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>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />Not at all. The stated position of JPL/MSSS is that taking images of the Cydonia Face (which they were ordered to do) was "a slap at the integrity of the scientists and a waste of public funds". They truly believe that, and consider it a public service to trash this "nonsense" so they can do serious science full time.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But trashing and falsifying are two different things.

rd

On a related subject, I had written in an as yet unpublished paper that some features that were claimed for artificiality in the early days of interest in anomalies on Mars, may indeed be shown, upon better imaging, to be more likely to be natural features. One such is the D&M Pyramid. The earlier claim was based on the appearance of straight walls and apexes on at least three sides of the feature which rendered it similar to known pyramids in Egypt and other places. (IMO Wil Faust's mound has much a better claim by these criteria.)

To my knowledge there are no hi-res images of the complete structure on record yet, although parts of it (from previous high and low res imaging) have been made into a composite available on the internet.

That said, this unenhanced crop at 10 m/p may be a significant contribution to our knowledge of the D&M. It appears more natural than ever, although something can still be said for its artificiality.




WF Mound



Neil

Beyond what has been propagated throughout the media by NASA and ESA, the truth is the newly released ESA full-faced image of the Cydonia Face not only confirms the bifurcated – human/feline aspect of it’s facial features – it shows no evidence of a “horn” on the forehead (Figure 1).


Figure 1
ESA – Full Faced “horn-less” version of the Cydonia Face (false color)
(Resolution approximately 13.7 metres per pixel)
Credits: ESA/DLR/FU Berlin (G. Neukum)


The ESA “perspective view” of the eastern side also captures all of the Cydonia Face’s feline facial features (Figure 2).


Figure 2
ESA 2006 digitally generated perspective view of the Feline side.
Note: the crown, the rectangular squinting eye, the muzzle, the tongue
and the zig-zag shaped mane (or beard).
Credits: ESA/DLR/FU Berlin (G. Neukum). MOC (Malin Space Science Systems)




When the ESA perspective view of the eastern Feline side of the Cydonia Face is rotated 120º to the left and compared to NASA’s 2001 MOC full faced image of the Cydonia Face - all of the feline facial features are again confirmed in the ESA image.


Figure 3
Comparison of MOC and ESA image of the Cydonia Face.
Note: the ear/crown, the rectangular squinting eye, the muzzle, the tongue
and the zig-zag shaped mane (or beard) is present in both images.
Credits: ESA/DLR/FU Berlin (G. Neukum). MOC (Malin Space Science Systems)
Notations added by The Cydonia Institute

Notice in both images the eastern side of this geoglyphic structure retains all of its feline features. We still see the ear/crown, the rectangular squinting eye, the muzzle, the tongue and a short zig-zag shaped mane (or beard).

Zip Monster

D&M

"Quote"(NEIL)That said, this unenhanced crop at 10 m/p may be a significant contribution to our knowledge of the D&M. It appears more natural than ever,"

I couldn't disagree with this statement more.. More Natural or wasn't what you expected? No bus stop.. no parking lot , no mall?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I couldn't disagree with this statement more.. More Natural or wasn't what you expected? No bus stop.. no parking lot , no mall? [Trinket]

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

No not that. Just that the lines aren't as straight as we once thought. I still lean toward possible (partial) artificiality of the D&M though, especially given the context of the Cydonia Face.

Incidentally, I see all of the enhanced faces you brought up too, But I won't go there, I'm in enough trouble already []. Neil

Tom, after reading the new MRB, and viewing the 3D anaglyph, I have to say (in the interest of honesty) that three things immediately jumped out at me, for the first time.

If the apparent height and proportions are real, as viewed in the 3D anaglyph, then I think that these three details strongly support the artificiality hypothesis, as it pertains to the Cydonia Face. At the very least, it doesn't strike one as "natural".

I did this with MOC E0300824 because I figured alot of viewers might not have 3D glasses yet (it took me forever to find a pair, which I finally did at a comic store - you can buy them on the internet if you don't mind buying 10 pairs and paying for shipping. Mine cost 25 cents). Also, I found that if you rotate the 3D image, it loses its three dimensionality anyway.

MOC E0300824


The following three points can really only be appreciated by viewing the 3D anaglyph at:
esamultimedia.esa.int/images/marsexpress...-6-an4-Cydonia_H.jpg

1. One gets a much stronger sense of the steepness of the mesa base, in general, and in particular on the east side by the chin. You can see that some material slid down and appears to be in a glob at the bottom, and is shiny and has the contour of a pile of metallic melt (see area 1, marked by the small curved line).

2. Area 2, (marked by the large curved line on the east of the mesa), has been seen in many of the MOC images, but really takes on a unique appearance in 3D. It appears to be a shallow melt flow region and it has some height to it when compared to the area to the west, south, and northwest of the mesa, which all appear to be uniform with the surrounding region. This melt flow area would be consistent with some event at the time of impact, if the temperature went so high that some of the material making up the Face melted and flowed down out to about the black line. Look at it in 3D, and you'll see what I mean.

3. Area 3 was probably the most impressive thing I've seen so far. I never realized there was a "platform". Again, if this is an accurate depiction of height, steepness, flatness, etc., then this one thing alone is very hard to explain away. I'd love to see what jrich has to say about it, if he's still paying attention.

Not only is the platform flat, so that the face part sits on a flat region, but the flat part is huge. Even at the thinnest part, near the base of the mouth, it's still about 450 feet wide.

Plus, Tom you're right, it does appear that both the eye and mouth's edge are roughly down at the platform level, rather than sitting on top of a mountain, so to speak.

I would say this scores a big one for the artificiality side. What I wonder about, though, is why did they put this out on the one hand, and on the other stick that hill on the forehead. They both can't be true, so which one is? And if the other one is, then why give us something that really makes it look artificial again? Makes no sense, unless there are forces that do want the public to know, and are fighting with the forces that don't.

rd