My pareidolia knows no bounds.

Here's my first shot at finding faces in trees. This is from a black and white photo I took in '99 took up in the Sierra Mountains. This is a cropping from a much larger image, scanned at 600dpi. I can start to see what Fred is doing with the shadows. The faces are hiding, but they "peak out" from behind the dark contrast.

There are a number of interesting things going on here. The picture is divided into three panels. In the right, there's a girl, with her little sister snuggled under her chin. In the middle panel, we find Edward G. Robinson of gangster movie fame, with a few of his jamokes under him. In the left panel, we have Hitler with his hat on, and a German Soldier. Under them, is Hercule Poirot, and Moe from the Three Stooges. Conservatively, I count at least 10 faces.


rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />I count at least 30 of the simple kind of faces, although someone with a little more imagination might get many more. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Here's my key for the Mt. Ranier rock photo above. Check it out for accuracy:

rd

<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 />This statement might be true only if greatly hyper-illuminated, and/or photographically over exposed. Under proper lighting conditions and proper photographic exposure the face would look, more or less as it does in the day.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That was my point. The 2001 Cydonia Face image had the improper lighting condition (little to no contrast, as in my Mt. Rushmore example) for which we seem to agree that the object becomes unrecognizable. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />Notice how drastically different the line of the two eyes is.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It's funny how not-so-drastically different such a line would be on the 2001 image shown here, without your line to bias the eye.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Also, note how in the Kelly image, a vertical line drawn from the outer edge of the east eye socket, goes directly to the outer edge of the supposed east mouth. It's pretty easy to see that there is no mouth out there in the 2001 image.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The predictions and subsequent confirmations for secondary facial features in the 1998 image were all present within specs and without any similar features in the background. The odds against those predictions coming true by chance for all 16 <i>a priori</i> predictions made are 1000 billion billion to one.

Given that level of certainty and the knowledge from Viking imagery that the east side was not a perfect mirror image, our goals for the east side image were confirmation of the east eyebrow, eye socket, and iris. Those were all confirmed, and quite precisely located in mirror-perfect positions. But the eye socket was not the same shape.

Upon inspection, the reason became visually evident. A crater in the SE corner of the mesa was the source of a "melt flow" that flowed up the east side and partially filled the east eye socket. Moreover, it partially filled the east mouth feature and displaced it slightly upward and to the west.

Mine is not the only hypothesis to explain this asymmetry. Carlotto thinks an impact collapsed the east side of a hollow mesa, as seems most apparent in the SE section of the mesa wall, and can be traced west and north from there. But whatever the cause, some event altered the east half of the mesa in an unusual way.

It is true this would be circular reasoning if the west side analysis did not stand on its own. But it does, and the east side damage is topographically unique, not something similar to things seen elsewhere in the Cydonia region, or anywhere else on Mars that I know of.

Now, given the melt flow or similar hypothesis, we can readily see that the east side mouth feature is present, and is just as long as the west side feature, but is slightly displaced to the north and west, presumably by the impact. Look closely at the above rendering. It is easy to see what is foreign (melt flow material) and what is native to the mesa. And the foreign substance is all that stands in the way of perfect bilateral symmetry, as is especially apparent when we look at lower resolution views:


Note also how barren the surroundings are, with the mesa an anomaly apparently dedicated to the Face. Contrast this with your Mt. Rainer pictures, where the noisy background allows one to find numerous faces. There is no noisy background for the Cydonia Face mesa. -|Tom|-

Glad to see everyone is starting to look at things anew.
"Not that one is the first to see something new, but that one sees as new what is old, long familiar, seen and over looked by everybody, is what distinguishes truly original minds.
(F. Nietzsche.)
The Church/State/Military/Industrial/Educational system conspires to remove or control visionary ability, according to William Blake.
Native Americans viewed everything as “God like,” so they had no specific words for "sacred" and "sacreligious."
The western view monopolized which images were “sacred” and which “sacreligious.” This greatly supressed peoples interest in pareidolia, despite Leonardo da Vinci’s claiming that this was the origin of art. (see Leonardo’s treatise on “quickening the spirit of invention.”)
The first cave painting on European cave walls were attributed to pareidolia on walls that was exaggerated and then duplicated, next to it.
Pareidolia has been highly overlooked until very recently, that's largly why no one looked for these images. Artists didn't overlook it, and it is one ofr their secrets. They painted these images. ("I do not seek, I find". Picasso.)
That these images were not looked for, and so overlooked is part of their phenomena.

Random and chance images were also looked at as “work of the devil,” by the church as everything was suposedly ordered by “God.” This is why the church condemed gamboling as nothing was supposedly "chance."
When people started seeing pareidolia, a few years ago, an add for booze shoed a guy looking at a glass with ice and booze captioned "if you start seeing faces in the glass, maybe it's time you started looking for a new girlfriend." A tiny stigma like this is all that's needed to add to the previously mentioned stigma.
i feel the whole realization also is here to show us what else has been so obvious, and so overlooked.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Mine is not the only hypothesis to explain this asymmetry. Carlotto thinks an impact collapsed the east side of a hollow mesa, as seems most apparent in the SE section of the mesa wall, and can be traced west and north from there. But whatever the cause, some event altered the east half of the mesa in an unusual way. [Tom]

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

During the period Rich was in the artificiality camp, we independently came to the same conclusion of the hollowness of the face. Our reasons are in a paper we wrote and were also discussed in this MB. Rich pointed out that the dark cracks in the cheek and forehead have no light pixels in them at all (indicating a deep fissure), and we also showed that the two tears, especially the one in the cheek area, has the earmarkings of a stress tear in hollow metal, perhaps (as Gregg Wilson pointed out), with some kind of reinforcement material underneath. I won't re-post the areas in question as they can be seen in the large blow-up Tom just posted.

BTW, there are at least two higher resolution images of the Cydonia face than the 2001 image Tom Posted; they are E2001532 (west side of face, in which you can see some good detail of the eye) at 1.63 m/p, and E1501347 (damaged east side of face, in which you can better see the nature of the melt and the fissure/cracks) also at 1.63 meters. For example, you can see that the melt inside the east eye socket is probably not an "iris" but is just a round melt.

Incidentally, I have no problem with the slight misalignment rd pointed, out for two reasons; 1- whoever said an artist has to precisely line everything up? 2- a catastrophic impact and meltdown is bound to knock things out of line a little--one would think.

Neil