UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > May > May 13

Re: ESA Admits Doubts About Their Mars Face Model

From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 16:01:22 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 08:16:07 -0400
Subject: Re: ESA Admits Doubts About Their Mars Face Model

>From: Paul Scott Anderson <paulscottanderson.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:48:25 -0700
>Subject: Re: ESA Admits Doubts About Their Mars Face Model

>>From: Lan Fleming <lfleming6.nul>
>>To: UFOUpdates <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:53:17 -0500
>>Subject: Re: ESA Admits Doubts About Their Mars Face Model

>>The resolution of this new camera is down to a few centimeters
>>from several hundred kilometers above the planet surface. The
>>technology is remarkable, but I never was overly excited about
>>the prospect of another Face image at this very high resolution.
>>I figured that it most likely just show more natural terrain at
>>a finer scale. The landform is obviously composed of native
>>rock, as I and other people surmised before the first high-res
>>image was taken by the Mars Global Surveyor back in 1998. There
>>are only two alternative explanations for the appearance of the
>>Face: it's either a natural landform eroded for not fully-
>>explained reasons into an unusually symmetrical shape, or it's
>>an artificially sculpted landform whose finer details have been
>>eroded away. Erosion of artificial stone structures tends to
>>begin at the smallest scale and progressively obliterates
>>larger-scale features. I've seen close-ups of unrepaired
>>surfaces of the Great Sphinx that looklike perfectly natural
>>cliff faces covered with gullies and no hint of alteration by
>>human hands. That being said, with regard to artificiality, I
>>think the rule should be that the landform is presumed "innocent
>>until proven guilty." The high resolution images have fallen far
>>short of proof.

>Agreed. I think too many of the debunker types were assuming
>that this (if real) would have been 'built' rather than carved
>from an already existing mesa. And now since the surface looks
>so natural close-up, they can happily dismiss it for good.

Hello, Paul

A few days before the first high-resolution MGS image was
released in 1998, I posted a message on an AOL board giving my
prediction of what the image would likely show. I wrote that it
would probably show a badly eroded rock with perhaps some trace
features that might suggest artificial modifications. I also
predicted that the skeptics would emphasize the natural-looking
features, but I was thinking at the time about what they would
emphasize verbally in arguments about the image. I certainly
wasn't expecting that they would be quite so literal in
'emphasizing' the  natural appearance of the Face through the
use of digital tricks such as excessive image filtering as was
done on that first image or the grossly exaggerated height
scales on ESA's 3D model. Live and learn.

>Hoagland still seems to assume that also, although I don't know
>why. I haven't seen any sign of his "girders" yet... I did hear
>him on C to C a few days ago saying that he has (of course)
>found some "amazing things" in the new MRO image... we'll see...

I doubt we'll see much of anything. I downloaded the enormous
186 MB image and I haven't found anything resembling girders or
anything else that didn't look completely natural. And, by the
way, I don't think there is any chance that the image has been
tampered with. People at NASA and ESA seem to get 'artistic'
with the Face images they release to the news media, but it's my
impression that they are always very serious about the accuracy
of their actual data products.

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com