NASA, I'm ready for my close-up

ZM, since I’m apparently the “last man standing” in this category, I guess it’s up to me to respond. Although I agree with you on the artificiality hypothesis for Mars artifacts, and I know you are sincere since you went so far as to write a book about it. I disagree with you completely on your feline theory. For one thing it’s now obvious from the close-up evidence that the east half of the face is damaged severely. Second, as was mentioned before, it’s not legitimate to make some kind of extreme artistic enhancement or alteration, which is what mirroring amounts to, and then to use it as primary evidence. And third, even after the first two errors, you still don’t have something that looks like what it is purported to be.

One of the most difficult tasks for the dedicated scholar or scientists is to modify his theory in light of the evidence.

Neil

ALERT: The University of Arizona Team has replaced their original image of the Cydonia Face (which they call “a popular landform in the Cydonia region") with a new inverted image.


PSP_003234_2210
Credit: NASA/JPL/University of Arizona

NOTE: any URL image links accessing the original image no longer work (See broken image link in my first post on this thread). The original image is gone and replace with the above upside down image. No image archive here...

Well, I see no reason for the Arizona Team to present an inverted image of the Cydonia Face, other than to obfuscate its facial features and continue the company line - that is “just a pile of rocks.”

And these guys are suppose to be scientist…

Zip Monster

Here is the current HiRISE (raw) image release of the Cydonia Face – orientation corrected (North is up). Note this same image is inverted on the U.A. site (pictured above)



PSP_003234_2210

Even in this high-resolution image - all the human and feline facial features are still visible.

Yes…the FOM is still two-faced after all these years.

Zip Monster

This is not going to be as sensational as new discoveries of Martian art, but in an effort to be objective, and forthright, I have to admit that I forgot to include the "beard" in the discussion, and images above. There had been a lot of speculation about this feature elsewhere, and it was imagined that if the beard was cantilevered that might be good evidence of artificiality.

The hi-res MRO image clearly shows that what we thought was a depiction of a cantilevered beard is most likely blast debris from the disruption event that damaged the east half of the face. Therefore this speculation is falsified by the visual evidence. [Neil]

beard at 18% magnification (i.e. of full raw data image)



Around 50%



100%



150%