New Images Of Cydonia Face

Thorgal writes: "NASA does it again! Thanks to fine people at Malin Space Science Systems we have best yet image of Cydonia Face, with pixel resolution of 1.56m per pixel and excellent angle, again leaving no doubt about what the "face" really is (hint: a mesa). There is also a perspective image generated from laser altimetry data and even a hiking trail designed for future Mars explorers. Definitely a must see!"

They miss the point

[Anonymous Coward]

They basically show the face with a different lighting/viewing angle and say "Gee, it doesn't look like a face to me!"

Nothing surprising here.

They have a 3D model of the "face", so what I'd like to see is how best they can generate the 1976 picture from 2001 data, by varying the lighting/viewing angle.

THEN, they can say: "see, you only get a face if the lighting/viewing angle is in these range, and you see an ordinary mesa otherwise". THAT would be interesting. Not just 5 or 6 new pictures with different viewing parameters, but an analysis over the WHOLE parameter space.

Weird Camera Angle

[Royster]

NASA seems so intent on debunking the face (which is already thoroughly debunked in my mind) that they've given us a weird camera angle here. To compare it to the 1976 photo, it's like looking down the "forehead" toward the chin. The areas that showed up in 1976 as an eye and a mouth are still visible on the right side of the photo. The shot seems to be designed to pick up the very unfacelike other side of the mesa which was in shadow in the '76 shot.

Just the facts...

[ebrandsberg]

I guess all those crackpots that thought aliens formed this will have to "face" the facts and find some other obscure formation to pin their hopes on. Such is life (or the lack of it in their case).

Martian Reconstruction Task Force...

[Grog6]

There's always the theory that they've(the martians) have tapped into our Sattelite TV net and saw the images, and decided to 'relandscape' so as to avoid any undue attention...

...or maybe not.

Them Pesky Aliens

[Alpha State]

It's obvious the aliens have been monitoring our media, and they have had plenty of time to alter their face to look like a normal plateau. Perhaps they simply camoflaged it when the orbiter went over. Obviously a manned mission is the only way to be sure, as their technology can fool any of our instruments.

Thats not NASAS work...

[pallex]

thats the Taliban, destroying evil infidel face worship or whatever funky stuff they`re into...

I thought it still looked like a face

[Rhinobird]

It still looks like a face to me. Not a human face to be sure, more of a lion's head with a mane or some other big cat.

Of course it looks different naked.

[xmark]

Christo had wrapped the mesa in four miles of shade-contoured mylar fabric for the 1976 photo, but had long since removed the installation so he could wrap the Reichstag in the 90s. Duh.

Cydonia Face, and tell that you love me...

[human bean]

I'll Cydonia Face and tell you I love you, too... :p

Funny how most representations of extraterrestrial aliens are bilaterally symmetrical and have foreheads.

"Ah, Earthman, you surprise I speak your language so well..."

If only...see the Enterprise Mission

[FastT]

The main crackpot behind the Face is Richard C. Hoagland [enterprisemission.com]. Rather than see the foundation of his other crackpot ideas torpedoed, he's embraced the new photos as evidence of a conspiracy in NASA, and proof that the face is actually a human-feline hybrid. It's amazing what these charlatans will do to salvage their flimsy positions.

Everyone has forgotten about...

[OpCode42]

Everyone seems to have forgotten about an example of alien art which looks much more like a face than the mars photo,and is much closer!

The feckin' Moon! A big feckin' face that looks down at us *every night* and no-one seems to care! :)

It's really pretty obvious

[localroger]

If you look at the 1976 picture next to the 1998 or 2001 pictures, you can easily tell how the 1976 image resulted.

The totally unfacelike dropoff was in deep shadow, the unfacelike sharp small features were blurred by the low resolution of the image, and the basic outline of the side that wasn't in shadow in 1976 is easily recognized in the 1998 and 2001 images. It's the same feature, and it's obvious why it looked that way in the 1976 lighting. You can even tell the lighting direction in all the images pretty well by checking the shadow directions.

But what about...

[Dstrct0]

I might sound kinda crack-pottish here, but the picture IS from a really different angle...

And IF it was a message intended for us to receive in the late 70s, I think that whoever was sending the message did a pretty good job. Built so that, based on our tech level at the time, we would receive a picture of a big face.

Also: Doesn't Mars have some pretty fierce sand-storms? I imagine 25 years of sandstorms would chew up a big surface structure pretty badly...

I'm not saying that I'm 100% sure it was supposed to be a message, but I'm saying that taking photos from hundreds of miles away and then deciding that it's nothing is no substitute to actually visiting that spot and seeing what it's all about on our first manned Mars mission.

Isn't this getting redundant?

[Wyldstar]

Okay, after reading the article off of cnn and looking at the pictures from the article and from the Planetary Society, who cares? I would hope and believe that anyone intelligent enough to put a face in the ground, would have left more evidence that they existed. Of course it's just a mesa! The only thing it's good for is for NASA to generate more interest because of the dam government cutting it's budget to shoestrings. I am a supporter of space exploration (or what we should be exploring) and we do not need to resort to these kinda of tactics. Let's move on to more interweting things...like finding the next Klingon Outpost and partying ;)