My pareidolia knows no bounds.

google "moon pictures"

You will get:
www.cmf.nrl.navy.mil/clementine/clib/

NRL was responsible for the design, manufacture, integration, and mission execution of the Clementine spacecraft for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. During its two-month orbit of the Moon in 1994, Clementine captured 1.8 million images of the Moon's surface. The Laboratory provides the Clementine Lunar Image Browser as a courtesy to scientific researchers, as well as the general public, and you are welcome to browse the over 170,000 images that are available.

If artificality is NOT at work, you should find faces in the moon photos with about the same frequency that they are found in mars photos. n'est pas? (OTOH there could be artificality at work on the moon too I suppose...)


Maybe, as a expert viewer, Fred could have a good look around and share what he finds.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by shando</i>
<br />google "moon pictures"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, I've done that many times. Here's your answer, from the Clementine site:
===================================================
Desired Resolution (Current: 1 pixel = 32 kilometers)

1 pixel = 32 kilometers
1 pixel = 16 kilometers
1 pixel = 8 kilometers
1 pixel = 4 kilometers
1 pixel = 2 kilometers
1 pixel = 1 kilometer
===================================================
The MOC Gallery Narrow angle images are on the order of 1.5 to 5 meters per pixel, or so, or roughly three orders of magnitude higher in resolution than the best Clementine image. The new HIRISE images are 25cm/pixel!! To do an apples to apples comparison we'd need images of the same approximate resolution.

While it's true that pareidolia spans the gamut of scales, it's not true that you get the "face soup" at all scales. What's needed is a wide variety of detail and spatial frequencies, and most of the Moon images I've seen don't have the high spatial frequencies that are found in the Mars shots, nor the detail.

Very simple.


rd

shando- i agree with rd. The more lively the planet the more lively the pareidolia. Earth=best. Mars=second best. Moon= third. Out of the three. Leaves on earth best so far. 36 corresponding features.

Hmmm ... I don't understand the significance of "spatial frequences", but it would seem to me that if you look at several shots of the moon at resolution of 1 km / pixel and you look at several shots of mars at 1 km / pixel, the total faces found in each set of shots should be about the same. If they are unequal an explanation would be required. "The more lively the planet the more lively the pareidolia" may be that explanation, in which case I guess we could conclude that the mind needs lots of texture to do its pareidolia trick. Is this true?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by shando</i>
<br />Hmmm ... I don't understand the significance of "spatial frequences" .......in which case I guess we could conclude that the mind needs lots of texture to do its pareidolia trick. Is this true?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Search the internet for Forrier Transform, and read some of the lectures, and you'll see what I'm getting at.

What makes up a face? Let's say the face is 6 inches or so wide, and we just want to analyze a portrait's worth of information, instead of a scene that had 4 faces, or 40 faces. So maybe we want to look for pareidolic faces in a given 1 square foot region.

Let's describe some spatial frequencies for face features:

1. Eyes: 2 every 6 inches, with a wavelength of about 2 inches
2. Ears: 2 every 6 inches, with a wavelength of about 6 inches
3. Eyebrows: 2 every 6 inches (same as eyes, but a little wider)
4. Nose: 1 in or near the middle of the 12 inch square, so wavelength is on the order of 6 to 8 inches.
5. Whiskers: 100 per inch, wavelength 0.254mm
6. Wrinkles: 20 per inch
7. Mouth: Sideways nose
8. Hair: 200 per inch, overlapping
9. Birthmarks: 1 or 2 per inch
10. Eyelids: same as eyes, but different shape
11. Dimples: same as wrinkles.

Saute in olive oil, with garlic and onions, and that's all there is to it.

In other words, at resolutions of 1km/pixel and higher, there isn't nearly enough of the higher spatial frequency data to easily make faces. It may be fractal but there's a limit to everything. You want just the right combination.
rd

OK, rd, thanks for that; I think I have the idea. So photos of the moon are not available at the necessary resolution to do a comparitive study with the MOC images from mars .... too bad.

Fred, I've done some shadow photos - added color - makes great abstract images. Leaves have fallen up here in the north country. I'll be looking for hidden faces, come spring.