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 rderosa</i>
<br />Ok, so instead let's do it with the westside eyebrow. Specifically, where is it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">All "where is" questions are answered by the Kelly animation, which shows how the features change appearance at different lighting and viewing angles.

As background for discussion of the west eyebrow, or any other secondary facial feature, including our <i>a priori</i> table of constraints for those features, please refresh on "Evidence of planetary artifacts" (the SPSR 6-author paper) at spsr.utsi.edu/ and Click on "Recent articles", then the paper title. (Article is at SPSR web site.) -|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 "where is" questions are answered by the Kelly animation, which shows how the features change appearance at different lighting and viewing angles.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I've seen the animation, and read the report. I guess the point I was making was for someone to take a stance and show it on this newer higher resolution image. Go out on a limb, and draw it in with a pencil in Photoshop. That's what I was trying to do a couple of weeks ago, but no bites. That's what I thought you were getting at when you brought it up.

This would make a good test case for a naive test group: <i>Draw in the eyebrow. </i> We could even give them one hint: <b>It's above the eye. []</b>

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 />Go out on a limb, and draw it in with a pencil in Photoshop.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">On my monitor, the same feature is plainly visible that we saw in the 1998 image and marked in Figure 8 of the "Evidence" paper. In both images, the left vertex of the "triangle" is chopped off, but everything else is present. The "triangle" shape has just the shape change we expect between the two images when viewed from 45 degrees to the left side (1998 image).

Of course, the shape is less distinct in the 2006 image because the resolution of that image is three times less. But in magnified views, to my eye, there is no doubt of its existence. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It's over the eye, but if you're looking for a depiction of hair you won't find it. What we see is the sculpted form of an eyebrow above the eye as would be expected in a rendition of a human-like face, with some damage in the form of a flat spot and small crack in the brow area, the result of an apparent impact. But this is all of secondary importance.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In my humble opinion we be far better served to go with what the best image available shows us and then wait for other kinds of corroborating evidence. Drawing arbitrary triangles (even if part of a previous good study) that can't really be verified upon closer inspection won't serve us well. That amounts to being wedded to the (deductive) model in spite of the evidence.

This is not to say that highest resolution is necessarily best for viewing visual features, (it may be though, when looking for tell-tale signs of construction). We should view it as we would look at a face naturally, like Mona Lisa, and what we see is what we get. And what we get is a sculpted face, very old, with dings and pock marks, and severely damaged on one side, but still remarkably realistic.

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 />In my humble opinion we be far better served to go with what the best image available shows us and then wait for other kinds of corroborating evidence. ........

We should view it as we would look at a face naturally, like Mona Lisa, and what we see is what we get.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Agreed. That's my basic point. As the new and better images come in, someone needs to say, ok this is where it is, now that we can see better. When you do it that way, all of a sudden now the eyebrow is covering the upper eyelid, and I was curious what kind of excuses (no offense) were going to be made for that and the damage. It's always easy to use the "damaged" excuse, also. But, at least if the artificiality proponents keep going on record with each new image, we should eventually oscillate towards the truth. To merely stick to the conclusions from lesser pictures seems to be evading new evidence somewhat. My question, "where is it", in this context really means, "where do you think it is, now?", and forces the issue, somewhat. That's what I was trying to do with the west side of the mouth.

At some point, either I'm going to have to say, ok it is artificial, or vice versa.

rd

This is Richard's compressed crop with the eyebrow penciled in. Using my moderate art ability, I just followed the observed line and skipped the flat part which is obvious to me to be a ding. (Why? because it is flat compared to the normal contour; it doesn’t have the "skin" texture of the surrounding area; and it has a stress crack on the edge of it). The eyebrow is just where an eyebrow (the hair) is supposed to be.

In homo sapiens the supraorbital process, the protruding bone on the upper part of the eye socket, is small. As compared to in Neanderthals. The hairy brow grows right over it. Then we see a concave area right under the brow where the eye socket begins.