Faces from the Chasmas

<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 />The last time I checked, trees were still classified as "living entities". When they form shadow faces, your definition excludes those from being classified as pareidolia. So that is a flaw in your definition. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Right on cue. This is exactly what I'm getting at.

Anyone who has been reading this whole thread would never, in a million years, think that I'm including "trees" in "man made."

I mean, I could write the definition in such a way, as to make sure there's no possible way anyone gets that confused, but that wasn't my purpose.

My purpose was to try and understand why you kept raising the 2D vs. 3D issue, when I knew that had nothing to do with the definition of pareidolia.

rd

<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 />The main one now on the table is this: Do you agree or disagree that all pareidolic faces must be 2D or have a narrow range of viewing/lighting angles? Any exception would ruin the rule. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Ooops, I forgot to answer this question.

I disagree.....emphatically. Pareidolia has nothing whatsoever to do with having to be "2D or have a narrow range of viewing/lighting angles."

I don't know how many ways to say it. But, you're right to narrow it down to that question.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I agree with you that some of Neil's images are pereidolic. [Tom]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I also agree that some of my faces <i>may be </i>pareidolic. I am gathering evidence, formulating a set of (qualitative) criteria, and laying some of the groundwork for better tests that will inevitably come later. <i>When</i> they come, and since the mainstream science seems to be progressing in the normal, anticipated manner, with improved data being continually collected as time passes, I am confident that the answers will eventually come as to which faces and other artifacts are pareidolic and which are the real McCoy. Even if only a few are finally acknowledged as artificial, that event will signal a paradigm shift of major proportions, for which the pioneers of artificiality (long list before me) will get the lion's share of credit.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Pareidolia does not ever give us high-resolution, full-color, photo-quality faces, nor does it show us mirror-like faces, because the complexity of these kinds of images is too great to arise by chance. 3D is another example of complexity too great for common pareidolia to simulate under normal circumstances.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Tom, I think you are making an <i>a posteriori </i>argument here. I personally think that's fine. Sometimes detail, proportion, and orientation are so good that we need nothing else (as when we look at Mt Rushmore, or a baby's face.) But you have stated repeatedly that the proper use of the <i>a priori </i>principle is the only valid way to proceed here. But it seems to me that common sense has it's place too, even in science. What you just stated is an example.

The opposition has been conveniently silent about some of our best evidence. There are several small faces and artifacts that, if confirmed on high resolution imaging, should end the argumant for the open-minded participant. This is one of 5 or 10 of them.

E0600269 Curiosity.



Neil

(Gentlemen - I hope this does not derail your discussion significantly. You are making good progress.)

I've seen naturally occurring geometric solids, such as cones, spheres and cubes. But I have never seen a naturally occurring bust. At least not with anything that could be likened to the realistic detail we have seen in some of the flat art presented here.

I am reluctant to say that such a thing is impossible. But if I saw my first example and it was native to Mars, I would in fact leap immediately to the conclusion that it was an alien artifact until strong evidence of its natural origin was presented. And I would not be holding my breath.

The 3D nature of the Face at Cydonia tips me in that direction. But the low resolution of the availabel evidence and the erosion damage are enough to keep me on the fence. Boots on the ground. Deep sigh.

LB

<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 />There are several small faces and artifacts that, if confirmed on high resolution imaging, should end the argumant for the open-minded participant. This is one of 5 or 10 of them.

E0600269 Curiosity.

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

Neil's statement I agree with, totally. The picture, no. But yes, let's get some high resolution images.

I had a Chinese friend in my first job in Silicon Valley. She used to come up to me and say, "I am curiosity." And then go on to ask me her question. She was alot better looking than this guy.

rd

I'm not saying this image "looks like" a face (much). I'm saying there are reasons, fulfilment of predictions, that indicate it may art. One is the etching lines evident on higher resolution; etched are 2 semi-circles, 2 triangles, two or more circles, and at least three apexes. Also, convenient color variations fit into the various etched segments. As a whole it looks like something made or constructed, however scary or grotesque it may be. It's not all about pretty.

Neil