The "catbox" Face?

[A.DIM]

Recently in conversation, "The Face" was brought up.
Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't recall the "catbox" fiasco ever being discussed around here.

And so...
NASA vs. Artificial Structures on the Surface of Mars.

To me, this is a well reasoned argument for why "the face" issue persists.

I find myself frustrated upon hearing someone say matter-of-factly "it is just a hill with tricks of light and shadow coupled with pareidolia" or some other such.

Now, while I allow the ETH and consider it plausible that beings once inhabited Mars, in no way do I consider it proven.

So is it wrong to agree, as concluded in the article, that the question is yet unanswered and NASA has acted peculiarly regarding the matter for many years?


"For the time being, the conclusion must be that the basic question of whether the face in the Cydonia region of Mars is artificial or natural in origin remains unanswered. Significant evidence suggests artificiality, but due to NASA's dogmatic assertion to the contrary, the question can not be discussed in the proper scientific forums, let alone be answered. NASA's irrational, even bizarre behavior in this matter, which runs counter to the most basic scientific principle that conclusions are drawn based on examination of the evidence, not on a priori beliefs, could simply be motivated by a desire to "save face" (pun intended) after firmly and repeatedly committing itself to a premature dismissal of the formation as natural in 1976. However, significant evidence suggests a more sinister explanation involving a long-standing policy of the US government to conceal evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts from the public."

[kucharek]

How did NASA acted dogmatic and bizarre with regards to The Face?
There is no evidence for artificiallity.
NASA would be first to bang the bongos if they find something on Mars with a sufficient possibility of being artificial. If they could find such a thing, they would get more money for funding a massive Mars program than they could handle.

[R.A.F.]

From the link A.Dim posted...

However, significant evidence suggests a more sinister explanation involving a long-standing policy of the US government to conceal evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts from the public.

But of course!! It must be a government conspiracy...there is no other possible explanation...

Sorry for the "outburst", but when I read this Hoagland, Van flandern etc. crap (sorry, but there's no other word for it), I tend to get really MAD.

Kucharek is correct...there is no evidence for artificiality. Hoagland's (and others) attempts to show that the "face" is artificial are laughable.

[Swift]

Here is another rock formation that looks like a human face. Why isn't there a big investigation to prove that this wasn't created by some ancient or alien civilization?

For those not familiar, this is the Old Man of the Mountain in New Hampshire Link. It collapsed several years ago. That must have been part of the NASA/CIA/Lizardman conspiracy to cover up the aliens on Earth. :roll:

[Fram]

To answer the original question: yes, it is wrong to agree, on both accounts.

[NEOWatcher]

I was only able to get about half way through the article, but there's one glaring point.
A NASA rep stated something as matter-of-fact without supporting evidence. One mis-step, and the entire organization is discredited, even thought further evidence has been brought forward.
Then turn around and state as matter-of-fact the opposite without supporting evidence of thier case.

By the way, the 2001 picture looks to me like a life-casting of a pregnent woman. So it must be a celebration of reproduction.

[A.DIM]

How did NASA acted dogmatic and bizarre with regards to The Face?

Did you not read the article then? The author lists 5 points reflecting NASA's apparent behavior?

Spokesperson Soffen lied when the first image was released.
Termed an "unfortunate misstatement" by Sagan, it was nonetheless a LIE. Are you willing to believe that NASA spokespersons are merely inept and publicly make such "misstatements?"

And while Cydonia was an initial target for the orbiter, being as Sagan said, most interesting geologically, it was curiously ignored. Evidenced by the fact that pictures of the area were "filed away" without scientific scrutiny or further interest, only to be accidentally rediscovered.

And what about the "catbox" image from '98? Are you willing to believe that NASA employed a bunch of "interns" to process those images, and then not check their work before presenting their findings to the public? And then not even offer a retraction or a more accurately processed image?

Is Cydonia no longer most interesting geologically?

Does not the Brookings Report imply that it might be best to withhold such a discovery from the public?
Most amusing to me, within the report, is the notion that "scientists and engineers" would be most threatened.

There is no evidence for artificiallity.

So in your mind the symmetry and parallel straight lines is readily found in nature, right? Can you show me something on a similar scale that displays such characteristics?

And what about an engineering Geologists remarks that, "The so-called "Face on Mars" is unlike any natural feature I have ever seen or heard about it. To ascribe this feature of such symmetry and uniqueness to 'wind erosion' is to plead a special case for a geologic process with no supporting evidence."

NASA would be first to bang the bongos if they find something on Mars with a sufficient possibility of being artificial. If they could find such a thing, they would get more money for funding a massive Mars program than they could handle.

I don't really understand this argument since it is clear that NASA lied regarding "the face" at the outset.
Why didn't they "bang the bongos" then to get more funding?




edited: to change "before" to "apparent behavior" and fix quotes

[A.DIM]

Here is another rock formation that looks like a human face. Why isn't there a big investigation to prove that this wasn't created by some ancient or alien civilization?

For those not familiar, this is the Old Man of the Mountain in New Hampshire Link. It collapsed several years ago. That must have been part of the NASA/CIA/Lizardman conspiracy to cover up the aliens on Earth. :roll:

Typical.
And ridiculous.
Throw out a few quips to stir the laugh factor and there you have it, debunked!

That particular "face" could only be seen from a single vantage point.

Show me something on a similar scale with symmetry and parallel lines?

[R.A.F.]

And while Cydonia was an initial target for the orbiter, being as Sagan said, most interesting geologically, it was curiously ignored.

Could you provide a link confirming this?

What I find most interesting is Hoagland's behavior through all of this...

Before the 2001 images were taken, Hoagland cried, and cried that NASA was covering up the "fact" that the face was artificial. If only NASA would take higher resolution images, he would be "satisfied". But no, NASA would never do that because they were involved in a "cover-up".

So, NASA does take higher resolution images and Hoaglands response? He cries, and cries that NASA is covering-up evidence of the face's artificiality.

Hoagland will NEVER be satisified. It makes no difference if we actually sent a manned mission to Cydonia...because why would Hoagland believe NASA Astronauts???

Out of curiousity, A.DIM, have you read the BA's page concerning this?

[R.A.F.]

Typical.
And ridiculous.
Throw out a few quips to stir the laugh factor and there you have it, debunked!

Well, I can see that this is going to be a "fun" thread.

[Bozola]

Mon dieu! The scale of the coverup is unbelievable! The "face" on Mars is just a distraction from the real mystery. If you look to the lower right you will clearly see the, albeit highly eroded, head of Mickey Mouse!

Walt Disney was an alien and his "amusement parks" are naught but vicious medical laboratories wherein obscene and inhuman experiments are performed on unsuspecting humans!

[ToSeek]

And while Cydonia was an initial target for the orbiter, being as Sagan said, most interesting geologically, it was curiously ignored. Evidenced by the fact that pictures of the area were "filed away" without scientific scrutiny or further interest, only to be accidentally rediscovered.

You have no evidence that Cydonia was ignored. For all we know, the Viking orbiters took plenty of images of Cydonia - the Face was just one small target in a very large area.

And what about the "catbox" image from '98? Are you willing to believe that NASA employed a bunch of "interns" to process those images, and then not check their work before presenting their findings to the public?

You're ignoring the fact that the ETHers demanded that MGS take a photo of the Face at the earliest possible opportunity and release it as quickly as possible. Then when, in perfect response to their request, a raw image from an uncalibrated instrument was released and looked like crap, they started complaining and haven't stopped yet.

And then not even offer a retraction or a more accurately processed image?

As documented here, a much better image was made available only seven hours after the raw image was posted.

Is Cydonia no longer most interesting geologically?

MGS takes photos of the Cydonia region on a regular basis. You can find dozens of such images in the archive, including ones of just about every object of interest to ETHers taken at the best resolution available.

Does not the Brookings Report imply that it might be best to withhold such a discovery from the public?
Most amusing to me, within the report, is the notion that "scientists and engineers" would be most threatened.

Do you have any evidence that anyone other than woo-woos pay attention to the Brookings Report? I have searched for any mention of it on any NASA website without success.

NASA would be first to bang the bongos if they find something on Mars with a sufficient possibility of being artificial. If they could find such a thing, they would get more money for funding a massive Mars program than they could handle.

I don't really understand this argument since it is clear that NASA lied regarding "the face" at the outset.
Why didn't they "bang the bongos" then to get more funding?

Because if they'd gone to Congress saying, "Look, there's something on Mars that looks vaguely like a face - we need a hundred billion dollar mission to investigate it further" they would have been laughed back to Pasadena.

[ToSeek]

And while Cydonia was an initial target for the orbiter, being as Sagan said, most interesting geologically, it was curiously ignored.

Could you provide a link confirming this?

Cydonia was actually set to be the landing site for one of the orbiters, but this notion was abandoned when early photos showed the planned site to be much more rocky than expected. This may help explain why the orbiters took photos of Cydonia early but then went on to other areas.

[R.A.F.]

Cydonia was actually set to be the landing site for one of the orbiters, but this notion was abandoned when early photos showed the planned site to be much more rocky than expected.

I did not know this...thanks.

[A.DIM]

And while Cydonia was an initial target for the orbiter, being as Sagan said, most interesting geologically, it was curiously ignored.

Could you provide a link confirming this?

On Mars: Exploration of the Red Planet. '58 - '78 .

After much discussion and debate, Cydonia was chosen as the Viking II site. If I read the article correctly, the idea that it was decided as "too rocky" would've precluded it from even making the final cut.

Needless to say, I'm skeptical of such an argument for why it was changed, primarily because it was after "the face" pictured was made public.

[Archer17]

A.DIM - Tell me, have you actually thought this through? I detect some desperation here. If there's no Annuaki "footprints" on Mars, Sitchin and you by affiliation, "lose face." What's telling is that of all the information available on the net, including the web site attached to this board, you pick a site called suppressedscience.net

Some brief points:

* You imply that NASA intentionally lied to suppress artificially on Mars .. but then, without a devious agenda, your Martian innuendos don't work. I guess it never occurred to you that NASA didn't have to release any Cydonia pics, period - especially the '76 ones. After all, why imply a half-hazard "agenda?" You will also have to expand your conspiracy to include foreign space agencies, or is the ESA "in on it" too?

* Show an biased acceptance of what a geological formation should or shouldn't look like. I'm surprised you didn't bring up Iaepetus.

* Cite a think-tank report that you try to shoehorn into supporting evidence for Martian artificiality and cover-ups. That's like me peddling chicken-little nonsense and citing that a think-tank believes that a hypothetical imminent planet-killing impactor should be "withheld from the public" so therefore "it's going to happen any second now."

By all means keep trying A.DIM.

[R.A.F.]

By all means keep trying A.DIM.

I agree...like I said...this is going to be a fun thread.

[Nowhere Man]

Cydonia was actually set to be the landing site for one of the orbiters, ...

Emphasis mine. Perhaps you meant "one of the rovers?" Or Viking?

Fred

[ToSeek]

Cydonia was actually set to be the landing site for one of the orbiters, ...

Emphasis mine. Perhaps you meant "one of the rovers?" Or Viking?

Fred

My bad. I meant one of the Viking landers.

[ToSeek]

And while Cydonia was an initial target for the orbiter, being as Sagan said, most interesting geologically, it was curiously ignored.

Could you provide a link confirming this?

On Mars: Exploration of the Red Planet. '58 - '78 .

After much discussion and debate, Cydonia was chosen as the Viking II site. If I read the article correctly, the idea that it was decided as "too rocky" would've precluded it from even making the final cut.

Needless to say, I'm skeptical of such an argument for why it was changed, primarily because it was after "the face" pictured was made public.

The final decision that it was "too rocky" was made based on Viking orbiter imagery, which was of much better quality than Mariner 9 images or Earth-based radar, which were the best sources of information until Viking arrived. Note that, according to the very same source you reference, there were the same problems with the Viking I landing site.

[A.DIM]

And while Cydonia was an initial target for the orbiter, being as Sagan said, most interesting geologically, it was curiously ignored. Evidenced by the fact that pictures of the area were "filed away" without scientific scrutiny or further interest, only to be accidentally rediscovered.

You have no evidence that Cydonia was ignored. For all we know, the Viking orbiters took plenty of images of Cydonia - the Face was just one small target in a very large area.

OK, so, "for all we know" there are plenty of images that were taken by Viking. Were they, too, "filed away?" Why wouldn't there at least be some follow-up photogeological studies since it was deemed so interesting at first?

And what about the "catbox" image from '98? Are you willing to believe that NASA employed a bunch of "interns" to process those images, and then not check their work before presenting their findings to the public?

You're ignoring the fact that the ETHers demanded that MGS take a photo of the Face at the earliest possible opportunity and release it as quickly as possible. Then when, in perfect response to their request, a raw image from an uncalibrated instrument was released and looked like crap, they started complaining and haven't stopped yet.

"In perfect response," ToSeek? I disagree.

Consider The Politics of Science and JPL's "Catbox" Enhancement of the Face on Mars by Lan Fleming, an engineer with Johnson Space Systems.

And his NASA Report.

And then not even offer a retraction or a more accurately processed image?

As documented here, a much better image was made available only seven hours after the raw image was posted.

Thanks, I didn't know.

Is Cydonia no longer most interesting geologically?

MGS takes photos of the Cydonia region on a regular basis. You can find dozens of such images in the archive, including ones of just about every object of interest to ETHers taken at the best resolution available.

Indeed and there still remain countless very interesting structures that should warrant up-close scientific investigation, whether they are naturally occurring or artificial.

Does not the Brookings Report imply that it might be best to withhold such a discovery from the public?
Most amusing to me, within the report, is the notion that "scientists and engineers" would be most threatened.

Do you have any evidence that anyone other than woo-woos pay attention to the Brookings Report? I have searched for any mention of it on any NASA website without success.

I found it listed on a NASA bibliography page under its actual title, but I have no evidence that anyone other than woos pay attention to it.

But what else should I expect to find regarding the "Brookings Report" in ,say, "scientific" circles?

NASA would be first to bang the bongos if they find something on Mars with a sufficient possibility of being artificial. If they could find such a thing, they would get more money for funding a massive Mars program than they could handle.

I don't really understand this argument since it is clear that NASA lied regarding "the face" at the outset.
Why didn't they "bang the bongos" then to get more funding?

Because if they'd gone to Congress saying, "Look, there's something on Mars that looks vaguely like a face - we need a hundred billion dollar mission to investigate it further" they would have been laughed back to Pasadena.

OK, but they apparently established good reasons for wanting to go there to begin with. Instead, the public got the "trick of light and shadow" explanation and Cydonia was ignored until a public outcry almost 20yrs later. And then what did they get? A premature "unmasked" face and the "incompetence" explanation.

Harrumph!

[A.DIM]

A.DIM - Tell me, have you actually thought this through? I detect some desperation here. If there's no Annuaki "footprints" on Mars, Sitchin and you by affiliation, "lose face." What's telling is that of all the information available on the net, including the web site attached to this board, you pick a site called suppressedscience.net

Some brief points:

* You imply that NASA intentionally lied to suppress artificially on Mars .. but then, without a devious agenda, your Martian innuendos don't work. I guess it never occurred to you that NASA didn't have to release any Cydonia pics, period - especially the '76 ones. After all, why imply a half-hazard "agenda?" You will also have to expand your conspiracy to include foreign space agencies, or is the ESA "in on it" too?

* Show an biased acceptance of what a geological formation should or shouldn't look like. I'm surprised you didn't bring up Iaepetus.

* Cite a think-tank report that you try to shoehorn into supporting evidence for Martian artificiality and cover-ups. That's like me peddling chicken-little nonsense and citing that a think-tank believes that a hypothetical imminent planet-killing impactor should be "withheld from the public" so therefore "it's going to happen any second now."

By all means keep trying A.DIM.

Heh, you know I will.


As if posts like this are objective enough to convince me otherwise. :roll:

[ToSeek]

"In perfect response," ToSeek? I disagree.

Consider The Politics of Science and JPL's "Catbox" Enhancement of the Face on Mars by Lan Fleming, an engineer with Johnson Space Systems.

And his NASA Report.

Like you, Fleming ignores any NASA-enhanced images other than the original one. All the NASA image he refers to does is remove the vertical stripes and enhance the contrast. The broad, bright stripe at the center he claims is an artifact of processing is in fact clearly visible in the raw image and is only enhanced by histogram stretching.

His link is also not to where the image first appeared - as indicated on the page itself, the PPJ version didn't go up until the day after the image was released. The link I supplied was where it appeared originally. I know this because I was waiting for it on the day, and that's where I found it.

Another source of better-processed versions of the image is here.


OK, but they apparently established good reasons for wanting to go there to begin with. Instead, the public got the "trick of light and shadow" explanation and Cydonia was ignored until a public outcry almost 20yrs later.

Unfortunately, thanks in large part to shuttle development, there was no money for another Mars mission until Mars Observer in the early 90's. I think also the negative results of the Viking life science experiments greatly diminished any interest in further exploration.

And then what did they get? A premature "unmasked" face and the "incompetence" explanation.

It's only the ETHers who complain "incompetence," to which I reiterate: They wanted quick-and-dirty, they got quick-and-dirty, they have no right to complain.

[R.A.F.]

Uhhh, A.DIM, Lan Fleming (in the link you posted) references Mark Carlotto "as if" he were some kind of photographic expert. And to be "kind", Mark Carlotto is hardly what I would consider an objective observer. Or to put it bluntly, he's out to sell books.

What's always amazed me about this "face stuff" is the fact that if NASA hadn't taken the 76 Viking images There would be no face controversy. But what has happened is this...

Analogy time!...

It's exactly as if I went to the DMV, and tried to read the eye chart without my glasses. I look at the chart and "see" a "T". I then put on my glasses and realize that it is actually an "F". Do I then INSIST that it in reality is a "T"? I'd never get my license that way.

That (IMO) is exactly what Hoagland and the rest are saying. That even though it's PAINFULLY obvious from the HIRES images that there simply is no "face", they would rather "leave their glasses OFF".

That's NOT how you "do" science.

[Swift]

<snip>It's exactly as if I went to the DMV, and tried to read the eye chart without my glasses. I look at the chart and "see" a "T". I then put on my glasses and realize that it is actually an "F". Do I then INSIST that it in reality is a "T"? I'd never get my license that way.

=D>
I'll have to try that at the DMV next time - "It's a conspiracy to make me wear my glasses when I drive!"

[R.A.F.]

A.DIM, I suggest that you read this before continuing...

Not as an appeal to authority, it's just that the BA explains it so much better than I can.

[Archer17]

A.DIM - Tell me, have you actually thought this through? I detect some desperation here. If there's no Annuaki "footprints" on Mars, Sitchin and you by affiliation, "lose face." What's telling is that of all the information available on the net, including the web site attached to this board, you pick a site called suppressedscience.net

Some brief points:

* You imply that NASA intentionally lied to suppress artificially on Mars .. but then, without a devious agenda, your Martian innuendos don't work. I guess it never occurred to you that NASA didn't have to release any Cydonia pics, period - especially the '76 ones. After all, why imply a half-hazard "agenda?" You will also have to expand your conspiracy to include foreign space agencies, or is the ESA "in on it" too?

* Show an biased acceptance of what a geological formation should or shouldn't look like. I'm surprised you didn't bring up Iaepetus.

* Cite a think-tank report that you try to shoehorn into supporting evidence for Martian artificiality and cover-ups. That's like me peddling chicken-little nonsense and citing that a think-tank believes that a hypothetical imminent planet-killing impactor should be "withheld from the public" so therefore "it's going to happen any second now."

By all means keep trying A.DIM.

Heh, you know I will.


As if posts like this are objective enough to convince me otherwise. :roll:

Not much of a rebuttal A.DIM, but then not much of a "case" from you either. Seems that the irony of implying that NASA "lies" yet waving the '76 Viking pics around as "the truth" escapes you. You should've read the prior discussions on The Face so as not to repeat the same mistakes in logic/critical thinking or using the recycled m/o of looking for Hoaglandesque snippets that provide words alleging hanky-panky instead of irrefutable evidence of artificial structures. Oh, that's right .. you can't provide irrefutable evidence because "NASA lies."

Since you are the one here trying to prop up a dead myth and are the one making these extraordinary claims, it's not sufficient to simply dismiss the mainstream version. You do that all the time. Nor is it sufficient to simply imply that NASA "lies" since it seems NASA only "suppresses" the things that don't help your cause. No, what you have to do is come up with something original. Something that would convince me, other members, the BA, heck - the whole astronomical community. No one has managed to do that yet ..simply recycling their arguments is just a recipe for similar rejection and a waste of your time.

Keep trying.

[A.DIM]

"In perfect response," ToSeek? I disagree.

Consider The Politics of Science and JPL's "Catbox" Enhancement of the Face on Mars by Lan Fleming, an engineer with Johnson Space Systems.

And his NASA Report.

Like you, Fleming ignores any NASA-enhanced images other than the original one. All the NASA image he refers to does is remove the vertical stripes and enhance the contrast. The broad, bright stripe at the center he claims is an artifact of processing is in fact clearly visible in the raw image and is only enhanced by histogram stretching.

His link is also not to where the image first appeared - as indicated on the page itself, the PPJ version didn't go up until the day after the image was released. The link I supplied was where it appeared originally. I know this because I was waiting for it on the day, and that's where I found it.

Interesting, but I can't find the raw image that shows the broad bright stripe? And what would you suppose are Fleming's motives for ignoring the enhanced images?

Another source of better-processed versions of the image is here.

Thanks, I nearly posted this link to point out the weather conditions that were actually not so good when the MGS pics were taken.

OK, but they apparently established good reasons for wanting to go there to begin with. Instead, the public got the "trick of light and shadow" explanation and Cydonia was ignored until a public outcry almost 20yrs later.

Unfortunately, thanks in large part to shuttle development, there was no money for another Mars mission until Mars Observer in the early 90's. I think also the negative results of the Viking life science experiments greatly diminished any interest in further exploration.

I'll agree, but I must point out that 1 of the 3 experiments on board actually did suggest life while the "negative" proclamation was made public. But you're right, something obviously diminished any interest in further exploration.

And then what did they get? A premature "unmasked" face and the "incompetence" explanation.

It's only the ETHers who complain "incompetence," to which I reiterate: They wanted quick-and-dirty, they got quick-and-dirty, they have no right to complain.

That's really no excuse for poorly executed science, though, is it?

It seems more reasonable to suppose that after all these years of ignoring "the face," when NASA went to "unmask" it, they would have been far more certain of the information they were releasing.

Besides, NASA effectively negated any public interest in "the face" with the "catbox" image release.

[Archer17]

The Face not being a face is what negated public interest in it A.DIM. It's that simple. No subterfuge required.

[V-GER]

Oh look! it's a worm and a dome and near Cydonia no less, clearly this can't be a coincidence!?!