Similarity of Three...

> [keith]: Tom, I know you are of the opinion that there is nothing strange or artificial on the moon...

Not quite. I just haven't seen anything on the Moon that has the quality of the best of the Mars images, or has the a priori character or context or interrelationships that must be present to make a credible case for artificiality.

But I have taken note of the work done by Alexey Arkhipov, and your images look interesting too. But surely you see that they can be read either way if one approaches viewing with a mindset? -|Tom|-

I hear ya Tom,
The Mars images are at a fine resolution for most part, and are very much more easily accessible. The Moon's been pretty much hidden from us IMHO, so the desire to peruse the 37,000 some odd Apollo era photos has been pretty effectively squelched.
That's about to change if I and my associates have anything to do with it.
Anomalies or not, we deserve to see the program's imagery.
Mindset is an important thing, I agree totally.
There is quite a bit of difference between the lunar and Martian anomalies, but there are also many similarities. I'm just looking for clues at the scene of the crime.
For instance, this is what is called a mare ridge- but then again, it's a bit too much of one to me.




<img src=" server2044.virtualave.net/bullitt/AS15-98-13361%20fig71.jpg " border=0>

Now if I sectionally enlarge the neg at a certain spot this can be seen
(Though the whole area is chock full of elaborate wreckage)




<img src=" server2044.virtualave.net/bullitt/AS15-98-13361negC1TM.jpg " border=0>

Keith, the only common thing about the images on your site and those that you show us here is that they are so devoid of detail that one can imagine anything in the areas you are pointing at. Nothing leaps out of these images as being particularly unusual. I noticed similar rock projections in other craters on your images that don't look any different than the ones you are going on about, why not declare them to be abandoned cities also?

At least the Face on Mars had sufficient resolution to be compelling although I respectfully disagree with Tom V as to the odds of it being artificial. I was really rooting for it but the best images now to my eye don't grab me as looking strongly artificial. But if someone can show me an image to where I can see the individual lines of stone blocks...

Of all the examples on Mars or the Moon I've seen, I agree that the best chance by far for establishing artificiality is still the Face at Cydonia. It's the sheer number of features and details, and the fact that some of them were predicted. One could argue about percentages of probability, but there's nothing unusual about forming a hypothesis using quantitative tools—always mindful that it is a hypothesis until proven.

I'd like to know now what material the Face is made of, (whether artificial or natural), what caused the melt down on the right side, (the east side), what type of materials would melt that way in a meteor impact incident, and what other known examples there are of this kind of melt down in nature. I'd also like to see images in full color, and with much better resolution.

If ever there were compelling reasons to speed up planning for manned exploration of Mars, the Face at Cydonia has to be one of the most important. Neil

Jeremy, I see your game right off the bat.
Thanks, but argue with somebody else.
You'll have to do better than that. You could in no way have gone through all the pictures on my site(s) objectively.
You want to see images with lines of stone blocks?
can do, and... it's on my site too.
<img src=" server2044.virtualave.net/bullitt/e0500156CydonianHilton2.jpg " border=0>
Dismissed.

Nderosa, I agree, the face is a killer, but not many besides fringe will admit it's even a face at all. This in spite of its obvious attributes, and the wonderfully clean new image .
You question what caused the destruction of the east side.
Though the lower east side does have some obvious damage,
IMHO, the west side is the one with the evident damage-
caused by what left the crater just a bit lower off its west side.
This is evident to me in both e03-00824 and sp122003.
The point that there are many other anomalous items and areas both on Mars and the moon
strengthen the case for artificiality.

> Jeremy, I see your game right off the bat. Thanks, but argue with somebody else.

Jeremy is right. Unless you have a good hi-res monitor (1024x768 minimum), readjust the brightness and contrast for your own monitor, and have some experience with viewing these images, seeing features such as you describe is *hard*. They do not jump out at most people until after they finally, sometimes with great effort, see the feature once. Then it is easy to see it repeatedly in the future.

If you think that because it is so obvious now to you, it must be that way to others, you need to do some more sampling with friends and associates and discover that it is not easy for lots of people. And there is not a high correlation between people's skepticism and their ability to see these features. Some artificiality skeptics can see them right off, and some artificiality advocates have enormous trouble seeing them. Jeremy has trouble seeing even the Cydonia Face as artificial, which most people can do if shown a decent view of it. -|Tom|-