The "Second Face On Mars" Is Original...05/05/99  ??


Click here for all the pictures

You decide if you want to believe

Mitch Battros (ECTV)

Erick Allison with the USGS states "The photo is original. It would be almost impossible to hack into the NASA web site.
However, we are open to further investigation.

Robert AM Stephens, the person who originally stated the photo from NASA was a fake, now admits the photo is "original".
This photo comes from a NASA mirror site hosted by the USGS. They to, state it is "original".

Mr. Stephens now says "Somebody may have hacked the NASA site some time ago, it is easy and happens all the time".

Well folks, I must tell you, I had no idea NASA had such an unsecured web organization. Until someone's comes forward to
prove Mr. Terry James manipulated the photo, I stand by his find.

Mr. Stephens claims he had interviewed Mr. James. This appears to be a false statement. Mr. Stephens has not been able to
come up with any proof whatsoever that this "interview" ever took place. In addition, Mr. Stephens has not come forward with
any proof that the "2nd face on Mars" photo, was manipulated by Mr. James or any other named person.

Robert Stephens article: Behold has just learned that "kksamurai" has now admitted to faking the 'new' faked Mars face that
appears on this lifeform's website. When we asked "kksamurai" why it would fake another Mars face, whimpering, he said, "I..I
..just wanted the attention. I thought it would be funny and I thought it would be another twist on this already messed up culture.
Art Bell, and his shenanigans was the core inspiration. I feel terrible now."

Mr. James statement: "First of all, there is no way that others had anything at all to do with this new face on Mars...No-one
led me to the site, I found it on my own....So...If Mr. Stephens really works for NASA, he's building a false case of evidence
against me. He's simply lying! I have never in my life hacked into any site in my life, I am not a programmer, and have no idea at
all as to how this is done. I swear on everything that is holy or cherished by anyone and everyone that the Face on Mars I
found is exactly how I found it."

Here is a link to Terry's site along with the NASA mirror site: http://users.flnet.com/~ksamurai/newface.html
 
 

* * * * * * * * * *
 

>[Non-Subscriber Post]

>Stephens is a lying SOB! He never interviewed me, he admitted to
>me by e-mail he is not an employee of NASA and he freely
>admitted to Earth Changes TV that the image I found is the
>original. The USGS has also confirmed this information. Stephens
>is a twisted mis-information specialist and should be ignored by
>all. It's people like him that make life difficult for those of
>us interested in persuing anomalous events and structures with
>valid question and wonder...

I have looked at the evidence and the original images. Based on
that *ONLY* there are definately some anomalous formations
there. It takes a bit of imagination to see the face on the
un-enhanced image, however, it is there. What interested me
most, though, was the straight edge-like structure oposite the
"face" and the upper right 90 degree angle. Those parts look
very anomalous.

Faces and other things can be seen by humans in all kinds of
things. Clouds, wind blown sand dunes, rock formations, etc,
etc. However, those straight-line/90 degree markings look very
unnatural to me. Though my areas of anomaly research expertise
don't often deal with geological structures, I think its pretty
plain here.

It saddens me to see all the accusations of lieing, falsifying
and hacking going on here. Why is it that people try to gain
something by that sort of motive? In the end it only weakens our
science. Profit is all too often the motive. I don't know who
lied or why or if they did, however, if there is falsifying
going on here, from all anomaly researchers: "Shame on you!" We
want to research the truth.

I would warn the viewers that adding color, gamma changes,
closeup views, etc can change the look of anything. When
researching images, one must not base his or her conclusions on
"enhanced" versions. Enhancement is a tool to bring hidden
details, however, the original image must stand on its own to be
considered an anomaly. I think this one does, if not for the
face then for the straight-line/90 degree structure just
opposite of it.

Happy Clicks!

-Nathan

>What interested me
>most, though, was the straight edge-like structure oposite the
>"face" and the upper right 90 degree angle. Those parts look
>very anomalous.

>However, those straight-line/90 degree markings look very
>unnatural to me. Though my areas of anomaly research expertise
>don't often deal with geological structures, I think its pretty
>plain here.

Actually, straight line and even right angles are not uncommon
in geology. Both are usually the result of faulting. In some
cases, lava has entered a set of cracks resulting from faulting,
and when erosion wears the matrix away, only the harder lava is
left behind, forming mysterious "walls" and other unusual
features.

As I have pointed out many times, including in my article in UFO
Magazine on "The Face" Martian geology is somewhat unusual, and
one cannot judge the "probability" or the "artificiality" of
features on the basis of intuition or even superficial knowledge
of terrestrial geology. The extensive presence of permafrost,
the absence of vegetation, the unusual volcanism, the differing
level of gravity, the ages within which wind has been able to
work on the terrain - all create highly unusual features by
terrestrial standards.

------
Mark Cashman, creator of The Temporal Doorway at
http://www.temporaldoorway.com
 

May 1999
Return to UFO Folklore !