Talk:Cydonia (Mars)

Absence of the best photos from Cydonia
I have to agree with many of the other comments in the discussion page. I'm extremely confused as to why there is not a single photo included of the Cydonia "region" which displays several pyramids, easily found on google: http://www.endalldisease.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Mars-Cydonia.jpg

I'm sure a better version of this photo could be found, it's an incredible photo and even more incredible that it's not included on this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.88.96 (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Link broken. New one: 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.107.87 (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Conceding?
The bit in the article about Carl Sagan's assessment of the "Face" has been amended to note that he "conceded" that the "Face" should be studied. The source for this is listed as both Sagan's book and a WP:FRINGE title, and the specific "conceded" wording appears lifted from the latter. Now, I've not read this book by Sagan, but I seriously doubt that he "conceded" this point at all. He probably, as would most scientists, accepted that the "Face" was a subject for study, much as with any number of other features on Mars, but that's quite a different thing. Anyway, does anyone have Sagan's book to hand to check what he actually says? I suspect that the article is currently given WP:UNDUE weight to the opinion of a fringer (who is bound to want to make it look like Sagan agrees with him). Cheers, --P LUMBAGO 08:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. An alternative wording for this section might be: "While accepting the "Face" as a subject for scientific study, astronomer Carl Sagan criticized much of the speculation concerning it in an eponymous chapter of his book The Demon-Haunted World.[17]"
 * Hello. Thanks, that wording is better and more balanced. I have read the Sagan book which is why I remembered the reference in the other cited work, but I'll dig out a copy from somewhere and confirm. I don't think the Case for the Face work that I cited is a WP:FRINGE title. It is about a fringe subject but is an investigation of that subject by qualified Scientists which is something different and qualifies it as a relevant citation source for Wikipedia. Obviously I am closely involved in the subject matter but my intent is to (I hope) record pertinent facts about this subject area within WP guidelines. DJ Barney (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Great. Thanks for getting back to me.  I've made the change to the article as per the wording above.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  09:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What should be done with the somewhat orphaned Stanley McDaniel reference? Can it be used elsewhere in the article? Alan G. Archer (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

All the attention is on the Face?
In my opinion that's the least intreasting feature, I'm much curious about the "Pyramids" I want to be fair to both sides but everyhting I've read on Cydonia that delves into more then just the Face are pro crazy theory cites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.234.42 (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

split the lower double image?
I would like to split the lower double image into two separate ones. The features in the images are not directly related, so it does not appear there is a strong reason to keep them together. Yet they are so big that on my screen the push all the text over into broken lines on the left, which makes it difficult to read. Any objections? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Maury. Poke around - you may be able to find the original, separate images somewhere in wikiland.  I think they were once separate, but were fused by an editor.  Similarly the triple image.  I never liked the fusion exercise myself, so will try to look for the singles myself if I find the time.  Cheers, --P LUMBAGO  13:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Another cover up. Where are the piramids?
Oh. I forget the oficial BROOKINGS REPORT. Good americans have to hide the truth. What Obama has to say of Brookings report? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.208.142 (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, do you have a point? If so, can you make it clearer please?  The Brookings Report is already covered here.  Why do you think it has a bearing on crumbly Martian mountains?  Please explain.  --P LUMBAGO  08:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

IT'S A GONSBIRACY!!!!!11one"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.67.138.7 (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is an article on the Brookings Report, enjoy yourself there. This is on a mountain on Mars that some thought was a giant face, which later proved, as expected, not a face.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It was never "proven" to be a mountain. Images themselves are no proof for / against something. It will remain unsettled until humans land on Mars and perform archaeological excavations there. Get real and stop believing your TV box and everything media says... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.225.82 (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No the Cydonia region speculation involves more then just the "Face" the Face is just all the Media focuses on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.50.78 (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Face on Mars with Inset.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Face on Mars with Inset.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 25, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-07-25. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 23:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This should not be a picture of the day. There are some shenanigans going on with these "higher resolution" pictures. This region is poorly represented in photos released to the public vs photos kept confidential by nasa. The observer photos are essentially lies and should not be force fed to the public. Don't feed the false debunkers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.51.27 (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing. Please be aware that this notification refers to a picture-of-the-day selection back in 2012 - I'm afraid that you've missed your chance to intervene.  However, if you have good sources to support your suggestion that NASA and - don't forget - ESA are embroiled in a conspiracy to conceal evidence of an extant/extinct Martian civilisation, this article would certainly benefit from them.  --P LUMBAGO  08:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Formations on other planets
There is a picture reported to look like Cookie Monster's head on Mercury 22yearswothanks (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Split
As mentioned by an anonymous user back in 2010, “All the attention is on the Face”. I’d second that since the article focuses heavily enough on the Face that it could be split into a separate article, Face on Mars. However, the article would likely be left a stub unless the new article is summarized and more information on scientific findings is added. P.S. A sideways picture of the Face, if one exists, could help debunk the conspiracy further. 2600:387:A:3:0:0:0:B0 (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The article was previously split into Face on Mars and Cydonia articles, both of which were stubby (have a look in the archive). Hence the merge. It is not at all clear to me that this would not be the case again after a split. Sure, the Face on Mars article could be pumped up with more nonsense about a natural feature on Mars, but there's really no need for this. As regards debunking the conspiracy further, if updated images of the "Face" that show it for what it really is can't do this, I don't see what will. We should certainly reflect the most up-to-date information / images, but there's no need to go to town for a feature that's just a crumbly hill on Mars. Regarding a sideways image, while it should be possible to produce a graphic of this view from good altimetry data, I don't believe that any such imagery exists for this because none of the robots on Mars have gone here - happy to be corrected if otherwise. Best regards, --P LUMBAGO 09:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * With no discussion after a month, I'm closing this, and deleting the message on the main article. --P LUMBAGO 15:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 10 April 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. There's a consensus for move. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Cydonia (region of Mars) → Cydonia (Mars) – Per WP:PRECISE, this much shorter title is still completely sufficient in disambiguating the article. This article was formerly Cydonia (Mars) until 2007, when it was moved as requested to Cydonia Mensae, which was "reverted" in 2009, likely mistakenly to this unnecessarily long title. I cannot see any other titles using (region of x) to disambiguate.  Lazz _R  19:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - it *is* rather clunky at present. —P LUMBAGO 08:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 *  Comment - If this is moved I believe the somewhat related article Cerberus (Martian albedo feature) should move to Cerberus (Mars) for the same reasons as this move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trialpears (talk • contribs) 09:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, support this too.  Lazz _R  20:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. J I P  &#124; Talk 19:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the briefer article name as sufficient to the task. Praemonitus (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. --Comment by  Selfie City  ( talk about my  contributions ) 00:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Relevance of peer reviewed papers
There are almost no peer reviewed papers referenced, and most of the pro-artificial sources are not scientific. ITOH, new addition of other anomalies related to the Face are deleted (mounds study of Dr. Crater & Prof. McDaniel, for example). Even NASA photographs (5th April 1998) are deleted with no criterion. I suggest the entry be removed from Wikipedia, as it is impossible to get it neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diagramofsymmetry (talk • contribs) 20:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you believe that speculation about symmetry is more important than a discussion about pareidolia... If the goal is to suggest that they may be structures built by intelligent beings, please note that Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and that this idea is considered WP:FRINGE (in which case, WP:FALSEBALANCE, presenting each aspect as an equal opinion, must also be avoided).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 09:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The D&M pyramid is not related to pareidolia but symmetry and is present in the article. The Hexad diagram was present during 3 months until I uploaded a doctored image of the Face by NASA, which can be retrieved from a NASA server. This sounds as censorship and ad hominem attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diagramofsymmetry (talk • contribs) 16:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How many reliable sources mention symmetry vs pareidolia, and in what context? My impression so far is that this is simply a WP:FRINGE issue: any "pro-artificial" sources are outdated with no serious scientific value at this date. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Reevaluating "Shape from shading analysis of these images suggested that the ilussion of a face could persist under a wide range of illumination conditions. Fractal analysis of the image also indicated a possible artificial origin. Both studies were published by Mark Carlotto in peer reviewed journals." and reading the Carlotto source, I see where this comes from. A quote from the source: "and are shown to induce the visual impression of a face under a wide range of illumination conditions and perspectives" (p. 12). On the other hand, if we read it all, we understand that there is missing data from one side that is inferred from what is on the other side and filled using 3D (some details about the process are mentioned). Then we know that further images not available at the time were issued, better showing the other side and how it was far from what was inferred by Carlotto's work. Maybe that in due weight and with a clear gradual timeline of events this would be fine and not pass as fringe... Carlotto's personal conclusion includes the speculation that maybe the objects were not natural and that more scrutiny was required to determine this (from the data available to him in 1988). — Paleo Neonate  – 21:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding: We're still open for an analysis of other sources you'd like to suggest . At a user's talk page you said you were about to list some but I couldn't find them.  Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

For example,. Open access to text here: http://spsr.utsi.edu/articles/jbis2007.pdf

There are at least 3 or 4 papers on the topic, all in peer-reviewed journals. The symmetry diagram is based on original work by Dr. Horace W. Crater and Prof. Stanley V. McDaniel, and used in several non peer-reviewed presentations of their work. Fig. 9, in the paper referenced, is a modified version of the symmetry diagram, with only 5 mounds used instead of 6, and grey color instead of full colored lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diagramofsymmetry (talk • contribs) 15:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

, have you had time to read the reference in JBIS I provide? Thanks.

POTD
--2001:56A:774D:8F00:645E:71A0:5A03:2480 (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)