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 rderosa</i>
If I understand what Tom has said on the subject, no matter how good the image appears to be (eyes, nose, mouth, pair of gloves in the glove compartment, Chevy Impala insignia, etc.) it could still be random. So, unless some a priori test has been set up, there is no threshold of complexity that guarantees, or even gives you a reasonable expectation of artificiality, unless there already exists some reason to expect artificiality (I know that’s a mouthful, and I think I have that right). Ok, I can accept that. But what about images we find, where there has been no test, no a priori predictions in advance?

Does that mean that nothing is real, unless we predict it? Or does it mean that “we need more data”?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I argued with Tom several months ago about the significance of predictions concerning The Face. My position was that <i>a priori</i> predictions and successful tests using subjective interpretation of images gave no weight to the artificiality hypothesis. Tom didn't believe that the interpretation of the images was subjective. I argued that it could not be otherwise and therefore his methodology could not be depended on to yield correct findings or the probability of correctness. Only after we had evidence of sufficient quality that it could be objectively evaluated would we be able to justify any conclusions either way.

JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />My position was that <i>a priori</i> predictions and successful tests using subjective interpretation of images gave no weight to the artificiality hypothesis.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Who could disagree? The whole point of a protocol and predictions is to achieve objectivity and eliminate (insofar as possible) all subjectivity. There was no relevant subjectivity in the protocol we set in our table of criteria.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Tom didn't believe that the interpretation of the images was subjective.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">How can specific predictions of a maximum and minimum acceptable range for size, shape, location, and orientation of each of four predicted facial features, made in advance of any knowledge of their existence, be considered subjective? How can measuring what is then seen and determining if it meets the criteria stated in advance be considered subjective?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I argued that it could not be otherwise<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">So we are not using the same definitions of words. My dictionary says "subjective: based on somebody's opinions or feelings rather than on facts or evidence; existing only in the mind and not independently of it". By either definition, neither the advance predictions nor the subsequent measurements are subjective. What definition of "subjective" are you using?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Only after we had evidence of sufficient quality that it could be objectively evaluated would we be able to justify any conclusions either way.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Would you care to offer an example of such an objective quality that could be used for evaluation and drawing conclusions? My criteria are highly specific. Yours are so vague as to allow everyone to set his/her own criteria -- the ultimate subjectivity, IMO. -|Tom|-

Hello:


If I may, two remarks about 'objective' versus 'subjective' analysis.

- Since the Viking snapshots of the Face have been noticed and the hypothesis of the artificiality of a growing list of Mars features has been articulated, mainstream 'skeptics' always fall back on the good old 'you are looking for artifacts, therefore you will find them' argument.

To them no criteria is good enough, as they are stuck in the 'there are no artifacts, therefore nobody will find them' mode: nothing short of a Museum of Ancient Mars filled with Martian relics would entice them to (maybe) reconsider.


- To the more open-minded, one obvious approach is to eliminate the human factor as much as possible.

For example, a military computer program based on fractal analysis - successfully used by the army to spot camouflaged artifacts (such as armor, bunkers, etc) on pictures of the battlefield - spotted and ranked as highly artificial the classic Cydonia features (Face, D&M pyramid, etc.) on the Viking pictures (see 'The Martian Enigmas: a Closer Look' by Mark J. Carlotto)

This test was doubly objective:

1) It did not involve human observation (no pareidolia)
2) It was not designed with Martian artificiality in mind (no bias)

I wonder if this type of analysis was done on high definition pictures of newly discovered features, and with better software (Carlotto performed this test in the eighties).




Ephemeral

The essence of ever changing reality is the permanence of its transitory nature.

<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">Only after we had evidence of sufficient quality that it could be objectively evaluated would we be able to justify any conclusions either way.[jrich]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Would you care to offer an example of such an objective quality that could be used for evaluation and drawing conclusions? My criteria are highly specific. Yours are so vague as to allow everyone to set his/her own criteria -- the ultimate subjectivity, IMO. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I attempted to give two such examples in the first post of this topic. Maybe we don't have to wait until vacationers are walking around on the Martian surface with a camera. But, I still believe we should eventually reach a point where the resolution of images is so good as to leave no doubt about what we are seeing.

True, the terrain is very different, and there might not be familiar objects, but if we could see clearly enough, a lot of the questions would surely be answered. I think.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ephemeral</i>
<br />I wonder if this type of analysis was done on high definition pictures of newly discovered features, and with better software (Carlotto performed this test in the eighties).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Having worked with software of the eighties, I'd say it's a given that the tests should be repeated with modern software.

For one thing, we already know that the analysis of the D&M Pyramid was wrong.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by neilderosa

If you look carefully at the lower resolution (original) image you will see that there is not all that much detail (though there is the suggestion of an elaborate mosaic or scene). For example there is really no right eye (our view) nor a mouth, but or only a sugesstion of these features, though the left eye does have a little more detail.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Despite your lengthy "argument from authority" (that's when one substitutes reasons for pronouncements of authorities, all the while ignoring the countless other authorities who disagree) all one has to do is look at the original Scullface to see there is no more detail (of artificial features) in it than in the (very partial) hi-res image.

As for the original '76 Cydonia Face shot, one can credibly use that as an example of pareidolia, only by ignoring the numerous hi-res images that followed, most or all showing secondary characteristics; and also the scholarly papers by TVF and several others demonstrating artificiality by use of objective tests.

The kitty is cute but is proves or demonstrates nothing. Where is the chain of evidence, where's the scientific (or even comon sense) analysis of kitty's "face?"

I love Yosemite park too, but what does that have to do with anything?

Also you mentioned that low-res images are all suspect, but you neglected to define low-res. The MSSS strips run between 1.5 meters/pixel and around 7 m/p (eg, for the "T feature"). But all are considered hi-res. The context images run aproximately 700-800 m/p, and are thus considered low-res. I agree that we can definately not trust "faces" at that kind of low-res. I posted an example of what I mean in the "Faces in the Chasmas" topic yasterday.

Neil