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 rderosa</i>
<br />Makes no sense, unless there are forces that do want the public to know, and are fighting with the forces that don't.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Bingo!

But I sure that MSSS (which put out the "forehead horn" image) doesn't think of it that way. They just know that their continued funding depends on JPL's continued funding, which in turn depends on continuing Mars robotic missions. Once Mars goes over to manned missions, JPL and MSSS's future and reason to exist become highly uncertain. -|Tom|-

Do they have no expertise that would gain them access to a piece of the Manned-Mission-Pie? A pie that would argueably end up being larger than the current pie. Surely they are in a position to make valuable, even vital, contributions to such activity.

???,
LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />Do they have no expertise that would gain them access to a piece of the Manned-Mission-Pie?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's a question of redistributing slices of a fixed-size pie. Any reallocation of funds works to JPL's severe disadvantage. And the justification for all the "approved" missions from now to 2016 would be undercut. So in the best scenario, they'd have to scrub existing programs and design new ones that would then have to get approval.

There is a precedent. JPL ran all the lunar missions until the first manned mission in 1969, and hasn't had a lunar mission since -- despite their success in getting manned lunar missions killed off. (Mantra: too dangerous, too expensive.)

Anytime someone starts messing with the money stream, those who are benefiting the most from the way things are now are the first to cry "foul". -|Tom|-

Just in case some readers are unable to locate a pair of 3D glasses, I made some stereo pairs out of the ESA image. One is of the Face, and another is from a neighboring peak just off to the west of the face, from image 302-230906-3253-6-an2-Cydonia_H.jpg.

This is how this works. When they aquired these images, they acquire the red channel and the green (or blue, it doesn't seem to matter much) at a slightly different angle. Usually, the difference in angle is about 6 degrees (note: I should qualify this. I'm not sure if the 6 degrees holds true at all distances, so it could be considerably less than 6 degrees when taken from a spaceship) which matches the different viewing angle that our eyes use when we look at something. Then when we look at the 3D anaglyph, the red filter lets us see one channel, and the green filter lets us see the other, and then our brain reconstructs the image in 3D.

What I did here was split the image into their respective RGB channels, and made them about the right size, so that if we view them from about 18 inches away, they are now stereo pairs.

When viewing them, get the images about eye height, and sit so your face is about 18 inches from the monitor, and gaze "through" the two images, as if you were looking into the distance. That causes your eyes to widen such that the left eye is looking at the left image (red channel) and your right is looking at the right image (green channel). Little by little the two images start to merge towards each other until BAMM they are fused into one 3D image (you'll see the fused image in between the other two). It's actually very easy once you get the hang of it (I once sat for hours in the library looking at stereo pairs, so I'm used to it. Plus, I've made them myself with a camera, so I know it works).

You'll be amazed how steep these features are, and you'll see how both the mouth and the eye are gouges that go all the way down, like with the other image I posted of a neighboring peak.

In some ways, this is even more striking than when using the glasses and combined image.

Face Stereo Pairs. View at eye height, from approx. 18 inches away and stare:

<center> </center>
When viewed this way, it's hard to imagine this thing being metal, and it makes it look like the east side is completely flat.

Now take a look at this neighboring peak. It also has gouges which go all the way from the bottom to the top, sort of like that of the west eye and mouth on the face.

Mountain peak in Cydonia Region Stereo Pairs.

<center> </center>

Once you get the image fused, you can look at it as normally as if you were hovering over it looking at it, you're eyes become free to roam around as if in normal viewing. But, until it's fused you have to stare through the image as if looking off into the distance.

Here's stereo pairs made from the main face 3D anaglyph:

<center> </center>

This is the view that really looks artificial. Note the beard. Some of it is hanging out in mid-air, and looks metallic. Also note the big bushy eyebrow Tom mentioned in the MRB.

Hey, the beard itself may prove artificiality. When's the last time you saw a mountain with a beard? []

rd

I always was mystified by the long pointed shadow on the Viking image:



But, not any more.

I don't know where to find the acquisition parameters and sun angle for the Viking image, but with them it wouldn't be too hard to figure out how high the central peak is. The point in the shadow goes out approx. one mile from the base.

This new stereoscopic view in previous message opens a whole new host of possibilities from natural to artificial. For instance, the Martians could have found this mesa in pretty much the condition it's in now, and carved in the eye, eyebrow, and some mouth features (the gouge having already been there), and thought to themselves, "let them figure it out."

There's certainly no gaurantee that they ever made the whole face.

Tom, to your knowledge, has anyone ever analysed or discussed that shadow?

rd

rd,

I’ve been reading your posts here - from the Nefertiti Head to your long running obsession with Pareidolia faces for some time now and like you - I’m mystified.

You appear to be “open” to the idea that Mars may be home to geoglyphs and you view the Cydonia Face as a contender however, when it comes to the eastern side of the Face, you resist any evidence of it being feline and cling to TVF’s Western World model of a symmetrical humanoid visage.

Haven’t you ever considered that the Cydonia Face could be a bifurcated human/feline two-faced geoglyph? Haven’t you noticed that the feline side of the Face has more recognizable facial features – displayed in the right size and orientation - than the Humanoid side does? Haven’t you ever seen similar Mesoamerican two-faced masks that resemble the bifurcated visage seen within the Cydonia Face? isn't a two-faced model the simplest explanation?

So what makes you now (after NASA has provided us with overwhelming evidence that the eastern side has a feline visage) take that critical leap - and imagine that they never “made the whole face"? This line of thinking is undermining and only creates the illusion of a fail-safe scenario where the feline side of the face is just an eroded mess of collapsed slabs. This explanation is absurd.

It appear to me, that just because the evidence doesn’t support a symmetrical humanoid Face – you have gone out on a limb and willfully suggest that the builders decided to leave the “Face” unfinished just to appease your symmetrical bias. Wow - selective editing can be fun but its not helpful for this debate.

Please explain this conflated thought process.

Zip Monster