Re: Face on Mars

Claes Andersson (
Sat, 28 Jan 1995 05:41:07 GMT (Tulio Hernandez) wrote:
>>In article <3f8oci$>, (Ted Holden) writes:
>>|> Those who might be inclined to doubt Hoagland, in particular those like
>>|> my buddy Walter who might have figured Hoagland's "enhanced" images to
>>|> represent anything other or more than images cleaned up via digital
>>|> signal processing techniques, might wish to check out the images on:
>I have checked the "face on Mars" image and I see what appears to be about
>60% of a face. The rest of the image (about 40%) is shadow. To a lesser extent,
>this reminds me of the image Italy makes on the map.
>>|> Astronomers are denying what their eyes obviously tell them because it blows
>>|> their cosmology. You can't build something like that with space-suits on;
>>|> the planet must be habitable before you build Cydonia.
>What I see is a blurry incomplete face on the image. It is, therefore,
>impossible to extrapolate from this that a civilization on Mars build this
>"Monument" since it is not possible to establish that the blurry object is
>something other than a natural feature on the photographed region.
>It takes more that a blurry picture to blow astronomers view of cosmology.
>Just recently, it was discovered that the apparent age of the Universe is much
>younger that previously thought. It is careful, accurate, and reproducible
>measurements that can truly blow off an accepted idea; after all, how can the
>Universe be younger that the oldest star? Yet, the measurements make
>astronomers and scientist adjust the current accepted views on cosmology.

The face on mars is many cubic kilometers big. It's nothing that is simillar to
a monument.

>>|> There being no
>>|> way to picture Mars inhabitable in anything like present circumstances,
>>|> they first try to use the time magic-wand again and picture the whole
>>|> thing being 200M years ago, but that creates an even bigger problem.
>>|> The face on the monument is obviously not one of us, but a recent
>>|> relative, from the look of it, one of Jay Matterness' reconstructions of
>>|> Neanderthals with an Egyptian haircut. But putting the entire business
>>|> back even 2M, much less 200M years, would force the face to be that of
>>|> homo-erectus or some such, basically a monkey. It then gets worse.
>>|> Aside from the monkeys getting to Mars before we did (since the odds of
>>|> simians developing on Mars as a separate evolutionary strain by
>>|> coincidence are overwhelming), there is the question of why we do not
>>|> find any evidence of the technical infrostructure which such a feat
>>|> would have entailed, here on Earth.
>The chance of simians developing on Mars as a separate evolutionary strain
>is as good as proposing that an earlier *terrestrial* civilization had
>planetary traveling technology. Seriously, there is no difference between these
>two wild conclusions!
As a matter of fact, Mars could have had a thicker atmosphere once when the volcanoes
still were active. Anyway, the present atmophere is due to the planet's weak gravity, 0.39G.
The pressure at the surface is about 7 millibar (ca 1040 millibar on earth) and water can
therefor not exist in liquid form. The planet is so dry that the rock would almost explode
if exposed to water.

Claes Andersson University of Bor€s. Sweden.