New image of the Cydonia Face 4-13-06

<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 />Tom go look at his web page again (linked earlier). Malin did not flip the image from right-left. The orientation of the face is the same in both versions. It is the light to dark ratio that has been reversed, as in positive to negative.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, and that is called an "inversion", not a "reversal". As you see, Malin calls it an inversion also. And Malin did that for the same reason Kelly did that in the animation I provided a link for a couple of messages back: to reverse shadows and sunlight, thereby simulating lighting from the high northwest instead of the low southeast. That way, it could be compared with the Viking images.

But Kelly's "lighting change" didn't just do an inversion, as Malin did. Kelly used the known 3-D structure of the mesa to recompute where the shadows would fall to keep the image true to reality.

I agree that you would be better off starting from an inversion of that image than from the original because of the deep shadows on the visible western half of the Face. But you then drew your line of symmetry way off the nose ridge, and the subsequent mirroring had no redeeming virtues.

Compare what you did with my analysis of the 2001 image at metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/...Face/Preliminary.asp , taken from directly above the Face. Especially, examine the third image in Figure 1. It shows the inherent symmetry in the Face very well, and one can plainly see the complete outline of the overlaid melt flow on the east side in that view. Figure 10 shows the crater on the mesa it came from. The entire article shows the consequences of this impact on the mesa, and shows the near-perfect symmetry of the facial features when ignoring the melt-flow.

I understand you have made a lot of investment in your interpretation. So I will be suprised (pleasantly) if you change your mind about the dual-face theory. However, the down side is that, by using invalid image processing techniques and publishing those results, you have (without intending it) made it harder for scientists to get taken seriously because those at JPL with an agenda now have your example, as well as those of RCH and a few others, to "justify" their ridicule of the "artificiality of Cydonia" (AOC) hypothesis.

So as much as I might like to say "you go your way and we'll go ours", the two approaches are mutually antagonoistic and somewhat destructive of each other. If we both would like to see the AOC hypothesis advance more than we would like to be personally vindicated, then one of us should throw his support to the other. Any suggestions how to get to that place? -|Tom|-

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

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Only as a working hypothesis. I've read a couple of theories that support the idea that the "Flood Myth" was based on a real historical event or events. Robert Schoch (<i>Voices of the Rocks</i>) of ancient age of the Sphinx fame, cited Stephen Oppenheimer (<i>Eden in the East</i>) who thinks that there was an ancient civilization (circa 10,000 BP) in Sundaland, an ancient continent where the southeast Asian islands are now, leading down almost to Australia. Long story short, the melting of the glaciers after the last glacial period, flooded this area, leaving only the islands and SE asian peninsula where Vietnam is now.

My feeling is there is some compelling evidence that it may be true, and that such an early civilization could have done things like build the Sphinx, (don't know about the Pyramids), but I don't think they were space travelers. Indications are that they may have invented (or learned from the Nephilim) things like bronze smelting long before the current paradigm has it, but I doubt they were tecnologically advanced.

Fantastic as it sounds, we probably have to look to other worlds for what seems to be on Mars now. Namely the artifacts.

There's lots more, but I'm not sure how all this fits into an astronomy website.

Neil

<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 />The entire article shows the consequences of this impact on the mesa, and shows the near-perfect symmetry of the facial features when ignoring the melt-flow.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Tom, did you ever have the opportunity to let someone schooled in metallurgical failure analysis look at this image (or one like it)?



Neil and I tried a few sources, but so far no one has really taken the bait. I even tried the local college where they teach (and do experiment on) stress failures. Unfortunately, the one person who might know is buried up to his neck, and looked at me a little askance when I told him I was going to send him some pictures from the surface of Mars. This looks very similar to the way metal cracks under stress (see arrow). We would be very interested in any leads you might be able to give us as to who we might ask for an opinion.

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 />did you ever have the opportunity to let someone schooled in metallurgical failure analysis look at this image (or one like it)?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, I have no contacts in that area. However, MRO has an advanced spectrometer that, in principle, can tell natural materials from metals. That seems the most direct approach. We already know from the infrared data that the heat retention is anomalous. But that's only an indicator, not strong enough to prove anything.

Personally, I'm betting the entire mesa is a lightweight, synthetic alloy, mostly hollow underneath the surface and supported by struts. -|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 /> However, MRO has an advanced spectrometer that, in principle, can tell natural materials from metals.
..................
Personally, I'm betting the entire mesa is a lightweight, synthetic alloy, mostly hollow underneath the surface and supported by struts.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm betting the "T" is (was) a mine. When we find out what's at the base and still in the walls, we will know "why it's so shiny". I hope we can have some input into what gets analyzed. And who knows, maybe the two issues are related.

rd

<i>Originally posted by Tom </i><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">However, MRO has an advanced spectrometer that, in principle, can tell natural materials from metals.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The trick of course will be how to get JPL to take the reading, and then publish it. My feeling is that we had better squeeze every drop of blood we can out of the existing data, because getting more will be an uphill battle. But it also seems to me that the right kind of publicity could turn the tide, and get some couragious politician to look at this issue and start asking questions.

Neil