Nefertiti's Family

Here's Neil's art realism version (left) along side of the noise reduced image of the Profile Girl (right).

To those of you who still believe this is a random collection of dots, well I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.:

{Image deleted temporarily} Inanna%20key%20best86pct.jpg
{Image deleted temporarily} M0305549pg_nr.gif



rd

<i>In a post on another subject, refering to discussions on the Face at Cydonia in the early 90s, TVF wrote</i>, "Clearly certainty of correctness is not a good guide to actual probalility of correctness, at least in this instance."

I was wondering if Tom would care to comment, whe he gets a chance, (or anyone else) on when it is logically or scientifically appropriate to begin to have "certainty of correctness" on the subject of artificiality in any given case.

My own sense is that given the amount and kind of evidence we now have regarding the Face at Cydonia and also the Profile Image and Company, it is appropriate to feel <i>confidence </i>but not <i>certainty</i>, because, as I have said, we are still only dealing with images, and what is needed is corroboration and confirmation.

Neil

Hi everyone,

I has an interesting experience this weekend. I showed the newly discovered "family" to a friend of mine who has read Tom's book and new about the artificial structures debate. A few years ago we both concluded that Nefertiti was the most promising candidate for artificiality after the original Cydonia face, because of the good proportionality and detail. I did *not* show him the storm troopers and other possible profile above, and I did not have him read the thread. I simply showed him the new "key" and then the actual raw data. Then I asked him if he thought these new images added or subtracted to the artificiality hypothesis. He responded, "they definitely subtract from it." I was really surprised. I said, "even considering the proximity to Nefertiti?" He maintained his position.

I felt exactly the opposite way once I finally saw the man facing Nefertiti. It just seemed like too much of a coincidence to me. Yet this friend of mine is a very thoughtful and rational person, and is not biased against artificiality. We have had many discussions in the past about this topic.

So this gave me pause, and made me wonder whether facial profiles more easily conjured by the human brain in random imagery. The fact that most of these profiles only seem to show the front part of the face in good proportionality--but not the back of the head, and even the top of the head is usually not very proportional or else the face is wearing a hat or helmit--adds to the theory that our brains are conjuring these images.

To test this theory I got online last night and scanned through MGS strips for two hours, looking to see if I could find more profiles, whcih I did. Here was the "best" one I found, which if you look seriously, has VERY GOOD proportionality in the front part of the face, perhaps even more so than any of the others. There is even an eyelash above the eye. It is from strip #S0100652. I put a key below it.



Some of the other profiles I saw were decent, and I certainly saw a lot of "stretches." But the significant thing here is that not once did I see an entire person with body, legs and arms (even Nefertiti's one arm is being contested now as a forehead of another profile). Could it be telling us something that we are only seeing profiles? And only frontal profiles at that? And as someone else pointed out, only ones that are upright in the image strips?

Maybe are brains are more apt to discover faces, and profiles are the easiest kind to conjure, given that they are pretty much just an outline (perhaps mountain ridge) forming a kind of forehead, nose, mouth and chin, with one "eye" in the appropriate place.

Not conviced either way, but playing devil's advocate because we need to be self-critical.

Emanuel

Judging from some of the posts in other topics, such as the "Big Bang and Alternatives" section, it is obvious that there are some highly trained profesionals using this board. That they are not participating in the present discussion is understandable. Getting involved in a "Kook" topic could be disasterous to someone's reputation--and career. The fact that such well known scientists as Tom Van Flandern and (in his own way) Halton Arp, have stood out on a limb at the risk of their reputations, speaks volumes about their intellectual stature, courage, and integrety. Very rare in today's academic and scientiific world.

One can not discount economic interests. We all have to make a living, and if our living is not threatened, (mine isn't, but I pay a price in other ways) it is a lot easier to have "courage."

But somebody has got to say these things. If not, we as a society could become paralized by fear, and if so, we may never go beyond where we are today, in fact we may regress.

There is obviously something extraordinary going on here, and with a little logic, it is easy to see. What's needed are more qualified individuals willing to take the leap, take the risk. Being on the right side of history could make it all worthwhile. Those of you with experience may know what I mean.

Neil

[emanuel] "Could it be telling us something that we are only seeing profiles? And only frontal profiles at that? And as someone else pointed out, only ones that are upright in the image strips?"

The "upright" part is probably the most suspicious. But it is also the easiest to fix. Next time you feel like spending a few hours scanning the data from Mars, why don't you invert the images first?

The results of this experiment could be important. Or it might just be a waste of time. If you do it, please keep us posted.

LB

Hello Larry,

Why do you think the upright part is the most suspicious? Does this mean you entertain the hoax possibilty? Because it seems that as we proceed here, at least some of these faces (e.g. Cydonia, and the Profile) are quite unambiguous, at least as far as images go. And if so, it doesn't really matter which orientation they have because that is a separate problem to solve.

Neil