Crowned Face noses

Hello Greg and welcome to the discussion board.

In your latest post on your web site your say, “the Crowned Face also has two other faces next to it, which overlay on it with a high degree of correlations” which you call “the Left Crowned Face, the Middle Crowned Face and the Right Crowned Face.”

My question is: What is new in this current observation that you didn’t see back in September 2000, when you originally acknowledged that the Crown Face was a “complex set of half faces”?

You also note in your new web page that - the shape of the nose tip on both faces is very similar, however you acknowledge that the left side nostril is wider than the right one.

Well, I believe this is due to the conjoined construct of multiple half-faces, which tends to support the idea that the second nose belongs to a separate "partial" face.

I agree that there are three different faces presented here, for as you know, I have noticed these three “partial” faces for some time now.


Conjoined Crown Faces with Demarcation.
Note the three half faces.

I have presented this idea that the Crown Face is a geoglyphic composite of three conjoined faces on The Cydonia Institute's "Project Teardrop" web site - back in 2004.

Here is a link to my article:
herotwins.hypermart.net/Crowned/CrownedFace.htm


Your thoughts,

Zip Monster

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Zip Monster</i>
<br />Hello Greg and welcome to the discussion board.

In your latest post on your web site your say, “the Crowned Face also has two other faces next to it, which overlay on it with a high degree of correlations” which you call “the Left Crowned Face, the Middle Crowned Face and the Right Crowned Face.”

My question is: What is new in this current observation that you didn’t see back in September 2000, when you originally acknowledged that the Crown Face was a “complex set of half faces”?

You also note in your new web page that - the shape of the nose tip on both faces is very similar, however you acknowledge that the left side nostril is wider than the right one.

Well, I believe this is due to the conjoined construct of multiple half-faces, which tends to support the idea that the second nose belongs to a separate "partial" face.

I agree that there are three different faces presented here, for as you know, I have noticed these three “partial” faces for some time now.


Conjoined Crown Faces with Demarcation.
Note the three half faces.

I have presented this idea that the Crown Face is a geoglyphic composite of three conjoined faces on The Cydonia Institute's "Project Teardrop" web site - back in 2004.

Here is a link to my article:
herotwins.hypermart.net/Crowned/CrownedFace.htm


Your thoughts,

Zip Monster


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

Hi,

I am referring to a different third face, on the left of the main two not the right. This left face was particularly difficult to find because of erosion, but it works very well with the overlays.

[url] www.ultor.org/3kf/k1.htm [/url]

The best way to see how these overlays work is to watch the small movies I have on the site of each one. You can use media player clasic and slow them right down and then watch a particular feature as it morphs from one to the other. If you watch each feature I have pointed out in the movies in slow motion you should be able to see their similarity, which bolsters the statistical argument that this similarity is unlikely to occur by chance.

Another advantage to these 3 faces is it gives a basis for predictions if more faces are found that are similar enough for an overlay. Recently I found that two other well known faces, the Cydonia Face and the KK Face also overlay very well over not just the Crowned Face but also the right Crowned Face as a dual face. So this adds evidence to support the original idea of the Cydonia Face being a dual face, but the split between the two is not the same as that originally proposed.

[url] www.ultor.org/faces_files/ [/url]

To see this more clearly it is again better to watch the video, the correlations are extensive. Then there are similar correlations between the Crowned Face and the KK Face

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

and the KK Face and Cydonia Face

[url] www.ultor.org/3overlays.htm [/url]

One interesting thing about these overlays is that parts of the formations that appear to be eroded are nearly identical in each overlay. So ravines around the Cydonia Face mouth look eroded but they are very similar to apparently eroded ravines around 2 of the Crowned Faces and the KK Face.

This is highly significant from a statistical point of view because these appear geologically created, yet the overlays show that are unlikely to be. It is also virtually impossible for ravines to form geologically in such a similar way by different geological processes, as the Crowned Face is on a hill, the KK Face is in a crater, and the Cydonia Face is a mesa. It also indicates that this mouth if artificial is much less humanoid then first thought.

So my theory is that all these faces, 5 in all are not only of the same hypothetical alien, but they are all of the same image or statue repeated over and over. This makes it much easier to calculate probabilities because while faces on Mars are improbable, the same face on Mars being duplicated in 5 different positions is much more unlikely and also it allows some fairly precise odds to be calculated.

This doesn't prove artificiality but it permits more and more mathematics to be used, making the theory more based on hard evidence. For example, the odds against chance calculated with the 3 Crowned Faces were high, but one could then multiply this by the odds of them also overlaying on the KK Face and Cydonia Face to increase the odds even more.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Zip Monster</i>
<br />Hello Greg and welcome to the discussion board.

Well, I believe this is due to the conjoined construct of multiple half-faces, which tends to support the idea that the second nose belongs to a separate "partial" face.

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

I'm not pushing a particular belief about the noses. My point is the nose tips are very similar to each other, and in the right position, i.e. at the end of the nose. This is less likely to occur by chance because the nose tips if random could be any shape, but they are similar to each other.

I'm not trying to promote a particular theory, but to find what things can be proven or are very likely and try to join them together into a proof. The M0203051 image was not clear with the nose tip of the right Crowned Face, so there was a natural prediction that this nose tip would be more nose like when reimaged, which it was. Also when reimages it was more similar to the center Crowned Face nose tip than chance would anticipate.

I know it seems like a slow way to build a case for artificiality, but all the parts of the case are much stronger this way. Also the evidence has led me away from most of my pet theories over the years, but closer to a stronger argument. I've probably discarded 95% of my site over the years, but that which remains is better for removing the mistakes.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To see this more clearly it is again better to watch the video, the correlations are extensive. Then there are similar correlations between the Crowned Face and the KK Face [gorme]<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">So my theory is that all these faces, 5 in all are not only of the same hypothetical alien, but they are all of the same image or statue repeated over and over. This makes it much easier to calculate probabilities because while faces on Mars are improbable, the same face on Mars being duplicated in 5 different positions is much more unlikely and also it allows some fairly precise odds to be calculated. [gorme]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I watched the overlay video of the Crownface changing to the Cydonia Face several times, and I think you’ve succeeded in qualitative terms in showing that both faces are human-like. The forehead size, shape, and slope are similar; the eye spacing and orientation or positioning in the face is close. And there are other similarities.

But (to make a cursory critical analysis) the overall length of the faces is quite different; the nose shapes are very different; the mouth position and size is somewhat different; and so on. I would say these two faces represent two very different people. Nevertheless, in my opinion your overlay is favorable to the artificiality hypothesis.

Neil DeRosa

<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 /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To see this more clearly it is again better to watch the video, the correlations are extensive. Then there are similar correlations between the Crowned Face and the KK Face [gorme]<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">So my theory is that all these faces, 5 in all are not only of the same hypothetical alien, but they are all of the same image or statue repeated over and over. This makes it much easier to calculate probabilities because while faces on Mars are improbable, the same face on Mars being duplicated in 5 different positions is much more unlikely and also it allows some fairly precise odds to be calculated. [gorme]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I watched the overlay video of the Crownface changing to the Cydonia Face several times, and I think you’ve succeeded in qualitative terms in showing that both faces are human-like. The forehead size, shape, and slope are similar; the eye spacing and orientation or positioning in the face is close. And there are other similarities.

But (to make a cursory critical analysis) the overall length of the faces is quite different; the nose shapes are very different; the mouth position and size is somewhat different; and so on. I would say these two faces represent two very different people. Nevertheless, in my opinion your overlay is favorable to the artificiality hypothesis.

Neil DeRosa




<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 watched the overlay video of the Crownface changing to the Cydonia Face several times, and I think you’ve succeeded in qualitative terms in showing that both faces are human-like. The forehead size, shape, and slope are similar; the eye spacing and orientation or positioning in the face is close. And there are other similarities.

But (to make a cursory critical analysis) the overall length of the faces is quite different; the nose shapes are very different; the mouth position and size is somewhat different; and so on. I would say these two faces represent two very different people. Nevertheless, in my opinion your overlay is favorable to the artificiality hypothesis.

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

My previous reply didn't work for some reason. It's not the length of the faces that are different because the shape of the jawline overlays on both faces. The Cydonia Face seems to have an extra part at the bottom like part of the headdress or helmet. One can always argue the face is longer, but the idea of the overlay is to show parts of the formation overlay well, and the chin and jawline according to one interpretation do this.

The problem is the Cydonia Face is likely to be so eroded that there are many different face interpretations. One advantage is the Crowned Face happens to overlay well on a face I had already pointed out, as the image on the web page shows. Also I had already pointed out the right eye shape on the bridge of the nose which the Crowned Face right eye overlays onto.

So the overlay is not so good if a different face shape is used, but works quite well for the face shape I had pointed out some years earlier, for example:

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

The right eye is not centered on the Cydonia Face, but this is because this face image was taken more from the side and the nose was pushed to the right by this.