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 neilderosa</i>
<br />Here's an example of how shading is used to indicate shape. Neil
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, in this schematic, it's obvious. You can see a shadow of the nose, and of the raised area below the nose, etc. But these images (from your composite) have no such obvious shadows. Mainly because they are highly processed for contrast, brightness, histogram stretch or compress, etc. There are no convincing shadows to the right of the dark line where one would certainly expect one. Why? Actually the two darkest areas are right where we'd expect them to be when comparing this to the 1976 shadow. One to the right of the chin, and one to the right of the forehead nose:



rd

In the newly created “perspective view” of the western humanoid side of the Cydonia Face released by the ESA, there appears to be a large “knob” formation on the forehead - giving the distorted impression that the Face on Mars resembles nothing more than a happy faced Knuckle Head (Figure 1). With the prominent “knob” sticking up out of the face - the new image is so difficult to perceive, that even Dr. TVF admittedly didn’t know which end was up and couldn’t make heads or tails of its features when he first saw it.


Figure 1
ESA - Knuckle Head version of the Cydonia Face

The problem with this new version of the Cydonia Face is that this “knob” feature is absent in the entire data set of images capturing the Face that have been previously released by NASA. Even the full faced image of the Cydonia face that was release with the Knuckle Head version show no such ‘knob” feature (Figure 2). All of the subsequent releases of the Cydonia Face by NASA, either full or partial views, clearly show there is no “knob” feature on the western forehead (near the eye brow). All we see is a uniform, featureless gray area - indicating a relative flat forehead.


Figure 2
ESA – Full Faced version of the Cydonia Face (knob-less)


So,….where is the evidence to support this unsubstantiated Knuckle Head view of the Face where is the data? And why would the ESA team go along with our good friend Mr. Malin and greatly exaggerate the Humanoid side of the face in this newly created “perspective view”?

And BTW, why would they present the eastern Feline side correctly?

Zip Monster

In previous posts about the Cydonia Face I remember occasional mention of a "headdress". There is no reason why a headdress couldn't have a protrusion of some sort in the forehead area.

LB

The knobs on the forehaed are the west eyebrow feature with vertical relief exaggerated by an order of magnitude. This is reminiscent of the catbox image brought to us in 1998 by one of the same parties, in which vertical relief was suppressed by about an order of magnitude. I'm guessing the heat on JPL was getting to be too much, and the need for more public ridicule was perceived.

We should ask the authors for a comparison of the catbox and composite images and to explain how both can represent the same mesa. {West & east are reversed on composite image below.) -|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 />I'm guessing the heat on JPL was getting to be too much, and the need for more public ridicule was perceived.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That would be terrible if true. If you think about it, that would virtually be an admission that they have something to hide.

I had a friend once that put himself through college by touring the country doing a UFO presentation at colleges. He had a unique program, where he presented a bunch of documents and affidavits from retired military personnel. The thrust of his program was designed to convince the audience that <b>the military believed in UFOs</b>. He showed that by their actions, there was no other conclusion you could come to.

I think this would be similar. If they doctored that image, that would be like saying "we know this is artificial, but we don't want others to know that."

I just sent an email to them, asking if they have laser altimeter data to prove the new image. On their website they say that such laser altimeter data exists for the Face:

See bottom of page.
www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMJBQXLDMD_0.html

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The picture showed a feature called a ‘mesa’, like the landforms common in western USA. The Cydonia region is littered with many mesas like this, but which do not look like human heads and they attract little popular attention. Subsequent laser altimetry scans, with height measurements made to within 20 to 30 centimetres, confirm that its shape and all of its dimensions are similar to the other mesas and not exotic in any way. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

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 />that would virtually be an admission that they have something to hide.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not at all. The stated position of JPL/MSSS is that taking images of the Cydonia Face (which they were ordered to do) was "a slap at the integrity of the scientists and a waste of public funds". They truly believe that, and consider it a public service to trash this "nonsense" so they can do serious science full time.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">On their website they say that such laser altimeter data exists for the Face<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, that has been much discussed by SPSR, who wrote to Garvin and asked that the claim be retracted because it is false. But no one at NASA wants to take the initiative on this because it is such a hot political potato. They just ignore all requests to justify the claim. -|Tom|-