ESA gives Cydonia a new perspective

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Zip Monster</i>
<br />It appear to me, that just because the evidence doesn’t support a symmetrical humanoid Face – you have gone out on a limb and willfully suggest that the builders decided to leave the “Face” unfinished just to appease your symmetrical bias. Wow - selective editing can be fun but its not helpful for this debate.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Zip Monster,

I didn't really mean that they "decided" to leave the face unfinished. What I was getting at was that the 3D view gives one the impression that most of the mesa is similar to the surrounding mountains in certain ways, so I was whimsically suggesting that the builders pretty much found it that way, and merely added the eye, eyebrow, some mouth contrast, and beard, and then left it for us to figure out. That's not such a far-fetched idea.

As far as the feline features go, I honesly don't see any of that stuff (and I have tried), so it really doesn't matter to me how much I know about Mesoamerican two-faced masks.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />Just in case some readers are unable to locate a pair of 3D glasses, I made some stereo pairs out of the ESA image.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Outstanding work! Might I suggest you make a stereo pair at full resolution, and post it to a separate topic so people with broadband access and the interest can view the mesa in fine detail, but without grinding one of the other topics to a halt for people with slower access speeds.

I'm sorry for tapering off from our previous discussion of the Face's artificiality. But I didn't want to start alluding to things you and others hadn't seen yet, and wanted to finish my own analysis before hearing what others had to say. Now you've seen what I've seen, and obviously the gap separating our respective views has narrowed -- as should always happen with reasonable people dealing with the same data.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Tom, to your knowledge, has anyone ever analysed or discussed that [Viking image] shadow?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Mark Carlotto discussed it a decade ago, and also concluded that the nose was the geometric high point of the mesa,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the Martians could have found this mesa in pretty much the condition it's in now, and carved in the eye, eyebrow, and some mouth features (the gouge having already been there), and thought to themselves, "let them figure it out."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Different features impress different people. This 3-D view strengthens not only the Face, but the wall symmetry and platform flatness as well. Some would argue that you'd never find a mesa that regular in height and shape. So there's something here for everyone. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Zip Monster</i>
<br />when it comes to the eastern side of the Face, you resist any evidence of it being feline and cling to TVF’s Western World model of a symmetrical humanoid visage.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The artificiality vs. pereidolia debate has stressed that, for primary artificiality evidence, it doesn't matter what something looks like or does not look like, it only matters what we can prove objectively (meaning things that exist outside the mind of the perceiver). Your "feline half-face" is at the opposite extreme -- an entirely subjective impression.

Moreover, the way one deals with a hypothesis in science is to use it to make predictions, the failure of which will falsify the hypothesis. The "feline half-face" idea has been around since 1998. What falsification predictions have you or anyone else made to test this hypothesis? With what outcome?

Without those crucial steps, you are just arguing personal opinion. And there is no way to win or resolve an argument that boils down to personal opinion. -|Tom|-

Here's my research notes on the 3-D Cydonia anaglyph as published in the current issue of the Meta Research Bulletin. These make the most sense if one examines the high-res anaglyph along with the comments.


Careful study of the 3-D anaglyph of the Cydonia Face reveals many details impossible to see in any 2-D views, and tells us much about the mesa and the artificiality issue.

The mesa itself has an amazingly symmetric shape, and is surrounded by a smooth wall of uniform height and slope on all sides. (Previous renderings showed a wall height sharply lower above the Face.) At the top of this wall is a flat platform on which the Face monument rests, rectangular on three sides and rounded at the base. The 3-D shape of the Face monument is symmetric with respect to the mesa boundary. (Only the Carlotto rendering showed this previously.) The monument’s peak height occurs at the lower end of the nose ridge and is about 1 km above the ground or 0.5 km above the platform. This total height is about 2/3 of the width or about half the length of the mesa.

The west eyebrow feature sits on the forehead feature and is “bushy” in appearance. The east eyebrow feature appears broken in two, with the larger piece now slid off the forehead feature into the east eye socket feature. (We had no previous knowledge there was a block in the east eye socket feature before this 3-D view.) The west eye socket feature goes all the way down to platform level and is open on the west side. The west iris feature is not in evidence in this view, perhaps from lower resolution and lack of contrast. The nose ridge feature has a tapered shape toward the forehead and dips in height at the correct location for humanoid noses. Both nostril features seem to be present. The mouth feature also extends all the way down to platform level and is open on the west side. A chin feature is now in evidence.

The east side of the mesa is definitely not collapsed, contrary to some conjectures based on 2 D images. The east side of the platform feature has apparently separated from the mesa wall, perhaps because of the conjectured “damage” (impact?) event. Also, material comprising the east cheek area appears to have dislodged, separated into two contiguous segments, and slipped downward. The segment of maternal immediately to the east of the nose ridge feature has separated from the ridge and shifted slightly northward, partially covering the east eye socket feature. The segment south of that has shifted farther south, with the east-side mouth feature now located where the east-side chin should have been.

The dislodging and sliding of both these segments may have been caused by one or two apparent impact craters seen in southeast corner of the platform. A section of the mesa wall is also open or missing in that corner, perhaps from impact damage. But the presence of some kind of entrance or access-way in that vicinity cannot be ruled out.

If one reverses the 3-D viewing glasses, one can view the Face as a “negative” image, which looks like the hollow insides of a mask facing downward. The eyebrow features and mouth feature are then quite conspicuous. This view shows that the interruption in the center of the mouth feature is apparently caused by the presence of a block, perhaps from the top of the nose ridge, that has fallen into the mouth feature. The slide material on the east side is seen to have a very steep slope. A formation made from natural rock would tend to fracture and pile up, decreasing the slope. So this increased slope suggests a light-weight artificial material that remained intact when it cracked and separated from the nose ridge on the east side.

-|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is the view that really looks artificial. Note the beard. Some of it is hanging out in mid-air, and looks metallic. Also note the big bushy eyebrow Tom mentioned in the MRB.

Hey, the beard itself may prove artificiality. When's the last time you saw a mountain with a beard? [rd]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The following is an excerpt from our 2001 MRB paper on the Face:

"Most of the left side of the face (the face’s left, but right as we look at it), is covered with what looks like melted and re-hardened lava or metal, obscuring most of the features on that side of the face. But the left side of the forehead or headpiece, and hairline is still clear, and symmetrical, although slightly damaged, as is the left eyebrow. Part of the left eye socket and part of the left eyeball or iris is still visible although predominantly covered by the melt. The crater from the probable meteor event is on the left side of the jaw or chin, but the rest of the chin appears to have a beard!"

It may not be the exact wording because I copied this from Ch.11 of <i>Apocryphal Science</i>, which may vary slightly from the original article, but it should be more or less verbatim. So we already knew about the beard but now it’s much more obvious.

Incidentally the 3D demonstration of the face was really good. Kudos!
BTW, I made my 3D glasses from tinted cellophane but your method was better.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />So we already knew about the beard but now it’s much more obvious.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, we knew there was "supposedly" a beard. I remember that being mentioned before, and I didn't mean to say it's never been mentioned before. But, in the two dimensional representation, it was never all that convincing. What I was pointing out was that it actually "hangs" out from the mountain. It's undercut! I know I never noticed that before.

rd