Re: Face crap
Fri, 24 Apr 1998 06:25:14 -0700 (PDT)

Ian Goddard [] wrote:
> IAN: The MGS has NOT imaged the pyramid, and
> what Hoagland shows is not either one of them.
> Visit the NASA JPL site and you will see that
> stips that show the areas covered or hoped to
> be covered by the MGS, and the pyramids are
> out of the strips, or the plan altogether:

Odd, because that's an MGS image (see the original at and Hoagland,
'Mr Face' himself, claims it's a pyramid. Quite clearly it's not, and only
looks a little like one because of the human's natural tendency to 'draw
lines' between dots.

> Here you will see the planned second sweep
> and the actual sweep. It was going to get
> one of the pyramids, but D'oh! missed:

It was probably part of THE CONSPIRACY that FAKED the Mars Face photos...
but now we're onto them they don't DARE fake any more so they had to
miss it. The Face-Freaks are TOO SMART for NASA.

Of course out in reality-land they only said they had a 30-50% chance of
getting the images, so I was amazed that they got the 'lumpy-bumpy rock
thing' on the first try.

> In these Viking images you can see both pyramids.
> Notice the largest one on the lower right side.
> While the Viking images may be fuzzier than the
> MGS images, the hard lines are hard lines.

Uh-huh, but most of the 'lines' don't really exist; as far as I can see
they're just optical illusions like Hoagland's pyramid image. The remainder
are no more unusual than mountains on Earth, and as for the 'perfect shadows'
you talk about, you should really try looking at the shadow of a mountain
sometime. I've watched sunrise from the top of Mt Fuji, and its shadow is
just as 'perfect' a triangle as any of those 'pyramids'.

> And the
> MGS images of the face reveal perfectly straight,
> parallel running lines and perfectly ovoid curves.

Look, it's not a face, it's a lumpy-bumpy rock thing, OK; it looks nothing
like a face to anyone but those who have too much invested in the whole
face hysteria to change their minds. I, for one, have seen no 'perfectly
straight, parallel running lines' or 'perfect ovoid curves', nor any
evidence to imply that anything about the rock is artificial.

Frankly, this is probably my last comment on this pointless thread, except
to point out what I find most bizarre. The original justification for the
face hysteria was that there was a rock which supposedly looked like a
face. Now that there's a high-resolution photo which shows it looks nothing
like a face, rather than give up, we get all this stuff about 'but it would
have looked like a face before erosion wore it down'. If we'd seen this rock
first in the MGS photos we would just have ignored it; the only reason we
considered it at all interesting was because the Viking photos were too
low-resolution to show its real nature.


P.S. I think I'm going to write a book telling the TRUE STORY of how the
CIA and MAJESTIC-12 used the ROSWELL UFO to fly to Mars and blow up the
Mars Face after the Viking photos became public, so the Aliens had to
resort to making Crop Circles to get our attention instead. I'll be a
millionaire in a few months.