Faces from the Chasmas

I wish to make a statement and then a suggestion. On June 29th 2006 Rich DeRosa made the following post.

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

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

The quest becomes then not for *The Truth*, but for *your truth*. However, your objective mind is not completely fooled and in order to convince it, *your truth* must become *The Truth* and this can only be achieved by convincing a sufficient number of others of the same.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

There is only one Truth.

This may be pareidolia. There are virtually no realistic features:
[rd]



(Incidentally, I don't remember you complaining about this one, but if I'm wrong, please point me to the message where you did)

This is NOT pareidolia. Note the realistic human eyes, nose, mouth, neck, open collar, headress, hair on forhead, wrinkles on forehead, upturned head, lips, smile, earlobe sticking out from bottom of headress.


You see, you can use that word all you want, but that's not going to change anything. Where do you draw the line?

If we found a Wedding Scene, with singer, bride, groom, band, with drummer playing Pearl Drums, tables, prime rib dinner, champagne, kids wearing tuxedos, brides maids and grooms, etc. Would you still think it's pareidolia?

Describe to us what the dividing line is between "enough" detail and "not enough". [Rich DeRosa]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

My statement is this:

For various reasons, there is almost no science and no science discussion going on anymore in this topic area, by which I mean the Artificial Structures section of this message board. For the past several months Trinket has been posting numerous MRO equivalents of the above image. He has always conspicuously avoided all reasonably arguably artificial images, and his major theme has been totally unsupportable by any means whatsoever, namely “That the whole planet Mars is a work of art!”

If ever anybody wanted to discredit a new scientific hypothesis (in this case that there are artificial structures on Mars), he could not have chosen a better way.

My suggestion is that the Owners of this website (who I believe are the board of directors of Meta Research, Inc.) should end the Artificial Structures section of this message board, archive the existing material so researchers can study what has happened here, and create a new forum on an entirely different footing. Or perhaps they should end this outright, and return to the forum of peer reviewed papers and allow both sides to make their cases in a more reasonable setting.

Thanks,

Neil DeRosa

On this topic:

What is not going to happen here:

1. I won't allow carry over arguments from another site.
2. Bickering without the addition of some credible evidence is pointless.
3. Supporting artificiality or pareidolia is not an opinion that should be ridiculed.

A suggestion for those participating in this discussion:

Realize that very little real evidence has been produced though the body of images has been impressive. Peer review? Good luck here because no cohesion has been produced. Perhaps some are looking to establish a record of discovery in the hopes of taking credit. Realize that the images are coming from one type of observer (MRO) (and a few Viking shots). I doubt that this discussion can be "solved" here without personal visitation or the addition of newer even better orbitting stations. That being said, participate all you want... add photos, discuss what can be seen, establish filtering characteristics but... don't get upset if other people can't see what you see or don't agree with you. Have a bowl of ice cream and chill...

Mark Vitrone

One of the first premises I proposed in the "pareidolia" thread was that pareidolia is a "personal" phenomenon. In other words, one man's art is another man's pareidolia, even for those who are hard-core artificiality proponents. We are seeing that play out here in full view of the community.

As my thinking has changed since Jun of last year, I would now say that "Clown" and "The wedding scene" could easily be pareidolia.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Realize that very little real evidence has been produced though the body of images has been impressive. Mark V.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Agreed.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Trinket</i>
<br />West Candor<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This image seems a bit above average in interest. But is that because it stands out on Mars or because it was highlighted and cropped? Please provide original, key, and link or file name for original. The cropping on three sides cuts off views of the surrounding terrain where it is continuous with the image. It might look a lot less special if the figurine's hair and body blend smoothly into a geological background. OTOH, if it doesn't blend with the background but appears painted/sculpted onto it, then it would be better than any pareidolic images on Earth and deserving of follow-up. Pareidolia normally works only where there is a noisy background to provide lots of randomness which our minds can sort through and find familiar patterns. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Trinket</i>
<br />(rich)
All this fodder about finding the same type stuff in earth satellite images is absurd as well as ridiculous.. First the images would not be blurred and muted greyscales but higher definition color images. Trinket<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's my whole point. Take the same kind of images on Earth, and you'll get the same results. The major difference would be that "Martians" wouldn't be much of an option.

rd