Crowned Face noses

Gregg and Greg,

Here's some data I posted on Crownface awhile back in the "Clean Copies" thread. See if you agree. Of course, the aquisition parameters are available at the link. [Neil]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">M0203051, Crownface, Greg Orme, 2001; 275.52W, 2.66N, ~500 m wide; 5.78 m/p, inverted, south oriented (SO) smaller face within large north oriented (NO)face.
www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/M0203051.html


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

Neil, you will see that where I have placed my lines, I am measuring at a fairly wide point just above the eyes. If I had measured lower on the face, I am sure I could have easily come across a place that was about 500 meters wide. It narrows as you move down the face. As you reach the chin, it becomes smaller than 200m. I show my measuring points in the picture to avoid this confusion.

<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>
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">M0203051, Crownface, Greg Orme, 2001; 275.52W, 2.66N, ~500 m wide; 5.78 m/p, inverted, south oriented (SO) smaller face within large north oriented (NO)face.
www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/M0203051.html


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

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

I gather from 275.52W, 2.66N that this face is very near the equator. But does the vertical orientation align with the current equator or with the old equator <b>before </b>the EPH impact? (Is it of the same era as the Cydonia Face?)

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gregg</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>
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">M0203051, Crownface, Greg Orme, 2001; 275.52W, 2.66N, ~500 m wide; 5.78 m/p, inverted, south oriented (SO) smaller face within large north oriented (NO)face.
www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/M0203051.html


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

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

I gather from 275.52W, 2.66N that this face is very near the equator. But does the vertical orientation align with the current equator or with the old equator <b>before </b>the EPH impact? (Is it of the same era as the Cydonia Face?)

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

If I recall correctly I checked with Tom van Flandern a few years ago, and the Crowned face doesn't point to that Martian pole. Note though there are other previous poles, because the poles of Mars wandered quite a bit. Below is a theory of this polar wander, which agrees fairly closely with the mainstream view:

[url] www.harmakhis.org/paper1.htm [/url]

Also you may not have seen this link:

[url] www.ultor.org/inline/1.htm [/url]

Most of these formation fall on lines, i.e. at least 3 on a straight line and many are on the old Martian equator with the pole centered around Hellas.

<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 />gorme, very neat. I did a google search on crown face before I started studying it myself, but did not come across the JP Levasseur find. Interesting to know I'm not the only one to see the right profile image.

I've got three articles up on the crown face feature now that you might want to review if you get a chance. This is the link:

[url] marsrocks.googlepages.com/home [/url]

My take on your newly discovered angled face is reviewed in the third article on the site. I think it helps complete the central theme of the art, but I am sure others will disagree.

Were you already aware of the left overlayed profile shown in the first article? To me, that is an excellent example of intelligent design within the crown face.

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

There is a certain amount of diminishing returns as faces get smaller and smaller, because they might become noise and distortion in the image. One of the advantages of the Crowned face, and perhaps the ones on either side of it as they are quite large so the chance of pixellation causing illusions is very low.

I did see roughly the jaguar but mainly as the nose and two holes for the eyes. This is good because it continues the theme of similar noses in shape and using the eye of the previous face. However I didn't post it on my site because the details weren't clear enough. I didn't see the lower face on the angled face, that could be a continuation of the row of faces or a separate face looking down. It might also be pixellation because it is small. I can imagine the viewpoint could have been on the opposing cliff or in the valley so these faces might have looked different from each angle, probably with the changing sun angle.

On this page:

[url] www.ultor.org/rushmore2.htm [/url]

the small face



may also be a dual face with two sets of eyes on above the other, but the size is too small to tell.

It also looks like a face upside down:

[url] www.ultor.org/rushmore4.htm [/url]


There was another face I decided on in the jaguar position, as a profile face looking to the right. I took this down though when I decided on this new angled face, because the new one is much bigger and with less pixellation. I will try and find the old one. It took me years to notice the angled face but now I see it instantly each time. It was strange because the angled face is as large as the Crowned Face and with many similarities, and logically looking to the side on a rounded cliff face but for some reason I didn't see it for a long time.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Neil, you will see that where I have placed my lines, I am measuring at a fairly wide point just above the eyes. If I had measured lower on the face, I am sure I could have easily come across a place that was about 500 meters wide. It narrows as you move down the face. As you reach the chin, it becomes smaller than 200m. I show my measuring points in the picture to avoid this confusion.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree with your estimate. Another method of estimating size is by counting pixels, and I believe the HiRISE software has some aids for estimating size. My research has led me to the conclusion that there are several convincing faces at different locations around Mars in this size range. Some others are larger, such as Cydonia at around 2 km. Barbara is slightly over 2 km. I have also found faces down to around 30 m wide, though they have not been generally accepted by the anomaly hunter community.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I gather from 275.52W, 2.66N that this face is very near the equator. But does the vertical orientation align with the current equator or with the old equator before the EPH impact? (Is it of the same era as the Cydonia Face?)

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

All of NASA's parameters I used are from the current actual coordinates and MGS MOC satellite data (and more recently, MRO data). Though I did do one exercise a couple of months ago at Tom's suggestion using the previous equator estimate from Schultz. (See Faces from the Chasmas, Sept. 30, 2007). As you probably know from following this for the past 2 years, many of the best faces (though not all) are near the equator, or more accurately, on the dichotomy border.

As to the question of dating these artifacts, as you know Tom has speculated on 3.2 million years ago; Peter Ness told me, if I recall, that by counting craters he estimates around 50 myr, though I don't know which face or faces he was referring to. And I think Hoagland has a different opinion on the age of the artifacts.

My personal opinion is that we need some more objective method of dating them before hazarding a guess.
[Neil]