In news:1142843730.233032.62230@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
ianparker2@gmail.com <ianparker2@gmail.com> typed:

The face on Mars was seen by fairly early probes. At the resolution
they had it does indeed look like a face. Subsequent higer resolution
work proved it to be simply a continuation of an outcrop all be it
with an unusual shape.

I am a retired scientist. I used to work in the field of Image
Processing and Artificial Intelligence. You can probably guess
something like that from the tone of my comments. One thing I have
thought about is what happens when we approach a person from a
distance. How much of a face do we have to resolve out before we
recognize it as a face? If we resolve a face into circular harmonics
we can answer this. The face on Mars comes well within my rough and
ready calculations.

Mars may well have had life of some sort but that life was certainly
not intelligent. Had aliens landed on Mars, what they would have left,
if anything, would not have been a Neolithic/Bronze Age style stone
monument, but a Von Neumann probe, and a self sustaining small colony.

Of course the real interesting thing about the "face" on Mars in the most
recent images is that it appears to have collapsed or subsided on the one
side.

What is remarkable about this though is the top surface appears to be a
shell of uniform thickness. This is fairly clear in the pictures from the
way it has cracked, the way it has fallen in in a slab or shell like manner
and the fact you can see the edges of the cracked surface or "shell"

The only natural process I know of that would cause the top surface to bake
into a shell is the presence of liquid water and the heat of the sun (rather
like one would fire clay in a kiln to make pottery). If that's the case it
means the interior subsidence has been caused by ice melting underneath as a
result of interior warming over a relatively short period. If one interprets
it that way it does of course indicate the presence of water, ice beneath
the surface and of course heat acting on the surface and interior of the
planet.

However even with that explanation doesn't really account for what appears
to be a shell of even thickness because sunlight (and radiant heat from the
sun) forms shadows which given the anomalous shape of this object would seem
unlikely to create an outer shell of uniform thickness under such physical
circumstances.

Of course the other explanation is that it's some form of artificial
structure with an outer shell of uniform thickness because it was made that
way. IMO this cracking and subsidence shows some of the most compelling
evidence so far that this structure may not be a result of natural
geological processes and was very possibly artificially constructed.
-- 
Amanda