Uncorrected version of 2002 Face image.
I was at the coffeeshop with my laptop and it occurred to me to conduct a quick experiment. I displayed one of the new images of the Face on Mars to the barista (who had never heard of the Face before) and she immediately identified it as a face, even going so far as to point out the "eye" and "mouth."
Of course, this is completely contrary to assertions in the debunking literature, which typically cite Mars Global Surveyor images of the Face as "proof" that the feature is anything but face-like.
13 comments:
Frankly, I've always found the Face one of the least interesting of the Martian anomalies. I agree that it DOES look like a heavily eroded face even in the MGS pix but so what? You were just in Arizona where there are literally tons of suggestive "simulacra" of geological origin lying around that look as though they might have been sculpted by human (or Other!) hands. My own take is that this is quite likely what the Face actually is. I'm much more impressed by all the rectilinear/geometric stuff in some of the other photos, as well as the so-called "banyans" and "spiders," although the NASA types do seem to have developed explaining EVERYTHING away as geological process into a fine art.
--WMB
I suppose that I can make out the left eye socket and a round nose with two nostrils. But where is the mouth? Is it a prominent mouth rather than one carved deeper into the rock? The short ridge going downwards from the nose doesn't really remind me of any face I've ever seen. The general shape makes it look kind of like a mask though, with its too straight edges. Maybe it's the work of an extraterrestial Christo? That seems likely. :)
I like the idea of an interstellar Christo, although if the Face is an artifact, I'm betting it had a functional, rather than purely aesthetic, purpose.
To me the most convincing anomaly on Mars suggesting artificiality is the glyph of "Nefertiti".
To me the most convincing anomaly on Mars suggesting artificiality is the glyph of "Nefertiti".
But that's exactly the point, Ken. Those types of shapes are the ones that most strongly strike me as being simulacra. The human mind has a penchant creating meaningful images out of natural formations (probably a survival trait). But the rectilinear/geometric stuff is much harder to explain away.
--WMB
Yep, faces and nipples are the two shapes we can recognize from the moment we open our eyes. It's hardwired into us, and therefore seeing them is not, in itself, unexpected in noisy data fields.
I never found the face that compelling either, for this reason. Those "glass tubes", though, get me thinking hard.
But the Face registers as nonfractal to computers. So it's *quantifiably* weird, not just to us humans who tend to "see faces."
As for the "glass tubes," close analysis suggests they're neither glass nor tubular.
Take another close look at the Nefertiti glyph. Notice the very minute details of facial features (you can even see the eye, pupil, iris, eyelashes, brow not to mention the bridge of the nose, nostril, lips, cheekbone, forehead, chin, neck, shoulders; she appears to be sitting with her back against a chair). I am convinced this is not a simulacra.
Well, for the record, I'm not convinced or unconvinced of any of this stuff. I wouldn't be shocked if the face is artificial (I tend to think it is anyhow), it's just that it's hard to get confident about it visually, because of human psychology.
The more objective quantifiers, such as the fractal analysis, are more insteresting, but still pretty fuzzy.
Oops, I hit send to quick. I do find the face more interesting than the geometric relationships of the objects in Cydonia at large, because I know from first-hand experience that it's also really easy to find such meaningful relationships in any arbitrary (not random) pattern field.
I think the face is wholly unconvincing as a designed face, even given that it would be highly eroded, but the platform on which it sits does seem anomalous and probably contributes the most to the quantifiable nonfactal geometry. Not knowing enough about math, I cannot say much about whether the "discovered" geometric relationships mean anything or are simply fortuitous. I agree with W.M. that the "rectilinear/geometric" formations, particularly the "D&M; pyramid" are the most difficult to explain as the result of natural processes. I have seen no explanations from NASA or anywhere else able to explain what natural processes might have formed some of these anomalous formations. Most debunking of Cydonia seems to start and end with the face which is an easy target, given that people do tend to see faces in random images.
I lost a lot of my own Mars research when my old computer went belly up, so I don't have the Photo # for this. But there is one MGS pic of a large grid in a kind of valley that looks for all the world like a ruined subdivision. (I mean there are DOZENS of square intersections with the grid lines being fairly equally spaced as well, not like just a few in the so-called "Inca City." I'll have to re-find this pic. If anyone knows the one I'm talking about, I'd appreciate the info.) I know that geological forces can sometimes fracture rocks along straight lines but I don't know of a good "explanation" for something this complex.
--WMB
The "Parallelogram" is another one that's very difficult to explain...It really does look as if there is something buried there under the sand...