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 Trinket</i>
<br />In "reality" the right question would be where'd all the contrast go..!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'd rather stick with my questions: 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?


rd

Rich and company, can we put together a curriculum and proposal to visit these places that can be accepted by NASA and the public, a collection which includes the most likely images?
Just a question. Mark


Mark Vitrone

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by MarkVitrone</i>
<br />Rich and company, can we put together a curriculum and proposal to visit these places that can be accepted by NASA and the public, a collection which includes the most likely images?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Mark, I agree that's a great question. Let's narrow it down to: What are the images that the artificiality side thinks are representative of their case? How can we decide, what images(features) shall we use to decide? Yes, that makes perfect sense to me. Also, what features does the pareidolia side think might clarify things.

Personally, I think it's all pareidolia, but I agree with what you're trying to do.

Here are two, just to get things started. This is a very good idea. If I was to make a list of the areas of contention in the "natural" vs. "artificial" controversy, these are the first two places I would go:
1. The Profile Image (hey, let's go for the jugular).
2. The Cydonia Face (ditto).

I'm pretty sure that's all we would have to do.

rd

I think that is a great idea Rich. Also, I think that the only thing that we can do is support a hypothesis that artificiality could be possible. We cannot decide here in this forum real or accident. My thinking is that if we are going to Mars anyway, and all points on that globe are equal, then why not go to Cydonia, which seems like the most interesting place. It has great geological features, it is equatorially located (excellent for leaving the planet after exploration), and it has these very interesting features that could be artificial.

Mark Vitrone

i was talking about the old man in the mountain image on this page. Looks like a double exposure. Also what does Mt. Rushmore have to do with pareidolia. These are man made images.

<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 />i was talking about the old man in the mountain image on this page. Looks like a double exposure. Also what does Mt. Rushmore have to do with pareidolia. These are man made images.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes, the Old Man in the Mountain is an example of an image that is "vague" and is used frequently to show pareidolia. Most of the proponents of the Artificial Origins Hypothesis (AOH) for some of the Mars features consider the Old Man typical of pareidolia. In other words, that's as good as it gets, in their view. I'm attempting to show that images can be much more detailed and still be pareidolia.

Mount Rushmore, on the other hand, is used by the proponents of the AOH as analogous to the Cydonia Face, and to show how if we saw something like that, we'd know it was man made. But that's not why <b><i>I</i></b> posted Mt. Rushmore. My purpose was to show it as an example of an image quality far superior to those we are viewing from Mars. My contention is that we don't have good enough images from Mars to say conclusively that something is man made.

rd