Does there ware any robotic mission to Mars-Cydonia

[rtxoff]

[h=2]Community Rules - July 24, 2014[/h]2.3 Forbidden messages

b.) Messages made for the perceived purpose of stirring up and otherwise getting a rise from users (ie, flamebaiting, troll posts);

[Kryten]

I'm not trying to 'get a rise' from you, I'm trying to get some explanation as to how you think the same logic doesn't apply to both examples.

[jfull]

Too bad it's photoshopped, here is a version where some smart guy had undone the manipulation:

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/3-faces_files/image002.gif

http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/3-faces.asp

What evidence do you have that the high resolution image (the one that doesn't look like a face) has been altered? Other than the fact that someone came forward and claimed to have a "true" image of it

The "unedited" images you've presented do look eerily face-like, and I'd be willing to see the matter looked into a little bit more.

But honestly I think that BOTH images might be accurate representations of what the formation looks like, and it just looks far more face-like and symmetrical when viewed at the right angle, with the right shadows.

Edited August 19, 2014 by jfull

[rtxoff]

I'm not trying to 'get a rise' from you, I'm trying to get some explanation as to how you think the same logic doesn't apply to both examples.

And you think by saying "There might be dragons at the bottom of my garden." you will get such an explaination? Well you won't.

[lajoswinkler]

gpisic, nobody is trolling you. They're just making you get a taste of your own medicine.

The mesa on Mars is not a face. It's a mesa. There are tons of similar stuff and it's called pareidolia. Human brains have evolved to recognize patterns. Sometimes it's useful, sometimes isn't. This is one of the examples where brain played a trick on people.

Why are you acting irrational? You've been presented with a high resolution photo and a radar scan, yet you claim NASA "photoshopped" it. That makes you the same as Apollo landing conspiracy nuts which, when presented with proof, either deny it or ignore it and jump to something else.

Some examples of pareidolia.

And here is a high resolution photo of various heart-like whatzits on Mars.

[rtxoff]

The mesa on Mars is not a face. It's a mesa.

Yes, and i never claimed something else.

There are tons of similar stuff and it's called pareidolia.

I already said that i am very well aware of this phenomenon.

Why are you acting irrational? You've been presented with a high resolution photo and a radar scan, yet you claim NASA "photoshopped" it.

Well i am not. If you would understand how such an image makes it onto a website you would understand that Photoshop (or some other imaging software they use) is a must if you want to publish it. You can not publish the raw data because it would not resemble an image.

The problem is only the sorts of unusual filters NASA applied onto the raw data which drastically reduced the face like looking properties of the image to satisfy the public. All about this you can read on the already posted link before: http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/3-faces.asp

All that i am saying is they did not deliver an image that resembles what the human eye would actually see and this was proven by the guy that made the website. Just read the content in the link.

That makes you the same as Apollo landing conspiracy nuts which, when presented with proof, either deny it or ignore it and jump to something else.

I really think it is not necessary to insult someone.

But i see it's pointless discussing with you guys, it end's always in insults and accusations of beeing an nut without even reading into the matter.

[Nibb31]

Yes, and i never claimed something else.

You claimed that it "might be" something else.

Well i am not. If you would understand how such an image makes it onto a website you would understand that Photoshop (or some other imaging software they use) is a must if you want to publish it. You can not publish the raw data because it would not resemble an image.

The problem is only the sorts of unusual filters NASA applied onto the raw data which drastically reduced the face like looking properties of the image to satisfy the public. All about this you can read on the already posted link before: http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/3-faces.asp

All that i am saying is they did not deliver an image that resembles what the human eye would actually see and this was proven by the guy that made the website. Just read the content in the link.

RAW data always needs to be processed. Images from Viking were also processed. That article you linked to is about pictures from MGS back in 1998, that he has also processed, reprocessed and tampered in all sorts of ways in order to come up with his PROOF THAT THE CYDONIA FACE ON MARS IS ARTIFICIAL. Well, the "proof" must have been less than substantial, because not a single scientist in the world has taken this up and published the evidence in a peer-reviewed paper. Why would that be ?

This compares the Viking images with the MGS images using the same processing:

The info at the JPL regarding image processing does not correlate with the link that you provided. All the processing steps and raw data are available directly:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/mgs/msss/camera/images/4_6_face_release/index.html

The latest high resolution 3D images and elevation data produced by MRO in 2010 fail to show any artificial features, even though the HiRise camera has a high enough resolution to actually see Opportunity or Spirit from orbit. You can even see by yourself with Google Earth:

I really think it is not necessary to insult someone.

But i see it's pointless discussing with you guys, it end's always in insults and accusations of beeing an nut without even reading into the matter.

You are insulting the entire science community. And you need to do some actual research from the actual sources instead of trusting 12 year-old conspiracy websites.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Nibb31

[sojourner]

Why is this thread even still open? I would think it has definitely fallen afoul of the "no conspiracies" rule.

[rtxoff]

You are insulting the entire science community. And you need to do some actual research from the actual sources instead of trusting 12 year-old conspiracy websites.

And the science community is insulting the rest of the world by beeing unable to discuss things in a civilized manner always trying to make others look like oxen. What i need or not need to do is entirely my beer. People come here seeking for answers and at first always get insults. Someone unwilling/unable to share his knowledge should shut up before provoke/insult anyone. Your last response contained some useful links and images regarding this matter, why did you not come up with them immediately? I guess ridiculing someone first is more fun but this for sure is not the purpose of the science lab.

[sjwt]

And this thread was sitting on the edged, its now tumbling over...