Faces from the Chasmas

Neil, read this article with respect to color:

[url] hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/pdf/color-products.pdf [/url]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by marsrocks</i>
<br />Neil, read this article with respect to color:

[url] hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/pdf/color-products.pdf [/url]


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks MR

Here are two excerpts from link provided by MR.



This means that researchers should be able to go back to the raw data to see if an unusual color marking is actually an artifact (actually what the raw data channel is supposed to represent radiometrically). A good candidate for this test would be the golden *shiny bright spots* found in the terrain adjacent to the Nefertiti profile (shown above).



As can be seen here, the different colors, although not natural, can tell us a lot about what we are looking at for the technician willing to make an effort. For example, if we assume that the Cydonia face was sculpted from a natural mesa or massif in the area, we might be able to look at other similar structures and examine the differences. This is just a hint. The point is that there are probably already many tools and much data available to aid in verifying or falsifying whether certain structures are artificial.

Here is a similar massif in the area in the RGB and IRB schemes, from PSP 007638 2210.

<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 /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by marsrocks</i>
<br />Neil, read this article with respect to color:

[url] hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/pdf/color-products.pdf [/url]


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks MR

Here are two excerpts from link provided by MR.



This means that researchers should be able to go back to the raw data to see if an unusual color marking is actually an artifact (actually what the raw data channel is supposed to represent radiometrically). A good candidate for this test would be the golden *shiny bright spots* found in the terrain adjacent to the Nefertiti profile (shown above).



As can be seen here, the different colors, although not natural, can tell us a lot about what we are looking at for the technician willing to make an effort. For example, if we assume that the Cydonia face was sculpted from a natural mesa or massif in the area, we might be able to look at other similar structures and examine the differences. This is just a hint. The point is that there are probably already many tools and much data available to aid in verifying or falsifying whether certain structures are artificial.

Here is a similar massif in the area in the RGB and IRB schemes, from PSP 007638 2210.





<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It is interesting that the Face is "reddish" in the RGB and "yellowish" in the IRB, (indicating indurated dust) but the surrounding terrain and the top of the comparison mesa are "bluish" indicating sand and rock. What could explain the difference except that the face had been selectively disturbed, possibly by the "hand" of the artist. [Neil DeRosa]

Cydonia face chin and terrain surrounds in RGB

<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 /><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 /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by marsrocks</i>
<br />Neil, read this article with respect to color:

[url] hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/pdf/color-products.pdf [/url]


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks MR

Here are two excerpts from link provided by MR.



This means that researchers should be able to go back to the raw data to see if an unusual color marking is actually an artifact (actually what the raw data channel is supposed to represent radiometrically). A good candidate for this test would be the golden *shiny bright spots* found in the terrain adjacent to the Nefertiti profile (shown above).



As can be seen here, the different colors, although not natural, can tell us a lot about what we are looking at for the technician willing to make an effort. For example, if we assume that the Cydonia face was sculpted from a natural mesa or massif in the area, we might be able to look at other similar structures and examine the differences. This is just a hint. The point is that there are probably already many tools and much data available to aid in verifying or falsifying whether certain structures are artificial.

Here is a similar massif in the area in the RGB and IRB schemes, from PSP 007638 2210.





<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It is interesting that the Face is "reddish" in the RGB and "yellowish" in the IRB, (indicating indurated dust) but the surrounding terrain and the top of the comparison mesa are "bluish" indicating sand and rock. What could explain the difference except that the face had been selectively disturbed, possibly by the "hand" of the artist. [Neil DeRosa]

Cydonia face chin and terrain surrounds in RGB


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi Neil,

You are on the right track with looking for differences like this. If the face was the only dusty massif in the area that would be unusual but not a proof. Dust probably comes from dust storms and it may be the texture of the face holds dust more. If a part of the face that looks different, i.e. like it was added on was also a different color that might indicate a different material. Usually different materials occur next to each other by well known processes like layering, drifts of air born dust, weathering, etc. For example if the nose had been clearly different material then that would tend to falsify the natural way a mesa would form, as it should be all one piece to a large degree. For example like in Death Valley massifs like this might be one piece of volcanic lava and the ground around them weathered away to leave them exposed.

So the massifs in this are likely to be the same material and so should look similar in these colors. It may also be the lava was slightly different in a particular massif so a different color might not prove anything. The darker rocks sitting on the face are interesting, because of how they got there as opposed to being on the ground and not falling off as the area around them eroded so much.

Rocks might have been used to accentuate certasin features like eyes, etc and then been moved around later and gotten trapped in small pits. It would be good to see if other massifs in the area had rocks on them like this. Even something as simple as rocks where they should not be can be enough to give strong evidence for artificiality.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don't really have a criteria of faces in general, because we don't know how humanoid hypothetical aliens. However if faces tend to be associated with formations that are arguably not explainable geologically then they are likely to be faces.

I think there are plenty of qualified scientists looking at this right now, for example in SPSR. Also I suspect NASA is reimaging the Cydonia face because a small group are taking it seriously.

The thing is, people really have no clear theory yet as to what aliens might have been doing, so since there is no real overall theory to fit evidence into it becomes much harder to avoid misconceptions. I tend to think we are looking at, if artificial, evidence of some terraforming and settlement 300 or more million years ago for a short time. It may also be that this settlement followed a path of polar wander because formations may relate to 3 different pole positions all different from the current pole. [gorme]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I can appreciate the fact that working career scientists or academics in scientific disciplines have to be circumspect and constrained. But sometimes IMO it causes them to miss or avoid the obvious. This is why Kuhn's Theory of Progress though Scientific Revolutions is so important as a conceptual tool. Normal science has a near strangle hold on most practicing scientists which is probably necessary to keep discipline and to weed out the crackpots. But in doing so the creativity of science is often stifled. Add to this the mega-funding that flows into the sciences from governmental sources along with its conditions and rules and you have what I call Kuhn's Law modernized.

Often it takes an outsider to see an issue clearly. The fact that ultimately, if a thing be true, normal science will have to make the conversion to the new paradigm and to begin to practice the new science by its own rules does not change things. The fact that before that happens, there will be a no holds barred, conflict with bloody antagonists does not change things. These steps are all part of progress through scientific revolutions.

Getting back to the quote above, it misses an important point, one does not need to know what hypothetical aliens looked like, or were doing, one only needs (hopefully logical) rules (a model with rules or criteria), and to stick to them. Here consistency and honesty are crucial; along with provenience. (We must be sure we are not looking at fakes). Crownface, Nefertiti, and about fifty other faces were selected in a preliminary way because they passed the (what I call) elaborate pareidolia test, in the same way and for the same reasons that a Picasso painting would. It makes no difference that the Picasso is realistic or impressionistic. It's all about the rules; and consistency, honesty, and provenience. It's true that because many of these faces are human-like perks our interest, and fuels many theories about how they, and we came to be. But all that is secondary to the rules. [Neil]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gorme</i>
<br /><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 /><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 /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by marsrocks</i>
<br />Neil, read this article with respect to color:

[url] hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/pdf/color-products.pdf [/url]


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks MR

Here are two excerpts from link provided by MR.



This means that researchers should be able to go back to the raw data to see if an unusual color marking is actually an artifact (actually what the raw data channel is supposed to represent radiometrically). A good candidate for this test would be the golden *shiny bright spots* found in the terrain adjacent to the Nefertiti profile (shown above).



As can be seen here, the different colors, although not natural, can tell us a lot about what we are looking at for the technician willing to make an effort. For example, if we assume that the Cydonia face was sculpted from a natural mesa or massif in the area, we might be able to look at other similar structures and examine the differences. This is just a hint. The point is that there are probably already many tools and much data available to aid in verifying or falsifying whether certain structures are artificial.

Here is a similar massif in the area in the RGB and IRB schemes, from PSP 007638 2210.





<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It is interesting that the Face is "reddish" in the RGB and "yellowish" in the IRB, (indicating indurated dust) but the surrounding terrain and the top of the comparison mesa are "bluish" indicating sand and rock. What could explain the difference except that the face had been selectively disturbed, possibly by the "hand" of the artist. [Neil DeRosa]

Cydonia face chin and terrain surrounds in RGB


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi Neil,

You are on the right track with looking for differences like this. If the face was the only dusty massif in the area that would be unusual but not a proof. Dust probably comes from dust storms and it may be the texture of the face holds dust more. If a part of the face that looks different, i.e. like it was added on was also a different color that might indicate a different material. Usually different materials occur next to each other by well known processes like layering, drifts of air born dust, weathering, etc. For example if the nose had been clearly different material then that would tend to falsify the natural way a mesa would form, as it should be all one piece to a large degree. For example like in Death Valley massifs like this might be one piece of volcanic lava and the ground around them weathered away to leave them exposed.

So the massifs in this are likely to be the same material and so should look similar in these colors. It may also be the lava was slightly different in a particular massif so a different color might not prove anything. The darker rocks sitting on the face are interesting, because of how they got there as opposed to being on the ground and not falling off as the area around them eroded so much.

Rocks might have been used to accentuate certasin features like eyes, etc and then been moved around later and gotten trapped in small pits. It would be good to see if other massifs in the area had rocks on them like this. Even something as simple as rocks where they should not be can be enough to give strong evidence for artificiality.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is an interesting project to pursue. Eventually I'll go back to all good faces found in HiRISE images to see if the face is included in the color swath, and see what it looks like. So far many I've checked are missing from the color swath, which is smaller than the B&W full resolution image. [Neil]

[edited] I'm still waiting for some technician or specialist to tell me what the golden material is near Nefertiti (in the Claritas/Syria contact region) posted a few posts above. I don't think it's gold, but would be interested in what it is. I understand the RGB or IRB color scheme allow for such analysis. If you don't want to "go public" you can email me through the MRMB and I'll post your answer, anonymously if you prefer.