New image of the Cydonia Face 4-13-06

Tom,

I’m really surprised at you reaction to my work. I really thought you were a stand up guy.
However, your two-faced doodles are very revealing. What we can learn by your little demonstration of two-faced sarcasm is that you would rather be antagonistic to a fellow researcher and criticize established art forms with childish logic than take the time to research an alternative thought.

Maybe you should invest a little more time into real two-faced artifacts such as these:


A Mesoamerican Human/Feline mask:



A Mesoamerican Human Feline skull mask:



An Olmec sculpture with a half mask and an Incan two-faced figure (with Mirrored sides):



Are these two-faced masks illusions to - Tom?

Hint: They are as "real" as the over two dozen bifurcated geoglyphs found at Cydonia.


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 />If you haven’t noticed, NASA/Malin has the propensity to release certain MGS images in the negative and even reversed or up-side down and sometimes over processed. The only thing the “reversal” does here - is aid the eye in seeing the detail. Once you recognize structural richness of the detail - that is highlighted in the reversal - you can go back to the “original” and see it. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Zip,

Yes, we have seen many cases of mis-labeled images on the MSSS website, so I don't dispute the fact that this could be reversed. It's possible that the "negative" is really the "positive". However, we don't know that, and it definitely makes a difference. We can't display the negative as the "real" image, if it in fact is a negative. That can have the effect of changing hills to valleys. We saw this effect very clearly when working on the "T" images, and local terrain.


<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 />Speaking of features, could you please point out to me the “small indent in the cheek” that you say was “caused most likely by a small meteor. ” Are you talking about the teardrop feature? if you are it is not an indent.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Same comment. We really need to know which is the "correct" raw data. If you think I'm wrong about this, next time you get together for Thanksgiving Dinner with your family, show them nothing but negatives of your recent vacation. Don't explain anything to them, just show them the negatives, and wait for them to comment about it. They might get a kick out of it......for awhile.....

rd

Both the images I showed above were of Abraham Lincoln. One was mirrored from the left side of his face, the other from the right side. Here are the images working backwards through each step in Zip's recipe.

Before mirroring:


Before inverting (making a negative):


Before flipping (to get same orientation as Cydonia):


Original:


The point was to show that none of these steps did anything useful. They all violate the basic rule of image processing, to make the image look more like what the human eye would see at Mars.

BTW, the claim that Malin showed a negative is baseless. CCD images don't have negatives. That is a step only in traditional photograhy. The Sun azimuth information presented with the original image proves this claim of inversion false.

Moreover, the spacecraft information presented with the original 1998 Face images shows that the spacecraft was viewing at a 45 degree angle from the west side, not from above. One can barely see over the nose ridge from that angle, and it makes the axis of the Face way off-center on the mesa,

Viewing the Kelly animation (#1 at metaresearch.org/media%20and%20links/animations/animations.asp ) is instructive in this regard, and shows that the 1998 image is mostly consistent with all subsequent images. -|Tom|-

Tom, I never claimed that Malin showed a negative version of a “photograph.” He titled the alternate version of the 1998 Face a reversal, as in a "reversal" of a positive image. As I see it, using reversals of MGS images only violates your rules of image processing. It’s not the standard.

Sorry Tom but your “reversal” still looks like Abraham Lincoln's face.


(Neil look how that "iris" pops right out. I bet Tom "doctored" that...right?)

Tom, just as your "Lincolin reversal" retains the same features as the positive - both the original and reversal version of the Cydonia Face reveals a bifurcated visage.

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 never claimed that Malin showed a negative version of a “photograph.” He titled the alternate version of the 1998 Face a reversal, as in a "reversal" of a positive image.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">By "reversal", Malin meant a right-left flip. He did not mean a negative, which in Photoshop language is called an inversion to distinguish it from several other words that might be confused with it. -|Tom|-

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.

Besides being a sculptor I've also been a B/W photographer for over 30 years and processed and developed my own prints.

Zip Monster