face on mars

Good one.


--
"In this universe the night was falling,the shadows were lengthening
towards an east that would not know another dawn.
But elsewhere the stars were still young and the light of morning
lingered: and along the path he once had followed, man would one day go
again."

Arthur C. Clarke, The City & The Stars

SIAR
www.starlords.org
Freelance Writers Shop
http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Ad World
http://adworld.netfirms.com

"David Knisely" wrote in message
...
A MARTIAN FACE-OFF

On planet Mars, on ancient plains
there sits a feature, somewhat strange.
A geologic oddity,
to interest those from Planet Three.

From orbit high, the Viking probe
took stock of all which lay below.
To find a site for a fragile lander,
it took some shots which raised some dander.

One image of the northern lands
in Cydonia Mensae's desolation,
showed a knobby hill of oval form
which has aquired a reputation.

Just two-point-six kilometers
in length, and two in width,
its resemblance to a human face
is crude, but hard to miss.

Uneven eyes, a lumpy brow,
an angled mouth, as if to scowl,
make this low hill no monument,
except to those who "wish" for it.

The scientists who first spied this feature,
saw not the hand of intelligent creatures.
On a cold cratered world of dust and stone
this "face" appeared fashioned by nature alone.

But those who wished for alien nations,
refused to consider this explanation.
With no hard facts to support their inklings,
they abandoned much of their critical thinking.

They accepted on faith that the "face" was intended
to show that red Mars was once quite inhabited.
But "their" city of stone with its pyramids and vistas,
still looks like a bunch of low mountains and mesas.

These "believers" took data from each Viking image,
and numerically crunched it to get a new visage,
with conjured detail and more constitution,
well beyond Viking's camera's true resolution!

They measured up angles, lengths and some distance,
to build up support for "their" Martians' existance.
Neglecting to notice, in a great show of comedy,
that what they had done was just mere numerology.

Some cooked up conspiracy plots in abundance
to explain Mars Observer's quick disappearance.
They once again failed in their efforts, so labored,
to notice that spaceflight is still prone to failure.

And then came Mars Global Surveyor's first picture
of Cydonia's illustrious "mystery" feature,
with resolution ten times that of old Viking's portraits,
to reveal all the details, and to end all the nonsense.

The image showed what science long ago had concluded;
this "face" is just natural; an old mesa eroded,
with worn rocky ridges, some cracks, and, at last,
no hint of the Martians, either present or past.

And still, Mars sits silently, waiting for history
to push mankind's science to solve its great mysteries.
Yet the "face" does indeed have a message to some:
"Please leave all of the crackpots behind when you come.".


David Knisely
D.W.K. 4/7/98





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/04

David Awesome. Bert

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:34:37 -0600, David Knisely
wrote:

A MARTIAN FACE-OFF

On planet Mars, on ancient plains...


Very witty, David is a poet and dosn't even know it.

Very witty, David is a poet and dosn't
even know it.

But his feet show it. They're Longfellows. oc

In article , David Knisely
writes:

And then came Mars Global Surveyor's first picture
of Cydonia's illustrious "mystery" feature,
with resolution ten times that of old Viking's portraits,
to reveal all the details, and to end all the nonsense.

The image showed what science long ago had concluded;

The first quicky MGS picture, taken from a lower angle, with a low sun angle,
was processed with a high-pass filter, which resulted in -less- contrast detail
than the original low resolution picture that started the debate. The later
pictures, including the red/blue stereo images brought out a lot more detail.
The enhanced high resolution pictures look more like a face, but they also look
more like a badly eroded hill - so it's still a "draw" for both sides. (Cute
poem!


The Mote around the Beam?
http://members.aol.com/RichClark7/read/mote.htm

Getting the Right Interpretation
http://members.aol.com/AVBibleTAB/av/interpre.htm

Richard Clark wrote:

The first quicky MGS picture, taken from a lower angle, with a low sun angle,
was processed with a high-pass filter, which resulted in -less- contrast detail
than the original low resolution picture that started the debate.

No, the image had a resolution of about *ten times* that of the original
Viking image. As for the conditions the image was taken under, the sun angle
(25 degrees for that first image) was actually higher than that of the first
Viking image (35A72) which started all this foolishness, as can be seen by
noting the long shadow cast by this natural knob. It was also taken though
what is thought to be a thin morning haze.

The later
pictures, including the red/blue stereo images brought out a lot more detail.
The enhanced high resolution pictures look more like a face, but they also look
more like a badly eroded hill - so it's still a "draw" for both sides.

Hardly. The image is quite clear, and so is the nature of the feature. That
second image looks even less like a "face" than the first Viking image. In
fact, the *second* Viking image of this feature (70A13) looks a lot less like
a "face" than the first Viking image, which should have been a clue. I'm
afraid that those who still cling to the belief that this is an
artifically-carved monument are deluding themselves. Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

(Note: Includes correction to earlier message.

In article , David Knisely
writes:
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 15:32:22 -0600
In article ,
lexity (Richard Clark) writes:
Date: 06 Jan 2004 10:44:11 GMT

DK And then came Mars Global Surveyor's first picture
of Cydonia's illustrious "mystery" feature,
with resolution ten times that of old Viking's portraits,
to reveal all the details, and to end all the nonsense.

RC The first quicky MGS picture, taken from a lower angle, with a
low sun angle,

"Oops!"
(--Will Smith, in Independence Day, before flipping control diagram.

"Low sun angle" should have been "higher sun angle." (--rc7)

RC was processed with a high-pass filter, which resulted in
-less- contrast detail than the original low resolution picture
that started the debate.

DK No, the image had a resolution of about *ten times* that of
the original Viking image.

The raw image, yes, the first released image, no. Quote: "The Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (JPL) Mission Image Processing Lab (MIPL) released this image of the
Face by passing the spacecraft data through a high-pass filter and a low-pass
filter, then averaging." The result was not a better resolution image, but a
washed-out flat featureless scene that hardly even looked like a mesa. The
JPL/MIPL "Oops" was corrected with better image processing in later pictures
that properly brought out the true details of the "face" as they -still- refer
to it. (If they don't think it's a face, why don't they call it something else,
like "Hunka" Hill? Oops, now the Elvis folk will re-process the image to suit
their fancy!

I'm afraid that those who still cling to the belief that this is an
artifically-carved monument are deluding themselves.

Yeah, it obviously looks more like Data's "Bunny Rabbit."

(Thanks for your forbearance.

Clear Skies, Astro-Peeps! --Richard


The Mote around the Beam?
http://members.aol.com/RichClark7/read/mote.htm

Getting the Right Interpretation
http://members.aol.com/AVBibleTAB/av/interpre.htm

To All It is true there was no face on Mars. Most likely mankind should
it be around for millions and millions more years will never see an
alien. Those that are very religious,those that see flying saucer,those
that believe prayers can move mountains,and a book called the bible was
written not by man,but by spirit. Have very impressible minds that hold
these unrealistic views to be reality. Half the population here on Earth
if their preacher,or the Pope told them the face on Mars was put there
by God would not only believe it,but worship it. Do I know how to make
friends "or what?" Bert

RB,

Editing what someone has said and then putting quote marks around it is not
"humor." It is fasification.

Much as I don't care for some of Starlord's opinions, you are, in fact, a
dipstick.

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Hay dipstick, make sure that you tell everyone that YOU edited that quote
and
made it that way, because that is NOT what I said, and you just joined all
the
other dipstinks in my killfile, you sure don't have any brain cells.

Starlord, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM? It's called "humor" for better or worse
and
there's room for it even in a deathly serious astronomy group.
You seem like a pretty angry fella. Too bad. I hope calling people names
eases
your tormented soul.

RB