NASA, I'm ready for my close-up

One more image to post before concluding. This one is borrowed from JP Levasseur's website.

49- Cliff Crater Blast Damage Hypothesis



50- West nostril

A few of the things that come to mind when viewing the detailed images just presented are as follows. As always some of these are debatable, but some seem quite clear.

General comments

1- The image of a "face" seen first in 1976 is not lost even at this level of magnification, resolution, and detail. At 100% magnification, and .25 meters per pixel, there are still details in the structure of the west eye, hair texture, skin texture, and borders between the face and hairline and in and between various other parts of the face.

2- There are definite texture differences between the east and west halves of the face and signs of damage in both halves. But the east half shows signs of massive damage, while the west half shows localized damage or erosion, perhaps from millions of years of bombardment by micro-meteoroids, and settling dust.

3- The east half of the face surface appears to be much younger than the west half; this is judged by the lack rubble build-up, and lack of localized damage, on the east half that characterizes the west half. Also there seems to be a "dichotomy border" or "event boarder" between the east and west half that appears to be the result of a melt-down and movement of the rock or metal in those sections. We still do not know the material out of which the face mesa is composed. Although there are scientific methods for making that determination, they have not yet to my knowledge been used.

4- There is much more detail at all levels of magnification in the west half than in the east half, but the east half still retains the general appearance of a "face" though in a more distorted form. At high magnification, many details on the west half are still arguably artificial in nature, "brushstrokes" as it were, while the east half appears more natural at high magnification, revealing cracks, melt boarders and the like. In the west half, these construction marks, change direction, texture and style, in keeping with the part of the face they are intended to depict. Thus, "hair" looks like hair, "skin" looks like skin, "borders" look like borders, and so on.

5- The source of the damage to the east half of the face does not seem to be localized on the face itself but rather to the east of the face, thus reinforcing the Cliff Crater Blast Damage Hypothesis, proposed, I believe, by JP Levasseur.

6- With the exception of the infamous "Unicorn Face" and the highly filtered "Footprint Face" published by the authorities for unknown reasons, this highest resolution MRO image confirms all of the previous images of the face with respect to proportion, 3D interpretation, and details; and continues to fulfill numerous deductive or <i>"a priori"</i> predictions, which confirm that we are looking at an artificial object of immense proportions, in the shape of a human-like face on Mars.

Specific comments on details to follow.

While I'm not making any claims for original discoveries here, (so much has already been written about the Cydonia face that that would be hard to do anyway), nevertheless since this is one of the first commentaries on the MRO high resolution Face, some new material is bound to come up. Following is a list, in no particular order, of what can be seen from the preceding detailed images.

1- Symmetry between the east and west halves seems better than previously thought. Images g, h, and i of the mouth area indicate, (as already pointed out by TVF), that there does seem to be a section of the east half of the mouth still intact and right where it should be that previously looked like part of the general melt-down of the east half. Also, it is now clearer that the east eye socket still exists, although it must have become distorted by the heat of the blast damage event. Moreover, it is almost perfectly symmetrical with the west eye socket as seen in images 25 and 26. What was previously (in several papers on the subject) thought of as the "iris" or "eyeball" in the east eye socket toward the bottom, which gave the east eye a "distorted" look, is now less clear and may simply be a melt area (see images 40 and 41).

2- The nose remained for the most part intact as the contoured melt line of the dichotomy border is just to the east of the nose (images 34, 35, and 36). However, it is fair to surmise that the original shape of the nose might have been distorted, blistered, or broken off in part by the nearby heat event, and by erosion over time. However, the high point (see image 27) of the nose is still where one would expect it to be (at the tip), and one nostril (the west) is still intact, the other being more apparent in any one of several 3D views of the face. Incidentally the size of the west nostril, (image 50), which is ~100m across, gives a good sense of the enormity of the face as a whole.

3- "Brushstrokes" or construction marks are obvious in several images of the west half of the face, e.g., images g and i, showing the mouth and nostril; images 2-10 showing contour lines of hair, skin, headpiece, border between skin and headpiece, and so on. Image 8 showing the "hair" texture of the hair/headpiece is especially stark and pronounced in this respect. Images 16-21 show close-ups of skin texture and the side border between the west cheek and the mesa; close-up image 20 of the border-line itself reveals that it is a kind of "wall," or running, elongated mound, rather than a crevice, which would have been easier to explain as a natural formation.

4- More "brushstrokes" are evident in the many close-ups of the west eye, especially images 24 (at 57%), and 33, which at 200% magnification still shows structured detail. The three curved "lines" under the west eye that have been noted before by me are now more apparent than ever, as is the separate delineations of the "iris" section, (which is not round but more or less oval shaped), the larger eye, which is oval and pointed on both ends, the general eye socket area, and the damaged but raised brow area. Moreover, there could be no apparent "natural" reason why the iris would have a different surface texture from the surrounding "skin" area, if it had not been designed that way by the builders.

5- Both the chin area, and the mesa under the chin area, is extremely smooth in texture even at high magnification, (see images 29-31), but does not seem to be part of the damaged melt area. Referring again to the altimeter calculations of Flemming, (image 27), we see that the chin and jaw areas are higher than the forehead areas, therefore the slope of the chin and chin mesa should be steeper. This could account for the lack of rubble build up on the chin, and hence the smoothness of these sections. Thus I consider the extreme smoothness of this area to be a "brushstroke," or sign of construction.

6- Close-ups 11-14 tend to falsify any notion that the east side of the face was designed differently from the west side. They reveal instead the close-up result of a melt-down due to some kind of catastrophic event. Note especially the long irregular fissure running through image 14. The same is true of images 37-48 of the east side of the face.

7- Note especially in this connection the following: the striations in images 43-45 in what I call the "blast zone" that seem to point in the direction of the large crater (see image 49) that apparently caused the damage. Note close-ups of the dichotomy border in 46 and 47.
Note the irregularity in all lines and all borders or ridges in these images, and lack of the kind "brushstrokes" or detail that exemplifies the various facial features on the west side of the face. Note also the general texture difference of the surface at high resolution as compared to the less damaged west side. Although what Rich and I previously thought were "cracks" perhaps in a metal superstructure, turned out not to be so, these same areas still show signs of severe damage (see for example images e and f).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">those who believe this thing is artificial will see what they want to see, and those who don't won't. Those that think it's half human half feline will see it that way. Those that think it's Mount Rushmore will see it that way. Those who think it's a pile of rocks will see it that way. [rd]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the whole point of scientific method is to take that very subjectivity out of the equation so that prejudices cannot influence judgment. [Tom]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I selectively quoted from both statements because I think there is some truth in each. I am a little disheartened because I don’t see the hypothesis evolving as we get more evidence.

Re: the Cydonia face, although it is not the most “face-like art” of all the faces we’ve seen on Mars, I remain unshakably convinced of its artificiality because of the a priori prediction about the west eye; (and this deserves repeating because I don’t think most people appreciate the significance of this one fact); In the 1976 Viking image the eye could not be seen, yet it turned out to be there (and it’s still there in the MRO hi-res image). It is almost impossible for such a thing to be accidental or even statistically possible, yet it’s there.

I know all this has been said before. I just don’t think people understand the significance of the fact.

Anyway, here are two previous predictions that are on their way to being falsified. The first is the ”iris” predicted on the basis of lower resolution MOC MGS images. The second is the “crater impact area” also previously predicted. And obviously any “feline half” should by now be completely falsified, one would expect.

Histogram adjusted east eye area.



Histogram adjusted hypothesized “crater impact area”

<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 />I don’t see the hypothesis evolving as we get more evidence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is actually a good thing. Evolving hypotheses are a sure sign that something is fundamentally wrong. But I think you meant the data is not providing lots of added support. I think it is, but most of the new stuff is coming from Mars Express. JPL seems fanatic about not advancing the clock on Mars exploration.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Re: the Cydonia face ... because of the a priori prediction about the west eye;<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I think you meant "east eye".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Anyway, here are two previous predictions that are on their way to being falsified. The first is the ”iris” predicted on the basis of lower resolution MOC MGS images. The second is the “crater impact area” also previously predicted.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your words don't seem to follow from your images. For example, you don't see a crater there? Have a look at both features in 3D and/or with lighting that increases the contrast. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by neilderosa

I don’t see the hypothesis evolving as we get more evidence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That is actually a good thing. Evolving hypotheses are a sure sign that something is fundamentally wrong.[Tom]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Leaving aside the theoretical points for now, maybe I should have made my last post a little clearer or more specific. I’ll try to do that now. I don’t have any references in front of me here so this is all from memory; later I’ll double check the old papers (mostly Tom’s) on the Cydonia face, and add some more.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Re: the Cydonia face ... because of the a priori prediction about the west eye;[ND]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think you meant "east eye".[Tom]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No, I mean the west eye. I recall that the original Viking face looked like a “face” but had very little detail. If we assume the face is north oriented (although actually it is oriented approximately 30 degrees NW) then the east half of the face was in shadow. We could see the west eye socket but not the eye itself. We could see the west part of the mouth and the general shape of a face.
So the great a priori prediction (which you and others made) that I was referring to, was the west eye not the east eye. The shadow of the west eye socket was visible but not the eye itself. We now know that there remains no east eye; it was presumably destroyed. But we can still reasonably say that the east eye socket still exists although it has been distorted. (I’ll postpone a discussion in more detail for later.)But by far the best a priori prediction was of the detailed west eye.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your words don't seem to follow from your images. For example, you don't see a crater there?[Tom]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I do see the indent you are referring to; this is the second image in my last post. But it can be argued (especially at hi-res) that it is not the center of impact; not a crater. To the right or east, in the jaw area, there seems to be a more significantly damaged area. Moreover, the “melt” which spreads over the whole of the east side of the face seems to emanate from this jaw area, and not the hypothesized “crater.” Moreover, adjacent to the said “crater” just to the west is apparently undamaged.
Again, keeping this all brief for now, this seems to reinforce the Cliff Crater hypothesis, and diminish (or begins to falsify) the “impact-on-the face-itself” hypothesis.
I also said previously that the newly visible construction marks on the west side of the face seem to reinforce the artificiality hypothesis for the face as a whole, and also to falsify the “feline half” hypothesis.
Neil