Subj:The image with the LEAST noise still MUST HAVE BEEN alter Date: 98-04-07 06:29:50 EDT Everyone, The following is a new image of the "face on mars" taken by the Mars Global Surveyor. It is not the first image they released but one that was later released that has less "noise" and more levels of "grey" than the first one they released with only 75 levels of "grey".... http://www.artbell.com/images/cyd1-enh.jpg Even though this image has less "noise" and has more levels of "grey" it has also been altered in OTHER WAYS... You see NASA has done TWO forms of tampering too these images. The FIRST thing they have done is to add a LOT of "noise" to these image and reduce the range of "grey levels". This has made the first images they released so crude that no one could hardly make out ANYTHING. Now they have released this new image with MORE "grey levels" and less "noise". But they have also altered these image(s)in another way.... They have actually ALTERED or ERASED certain features even in this image that has MORE grey levels and less "noise". There are no clear eyes present, no "pupils", no "teeth", the mouth looks like some kind of trench, and one side of the face looks like it has been erased almost completely. This shows to me that they have not only added "noise" or more "grey levels" but have actually erased, airbrushed, or physically ALTERED the images to remove any FACE like features.... You see origionally I believed that NASA would give us a fake image. When I recieved the FIRST images I was shocked that they would send us such an OBVIOUS fake... Now we have NEWER images that have less noise and have more shades of "grey" that are not as "OBVIOUS". But NOW with this NEW image that looks somewhat "better" they have actually REMOVED the face like features like the eyes, pupils, teeth, made the mouth look like a trench, and have erased part of the face...... So we need to remember that they have tampered these images in TWO ways. By both adding "noise" AND by actually removing the "face like features" from the BETTER image of the face. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Subj: Altering of data and Adding of noise Date: 98-04-07 04:58:10 EDT There are two different issues we need to discuss. The adding of "noise" to the image(s) of the "face on mars". The altering of the images(s) of the "face on mars". These are TWO seperate issues that need to be addressed. We know that NASA has tampered with these images of CYDONIA. But what exactly have they done to these images? Well we know for a FACT that they added "noise" to the image(s) of the face. This is very obvious and RCH has proven this. But is the ONLY thing NASA has done to the image? In my opinion even in the BETTER image that NASA released of the face they have ALTERED the image. This means that even in the BEST image they released, that RCH is talking about on Art Bell, they erased the pupils, teeth, and other details of the image. Also, it looks like they might have erased part of the right side of the face.... This is my opinion. I do not think they have just "added noise" but have also ALTERED the image so that it does not show pupils, eyes, a mouth that continues to the other side of the face, teeth, etc.... What do you think? I think Richard C. Hoagland and all of us need to focus on not only the fact that they have added noise but that it looks like they have actually ALTERED the image as well. Because even in the BEST image there are very few DETAILS of ANY FORM. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Subj:UFO UpDate: The New Mars Facial Structure (fwd) Date: 98-04-07 07:35:14 EDT Well, what's the verdict on the Face? Tonight's newscast I viewed (Peter Jennings) played it down, and talked briefly only about how it now doesn't look like a face, so that it must have been a couple tricks of light and shadow before. What they failed to discuss was the outline of the stucture, and how impressive that looks as an artificial structure -- a beveled strip whose outer edge is perfectly straight along the "side of the head," very gradually curving into the "chin" outline, with both edges of the upward-inclined "bevel" being parallel or congruent. The odds against that occurring naturally are phenomenal. Then, add the symmetry of the right-hand edge, at least with respect to the outer edge of its beveled strip, and it seemingly can't possibly be a natural formation. The viewing wasn't helped by the brighter swath that passed vertically through the entire strip that was viewed. And some of the brighter blotches on the "face" might possibly have been Martian clouds. I don't know what to make of the whole central area looking quite different than on either of the previous two Face photos. Here is where the conspiracy theorists need to go to work; or is it still a face, but highly eroded? ------------------------------------------------------------------- Subj:UFO UpDate: The Cydonia thing (fwd) Date: 98-04-07 07:36:51 EDT Oddly, Robert Gates wrote almost exactly a message which I had composed a week ago, concerning the "explanations" which would rise from the Cydonia images showing a natural formation. (This clearly demonstrates that the two of us are under the baleful influence of the astrological configuration of the Face as it is geometrically linked with the position and configuration of the massive underground complexes currently being constructed by a species of diminutive, nearly sightless beings which have haunted my locale ever since their first appearance last year, directly under the yard outside my house (big deep breath) :-). Unfortunately, I decided not to mail it. But, thanks to the miracle of modern technology... Here are the explanations I predict (I have a few more than I originally predicted): 1) This is not a picture of the Face. NASA has substituted a more appropriate image to convince us the Face is a landform. 2) This is a picture of the Face, but it has been altered. By NASA, by MJ-12, by the Cigarette-Smoking Man. 3) This is a picture of the Face, but the aliens have changed the Face's appearance to hide its true nature, because we are not yet ready. 4) This is a picture of the Face, but the Face was specially designed to only look like a face at a certain time of the year, in accordance with an alien human-worship festival. One could go on, but this covers most of the possibilities. I now include another section, from another e-mail, which I sent to someone concerning images claiming to show massive artificial structures near the Martian south pole (which were actually JPEG enhancement artifacts)... "Unfortunately, the geologic interpretation of orbital photographs on Mars is not something which can successfully performed without significant training. Even the basic identification of features and their origin is complicated by the conditions on Mars - conditions only rarely approached on Earth (usually in sub arctic terrain) - extensive low-viscosity lava flows, extensive subsurface permafrost and melting of that permafrost by subsurface magma, long-term aeolian erosion and only localized water erosion. "Worse, many features on Mars, when viewed by the amateur, are sufficiently foreign that one with any disposition to see intelligence at work will construe those features as buildings and "complexes". For instance, features in 47B29 (showing units of Olympus Mons formation burying rugged aureole material) have some resemblance to the famous "Face" - yet they are simply and clearly mountains and hills. Or 886A13, where a crater largely buried in a lava flow could be interpreted by the unwary as some sort of megalithic stone ring. Or the chaotic terrain features resulting from permafrost melting and catastrophic water outflow in 366S68 which such persons might claim (as they do with the "Pyramids" in Cydonia) as a city of huge structures. (Note: all of these images can be found in "Mars", Keiffer et. al., U of AZ Press). "I appreciate the motivation which leads people to seek evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence on photos of our neighboring bodies. But to do so without a basic familiarity with the normal geology of the body as represented by the best and clearest images and data, and without a complete understanding the nature and limits of image processing, simply invites credible scientists to lump the best data on UFOs with the worst of these sorts of speculations." Like, Bob Shell, I would be glad to find evidence of extraterrestrial artifacts on neighboring bodies. Unfortunately, the evidence for such artifacts in Cydonia is basically non-existent. The landforms seen there are not terribly unusual when compared to Viking photos of other landforms not claimed to be of artificial origin. Mundane and reasonable geologic explanations have been able to account for those other features quite well. The Face itself seems quite clearly to be explainable as an "inselberg", similar to Ayers Rock and others. These formations are typical of arid locations, such as one would find on Mars. Having spent some time tonight with the Cydonia photos from MGS, it seems clear that they show a natural landform. The geometry surronding the feature is very similar to that found in terrestrial synclines. No doubt, some professional processing will reveal more detail as to the specifics of the feature, but there isn't a single unexplainable thing in the lot. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Subj: The controversy will continue. Date: 98-04-07 08:14:50 EDT Dear Dave, Re: http://exosci.com/probes/mgs/ Thank you for providing the new GS image of the Cydonia "Face". I saw it first on your website. On the one hand, I am disappointed that the image looks less like a sculptured artifact and more like a natural eroded mound, but on the other hand, all the features that are apparent in the Viking images appear to be counted for in the new image. The angle and possible distortion due to angle elongate the face-like features, and the face-like proportions evident in Carlotto's images seem to be gone. And yet the left eye does indeed appear to contain an eyeball-like form, and the pupil-like feature is even more apparent. The nose, if there ever was a nose, is either missing or has been destroyed. Erosion, probably by water, seems to have created gullies along the near side, and produced what now appears like a cleft upper lip on the mouth-like feature. In that cleft one can see a shape that resembles a tooth, accounting for the claim that the mouth may contain teeth. But on closer examination, no additional teeth can be resolved in this image. The chin-like feature is not proportionately human either, extending much too far below the mouth-like feature. And the hope that a symmetrical right side to the face would be revealed by sharper images has been dashed to oblivion. There is no corresponding right side to the face. The border around the "Face" now appears to be a naturally eroded bedform, possibly created from layering within the mountain. There is no obvious separation into headdress and chin as is implied in the original Viking images. Overall the new image favors a naturally eroded landform and not a sculpture, although geologists and scientists who rush to claim victory by saying "I told you so" may be premature. This feature has undergone enough erosion and damage, which has removed critical features and spoiled others, that I expect further analysis to possibly resurrect the sculpture theory. If what I was led to discover in the Wallkill River valley of New York State is for real, and it does represent a possible duplicate of the Cydonia anomalies on Mars, several more detailed correlations are now possible. In my Cydonia II Report I speculated that the Martian features were copies of the Terrain features, because the anomalies or their remnant expressions on Earth fit too well into the geomorphic features of the Wallkill valley. The Face II feature on Earth is the mirror image of the Face on Mars, according to my analysis, and the non-symmetrical side is due to erosion caused by the Wallkill River. If the Face on Mars was created as a template for what the original features on Earth looked like, then whoever sculptured them on Mars would have kept certain features intact, even damaged features, so that a match could be made. I am still impressed by the degree of correspondence between the Martian and Terrain objects, even with the new evidence. That new picture seems to match the Terrain features better than the original out-of-focus images. http://www.orionworks.com/bcornet/Vol_2/RPT_FaceII.html I predict that the new GS images will not be decisive in answering the question of whether the Face on Mars is artificial, because of possible damage by erosion. And we know that water erosion has occurred over extensive regions on Mars. I also predict that the controversy will continue, and the opposing sides will move further apart, each citing new evidence to support their case. What I now see happening is that NASA scientists will move more strongly towards a natural explanation, while those who have advanced the artificial theory, such as Carlotto, Hoagland, and Van Flandern, will retreat and regroup. They will claim that there are still too many anomalies that continue to hold up the artificial theory to abandon all the work they have done. I would not be surprised if the absence of a nose and the outline of its possible base will be compared by proponents to the Egyptian Sphinx, which has lost its nose also. One last comment with questions: I wonder what NASA would have done had this first GS image proven beyond all shadow of doubt that the Face is artificial? And I wonder what conspiracy theorists such as Hoagland will now say when faced with this disappointment? We know that NASA technicians have altered and air brushed images in order to remove controversial data, and Hoagland has already accused NASA of digitally doctoring Pathfinder images in order to remove artificial-looking objects. Yours truly, Bruce Cornet, Ph.D. Geologist and Paleontologist bcornet@monmouth.com http://www.OrionWorks.com/bcornet/ http://www.planetarymysteries.com/genisis-geneset.html 27 Tower Hill Ave. Red Bank, NJ 07701 (732) 747-9244 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Subj: Re: The controversy will continue. Date: 98-04-07 13:34:33 EDT Bruce, The new item that this latest photo shows that supports the form's artificiality is the continuation of the left-hand double-edge outline from the "forehead" all the way to the bottom of the "chin". In the previous two photos of 1976 this was lost in the shadows of the "chin." Since the outer edge of this double congruent curve is seen to extend on around the right-hand side of the "Face" (as viewed by us), this continues to bolster the artificiality theory. The reason is that erosion cannot produce rectilinear and smoothly curving features like this (to anywhere near this degree of precision) over distances as great as a mile or two. The "escarpment" between the two congruent left-hand edges indeed appears to be eroded, and as expected, this erosion produces irregular rivulet-like corrugations. It's the largest-scale features that best survives the erosion and therefore needs to be discussed. Of course, the TV newscasts and today's newspapers didn't make any mention of this. I'm surprised that you also would omit it. You can't find any natural features anywhere on Earth like it -- double parallel/congruent lines, proceeding with smoothly increasing curvature, then reversing this in right-left symmetry. It's as smooth as a French curve (in particular, my old Ridgway's 52-4118 French curve). The odds against anything like this being carved naturally out of geologic processes are astronomical. Keep in mind the perfect congruency of both edges of the "escarpment" plus the outer edge's continuation around in symmetry. The "litter-free" area surrounding the "face" is also part of its uniqueness. There's a strange, lengthy "crack" that helps obscure the inner edge of the escarpment's right-hand side. So it's hard to say if it continues on there or not. Apparently the angle of view is more oblique, left to right facewise, than were the 1976 photos, causing it to appear elongated relative to them. If so, the original concept of a carved out Face still seems to be the leading candidate of what it represents, upon realizing that it is more highly eroded than previously believed. One wonders if the Face-like appearance isn't most pronounced when illuminated from the side, as in 1976, than when illuminated from below, as in the present take of it. Recall how different your face looks when you illuminate it at night with a flashlight held below your chin. Are some of the blotchy, light or white areas on the "face" Martian clouds? They do occur from time to time, and may have obscured some of the details of the "face." If not, one would be hard pressed to blur the present, higher resolution picture so as to produce the resolution of the 1976 pictures and retrieve their essence. However, this should be very feasible to do IF the video-camera angle and sun angle relative to the "face" had been the same. So I would urge you to pay attention to the items that indicate the Martian "face" is a construct, Bruce, and not ignore them the way the newscasters have done. Jim Deardorff