rigorousintuition.ca

Taken by the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment camera (HiRISE) on board the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter back in 2007, this picture above of the face was released by NASA on July 27.

I really don't know what I'm looking at, but something tells me it may the way, the truth and the light or whatever the fuck it was.

I don't know if this helps, but here's an overlay of the close up image on the whole face for reference.

barracuda wrote:Taken by the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment camera (HiRISE) on board the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter back in 2007, this picture above of the face was released by NASA on July 27.

Aha!---BUT....



***fixed***

That's a strange face, looks bloody. Maybe Max's knife dug too deep.

A fan of Richard Hoagland, are you, barracuda?

This is your contribution to the board now?

Did you receive a sharp blow to the head lately Hugh? If you knew anything about this board's history of discussions regarding Hoagland's theories, you'd know that I pretty much argue exclusively to the contrary. Matter of fact, I've taken my share of grief for that point of view, come to think about it. So I don't really need to hear it from a know-nothing like you too.

You wouldn't know that, though, would you, because (let me quote)...

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:this pathetic UFO-sucking board functioning as a honeypot for counterpropagandists

...presumably functions at levels far beneath your awesome powers of analysis, miles beyond us all. But you really don't read the board much, do you? You're like one of those guys who doesn't listen at all to other people during a conversation, but just waits impatiently for his opportunity to blab his personal blabbery to the boredom and dismay of the nearby listeners.

Take your disruption somewhere else, bro. This thread is about the latest images released by Nasa of the so-called Face on Mars.

By the way, Elvis - that's hilarious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland

The "face on Mars" psyop is an old one promoted since the mid-70s by psyoperator Richard Hoagland.
Lots of W.O.O. was flung against the wall as CIA cover-ups got exposed.

>Like all those employees of Reilly's Coffee in New Orleans who worked with Oswald going to work at NASA after JFK's head was blown off.

>Like a certain Dr. Hoagland of the OSS who saved Ho Chi Minh's life back in 1945. whoops.

>Like the USG letting Israel sneak processed nuclear materials out of a facility in Apollo, Pennsylvania.

I actually talked to and got confirmation of CIA influence on the author of the movie, 'Capricorn One.'

That's relevant to the thread and not derailing.
And I stand by my claim that this board is leaning more and more towards b.s. and less and less the history and science of social control.

LOL, Elvis.

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland

The "face on Mars" psyop is an old one promoted since the mid-70s by psyoperator Richard Hoagland.
That's relevant to the thread and not derailing.

And I stand by my claim that this board is leaning more and more towards b.s.

Yeah, well, don't aim your lack of information at me. And you're still disrupting the thread as far as I'm concerned. Do it again, please.

Tell us all about Richard Hoagland's 'face on Mars' spiel, barracuda.

Feel free to research his work yourself, in your spare time, Hugh. You might start over at his Enterprise Mission site. Personally, it's not my cup of tea.

The "face on Mars" psyop is an old one promoted since the mid-70s by psyoperator Richard Hoagland.
That's relevant to the thread and not derailing.

And I stand by my claim that this board is leaning more and more towards b.s.

What? What board is it that you visit that I'm not visiting that you think is this one? The way, the truth and the light was summarily dispatched here if you remember. Nobody I know of here was down. It wound up being a funny thread I thought.

Hugh, if you think this board is so shit, why bother posting here? Why not set up your own board and / or wiki? It isnt hard at all - seriously, with a web host that has Fantastico, it can take about 5 minutes. I'm not saying this as an 'either RI or your one', but it does come off as pretty rude to diss someone elses board the way you do.
I am interested in what you say from the communication science point of view, share an interest in Catherine Fitts Solari work etc AND am also interested in the Greater Community outside this small blue dot. Many people here have tried to have discussions about this but I have NEVER seen you contribute to that subject in anything other than a sneering dismissive fashion.

Elvis, your map = Epic Win (especially fitting in El Segundo )

Back to the actual image.

This is the equivalent of taking a portrait of someone's jaw area with your camera from several inches away, Only you're taking a picture of someone who lost half their jaw due to cancer, and maybe with a flashlight held sideways by what remains of their mouth.

It's a picture of a part of the feature with known disturbance of the surface, where whatever the earlier topography was, it no longer is. Same as one of the "Old Man of the Mountain" features we have here on Earth, when it loses some chunks of rock that helped it look like a human face. Only those features are almost inevitably merely profile views, that have no semblence of a face whatsoever from the front. The Face has a high degree of bilateral symmetry that intrigues me, and appropriate face-like qualities from both the front (overhead) and what we can extrapolate as being the western profile view. I remain agnostic on whether it is intelligently constructed or a natural feature.

There's nothing we know about the Face on Mars yet that indicates any features that would rule out it being a huge, ancient eroded sculpture, that is intended to be seen best (as any sculpture would) at a certain resolution, and with a certain lighting angle. There was that alleged horn on the forehead a few years ago, which turned out to be an image processing artifact. Something that stuck out too high over the part of the face it was supposed to be part of -- say a nose-height bump on the eastern cheek -- would of course render the face description invalid. But the eastern side of the Face is highly eroded, and we cannot say for sure what was there before the surface slumped and disintegrated.

Elvis, loved your take, though you probably should have included an analysis of the dynamic tension between Macy's and Bloomingdales.