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 /><ul><li> We began with the recognition that "what something looks like" cannot be used to judge either artificiality or lack thereof. ...{Point 1} </li><li> We began with three criteria for sorting out natural from artificial: a priori predictions, context, and relationships. ...{Point 2} </li><li> The Cydonia Face could be adjudged artificial before MGS on the basis of eight criteria, all of which favored artificiality in the end. Then sixteen highly specific new tests of artificiality (predictions of four parameters for each of four features falling within pre-specified ranges) came out in favor of artificiality despite odds against chance of 1000 billion billion to one. Moreover, the Face has no noisy or complex background that might allow us to find such features by chance....{Point 3} </li><li> Given a natural origin ruled out for at least this one feature on Mars, artificiality and pereidolia start on equal footing as explanations of other features, with neither being a more likely default explanation....{Point 4} </li><li> Our goal here was to develop better criteria to sort out natural from artificial for such features. But those criteria are apparently the same as they are for judging images here on Earth (e.g., 3D vs. 2D, artificial construction materials, etc.), with no new ones coming to light....{Point 5} </li><li> Discussants are allowing their biases about whether or not a first case for artificiality on Mars has been made, ... Otherwise, the most reasonable stance would be that they are all pareidolic. {Point 6}</li></ul><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Point 1. This may be true for you, but it certainly wasn't true for Neil and I. We both started out thinking that elaborate pareidolia was highly unlikely. It went against common sense. Neil still thinks that, but I've changed my thinking considerably. I no longer think that elaborate pareidolia is unlikely, given the right combination of signal. However, I still agree with Neil that beyond a certain point, pareidolia could be ruled out, merely by looking at it. I posted a number of everyday images that show that. But we need a 10 fold increase in clarity, at a minimum, to have any chance of that happening.

Point 2. True, but not entirely true. I'm saying a 10 fold increase in resolution would narrow the field considerably. That might not strictly be a "criteria", but it would have the same affect.

Point 3. Ah yes, the Cydonia Face. I'm sure your numbers are correct, but I'd bet anything there are scores of readers who doubt the features are there that you used. Also, when you look closely at all the more recent images (that I used in the last few pages), you find that there are "conditions" that must be met. Also, I noticed nobody was willing to take on my challenge and locate the features I requested in E1501347 (page 10 and 12). Plus, the face may not have a noisy background, but the original face is a dime a dozen, pareidolia-wise. It just happens to be big.

Point 4. That would only be true, if we had ruled out a natural origin, using photos with a 10 fold increase in resolution. Or we proved it was metal or hollow, or that all the conditions I mentioned were met. As it is, pareidolia still gets the nod, in my view.

Point 5. True. It's very difficult to tell. For instance, Alexander Boe's images. In order to be sure, we'd have to know for sure whether or not some indigenous peoples did it, and that might be impossible. Either that, or we'd have to closely inspect them, to see if they "virtually" disappear on close inspection.

Point 6. Yes, I guess this is true. At least to a certain extent, anyway. I would probably continue to lean towards pareidolia on most of the stuff that's been posted, <b>even if we found the proverbial watch</b>. Just because artificiality was proved, doesn't negate the incredible nature of pareidolia, as Fred's photos prove.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Unknown is the number of silent participants who changed their minds or were at least influenced --Neil<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, this is a good point. It was my experience in my years in software that if I thought something about a particular feature or idiosyncrasy of our product, that there were going to be scores of people after me who thought the same thing. On the other hand, it never ceased to amaze me what some customers considered "important", so I can easily see that Neil is right here, and that on balance we may not have tipped the scales very far beyond where they were in the first place.

There is one more thing I'd like to accomplish, but I don't know if I will. I'd like to demonstrate how one might "create" faces out of random noise. If I'm right in my thinking, it might be possible to prove that really elaborate pareidolic images can be created simply by tossing all the ingredients into a pot and shaking them up. Even if no one ingredient resembles anything that one would associate as a facial feature. What I'm saying is that I don't intend to take a bunch of eyes, noses, mouths, eyebrows, etc. and stir them up. That would be silly, and wouldn't prove anything. What I mean is that any given ingredient will really just look like noise, when taken individually, but when combined in the right way, randomly, faces will appear. That's the theory, anyway.


rd

In summary Tom, I get your point. We might not be able to go too much farther this way.

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'd bet anything there are scores of readers who doubt the features are there that you used.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The features are plain for anyone to see in the raw 1998 image viewed with proper contrast. (The animation's purpose is only to locate them.) Moreover, triangulation of the 1998 MGS image with the Viking images shows the features are correct in 3D, not just 2D, as shown in the animation. (The Face would almost certainly get distorted instead of better when reoriented if it were a natural mesa.)

It is not surprising to me that some features are harder to see at other lighting and viewing angles. Again, the features are clearly present whenever they can be present, as the Kelly image helps us see (used only for locating the features in other images). And equally important, the "nostrils" feature present in the 1998 image disappears in the 2001 overhead image, as it must if the nostrils are vertical to the ground. If they had remained present in the overhead image, that would mean they were only albedo features, not part of a true 3D sculpture.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">when you look closely at all the more recent images (that I used in the last few pages), you find that there are "conditions" that must be met.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">These "conditions" are applicable only to east-side features. The west-side analysis is complete and conclusive on its own.

Amazingly, the correct features are also present on the east side too, but are mildly displaced and partially filled, apparently by whatever came out of that crater in the SE corner. No east-side features are counted in the statistics I cited, but the east side was clearly not at all random with respect to the artificiality hypothesis's predictions. Mild displacements and filling from the SE crater can explain what deviations exist from essentially perfect bilateral symmetry.

It doesn't take much imagination to see (with the help of the animation) that the Cydonia Face could have been visually convincing to even the strongest skeptics if the east side had not been damaged by a crater. As it is, the west side of the face already has Mt. Rushmore quality if images of the latter ore reduced to comparable resolution and contrast with the former. This is mainly because of the 3D character of both.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I noticed nobody was willing to take on my challenge and locate the features I requested in E1501347 (page 10 and 12).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I thought I did that by showing the Kelly image as a key shown side-by-side with the 2001 image.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the face may not have a noisy background, but the original face is a dime a dozen, pareidolia-wise.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That completely ignores the power of the <i>a priori</i> prediction argument. Every hand of 13 cards is a 635-billion-to-1 "miracle". But predicting the exact 13 cards in advance is guaranteed not to be a lucky guess at the same odds.

The same is true of a field of images. No matter how unlikely it seems, each face found by chance may still be pareidolic. But if one specifies particulars in advance good enough to distinguish two hypotheses at odds "x", and the particulars turn out to be true, then the two hypothesis are indeed distinguished at odds "x". (This assumes no foreknowledge of any of the particulars.)

Therefore, it doesn't matter how many pareidolic imitators the Cydonia Face has. The particulars were specified in advance for the Cydonia Face. Those particulars were verified by MGS. So that one Face is artificial at hyper-long odds against chance.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">it might be possible to prove that really elaborate pareidolic images can be created simply by tossing all the ingredients into a pot and shaking them up.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Perhaps so, but it would not shed much light on our concerns here. It doesn't seem to touch the <i>a priori</i> artificiality proof, nor to provide us with a criterion to distinguish artificial from natural on a level playing field.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Just because artificiality was proved, doesn't negate the incredible nature of pareidolia, as Fred's photos prove.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We might agree about that for isolated images. But cases where images contribute to a scene are more likely artificial, IMO. -|Tom|-

Tom states: "We might agree about that for isolated images. But cases where images contribute to a scene are more likely artificial, IMO. -|Tom|-"

i have camptured many scenes (at least 30) with multiple pareidolic images. Many have 4 or more human images in one photograph. One that has 4 images is titled "Steven-Cat-Nun-Dicken's character,"(6,12,13,14 features in each of four separate images). (Unpublished on web). One example of multiple figures in one image on the web title "Mother and Child," can be viewed at

yarddog.com/catalog.php?category=50&PHPS...bc80900455b5321758cd

These multiple images always "fit together" as though they were painted by the same "artist," (see "Mother and Child")even though from photo to photo the images never appear as though the same "artist" painted them. There is always some overall "unity," in each photograph.

We have such a variety of divergent, uncompromising, and incompatible views on the subject of artificial structures on Mars that it is a great credit to the management of this MB that we can communicate at all. Here are some samples; (none of this is intended as derogatory—these are simply facts. Note; if a member uses his real name it will be used here):
1- We have artificiality advocates like Zip Monster who believe that half of the Cydonia face is “feline” and half is “human” as a kind of cultural symbol.
2- We have skeptics such as rd, jrich, and a few others who think that pareidolia is frequent, common, and can be very detailed; and that therefore all possible artifacts on Mars art examples of pareidolia and therefore natural formations.
3- We Have moderate skeptics like Larry Burford and Gregg Wilson who admit of the possibility of artificiality on Mars but also lean toward the possibility that most (or many) objects are natural.
4- We have artificiality advocates like Tom who believe that the scientific work done, especially on the Cydonia face, is the overriding factor (possibly the sole reason) for considering the other possible artifacts as anything other than pareidolia.
5- We have artificiality advocates like Trinket who believe that all of Mars is artificial, that there is a massive conspiracy to cover up the fact, and that there is no pareidolia but only artificiality, especially in the case of faces.
6- We have artificiality advocates like Neil DeRosa, starjim, and several well known non-participants like JP Levasseur, who believe that there are many faces and also much pareidolia on Mars, and that each case must be examined individually on its merits, using many qualitative and quantitative criteria.

If I missed any “camp” and you wish to be mentioned please let us know.

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 />3- We Have moderate skeptics like Larry Burford and Gregg Wilson who admit of the possibility of artificiality on Mars but also lean toward the possibility that most (or many) objects are natural.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I would put myself in a hybrid of this category. As I've said many times, I still leave the door open to artificiality. For instance, Parrotopia is very compelling, and extremely difficult to imagine how that's a natural object. Also, the Cydonia Face leaves me wondering. On the other hand, when it comes to the vast majority of the faces that you or Trinket (and others) have posted, well then yes I guess you might say I'm a hardened skeptic. In those cases pareidolia is still the most likely explanation.

rd