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 doubt that the spectrometer (assuming there is one on Mars Express) has that much spatial resolution. And even if it did, who would have the incentive to point it at that precise location? Or to study the resulting spectrum (in whatever wavelength range was chosen) to try to identify the bands.[Tom]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The CRISM instrument on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has identified aluminum-rich and iron-rich clays in this region, each with a unique distribution."
[ND quoting from HIRISE website, re-quoted from above]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Tom's new MRB article as much as stated that the face is definitely artificial, and this will inevitably be recognized. It is therefore necessary to raise the appropriate questions here, (especially since no-one else is doing it, apparently). They will be answered in time, though maybe not immediately. We’d like to know for instance; what is the face made of, also the beard and the eye; is the eye blue? Is the face hollow? All these questions should be amenable to remote sensing equipment. Correct me if I’m wrong.

[LB] "How far does it stick out? And how far can stone stick out in Mars' gravity field?"

[neilderosa] "It would seem more inportant to me to find out the material the beard is made of."

That's what I'm getting at, in a round about way.

[tvf] "I doubt that the spectrometer (assuming there is one on Mars Express) has that much spatial resolution. And even if it did, who would have the incentive to point it at that precise location?"

And that is why I'm using a round about approach. If the structure sticks out so far that it would break if it were made of rock, then it isn't made of rock, unless ...

[tvf] "But why assume the "beard" is unsupported?"

... unless there are hidden supports. And that means no resolution of the issue until we get boots on the ground.

Or a rover with cameras and bright lights.

LB

Tom, on the subject of the blue in the eye. Can you tell us how you figured that out? I spent an hour looking through menu items, and trying things out, and I can't see how you could tell that, unless it's in one of the tools that Adobe Photoshop has and Paint Shop doesn't.

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 />Tom, on the subject of the blue in the eye. Can you tell us how you figured that out? I spent an hour looking through menu items, and trying things out, and I can't see how you could tell that, unless it's in one of the tools that Adobe Photoshop has and Paint Shop doesn't. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I can't compare to Paint Shop because I haven't used it. But here's what I wrote in MRB:

"However, examination of the color composition of light and dark areas in this image reveals something of possible interest. As is generally true of natural non-reflective terrain, blue has a relatively minor presence in this image, even in shadows (which are predominantly a mixture of red and green). However, the west (left on the page) eye socket feature contains about 50% more blue coloration than other areas of comparable darkness. In light of previous suggestions that colors might be a test of artificiality if they are either appropriate or inappropriate for particular features, it is tempting to wonder if the mesa (assuming artificiality) at one time depicted a Face with blue eyes."

To notice that difference, I used Photoshop. But all you really need is the breakdown of a group of color pixels into the percentages of red, green, and blue (for RGB coloration). And image processing program that works with colors should have a way to do that much. In Photoshop, I noted that the blue component is usually low, with dark areas on the Face composed mainly of roughly equal parts red and green. But in the dark area in the eye socket, the percentage of blue was distinctly higher than the other areas sampled.

I do not consider this result strong enough to be a confirmation of the "color-appropriate" test. I was simply reporting the initial result from our first opportunity to test for color-appropriateness. At a minimum, we found nothing inconsistent with the test's predictions. -|Tom|-

The Society for Planetary SETI Research has just posted a response to the European Space Agency's misrepresentation of the Face on Mars.

[url] spsr.utsi.edu/ [/url]


Go to SPSR's site and click on "SPSR News" located in the top, left-hand corner, side-bar.

The article is titled: "The Two Faces of ESA."

Zip Monster

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The Society for Planetary SETI Research has just posted a response to the European Space Agency's misrepresentation of the Face on Mars. [ZM]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks ZM. It seems that Drs. Crater, Carlotto, et al, have confirmed what we said above about the non-existent "unicorn" bump on the Cydonia face's forehead. This emphasizes once again the long uphill battle we face when virtually all of officialdom (the space agencies and the PC press) lines up behind an obviously erroneous claim.

Here's Lan Flemming's elivation map from the SPSR paper, with the "bump" elivation indicated. As you can see it's more than 100 meters lower than the high point on the tip of the nose.