Faces from the Chasmas

<u><b>Outline of <i>a priori </i>Predictions for Artificial Structures on Mars
</b></u> [Copyright by Neil DeRosa]

1) Numerous possible faces (or objects) well proportioned anatomically (or geometrically), correspondence to known units of the same genera.
2) Confirm previously discovered objects on Mars.
3) Predictions as to likely locations.
4) Other corroborating images of the same object.
5) Predictably repeated patterns or themes.
6) Frequent recurrence of mosaics.
7) Prediction of symmetry, detail, and proper orientation.
Realistic and recognized artistic techniques, frequent use of exaggerated features.
9) Further detail under higher magnification or better lighting.
10) North and south orientation relationships.
11) Most faces will be north oriented.
12) Recurring cultural or social themes.
13) Evidence of individual behavior and interests.
14) Evidence of a technically advanced civilization.
15) Requisite ability to make or construct large objects.
16) Animals.
17) Similarity to present day Earth humans.
18) Prediction of class and wealth implications, or government sponsored vs. private initiative implications.

The reader is invited to use his or her own innitiative to connect the dots. It is of course recognized that Dr. Van Flandern has suggested, implied, or commented on a few of these predictions previously; most notably, 2, 6, 9,and 12, and on the need for <i>a priori </i>predictions in general. This is an effort to systematize the process. The project of filling in the details of this outline is underway.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">This is an effort to systematize the process. The project of filling in the details of this outline is underway.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is not a philosophy website so it would be inappropriate here to go into the original (classical) meaning of the <i>a priori </i>principle. Suffice to say that the original Kantian meaning was essentially subjectivist. It was a claim to prior knowledge, before any experience or inductive reasoning was ever introduced. The modern meaning of the term, developed by the philosopher Karl Popper, among others, is much more reasonable and pragmatic.

I'll give a simple word picture of what I mean, taken from the imaginary Star Trek world. Imagine you saw an image of a movie star standing in front of you. You are positive this is the real thing, that it's the beautiful Jane Russell, (or today's equivalent), in front of you. She looks exactly like Jane; she talks to you; you can touch her; you can even smell her perfume.

But then you ask Dr. McCoy to take a tricorder reading. He does so and nothing registers, no human life signs, just a barely detectable energy blip. Then Data says, "end program," and Jane disappears and all you see is the grid of the hologram room. You were positive that Jane was there but she wasn't. It was just an illusion.

This in very simplified form is why you can't just base your judgment on what something "looks like." You need more. You need a mental model, you need a context, and you need evidence you can trust.

If the mental model or working hypothesis you come up with is logical, if it is consistent with other knowledge or information you have, if it is confirmed by future evidence or by a re-examination of existing eveidence, then it will be a good "<i>a priori</i>" tool you can use to help prove your theory. Eventually your proof may be compelling enough to actually convince others and spur them into action. But when it comes to new paradigms, it's a long and uphill battle for all the usual reasons.

Neil

Here's a specimen from a recent release. Another face with a well defined eye and appropriate features in the right places, though well weathered, S1800106, Profile with outreaced hands.



with white background.



Source:
www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/publicresul...06/05/S18-00106p.gif

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />Here's a specimen from a recent release ... profile with outreached hands.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Another good find.

I studied the first picture a while before looking at the key, and decided there was nothing there worth following up. The only "face" I could see was clearly pareidolic. Then I looked at the key and found that impressive, but figured that it must have been taken out of context. So I loaded up the whole strip image into Photoshop and searched it for that face, but still could not see the image in the key or anything especially interesting.

So I then matched small features in the key until I locared the right area, then matched large features until I could trace the same image as in the key. My mind resisted, showing me only a cruder pareidolic face until I had traced enough, and suddenly the whole face popped into view. The moment of locking in is truly a "eureka" experience, one I've had numerous times now with certain very strong Mars images.

Psychologically, this "popping" experience from seeming noise into a familiar and unmistakeable pattern is very convincing. However, it is also highly subjective, as is evident from the fact that so few experience it. I would appreciate hearing from other readers, and want to ask: Do you see the profile face in the key, in the cropped view, and/or in the original strip? Do you see it without much effort, with a great deal of effort, or not at all? Was it persuasive? Did you have a "locking in" experience? Was that persuasive?

And if anyone has any relevant knowledge in physical psychology, is there any way to objectify this process so we can do more than marvel? (This image meets few of Neil's list of 18 criteria, many of which are arguable anyway.)

Can anything come from such imagery other than calling into question the proper functioning of the brains of those who see the images clearly (who, sadly for the science, outnumber the skeptics on this forum)? -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i> 25 Aug 2006 : 02:46
“<br /><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />Here's a specimen from a recent release ... profile with outreached hands.”
Another good find... I would appreciate hearing from other readers, and want to ask: Do you see the profile face in the key, in the cropped view, and/or in the original strip? Do you see it without much effort, with a great deal of effort, or not at all? Was it persuasive? Did you have a "locking in" experience? Was that persuasive?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Tom asks, “Do you see the profile face in the key, in the cropped view, and/or in the original strip?”
I do see an outline of a face in the cropped view.
“Do you see it without much effort, with a great deal of effort, or not at all?”
If a great deal of effort is a 10, I would rate it at a 2.
“Did you have a "locking in" experience?”
No.
“Was that persuasive?”
No, but it is not dissuasive either.
I am not dissuaded because there is the one feature I have been looking for in other pictures, and that is; what appears to be a trail leading to the lower rear of the image as I mentioned in an earlier Post. Which is odd to me because this being the most obscure Glyph to me so far has the most important feature I have been looking for, a trail.
In addition, I have 2 observations; 1.) The artisans, (if artificial) made a grate deal of effort to conceal their work. And 2.) Mt. Rushmore required a good deal of “cropping” before those faces appeared. And as a side point; the trail at Rushmore comes from the top because the carving is on the side of a mountain not on a relatively flat surface as on Mars.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And if anyone has any relevant knowledge in physical psychology, is there any way to objectify this process so we can do more than marvel? (This image meets few of Neil's list of 18 criteria, many of which are arguable anyway.)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">“physical psychology”? A very interesting concept!
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Can anything come from such imagery other than calling into question the proper functioning of the brains of those who see the images clearly...? -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I find it enjoyable reading with my morning coffee.
thebobgy

[tvf] "Do you see the profile face in the key, in the cropped view, and/or in the original strip?"

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

[tvf] "Do you see it without much effort, with a great deal of effort, or not at all? Was it persuasive?"

Little effort .

No. (See final comments.)

[tvf] "Did you have a "locking in" experience? Was that persuasive?

Yes. As you say, it can be startling. (No, I don't see anything. Still nothing. H*ly Sh*t!.) Once an image locks in, it is nearly impossible to miss it on subsequint viewings.

No. (See final comments.)

[tvf] "And if anyone has any relevant knowledge in physical psychology, is there any way to objectify this process so we can do more than marvel? (This image meets few of Neil's list of 18 criteria, many of which are arguable anyway.)"

Hmmm. Boots on the ground, rock picks in hand.

Biological neural networks are subject to pattern recognition errors and ambiguous outputs as are the silicon based variety. The nature and details of the errors made by a particular net will be a function of the complexity of the net and the complexity of the pre and post filters in use. And probably of other factors not yet recognized. Some of those factors will reduce the error rate, others will increase it.

We still have a <u>lot</u> to learn in this area.

[tvf] "Can anything come from such imagery other than calling into question the proper functioning of the brains of those who see the images clearly (who, sadly for the science, outnumber the skeptics on this forum)?"

===

I see (most of ) the images clearly.

I have seen, and continue to see, similar images in many places around me such as the floor tiles in my bathroom and the photos from the European satellite. I have also experienced the "locking in" phenomenon with these images. From time to time I have asked others about these images, and they almost always see them just as I do. And they frequently experience the locking-in phenomenon, too.

None of this means that all of the images have to be the result of pareidolia. Or of some other type of pattern recognition problem not yet understood. But it does place me firmly in the skeptic camp.

Rather than wondering about the proper functioning of a particular brain, I would be inclined to wonder about the proper functioning of a particular brain / mind combination (where the pre and post filters and "other factors" mentioned above probably reside).

But before I went too far down that road I would like to explore the meaning of "proper function". Sigh.

LB