Faces from the Chasmas

<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 /><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 />1.) I realize that this argument can always be countered by the pareidolia argument <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Exactly.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">that elaborate pareidolia is either impossible or extremely rare; if so then natural occurring faces with good proportion, detail, feature orientation or positioning, shading and highlighting, similarity to humans or known animals, and so on, can be ruled out as a reasonable possibility<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The problem with this statement is twofold.

One, your logic is flawed because you are starting at the conclusion and working backwards (I forgot the term for that, other than "self-fullfilling"). Because you think your artworks are "natural occurring faces with good proportion, detail, feature orientation or positioning, shading and highlighting, similarity to humans or known animals" and can't be pareidolia, you conclude: therefore they can't be pareidolia. You still don't (after all this time) have anything independent of this self-fullfilling theory to base that statement on.

And two, because you've never actually studied pareidolia in and of itself, you are stuck in a situation where you can't see the forest for the proverbial trees.

You realize Trinket's stuff is probably pareidolia, but don't realize that the only difference between his stuff and yours is one of style and "technique" so to speak. You're two different types of artists, so you find different types of images.

It is very apparent that the only thing that's going to resolve this is if somebody finds an ancient Rolex in the sand. There are simply too many ways to continue to rationalize what we see, depending upon the point of view. The Skullface example I used at the beginning of the Pareidolia Thread is a good example of how the argument doesn't get resolved at higher resolutions. One person concludes it (the AOH) got blown out of the water, while another person concludes it's because of acid rain and millions of years of erosion.

There are simply too many ways to continue to carry on the debate, because there are no real metrics to tell for sure. I know GOrme would dispute this statement, but after spending a week reading his analysis of the King Face region, I still walked away unconvinced.

Basically, all you're doing now, and have been since the beginning is saying that in your case you're so capable of seeing "real" faces that yours <b>must be </b> artworks and not pareidolia, whereas everyone else's faces are not "up to snuff" and therefore <b>must be </b> pareidolia.

In my not so humble opinion, you are engaging in a self-fullfilling fantasy, with no substance.

I'm sure Tom is not thrilled about the stalemate in this particular subject, so I'll leave it at that.



rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I appreciate your oppinion but disagree with much, though not all of it, for reasons that I will not repeat. Readers can go back and read the year-long debate if they are so inclined. At some points, the debate was actually quite interesting, and was probably a contribution to the subject in general.

But, just to give the readers a sample of your method, one small example. You state: <blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Basically, all you're doing now, and have been since the beginning is saying that in your case you're so capable of seeing "real" faces that yours must be artworks and not pareidolia, whereas <b>everyone else's </b>faces are not "up to snuff" and therefore must be pareidolia.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You say this right after I post <b>someone else's </b>face (Nefertiti discovered by JP Levassier) that I'm fairly sure is not only not pareidolia, but is more likely to be artificial by my standards than most of my own discoveries, and I have said or implied so many times. This strikes me as a disconnect with your immediate surroundings. Have a nice day!
[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 />(Nefertiti discovered by JP Levassier) [Neil]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, that was back in the Days Of BD (Before the Dillution), when all of the candidates for artificiality actually had a reasonable chance of turning out to be artificial after all. Before the waters got muddied.

I actually forgot about those days, as I'm sure many others have. JP himself warned of the dangers of dillution, but alas it was doomed to happen.

rd

<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 /><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 />1.) I realize that this argument can always be countered by the pareidolia argument <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Exactly.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">that elaborate pareidolia is either impossible or extremely rare; if so then natural occurring faces with good proportion, detail, feature orientation or positioning, shading and highlighting, similarity to humans or known animals, and so on, can be ruled out as a reasonable possibility<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The problem with this statement is twofold.

One, your logic is flawed because you are starting at the conclusion and working backwards (I forgot the term for that, other than "self-fullfilling"). Because you think your artworks are "natural occurring faces with good proportion, detail, feature orientation or positioning, shading and highlighting, similarity to humans or known animals" and can't be pareidolia, you conclude: therefore they can't be pareidolia. You still don't (after all this time) have anything independent of this self-fullfilling theory to base that statement on.

And two, because you've never actually studied pareidolia in and of itself, you are stuck in a situation where you can't see the forest for the proverbial trees.

You realize Trinket's stuff is probably pareidolia, but don't realize that the only difference between his stuff and yours is one of style and "technique" so to speak. You're two different types of artists, so you find different types of images.

It is very apparent that the only thing that's going to resolve this is if somebody finds an ancient Rolex in the sand. There are simply too many ways to continue to rationalize what we see, depending upon the point of view. The Skullface example I used at the beginning of the Pareidolia Thread is a good example of how the argument doesn't get resolved at higher resolutions. One person concludes it (the AOH) got blown out of the water, while another person concludes it's because of acid rain and millions of years of erosion.

There are simply too many ways to continue to carry on the debate, because there are no real metrics to tell for sure. I know GOrme would dispute this statement, but after spending a week reading his analysis of the King Face region, I still walked away unconvinced.

Basically, all you're doing now, and have been since the beginning is saying that in your case you're so capable of seeing "real" faces that yours <b>must be </b> artworks and not pareidolia, whereas everyone else's faces are not "up to snuff" and therefore <b>must be </b> pareidolia.

In my not so humble opinion, you are engaging in a self-fullfilling fantasy, with no substance.

I'm sure Tom is not thrilled about the stalemate in this particular subject, so I'll leave it at that.

rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't think logic is applicable here because I don't think Neil is claiming that he has proven anything. He is suggesting some formations might be artificial but only proposing they look somewhat unusual or artificial. Since there is no conclusion there can be no circular reasoning, perhaps circular suggestions at best.

Probably the only way to apply logic in this case is by trying to prove something cannot be natural, since there is no real evidence of artificiality beyond something looking unusual, which is the definition of an anomaly.

In that case then I see no proof these formations cannot be natural, because dunes for example are known to form fairly random patterns. However if a formation was found to be impossible to form naturally then it must be artificial. For example a dune formation that could not form naturally must be definition have been heaped in a pattern by someone. The KK face for example is mostly composed of dunes, perhaps with some mounds under it to stabilise them. Alternatively there might have been a face there and dunes moved up against it. Since dunes move naturally against mounds on Mars in this case their shape might not be proven impossible to form naturally.

Also in Nefertiti it might have been grooves made in the ground and dark soil got trapped later in these grooves or against other shapes. In that case the soil or dunes might be impossible to prove they are not natural.

Sometimes it is easier to prove something cannot be natural, it also saves a lot of time because many parts of these candidate artifacts must in fact be natural.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gorme</i>
<br />I don't think logic is applicable here because I don't think Neil is claiming that he has proven anything.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I would be willing to bet almost anything that Neil would not agree with this statement. The question isn't whether or not logic is applicable, but rather whether or not the logic is faulty. The only difference between his interpretation of his images and those of Trinket is that in one case his subjective interpretation tells him the images pass some kind of threshold (totaly subjective), whereas in the other case they don't (pareidolia). If another person looks at both his and Trinkets, they conclude that they are both just variants on the same idea. Try to tell Trinket that Neil's images are more "artificial" than his, and see what he says.

The point is that they are both subjective. There is no mathematical or scientific theory being laid out here, and proven, there is only "see this" types of presentations coming from both of them. The flaw in the logic (for both of them) is that they are assuming that because they see the face, it must be artificial. As if to say that because they see it, others must see it too, and if they don't it's because of their shortcomings. Neither one can really come to grips with the fact that pareidolia can cause the same effect.

They are the ones who must somehow "prove" their case for it to be valid.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In that case then I see no proof these formations cannot be natural......................Sometimes it is easier to prove something cannot be natural, gorme<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I don't want to repeat myself too much (this debate has been going on for along time) but the chance of anyone taking the time and trouble to "prove" these things aren't artificial are twofold: <b>slim and none.</b> You can barely get someone to look at them seriously. Nobody is going to try and prove they aren't artificial, they're merely going to look at you like you're a nut. The burden of proof is on those who make these outrageous claims.

rd

<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 /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gorme</i>
<br />I don't think logic is applicable here because I don't think Neil is claiming that he has proven anything.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I would be willing to bet almost anything that Neil would not agree with this statement. The question isn't whether or not logic is applicable, but rather whether or not the logic is faulty. The only difference between his interpretation of his images and those of Trinket is that in one case his subjective interpretation tells him the images pass some kind of threshold (totaly subjective), whereas in the other case they don't (pareidolia). If another person looks at both his and Trinkets, they conclude that they are both just variants on the same idea. Try to tell Trinket that Neil's images are more "artificial" than his, and see what he says.

The point is that they are both subjective. There is no mathematical or scientific theory being laid out here, and proven, there is only "see this" types of presentations coming from both of them. The flaw in the logic (for both of them) is that they are assuming that because they see the face, it must be artificial. As if to say that because they see it, others must see it too, and if they don't it's because of their shortcomings. Neither one can really come to grips with the fact that pareidolia can cause the same effect.

They are the ones who must somehow "prove" their case for it to be valid.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In that case then I see no proof these formations cannot be natural......................Sometimes it is easier to prove something cannot be natural, gorme<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I don't want to repeat myself too much (this debate has been going on for along time) but the chance of anyone taking the time and trouble to "prove" these things aren't artificial are twofold: <b>slim and none.</b> You can barely get someone to look at them seriously. Nobody is going to try and prove they aren't artificial, they're merely going to look at you like you're a nut. The burden of proof is on those who make these outrageous claims.

rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

To do research in that way however is just to abandon the idea of any research at all. If you think subjective evidence is not worth presenting, and that trying to prove things is not worth doing then that leaves no way to do anything at all. I agree much research on this subject that people do has been poor. I don't criticise other people's work because it makes no difference to me how often people are wrong, only when someone does eventually prove artificiality, if artificts exist on Mars. So I don't say one researcher is good and one is bad. Like miners, anyone can find a gold nugget, and anyone by looking at enough images might find proof of artificiality if it exists. So I try and look fairly at what people find.

I didn't get the impression they were asserting they had proven anything, maybe they are. I don't think they have proven artificiality though.

Rather than being nutty I am describing how logic and proving things actually work in science. Falsification is how proofs are made, you prove something by proving the opposite cannot be true. If proper methods of proving things are not followed then the results will be nothing is proven. At least with the right method proof might be found if there are in fact any artifacts on Mars. I don't know if there are or not, but I do think the evidence has improved over the years.

I don't care how the mainstream looks at this kind of research. I simply look at evidence and try to construct scientific proofs of artificiality, or to find natural processes that would account for these formations. At some point I might decide I have sufficient proof to write a peer reviewed paper on the subject, then I might be concerned about whether the mainstream considered it or me nutty. But until then there is nothing to write, and no opinions of others to worry about. There is only the data and whether it can be falsified.

I don't consider this a waste of time. In the process of studying this I coauthored a paper on Martian spiders that was published in a peer reviewed journal and now our work is the same as NASA's current theories on the spiders. We also wrote a history of Mars theory at harmakhis.org and since then all the geological predictions in that have been vindicated, so our theory of polar wander and the formation of Valles Marineris is looking good. We intend to write some peer reviewed papers on these theories this year and submit them to some journals. They may think they are nutty, but we think they have strong evidence. My coauthor is a Master of Geology.

So Mars research has been reasonably good for me, if there are no artifacts then I have enjoyed learning and writing about Mars. I am not interested in promoting artificiality without good evidence for it, and I have no emotional attachment to the idea at all. I would be quite happy if all these things turned out to be completely natural. I like a good puzzle though and I think there is a good chance there is at least one genuine artifact, and might end up proving it one day.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by gorme</i>
<br />Falsification is how proofs are made, you prove something by proving the opposite cannot be true. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Right. So, in this case, the proponents of the AOH would prove something (i.e., artificiality) by proving that the opposite (natural origins) cannot be true when they post their theories. That would have meaning. That's how you would do it. That's what I'm talking about. In other words, they would falsify the natural origins theory.

By the way, I don't know you personally, but I strongly doubt that you're "nutty".

I'll answer more of your last message tomorrow. I want to comment further on "subjectivity" and how it relates to this subject.

rd