Faces from the Chasmas

I know that some of you can't see the images I'm posting, for any of the reasons that have been stated in this forum. But I'm hoping some of you can. As usual, I go on detail, proportion, etc., in my decision to post. But sometimes theme is also important. Here's the same image as above.

Context image, R1004151, again.



Here's Helmet man with woman.





Here's another "couple" to their left.

Here’s a mistake to be corrected now that time permits.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Here's M0203051 and M0303483 composite of "Barbara," posted previously.





Below is a hi-res (1.5) m/p third confirmation of this possible Mars-glyph. For those who are not aware of it, this is the highest resolution (more or less) possible for the MGS/MOC.

Here is S1402499 confirmation of Barbara. Note that you can only see part of the face because the 2km face is too large to fit inside of the 1.5 km wide hi-res swath. Note also that the first two images of Barbara (and crownface) were imaged from directly overhead. S14 has a somewhat oblique viewing angle, hence accounting for the foreshortening of the features. But the details are still evident. Possibly only Trinket and I can also see other smaller faces inside of the larger scale Barbara (aside from Crownface which is outside the perimeter of this swath.) To look for small faces, however, the viewer will have to download the original gif as this compressed version will not contain sufficient information.

S1402499, source:
www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/publicresul...06/01/S14-02499p.gif


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

The mistake is that S14 is not a hi-res version of “Barbara” but is instead another face-like formation just to the right (east) of Barbara, (as may be seen in the composite above). This may be a natural formation or it may be a shadow-like effect created by the artist.

Neil

I notice that my brother Rich must have missed my last entry here when composing his latest post in his "pareidolia" thread. So I bring that to readers' attention.

My main point was that S1402499 was <b><u><i>not</i></u></b> a hi-res confirmation of "Barbara" as I had previously supposed, but instead is a face-like structure just to the right of Barbara as can be seen in the composite in the above post. The above post corrected my previous mistake.

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 />My main point was that S1402499 was <b><u><i>not</i></u></b> a hi-res confirmation of "Barbara" as I had previously supposed<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I disagree. In the S14 picture we're shifted to our right a little, and the image is rotated somewhat, but it's the same place. We see the original Barbara's left eye, and just the inside corner of the right eye, and then off to the east of her face.

Here's a comparison of the two image swaths: M0303483 vs SP02499p.

Image Centers:

M3: 275.53W, 2.59N
SP: 275.50W, 2.83N

You can see how the M3 center is below and slightly to the right of the face, exactly where we end up on the SP swath.



rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I disagree. In the S14 picture we're shifted to our right a little, and the image is rotated somewhat, but it's the same place. We see the original Barbara's left eye, and just the inside corner of the right eye, and then off to the east of her face.

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



Do you still disagree ?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Here's a comparison of the two image swaths: M0303483 vs SP02499p.Rich<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Do you mean M0303483 vs S1402499 ? But M0203051 is the image of Barb with the inverted Crownface and the Shadow Barb in it.

<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 />But M0203051 is the image of Barb with the inverted Crownface and the Shadow Barb in it.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Wow! That's wild and crazy stuff. It would seem I have inadvertantly corroborated both the existence of the shadow Babs, and her likeness to your original one. So Crownface is Shadow Babs' right eye inverted.

Bravo!

I still think they're pareidolia, but from a theme perspective, that's pretty amazing, and in all fairness, I must score one for your side...

You know what that means, don't you? The right eye of your Barbara must also be an inverted Crownface! I don't know if that's part of Orme's thesis, but it looks like it's true. You don't see as much if you rotate it, as you do of the original Crownface, but it looks like the top half of it matches. I know Orme talked about the three different Crownfaces all looking at slightly different angles with different facial expressions, but they were all close to each other and I don't remember him mentioning another one in the eye of what is your Barbara (upside down, of course). But maybe he did.



rd