Re: Face crap

Ian Goddard (
Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:08:18 -0400

At 06:25 AM 4/24/98 -0700, 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.

IAN: I don't know why Hoagland is showing what
is not the pyramid and implying that it is the
pyramid. Clearly, one need not "connect the
dots" to see the pyramids that are pyramids.

The URL you point to is also NOT the pyramids
in question. If I say "House X looks old," and
you counter by saying, "Your wrong, house Y
looks new," what's going on here? The pyramids
in question were clearly visible on the sites
I pointed to, including NASA (which you can trust
since it's a Govt page). Again, MGS has not imaged
the pyramids. The NASA pages tell us just that.

>> 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.

IAN: Your missing the actual evidence again.
Joking about conspiracy does not explain what
geological forces create 5-sided pyramids. I'm
just as willing to believe natural as not, but
making jokes and throwing "crap" isn't useful,
at least to some trying to figure this out.

>> 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.

IAN: What your saying is just false. I don't
know why Hoagland is showing what is not the
pyramids, claiming it is, but images of the
actual physical objects in question have been
made available to you, yet you seem to prefer
Hoagland's error over the actual evidence.

There are hard lines that are not an illusion
in both the Viking and around the base of the
"face" in the MGS images, and those lines also
showed up perfectly in the Viking images.

>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'.

IAN: You should try to observe the actual
physical evidence and not what is not the
physical evidence in question, maybe then
you can actually start to analyze the facts.
In short, you don't even know what your
rejecting out of hand!!

It may all be natural, but I hate to see
even the right conclusion drawn for the
wrong reasons, and your reasons are wrong.

>> 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

IAN: To say that it's similarity to a face
= 0% is just flat-out false. It has a striking
resemblance to a face even in the MGS images.
And then all around the base of the "face"
are perfectly straight lines and formations,
perfect ovoid lines and a sharp right angle.

Would a perfectly (or nearly so) carved face
not erode over time? Ancient human structures
erode. Why should we not ask these questions?
The reaction to the "face" on the ExI list
seems to be anti-inquiry, anti-questioning,
just throw "crap" at this issue. Bizarre.

>but those who have too much invested in the whole
>face hysteria to change their minds.

IAN: I cuts both ways, a lot of people have
invested in throwing "crap" at the face and
are not about to allow that to change. For
anyone to look at the face and write it off
as "crap" is entirely reactionary and anti-
thetical to truth inquiry. There are forms
in and around the "face" that are highly
anomalies/unusual at the very least.

Should those not be explained? Does science
say, "We need to explain everything, except
those pyramids and sharp liner formations
on Mars, they are crap."

>I, for one, have seen no 'perfectly
>straight, parallel running lines' or 'perfect ovoid curves',

IAN: Glasses might help.

>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,

IAN: It does not "Look nothing like a face."
It has strong face resemblance, but that's
not all (in fact by it self, I'd probably
agree it's natural), what is most interesting
are the sharp parallel running lines and forms
and perfect ovoid curves around the "face" base.

If you can't see them, I find that most bizarre.

VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ---->