ESA Cydonia, Mars Image

Cydonia 4 Way

img] img219.imageshack.us/img219/1448/eenymeenymineymoqm72zk3.jpg [/img]

******
******
******
Walt,
I have broken this image link ( by deleting the first square bracket) because the image is too wide for our processing systems and causes some problems.

Please try to find another image that is not as wide (width is the problem.)
******
******
******

<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"><i>Originally posted by Walt</i>
<br />Behind The Jesters Mask A Pair Of Jokers Wild<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Please read our editorial about mirrored images. They are never valid in this kind of context. -|Tom|-

metaresearch.org/home/Viewpoint/archive/.../mirrored_images.asp
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Generally I agree with this. If you do enough mirroring I think you can find significant looking shapes even in random terrain. I also don't see how one can statistically determine the improbability of a mirrored image because one can just move the mirror edge slightly and get perhaps millions of mirrored formations out of even one MSSS image.

However I now think those that subscribed to the mirroring idea might have been seeing something on perhaps a subconscious level. The Crowned face seems to have a dual face, and it overlays quite well on the KK face and Cydonia face. So just because mirroring might be impossible to prove statistically it doesn't mean some hypothetical aliens might have done it for some reason. That is, formations on Mars, if any are artificial, need not have been built to be easy for us to prove they are artificial. I think aliens if there were any might have assumed that humans or whoever would eventually land and find all there was to find. Therefore whether a formation attracted attention first or last, it would be seen eventually.

I could never see a dual face on the Cydonia face, though many did claim they could see this. Then when I overlaid the Crowned faces on it I did see it may have been originally a dual face as well. I tend to think these faces, if artificial, are too old to have anything to do with art on Earth but it is not possible to say whether aliens would produce this kind of art, or even if they had a double face themselves. For example with genetic engineering 2 heads might be fused together, we ourselves could conceive of the technology to do this. Because they look vaguely humanoid we assume this is not true, but we also don't know if other alien artifacts might be missed because they simply look too weird. All one can do is look for formations that appear lifelike to us, and try to prove they could not happen geologically.

img] img151.imageshack.us/img151/2340/thewhitelionroarsel4.gif [/img]

******
******
******
Walt,
I have broken this image link ( by deleting the first square bracket) because the image is too wide for our processing systems and causes some problems.

Please try to find another image that is not as wide (width is the problem.)
******
******
******

Although there have been some impressive new additions (e.g. Joe and Marsrocks) to our group of posters on the Artificiality subject, which have added to our collective knowledge, this thread is not one of them. It continually misrepresents the raw data images with illegitimate enhancements and mirroring, it totally ignores the concept of pareidolia, indeed that seems to be its major thrust.

I know those who are hardened critics of Artificiality will have no problem with this approach and probably favor it (for the obvious reason). It most certainly does more to damage the Artificiality hypothesis than anything imaginable.

Putting this material on a level playing field with the following is tantamount to an assault on the good faith efforts of researchers. (all links and references have been given previously)
[Neil]

Man would I love to see the entire Nefertiti and Family area taken from the HiRise. For me, that would be a defining moment. I think I would either be forced to believe that there really are artworks on Mars, or forever stop considering the possibility. I think this is an important site in the controversy for a couple of reasons. Since I have a vested interest in the Family (cause I found it)I might be more open to the possibility of it still "looking" like it's artificial. (I know that "what it looks like" proves nothing, but for the sake of this argument, I'm just thinking about my view on the controversy.) But the other thing that makes this an important one has to do with the Elaborate Pareidolia Theory, or the question "how elaborate can pareidolia really be?" If this site got "Skullfaced" by higher resolution, it would epitomize my belief that pareidolia can be quite elaborate, and would come to represent the whole idea. The fact that the original images were fairly poor is an important factor in the question. If you squint your eyes, or have poor vision, you see more faces in the trees, so it stands to reason that lower resolution is a more fertile ground for pareidolic images.

But I have to admit, if the scene still looked like we think it looks like in the above images, that would be pretty hard to ignore.

rd