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 pareidoliac</i>
<br />Sounds like you don't 1.have enough viewing angles. or 2. Enough lighting angles causing definitive enough shadows, to show the 3D shape of the mars face.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">On the contrary. Even before Mars Global Surveyor, there were enough Viking images (nine in all) to show the 3-D nature of the Cydonia Face at all lighting and viewing angles. The high-resolution images taken since then have done nothing to change that conclusion, or the conclusions from any of the seven other Viking-image tests of artificiality, all eight of which were showing "artificial" or "not natural" by the end of 1996.

The 1998 hi-res image added the following to the discussion. In science, we have something called the "a priori principle". In brief, it means that, when by chance we come upon a regular shape, however detailed, in a natural or random data set, that finding can be used to formulate hypotheses or later artificiality tests. But only the second example found can be considered significant.

It is like being dealt a hand of 13 playing cards from a 52-card deck. The odds against being dealt all 13 spades are 635 billion to one. Yet that can occasionally happen. In fact, every single randomized deal of 13 unique playing cards had the same 635-billion-to-one odds against chance. Yet such a "miracle" happens on every deal.

By contrast, if someone predicts that, in the next deal, you will receive 13 spades, and that happens, you can be certain at 635-billion-to-1 odds that the prediction fulfillment did <i>not</i> happen by chance.

For the Cydonia Face, SPSR scientists predicted in advance that, if and only if the face seen in Viking images was artificial, the coming hi-res images would show the following secondary facial features not visible in Viking images: eyebrows over eyesockets, irises in eye sockets, nostrils at end of a tapered nose, two distinct lips for mouth. A table was constructed for the acceptable maximum and minimum acceptable ranges of such features in regard to their size, shape, location, and orientation.

All these features showed up in the 1998 hi-res image (except for obscured eastern eye socket features, added later), are were well within the acceltable ranges. And in addition there were no other candidate features anywhere else on the mesa from which we could pick and choose those that fulfill our preconceptions. This seemed to fulfill all necessary and sufficient conditions to rule out a natural or pareidolic origin.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">i assume you've seen all these images of the face on...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your link was broken, but such images (good and bad) are all over the internet. The 1998 media release image is another story. The rest confirmed the picture I just outlined about as well as the lighting and viewing angles could permit. That is the main argument leading us to conclude that artificiality does exist on Mars in at least this and a small number of other cases. The broader discussion here is about how to distinguish pareidolic from artificial images on a planet where both are known to exist. -|Tom|-

<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 />All these features showed up in the 1998 hi-res image (except for obscured eastern eye socket features, added later), are were well within the acceltable ranges. And in addition there were no other candidate features anywhere else on the mesa from which we could pick and choose those that fulfill our preconceptions. This seemed to fulfill all necessary and sufficient conditions to rule out a natural or pareidolic origin.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">And yet when we look at this image of E0300824 that I posted, which has a clear shot at the east side, we don't see anything. Here's an experiment. Take a total novice to this subject, stand him in front of your monitor, and show him E0300824, and point out the a priori predictions that were fullfilled by this image. As a matter of fact, convince him where the west side of the mouth and nose is. We used to do that with the software engineers. Anytime we had a novice in the building, who wanted a demonstration of our user interface, we would make one of the developers sit in the back of the room and watch while the novice fumbled and cursed. Very revealing.

rd

Ok Tom, I just re-read your analysis of the 2001 image here:

metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/...Face/Preliminary.asp

I had read it long ago, and forgot about it. I now understand why you would be reluctant to re-state what you already stated in depth. I would too.

Unfortunately, it changes nothing for me. You do draw in dark lines for the eyebrows and eyes and irises, but those are really a stretch for me (at best). That could be anything as far as I'm concerned. Also, I see no evidence of an east side mouth, and I still don't really know where the west side of the mouth (or the mouth in general) is supposed to be, or the nose. The mouth could be a mustache, or nothing.

I think I finally get what jrich was arguing with you about. You do a convincing study of the features you think are there. One can't really debate that aspect of it. But are they really there? That's the question. As far as I can see the only thing this has going for it is its overall shape and east eye. So, in my view we're hanging alot of hat on one eye.

As far as my monitor goes, I understand what you're saying about dot size. I could have gotten a 20" Ultrasharp Dell instead of the 19" for an extra $100 if I knew about it at the time, and gotten native 1600x1200 resolution (.255mm/p) instead of 1280x1024. Having said that though, my 19" is as good as it gets, so I'm doubtful that's all there is to it. I mean, I'm not asking for the exact outline of the mouth, I'm asking <b>where is it </b>at all?

Remember in the 2001 image, we're looking almost straight down on it (24.9 degrees is not that big a deal from that height), so we should be able to tell where the middle of the mouth is, right? You know that little area in the middle of the face above the upper lip? Where is that?

Sorry, but I'm just not buying it. I think we're kidding ourselves into believing there is enough data combined to draw these conclusions, but when one gets real specific on the highest resolution images, it's still a stretch. Like Skullface.

rd

Ok, here's another one. This is the 2002 image www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e13_e18/images/E15/E1501347.html
which is at 18 deg emission angle, and the highest resolution at 1.63m/p. This is one of the images Neil and I used in the investigation of the crack on the east side. We're pretty much looking straight down on it.

Again, this was from the raw data, saved as an *img file to NasaView, with gifs and jpgs made from Nasaview.

Anyone care to venture a guess as to where the mouth and nose and area above the upper lip (what did Fred say that was called?) is? Or anything, for that matter?

It's no wonder to me that mainstream science has ruled that (paraphrasing) "upon further investigation the Cydonia face was found to be a pile of rocks", and that they still use the original 1978 Face as an example of pareidolia. The simple kind.

rd

Fred, for any future photos you take with a digital camera, you might want to find out what EXIF data is saved with your images, or if your camera supports EXIF:
www.exif.org/
It could come in handy in protecting a digital image of yours.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Remember, the burden of proof is on the "artificiality" side.[rd]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I disagree. <b><i>Any</i></b> new or extraordinary hypothesis needs to be demonstrated with more than "take my word for it." If someone is claiming that not only pareidolia, but <i><b>very elaborate pareidolia occurs frequently in everyday experience</b></i>, he needs to be able to demonstrate that fact in some legitimate way. Otherwise people might be led to suspect trick photography. This is not intended as disparagement in any way. It is simply based on the age-old dictum, <i>caveat emptor </i>(let the buyer beware).

And since rd copied my low-res post of the cavebear, I think readers should also see the hi-res confirmation of the same object.

Here's S0500110, cavebear. (resolution 1.51 m/p) The more resolution the clearer she becomes--different season, different lighting, different resolution--image still there, better than ever.



Neil