New image of the Cydonia Face 4-13-06

<i>Originally posted by Gregg</i> <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Several of these images seem very human. So it is a reasonable possibility that the work was done by humans. I know that the "mainstream thought" is that the artists would come from the mother planet of Mars and would be a species distinct from humans. However, we have a human history which is truncated at about 4,000 BC, with all previous records being labelled as "fairy tales". We really don't know our distant past.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The fossil record from discoveries during the past 100 years (with a few exceptions like the Neanderthal detour) shows a consistent pattern of evolution with a gradual progression from the more "archaic" to the more "modern" humans. There has been no record found anywhere (yet) of a technologically advanced race of humans in the past living on earth. However, there is a rich mythology of advanced beings from the "heavens" ("gods") who roamed the earth in the distant past. It is purely speculative, (not to mention fantastical), but if I were looking for a hypothesis, that would be where I would start. Very often mythology has been found to have basis in fact.

If we got to the point of agreeing that these art works look real, and look human to boot, the next question I would want to ask would be, how old are these artfacts? It seems to me that once mainstream science takes this subject seriously, that will not be a very difficult thing to find out. There are several reliable dating methods. If the artifacts turn out to be a few thousand years old, it might be remotely possible that they have an earth source. But if they turn out to be a few million years old, then Tom's speculation becomes plausible that humans lived on at least one other planet before ours, and we may be a transfer species. This theory could be fully consistent with the fossil record.

There are lots of questions, but until the subject is taken seriously, they won't be answered.

Neil

Rich,

Just to return to the dispute for a second, I'll concede your point that ZM (and you in your following of his steps) started from a simple light reversal of SP1, but I still say unequivocally that the <i>result</i> (I don't know the "motive") was to distort. If you study the half he begins with, (I'm not going to grant his premise by calling it the "humanoid half"), you will see that light reversal causes all kinds of distortions; eg, the big piercing irises appear, the small indent in the cheek, caused most likely by a small meteor, becomes a weird bulge, the nose bridge takes on a gorrilla-like appearance; and so on. Then when he (or any researcher) puts two distorted (mirrored) halves together, and without a nose, what have you got? A grotesque figure, nothing like the face really looks. If you do this experiment with one of the good, straight-on shots of the Cydonia Face (as a control, and without light reversal of course) you will see a human face--and a dramatic difference.

One more point on the Family of Faces: As Gregg's post reminds me; on the addition of more very realistic faces, not only does it increase our confidence (in the artificiality hypothesis), it does so exponentially, because given artificiality, and given the human resemblance, the discovery of more faces ups the odds against "coincidence" astronomically. (By "coincidence," I mean random, natural features that merely have the "appearance" of artificiality and humaness.) I'm not like "Mr. Spock" in that I can't put a number on it, but it's HUGE. JP Levasseur, who is a terrific guy and courageous pioneer on this subject is incorrect on this point.

Neil

Neil,


What are you trying to suggest by charging that I had some underlining “motive" behind my use of Dr. Malin’s reversal. I’m just examining the available data, which by the way - all supports a two-faced model. Negative reversals don’t add data. All the features that I point out are present in the positive and the negative version. I never said the face was intended to be mirrored. You don’t have to mirror either side of the Face to see these features. I only mirror the opposing sides to assist the viewer, to make it easier for them to see the two faces individually. Once they recognize the bifurcated composite of the structure, then they can examine the features without the aid of mirroring.

If you haven’t noticed, NASA/Malin has the propensity to release certain MGS images in the negative and even reversed or up-side down and sometimes over processed. The only thing the “reversal” does here - is aid the eye in seeing the detail. Once you recognize structural richness of the detail - that is highlighted in the reversal - you can go back to the “original” and see it.

Remember Malin offers the reversal on his web site. I didn’t create this image and add more detail, it’s Malin’s image. Maybe you should ask him what his “motive” was to present a reversal. Ask him how many other web pages offer negative reversals of MGS images? I bet you’ll find none. I’d also like to know what your “motives” are and why you seem to be so adamantly opposed to the possibility that the Cydonia Face is bifurcated? So much so that you have charged me with "doctoring" images and creating facial features that aren’t there.

Speaking of features, could you please point out to me the “small indent in the cheek” that you say was “caused most likely by a small meteor. ” Are you talking about the teardrop feature? if you are it is not an indent.

As for the Humanoid side of the face being “grotesque”… I agree. That’s also part of the Mesaomerican iconography. The Maya produced many masks and glyphs with the grotesque faces of mythological characters and gods. The Cydonia Institute has found over two dozen bifurcated geoglyphic structures in the Cydonia area that have a direct relationship to these Mesoamerican mythological characters and gods. The Face is not alone.

We should be working together here and not projecting personal hostilities and making baseless charges.

You may not be seeing double now, but …you will.

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 Neil</i>

However, there is a rich mythology of advanced beings from the "heavens" ("gods") who roamed the earth in the distant past. It is purely speculative, (not to mention fantastical), but if I were looking for a hypothesis, that would be where I would start. Very often mythology has been found to have basis in fact.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You are supporting the idea that there are large, human like, portraits on Mars, so advanced beings from the "heavens" is not fantastical.

There are structures on Earth, which cannot be explained by the known technology of our distant past. Case in point are the three pyramids at Giza, Egypt. I will belay my own speculation on them and defer to Sir Flinders Petrie. He examined the Great Pyramid in extreme detail and precision in 1880-1881. His conclusion was that no human civilization, past or present, could have built it. Petrie had no axe to grind about flying saucers, extraterrestrials, nuclear power, gods, etc. He never looked skyward. I don't know who built them. In talking with construction engineers, they say there are only three cranes in the world today, 2006, that could lift the 80 ton granite blocks to the height of approximately 380 feet where they are in the Great Pyramid.

I will amend my distinction between humans and beings from a mother planet of Mars. I wonder if we are one and the same, with minor differences. That mother planet would not have received enough sunlight to maintain liquid water, unless there was a thicker atmosphere. So inhabitants there would have had a different lung capacity and abdominal muscle strength. Also, with the solar distance and a thick atmosphere, pigmentation of the skin would have been unneccessary. But total genetic incompatibility seems unlikely.

Lack of ancient civilization structures on Earth could be the result of the Noah Global Flood myth. I think that a scientific basis for such a flood can be made. Cutting short that long winded debate, I will point out a specific example of a global flood. Follow State Highway 58 from Bakersfield to Tehachapi in California. One goes from low desert to high desert in a large gap between the San Gabriel mountains and the Sierra Neveda mountains. Within this area there are large hills that look precisely like the bed of a violent sea. Imbedded in the top and leeward side of these hills are very large, rounded rocks that weigh at least thousands of tons. The rocks are foreign to the hills and did not originate there. I am not aware of any geological claim that the last Ice Age reached as far south as Techachapi, California. Wind certainly didn't move them.

There might be a MetaResearch member who can drive out there and either verify my claim or initiate proceedings to have me committed to "Happy Acres".

Gregg Wilson

[img=left] metaresearch.org/publicftp/testfi.jpg [/img=left]
[img=right] metaresearch.org/publicftp/testsi.jpg [/img=right]
What can we learn by examining either of these images?

Hint: I took Cydonia-like half-profiles of famous persons and followed Zip's recipe. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gregg</i>
<br />There are structures on Earth, which cannot be explained by the known technology of our distant past. Case in point are the three pyramids at Giza, Egypt. I will belay my own speculation on them and defer to Sir Flinders Petrie. He examined the Great Pyramid in extreme detail and precision in 1880-1881. His conclusion was that no human civilization, past or present, could have built it. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
A few years back I read "Pyramid Prophecies" by Max Toth. In it he talks about a Japanese engineering company (Nippon Corp) that got permission to build a "mini-pyramid" on the Giza site. The goal was to see if they could move 1 ton blocks (instead of 80 ton!!) from the Cheop's quarry nine miles away, by any of the theorized means available to them, and then build a mini-pyramid. The goal was to test the prevalent theories of the Egyptologists. The mini-pyramid could only remain for a few days, then be dismantled and surrounding area returned to its original topography.

Here is an excerpt from Pg 81.
==========================================
With these stipulations agreed to, the Japanese began the arduous task of quarrying and transporting the blocks of stone, and constucting their mini-pyramid, stone by stone. The blocks were taken from the same quarry which had supplied the facing stone for Cheop's pyramid, some nine miles away, on the east bank of the Nile.

Once cut into approximate one-ton blocks, the stones could not be barged across the River Nile. Flotation apparently was not the simple answer, as had been suggested. The blocks finally had to be ferried across by steamboat.

Then, teams of one hundred workers each tried to move these stones over the sand---and they could not move them one inch! Modern construction equipment had to be resorted to, and once again, when the blocks of stone were finally brought to the building site, the teams could not lift their individual stones more than a foot or so. In the final construction step, a crane and helicopter were used to position the blocks.

The modern world possesses technological abilities unequalled by any known previous civilization, yet even after using the latest techniques and the best of the workers' ability, the mini-pyramid did not have the characteristics of the ancient structure.

.................

This venture by the Japanese, who are considered to be the most resourceful, industrious and enterprising people of the modern world, showed that the methods theorized for the construction of the pyramid by traditional investigators have been highly inaccurate all this time! And yet---in the light of this undeniable evidence---Egyptologists still refuse to correct their doctrines.
==========================================
End of excerpt.

Now, try to imagine if they had tried it with 80 ton blocks.

Speaking of the quarry, there's a 30 ton block still sitting there til this day, by the shear wall face where it was cut out. It sits there just like it had just been slid out. The hole where the stone was is cut in to is rectangular in shape, the exact same shape as the stone, and is less than an inch bigger than the stone itself!! The horizontal depth of the hole is tens of feet! There is no technology existent today, that could make such an accurate cut, nor is there any known way of sliding out the block after the cut, short of drilling through the block so as to get something to grab onto.




rd