Nefertiti's Family

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
<br />You know, with mosiacs as well as catagorized/grouped family fauna sculptures on Mars, it feels as if the artists were trying to attract attention, to make it more obvious to future intelligent lookers (like us) that the structures are not natural. Or maybe there's a deeper meaning to the categorization...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I think there is a simpler explanation. In Meta science, there are many reasons to conclude that Mars is a former moon, not an original planet. The probable artifacts we see on Mars are more easily explained as those of a visiting intelligent species rather than an indigenous species.

If we look at our own situation, in 1000 years or so, travel to our Moon will be routine, and tourists will often make the trip. The logical first place to visit would be an orbiting space station to get an overview and choose points of interest on the surface to visit. That would inevitably lead to surface facilities (whether scientific, commercial, governmental, recreational, or whatever) to compete for tourist dollars by building surface features that can be seen from the orbiting space station above. Mosaics and memorials like Mt. Rushmore are among the leading possibilities for such features.

If that is a likely scenario in the future of our own species, it is easy to conclude it was also the motivating scenario for the civilization that built features on their moon, Mars. -|Tom|-

While these things are definitely interesting. I think too many conclusions are being jumped to. Light conditions, angles, and a lot of other factors come into play here. Plus, there's one other very important factor: The whole lot of you WANT to find faces on Mars. With a mountain of images to pour over, is it any suprise you'll find things that vaguely look like something familiar? My take on this is: It's worth investigating further, but as it stands right now, it's just about useless as real evidence of anything but wishful thinking.

---

"Regret can only change the future" -Me

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965

Dangus writes, “To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous.”

No one is claiming “absolute knowledge.” With all due respect, one would think that would be abundantly clear from the above posts. What we are talking about here are degrees of probable certainty, which can be attained by the proper use of logic and evidence, in other words by the scientific method.


Dangus also writes, “The whole lot of you WANT to find faces on Mars. With a mountain of images to pour over, is it any suprise you'll find things that vaguely look like something familiar?”

Again, by carefully reading the above posts, and also The Van Flandern and Levasseur papers cited above, I note once again that it is crucial to be specific. Sure there are lots of images of “faces” everywhere (I found 15 on my laptop Yosemite scene). But there are formal, recognized ways to tell fiction from the real thing. It’s all about good evidence: in this case details, proportionality, and orientation, which should conform to known facts (in this case known faces) or to the theory we are attempting to prove.

Does this mean “certainty” or “absolute” knowledge? Again no. But barring fraud on the part of JPL (which seems highly unlikely), and barring extremely high odds against “coincidence,” we think structures/images like the Face at Cydonia, the Profile Image, and now these newly recognized images, have a reasonably good probability of being the real thing, and deserve further investigation. What kind of investigation? Well, for one thing, better higher resolution imaging of these and surrounding areas. Later we would need on the ground confirmation of artificiality.

Neil

The DeRosa brothers have made a very interesting find here.

The first Nefertiti head - which has been captured in two separate MOC images appears to be a real geoglyph, sculpted in low relief. Overall it exhibits identifiable features in the proper orientation, such as suggestions of an eye, nose, mouth, ear, and it wears an extended headdress. Not only do these two images support Nefertiti's features - the new image provides a second "face."

Although the second geoglyphic face is less distinct, the facial features are still discernable and projects a common stylized motif with the adjoining Nefertiti head.

This is a great find and strengthens the artificiality of both geoglyphs.

Nice work.

Zip Monster

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Dangus</i>
<br />Light conditions, angles, and a lot of other factors come into play here ... The whole lot of you WANT to find faces on Mars ... is it any suprise you'll find things that vaguely look like something familiar?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I know there are lots of untrained people seeing lots of imagined things on Mars and elsewhere. But it still amazes me that there are people who assume that scientists trained in application of scientific method would be so naive. This is especially the case at this web site, where our ability to be faithful to scientific method and its conrols against bias and self-deception are the only arguments we have for credibility when criticizing mainstream science.

We all start with the knowledge that faces occur abundantly in clouds and landscapes, and that we are hard-wired to spot them. This is the field of pareidolia, and JP Levasseur wrote a nice paper with lots of examples for our Bulletin about how to distinguish pareidolia from reality. For example, we all have no trouble recognizing that the Old Man in the Mountain (in New Hampshire) is an accident of nature, while Mt. Rushmore and the Sphinx are artificial. We now have objective criteria for telling which is which.

So that brings up the other side of the coin. Given the strong bias I and many others started from, that artifacts on Mars were extremely improbable (a "bias" because the probability of artifacts on Mars is unknown, which is very different from being known to be small), one must then be very careful to lay out criteria that allow the possibility of learning that there are legitinate artifacts on Mars. Without any specific, well-defined, objective criteria, then one is simply acting out of bias again to support a personal belief that artifacts are improbable, when reality (for all we know) might be that every terrestrial planet in the Galaxy has been visited by intelligences in the past, and all might contain artifacts.

There are two kinds of people in the world -- those seeking the truth unconditionally, and those trying to prove the truth they already know. Submitting one's beliefs to the outcome of an objective test with a well-designed protocol against the influence of bias is not an easy thing to do, especially if the test results go against one's strong beliefs. But that is the essence of scientific method.

To see this applied to the Cydonia Face, see the 6-author article "Evidence for Planetary Artifacts" at spsr.utsi.edu/ , at the link for Recent Articles. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />Neil and I agree with you that a "key" is a good idea.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">See slide 42 at www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydo...act_html/default.htm for an example of a Profile Image key. -|Tom|-