I did a short GIF on the face of Mars and posted it in another thread - here is a longer one with more info:
(http://i1156.photobucket.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Aniface-Blast.gif~original)
Really? NO comments? None at all??? Wow! LOL!
I think that what you demonstrate in your presentation Amy is very impressive and a good way to show to the members what you are
tying to explain to them, rightly or wrong in what you may be suggesting...
I don't think that Ive seen many members use that method to describe a presentation before...its like a video but with a series of still screen shots with descriptions on the images.
Have you done one of these before or is it your 1st one.
How long did it take you to learn it ?
I like the suggestion of the end result ? but I cannot recall how the images have changed since it was initially shown to us by NASA ...Has it altered quite a lot since they first produced it..
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 08, 2015, 05:43:37 PM
Really? NO comments? None at all??? Wow! LOL!
I didn't make any comments because I didn't take the time to watch something that is worse than a video, as the video at least gives me an idea of how long it is and lets me move forward and backward, while the animated GIF doesn't, I would have to save the GIF and open it in a GIF editing program to see each image individually and during the time I want.
Also, it looks like the same type of analysis other people made.
As I have nothing special to do, I downloaded the image and opened it in a GIF editor to see the 56 frames.
First, this image:
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Aniface-Blast_gif_Frame_3_04.jpg)
The "rather horizontal" line is only horizontal if you flatten the face, as the line is not parallel to the ground.
When you rotate the image so that "rather horizontal" line is parallel to the top of the image you can see the that the "face" is perpendicular to that line.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Aniface-Blast_gif_Frame_11_12.jpg)
I don't think that line is going through the eye location of the "face" we are seeing, to me it looks to low in the "face".
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Aniface-Blast_gif_Frame_14_14.jpg)
The "mouth width" looks wider than what we see.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Aniface-Blast_gif_Frame_18_18.jpg)
I don't know where you are seeing the "tip of nose", is that based on where it would be on an average human face?
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Aniface-Blast_gif_Frame_29_29.jpg)
I don't think we would see what we see if an "energy beam" had hit like you said, as the area affected would be affected in a symmetrical way and not how we see it, with some areas in the supposedly affected area eroded in different ways.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Aniface-Blast_gif_Frame_31_31.jpg)
"Much is guessworlk"? I think it's all guesswork, as you started with the assumption (not clue) that this is a face and created what your imagination dictated to you.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Aniface-Blast_gif_Frame_34_34.jpg)
To me, the thing that stands out is that the nose is too wide (and I wonder where did you get any "clues" of what the nose looked like).
Although I don't have any special thing to do, continuing with this is a waste of time, so I will stop here and ignore the rest, as it's probably as much guesswork as what I have seen so far.
PS: sorry if I sound too harsh, I noticed now (25 minutes after making the post) that I was reacting too aggressively towards other people.
ArMap you and I have had our tussles before but your spot on in your analysis.
Well Amy, regardless of accuracy, it seems to me that you did much in trying to bring us a look at what this could have originally looked like. Thanks for your effort.
Really no question that images of this on Mars have qualities similar to humanoid facial features, from the very first Viking shots - maybe more especially the first Viking shots.
There is so much photo evidence of intelligent life on Mars, it is really "elementary Watson! The yes or no about this face may long not be settled, but there is so much more, with much of it in clear photo evidence, irrespective of skeptic thought.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/yesitis-noitisnt.gif)
Well done on the presentation Amy it's an interesting take of the face on Mars.
ArMap you do come across quite harsh in your posts.
Quote from: ArMaP on March 08, 2015, 09:05:14 PM
As I have nothing special to do, I downloaded the image and opened it in a GIF editor to see the 56 frames.
First, this image:
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Aniface-Blast_gif_Frame_3_04.jpg)
The "rather horizontal" line is only horizontal if you flatten the face, as the line is not parallel to the ground.
When you rotate the image so that "rather horizontal" line is parallel to the top of the image you can see the that the "face" is perpendicular to that line.
LOL! ArMaP, when You're quoting Me, do be sure You are actually quoting Me. If You look, I said I oriented the (pretty damn!)
STRAIGHT line to the horizontal.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Aniface-Blast_gif_Frame_11_12.jpg)
QuoteI don't think that line is going through the eye location of the "face" we are seeing, to me it looks to low in the "face".
Well, faces do differ a bit, but I placed the eyes in what I did to that location. [shrug]
Quote(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Aniface-Blast_gif_Frame_14_14.jpg)
The "mouth width" looks wider than what we see.
I am willing to bet it is evenly "wrong" on both sides from where YOU are defining the mouth. [smile]
Quote(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Aniface-Blast_gif_Frame_18_18.jpg)
I don't know where you are seeing the "tip of nose", is that based on where it would be on an average human face?
Yeah. It conveniently lands on the center line in a nose-like shape right about where it would be in a face. Yup indeed.
Quote(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Aniface-Blast_gif_Frame_29_29.jpg)
I don't think we would see what we see if an "energy beam" had hit like you said, as the area affected would be affected in a symmetrical way and not how we see it, with some areas in the supposedly affected area eroded in different ways.
Ok. I do. The surface hit with wide even energy would melt but have no place to move fast to. Enough melting would happen to slag out the eye area, the tip of the nose would be blasted off (of which We can point to evidence that suggests just that happened), and the lips would melt but have protection from the energy blast.
Quote(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Aniface-Blast_gif_Frame_31_31.jpg)
"Much is guessworlk"? I think it's all guesswork, as you started with the assumption (not clue) that this is a face and created what your imagination dictated to you.
Guesswork like the shape of the eyes, yeah. Not guesswork about things like VERY circular bulges, and that what We see fits a very symmetrical, facial pattern... And no. I started by seeing if anything like a face could be mapped, discovering a VERY close match to feature placement, and found evidence that if One considers a mountain-jarring amount of energy impacting and leaving what is there, the reversal of that leads to a face.
Quote(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Aniface-Blast_gif_Frame_34_34.jpg)
To me, the thing that stands out is that the nose is too wide (and I wonder where did you get any "clues" of what the nose looked like).
A bit of "guesswork' on the nose. I am not saying I did a perfect job, and the nostril may have splayed outwards from melting and pressure, making it be wider in My pic than it was originally.
QuoteAlthough I don't have any special thing to do, continuing with this is a waste of time, so I will stop here and ignore the rest, as it's probably as much guesswork as what I have seen so far.
Hahahahaha! Yup, ArMaP, You're right. Enjoy the thread...or not. [smile]
QuotePS: sorry if I sound too harsh, I noticed now (25 minutes after making the post) that I was reacting too aggressively towards other people.
Missed this initially. ArMaP, not so much harsh as desperately looking to shred where there is nothing to shred. [smile]
Quote from: astr0144 on March 08, 2015, 05:58:37 PM
I think that what you demonstrate in your presentation Amy is very impressive and a good way to show to the members what you are
tying to explain to them, rightly or wrong in what you may be suggesting...
I don't think that Ive seen many members use that method to describe a presentation before...its like a video but with a series of still screen shots with descriptions on the images.
Have you done one of these before or is it your 1st one.
How long did it take you to learn it ?
I like the suggestion of the end result ? but I cannot recall how the images have changed since it was initially shown to us by NASA ...Has it altered quite a lot since they first produced it..
I used Photoshop to put in the type and lines, and to rotate the image z put up here. I have done a lot of animated gifs in the past, and once z posted the image it took Me a few hours to play with it and create this result.
Thanks.
What is the beam of energy for?
I think I prefer a video like some of Sarge's just so I can pause it and get a longer look at parts but I can see what you have tried to achieve.
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 09, 2015, 08:21:17 AM
LOL! ArMaP, when You're quoting Me, do be sure You are actually quoting Me. If You look, I said I oriented the (pretty damn!) STRAIGHT line to the horizontal.
Now you call it "pretty damn straight line", but you called it first "rather straight line", so who is changing the quotes? :P
What I meant to say is that the line looks only straight when seen from a specific point of view, if you look at that area in other photos you can see that's not really a straight line, so I don't think it should be used as the basis for an analysis of the general shape of the "face".
There was a missing word on my post, where it says "you can see the that the "face" is perpendicular to that line" it should have said "you can see the that the "face" is
not perpendicular to that line", that's why I think the use of the "straight line" is not correct.
QuoteWell, faces do differ a bit, but I placed the eyes in what I did to that location. [shrug]
It was an arbitrarily chosen position? OK.
QuoteI am willing to bet it is evenly "wrong" on both sides from where YOU are defining the mouth. [smile]
Probably, but if it's wrong it's not the mouth width, right?
I think we should use the correct words for the things we post, specially when writing something with "analysis" in the name.
QuoteYeah. It conveniently lands on the center line in a nose-like shape right about where it would be in a face. Yup indeed.
An extremely flat nose, but OK. :)
QuoteOk. I do. The surface hit with wide even energy would melt but have no place to move fast to. Enough melting would happen to slag out the eye area, the tip of the nose would be blasted off (of which We can point to evidence that suggests just that happened), and the lips would melt but have protection from the energy blast.
Well, I would expect that an even energy beam would create an even melted area, and I don't see one.
QuoteGuesswork like the shape of the eyes, yeah. Not guesswork about things like VERY circular bulges, and that what We see fits a very symmetrical, facial pattern...
Even if it was not guesswork I wouldn't call it "clue", I would call it "hypothesis" or something like that.
QuoteAnd no. I started by seeing if anything like a face could be mapped, discovering a VERY close match to feature placement, and found evidence that if One considers a mountain-jarring amount of energy impacting and leaving what is there, the reversal of that leads to a face.
Where's that evidence that you found? I see only guesswork. ???
QuoteA bit of "guesswork' on the nose. I am not saying I did a perfect job, and the nostril may have splayed outwards from melting and pressure, making it be wider in My pic than it was originally.
That supposed "melting" is a good excuse for fitting things that does not fit. :P
QuoteHahahahaha! Yup, ArMaP, You're right. Enjoy the thread...or not. [smile]
It's mostly "not".
QuoteMissed this initially. ArMaP, not so much harsh as desperately looking to shred where there is nothing to shred. [smile]
Shred? No, I'm just saying some of the things I think about it.
I don't know how to find it but it may help to look at it here.
http://www.uahirise.org/ESP_038646_1805
Quote from: Pimander on March 09, 2015, 01:44:07 PM
What is the beam of energy for?
I would imagine, to hide the fact that there was a face on Mars. Who knows when it was delivered. Could even have been after the first images were returned, and perhaps someOne thought that would have to be removed for clearer images.
Quote from: ArMaP on March 09, 2015, 01:53:42 PM
Now you call it "pretty damn straight line", but you called it first "rather straight line", so who is changing the quotes? :P
::) Parentheses are not part of a quote, and I was not quoting Myself verbatim.
QuoteWhat I meant to say is that the line looks only straight when seen from a specific point of view, if you look at that area in other photos you can see that's not really a straight line, so I don't think it should be used as the basis for an analysis of the general shape of the "face".
Well it sure is interesting that when aligned with the horizontal, One can create a face perpendicular to it. Heh. Think as You wish.
QuoteThere was a missing word on my post, where it says "you can see the that the "face" is perpendicular to that line" it should have said "you can see the that the "face" is not perpendicular to that line", that's why I think the use of the "straight line" is not correct.
Um... Yes it IS perpendicular to that line.
QuoteIt was an arbitrarily chosen position? OK.
No it wasn't. It was chosen because it fits with a face.
QuoteProbably, but if it's wrong it's not the mouth width, right?
It is roughly so. The point is that there is a symmetrical mouth. Picking nits makes You look desperate to shred when there is nothing to shred.
QuoteI think we should use the correct words for the things we post, specially when writing something with "analysis" in the name.
OK. I think nits should not be picked. I put the lines where *I* saw the end of the SYMMETRICAL mouth.
QuoteAn extremely flat nose, but OK. :)
Uh... Yeah. It was blown off.
QuoteWell, I would expect that an even energy beam would create an even melted area, and I don't see one.
You don't know that. I don't either, but I do know glassy surfaces like that are common to areas that received high heat. A relatively high heat with a short duration would not penetrate enough to slag surface contours, but would leave a glassy, surface like what We see. Up close, likely there are areas that look quite flat.
QuoteEven if it was not guesswork I wouldn't call it "clue", I would call it "hypothesis" or something like that.
ArMaP, a great deal is not "guesswork," but asking if what We see can be explained by that scenario. The answer is clearly YES.
QuoteWhere's that evidence that you found? I see only guesswork. ???
Because You suffer from confirmation bias? The placement of what We see, if reversed would be astonishingly symmetrical and all the placement would match roughly what I illustrate.
QuoteThat supposed "melting" is a good excuse for fitting things that does not fit. :P
That melting is part of the scenario - it's not like I'm claiming a cannon ball hit at that spot, and oh by the way to make the nose look like that a bunch of miracle heatballs melted right there. Lots of the area around the hit spot show signs of melting. And thinking about it, I think I am right. I did not take into account the melting and failed to "move" the nose thinner.
QuoteIt's mostly "not".
Own that remark, son. "In [Your] opinion, it's mostly "not"."
QuoteShred? No, I'm just saying some of the things I think about it.
Rather confrontational and perhaps even ill-thought out things, by My observation...
Quote from: Dyna on March 09, 2015, 04:09:52 PM
I don't know how to find it but it may help to look at it here.
http://www.uahirise.org/ESP_038646_1805
That is not the Face... Or did I miss a link to the face?
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 10, 2015, 03:45:10 AM
That is not the Face... Or did I miss a link to the face?
You could look up the face on that site. :)
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 09, 2015, 05:47:05 PM
I would imagine, to hide the fact that there was a face on Mars. Who knows when it was delivered. Could even have been after the first images were returned, and perhaps someOne thought that would have to be removed for clearer images.
I'm not so sure there was a blast there. It is so hard to say because the original "face" shots were such poor quality.
The problem you have Amy is that you have done what NASA have been accused of - altering images to match peoples pre-conceived ideas about what they expect to see. Some people will agree and disagree. On a personal level a lot of people will agree that it is or could be a face. From a scientific position, it has no value, but I imagine that was not your purpose for doing the GIF.
It is a good face though. ;)
Quote from: Amaterasu on March 10, 2015, 03:42:31 AM
Think as You wish.
I always do. :)
PS: I started writing an answer to the whole post, but several things got in the way, so, many hours after, I decided to answer when I have the time.
Quote from: Pimander on March 10, 2015, 10:19:45 AM
The problem you have Amy is that you have done what NASA have been accused of - altering images to match peoples pre-conceived ideas about what they expect to see.
Lest You missed it, the only altering I did was rotation. Period. This was the image z posted in another thread. I'm working on a high-res version straight from NASA. It's still looking the same, though. More detail that looks like what it looked like. Then I did what I specifically said was My conception. Hardly comparable to what NASA is accused of. Geez.
QuoteSome people will agree and disagree. On a personal level a lot of people will agree that it is or could be a face. From a scientific position, it has no value, but I imagine that was not your purpose for doing the GIF.
From a scientific point, it is data. Unconfirmed, yes. But We can give probabilities. The probability of it's being a blasted face is very high by My reckoning.
QuoteIt is a good face though. ;)
It's likely exactly that (though My rendition may be wrong on some points).