Crowned Face noses

Gregg, I think 'graffiti' is the right word for it (though that may be being too kind). I just put that one up there -for what its worth- in that heavily eroded area. It doesn't have anywhere close to the dimensions or depth of the main face, and shouldn't be considered in the same context as a serious offering.

Just thinking out loud, I do wonder what traces are left behind when the more serious sculpture erodes. In that event, are we left with traces of graffiti looking art?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by marsrocks</i>
<br />Zipmonster, thanks. Very interesting. It would be neat to see some other examples of that type of mesoamerican art, because I think it really adds to the intelligent design concept that we believe is at work here.


gorme, your overlays are interesting. My first thought is that the artist is lightly echoing or shadowing the main art to give it apparent depth.

There is another profile face image to the left that I noticed, however, it is almost completely flat - lacking the depth and contour we see in the main crown face, and therefore highly suspect. I'll put it up here just for discussion purposes:



This figure does have the same hat as the other characters. It also interlocks with the left side inclusion. Note that one of the bird tails crosses his nose and the bird makes up a part of the cap, similarly to the bird to the right which makes up a part of the cap of the closer inclusion face to the left of the main face.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It's interesting you would point out that profile face, that was first seen by JP Levasseur who found Nefertiti. I tended to think this face was more distorted with a larger jaw and flatter nose than the others. Also that a profile image was a different style to the other faces, but Nefertiti was a profile face so there is a correlation there. A strong point about the Crowned face and the second face on the right is that they are quite similar, and also that they overlay quite well on the KK face and Cydonia Face:

[url] www.ultor.org/3overlays.htm [/url]

In a statistical sense the more similarities there are between anomalies the less likely they are to occur by chance. For example finding a second similar bird would make Parrotopia less likely to occur by chance. Indeed this is the very definition of anomaly, which means improbable.
[url] www.ultor.org/Mars%20Artifacts.htm [/url]


Since then also I found an angled Crowned face so a profile Crowned face fits in better with the overall design. Not everyone agrees with this one but once I saw it it became very persuasive to me. There may even be another face behind it to the right, so it may be on a bulge in the cliff face. This would be much more like Mount Rushmore where the faces are more 3 dimensional and look different from different angles. I think this angled face look very much like the others in expression which is is more unlikely to occur by chance.

[url] www.ultor.org/a_king.htm [/url]

gorme, very neat. I did a google search on crown face before I started studying it myself, but did not come across the JP Levasseur find. Interesting to know I'm not the only one to see the right profile image.

I've got three articles up on the crown face feature now that you might want to review if you get a chance. This is the link:

[url] marsrocks.googlepages.com/home [/url]

My take on your newly discovered angled face is reviewed in the third article on the site. I think it helps complete the central theme of the art, but I am sure others will disagree.

Were you already aware of the left overlayed profile shown in the first article? To me, that is an excellent example of intelligent design within the crown face.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by marsrocks</i>
<br />Gregg, I think 'graffiti' is the right word for it (though that may be being too kind).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The central point of my question is whether the art work is real - good or bad.

Knowing the size of the original face would give an understanding of the amount of work involved.

Any evidence as to whether the art is done through colors or by sculpting? The answer to this would give some idea as to whether the artwork was subject to weathering - or - was it, instead, done when there was no atmosphere, rain, water, etc?

These factors give input as to the technology involved. For instance, if Mars was not habitable at the time of doing the artwork - this gives indications as to when and why.

For instance, does allied evidence hint at an age of 100 million years or 1 million years or 10,000 years? Does the artwork location indicate it must have been done after EPH "plastered" half of Mars? Or before?

If the image can only be viewed from space and Mars was not habitable, then from where did the artist come from?

Gregg Wilson

Gregg, these are the rough measurements I get:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by marsrocks</i>
<br />Gregg, these are the rough measurements I get:





<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Is it located in the Southern hemisphere or Northern hemisphere?

Gregg Wilson