There's a second face on Mars, this one much more detailed. (Looks like a Lincoln penny.) See it at: http://www.velocitypress.com/seti.php For a hi-res version, see : http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/
A second face? I though there was no face. And I know there wasn't. Of course you choose to look at the ancient Viking pics, not the newest Mars Orbiter ones. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Humans have this strange innate tendency: whenever they come across something unfamiliar, they readily assign human features to it. Saying that that looks like Linkoln is the same as looking at those ink psychology test cards and saying that some look like Lincoln, or any other human.
Pfft. There's plenty of things on Mars that look kind of like faces. I like this one best: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We had a good discussion of Martian pareidolia in [thread=35193]this thread[/thread].
Here is one of my favorite images from Mars. It was taken as one of the polar icecaps receeded during that hemisphere's summer. I do not remember if it was the north or south Martian pole. It depicts what certainly 'looks' like vegetation. You be the judge. Warning! This file is LARGE and takes several minutes to download on dial-up, but it is worth it in my opinion. http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e07_e12/full_gif_non_map/E10/E1001841.gif
that face looks moer like one of thoe creatures from the game "abes odyssey" which some of you may remember
Not to be an overly serious contributior to this thread, but the "original" face had other attributes other than the look. Surrounding the face were some structures hat defied being sculpted from random natural weather forces. There were formed pentagon and pyramid like structures, arranged somwhat mathematically. There is a strong argument that the area was a preplanned archectural project. The fact tha NASA originally misplaced the face photgraphs and opted for the next Mars lander to land in some spot far from the face because of a lack of scientific interest near the face; that the volume of denial rhetoric from NASA officialdom is strange if one is merely stating an opinion. NASA made it sound like any one believing differently had to be a kook (I've been referred to as such often enough that I find myself accusng myself periodically). It seems strange that NASA was universally denying the face story as it developed. Basically I am, saying the energy to quash all discussion is very peculiar in light of stated intentions to seek life out there. It is as if NASA knows soemhings it isn't disclosing. (I rememebr redng he charter for NASA which effectively created NASA as a military venture, Also, the Soviet Martian explorers Phobos I and II failed at critical times of descent onto the surface. Phobos I (?) captured a photograph of a approximatel 5 km long shadow projected on the surface just befoe everything went blank.. This was the last phtograph. The US failure advertised as an inadvertent mix of decimal units and English units is difficult to swallow. This is difficult to believe that this system passed even the most rudimentary of systems tests without discovering the units difference, or that the written specifications would not have brought this issue to the attention of the group secretary. And being an instinctive conspiracy theorist (somebody has to do the dirty work) the explanation while uncomplimentary to all involved is, or could be considered as a fallback reason for an anticipated failure due to conscious intervention by unknown, but not unknowable forces. Geistkiesel