Saturday, October 29, 2005

For a "trick of light," the Face on Mars continues to look pretty damned face-like, as seen here in this new shot taken by the Mars Odyssey's THEMIS camera.
Posted by at

11 comments:

Ken said...

I'm not so sure that the "Face" is a face anymore. Seen up close it ceases to look like a face and begins to look more like what was once an Island. The only provocative feature remaining is that remarkable "eye" on the left-hand side.

I think that the "Parallelogram" and the "Square" -- both of which are found in Cydonia -- make for a much stronger case of artificiality. Likewise the "Nefertiti" glyph, the Nazca-style "Triangle" and a few of the "artifacts" posted on Gerald T's blog (Mars Relay Station).

As far as I'm concerned there probably ARE artifacts and artificial structures on Mars -- but the credibility of this thesis is being ruined by all the quacks who are advocating it (no offense to you, Mac). In fact, the underlying mentality of these people bears a sick resemblance to those who endorse "creation science". In both cases persons with little or no qualifications are jumping to conclusions, seeing what they want to see, and rabidly deprecating those who DO have qualifications -- even making entirely unfounded accusations of conspiracy.

After corresponding with Gordon I slowly came to realize that us common folk often underestimate just how much work -- how many years -- these scientists have put into understanding Mars, and just how much careful expertise thought has gone into the theories at which they have arrived. And here we are, mere ignoramuses in comparison -- armchair scientists -- slinging mud and accusing those who have invested years in professional study of this material -- of dishonesty, negligence, stupidity. What impertinence! Hoagland, Hancock, Van Flanders, et al. -- these guys are ridiculous. Somebody should study THEM -- from the vantage point of sociology!

I recently read an excellent book titled _Magnificent Mars_ by Ken Croswell. It contained good science, proper science, REAL science. I experienced it as a purgation of mind and spirit from all the profane raucous and rancor of presumptuous rabble.

There are VERY GOOD REASONS why many scientists find it difficult to believe that intelligent life -- let alone any higher life at all -- developed on Mars. The presence of possible artifacts creates a vexing contradiction in the mind -- and I don't blame our qualified professionals for being every bit skeptical. If we do not feel that wtenching contradiction ourselves (those who so easily affirm faces and buildings on Mars obviously DO NOT feel it), perhaps we don't know enough about Mars to be saying anything at all.

3:43 AM
Carol Maltby said...

Sure it's a stretch. Stretching your mind outside your comfort levels is the only way you grow and learn.

None of the "qualified professionals" who have commented on the Face have any training in archeology or the arts. In light of that, their opinions on whether a feature is purely natural geology rather than a large sculpture are no more informed than that of the average person on the street.

If you are going to throw around psychological terms like "projection," you've got to be willing to invoke "cognitive dissonance" as well.

Many of us who think there are good reasons to postulate artifacts of intelligent construction on Mars don't feel that the split face argument is the way to go.

It's a great new image, and illustrates how every piece of art has an optimum distance for viewing. Too close to the pretty girl you see her pores and zits like a debris field, too far and she's just a fuzzy blob.

Hey, I thought they weren't going to give in to our insatiable demands for Face images. Just about now we should hear somebody pipe up about how much this is costing the taxpayers. "Look what you made me do, Ollie..."

10:43 AM
Carol Maltby said...

All snark aside, thanks to MSSS, the THEMIS crew, etc.

We really do appreciate having it.

10:45 AM
Ken said...

"None of the "qualified professionals" who have commented on the Face have any training in archeology or the arts. In light of that, their opinions on whether a feature is purely natural geology rather than a large sculpture are no more informed than that of the average person on the street."

Granted. Still, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, I think the scales still tip toward the "Face" being a natural landform. Those qualified professionals may not specialize in archaeology, but they ARE experts in geology (especially where this pertains to the geological processes on Mars). Their extensive knowledge of this field (knowledge which most of us lack, btw) has given them a more reliable "feel" for what is most probable when viewed against the backdrop of their "big picture", so to speak. As for myself, if it weren't for that obnoxious "eye" on the western half of the Face I would conclude that what we are seeing is ALMOST DEFINITELY a natural formation. Right now I'm not sure what we're looking at.

The "Parallelogram" and "Square", on the other hand, seemingly defy explanation. Moreover, the flippant dismissal of the "Nefertiti" glyph as a mere simalacra just doesn't cut it -- at least not in my book. It depicts the side profile of a woman's face better than most adults can draw. The day palaeolithic cave paintings on Earth are shown to be simalacras is the day I will concede that "Nefertiti" may be a purely natural phenomenon.

1:21 PM
Ken said...

You can find some relatively good photos of the "Nefertiti" glyph here:

http://www.ultor.org/The%20Society%20for%20Planetary%20SETI%20Research.htm

1:56 PM
Carol Maltby said...

Sigh.

Sure it looks like a nifty purposively constructed Nefertiti -- until you _really_ look at it.

They are happy to use craters and dark blobs to delineate what they say is a face, but you'll notice that the presence of dark blobs and craters where they are random and don't show a face is conveniently ignored. You just can't cherry-pick some features that make up your face and ignore ones that don't suit your purpose.

Why do they keep calling it a skull, if they are talking about soft tissues like eyes?

I don't see a second eye on Skullface. In fact, I don't see a nose or a mouth or ears, though there is what seems to be a long handlebar mustache like that worn by Derek Smalls of Spinal Tap.

If it was an actual face, it is decidedly not so far turned to the side that you couldn't see the rest of the features, despite the claims of Crater and Levasseur. That's just nonsense.

Their drawing of the eye from the Face does not follow the actual contours shown on the image.

Look, I could go on further all night about what I think is wrong with this, but I have other things to do. Levasseur is the one who presented what he said was a puma, which had a leg bending in the direction that no feline leg bends, among its many grievous faults. So I don't trust his ability to describe what is in front of him one bit.

And that goes for friggin' parrot feet and mega-dolphins too that other people have claimed to see.

9:14 PM
Carol Maltby said...

While looking into psych mechanisms, "sustained attentional blindness" might be another issue being manifested. Check out the rather astonishing figures of who sees the gorilla in this experiment:

http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v6/psyche-6-14-most.html

It's not a matter of drawing well, unless you are planning to do this at home, like Noguchi wanted to do in 1947, with his face sculpture meant to be seen from Mars.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread90530/pg1

It's more a case of the need for visual literacy, being able to describe what you are seeing.

Sure, geologists can usually talk about Martian geology. I'm sure they'd be able to discuss the stone Mt. Rushmore was carved into, or the carrera marble from which Michelangelo carved David. But not a one of them has ever used the vocabulary of art or archeology to refute questions of possible examples of planetary SETI.

I hadn't seen Al Reaud's page that you linked, it's an excellent discussion. Sorry to hear that he's in hot water, he's a really nice guy. I'll have to drop him a line. Anyone hear anything from Greg Orme recently? It's been a while since I saw him on any of the Mars boards.

One of these days if Yahoo ever develops an adequate search engine for its groups, I'll have to go through the Cydonia list to find some of my critiques and get them all in one place.

12:25 AM
Ken said...

"also note the parallel tracks on the right side of the photo where the Bald Head has been "disappeared."

Also note that the tracks run OVER the crater, indicating that the crater is older than the tracks. There is also another set of tracks over to the right.

7:52 AM
Carol Maltby said...

But if you were a _real_ expert in the space program, you could confuse imperial and metric measurements and lose a $125 million dollar Mars orbiter!

5:37 AM
Mac said...

Why hasn't Mac responded to this comment section?

Well, *obviously* I'm in on it. Now, if you don't mind, MJ-12 is on the other line . . .

3:10 PM
бытовки модульные said...

In my view everyone must read it.

Асфальтный завод

5:05 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)