The "Face" of Cydonia Mensae and the Features of Cydonia Region
|
|
|
Cydonia_Mensae-The_Face-003.jpgThe "Face on Mars" (MULTISPECTRUM; credits for the additional process. and color.: Dr Paolo C. Fienga - Lunexit Team and Keith Laney)142 visiteIl processing adottato dal sempre bravo Keith Laney (su frame MGS) ci ha dato la "base" (in b/n) per poi applicare il nostro MULTISPECTRUM; il risultato finale è qui. Davanti a Voi.
La "Faccia di Marte" o "Sfinge di Cydonia" ci osserva, in questa ripresa che pare essere stata effettuata da una perfetta verticale.
Keith si chiede (e scrive, riteniamo ironicamente, sul frame) "Is The Face An Artifact?" e cioè "La Faccia (di Marte) è un Manufatto?".
Beh, Cari Amici, guardate e decidete Voi...
A nostro parere, se questa "butte" (che Vi ricordiamo significa, tecnicamente, collina "a ceppo") Vi pare artificiale, allora noi siamo in grado di produrVi almeno altri CINQUE rilievi Marziani ripresi dall'orbita (ed ovviamente SCONOSCIUTI al Grande Pubblico poichè non individuati da quel Grande Maestro di PR & furbizia che è il Prof. Hoagland) che sono mille volte più "artificiali" di questo...MareKromium
|
|
Cydonia_Mensae-The_Face-010.jpgTo "Face" or not to "Face"?101 visitePart of Viking image 70a13 showing “Face” at Cydonia. Contrast was adjusted separately on sunlit and shadowed (outlined) sides to bring out details of both at comparable lighting levels. Bright border of outline is an artifact of brightening everything inside the outline.
Uno studio del Dr Tom Van Flandern che pubblichiamo per rendere omaggio ad un notevole sforzo logico, deduttivo e matematico. Leggete e poi, se volete, diteci che cosa ne pensate.
The MGS spacecraft took a high-resolution photo of the “Face on Mars” in April, 1998. That image suffered from four handicaps: a low viewing angle; a low Sun angle from the direction under the “chin”; an almost complete lack of contrast; and enough cloudiness to scatter most of the light and eliminate shadows. To add to these difficult circumstances, JPL-MIPL personnel, apparently judging that the controversy over artificiality would not be ended when the actual photo was released, processed the image through two filters having the effect of flattening and suppressing image details. This step is documented at a JPL web site. Here we do image processing correctly and present the results of computer corrections to compensate for the poor lighting and low viewing angle. The actual image shows clearly the impropriety of the JPL-MIPL actions because the visual impression of artificiality persists. However, appearances after a discovery are not a valid basis for drawing conclusions, but only for forming hypotheses for further testing. This is called the a priori principle of scientific method. The 1976 Viking imagery allowed the formation of competing hypotheses, natural vs. artificial origin, and tests to distinguish them. When applied to the high-resolution MGS image of the Face, all artificiality predictions were fulfilled despite a lack of background noise. The combined a priori odds against a natural origin of the Face on Mars are 1021 to 1.
|
|
Cydonia_Mensae-The_Face-011.jpgTo "Face" or not to "Face"?107 visitePart of MGS image SP1-22003 showing “Face” at Cydonia. Inset locates “facial” features. Contrast is adjusted separately on the two sides, with the sunlit portions outlined. Dark border of outline is an artIfact caused by darkening everything inside the outline to bring out its details.
The “Face” at Cydonia on Mars is shown in 1976 medium resolution Viking spacecraft image 70a13 in Figure 1, and in the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft strip-image SP1-22003 in Figure 2. The mesa is about 2.5 km tall by 2 km wide, and extends several hundred meters above ground level. The appearance is much less face-like in the high-resolution MGS image in Figure 2 than in the original Viking image in Figure 1 for the following reasons:
(1) The MGS spacecraft took its image from a low-perspective angle well to the west, rather than from nearly overhead as in the Viking spacecraft view. Mainly the western half of the “Face” is seen in Figure 2, with the eastern half largely hidden behind the nose ridge.
(2) Sunlight shines on the Face mesa from the low west in the Viking image, but from the low southeast in the MGS image. The latter tends to distort facial features, much like a flashlight held under the chin.
(3) The Viking image had a normal variation of grayscale levels to provide contrast between adjacent features. The range of grayscale levels in the MGS image was inadequate to provide the amount of contrast normally utilized by the human eye.
(4) Following analysis, it became apparent that the major face-like features on the mesa have the characteristic that they cast shadows that enhance the face-like appearance at almost any Sun-angle. For example, the eye socket is a depression that contains the shadow of its walls while the Sun is anywhere but overhead. It is similar for the mouth feature, which casts a shadow into the ravine between the lips at most times of day. The facial appearance is enhanced by such shadows, but is difficult to separate from the background when the shadows are absent. By bad luck, the sunlight was so scattered by thin cloud cover that light on the Face was mainly ambient (omni-directional, shadow-free) light. This partially ameliorates difficulty (2), but creates a greater problem by removing one element important to the perceived appearance of the mesa.
|
|
Cydonia_Mensae-The_Face-012.jpgTo "Face" or not to "Face"?83 visiteHigh-pass-filtered “Face” image released by JPL to the world media.
Photographs of actual human faces and of face sculptures taken under similar viewing perspective and lighting conditions as prevailed for Figure 2 are commonly no longer recognizable as faces. The image in Figure 2 initially leaves the question of the degree to which the mesa resembles a face unresolved. Various features of Figure 2 can be cited on both sides of the issue.
Unfortunately for the objectivity that scientists are supposed to maintain, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) apparently was unhappy that the high-resolution image received by its spacecraft did not immediately settle the artificiality controversy. Strong public statements ridiculing the “Face” and the serious scientific investigation thereof had previously been issued by certain scientists working for JPL, Caltech (which owns JPL), and JPL contractors, and by other supporters of robotic space exploration (managed and controlled almost exclusively by JPL) over manned space exploration (for which little science or funding goes to JPL). Indeed, the laboratory and MSSS, its contractor for the MGS imaging mission, initially refused to take the high-resolution images of the “Face” on the stated grounds that it would be a waste of public funds and a slap at the integrity of the scientists in the program. They were ordered to take them anyway by NASA Headquarters.
When the first picture arrived at JPL, its Mission Image Processing Laboratory (MIPL) passed the image through two filters, a low-pass filter and a high-pass filter. It is difficult to see how usage of these filters on this image before release to the media could be scientifically justified. Indeed, usage of the high-pass filter gave an especially damaging impression. From Adobe’s Photoshop software, we find the following description of the function and purpose of this filter:
“High Pass Filter: Retains edge details … and suppresses the rest of the image. … The filter removes low-frequency detail in an image … The filter is useful for extracting line art and large black-and-white areas from scanned images.”
The usage of these filters on the “Face” image is documented on the JPL web site <http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa. gov/mgs/target/CYD1/index.html>. The same day that the raw spacecraft image data was received at MSSS and posted to the Internet, the JPL Public Information Office (PIO) released the MIPL-created, filtered image shown in Figure 3 to the world media.
|
|
Cydonia_Mensae-The_Face-013.jpgTo "Face" or not to "Face"?153 visiteLeft: negative of the Face as seen by the MGS spacecraft in April, 1998. Center: Lighting source switched from SE to NW. Right: Viewing angle switched from 45° west to overhead.
As a direct consequence of this act, it has become extraordinarily difficult to get material on this subject considered in the scientific community. For example, a technical abstract on the subject of Cydonia submitted by this author in the summer of 1998 for oral presentation to the Division of Planetary Science (DPS) of the American Astronomical Society was rejected. This was the only rejection of an abstract by a member in good standing at this meeting, with over 600 other abstracts accepted. Rejection of a member-submitted abstract is a rare event (unprecedented for this author) because presentation of papers before peers is the primary means of getting feedback before submitting written versions of papers to journals for peer review, and because justification of conclusions is not normally provided in an abstract. The DPS abstract review committee based its decision on the evidence they had seen with their own eyes in the image released by JPL-PIO to the media. On appeal, they reversed their decision and accepted the abstract for a late poster paper; but the damage had already been done. The subject matter of Cydonia and the “Face” on Mars was by then on a list of topics not suitable for consideration by certain mainstream technical journals such as Nature magazine. By editorial policy, papers on the subject of the “Face” can no longer receive peer review at that magazine.
Whatever your opinion about the artificiality of the “Face” may be, and whatever the actual merits of the issue may be, it seems beyond dispute that allowing world opinion to be based on the image in Figure 3 was scientifically inappropriate. When considering why this happened, we appear to be left with an unhappy choice between dishonesty and incompetence.
|
|
Cydonia_Mensae-The_Face-020.gifFace it: that thing is NOT a Face! (1) - 3D118 visiteUna serie di contributi da Mars Unearthed - MU - che ci mostrano, usando dei semplici (ma efficacissimi!) 3D, che è davvero molto molto difficile, se non azzardato o, addirittura, temerario supporre che la famosa collinetta di Cydonia sia quanto rimane di una gigantesca scultura.
Secondo noi è una collina che appartiene a quella famiglia di rilievi che vengono conosciuti come "knobs". Ed anche l'idea del "tepe", guardando questi anaglifi, ci sembra tramontare definitivamente.
I Vostri commenti saranno apprezzati.
|
|
Cydonia_Mensae-The_Face-021.gifFace it: that thing is NOT a Face! (2) - 3D69 visitenessun commento
|
|
Cydonia_Mensae-The_Face-022.gifFace it: that thing is NOT a Face! (3) - 3D83 visitenessun commento
|
|
Cydonia_Mensae-The_Face-030.jpgThis "Face" is a "Fake"! (1)106 visiteIn questo frame - come nei 2 che seguono - ciò che si vede è la solita collina conosciuta come "Mars Face", mentre viene illuminata dai raggi radenti del Sole del mattino.
La porzione esposta ai raggi del Sole (e che nei tre frames che Vi proponiamo appare di color bianco con bordi vagamente azzurrini) dovrebbe essere il mero risultato di una sovraesposizione. Il Prof. Hoagland, invece, ritiene che lo splendore del lato illuminato del "Volto di Cydonia" sia una conseguenza del particolare materiale impiegato per realizzare questo manufatto (!) e della sua particolare (ed "aliena" al 100%) natura e struttura.
Ma leggete quello che il Prof- Hoagland dice:"...This last critique obviously represents the folks who, on examining all the scientific evidence developed over these last three decades regarding our “Martian Intelligence Hypothesis” … have come to radically differing conclusions from both the unthinking followers of “mainstream science” … if not the folks at NASA..." (continua)
|
|
Cydonia_Mensae-The_Face-031.jpgThis "Face" is a "Fake"! (2)111 visite"...For NASA, of course, officially maintains that our ideas -- and the decades of accumulated multi-disciplinary evidence presented to support them -- are lacking both in evidence and any “science’ ….
Nothing, of course, could be farther from the truth…as anyone objectively examining just the most recent Cydonia images can easily observe.
This example (frame precedente) was taken by NASA’s Mars Odyssey spacecraft in late 2003: an eastern-illuminated image of the Face (after more than 20 years of only photos taken with the Sun coming from the West) revealing both an astonishing luminosity, as well as remarkable rectilinear geometry…all along the eastern half ….
This pre-sunrise NASA view is such an obvious embarrassment to those who have insisted for so long that this iconic Cydonia feature is “just a natural pile of rocks,” that it has been resolutely ignored by the naysayers ever since its acquisition. This, despite our own publication of a detailed analysis here at Enterprise (“The Light Finally Dawns at Cydonia ….”) for why this “pre-dawn image” is now so scientifically revealing ….
For, such abnormal, selective reflectivity – to say nothing of the obvious regular geometry blatantly visible all across the eastern side, as well as obvious color differences with other features right next door – cannot any longer be “explained” in terms of “natural Martian mesas” ….
When you composite this eastern-illuminated Odyssey image with a black-and-white western-lit Mars Surveyor view (acquired in 2001 -- below), and examine carefully the combined symmetry of the Face “platform,” the aligned nature of the “highly reflective geometry” with the centerline of the larger Face itself, and the repeating symmetry of other key features, east and west -- any further comparisons with “natural mesas” becomes blatantly absurd ….
|
|
Cydonia_Mensae-The_Face-033.jpgThis "Face" is a "Fake"! (3)66 visiteThis is a mega-work of ET engineering … whose “protected” eastern side is apparently still exhibiting remnants of its original “anomalous composition and construction”!
The fact that over a decade earlier, Mark Carlotto and Mike Stein (then employed by The Analytical Science Corporation - a Defense Department contract company), quietly conducted a major “fractal analysis” of this same object - using computer algorithms later used (successfully!) for the first time in the 1991 Gulf War for the detection of Saddam Hussein’s tanks against the natural background of the highly similar Saudi deserts -- and found that the Face is “the more non-fractal (such as ‘unnatural’) than a Hussein tank”...
Attenzione: questa "trasposizione Marziana" del lavoro svolto dai Dottori Carlotto e Stein per il Deserto Saudita è azzardata e scientificamente scorretta! Vedi i commenti di chiusura successivi al frame (4).
|
|
Cydonia_Mensae-The_Face-034.jpgThis "Face" is a "Fake"! (4)97 visite"...This crucial view of the highly-reflective geometry still present on the Face’s Eastern Side was acquired with only 20-mt-per-pixel resolution (~800"). Imagine what the MRO HiRISE camera – at 12" per pixel (!) such as 66 times greater resolution than Mars Odyssey and in color, no less! - could now confirm about this object...".
Qualche nota: le geometrie e le linearità del Volto di Marte, "enfatizzate" dalle luci del Sole del mattino - va detto! - le vede solo il Prof. Hoagland; la ricostruzione di colori e tessitura del Volto di Marte è il prodotto di una speculazione (o, se preferite, di una ricostruzione basata su presupposti insostanziabili); il Modello Frattale proposto dai Drr Carlotto e Stein per la ricerca dei possibili manufatti Iracheni presenti nel Deserto Saudita è molto interessante - oltre che scientificamente accettabile - ma, una volta "espiantato" dal suo contesto originale (il quale poggia, i.a., su una serie di assunzioni relative ai tipici "paesaggi - desertici - terrestri") e trasposto su Marte per individuare le possibili artificialità esistenti nella Regione di Cydonia (la cui morfologia, per definizione, "NON è terrestre"), esso diventa - a nostro parere - un Modello discutibile.
L'originale NASA del frame Odyssey V03814003 è DIVERSO da quello proposto (ed elaborato) da Enterprise Mission.
|
|
| 31 immagini su 3 pagina(e) |
1 |
|
