ESA gives Cydonia a new perspective

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />You showed the damaged chin area, not the forehead. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not true, I showed the forehead in both images. You can see the eye in the first one. {see added context image above}

Are we back to "tampering" again? Or downright dishonesty?

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />Notice credit to MSSS for just the composite images -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I would think they would have committed a crime, if they moved the nose up to the forehead. Seems pretty risky to me. And anyway, I doubt if they could do that, and make it look that natural.

I'll tell you this, though. That would have been a smoking gun nose, if it was in the right place. It's a good height.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />I showed the forehead in both images.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">?? Do we agree about the basic orientation of this image? -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />Do we agree about the basic orientation of this image? -|Tom|-

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">?? NO!


You have the damaged side on the West. How can that be. My N is right near the west eye. If you look at the full size image you can see the little tear above the eye.


rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">?? Do we agree about the basic orientation of this image? -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

No we don't. If that's the eye on the left just above the hollow, that would mean left is west and top (up) is north, since the face is oriented around 30 deg. west of north.

Other than that, I think this composite is doctored and exaggerated in the extreme—for public consumption and confusion. The hollows are much too hollow, and the huge bump on the forehead is not evident in any of the other images where you could detect such a feature from the shadows cast--and you can't.

When it comes to propaganda, the Europeans may be worse than the Americans. (Conclusion drawn based on the evidence). But I hope they're telling the truth about the blue eye.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />If you look at the full size image you can see the little tear above the eye.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I think I have to agree with you. I took the big bumps to be the damaged area in the SW corner, as readily seen on the overhead single-shot view (fifth post on this topic). But as Neil says, the vertical relief is so exaggerated, and moreover the composite is so averaged with shadows artfully removed, that it is very hard to recognize specific featrures of the original in this composite view.

As Neil says, the bump can't be anywhere near that large because we can see no shadow from it in the overhead view with sunlight from the west. In Viking views, we can see a shadow from the eyebrow cast into the eye socket when sunlight was from the NW. And that information was used to help recreate the correctly proportioned 3D view shown in the Face animation. -|Tom|-