that I believed anything in the "Effects" menu should be avoided for anything but photography. Many, if not all of the effects choices either add data (patterns, lighting effects, etc.), or do some questionable stretching, squeezing, etc. of the data. I'm not so sure one could call that part of a science experiment.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />1- Here is the link to the original 1998 oblique image SP122003. You may note that it is not the same as the already enhanced image you used as your starting point.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Neil, that's not going to matter because all that was done to it was "brightness reversal" just like he said, and it said. He'll get the same result starting from the raw data, if the first thing he did was create a negative of it.

rd

<i>Originally posted by rderosa </i><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">that's not going to matter because all that was done to it was "brightness reversal" just like he said, and it said. He'll get the same result starting from the raw data, if the first thing he did was create a negative of it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I don't think so, look close at the eye in the original then reverse the lighting like a negative and you won't get whet you see here. Anyway it doesn't matter because what are they doing light reversal for? What purpose does it serve here other than to confuse the issue? (That would be like turning the "T" feature, SP243004, from a depression into a mound.)

In my opinion this is all distortion piled on distortion, and then compounded for good measure. In order to get a straight line down the middle of the 1998 face (from your last image, labeled, "and here's mine") you need to rotate it a little to the left, maybe 5-10 degrees, then draw a line down through the middle of the forehead, nose bridge, nose, between the two nostrils, and down the middle of the chin. You'll know you're oriented right when you can do this with a vertical line. Do this and post a mirror image of it, and it won't look anything like ZM's mirror image.

Do this with E20 (mentioned my last post, and in an earlier post) and it will look different yet again.

The upshot? there is nothing objective about this procedure.

Neil

So, Neil … Dr. Malin’s enhancement isn’t good enough for you. You don’t accept his adjustments to establish a central axis. Besides mirroring, I have done anything different to the image then NASA or Dr. Malin has done. And another thing - I don’t need to show you the raw data. For what reason? I used NASA’s own data to support my analysis. The same data that they use to say the Face is just a pile of rocks.

As for the negative reversal - have you ever thought that maybe NASA and Dr. Malin presented the original SP122003 image in a negative presentation just to obfuscate the face-like appearance of the structure. Just look at the up-side down presentation in which they present the current image. Whay did they do that?

I’m sorry to inform you Neil but, the so-called “iris,” is not drawn in as you continuously pontificate. There is no “doctoring” involved here at all. Again “What you see is what you get.”

And as for your suggestion that I should use a much better image, "a straight overhead images," of higher resolution. There isn’t any. There are no better images of the Humanoid side of the Face. All subsequent images after the 1998 shot capture the Feline side with the right side foreshortened - including your favorite E2001532.

I guess you know as mush about image processing, as you know about three-dimensional art. If you haven’t realized it yet, the Cydonia Face is a 3-D work of art. It’s not a low relief sculpture like the Nefertiti face that you have fallen in love with. On the contrary, the Cydonia Face is a highly complex sculpted bifurcated geoglyphic structure. Much like a two-faced mask.

Speaking of masks, lets imagine you are a curator of a museum and you want to document a two-faced mask for the archives. What would you do? Well, first you would take a full faced frontal view of the mask, just as NASA has done with two 1976 images of the Face. Then you would take a three quarter view of the left side of the mask and then the left side, just as NASA/Malin has done in 1998 and 2001.

That’s right, NASA/Malin has done just that. However, they only took one three quarter view of the left side (the humanoid side), that single image being the 1998 SP122003 image. All additional images including the recent up-side down shot - are three quarter views of the Feline side (now why is that ?).

Now, as for the center line, I’m sorry to inform you but, my demarcation line is at the center of the two-faced Cydonia mask because I know where the center is. With the aid of over 20 images NASA/Malin has provided source images to compare and establish where the axis line is.

Finally we come to your nose debate. Well Neil there is no nose. Just ask Dr. Mark Carlotto. He found no nose. However, there is a decorative pattern around the area where a nose should be, but there is no nose. It’s a nose ornament, which like the tri-leaf emblem, the dental implant in the tooth and the flanged headdress, it is another Mesoamerican maker.

Get over it Neil, the Face is two-faced, it’s not just an illusion.

But at least you tried.

Thanks,

Zip Monster

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br /><i>Originally posted by rderosa </i><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">that's not going to matter because all that was done to it was "brightness reversal" just like he said, and it said. He'll get the same result starting from the raw data, if the first thing he did was create a negative of it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I don't think so, look close at the eye in the original then reverse the lighting like a negative and you won't get whet you see here. Anyway it doesn't matter because what are they doing light reversal for? What purpose does it serve here other than to confuse the issue? (That would be like turning the "T" feature, SP243004, from a depression into a mound.)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Neil, I never said that I approve of light reversal. All I said here in this message was that the only difference between the raw data, and the starting point Zip used, was that his was a negative of the raw data.

But that has nothing to do with my opinion of the whole subject. That was just a statement I made.

In response to ZM's posting that we asked him to do, what I actually said was:

"Also, I'm not quite sure what to make about the whole concept of brightness reversing. When we show our relatives family pictures, we don't show them the negatives. Plus, remember that the MSSS image we're using was mercator map-projected already."

Plus, there are still questions that would have to be answered, in understanding why ZM's image is more on-axis than mine is. That's what I was getting at. It's obvious that you couldn't mirror mine.






rd