My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<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 />My thinking is that if we are going to Mars anyway, and all points on that globe are equal, then why not go to Cydonia, which seems like the most interesting place. It has great geological features, it is equatorially located (excellent for leaving the planet after exploration), and it has these very interesting features that could be artificial.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Mark, I agree. A real good look at Cydonia could settle the issue by itself. The same goes for The Profile Image. I think either one would have an incredible impact on the debate, and perhaps settle it permanently.

Fred, what do you think about this image? As an artist, what is your impression of this?

This is the famous "Profile Image" from Mars. Aside from a little contrast and brightness adjustment, and smoothing, this is from Image #M0305549 from the Malin Space Sciences ( www.msss.com ) Mars Orbital Camera (MOC) gallery. It is roughly one square mile in size.



rd

While we're on the subject of "proving" artificiality by closer inspection, I want to take the opportunity to agree with Trinket on something.

One thing that's bothered me from the very beginning, and I still don't really understand, is the notion that we (as a nation) have spent all this money on all these space flights to Mars, have taken thousands upon thousands of pictures, and we still have this raging debate over artificiality. My gut feeling based on that one fact alone tells me that someone is trying to hide something, but maybe there's a scientific explanation.

On one of the sites that Trinket posted, there's an image from 1962 of the missiles in Cuba that led to the Cuban Missile crisis. The intent is to show that we had the technology in '62 to see clearly on the ground. But that's a little misleading, because that picture was taken from an altitude of 70,000 feet (or a mere 21.33 kilometers), whereas the Profile image was taken from an altitude of 375 kilometers, or 1.23 <b>million feet</b>.

Maybe this information is out there easy to find, but does anyone know why the orbit is what it is? Also, does anyone know if the technology of the MOC was designed to just see macro structures like coastlines and mountain ranges, and that they never intended to see close micro detail of the surface? If so, was this known by the general population before takeoff? What was the purpose of the mission? Was it so see "if there was life on Mars" like Trinket has said, or was it to map the planet, or what?

rd

Since you asked... the photo seems natural enough to me, but could be done by a half decent "artist."

[off topic content deleted by LB. There are other place on the 'Net to discuss such things.]

Perhaps interviewing those responsible for placing the image in question into view, would clarify it's validity.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />Perhaps interviewing those responsible for placing the image in question into view, would clarify it's validity.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Unfortunately, I don't think it's that simple. Any one you ask is going to say of course they're valid. All of these image swaths are real images taken by the Mars Orbital Camera. Here is the image that the Profile was found in:

www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/M0305549.html

The feature is a little below halfway down. We have to make what we can out of it, until better images come along. Therein lies the debate. It's a question of "how elaborate can pareidolia really be?" See the topic "Faces in the Chasmas" for many more.
rd

www.outsiderart.co.uk/ressler.htm (see lower right of four photos.) left click photo to enlarge.


yarddog.com/catalog.php?category=50&PHPS...bc80900455b5321758cd (see photo titled "Einstein")
These are the most detailed example of pareidolia ever recorded. They show 1.Hair 2.Forehead 3.Right eyebrow 4.Left eyebrow 5.Area under right eyebrow but above eyelid. 6. Area under left eyebrow but above lid. 7.Upper right lid. 8.Upper left lid. 9.Right eye lashes(upper). 10 Orbital bone (pronounced) left eye. 11 Right sclera (white of eye). 12. Left sclera. 13. Right iris. 14. Left iris. 15.Right pupil. 16.Reflection in center of pupil (right eye). 17.caruncle (right eye) proximal bump lay people often erroneously call tear duct. 18. right eye lashes (lower). 19. right lower eyelid. 20. shading upper right eyelid. 21. shading upper left eyelid. 22.lower left eyelid. 23. nose. 24. right cheek. 25.left cheek. 26. Prominent left orbital bone. 27. skin area between nose and upper lip. 28. upper lip. 29.mouth opening. 30.lower lip. 31.chin. 32.neck. 33.adams apple. 34.left shoulder. 35. right shoulder.

Some of this might be difficult to see on the web but can be seen easily on 8"x10" enlargement from 35mm. negative. This far exceeds the face on mars photograph which has at most 9 features.