Any Coherent Theories out there...?

Yes, I agree, the imagaes carry alot of subjective weight.

One interesting correlation: The "Face" is aligned along magnetic North of the previous orientation of Mars' magnetic field; likely at Mars' previous equator. TVF's "Exploded Planet Hypothesis" includes Mars as the satellite of previously exploded "Planet V" (see link to "current status of the "Exploded Planet Hypothesis" from the Main page of this site).

Of interest to an Anthropologist is the fact that, due to tidal forces, moons likely will face their parent bodies perpetually. The "Face" conceivably faced parent-body "Planet V" perpetually, at the Equator in a Northward attitude; it may have served as a kind of monument that would make modern-man envious (althought mass-redistriution as a result of Planet-V explosion makes this hypothesis difficult to confirm).

As to scale, we are currently progressing towards some scales that would mirror those of Mars (Here in Japan, many things are 3/4 the scale of a Westerner's sensibilities; but there are bridges that dwarf any in the West). If there were monuments of some kind on Mars, made to be visible from a parent-body, they would have to be massive.

The city of "Canberra" in Australia, designed from scratch in it's layout to be geometrically ordered, would be on the same scales mentioned.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Atko]: The glass tubes for example, would be about 600 ft in diameter - to me this wouldn't be necessary or practical as either a transport system for "people" or water - two of the suggestions proposed.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

In places, especially where two or more tubes have junctions, the diameters can reach 600 feet or more. But in many places, 60 feet is the norm.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Re: the Face] ...or the Martians were intent on signalling their presence on the planet by absolutely cluttering it with artefacts visible from space, another popular idea.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Project the human race 1000 or 10,000 years ahead. Travel to our Moon will be routine. Tourists will want to go for the adventure. The best place to get an overview would be from an orbiting space station, because any one place visited on the surface is no more typical than any one place on Earth can represent the whole planet.

So as the tourists orbit, the various ground stations will want to attract those tourist dollars to help support their commercial, scientific, educational, mining, military, communications, or other types of lunar operation or exploration. That will inevitably lead to splashy ground attractions such as gigantic sculptures or artistic representations, large enough to be plainly visible from orbit.

Mars played a role for the Face builders' society analogous to what our Moon will play in our future.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>There don't appear to be any coherent theories as to the origins of these structures or their purpose which fit in with known facts about intelligent engineering here on Earth - our only area for comparitive study. Something just doesn't gel for me about a landscape littered with enormous pictures, pyramids (a primitive type of monument) and tenuously block-like patterns, beyond each having an appeal to the most basic of human interpretative desires for "signs from above", regardless of practicality or genuine parallels on Earth. I say this in the context of the anthropomorphizing theories that seem to be popular on sites like The Enterprise Mission.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Our site has no affiliation with the TEM site. But if you think through the situation faced by this society, given the challenges we think we know about, their way of dealing with it seems both rational and predictable.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>We need to get more relevant expertise focused on these images; people from the disciplines of anthropology, archaeology, geology, structural engineering and so forth to obtain a balanced view of the data and some considered opinion as to what we're seeing, and what, if any, grand design underlies them.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That is what the Society for Planetary SETI Research (SPSR), a group of 30 independent, multi-disciplinary scientists, is all about.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I'm no expert in any of the above fields, but I have yet to see any image from Mars which represents conclusive evidence (to me) of intelligent agency in action.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

If you are going to judge by appearances alone, that will always remain the case because appearances have an intrinsic ambiguity. For a non-ambiguous "proof" that the Face is not a natural feature, see "Evidence of planetary artifacts" at [url] it.utsi.edu/~spsr/ [/url]. Click on "Recent articles", then the specific title. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
If you are going to judge by appearances alone, that will always remain the case because appearances have an intrinsic ambiguity.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I am not sure that I agree with this. This is like saying there is no difference between black and white because we cannot pick the precise point at which gray turns from one to the other. The issue hinges on resolution. If I am standing 10 feet away from the pyramid of Cheops I think I can proclaim with pretty good confidence whether it is an artificial structure or not. I would make the same claim for the glassy tubes or the face. Unfortunately the images we have to work with are still not of sufficient resolution to go beyond the compelling stage. Mathematical analysis has it problems in that most image recognition techniques have been developed on Earth to solve earthly problems for which we have nice closeup access to compare our algorithms with. How can we know what algorithms are appropriate for recognition of things on worlds with a completely different history than ours? Crystals look artificial but we know they are natural structures, the glassy tubes may turn out to be such a phenomenon.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The issue hinges on resolution. If I am standing 10 feet away from the pyramid of Cheops I think I can proclaim with pretty good confidence whether it is an artificial structure or not.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

On what basis? The step-like structure? Such a step-like pyramid has recently been discovered underwater off the coast of Japan, and some geologists are arguing that it is a natural formation.

I suggest you only think you could tell the difference because, ay some level of symetry, angularity, and regularity, the probability of a natural origin becomes very small. However, very-low-probability events can and do happen regularly in nature. You can't prove artificiality to a skeptic that way.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Unfortunately the images we have to work with are still not of sufficient resolution to go beyond the compelling stage.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The possible artifacts on Mars have suffered erosion and perhaps partial burial under sand and debris. The appearance of artificiality will peak at some resolution, probably near what we now have, and will start to look more natural at either higher or lower resolution.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Mathematical analysis has it problems in that most image recognition techniques have been developed on Earth to solve earthly problems for which we have nice closeup access to compare our algorithms with. How can we know what algorithms are appropriate for recognition of things on worlds with a completely different history than ours?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The paper I mentioned uses an argument not subject to this fallacy. Why not read it, then comment on the actual methodology? -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> So as the tourists orbit, the various ground stations will want to attract those tourist dollars to help support their commercial, scientific, educational, mining, military, communications, or other types of lunar operation or exploration. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Projecting the future is a terribly inaccurate undertaking. Your suggestion is based on a Western/capitalist society postulate. My personal view would be that an advanced society would have little use for revenue generated from tourism, but that's just another view.<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

Tom, I'm not saying that's NOT a face, I'm simply saying I'm not yet convinced it is. Take a look at some photos of the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland - the place is stacked with hexagonal stones which might have future interstellar visitors drooling, but we know they're a phenomenon caused by cooling volcanic lava.

<img src=" www.capricorndreams.com/structure1.jpg " border=0>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If you are going to judge by appearances alone, that will always remain the case because appearances have an intrinsic ambiguity. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I think the ambiguity is extrinsic and lies in the human's tendency to perceive structure where it doesn't necessarily exist.

I'm familiar with the a priori approach and especially it's application to the Face. But it's use here is a tad tautological. It's predicting several gross features which we see already, having granted that the object bears a vague similarity to a face - two eyes, mouth, nose (although I must say that when mirrored, the two resulting images look markedly different). The tacking on of the "a priori" approach doesn't add anything other than proving that a symetrical object has similar features on both sides! (you could split out any number of other a priori predictions - e.g. the rounded edge at bottom left will be mirrored at bottom right, the more square edge at top left will be reflected at top right)

At the end of the day, you have to throw out all the statistical modelling, and make use of the most powerful image recognition and analysing device we have, i.e. the human brain. My humble 386 version still doesn't see conclusive artificiality, I'm afraid.

Atko,

The problem with the "face" is that we can't be 100% sure what it really is until we're there digging a few years. The proof delivered by Tom and others proves no more than "artificiality is a very valid hypothesis".