My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<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>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Now, you can call that "belief", but I think of it more in terms of: my own inspection of <b>all</b> the relevant data is inconclusive.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So let's work on that. What do you see or not see that raises most of your doubts? We can't stand shoulder-to-shoulder to view images, but we can approximate that by looking at renditions of various images until we agree what is or is not present in them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Ok, fair enough. Give me a little time and I'll present a simplified version of the problem I have (if you meant that you won't see this until after Sep 11, then I have plenty of time). I can do that with two or three of the highest resolution overhead shots.<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To avoid circularity in this argument as applied to Mars, you need to find an image on Earth that is as detailed as Cydonia or Mt. Rushmore, but has a natural origin.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">With all due respect, Tom, to avoid circularity in this argument, someone needs to come up with a picture from Mars that looks like this. Remember, that's the fundamental idea of this topic. And as jrich said, the burden is not on the pareidolia faction. Although it might be if the quality of the images was like this.:

By the way, those arrows are where my friends and I stood, in the spring of '68, when we took a ride there from Scottsbluff, NE. We climbed up the rocks in front and then around behind Lincoln's head where we found a ladder that led to the top. Not sure if there's a "legitimate" way to get to the top, but we thought we heard someone yelling at us in the distance. Lucky no one fell off.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It’s a bit weak on dot pitch<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Hmmm, really? Ok, I might do a little experiment at Best Buy, or a local pc shop I use. If there's a chance that's a contributing factor, I have to be careful what I say. While I can see how it might matter, under certain circumstances, I didn't think these images were high enough resolution for my monitor to be the limiting factor, but I could be wrong.

rd

<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>
<br /> What do you see or not see that raises most of your doubts?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I have at least three MSSS images I can use, but let's start with this cropping of E0300824:

Where is the east side of the mouth that is depicted in the animation of the 1998 image? Where is the nose? Where is the east eye, and eyebrow? Also, where is the west side of the mouth?

This image was downloaded as a *.img file (PDS format), viewed in NASAView, and saved as a GIF from NASAView, then cropped and saved as a JPG in Photoshop. It's not the highest resolution image of the Face, but it's close at 1.83m/pixel. The only processing I did, was to rotate it, and adjust the histogram.

The pertinent question should be are we creating these pareidolic images and why! If people started photographing pareidolia in shadows on white boards, not only would they capture great art works (with none of the rubber stamp quality even in much of Picasso and even VanGogh) but they would see these images are projected from their un-conscious minds at the same time they are projected to them from what is commonly called "God." "If you stare long enough into an abyss, the abyss stares into you." (Friedrich Nietzsche). Once this solipsistic view was accepted worldwide, there would no longer be war/prison/slave/slave-mastery and we could work 6 hours per year for a middle class existence (as described by Buckminster Fuller,) and live in "heaven" here and now on earth. See David Bohm (The universe is in each named thing as each named thing is in the universe). What one perceives is altered by the perceiver (Werner Heisenberg.) One can look as the perfect Taoistic flow pattern in natural pareidolia which no artist can equal. The Cydonia face appears natural, the rock face example below it appears not to be. "Art is a covenant between "God" and man, and the less it has to do with man, the better." (Andre Gide). The eminent Roger Cardinal did not need to look at my negatives to know there was no manipulation. If i could create images like these, as varied as they are especially, i would be the greatest "artist" in the world. As it is, i merely shoot at whatever looks anything like a face/figure.(approximately 1 out of 6 is acceptable.) Henry Boxer looked at them for 3 seconds and accepted them for what the are. Thanks for enjoying my photographs rd, Thanks, fred ressler.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />If i could create images like these, as varied as they are especially, i would be the greatest "artist" in the world. As it is, i merely shoot at whatever looks anything like a face/figure.(approximately 1 out of 6 is acceptable.) Henry Boxer looked at them for 3 seconds and accepted them for what the are. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Fred, welcome aboard!

Yes, that was the conclusion I came to, also. Actually, I came to that conclusion when I read a little description by you as to how you got started. Never for a minute did I think they were anything other than what you said they were. "3 Seconds" sounds about right.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The Cydonia face appears natural, the rock face example below it appears not to be. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Which rock face example are you referring to? Mount Rushmore?

Incidentally, Alexander Boes' pictures of Faces in the rocks in Norway are also very impressive. The only difference there is one might need a little more proof that they disappear on close inspection and that they are not rendered art in the rocks. Alexander doesn't believe they are, and I have no reason to doubt him, it's just that scientifically speaking one needs to be sure. If they were left behind by some indigenous peoples, then they are not truly pareidolic in nature. But, I will say this, if they were not rendered, than they are fantastic examples of the complexity of pareidolia as are your photographs.

Oh, by the way, can you really get 1 out of 6 at anytime? Wow, that's amazing.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Trinket</i>
<br />It all comes down to Whocares?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

No. It all comes down to: where'd all the extra contrast come from?

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Trinket</i>
<br />No one has taken the time to find out why after 50 years blurry low res images are the norm.. Leave your thinking to the professionals is the common theme..<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Trinket, I understand your concern, but these are two different issues. Yours is well worth pursuing, if you believe in it enough. Personally, I'm much more intrigued and interested in the pareidolia/non-pareidolia part of it. I think we could find common ground on alot of this stuff, but I for one, am not likely to go too far down the other path.

rd