New image of the Cydonia Face 4-13-06

Hello Neil.

According to your observations of the Cydonia Face, you admit noting such things as a human-like facial sculpture made of unknown material, however the right side appears severely damaged to you - probably by a meteor event.

Being a sculptor I don’t adhere to such speculation. I let the structures form and contours guide my eye and let the data shape my analysis.

What I see is a bifurcated geoglyphic structure.

For your benefit - here is a mirrored image of the feline (right) side of the Face.



Note the crowned headdress, the eye, the muzzle; the snarling mouth with fang and crowned tongue and note the feline aspect is complete with a zig-zag shaped mane.


BTW, there have been several good books written on the subject. I would suggest that you begin with the book The Cydonia Codex Reflection from Mars.

Zip Monster

Hi ZM,

I know about this and it looks very interesting, and neat. But we will have to agree to disagree on what science is supposed to do--at least this branch of science. However, I'm happy you are interested in the subject. And sometimes, by creatively looking at things (e.g. Rorschachs) in new ways we can discover new truths.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Zip Monster</i>
<br />For your benefit - here is a mirrored image of the feline (right) side of the Face.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Mirroring must not be used in scientific analyses. See our brief Viewpoint article about this at metaresearch.org/home/Viewpoint/archive/.../mirrored_images.asp

You were pointed to a scientific analysis, not a "speculation". I'm sorry if it happens to go against the content of a book you wish to sell. But blatantly unscientific works are fodder for our critics and help make artifacts on Mars a subject, much like UFOs, that scientists can't afford to credit without career consequences. Your approach is a great disservice to us all. -|Tom|-

Hello Neil,

If you don’t mind, what scientific methods do you use to support your analysis of the Cydonia Face? Could you please explain your interpretation with supportive data that the Cydonia Face was at one time a symmetrical humanoid visage. Is symmetry your standard? Is your model of a symmetrical face a preconceived idea or the projection of an ideal? What makes you support a symmetrical face as opposed to a bifurcated composite model? A scientist should look at the data without prejudges.

Also the two-faced model has nothing to do with any Rorschach Test. Maybe you should do a little research into the Rorschach method before making such a general statement about an artificial artifact on Mars.

Zip Monster

Hello Tom,

first of all I didn’t ”point” to your scientific analysis. I asked Neil what his scientific method was. I am already aware of your flawed criteria for the artificiality of the Cydonia Face. Your first mistake was to insist on a human symmetrical visage as the only acceptable marker for a recognizable “face.” What was your reason for this “Western ideal”? It appears it may have something to do with your displeasure with Hoaglands early analysis of the Cydonia Face as reflecting a two-faced model has influence your so-called “scientific method” by excluding a valid art form your analysis - that is common art form amongst the cultures of the Americas.

Secondly you say, “mirroring must not be used in scientific analyses”. Is this your criteria for a scientific method - by restricting the field of analysis. That’s not very scientific. Shouldn’t all the data and all sculptural art forms be considered for comparison?

Are you aware that the Maya, Aztec and Olmec produced half faced, two-faced and three-faced composite masks? Shouldn't these examples be considered?

Are you aware that archaeologist (who are also scientist) accept mirroring as a viable technique that was utilized by many Mesoamerican cultures, including the Maya, Aztec and Olmec? Should they remove this observation from their data set?

Are you aware that the first archaeologists to notice that certain Mesoamerican two and three dimensional artifacts were designed to be mirrored were Jacinto Quirarte (1978) followed by Anatole Pohorilenko (1981) and most recently Colleen P. Popson (2002).

With all due respect, by restricting the field of this analysis and ridiculing a fellow researchers work without presenting any supportive data for your reasoning- it is you who has provided a blatant unscientific approach that has become a great disservice to us all.

I’m not here to sell a book. I’m here to make your members aware of an alternative point of view – one that seeks the true nature of the Cydonia geoglyphs. Considering we all agree that the Cydonia Face is not natural - I hopped you and your discussion board would be more friendly and willing to debate the facial construction of the Cydonia Face and would be open to a full examination of the data, but I guess not.

My eyes are wide open,

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 Zip Monster</i>
<br />[to Neil]: the two-faced model has nothing to do with any Rorschach Test. Maybe you should do a little research into the Rorschach method before making such a general statement about an artificial artifact on Mars.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Answered at the link I cited, which you should read. Rorschach tests are based on mirroring ink blots to make them symmetrical. The comparison was therefore right on target.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your first mistake was to insist on a human symmetrical visage as the only acceptable marker for a recognizable “face.” What was your reason for this “Western ideal”?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The criteria for artificiality were established by SPSR members back when we had only a Viking image of half a face at Cydonia. It then seemed natural to expect that, if Cydonia was a sculpted face, the unseen half would have at least modest symmetry, just as 99.999...% of all faces we encounter in nature do. There was no <i>a priori</i> reason to expect weird art forms.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It appears it may have something to do with your displeasure with Hoaglands early analysis of the Cydonia Face as reflecting a two-faced model has influence your so-called “scientific method” by excluding a valid art form your analysis - that is common art form amongst the cultures of the Americas.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The scientific criteria preceded any knowledge of what the east side of the Face mesa looked like. Kynthia's analysis adopted by Hoagland came later and never attracted serious attention because of its ad hoc character.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Secondly you say, “mirroring must not be used in scientific analyses”. Is this your criteria for a scientific method - by restricting the field of analysis. That’s not very scientific. Shouldn’t all the data and all sculptural art forms be considered for comparison?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is answered at the link I provided, which was posted five years ago.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Are you aware that the Maya, Aztec and Olmec produced half faced, two-faced and three-faced composite masks? Shouldn't these examples be considered?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your neglect of references provided to you does not serve you well.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Are you aware that archaeologist (who are also scientist) accept mirroring as a viable technique that was utilized by many Mesoamerican cultures, including the Maya, Aztec and Olmec? Should they remove this observation from their data set?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Read the material at the link I provided.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Are you aware that the first archaeologists to notice that certain Mesoamerican two and three dimensional artifacts were designed to be mirrored were Jacinto Quirarte (1978) followed by Anatole Pohorilenko (1981) and most recently Colleen P. Popson (2002).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Those are not citations, and are useless as attempted citations. Lots of people use mirroring. Lots of people believe it lots of things, many of them mutually contradictory. The precepts of scientific method, especially controls against bias, are designed to get around people's beliefs. Yours seem too strong for you to allow them to receive an objective test.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">With all due respect, by restricting the field of this analysis and ridiculing a fellow researchers work without presenting any supportive data for your reasoning- it is you who has provided a blatant unscientific approach that has become a great disservice to us all.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You have not read either of the articles you were pointed to. You haven't a leg to stand on until you do.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I’m here to make your members aware of an alternative point of view – one that seeks the true nature of the Cydonia geoglyphs.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Any effort to communicate an alternative must begin with a comparison of the pros and cons of both ideas. You seem oblivious of the major cons for your preferred approach.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Considering we all agree that the Cydonia Face is not natural - I hopped you and your discussion board would be more friendly and willing to debate the facial construction of the Cydonia Face and would be open to a full examination of the data, but I guess not.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Many people come here pushing a personal belief system. The general answer is always the same. Formulate your hypothesis, and propose a way to test it that distinguishes it from other hypotheses and cannot be influenced by the biases of the proposer. Most of the world's beliefs, including many "scientific" ones, cannot survive such rigorous scrutiny.

So you must decide which is more important to you: being right, or finding the truth. The latter requires setting all beliefs aside until they pass an objective reality test.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My eyes are wide open,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Dreamers often think that too. -|Tom|-