My pareidolia knows no bounds.

The closest to first hand corroboration of source of my photos and their authenticity (naturally formed shadows of side of house, trees, white 20"x30" board) can be corroborated by friends and family who were there when i took some of them. At no time was any photoshop or digital alteration used. At no time was any dodging or burning done mechanically. These images were thusly printed at Lightwork Labs in Gainesville Florida. Film developed by Flair Color Labs, Gainesville. Negatives were printed as is, with some change of brightness/contrast on some of them to enhance the artistic (film noir look) despite the necessity of thusly REDUCING any image detail, as this always does. Tom's stongest case for non-pareidolia seems to be the 17 or so features on the "crowned face." When compared to the 35 features in my "Einstein" face his statement that the martian images are more detailed than pareidolia showing up on earth, as in clouds, wood grain and such, looses a lot of credability, especially when one considers the non-arithmatic increase in unusualness with each added feature. (in other words 70 features would be lets say 1000 times as penomenal as 35.) i would be interested in his "probabilty arguments," in reference to "Einstein."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The closest to first hand corroboration of source of my photos and their authenticity (naturally formed shadows of side of house, trees, white 20"x30" board) can be corroborated by friends and family who were there [pareidoliac]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I had something like "show and tell" more in mind, but thanks.

Neil

<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 />mention where yours came from (image id)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">E0300824:
www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e01_e06/images/E03/E0300824.html


rd

<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 />I had something like "show and tell" more in mind, but thanks.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Remember, the burden of proof is on the "artificiality" side. You posted a ton of "stuff" on the Faces in the Chasmas topic. I think it would be stretch to say that you "prooved" any of it was artificial.

This topic is merely a diversion, a counterpoint if you will, to all the claims of artificiality that have been made over the years. Pareidolia is still the most likely explanation for all of it. It's just like in a court of law. The defendant doesn't have to prove he's innocent, the prosecution has to prove he's guilty.

For instance, can you prove this is Martian Art (Cavebear, copied from an earlier post by you):

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 />

<i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />E0300824:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is the image you named before, and the one I analyzed in the link I provided.

We seem to be going in circles here. What are you looking for beyond what is already provided in my published analysis? The answers to most of your questions are provided by the side-by-side comparison of this image with the Kelly image from the animation. I saw no inconsistencies of relevance to your questions. -|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>
<br />We seem to be going in circles here. What are you looking for beyond what is already provided in my published analysis? The answers to most of your questions are provided by the side-by-side comparison of this image with the Kelly image from the animation. I saw no inconsistencies of relevance to your questions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Claims were made that secondary features exist (in the animation). When you play the animation, you see all these secondary features. In this image, we're looking right down on the east side of the face in this (and other images, I have waiting in the wings). <b>I'm asking where they are.</b> Did Kelly, or anybody, ever draw them in on this image? If so, can you give me the link again? Maybe I did miss it. But I'm not just asking where the secondary features on the east side are. I'm also asking:

{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?} <b>Also, where is the west side of the mouth?</b>


rd