Nefertiti's Family

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Emanuel, on page 2 of this thread you were ecstatic in your discovery of the Darth Vader Twin Heads. And rightfully so. They may prove to be real, as I stated at the time. Can you please explain to us what changed in your thinking?...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

What changed my thinking is finding THREE MORE frontal profile images, two of which were far superior to most of the other images found to date (most of which are profiles too), but not finding anything else. This seems suspicious to me. It makes me think that in a sea of random dots (metaphorically speaking), frontal-human-proportional profiles occur more frequently than we might imagine. Like I've said before, they don't need to have symmetry, nor even the back of the head. Why didn't I find any whole bodies with arms and legs? Why only frontal profiles?

The thing about the Warrior Twins that originally made me enthusiastic over it's potential artificiality was it's relationship to the Nefertiti images. Not only was it just a short distance above the Nefertiti area, but the layout of the facing profiles stylistically matched the two main profiles of the Nefertiti area. It seemed thematic. And the very fact that anything with any detail had been discovered so close to Nefertiti (including the man facing her), seemed like an impossible coincidence to me.

But then I found these other profiles, and to me it subtracts from the overall hypothesis, for the reasons I have stated many times. In other words, the fact that I so quickly found other high-quality profiles elsewhere on Mars decreased the "coincidence factor" of having found ones so close to the original Nefertiti... even the man.

I still think the Nefertiti area is the best candidate for artificiality because of the "mosiac" quality of all the profiles being so close together. It's just that I no longer think profiles are that unusual in a "sea of random dots."

So to me, more effective than pressuring NASA to take higher resolution photos of the profiles would be for all of us to spend two more hours scanning random MGS strips to find images OTHER THAN profiles (or fuzzy-shaped animals). If anyone finds anything symmetrical, or with sufficient detail (like a head and two arms each with five fingers attached to a torso--with or without legs even), that would *really* be convincing.

Emanuel



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What is the significance of the fact that we're dealing with "profiles" (remember we all know about "pareidolia", and we're not discussing "imaginary" images, we're discussing posted images). Plus, in the case of the "Family Scene" it's not really all profiles, anyway.

The original PI is a profile. Piccard is looking at a slight angle. The Mother is looking towards us about 45 degrees, and the Dog is looking at the Mother, where he should be looking.

So, I don't really see the connection between these new images you are posting, and the Family Mosaic. No comparison in my mind. But I will grant you this: the new images you posted may in fact be artificial. So, you may be arguing against yourself.

rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Emanuel, how about the original viking face? Is that not convincing in its symmetry, or what of the crowned man? the dolphin?
One face, chance,
two faces, science.


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 />Emanuel, how about the original viking face? Is that not convincing in its symmetry, or what of the crowned man? the dolphin?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The original Viking face is to me the strongest candidate for artificial precisely because of the symmetry of the mesa (not so much the symmetry of facial features). My guess is that the mesa symmetry is the reason the face passed the military computer test for likely artificiality.

The crowned face has some symmetry, but if you look carefully, parts of the detail extend into teh background area. Look how the mouth trails on to the right quite far. And notice how everything above the eyes (which supposedly make the "crown") is part of a mountainous area that extends both tto the left and to the right. And then there's the fact that there is no border to the right "cheek" anywhere (despite the "key" suggesting otherwise).

And the dolphin to me looks like it has big rabbit ears rather than an upper fin. It appear to me that the person who made the key took great liberties in shaping the upper fin to look like a fin rather than rabbit ears. Check it out for yourself:



Emanuel

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
What changed my thinking is finding THREE MORE frontal profile images, two of which were far superior to most of the other images found to date <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But they're not even close to the detail of the Family Scene. So you're argument is based on a fallacy.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
In other words, the fact that I so quickly found other high-quality profiles elsewhere<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, we thought that was suspicious also. But I doubt if it was for the same reasons.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel
</i>So to me, more effective than pressuring NASA to take higher resolution photos of the profiles would be for all of us to spend two more hours scanning random MGS strips to find images OTHER THAN profiles (or fuzzy-shaped animals)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
That's the beauty of this forum that Tom has set up. If you want to spend four hours, or a hundred hours presenting whatever case you want, you are certainly free to do that. It might even be worth a new thread (topic).

As for me, I'd just as soon try and convince NASA to take higher resolution photos of the PI Scene. I think we have something here of profound importance, and there are many of us who want to know for sure. So, let's get a closer look.

Meanwhile, if you like, you can continue to scan the MGS strips.

rd

When I was a kid I used to love Agatha Christi murder mysteries. The settings and description were weak and the action minimal, but what made them great was the fantastically logical plot development. The murderer was always clearly revealed very early in every novel (she wrote over 100, all great). All you had to do was remove the scales from your eyes, get into the mind of the great sleuth, Hercule Poirot, and you to could discover the truth before the end of the story. Most readers never could, but they still read on.

In a way, this post may be like one of Agatha’s murder mysteries. We may have a disrupter in our midst. I’m not sure of his motives, or agenda, but I am fairly sure of his goal: Disrupt, Confound, Confuse. Any good evidence for artificiality on Mars must be discredited, by any means necessary. More about this anon.

Neil

Are you guys for real? I bring up plausible challenges to arificiality and now you attack my motives? I am sorry I am not convinced like you are, but resorting to these kinds of personal attacks are not the kind of dialogue I expect on a scientific forum. I have nothing to hide. I have been a social justice activist for 20+ years, and a very public one at that. Google my name and see for yourself: "Emanuel Sferios". It is only you two who seem "confounded" and "confused."

Emanuel