Just to interject a few comments into this recent thread. I’m not ready to give up on the idea of acquiring more data and detail from higher resolution imaging. A few examples come to mind: The “eye” on the Cydonia Face seems to be made of different material (or different detailing on the same material) than the “textured skin” surrounding it. The Mesa itself, or at least the uppermost part of it where the facial features are located, may be made of some metal alloy or structural material, as opposed to a simple “sculpture carving” from the pre-existing stone of the mesa or butte. We need more information, more details in order to know. In another example, the Profile Image, and “Family” montage seems clearly to have detailed features which are not all that large, such as the apparent zigzag eyebrow on the “girl,” and the eye and facial outlining on both the “girl” and the “mother.” More imaging detail, and on the ground data is bound to increase our knowledge, one way or another. The same can be said for the well known “T“ feature. If it was indeed a mining operation or a symbol to be seen from space, more detail would add to our knowledge of it.
Another factor that should be considered is that not all of the hypothesized artifacts or “artworks” will pan out as such when all the evidence is in. Some may indeed prove to be natural formations which our imaginations carried us away into thinking were something else. One possibility: The “skullface” feature was a promising possible mosaic when viewed in the original lower resolution image AB108403 in which it was first discovered, but disappointing when the higher resolution image R1901775 failed to reveal the detail hoped for. In fact, in higher resolution image we seemed to have lost detail we shouldn’t have lost. For example the “mouth,” “eyes,” and “nose” just disappeared upon high resolution.
I think it is a mistake to extrapolate from this case that this is what we should always expect; to lose the big picture in the details, and “apologize in advance” so to speak, by explaining that this will always be so, at least at certain distances or degrees or resolution.
We still have no idea of what method of construction was used, or even if there was just one standard method. There could have been several methods, and some on the ground construction, perhaps extensive mining, material and personnel transport, (remember the “glassy tubes”), enclosed habitations, and so on. We also have no more than a working hypothesis as to where the images were intended to be viewed from; whether from “floating platforms” a few thousand feet high, an orbiting space station, or from the home planet through high powered telescopes, just to name a few possibilities.
There is still a lot to be learned.
Neil
