New image of the Cydonia Face 4-13-06

Hi ZM,

I apologize for being blunt; I did not mean to be rude. Beside referring you to what I thought were good papers on artificial structures on Mars, which I already did, I can here only give you my opinion.

First, as I've said in the "Family" post, I think the examination of these images, which are very limited for a variety of reasons, can only give us some limited confidence in artificiality. We need corroborating evidence and confirmation from other sources.

That said, I think you need to take some standards as your starting point, and see if what you are examining comes up to those standards and to what degree. You can do that qualitatively (by description) or quantitatively, by statistical analyses, for example. The standard most workers have used, I think, begins with an assumption from intuition or common sense (from which we formulate a hypothesis); the Face "looks like" a human face in the undamaged half at least, so then various tests are done to see if the tests confirm or falsify our intuition.

Next, Tom has mentioned many times the use of the <i>a priori </i>principle. You (loosly speaking) make an educated guess based on your intuition, of what certain unseen feature will be apparent upon closer inspection. My favorite was the west "eye feature." It could not be seen in the original Viking images. When it turned up clearly in the 2001, 2002, and subsequent images, that was very persuasive to me. I think statistitions can give estimated odds against such an ocurrence. I believe they are astronomically high.

I for one would like to predict that the sculpture may be hollow, may be made from some type of artificial alloy or metal, or that it may contain artificial devices, or tell-tale construction marks. Future analyses could either confirm or falsify these predictions.

I'm not going to give a firm opinion as to whether mirror images are acceptable or not, but I personally prefer to analyze what I actually can see and not what "might" be on the unseen, or damaged other half. And again intuitively it seems that one half is severely damaged, (there are two large cracks, there are apparent "melts," and an apparent crater). To take this obviously damaged area and extrapolate "cat-like" features by use of a mirror image seems extremely risky to me. The west side also seems to have some damage but less so.

Neil

Neil,

Yes you were rude, as was Tom.

You say that the examination of these images is very limited and we need corroborating evidence and confirmation from other sources. What other sources? We only have the images supplied from NASA. And NASA has taken over 20 images of the Face from a variety of angles and resolutions. What more do you want?

As for your guidance for establishing “standards,” we don’t need “assumptions,” the only standard we need - is to view the images with an unbiased eye and accept the data for what it shows. As Frank Stella once said; “What you see is what you get.”

It seems to me that both you and Tom have too many preconceived notions about what a Martian geoglyphic structure should and shouldn’t look like. You setup biased criteria and then list a set of standards that ignore legitimate art forms or anything that may appear beyond your narrow scope. This my friend, is bad science.

You both accept the notion that the humanoid side of the face is “human-like,” however you insist on an overall symmetrical face. You cling to this because with newer images you realize that the adjacent side of the face is not symmetrical to the humanoid side. So you now try to manipulate your analysis to fit the preconceived idea that if someone would build a facial structure it would be symmetrical. That’s a very narrow point of reference. Maybe you should study the World History of Art before setting up such a subjective set of guidelines.

The truth is - you are not interested in the fact that the right side of the structure looks feline at all, oh no. That’s beyond your Western ideals. That would mean the Cydonia Face is just a trick of light and NASA was right all along. What would your colleagues think! For your hypothesis to work the Face can’t be two-faced at all and the feline side of the face can’t be feline, it has to be damaged.

In my 15 years of analysis of the right side of the Cydonia Face – I have found that every new image is overwhelmingly supportive of a feline face. Not only have I predicted a feline visage on the right side of the face prior to the 1998 image, I found a terrestrial culture that produced similar human/feline masks with common iconoraphic elements.

As for confirmation of facial features, I agree that a human-like “eye” formation was suggested in two of the original 1976 Viking images and was present again in more detail in the 1998 image, while the 2001 image of the Cydonia Face confirmed the eye. Now this is good science. The eye is clearly seen in every NASA image after the 1998 shot.

The same can be said of the right side. Just as a feline image is seen in the right side of the 1976 Viking images, it was again present in the 1998 image and finally confirmed in the 2001 full-faced image – as it is in every consecutive image release to date. With every new image the two-faced model is supported.

Now, in reference to the lines and cracks seen in the so-called “severely damaged” right side of the Face – it appears to me that the feline mask is constructed out of compartmentalized segments that form its facial features. It is the same technique seen in jade mask that are produced in Mesoamerica.

As for your charge that mirroring images seems extremely risky, you don’t have to mirror the feline or humanoid sides of the Face to see its features. They are present with or without the aid of mirroring. I only mirror each of the sides to allow the viewer see a symmetrical face (which most people are comfortable with). However, once they see the individual features in the mirrored image they are able to see each half image in the bifurcated mask.

Try looking again, with a kinder eye.

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 Zip Monster</i>
<br />I found a terrestrial culture that produced similar human/feline masks with common iconoraphic elements.

.....

It is the same technique seen in jade mask that are produced in Mesoamerica.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Zip, do you have a sample of these two types of masks that you could post? I'd be interested in seeing it.

rd

Neil,

Thanks for asking.

Here is the Maya mask I mentioned. It’s a stylized jade mask of a jaguar. Notice the segmented construction and the rectangular shaped eye socket echoes the eye feature on the feline side of the 2001 Face image. Also note the decorative ear flares, the mouth and flailing tongue.



You can find additional examples to support this common Mesoamerican iconography at The Cydonia Institute web site. I would provide a link, but the last time I did it was removed.

Below is a comparison of the mirrored humanoid side of the 1998 Face on Mars image (SP-22003) with Maya Lord mask form the First Temple at Cerros Mexico (50 BC). Note the common facial ornamentation, the nose ornament and W-shaped emblem on the forehead (water color drawing by Linda Schele).





Zip Monster

Several "artifacts" in the region of the Cydonia Face show impact destruction on the same side. For example, an apparent large pyramid has enough damage to make it appear as if it were 5 sided. Take away the damage and it appears to have 4 sides. Mirror imaging either side leads to two entirely different conclusions.

Since Mars has essentially no atmosphere, very low angle impacts are possible.

Gregg Wilson

<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 />Neil, Thanks for asking.

Here is the Maya mask I mentioned.

....

Below is a comparison of the mirrored humanoid side of the 1998 Face on Mars image (SP-22003) with Maya Lord mask form the First Temple at Cerros Mexico (50 BC).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Zip,

It was me that asked, and not Neil, but thanks for posting those. I was curious about something.

I can see that this is something you know a lot about, and it definitely is interesting. Some of these concepts are new to me (like mirroring), so I prefer to leave that part of it out of the discussion.

I just want to talk about the actual images of the Face that you posted. I spent many an hour and day playing with the Cydonia Face images. While Neil was writing a paper on the subject, he kept making me aware of all the available strips. I used them all, for various features in the paper. I've cropped, and enhanced and toyed with all of them.

In all that time, I don't remember seeing half the detail that's in your two mirror images (just looking at the actual half in each one). So, to me, it seems like you've converted the original data into "keys" of sorts. It appears that you've added data, either by highlighting, or coloring in, in some way.

Am I wrong? If I am, can you retrace your steps and post the details of the enhancements you've done, from the raw data MSSS gifs, to arrive at what you've posted? Again, to make sure I'm being clear, I'm not questioning your use of mirroring. I don't know anything about that. What I want to understand is why your posted image looks as detailed as it does. For the Feline image, I want to know about how you arrived at the final Feline half. For the Humanoid half, I want to know about how you arrived at the Humanoid half.

Can you tell us your process steps?

Thanks

rd